Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Will McCain Let Us Fight?
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


If John McCain becomes president, will he leave me alone?

You might think so. After all, he's got Grover Norquist in his corner, and Norquist wrote "Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives".

The book makes a good case for "Americans who simply wish to be left alone by the government. They are not asking the government for others' money, time, or attention. Rather, they want to be free to own a gun, homeschool their children, pray, invest their money, and control their own destiny."

What if people want to fight each other?

I ask because mixed martial arts (MMA) competitions are booming.

"Mixed" martial arts is ... what it sounds like. Athletes combine boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, etc. to knock someone out or get them to submit.

MMA fascinates people -- frankly, mostly male people who, like me, wondered about things like whether karate is more effective than judo. MMA answers such questions.

The big promoter of the sport, the Ultimate Fighting Championship, popularized MMA by setting rules (no eye gouging or finger twisting) and doing TV promotions with interesting fighters. People want to watch. A million viewers recently tuned in to a $39.95 pay-per-view event. Last week, one of their events hit network TV for the first time.

So now kids want to do it. And some parents think that's just fine.

But some politicians say this is terrible.

Sen. John McCain -- yes, that John McCain -- once called the adult version of MMA "human cockfighting." He wrote letters to the governor of every state asking them to ban it. At McCain's urging, pay-per-view events were dropped by major cable companies TCI and Time Warner. Now it is back on TV, and some states have removed bans after seeing the lost business opportunities.

We called McCain's office to see if he's changed his opinion, but no one called back.

Mayor Robert Correia of Fall River, Mass., was horrified to learn that there was an MMA academy in his town, not far from his office. It teaches ultimate fighting to kids as young as 5.

"That's irresponsible," the mayor told me, "To allow this to be taught to our children and for adults to stand by and cheer this on?"

Correia wants MMA banned in his town and the gym shut down. It teaches kids the wrong things, he says.

"It's telling them, look, the best thing to do is hurt someone."

"Nonsense," said moms at the gym. They told me the mayor was clueless and that MMA is little different from karate or judo classes.

The mayor replied that some parents just don't know what's good for their kids. He'd heard that MMA is unsafe.

It's not surprising that he'd heard that, since predictably, the media hypes every danger.

"Good Morning America" aired a clip of pediatrician Lisa Thornton saying, "it is dangerous from a physical standpoint. It can lead to significant injuries to the neck and to the bones."

MMA could injure, of course, but a study from Johns Hopkins found that "the injury rate in MMA competitions is compatible with other combat sports," and, in fact, "the lower knockout rates compared to boxing may help prevent brain injury."

No sport is injury free. Over six years, 77 kids died after being hit in the chest with baseballs. Every year hundreds die riding bikes. No one has yet gathered comparative statistics on the risk of MMA, but even cheerleading sends 25,000 kids to hospital emergency rooms.

When I said that to Mayor Correia, he replied, "That logic would say, Well, let's now add another 25,000 in mixed martial arts. That's OK?"

Parents aren't responsible enough? The politicians need to make these decisions for them?

He replied, "Parents do have a chance to decide that through their elected officers. That's what a democracy is all about."

Really? I had no idea democracy was about voting on who gets to tell you how to raise your kids.

Give me a break!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Fall River
The city of my birth. I am so proud.

/sarc off

John, you said it, LEAVE US ALONE!!!! Don't help, don't lecture, don't guide us LEAVE US ALONE!!!

What do you expect
I would imagine the mayor is a lib. What do you expect from a lib? If a kid can defend him/her self how can a pedifile take advantage of them.

If they develop self confidence from the lessons then they may decide to attempt something else and end up self reliant members of society.

When they grow up to be adults they may not think surrender is the first course of action to take when confronted.

If MMA is anything like the other martial arts they have it instilled in them to use it only as a last resort.

Why am I not surprised to learn

McRINO's on the wrong side of this issue?

Simply business as usual for the lib with the (R) behind his name.


What a Nanny State nutcase . . .
McCainiacs strike again. Go home, Johnny. Regulate others' lives to your heart's content. You can start by having them emulate you -- well, let's see. You were good at adultery, right pal? Okay, since you are so good at running your own life, we'll just give you the right to dicate to us how to run our lives. Okay? Now, that's a plan. Enjoy Arizona and get a real job.

Isn't it funny -
that when someone gets elected to a local office they become so smart. They seem to know so much more then before elected. In fact they are much more intelligent then the average person, they seem to always take it upon themselves to want to control everyone's life. And of course at the end of their elected term, they always another term in office to complete their important work.

DON"T DO IT
McSame, don't you dare take away these 'mericns right to beat the crap out of themselves!!!! Or, for that matter, their right to shoot themselves up at the mall, on the street, at schools or universities, church, or both (Amish school children.) 'Mericns are a special people... largest military budget in the world times 6... can't afford to give the folks medical care, though. What a joke.

Playing Safe
A death that occurred in the absence of a law implies an omission by a politician.

So, let's prohibit everything! Life will be longer, or will it just SEEM longer?

Sissy Nation...
In the human species, risk taking is inherent in males while the females avoid any perceived risk no matter what.
The feminist movement, among other monstrosities, has browbeaten and reared their male offspring in their "image". With over half of our kids being raised by single moms risk of any kind is viewed as unacceptable.
Without millenia of risk taking we would still be hunters (males only) and gatherers, as it is also "risky" to plant seeds that might be wiped out by some weather catastrophe (too much rain, drought etc)The same applies to every aspect of life, no "pain" no "gain"...

unless youre fat
maybe mccain will let you alone-----unless you are fat. he has promised that by the end of his first term there will be fewer fat prople in this country then when he started. that's right FAT. so all your chubs who are lookig for less government ii your lives as promised, forget it. i wonder what the cut off point will be for my height. im sure the agency that he will have to establish to see to it that tubbies lose weight im sure they will let us know. by the way dems win big in Nov. You lose. get your shelter ready.

What a Democracy is all About
"Parents do have a chance to decide that through their elected officers. That's what a democracy is all about."

Doesn't this just sum up the "liberal" leftist big-gov mindset? There are fewer & fewer decisions left to the sole discretion of individuals; the fact that a bigger herd of ninnies voted for 1 candidate over 1 other is construed as an open-ended mandate for government to decide literally every matter for us, great & small.
That may be "democracy" but we were supposed to have a REPUBLIC, in which government decides certain issues while others are left up to the people individually.
Notice that the only individual hands-off-government choice lefties champion is that of killing babies. Every other aspect of our lives, every crumb of our property and moment of our time is on the table every time these tyrants meet in session. The word "liberal" was hijacked to falsely describe these totalitarians.
No surprise JM is backing this. After all, he's on board with totalitarianism in the name of "controlling climate change." He is not a conservative but a totalitarian who says and does "right wing" things & has a "right winger" bio.
How is it that the unwashed masses can't decide the smallest thing on their own, yet they're qualified to vote for the 1 of usually 2 candidates to make all their decisions for them, based mainly on bland platitudes & the slant of media coverage?

Question?
A politician who leaves us alone? What planet did you migrate from?

Even writing a love letter is a crime!
We now live in a country where writing a love letter is a criminal act.

The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 labels American as abusers who must prove their innocence before they can use a International matchmaking organization (penpal service) to make initiate contact (as in saying hello)to a woman in a foreign country.

The romance law was promoted successfully by the Bahai faith based Tahirih Justice Center citing hysterical pontifications and shocking lies that American men who date foreign women are "many are premedidated torturers".

The truth reveals the abuse rate of these so called International relationships are far lower than the abuse rate for all US couples. But its too late now because all American men who wish to communicate with a foreign lady using the government's definition of a matchmaking organization must get the government stamp of approval. American democracy is a joke.

But don't take my word for it... go ahead and google the key phrase "IMBRA 2005".

Dave








Suppose they called an election...
...and no one showed up?

I can dream,can't I?

This Nation of Slaves
Many, if not most, conservatives delude themselves hoping against hope that somehow the future they see isn't true. They need to wake up.

There's something about human nature that causes people to deliberately ignore the facts before their very eyes. Commercial marketeers and good politicians know this and capitalize on it every 4 years.

McCain betrays conservatives and those who've been loyal to him every opportunity he gets. He openly panders to the Left and embraces their causes. Yet, we choose not be believe he's going to do it to us if he gets elected.

He's an old, broken man who was beaten into submission by the NVA 40 years ago. He's been conditioned to bow deeply to his enemies, Oriental style, and turn on his allies.

But we won't really have to worry about him. His crushing defeat in November will make McGovern's in '72 look like a toss up. What conservatives also fail to accept is that America is not the country they think it is.

America is a defeated country, both home and abroad. We just don't know it yet. Yes, we've got the strongest military and the greatest potential for economic power. But we haven't the will to win in either arena. We're so afraid of victory in war because we'll be thought of as insensitive to our enemies that we'll accept defeat.

And we're so afraid of caring for ourselves that we're going to finally turn over our lives and fortunes to any nobody politician who looks good on TV and trust that he'll pay off our mortgages, cure our illnesses, feed us and change our soiled diapers because we're too fat and lazy to do those things on our own.

In a few years Osama Bin laden will be able to take this country over with 5 Arabs docking on Ellis Island in an inner tube and demanding we give up or be called Islamophobes.

No wonder...
81% of the American public think the country is going in the wrong direction.
This is just the start...just wait until Obama is president...or for that matter; McCain.
Unfortunately the voters have no real choice! And I wonder why my adult son says America's greatest years are behind us.
God help us!!

JD's son
I am not sure what you are trying to say? Is it that you are a liberal and approve that the government should be telling us how to raise our kids and conduct our lives? I seem to agree with some of the things you say about McCain, like he won't win any election from this point on except maybe his state election. He has his failings just like you and I. But if you went through what he did, you might be dead. I hope you were being sarcastic about America being a defeated county, far from it, things always change. Finally, whoever is President these next four years or eight, is going to have a very difficult time. Bush has made such a mess that the next guy will look bad just trying to fix things.

I am a small government conservative and trully believe that any program the government runs or has run: spends to much money trying to fix what it thinks is wrong, never fixes the problem and most of the time makes it worse, plus the government then imposes it's will on people without weighting the consequences. Just tell me one government program that doesn't cost a fortune and works?
I'm waiting? One more thing, war solves nothing unless you are really threatened.

The audacity of Mayor Correia
is typical of elitist politicians. They all think the world would be perfect if only everyone could be forced to live by THEIR rules.

They remind me of controlling parents who never want to let their children grow up. They keep imposing themselves on their kids even when they are 30 or 40 years old and want to control everything their kids do. It's disgusting.

JD's son
I am not sure what you are trying to say? Is it that you are a liberal and approve that the government should be telling us how to raise our kids and conduct our lives? I seem to agree with some of the things you say about McCain, like he won't win any election from this point on except maybe his state election. He has his failings just like you and I. But if you went through what he did, you might be dead. I hope you were being sarcastic about America being a defeated county, far from it, things always change. Finally, whoever is President these next four years or eight, is going to have a very difficult time. Bush has made such a mess that the next guy will look bad just trying to fix things.

I am a small government conservative and trully believe that any program the government runs or has run: spends to much money trying to fix what it thinks is wrong, never fixes the problem and most of the time makes it worse, plus the government then imposes it's will on people without weighting the consequences. Just tell me one government program that doesn't cost a fortune and works?
I'm waiting? One more thing, war solves nothing unless you are really threatened.

Question
Will people who get banged up in MMA matches be eligible for the new government-run national healthcare system?

You know, the one that both parties are now proposing, just in slightly different (but equally expensive and impractical) forms?

As for whether or not it should be legal and/or taught to children, speaking as the nerdy kid who was always getting beaten up on the schoolground in junior high for getting straight A's (thereby "blowing the curve" for all the jocks with athletic supporter cups larger than their brainpans and messing up their chances for athletic scholarships to OSU), I suspect it might have helped me avoid various contusions. Teaching children to protect themselves, especially from larger "contemporaries" with smaller IQs, is never a bad idea.


cheers

eon

flusman
Well, I guess that means we will have a few less foreign women getting permanent residency status here because they plan on marrying an American.

Forgive me if I don't get all choked up.

M Sederoff
You are correct. The difference between what Dr. Susan Forward refers to as "Toxic Parents" (in her book with that title) and the average "I know better than you do" progressive is essentially non-existent.

I speak from personal experience of both. (And highly recommend Dr. Forward's book.)

cheers

eon

jayhawk actually gets part of it right
in that the USA "can't afford to give the folks medical care". What happens on the supply/demand curve when something is free? The word "give" is the key to this particular lunacy that would soon have you doing the same as Canadians: the poor die because of long waiting lists, the very rich go wherever they want around the world for their care, and the middle class has the option of "waiting" or of a second mortgage and going south of the border for care. Mexico's medical industry would see a real bump, and the supply of doctors and nurses (who would be paid and have the same efficiency as other governmental depts) would shrink.

One of these years there's going to be a good rumble within the Republicans and a small-government libertarian is going to come out on top. Until then you're stuck with creeping socialism.

A good question for the mayor...
...would be: "What is the purpose of government?" Then he needs to read the Declaration of Independence until he understands that the purpose of government is to protect individual liberty. Not promote healthy parenting, or "family", "Judeo-Christian", or "progressive" values, but to protect liberty.

risk??
Let's get real!

If they are banning MMA because people get hurt and there are risks, then let's ban the following since they too have had fatalities associated with them:

Skydiving
Mountain climbing
racing
drinking (alcohol OD)
cars (accidents kill thousands)
prescription drugs (most can have serious if not fatal side effects)
surgeries (risks of infection and anesthesia complications are too great)
running (ankle/joint injuries)
eating (ever heard of choking?)

I know this is a partial list but it should be considered along side the MMA ban since there are serious risks associated with them .

No Limits?
Should there really be no limits a civilized people place on how much humans are allowed to hurt one another for profit? Perhaps the days of pagan Rome aren't so far away from us after all. We've exlored every sexual urge to the point of boredom. What's next? Violence against one another is, after all, the final taboo.

free health care for everyone
Wait 'til the Government does supply "free" health care for all. THEN you'll see that they have a stake in all dangerous activities.

You see, we can't afford to pay for all those baseball/bikeriding/MMA/skydiving/smoking/drinking/horsebackriding/mountain climbing/spelunking/basketball/football/whatever-else injuries--or those unhealthy fat people, either. And The People will cheer Big Govt whenever it prohibits another dangerous activity, just as it now cheers every assault on smokers, from prohibiting smoking in private establishments to adding taxes to cigarettes.

It's going to be a wonderful, safe, controlled world.

just a reminder . . .
Any lib who is enlightened enough to promote laws that dictate the behavior of the population is also clever enough to know when a particular statute is not appropriate for himself/herself/itself. Bright libs simply ignore any law they don't like, so their own freedom is not diminished.

jayhawk in aotearoa
Isn't it amazing, with all us "'mericns" shooting each other up, MMAing and NOT getting health care, our life expectancy just keeps getting longer.

Must be that "elimination of dodgeball on our playgrounds" that's making us live longer, huh? (Or maybe it's the trial lawyers, in general, protecting us from virtually everything?)

Unintended consequences......
I teach kids Brazilian Jiu Jitsu classes at a MMA academy (and yes, these kids learn when to use and not to use their abilities, and this is easily the most effective form of self-defense to teach to kids, women, whomever wishes to learn).

McCain was a fool when he took action against our sport in the 90's. I've lost no love for that guy, and his nanny-state tendencies make me cringe when I think of making the anti-Obama vote for McCain. But I have to remain optimistic if for no other reason than the unintended consequences of McCain's anti-MMA campaign.

To regain pay-per-view airings, the UFC worked with Nevada's and other states' athletic commisions to craft the "unified rules" of MMA. These outlawed knee strikes to opponents in three-point stances, downward elbow strikes, etc. It did ruin some of the purity of the sport (I still favor some Japanese organizations that have wider rule sets), but it certainly led to the commercial boom that our sport is seeing now. And as an aside, McCain has stated that he is fine with the sport under the "unified rules". Heh.

Football Next?
It was the same liberal crap with football
(not S O C C E R, that's not Football!). In my little NJ town they had trouble recruiting 100 kids to play football while soccer attracted 400 or so.
'Oh its so rough'
'They're so mean'
'Only the big bully types play football'
'Coaches yell at the poor little kids'

Trying to convince a mother that soccer is more dangerous with no padding save shin guards, than football with certified helmets and shoulder pads etc is impossible.

Football is rough and some kids are mean. Bullies play, so do other kids and there is lots of yelling, even at little 7 year olds.
Its what life will be like!

Maybe it was because we kept score in football and sometimes we lost???

Ignorance & Power Grabs
The mayor is so very ignorant. He should read the history of Krav Maga - the Israeli Martial Art. It essentially developed as a MMA on the streets of Eastern Europe when Jews were being rounded up by Nazis. Some decided to fight back and defend themselves. Imi Lichtenfeld developed Krav Maga and taught it to the IDF.

Of course, power-hungry elitists of both major political parties don't want us to be able to defend ourselves. They take our guns and our opportunities to learn martial arts.

Let the politicians speak
And do no more than speak.

Of course McCain, or the mayor of Peoria for that matter, can rail against things he doesn't like. Politicians are as entitled to free speech as the rest of us. But let them do no more than that.

If they want to condemn, to protest, to stage protests, to write op eds, to write letters to the editor, to argue, to run ad campaigns (with their own money), that's fine.

And let kids and parents decide what the kids do. As Mr. Stossel stated, all sports carry injury risks. Let the parents choose what they find acceptable and how to minimize risks (helmets, padding, training, responsible teachers, etc etc).

RDrift,
"Should there really be no limits a civilized people place on how much humans are allowed to hurt one another for profit? Perhaps the days of pagan Rome aren't so far away from us after all."

The folks sent to die in the coliseum were often slaves who didn't choose to fight the beasts. Of course, gladiators sometimes did choose to become fighters in return for glory, but they made that choice of their own free will. I'm sure most of the common people probably thought to themselves, "He's crazy! I'd never do that."

You also neglect something very important in the article and that is how the UFC "popularized MMA by setting rules (no eye gouging or finger twisting)." That's something very different than fighting lions, tigers and bears. Most people can't get their dog to sit on command, so I doubt these wild beasts were going to follow any rules.

If it
isn't illegal, it must be ok to do it, right?

In fairness to McCain
In all fairness to McCain, his comments came at a time when UFC was like "human cockfighting". There were virtually no rules governing the action, so just about everything was legal. And there were no weigh classes involved so you would have these huge superheavyweights going at it with some dude that was 165 pounds. UFC in particular, and MMA in general, was the freaking wild west at that point...I have seen some of the early UFC events and they were BRUTAL.

Now the UFC and its many imitators have established weight classes and rules to make the events more like a sporting contest than a back alley brawl, and that is a good thing. The current ownership of UFC has been very good at turning the tide in the MMA world and bringing it to the mainstream. Going from goons like Tank Abbott to fighters like Chuck Lidell, Tito Ortiz and others has been instrumental to the explosion in popularity of MMA and has taken it from a curiosity to worldwide phenomenon.

BTW, the show on CBS was not a UFC event, as their events are genrally pay-per-view. If you want to see UFC on TV tune to Spike Tv on your local cable systems (channel 241 on DirectTV).

bad math. Not another 25,000
Mayor Correia says, "That logic would say, Well, let's now add another 25,000 in mixed martial arts. That's OK?"

If you really want logic, probably most of that "additional" 25,000 are really just displaced from injuries that would have been suffered engaging in other sports. The kids who would be involved in this new MMA thing are probably already prone to dangerous activity. So the question is whether this anternative is a greater or lesser risk than the alternative.

I get so tired of people who evaluate things in isolation, ignoring the other side(s) of the scale. This is basic economics. Economics is the study of alternative uses of scarce resources. The resources her are time and youth. The alternatives are the various things they can spend their time and youth on. (Key words: alternative, various. I.e., not MMA in isolation.)

And then the gall to claim logic!

Who are we kidding?
I read a lot of these posts and it always amuses me to see the ones bemoaning our loss of liberty because of the new law coming down the pike. We can't drive in our cars as adults without wearing a seatbelt. We can't ride a motorcycle without a helmet. We can't ride a bicycle without a helmet. We can't flush our toilets with more than a gallon of water. We pay for abortions overseas with our tax money, and I won't even get started about our confiscatory tax structure. We are already living in a socialist society. And to RDrift (9:16am) the answer to your question is: no limits. The government is not here to restrain it's citizens, it is here to serve it's citizens. The Constitution was designed to protect freedom, not the Gov't. That means freedom to be an asset to the country, or an idiot.

Flagwaver, though what you say

may be correct, how does that justify McRINO wanting government to intervene?

The rules were there, plain for all to see, and if the participants didn't like the rules they were certainly free to not participate, or to go out and form their own competing organization with different rules.

Where's the government's role in ANY of that?

This is no different from liberals trying to force the Boy Scouts into accepting gay troop leaders, as far as I can see; it's government interference in private enterprise and the right of free association.

As to McRINO's claim that it's "human cockfighting", last I checked chickens were incapable of granting informed consent. More stupidity from the liberal with the (R) behind his name.


It is amazing to me
to read posts from "conservative" posters such as Flagwaver (who has impressed me with his grasp of Conservatism in the past)with a seemingly total lack of understanding of the framers' vision of liberty. McCain is wrong. There was nothing wild westish about the UFC as originally devised. The wild west was a place where people broke the rule of law. They committed crime. A mugging in NYC isn't equivalent to Tank Abbott beating a 165 lb. man to a pulp in the octagon. The mugging victim is being denied his liberty. A 165 lb. Abbott victim is exercising his liberty. It is a founding proposition that Americans have the unique right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever form that may take within the rule of law. What is done by consenting adults in private or through mutual contract or assent is protected. This does not mean that they can force their private decisions on other, non consenting individuals, but it should mean that the heavy hand of gov't doesn't intrude on their right.

Nothing against Stossel
His article makes sense. MMA, nonetheless, is no match for boxing. ESPN recently released a study ranking boxing the most difficult of all sports weighing a variety of factors (strength, endurance, courage, cunning, agility). Boxing is the pinacle of pugilism and athleticism and should be enjoyed by more Americans. MMA involves too much hugging, grappling, and cauliflower ear.

I don't understand why boring sports intrigue Americans. While I can appreciate the skill involved in playing football, baseball, MMA, and golf, these sports move too slowly with too many interruptions for a spectator to enjoy. Basketball is great until the time-out saturated final minutes. Contrast America's most popular sports to the nonstop action found in soccer, tennis, and especially boxing. Best part about boxing: no fanatical left-wing commentators.

Support boxing by watching a few fights.

Why is this even a question?
McCain is *mostly* right on ONE issue - Iraq.

Beyond that, he's shown only a grudging willingness to 'reach across the aisle'...from the other side...toward Conservatives.

McCain-Feingold was McCain having a temper-tantrum @ SC, shaking his tiny fists and screaming "You want free speech, I'll give you free speech!"

No drilling in ANWAR, Illegal Immigrant Amnesty, Give Terrorists Constitutional Rights in US courts, 'NO' to Gitmo... the list goes on.

It's ONLY in the stock market that 'past performance is not an indicator of future earnings' - for everyone else, it's:

"Trust People To Do What You've Seen Them Do."

McCain is a borderline Socialist, running against a hardline Marxist.

He'll be elected - and all of his liberal governance will be disasterous - and the media will attribute the disaster to the "Republican President" - effectively killing off Reagan's conservative movement in the Party once and for all.

He will have lowered the bar for the public discussion on 'What is Conservative' so far that it will take decades to raise it back up, if such a thing can be done at all.

- That is, of course, if he'll Allow us to have that discussion - seeing as how he's already got a laundry-list of things we're "not allowed to talk about"

What you've seen him do.

Plain as the nose on your face, so why all the hand-wringing-wondering?

- MuscleDaddy

I never for a moment thought that ....
there was such a thing as martial arts. It is a euphemism .... Womens Health Care Crisis Center and Abortion Mill. Art is uplifting .... it speaks of the Hand of God on Man.
That said .... fighting and weapons are a necessity in a fallen world. First it is the anti-gun group and it logically follows that we now have people who don't want young men who are able to defend themselves and others in the face of peril.
I have always suspected that it served the government's best interests to keep military forces small as an extensive population of people with military experience would be a threat.
I don't advocate wanton violence as the wantonly violent are of a criminal mind. I have known Rangers and Green Beret and Seals ..
I pray that if the fight ever comes, that they will be on the side of freedom and not government. In the meantime, it will be easier for such men to train other men who have gumption.
Therein lies the nub?!

MuscleDaddy, I absolutely agree

with your assessment, which is why I believe it's imperative that McRINO lose come November.

As you pointed out, other than Iraq there are no substantive differences between McRINO and Obama, only differences on matters of degree.

If we're going to have four bad years of liberalism -- and make no mistake, we are -- better the Lib-In-Chief have a (D) behind his name rather than an (R).


Brian with the (R) by his name
Your line is getting older than Europe's population.

Muscledaddy's objections to McCain warrant consideration. That said, every GOP candidate in the last 100+ years has harbored an equal number of weaknesses (give or take). Take Goldwater, he expressed unwavering support for abortion rights and voted against the Civil Rights bill on the basis of State's rights. Both those positions conflict with modern conservatism. Still, he is (rightfully) regarded with icon status.

One outstanding trait exhibited by McCain is his staunch commitment to earmark reform is historically unprecedented. I'm amazed how the McCain bashers conveniently (perhaps deliberately) overlook this fact. After the atrocious Farm Bill recently survived a Bush veto, conservatives should appreciate McCain more readily.

Cliff
I can't speak for MMA, but boxing is not an art, it's a science, the "sweet science".

This is what happens when
the state becomes the parent. But I guess parents are too lazy to use the "V" chip! Part of the feminization of the nation. Dont have outlets to let off steam wait till everyone goes completely nuts then ask Why do they do that?

The real slippery slope
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Ben Franklin

The real slippery slope
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Ben Franklin

Hahaha, Max!

Hey, kid, how ya doin'?

My line's "getting old"?

So's your apologism for McRINO. Looks like it's just tough for both of us, hmmmmm?.....

Will McCain fight the UN?
By Joel Richardson, WorldNetDaily, May 19, 2008

The United States is about to be tried. At stake are the very freedoms that we all hold so dear. On March 27, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted to adopt resolution 7/19 on “Combating defamation of religions.” In one of the most Orwellian resolutions ever passed, this so-called “Human Rights Council” condemns “Islamophobia,” which includes any, “attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.”

Maximilian...
McCain-Feingold effectively undermines the 1st Amendment and provides the first real legislative toe-hold for future speech-limiting 'fairness-doctrine-esque' laws.

Tell me Goldwater can compete with that.

- MuscleDaddy

MuscleDad,

I just left you an answer on my blog.

Heh heh heh


What an Encouragement
The Muslim terrorists that are reading this article must be thinking to themselves,

"Damn, these Americans are a bunch limp wristed pussies. They are so afraid of fighting they ban their children from fighting. Taking them over is going to be so easy."

If I were one of them, I could see why they would think that way.

Very Encouraging, to the wrong people
The Muslim terrorists that are reading this article must be thinking to themselves
"Damn, these Americans are a bunch limp wristed pussies. They are so afraid of fighting they ban their children from fighting. Taking them over is going to be so easy."

If I were one of them, I could see why they would think that way.

MuscleDaddy
I can't and won't defend McCain-Feingold. Nor is my optimism towards McCain ample to consider him Goldwater's heir. I can only assert that waiting for a perfect politician will leave you waiting a long time. McCain's strengths, especially earmark/pork barrel reform, should be contemplated before withholding your vote. This is an especially serious issue when faced with a spendthrift congress.

The origin of ''martial arts''
--
Most of the readers in this thread should be kept aware of the fact that manual combat skills - so-called "martial arts" - in almost all cultures originated only because there were occasions upon which the common people in those polities were forbidden to exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms (RTKBA).

The word "Karate" in Japanese and Korean means "Empty Hand."

And that's what the Japanese and Korean nobility were striving for when they set the circumstances under which karate evolved.

They wanted an empty-handed, disarmed and helpless population of peasants whom they could dominate, plunder, rape and terrorize at will.

That's the purpose of all modern "gun control" (read: "victim disarmament") statutes in modern America.

And it shouldn't surprise anyone to learn that McCain is a supporter of victim disarmament laws.

In the eyes of McCain - a so-called "National Greatness conservative" - you average American citizens serve the government poorly if you're allowed to keep and bear arms in the enforcement of your rights.

Or learn skills that might enable you to protect yourselves from thieves, assailants, and murderers.

In or out of government uniform.





========
"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-- Patrick Henry

SJ Doc
What specific "victim disarmament" laws does McCain support? I have never heard of him endorsing such laws only "criminal disarmament".

SJ doc
First they take away swords.
Next are guns.
Then Martial Arts which have also been forbidden.
Then it will be the vote.

Swords?!?
....uh, that is - yes - of course.

No swords here - these are not the swords you're looking for.

I can be about my business...


- MuscleDaddy

Max - How dumb d'you have to be?
--
The excuse of "criminal disarmament" is - of course - simply a facade.

The person determined upon the violent breach of the public peace - the mugger, the rapist, the housebreaker, the murderer - is already intent upon criminal action. In law, that intent is known as *mens rea*.

Just what the hell is likely to prevent such a person of criminal intent from extending it to getting, carrying, and using firearms to facilitate achievement of his criminal purpose?

Whereas McCain's "...endorsing such laws only [for] 'criminal disarmament'" is nothing more than naked hypocrisy.

The only people who could be expected to obey the laws McCain favors are themselves law-abiding citizens.

And what sort of miserable sonofabitch wants law-abiding citizens disarmed and helpless?

Well, point your browser to http://www.johnmccain.com/ and take a look.





=========
"Here's my credo. There are no good guns, There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people."

-- Charlton Heston

Swords re Banning
Martial Arts in ages past

Swords re Banning
...or the UK now.

Along with knives, glass bottles or anything else with which the populace might defend themselves against the ever-increasing Muslim presence, when they decide it's time this whole 'Non-Sharia" thing has gone on long enough...

- MuscleDaddy

MuscleHead - ''Sword hunt'' history
--
To clear up your bafflement about the mention of swords (see hagar's post above), recall that I'd discussed the history of "karate" in Japan and Korea.

If you'd known enough to Wiki the subject of "sword hunts," you'd have found an article that begins as follows:

"Several times in Japanese history, the new ruler sought to ensure his position by calling a sword hunt (katanagari). Armies would scour the entire country, confiscating the weapons of the enemies of the new regime. In this manner, the new ruler sought to ensure that no one could take the country by force as he had just done. The most famous sword hunt was ordered by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 1588.

"Prior to the sword hunt called by Oda Nobunaga towards the end of the 16th century, civilians were free to carry swords for defense or simply for decoration. Nobunaga sought an end to this, and ordered the seizure of swords and a variety of other weapons from civilians, in particular the Ikko-ikki peasant-monk leagues which sought to overthrow samurai rule."


Much the same as we have federal, state, and local governments doing their very best to deprive the American citizen today of the exercise of the explictly protected constitutional right to keep and bear military arms "in the teeth and to the despite of" the officers of our governments.

Got it now?





=======
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-- Thomas Jefferson

SJ - switch to Decaf
That was a joke - I've been a martial arts instructor my entire adult life and a sword/knife smith for just over 15 years.

The spirit of that was:

"Coming for the Swords? Oh, what swords? - no swords here - have a little jedi mind-trick."

Sorry that was too subtle for you.
(maybe you could wiki "subtle")

Got it now?

- MuscleDaddy

MuscleDaddy - Without background on you
--
...d'you really expect anyone reading your posts above to pick up anything through the opacity (maybe you could Wiki "opacity") of your "subtle" approach?






=========
"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights."

-- H.L. Mencken

Maybe not, but...
I have enough faith in most folks' free-association skills to expect them to pick up on a blatant Star Wars reference without getting condescending & belligerent.

- MuscleDaddy

SJ Doc
I read through the 2nd Amendment portion of John McCain's website. The only objectionable paragraph I found was his approval of mandating manufacturers to include safety devices in firearm packaging. As silly as that is, it hardly qualifies as serious gun control.

Were you disturbed by the following comment?

"John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens."

I'm not bothered by this statement. It refers to "criminal disarmament" not "victim disarmament". As a conservative I have no respect, whatsoever, for criminals. Disarming them does not burden my conservative conscience.

Max - Not a Randroid, are you?
--
Says Maximillian:

"As a conservative I have no respect, whatsoever, for criminals. Disarming them does not burden my conservative conscience."


To which the proper response comes from *Atlas Shrugged*:

"'Did you really think we *want* those laws observed?' said Dr. Ferris. 'We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one *makes* them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.'"


If there's a prevalent failing among conservatives, it's illiteracy and the corresponding deficits accompanying a shallow fund of knowledge.

The plain fact is that there are (and will continue to be) a great many Americans with criminal records that would show up on the "background checks" in which you put such trust, showing convictions (almost always gotten through plea-bargaining arrangements of great benefit to public prosecutors) for non-violent offenses.

These people - ever increasing in numbers as government reaches further and further into private citizens businesses and private lives - can and will be denied the right to keep and bear arms to *NO* advancement in public safety whatsoever.

--

The Founding Fathers' Militia
Some people say that the Militia part of the Second Amendment of the Constitution refers only to flintlock rifles because that was all that was available at the time the Constitution was written. These people are incorrect, because at the time when our Militiamen had flintlocks, that is what the enemy had, state-of-the-art weapons. When we are attacked now by terrorists, the enemy carries fully-automatic, AK47’s - brought into the United States by the embassies and UN delegations of terrorist countries - real assault rifles used by the enemy military. Since our Militiamen are expected to stop the enemy with their own weapons, because the Regulars are not on the scene yet and the Militiamen are, our Militiamen should own weapons that are the equivalent of the enemy’s – State-0f-The-Art. Our Militiamen, law-abiding adult Americans, should all have fully-automatic personal weapons constantly accessible to them, just as the Swiss Militiamen do. This is what our Founding Fathers require for us in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Federal Firearms Act of 1934, and all other laws prohibiting our Militiamen from having state-of-the-art weapons are unconstitutional.

Max - Converting a right to a privilege
--
Pardon the addendum.

As for McCain's Website weaseling:

"John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens."


...we have something you've overlooked.

First, the private citizen's acquisition of firearms involves the exercise of a right which the federal government (and, by way of the 14th Amendment, the state and local governments) are specifically and unequivocally forbidden to infringe.

Arguably so even if any individual under consideration has a putatively criminal background. A person with such a record may be denied certain privileges, but he *CANNOT* be denied the exercise of his rights.

Second, it is impossible to deny the fact that such background checks can possibly prevent persons with violent criminal intent from getting their hands on lethal weapons.

(Any random chemicals geek can take a stroll through the average Home Depot and come home with his car trunk full of enough stuff to wipe out a small town, if that's what he wants to do.)

Third, the cost of McCain's "instant criminal background checks" is to be borne by licensed firearms dealers (and, therefore, the customers of these dealers), imposing upon them an uncompensated "taking" that violates the 5th as well as the 2nd Amendment, said "taking" being in *NO* imaginable way defensible as conducive to any real public benefit.


If John McCain really wanted to secure the approval and support of RTKBA advocates, he need only say the following:

"If elected, I will enforce the Bill of Rights without compromise or evasion."


And this he will *NEVER* do.

--

Max's defending McCain
If McCain's stance on earmarks is the best you can do to try to sell him to us - don't bother. If ever there was an issue that will NEVER get through Congress, this is it.

SJ Doc
I've studied almost everything written by Ayn Rand. She's brilliant. Her philosophy stresses the importance of enforcing laws so long as the laws are construed morally. I don't support a tax evader's gun rights being stripped. Domestic violence, however, is a different matter. Many misdemeanor offenses are, indeed, very dangerous. Confining firearm ownership to human beings is an acceptable compromise.

mrsblizz
Earmark reform is possible, even with our lousy congress. McCain must be held to his pledge to veto any earmarked bill. Boehner must make good on his plan to reform congressional Republicans. If the minority party unites behind earmark reform (which they must in order to regain the voters' trust), then they can prevent veto overrides.

If you're still not concerned about this issue, then vote for McCain for the War on Terror, preserving our 2nd Amendment rights, and nominating moderate-to-conservative supreme court justices.

M Sederoff
You have stated , "Well, I guess that means we will have a few less foreign women getting permanent residency status here because they plan on marrying an American... forgive me if I don't get all chocked up."

You fail to understand that foreign brides who immigrate via the K Visa process are abiding by the law for the honorable purpose of marriage.

So I guess you probably think its ok for 20 million illegal immigrants to flood our borders take our jobs, drain our welfare resources and be involved in criminal activity.
Meanwhile International matchmaking couples which repesent a tiny fraction (1%) of all immigrants are typically better educated, earn better salaries and have more skills.

You have failed to make this important distinction.

To the McHo-sers
I keep telling you guys that on the TWO issues people are most hacked with W on--Iraq (where the American people are stupidly wrong) and Amnesty (where they are damn right) The MacChurian Candidate is IDENTICAL to W. NO IMPROVEMENT. NO CHANGE! McShame IS Amnesty, whatever the lying, backstabbing bastid says NOW.

So McAin't surrenders the Southern Front, and his holding of the Eastern Front ain't exactly Maverick is it?

NOW we have THIS FURTHER example of how Mac the Knife AIN'T a Limited Government CONSERVATIVE but a phookn BIG GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONIST! Earmarks be damned, McFeingeld, No Drilling in ANWR, No Tax Cuts, Damn the Wealthy, Gang 14 McLiberman, ALL BIG GOV STATIST intervention.
McAin't is THE ANTI-CONSERVATIVE and his election spells the DEATH of Reaganism.

His Socialism Dumbolcrap Lite is FAR more dangerous to the Republic then 4 years of a Dismally Failed Hussein Administration would be.
And a MacChurian Admin would be, to repeat, the DEATH of Reaganism. He SURRENDERS the HOME Front.

Mr. GANG 14 is NOT going to give you Scalias and Thomas-es, but Souters and OConners which HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED to be JUST as damaging as Ginsbergs. So YOU GAIN nothing with McAint and LOSE Reaganism forever. For four years Hussein's nominees can be "bustered" to death.

Again, McAIN'T buys you NOTHING, not difference from W, not ONE Conservative value, not one ounce of smaller Government or less intervention, not one ounce more energy or one foot more secure borders. He's WORSE then Hussein. Time to shoot Mav down and send him back to the political Hanoi Hilton. Anything to the contrary is a Mc-Hose.

We survived 4 years of Carter, we can survive 4 of Hussein and America will be reminded they need another Reagan. McAin't destroys that possiblity forever.

mick

Feel The Pain Of Voting McCain
The knife in your back is amnesty, the one at your throat is cap and trade.

McCain is Insane and Unfit to Lead
John, please tell Michael Medved to LEAVE US ALONE. His career is over as a writer and talk show host, he has embarrassed Town Hall.

McCain is not worthy of Grover's attention!

I guess it could be worse.
"...Mayor Robert Correia of Fall River, Mass., was horrified to learn that there was an MMA academy in his town, not far from his office. It teaches ultimate fighting to kids as young as 5.

"That's irresponsible," the mayor told me, "To allow this to be taught to our children and for adults to stand by and cheer this on?..."



Come on Mayor Correia. It's not like your town promotes and exploits a brutal double-slaying for tourist dollars or something (walking distance from the Mayor's office.) Oh no, wait!

http://www.fallriverma.org/tourism/tourism_attractions.asp

Max - On Ayn Rand
--
I had what most Randroids (and other American conservatives) consider a damned odd experience of Rand and her retinue, having begun reading her work only relatively late in life (while I was in medical school), and then running first completely through her published expostulatory prose (including periodicals she was uttering currently at the time).

I didn't get around to her fiction until well after she'd passed away, and it's undoubtedly well that this was so. I'm a science fiction (SF) fan first, last, and always, and Rand directed her fiction at the mundanes even though *Atlas Shrugged* is unarguably SF in its setting and design.

Very crude SF even by the standards of 1957.

To be frank, without first having read her essays, both in collection and seriatim, I wouldn't have been able to get through *Atlas*. Her characterizations - especially of her protagonists - were so over-the-top that the willing suspension of disbelief was almost an insuperable difficulty without a preparatory grounding on her "behind the scenes" intentions and purposes.

I still don't understand how the hell her mundane audience managed to enjoy - or even access - her fiction without such preparation.

To this day, I stand more comfortably with Mencken and with Heinlein.




===========
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame ... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world ... aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

-- Robert A. Heinlein

On the word ''mulatto''
--
Derived from the Spanish and Portugese term *mulato*, the word in question is a perfectly legitimate entry in the English language, and is used most commonly to denote a person of equally mixed European and African immediate ancestry.

It therefore qualifies perfectly as a descriptor of Barack Hussein "Mocha Marvin" Obama, the scumbucket socialist Cook County Candidate of the Voting Dead who is the heir presumptive to the Evil Party's presidential nomination this year.

I have noticed some several "Liberal" putzes posting on Townhall who have taken prissy exception to the use of the term "mulatto" both generally (calling it denigratory rather than dispassionately accurate) and in particular with reference to their beloved Empty Suit candidate.

From the "Liberal" we can (and do) expect nothing but bellyfeel doublethink - to quote Orwell - with the completely anencephalic embrace of "Political Correctness."

But will the administrators of Townhall.com go along with "Liberal" desires to flag and remove posts that contain the word "mulatto" - which the neurotic socialist obviously finds offensive because it so precisely describes the single remarkable trait of their chosen standard-bearer in this year's electoral Kabuki ritual?

Anyone care to comment?

Bearing in mind the probability that the Website administrators appear to have spines of purest Jell-O, and are quite likely to expunge anything you yourselves post.




======
"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing."

-- John Adams

Hello Polly!
I reside in a wonderful, small country that has "free" health care. (Some physicians charge a office fee, most don't.) Rugby is the national sport here. I am the proud father of two girls, 9 & 6 yrs. The playground equipment here is challenging and fun. Here is the big diff between our two societies; LIABILITY and LAWSUITS. Any one who is hurt or injured here goes and gets fixed up. If anyone is responsible for that injury (car wreck for example) they go to jail or do community service. Very few liability lawsuits against individuals here. Health care for everyone can work!!!! As a former U.S. resident, I understand your cynicism. Don't believe what the A.M.A. has to say about these matters. They are only concernerd with their own bottom line. Good luck to you, Cheers!

The benefits of socialized medicing...
...in aotearoa. ( that New Zealand to the rest of the English speaking world ) This is what I found about the NZ health care system

"Breast cancer is fatal to 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain and New Zealand, both socialized-medicine havens, breast cancer kills 46 percent of women it strikes."

“In usual circumstances, people over age 75 should not be accepted” for treatment of end-state renal failure, according to New Zealand’s official guidelines. Unfortunately, for older Kiwis, government controls kidney dialysis.

I doubt that the laws are much diferent in NZ than Australia, my country of citizenship, and people sue people all the time for medical payments.

As for it being "free", it most certainly is not. It is taken from your taxes. Again, the cost of the Australian health care system is estimated at around 8-9% of income of which 1.5% itemized.

Although I will say that the one benefit of being a Kiwi is that you can travel to Australia and collect unemployment and get better health care for "free" since the Australian constitution recognizes NZ as a potential state of Australia.

Limited Government
Stossel says: "I had no idea democracy was about voting on who gets to tell you how to raise your kids."

It shouldn't be about that! A rational, limited government should only be able to regulate behaviors that cause demonstrable harm to non-consenting others.

A good quote:
"Representative democracy can be just as tyrannical as any other form of government. What made American democracy different was that our Founders limited the power of government, and of majority rule. These limits, and not representative democracy itself, are what made America good and great." -- from:
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/2008/may/19/dangerous_democr acy


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.