Clay Bennett for February 25, 2009

yep, that’s their plan … obstruction, finger pointing, prevent change, impede progress, spread Selective Memory Deficit Disorder throughout the land and take back their rightful position of power in 2012. What a grand plan the Grand Old Party has for themselves (and no one else)

And they’ll do so under one banner: Cut Taxes.

BTW, BCS, wouldn’t Selective Memory Deficit Disorder be a deficit of selective memory? It seems to me conservatives suffer from a surplus of selective memory.

The question was “can we spend a trillion on pork projects?”

No, etocme, the question was “can we salvage this great nation from the disaster left behind by Bush?”

Funny how the Republicans NEVER called it ‘pork’ when Bush was throwing no-bid contracts at Halliburton.

Instead they’d say things like, “Okay libs, who else do YOU know who could do that job?”

etocme says: The question was “can we spend a trillion on pork projects?”

ROFLMAO! This has been debunked over and over and over….

Pork and cut taxes- buzz words used ad nauseum by those with no constructive ideas,

The question is What can we do! Never a statement of anything - Yes We Can ?

kellykid, again. “Yes we can”. Apply ourselves and we’ll get it done. Far better than the failure and deceit of the past eight years.

cdward, that would be another way of looking at it…

The first rule of wealth building, whether personally or for a country, “Capital stays Capital.” Clinton spent mine, Bush spent my kid&’s and Obamma spent my grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren’s capital. Keep on obstructing GOP . . Keep on obstructing!

AndrewPPalmer, Clinton didn’t spend yours… that is a real myth! Bush was the one who bragged in 2004 that he had capital he was going to spend.

I believe that was “political” capital that Bushie was speaking of Dale Hopson - I think you know that. Keep on obstructing GOP until the Dems scream uncle. Here’s the latest, Libs: your man Eric Holder is attacking the Second Amendment and Dick Durbin and his boys are attacking the First Amendment…I give you Libs eighteen more months…then the discussion will turn to the “salvaging of the Obama Presidency”. Good Job! Could this be because Libs like Anthony1234,Humphs, and BCS are Looking-glass challenged?

“Eric Holder is attacking the Second Amendment and Dick Durbin and his boys are attacking the First Amendment”

[citation needed]

To cite or not to cite? Danny I’m certain the people who need to know whether my statement needs to be proven will find out soon enough. It’ll be ironed out long before the lib-extremists here can spin-doctor and manipulate the facts…I heard it on Lou Dobbs- Eric Holder is fronting the idea of re-instating the “assault-weapons” ban and going to bat for the WashingtonDC “Home-Rule”; and you can hear Turban Durbin on C-SPAN I can imagine hamming it up for the cameras and the other commie-sympathizers.

Puppy, the Babble Master!

NFP, Holder today announced the administration will seek to reinstate the ban on assault weapons which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration. I imagine many are in favor of the ban, including me, and don’t consider banning military-type assault weapons an attack on the 2nd amendment. During his confirmation hearings, Holder said the administration also wants to ban cop-killer bullets. Are you against that too?

Humphries the King of the Ad hominen attack and the spurious insult! Are you going to play fair Humphries? I’ve got better things to do than respond to reactionary bull(manure) on this web site. Same for you BCS, believe it or not, some people know more about guns and bullets and are better judges on what should be done with them than you… But please continue your ill-informed crusades against nothing in particular, it provides me with alot of comical relief and shows people what really bothers you Libs about living in America…chiefly the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

bcs said:”I imagine many are in favor of the ban, including me, and don’t consider banning military-type assault weapons an attack on the 2nd amendment.”

the problem, monkey, is that once they start taking away rights to any firearms they seldom stop. It would be a real shame if my Mossberg and my Winchester were labeled “Assault Weapons” because id hate to be a criminal.

Its kind of like when folks try to ban “certain” abortion procedures…it rarely stops where they say it will…and once a ban on one type is enacted, others are sure to follow…

its the whole “camel nose under the tent” thing.

puppy, reread my post.

Pared down to the perfect image. Brilliant.

“To cite or not to cite? Danny I’m certain the people who need to know whether my statement needs to be proven will find out soon enough.”

So, you can’t provide evidence for your assertions. Why am I not surprised?

Neo-con logic:

I don’t need to cite any sources, because I am a child o’ Gawd and Jeezus..

…and is you callin’ Jeezus a liar?

“Neo-con Logic” ~= “Jumbo Shrimp” ~= “Open Secret” All oxymorons…

redhead, I said “many,” not “all” and stand by that statement. the issue, piggy, is there no good reason for a private person, not in an army, to own and use a military assault weapon and it seems far-fetched, to me, that a ban would ever extend to your Mossberg and Winchester. Heston’s hands are indeed cold and dead and it’s time to pry the assault weapons loose.

BCS, An analysis of crime statistics would show you that weapons involved in crime are generally handguns of the semi-automatic type and would not be affected by an “assault weapons” ban. Fully automatic Assault weapons are not currently available to anybody as far as I know , This leads us to the “semi-automatic” classification of long-rifles rarely if ever used in crimes. semi-automatic rifles would most definitely include many popular hunting rifles, including the Ruger 1022 and Ranch Rifles. An M-16 semi-automatic type rifle (a.k.a. “Black Rifle”’,Ar-15) are similar in use and performance to hunting rifles and are NOT military Assault Rifles. In response to your Cop-Killer bullet ban I believe that any magnum round would fulfill that purpose and also includes (performsance-wise) many hunting rounds. The answer to yours and Eric Holder’s non-existent problem is not to abridge American’s Second Amendment Rights. Christ-bashers : No response necessary. Blog-Bullies: Get a life. DannySt.Jelly: I got a life and do not choose to waste it arguing with sand-pipers like you.

“is there no good reason for a private person, not in an army, to own and use a military assault weapon and it seems far-fetched, to me, that a ban would ever extend to your Mossberg and Winchester.”

Boy, I sure hope your right.

Meh…shrug… i dont guess it matters too very much…i can still legally own a flame thrower.