Comments (40) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Clark Kent said, 8 months ago

   “NO” is the far “right” repub strategy, the obstruction party.
2. 

   Harleyquinn said, 8 months ago

   Why bother meeting with the guys whose job it is to keep our country safe? Obama will just HOPE we are and everything will be alright.
3. 

   Chillbilly said, 8 months ago

   Part of Chuck Asay’s "biblical worldview’ is the importance of having private citizens shoot strangers.
4. 

   Justice22 said, 8 months ago

   Tear down that STOP sign put up by Grover Norquist!
5. 

   Tue Elung-Jensen said, 8 months ago

   Hammer time? In the name of love?
6. 

   Mephistopholes said, 8 months ago

   Wow, Mr. Assay must have struck a nerve with the Obama appologists out there. They talk about what the Republicans and Grover Norquist did for us as if it’s a bad thing.

   From my perspective they are a hero – They kept Mr. Obama from Stealing more of my wealth to give away as: Unemployment benefits, Solyndra handouts, Obamacare etc.

   And they tried to keep Mr. Obama and his liberal leeches from killing Coal, Oil and Gas production (Areas of the economy that still employ many workers).

   Mr. Obama made it clear from the start that he was only interested in a liberal agenda and couldn’t be bothered with prosaic issues of hard working Americans. Now he is reaping the benefits of his failed approach.
7. 

   ghcater said, 8 months ago

   @Clark Kent

   Way to go parroting those talking points…
   Obstruction of the destruction of the founding (& successful) principles of this nation is not wrong. Why does compromise and “bi-partisanship” in libspeak translate into ’do it our way" regardless of logic, constitutionality, track record of failure or history. And in the face of principled, reasoned objection to following your ideas and feelings, the response is “the party of no” or “racism” or “radical”?
8. 

   ghcater said, 8 months ago

   @Chillbilly

   Negative. Self defense of one’s self, loved ones or society in general has nothing to do with strangers or familiarity. It is objectively just as moral to defend one’s self from an attack from an abusive husband, for instance, as it is from a terrorist wielding an assault rifle. The immoral act is the assault and the responsibility for the act is on the attacker, not the person who defends themselves.

   If you would defend the principle you espouse, please tell how anything other than equal or greater force can stop something like, let’s say, the aggressor Major Hassan shooting up the admin center at the Army base.
9. 

   Darren Blair said, 8 months ago

   @ghcater

   Actually, it was an in-processing / out-processing center for soldiers who were coming into or deploying from Hood. The shootings themselves began in a medical clinic that was attached to the facility so that soldiers could receive final check-ups.
   []
   In other words, everyone there was unarmed. Few people seem to understand this.
10. 

    Bruce4671 said, 8 months ago

    @Mr. King

    So gricks I can see your point …… now how about it….. would you be one of the people willing to risk your life in subduing an attacker who is shooting indiscriminately in a room full of people? Or would you rather have one other guy armed and shooting back?
11. 

    Justice22 said, 8 months ago

    @Bruce4671

    Bruce I as a “liberal” (Vote for the best of the population) have done so Have You?
12. 

    Bruce4671 said, 8 months ago

    @Justice22

    yes
13. 

    eclodyrag said, 8 months ago

    @Mephistopholes

    Well put. Thank you!
14. 

    dtroutma said, 8 months ago

    What I’ve noticed from Asay, and “right-wing bloggers”, here, and in the press, and Congress, is that those with the strongest held belief in violence as answer, and courage to defend, are those with the least real world experience, with violence, or the real world, or personal courage.

    
    Give them a bible to stand on, and their courage grows in parallel with their well-fostered ignorance, and hatred for real truths that question their “faith”.

    
    The most important commandment that has been codified in law, around the world, is “thou shalt not kill”. It is amazing to me that bible-thumpers (especially those never personally exposed to danger in their lives) are the first to bring up that old school Old Testament fall back position of “kill anything, and anyone, who offends you”, be it your child, your wife, or your true enemy, which of course might require suicide.
15. 

    bobwinners said, 8 months ago

    Hey Chuckles, you have our permission to pick up a gun and head for Afghanistan. I’m sure your presence will be welcomed!
16. Load the rest of the comments (25).