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
Monday, July 14, 2008
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Moral Minority
by Mike Adams
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?


“Beware the people who moralize about great issues; moralizing is easier than facing hard facts.” - John Corry

There is a well-worn path by the side of my garage that leads to the back yard where I spend a good bit of my free time. Recently, I decided to lay brick to cover the path so I wouldn’t track dirt into the house on my way back inside. This required about 500 bricks and a long afternoon’s work.

Unfortunately, as I started working on the brick path, I made a frustrating discovery. About 450 of the bricks I bought were bright red but about fifty were of a lighter yellowish hue. So I loaded up the fifty lighter bricks and took them back to the place where I bought them.

If you think I should have instead taken back the 450 bright red bricks, you may want to consider voting for Barack Obama.

The week after I finished laying my brick path I hopped on a plane heading to Colorado Springs, Colorado (to speak at Summit Christian Ministries www.Summit.org). After the flight attendant made her initial announcements, a young couple called her over to complain that she was speaking too loudly into the microphone. Her voice, they said, was hurting their ears. The flight attendant said she was talking into the microphone no louder than she was at that moment. The couple still protested – although no one else on board seemed to have a problem. Eventually, the flight attendant agreed to let someone else with a quieter voice make the rest of the announcements.

As soon as the plane took off, the small child of the couple with the sensitive ears began screaming. And, eventually, the father began yelling at the child. This went on for the duration of the flight. When the flight attendant with the soft voice announced the connecting gate information I could not hear her at all. Neither could the male half of the couple with sensitive ears. He was yelling at his son who was screaming at the top of his little lungs, which at least partially explained the fact that no one on board the flight was able to hear his connecting information.

If you think that Delta handled this situation properly, you may want to consider voting for Barack Obama.

On the way back from my wonderful trip to Colorado, I hopped on another Delta flight – this one heading to Atlanta. As we were being served our beverages, two of the flight attendants stopped to have a conference in the aisle just next to my seat. It seems that the woman seated in 6A was allergic to peanuts. She therefore decided that she wanted cookies, not peanuts, as a snack to accompany her beverage.

But the woman wanted more than just her cookies. She wanted everyone else on the plane to have cookies, too. It seems that the woman’s allergy was so great that refraining from the consumption of peanuts was not enough. She could not be around others consuming peanuts, lest she become physically ill. She wanted no peanuts to be served to any passenger on the flight.

The flight attendants struck a compromise. The people on aisles five through seven would be served cookies, not peanuts. Everyone else was free to choose one or the other. I tapped one of the flight attendants on the shoulder to inform her that I was allergic to cookies. I also told her I was allergic to people who are allergic to peanuts. She understood my joke and we shared a laugh as she handed me an extra bag of peanuts.

If you thought my joke was insensitive, you’re probably already voting for Barack Obama.

After I got back from Colorado, I checked my email. I was surprised to hear from an old friend from Clear Lake High School. He had been a staunch conservative in the 1980s but, now, he is an outspoken liberal. He dropped out of college in the 1980s and never went back. He’d held a few jobs but had not had any steady employment over the last twenty-four years.

One of my old friend’s reasons for supporting Obama is his position on universal health care. He once had a health plan but he quit the job that had provided it. It would be easy for him to get another job as he is both able-bodied and intelligent. But he says he’s burned out and fatigued. So, instead, he’ll vote for the candidate that’ll make sure he gets his health care regardless of whether he ever gets another job with benefits.

If you think my analysis too harsh, you are probably actively campaigning for Barack Obama.

I know it isn’t always easy for those in the minority to force those in the majority to conform to their needs. After all, it rarely makes logical sense. But, when they do succeed, it is usually an argument won on emotion, rather than logic. There’s just something about those who’ve suffered greatly that gives them an air of moral superiority. And there’s something about helping them that makes us really great people, too.

After another day’s work as a writer I’m off to the back yard to take in the sun in my favorite hammock. If I weren’t such a pragmatist I’d be getting there following a yellow brick road.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Rationalizations for Obama

The complex process the human mind uses to arrive at decision-making has been the topic of many volumes.

One consensus that is generally held is the human mind can justify any decision and any action that it takes.

Rationalization is the mortal enemy of facts, logic and reason.

Rationalization is in ‘simple’ terms, a defense mechanism that attempts to explain bad decisions or behavior in a rational logical manner.

Rationalizing that a vote for any candidate that cannot win is not a vote for Obama gives us a prime example of rationalization.

Rationalizing that a ‘symbolic’ vote will teach the major parties a lesson contrasts the reality of their premise that the major parties ‘do not know what they are doing’ and ‘haven’t learned from the past’.

Rationalizing that ones closely held principles trump the safety and wellfare of America and its citizens is little different from those who want America destroyed.

Those who say we need to return to the Constitution that many Americans have left or attempted to destroy will be best accomplished by giving those Americans their desires and wishes is akin to giving children matches and gasoline.

The children will surely learn a lesson if survival succeeds in overcoming the odds.

Rationalizing that an Obama presidency will be good for America in the long run defies facts, logic and reason.

Sacrifice for the Common Good
"For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few. Each citizen will have a thousand sons who will not be his sons individually but anybody will be equally the son of anybody, and will therefore be neglected by all alike."
-- From Aristotle's "Politics", Written c.a. 350 BC

The best definition I can think of for the 'Change' Obama talks about = Chump Change.

Rationalization
Rationaliztion that the Republican candidate has the people's best interest at heart more than the Democrat candidate is a prime example of rationalization.
Rationalization that we are so invested in the two party system that we can not change and must vote against a candidate rather than vote for a better third party candidate is the reason we are stuck with it and so we receive our just desserts.

More on rationalizations
"Rationalizing that a vote for any candidate that cannot win is not a vote for Obama gives us a prime example of rationalization."

Why is it impossible for candidate X to win?

Because they won't get enough votes.

Why won't they get enough votes?

Because they cannot win.

What a nice neat circle this creates.

Incidentally, all the Obamabots over at MoveOn and Deomocratic Underground are saying that rationalizing that a vote for any candidate that cannot win is not a vote for McCain gives us a prime example of rationalization. Though perhaps not so elegantly.

Examples of the new Ugly Americans...
...Thank you professor Adams for a great lesson using illustrative examples. The image of the screaming brat and father is so accurately descriptive of the neo kommie lefties (formerly liberals) with whom this country is infested. Their desire to deprive the people of a great country of their God-given resources because of their ecotheistic or sociotheistic or just plain egotheistic beliefs has, ironically, become a destructive form of antisocialism. Lefty neo kommies, you need to stop and think before you act.

Examples of the new Ugly Americans...
...Thank you professor Adams for a great lesson using illustrative examples. The image of the screaming brat and father is so accurately descriptive of the neo kommie lefties (formerly liberals) with whom this country is infested. Their desire to deprive the people of a great country of their God-given resources because of their ecotheistic or sociotheistic or just plain egotheistic beliefs has, ironically, become a destructive form of antisocialism. Lefty neo kommies, you need to stop and think before you act.

adams is so self-righteous
does he understand that in some cases, simply inhaling peanut scent can cause an allergic reaction.

if he did some research rather than spout rhetoric he might learn something.

Food (peanut and nut) allergic reactions occurred during commercial flights but airline personnel were notified in only 33% of cases. Reactions were frequently severe, requiring medication including epinephrine. Severe reactions were primarily due to accidental ingestion, but respiratory reactions occurred from inhalation when many passengers were consuming PN. (posted April 2nd, 1999)

I've thought long and hard about this
election in November and I honestly
CAN'T vote for Obama
WON'T vote for McCain
So I WILL cast my vote for Mickey Mouse.

A vote for either of the runners is a vote for socialism and open borders. And, in either case, I just can't bring myself to vote for a democrat.

Can you imagine: Michael Barone is giving his run down, gets a paper and says, "And with 75% of the precincts in, the winner is.. {okay, who's the wise guy?} [We ARE serious Mike - that's the winner..] The winner folks is Mickey Mouse... you gotta be kidding me!"

Barack Obama on Genocide in Iraq

Genocide = the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

SUNAPEE, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/view.bg? articleid=1012561

Obama knows that the victims of a Genocide in Iraq would be the destruction of those who voted for Liberty, Freedom and the Right of the Iraq people to have a constitution and elect their own government.

Remember those women who proudly held up their purple thumbs?

Iraqi Women who for the first time in their entire life had a chance to seek freedom - women who have been victims of barbaric torture for centuries?

Those brave women will be first in the Genocide!



Bill Clinton on Genocide
In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority. Using firearms, machetes, and a variety of garden implements, Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century.

Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands.

In March of 1998, on a visit to Rwanda, President Clinton issued what would later be known as the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgment. He spoke to the crowd assembled on the tarmac at Kigali Airport: "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" in Rwanda.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide

Majority rules
this is one of the best articles I have read on TH.

We must dismantle this "tyranny of tolerance" which has been forced upon us.

Thanks Mike...and thanks Retired Geek..both of you are spot on!


Madeleine Albright on 1/2 million kids
Lesley Stahl on CBS's 60 Minutes. Madeleine Albright When asked by Stahl with regards to effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."


Democrats and Rwanda
Samantha Power was rightfully awarded the Pulitzer for her finely written and downright horrifying book "A Problem From Hell" which, in macabre detail, describes the calculated indifference of the Clinton administration when 800,000 Rwandans were being systematically butchered.

The red phone rang and rang and rang again. I don't know where Hillary was then. But her husband and his entire experienced foreign policy team - from the brass in the Pentagon to the congenitally feckless Secretary of State Warren Christopher - just let it ring.

And as more than one researcher has amply documented the case, the bloody paralysis of the Clinton administration in the face of the Rwandan genocide owed not at all to a lack of information, but rather to a lack of will. A reviewer of Power's book for The New York Times, perhaps summed it up best, saying that the picture of Clinton that emerges from this reading is that of an "amoral narcissist."


Yellow Bricks
Mike I would have taken those yellows and made a little pattern in your walkway. You could have used 4 bricks every 5 feet to make a little cross shape which IMO would have looked very nice.

Sometimes you got to make the best of what you have, as we are not always given what we want.

Selective Outrage
I share the author's sentiments about the situations described in this article. However, I find it curious that many conservatives find it acceptable to force their will on others when it comes to social issues.

It seems an inconsistent position to me when conservatives complain about being "forced" to do things they don't like, but these very same people want to turn around and force others they disagree with to give up their own rights. Just another example of how the Republican party has gone from the party of personal liberty to the puppet of the religious right.

Christianlib: re: adams is so...
I expected someone to bring up that point, and I feel for people with allergies such as those, but those people have a responsibility to take care of themselves, such as wearing a mask and making sure they have their - what are they called - epi pins? - with them. The world is a difficult place, and unfortunately, you are not entitled to "peanut-dust free air" any more than I am entitled to a "screaming-infant free flight".

christianlib
Good morning!

Hope you are doing ok out in CA.

I don't think Dr. Adams is wrong on his assessment when it comes to the lady or the peanut. The lady knows peanuts are served on the airline, and it is HER responsibility to prepare in case of an allergy attack, not the attendant's.

My cousin has a severe allergy to peanuts, yet she has never demanded different treatment when she flies, which is very frequent in her line of work. She takes her own snack, and her own meds, and is prepared if airborne dust gets to her.

Anyway, take care, and keep safe!!

christianlib
True, there are people that have severe peanut allergies.

However, when someone is extremely allergic, what should be done is that person shoule stay away from situations and places where peanuts may be present. Forcing everyone everywhere to live in accordance with their restrictions is not fair for the rest.

After all, where does it end?

There are people that are allergic to strawberries.....should we outlaw strawberries in public?

There are people extremely allergic to cats and dogs, so much so that contact with a single hair could provoke a reaction.....should we outlaw pet owners from travelling in public conveyances, out of fear that a possible hair on their clothing trigger allergic reactions in other people?

The list is endless. I say, if someone is allergic to something, #1 they need to carry medicine they can take if they come into contact with that substance, and #2, they should avoid situations and places that would bring them into contact with the offending substance. They should not get to force the public to live by their restrictions.

Adams
I got a good laugh out of this column. It does portray the attitude of many people in this country. One day we won't be able to continue on like this. One day Americans will say they've had enough. One day...

It will make little difference
whether Obama or McCain is elected. Having an "R" by his name doesn't make McCain any more fit to be president than Obama. McCain-Feingold was the single most blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation in the history of this nation. In addition, he is a Global Warmie, meaning he will restrict and tax energy use, which will result in widespread poverty and unemployment, while having exactly zero effect on climate. Energy use is what makes life for ordinary people today so much better than the lives of the rich throughout most of human history. Virtually limitless quantities of energy can be made available cheaply if it weren't for politicians.

Cia
Us conservatives draw the line on many moral issues. I see you didn't bring any specifics up, so I will not, but if certain choices are destructive to this country we are against it. I would like to hear which ones you are complaining about.

Leaders and followers
Even a leader is led and is also a follower of some principle, some goal, some standard.

Mike was fortunate, he alone was the decider in which bricks to take back, the 50 or the 450.

Much easier to handle 50 bricks than 450 of them.
Having been a Hod Carrier for Masons in my youth, hardest work I ever done, outside of putting in basements.

Now if his neighbor had a voice in the decision for which color of brick to keep, and which to take back, he might not get off taking just 50 back.

What principle is Obama following?
He is led by someone else's principles himself.
It pays to know who this man is looking to for his path to power.

So far he has promoted himself and very short on principles he is led by citing anything greater than himself.

His mentors show which path he has taken, his church, his political backers and teachers, and his financial partners.

His church preaches some strange ideas about race, what the Gospel is, and an attitude of spite against America.
This message has some power among people who hate this country, and the principles it is Founded in.

Not once have I heard him use a Founding Principle of America, for any of his stated goals for America, nor will we.
He follows the same identical principles of Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lenin.
The opposite of American Principles

No individual choices are to be recognized under his principles,he alone will make the decisions for the entire country in what our duty is for the collective to decide.

His principles give Mike's neighbor the right to decide which color of brick he lays, and which color he takes back.

Oh the horror of it all

"The night cometh"

A return to the dark ages is upon us all

Let 'em eat peanuts
Someone else has already pointed out that Mike doesn't know jack about allergies to peanuts. Besides, it's clear from his column that he's just sick and tired of all those minorities getting uppity. As for yelling passengers and whining kids on planes, my guess is that there is absolutely no correlation of these behaviors with political ideology or party. Classic si-fi author, the late Theodore Sturgeon, coined "Sturgeon's Law," which is 9/10th of everything is cr*p.

So, if someone can't eat peanuts, too effing bad, and if those crippled folks (as conservatives would probably call them) have trouble getting around, again, too effing bad. Let 'em eat peanuts!

CKHustler writes:
Subject: Adams
I got a good laugh out of this column. It does portray the attitude of many people in this country. One day we won't be able to continue on like this. One day Americans will say they've had enough. One day...

Only in our dreams.

Peanut Allergies
Yes, the woman with the peanut allergies is responsible for toting along her epi pen and taking other steps to protect herself. But her request to the stewardess really does fall into that category of protecting herself if she suffers from extremely severe reactions.


Selective Outrage or Lack of Humor?
Mike has decided to poke a little fun at the folks who lack enough common sense to understand that their actions are anything but rude or hopelessly selfish. What conservatives ask for is the free exercise of common sense sprinkled with a dash of humor. We're tired of the one, or few, dictating the policy of the many. That is liberalism at it's worst.

I told a joke in my history class and one of the 25 students, the one without any sense of humor at all, got offended and complained to my department chair. (It was a political joke.) Fortunately for me, my department chair isn't a self-serving feminist (as in Mike Adams' case) or a flaming liberal, and could see the situation for what it was - a student who had lost the ability to laugh and who wanted to preach his/her doctrine of "sensitivity" at the expense of the good humor of the majority.

Had my chair been a liberal, I could have lost my job because of the one student complaint. Is that selective outrage? Or just a lack of common sense?

LJ
You know...our DoI tells us when we should abolish our government in favor of a new one based on similar priniples. I believe, if we were to follow that advice, that day is rapidly approaching. So it may be in my dreams, but this one may come true. I hope for a peaceful transition, but I definitely think we need to abolish what we have and use our constitution to rewrite a new constitution while using our current knowledge of why our current government is failing. Cover some loopholes where possible.

But, that is all heresay and opinion so, just a youngin talking.

Hustler
I don't want to get too much into specifics here, because I don't want to derail the discussion from the contents of the article, but a couple of the issues are the legal status of some drugs and the right to end one's life when one chooses to, among others.


Priceless..
"So, if someone can't eat peanuts, too effing bad, and if those crippled folks (as conservatives would probably call them) have trouble getting around, again, too effing bad. Let 'em eat peanuts!"

There is so much wrong with this I could write a novel.

First of all, "crippled folks"? Isn't that what they are?? Oh, right, I forgot. Liberals love to call one thing, something else so they won't feel "icky".

Second, what does that have to do with a very small percent of people that are allergic to peanuts ruining it for everyone?

Oh, of course. Liberals don't want anyone to have any personal responsibilities. I'm going to complain to my boss that I am allergic to yogurt and the sight of it in the break room fridge upsets me and then demand they ban yogurt from the building.

Shouting obscenties
One time I was on a city bus, when a young began singing. I asked him to please stop. He bcame agitated and it was then clear that he was mentally ill. I simply moved to the front of the bus as far away from him as possible.

He then shouted to me from the back, including various bizarre, sexually explicit and obscene remarks. I spoke to the driver, and indicated that the man was harrassing me, and violating city by-laws regarding obscene language and disturbing other passengers. The driver said that the man was a regular passenger, on his way to the hospital for out-patient treatment, so it was OK.

The thing is, I was on the way to the same hospital for out-patient treatment of my autism, which renders me extremely sensitive to noise. However, I routinely accept that I will have to endure high noise levels as a consequence of getting cheap transportation, and only speak up if the noise is at such an extreme that I can see other passengers are also annoyed, or if it clearly violates the law.

I suggested that perhaps the driver should not focus on mental illness as an excuse for bad behavior, and simply enforce the bylaws as they exist. If the man is unable to obey the rules of riding the bus, then he should arrange other forms of transportation.

CK Hustler
With people I talk to...the day is approaching where people will finally take back their government. Literally taking to the streets. Washington is completely out of control.
And the thing is...they don't seem to know or care.

Cia
I have actually debated a long debate on the drugs policy, but I believe drugs should be illegal. If the government can provide proof that drugs are causing an increase in deaths or car accidents or anything of that nature, they can ban it for the safety of the public.

I compare it to the smoking ban here in Minneapolis. They have banned even private businesses from allowing people to smoke in their bars or restaurants etc. It has not been proven that secondhand smoking harms anyone, so even though I like the law, I believe the law to be unconstitutional.

I use that same logic when talking about many of the types of laws you would probably attribute to our selected outrage. So I hope that clears up at least one conservative's opinion on these matters.

InHisgrip!
I have felt that on this site and a couple others, but I haven't felt it during my daily life. People are getting fed up, but who is willing to act?

One worry is with our banks going down is with the government taking them over. If the government has to take control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...well, we might have skipped socialism and moved further along the path.

ModMark
You forget, conservatives want the principles of our founding fathers to be exercised once more. We want to return our policies to that of freedom instead of regulation. Abortion is hardly an issue for the national government in my opinion. Your just speaking out of your disgust for us when you mention religion and taxes. Its not our fault the government is completely incompetent with our money. They need no more than they have.

You clearly do not take an unbiased look at anything by your last post. Maybe you should start with that next time.

CKHustler
Thanks for the clarification on your position. Something strikes me as really wrong when we all but ban smoking, along with a host of other drugs, but turn a blind eye to the consequences of alcohol use. I don't think we ought to ban alcohol, but I think we need to take a long, hard look at the inconsistencies in our policies.

In general, I think legislating morality is a bad idea. No one likes to see anyone engage in self-destructive behavior, but I think intervention needs to happen on a personal level, not a government one.

Wil:
This might come as a surprise to you but not everything in life revolves around your atheism and homosexuality.

Alright
Fall in, maggots.

Will, front and center.

Now, everyone see this pathetic maggot out front?

This is what you get when you lack reading comprehension skills and your ability to use logic doesn't exist.

If you find yourself reasoning, thinking, writing and talking like little Willy here, then do us all a favor and either shut your trap or improve your skills before speaking.

Remember what Sergeant Slaughter says, "Ignorance is when ya don't know something, stupidity is when you're proud of your ignorance!"

Fall out!

CKHustler
Look, I think you're the goods bro, but,

"but I believe drugs should be illegal. If the government can provide proof that drugs are causing an increase in deaths or car accidents or anything of that nature, they can ban it for the safety of the public."

this is plain wrong. Let's take pot. Banning it has caused the exact same consequences as prohibition. It turns ordinary tax payers into felons. It spawns criminal industries. It lets the government spend millions on social programs that DO NOT WORK.

I say legalize it and let people decide for themselves if they want it or not. Enough of the government trying to legislate morality. It didn't work with booze, and it's not working now.

Cia
Point taken and in some instances I believe that to be the case as well. Its about trying to weigh public safety vs freedom. We all have different cutoff points, so there will always be discussion on these issues.

Max Power
It does come down to whether our policies are actually working. If the policy was actually competent, it would solve many problems. Problem is our policy isn't "up to snuff"(hehe) in this case.

I do see where you come from and perhaps there is a middle road. Such as you can smoke it if you like legally, but if you are found, say...robbing a bank while high, your punishment will be stiffer. This would act the same way as a deterrent while taking out the millions the government has to spend enforcing the law. It wouldn't punish the person that can use it responsibly, but would punish the people that could not.

I think there has to be a deterrent somewhere along the path for the sake of the public, but where to do it I am not sure. I haven't thought long and hard about that specific law, except in that one debate I had. Other than that, it isn't exactly high on my priority list.

50 or 450
I'm a diabetic. No one on the plane can have anything with sugar in it.

Get real....

will
I'm glad you agree, despite your political ideology, that the peanut allergy passenger was unreasonable. Unfortunately, none of the other liberals on this thread recognize the lunacy. Read the posts of Gestell and Christianlib.

I wish Dr. Adams was wrong in his assessment of the Democrats and that they had the same morals and goals as the GOP separated only by their plans of action. When so many on the left embrace (or, at least, fail to condemn) irresponsible behavior, I can't help but notice a rift of more than mere politics.

Stories
Adam's piece was very amusing and fun to read. I think it would have been even stronger if he had just let it be about American society and not trying to link it to a voting pattern. It's a safe bet some of those who recieved the Adam's treatment were Republicans but whatever.

I will say this I am a monster whenever a child starts screaming. Since I didn't make it I don't want to hear it. And I tell you this to your face. Call me whatever name you want, just realize if it was up to me I'd make you jump out of the plane with a parachute. And your little baby too!

Is Adams the Jeff Foxworthy of Townhall?
Pretty weak column.

I don't believe he brought up any relevent points regarding Obama's policies....just a whiney little rant about irritating behavior.

News flash: Conservatives are equally guilty of annoying behavior in public as well.

How bout the conservative wish to shove christianity down the throats of non-christians in public arenas such as the school system?

How bout the NRA forcing Disneyland to allow its employees to carry guns? What's the happiest place on earth without firearms? What happened to the rights of business owners?

You know you're a redneck....

If you think this is a clever column.

Gestell, please respond
I'm begging to know your solution to the peanut allergy epidemic.

So long as peanuts are consumed in any public place, exposure to their dangerous dust is inevitable. Would your sympathies for this airline passenger extend to all public venues?

Heck, we may need to ban them completely. I wonder how Jimmy Carter feels about his agricultural profession harming so many innocent lives. Then again, his presidency also harmed many people with no conseqences to his conscience.

I agree with Christopher!
But think he may be a bit of a bleeding heart to give the bad parent and bratty kid parachutes.

Most of the parents who irritate the hell outta me in public with their ill behaved snot nosed brats have republican written all over them.

Especially the home-schooled ones! They're so wild they've been let out of the dungeon, they act like crazed escaped prisoners.

We all know who the rudest
drivers are....admit it!

Those with a fish or Jesus loves me bumper sticker!

And if they still have a "W" sticker, they clearly shouldn't even be allowed to drive and it shows!

my 2 cents
Good one Mike.

Those who don't get it are suffering from a severe irony deficiency

get it?

Speaking of drugs
whatever happened to State's rights?

My more enlightened and progressive state of California legalized pot for medical use...

YOUR republican, Federal government has trampled on the will of us fine californians to arrest dying cancer patients.

Sophie
Many crimes occur at Disneyland, despite efforts to improve security. It's a large place with many rowdy people. Moreover, no private business should be allowed to restrict lawful firearm carrying. Just as the civil rights amendment prohibits discrimination from private establishments, our constitutional rights do not end at a business' boundaries.

Sophie
Back for more fun? How daring of you!

CKHustler
"I think there has to be a deterrent somewhere along the path for the sake of the public, but where to do it I am not sure. I haven't thought long and hard about that specific law, except in that one debate I had. Other than that, it isn't exactly high on my priority list."

Ahh, there's the rub. How about making it parents' responsibility to make sure their kids know the consequences of letting drugs take over theirs lives.

I'm for putting the power back in the peoples' hands for this one. The punishment for committing a crime while on drugs being stiffer is a valid idea, but other than that I'd like to see the government stay out of this.

Sophie scribbles:
Subject: I agree with Christopher!
But think he may be a bit of a bleeding heart to give the bad parent and bratty kid parachutes.

Most of the parents who irritate the hell outta me in public with their ill behaved snot nosed brats have republican written all over them.

Especially the home-schooled ones! They're so wild they've been let out of the dungeon, they act like crazed escaped prisoners.

And just what LSD-peyote-PCP induced hallucination does this crap come from ?

Hustler
I was very disappointed to see you did not admit your obvious defeat on Limbaugh's column.

Your claim that a multi-lingual country is doomed was quite thoroughly debunked.

That's not a very promising indication of a young man's maturity.

Hope you had a fun weekend though!

Max Power
Fair enough. Thanks for the criticism as well. I still have many issues I haven't thought about much and that was one of them. Im all for personal responsibility where ever possible.

Here we go...
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present your polished turd for the day....sophie!!!

Everything you posted is complete garbage.

"Most of the parents who irritate the hell outta me in public with their ill behaved snot nosed brats have republican written all over them."

Spoken like a true bigot. Burn any crosses lately?

"Especially the home-schooled ones! They're so wild they've been let out of the dungeon, they act like crazed escaped prisoners."

Were they wearing t shirts that said they were home schooled or does your tin foil hat allow you to read minds?

I guess from the number of posts you're going for quantity, not quality. Liberals do that with failed social programs too, funny...

Sophie
Yes, conservative drivers often act rudely by driving too slow. I am reasonable to admit that this is a problem (Ya' hear that folks? KEEP UP WITH TRAFFIC!!!)

That said, the liberals with the "Bring the troops home... FOR COURT MARTIAL" etc. bumper stickers weld their cellphones to their faces and drive carelessly. Worse yet, they never, ever have insurance (OK, I'm being a bit brash).

On a more serious note, having worked in my local court system for about a year, most of our DUI offenders were either rough-neck union workers out at the bar all night after work or simply unemployed freeloaders. No points for guessing their political leanings...

Please encourage your fellow liberals to drive without their cell phones and I'll goad conservatives to drive faster. Deal?

Well, if you all think it's a good idea
for Mickey to be armed in a crowded place full of children who am I to argue?

I'm sure the people they hire to fill those critter costumes are the most responsible of citizens with impeccable judgement.

ModMark writes:
Now CK..
" Your just speaking out of your disgust for us "

I shall remind you, us moderates love everyone..

This is politics, no disgust here.

You are about as moderate as Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.

Sophie
Your prejudices are showing through. We get it already, you don't like conservatives, and you absolutly (I don't know if I can say that for certain being that you are probably a moral reletivist) hate Christians. In your book, we are a bunch of hypocrite do-gooders who are just looking for a way to spoil your party. Point blank, I don't want to spoil your party if you want it that bad, I as a Christian am just trying to invite you to mine. Since you don't want to come, fine. But that is up to you, but don't get offended because I don't want to go to yours...I'm certainly not offended, sad but not bitter about it.

As for the peanut situation, if a person has an allergy and knows that it is a severe allergy, the doctor tells them to avoid those situations and to take preventative measures for the times that they can't. That woman, because she didn't prepare herself, prevented her seatmates from getting their dose of protien for the day. If you can't prepare yourself, then avoid the situations altogether that will put you around the allergen. I am allergic to grass, however, I don't demand that all grass be burned. I take my medicine and when I lay out I make sure that I am not touching grass in anyway. Breathing the pollen does cause problems for me, that is why I have an allergist that has me on Allegra D and Flonase to control the allergy so that I can function in society without inconveniencing everyone else.

CKHustler
"Im all for personal responsibility where ever possible."

Amen brother, amen....

Sophie
debunked? By your lack of examples? I still don't understand why you liberals don't want English as our national language...even though you admit we all have to learn it and use it in our everyday lives.

But that is all behind us...you are back for more America bashing as we speak, so why dwell on your past experiences, when we have new ones daily!

If a business doesn't have the right
to restrict the lawful carrying of firearms on its premises, what DO they have the right to restrict?

Being over 21, it is legal for me to consume alcoholic beverages and to smoke.

Is it unconsitutional to restrict these?

If so, Hey Moderate Mark, pass me a brewsky!

It's only 11 a.m. here, but it's gotta be after five somewhere!

Let's see what my boss has to say.

Alright
Fall in, maggots.

Sophie, front and center.

Let's see what this puke has to say:

"Most of the parents who irritate the hell outta me in public with their ill behaved snot nosed brats have republican written all over them. Especially the home-schooled ones! They're so wild they've been let out of the dungeon, they act like crazed escaped prisoners."

What the hell ya talking about, puke? Don't ya read the news and keep up on real statistics?! Sheesh, even a quick glance will show ya that homeschooled kids are better educated, have a better attitude, and are harder working than public-schooled kids in general. You're showing great pride in your ignorance here, puke!

"YOUR republican, Federal government has trampled on the will of us fine californians to arrest dying cancer patients."

What the hell ya talking about, puke? Californians have the will to arrest dying cancer patients? For what, exactly? Dying in public?

Someone maybe needs to open up a nice big can of whupass on y'all california hippie freaks!

'Nuff said!

Fall out!

More Hysteria
From sophie:

"I'm sure the people they hire to fill those critter costumes are the most responsible of citizens with impeccable judgement."

Yeah, that's who would be armed....

What a dolt....

Ha! Lack of examples!
That's rich!

I think I brought up the examples of the rich history of the gaelic language in Great Britian wee laddie!

Israel.

Middle easterners without a common language yet united in terrorism.

You claim China was successflly invaded by the Japanese because of the lack of unified language but failed to make your case laddie.

And you'd have to search hi and lo to find an instance of me america bashing.

I've been know on rare occasion to bash hypocritical right wingers.


Secondhand peanuts
Probably every bit as toxic as secondhand cigarette smoke. Won't be long before ingesting nuts will be forbidden anywhere in public and products containing nuts will soon become "socially acceptable". Mr. Peanut will go the way of the Marlboro Man and Joe Camel.

Sophie again
Please excuse my skepticism over the marijuana advocates' intentions. I'm no doctor, but somehow I doubt that modern medicine has failed to deliver an effective stomach dilator other than reefer.

My Uncle, a high-ranking Union official no less, speaks ill of Oregon's medical marijuana laws asserting that they jeopardize blue-collar workers. Operating heavy equipment while stoned is a dangerous prospect, even the unions are getting very sick of the nonsense.

Sergeant, your little schtick
is rather amusing but not in the way you think...

I doubt a real service member would act in such a juvenile way, so I imagine you're a pathetic little wannabe.

As for arresting cancer patients, the Feds did in fact arrest dying cancer patients who were in compliance with the STATE law which allowed them to produce medical marijuana.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"If a business doesn't have the right
to restrict the lawful carrying of firearms on its premises, what DO they have the right to restrict?"

Uh.....Not the constitution, forgot about that little document did ya??

I'll bet you think it's ok for a business to tell people what they are allowed to eat for lunch on their premises...

But it's the critter's CONSTITUTIONAL
right to bare arms, no?

Sophie scribbles:
Ha! Lack of examples!
That's rich!

I think I brought up the examples of the rich history of the gaelic language in Great Britian wee laddie!

Said languages were violently suppressed in Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall and Scotland. Only an underground sysem of teaching them kept them alive.

Who saved civilization in the Dark and Early Middle Ages, and how, Sophie?

BTW, Belgium is about to split into Flemish and French speaking nations. Seems the industrious Flemings are getting tired of supporting the socialist Wallons.

Tish
I didn't even bring up the peanut argument. Not really interested.

I do not hate christians. Just the hypocritical pushy ones.

Retired Geek - you are rationalizing
Rationalization is the mortal enemy of facts, logic and reason.

McCain has violated his sworn oath to defend the Constitution and the US from foreign invaders.

McCain/Feingold and McCain/Kennedy Amnesty bills both show that McCain should be impeached as a US Senator.

Just because Obama is worse, doesn't mean McCain gets my vote. Millions of soldiers haved died defending the USA and the Constitution.

I will NOT dishonor their deaths by voting for either McCain or Obama. Both should be impeached and removed from the Senate.


Sophie is Confused...
"But it's the critter's CONSTITUTIONAL
right to bare arms, no?"

Yes it is, but they are not the ones that Disney would be arming for the purpose of security.

Again, remove head from sphincter, THEN post...

Max YOU'RE the one trying to deny
American Citizen Critters the constitutional right to bear arms while they pass out balloons.

Why do you hate the constitution?

I wonder where Mickey puts the ammo...

Poor Sophie
Someone, somewhere told Sophie that she was witty and intelligent - which I frankly admit she is.

Nobody will ever make the mistake, however, of calling her "wise".

At least not until she makes wisdom, not wit, her goal.

But there is hope. She is still very, very young.

Max Power
I'm not going to agree with the stuff Sophie is saying, but it is worth pointing out that the Constitution restricts the things the Government can do, not private businesses.

Businesses routinely set their own rules for their customers. Of course, they usually stick to common sense policies so as not to lose business.

Primus54 writes:
Subject: Poor Sophie
Someone, somewhere told Sophie that she was witty and intelligent - which I frankly admit she is.

I wont. She's witless, and dull

Sophie
"How bout the conservative wish to shove christianity down the throats of non-christians in public arenas such as the school system?" QUOTE

And here we have a devout Marxist, on a conservative column no less, seeking to shove her Marxist tripe down our throats.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

WAAAAHHH!!!!
sophie's empty arguments fall to the floor with a dull thud:

"Max YOU'RE the one trying to deny
American Citizen Critters the constitutional right to bear arms while they pass out balloons.

Why do you hate the constitution?

I wonder where Mickey puts the ammo... "

So she makes lame attempts at wit and humor while projecting her disdain for the constitution on others.

I suggest you take a reading comprehension course or start watching more Sprout TV or something. It is absolutely their right to keep and bear arms, what I said was....oh nevermind, it's like talking to styrofoam...

My Boss is denying me the right
of the pursuit of happiness by not allowing me to drink at work!

Where's Mark?

I think he'll back me up!

Let's head to the Supreme Court Poste Haste!

Sophie
Businesses are expected to restrict alcohol consumption on their premises if they have no liquor licenses. This is the law. Your example is totally irrelevant.

Smoking is illegal in public establishments in my state. Even before the law came about, businesses were free to prohibit smoking since smoking is not a constitutional right like firearm possession.

Your point about Mickey Mouse being armed around kids is pure emotional demagoguery. Who cares if Mickey is armed so long as he doesn't shoot innocent civilians? Until you produce a rational counter I doubt that this debate will solve much.


Cia
"I'm not going to agree with the stuff Sophie is saying, but it is worth pointing out that the Constitution restricts the things the Government can do, not private businesses.

Businesses routinely set their own rules for their customers. Of course, they usually stick to common sense policies so as not to lose business."

Well, yes and no. The constitution does not grant rights, it acknowledges them. On an individual level. So if an individual wants to excercise his or her 2nd amendment rights and carry a concealed weapon to work, then so be it. A business does not have the right to deny someone their constitutional rights.

Ask VA Tech how that worked out for them.

You can't punish people for something they MIGHT do. If that were the case, every restaurant that served alcohol would out of business because their customers MIGHT drive home drunk.

Good Thinking
"My Boss is denying me the right
of the pursuit of happiness by not allowing me to drink at work!"

Why don't you come in drunk a couple times, see how that works out for you.

And of course Mark will back you up, his head is right next to yours in ample backside...

Sorry Mark, couldn't resist...

Lumberjack7392
Perhaps I should have said:

"Sometimes she is, when compared to most of the leftist posters..."

That better?

Cheers.


Salty Dog
I highly doubt you even know what a marxist is.

If you did, you wouldn't make such ignorant claims.

I'm not pushing any opinions, marxist or otherwise.

I thought this was a forum for debate?

Mike
This is a great article...I've been on airplanes where these things have occurred, especially the screaming child and yelling adult. I, being a self-sufficient person, put on my headphones and ignore it all. I don't know why we have become such a nation of whiners, but Sen. Gramm wasn't far off in his assessment.

Robin
AMEN!!!!! Saying such things in Washington is a crome isn't it?!?!?!

Sophie
Sorry, the peanut thing was not directed at you but at the others that were telling me that I can't eat peanuts because of someone else's irresponsibility.

However, I beg to differ about your statement about not hating Christians, every post I have seen you want to blame me as a Christian for everything wrong with this country. How about some personal responsibility?

My wife once wanted us to go...
...on a cruise with one of her sisters, her hubby and some friends. The boat, ship, vessel, whatever, was supposed to leave port, steam for a day make port in Jamaica, spend a day and steam back to Point A.

After we got aboard I explained to the crew that I don't swim so awful good and have a severe allergic reaction to drowning.

As a result the ship spent the three plus days tied to that pier and didn't go anywhere, at the end of that time they lowered the gangplank, walkway, ladder, whatever and everyone got off. Although somehow not many of them looked all that happy.

Now we finished up at exactly the same place as intended, we were even able to by some picture post cards in the gift shop along with some trinkets that said "Jamaica" on the front and "Made In China" on the bottom. Just like the ones on the island.

The extra to the whole thing was in fuel savings, not burning up all that fossil fuel. Also we cut down the risk of running over a whale or chopping up some poor little sea turtle.

My wife told me the next time me and my allergies were staying home and mowing the yard.

Max Power
I've seen a number of businesses restrict patrons from carrying firearms. Many continue to do so without being the target of legal action.

Virginia Tech is a bit of a different case. It is a government institution, funded by the tax dollars of Virginia citizens.

I'm not talking about punishing people for what they might do, but businesses have all kinds of rules. Some refuse to serve patrons who are not adequately attired. This runs the gamut from "no shirt, no shoes, no service" to refusing to seat guests who are not dressed in formal clothing, depending on the business.

Businesses in locales without strong anti-smoking ordinances often tell people where they can and cannot smoke on their premises. Costco refuses to allow patrons to make purchases with credit cards that aren't issued by Discover, etc.

Maximilian
You make some good points in your retorts to Sophie. I wonder, however, why those same principals could not be applied to legalized/ decriminalized drugs? Going back to the example of your Uncle, I would imagine that he would be equally concerned about his workers operating heavy machinery while under the influence of alcohol or prescription drugs, both perfectly legal and both commonly abused. If marijuana were regulated like alcohol and prescription drug use, would his concerns then be alleviated or would he argue that alcohol and prescription drugs should also be illegal in order to prevent the accidents possible while operating under their influence? I think Max Power's quote is perfect in this instance, "You can't punish people for something they MIGHT do. If that were the case, every restaurant that served alcohol would out of business because their customers MIGHT drive home drunk.'

Robin
That is 'crime' in English :)!

Maxim. What was I thinking?
I guess I had a paranoid idea that sometimes disgruntled workers show up to the job site and start killing people.

Thankfully THAT never happens!

And if it DID happen, what could be better than a bunch of armed confused critters opening fire randomly?

Heaven forbid one would leave it to trained security.


Nope
Don't have a clue what a Marxist is, you see I am a product of the public skuls.

I'm one of those idiots who believes in the "sky daddy"(public skuls indoctrination notwithstanding), likes my guns, my family, my country, and its constitution.

I'm one of those ignoramuses you so eloquently opine about.

SDog
YOU ARE SO BITTER! You better pray about it while cleaning your guns.

Cia
"Virginia Tech is a bit of a different case. It is a government institution, funded by the tax dollars of Virginia citizens."

Yes, VA Tech is an extreme. But if it is a government owned institution, then they have absolutely NO right to deny people that want to keep and bear arms.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Shall NOT be infringed...

The refusal to serve patrons not properly attired is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Same with smoking. Same with credit cards.

I'm talking about the second amendment where our right to keep and bear arms is directly addressed.

ModMark
"I may request a photo of that ample backside to judge if this is an insult...

I will freely admit to all, I do love a nicely shape female *ss.

Shall we discuss breast?"

touche'...

The 2nd amendment is sacrosant?
If there is to be no regulation or infringement of the right to bear arms, then it is "unconstitutional" to deny gun lisenses to the mentally ill or challenged or felons for that matter.

We can't punish them for what they might do afterall? Regardless of mental impairments or previous history.

Right?

Don't forget the "well regulated" part
Max Dear!

That leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation.

Do you think the forefounders considered furry critters militia?

Stupie writes:
Subject: Maxim. What was I thinking?
I guess I had a paranoid idea that sometimes disgruntled workers show up to the job site and start killing people.

Thankfully THAT never happens!

And if it DID happen, what could be better than a bunch of armed confused critters opening fire randomly?

Heaven forbid one would leave it to trained security.

Give me one example where a bunch of armed confused critters opening fire randomly. Concealed carry permits require firearms training, safety trainig, and background checks before they can e issued.

Even More Hysteria
From sophie:

"I guess I had a paranoid idea that sometimes disgruntled workers show up to the job site and start killing people."

Yeah those places are called "Gun Free Zones". Ask VA Tech how well those signs protected them...

"And if it DID happen, what could be better than a bunch of armed confused critters opening fire randomly?"

Here's the hysteria, rather than see she hasn't a leg to stand on she throws out this nonsense as if it's a legitimate statement. the only one saying Disney is going to arm the folks in the costumes is her, but it's supposed to be reality...

"Heaven forbid one would leave it to trained security."

Ok, we'll just ask the criminal to put a hold on his spree until security arrives, bad guys with guns are usually pretty reasonable, right??

LeftRudyRight
Your reasoning presents a crucial flaw: working under the influence of alcohol is illegal. Employers do not have the same recourse against the marijuana users as the drunks. Alcohol is not being touted as a medical remedy.

The science surrounding medical marijuana's benefits is sketchy at best. As previously mentioned, stomach dilation is not so complicated that alternatives to pot can't possibly exist. In my state, the weed-advocates also encourage its use to combat a myriad of afflictions such as depression. It's a sorry excuse plain and simple.

You do have a point with the prescriptions drugs. Many are very dangerous and must be carefully regulated.

Tish
I don't blame christians. I like and respect most.

It's the 10% or so who give you folks a bad name.

Unfortunately that 10% tends to be part that gets the attention (Dobson, Falwel, Robertson, etc...)

No No...
"If there is to be no regulation or infringement of the right to bear arms, then it is "unconstitutional" to deny gun lisenses to the mentally ill or challenged or felons for that matter."

This is more hysteria. We already have laws on the books regarding this.

"We can't punish them for what they might do afterall? Regardless of mental impairments or previous history"

"That leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation.

Do you think the forefounders considered furry critters militia?"

No interpretation necessary, like I said, we already have laws regarding mentally ill or criminals...

YAAAAWN....

Your hysteria is getting kinda boring, got anything else??

Max Power
The Constitution does not protect your rights from business owners, it protects them from the government. Now, Congress can pass laws that bind businesses by the same rules, but they have not in the case of gun rights.

Under your argument
Max those laws are unconsitutional.

Sophie
Talk about grasping at straws. Could you bring up any more senseless situations for us? Perhaps you would like to bring up a situation in which a superhuman came flying into Disneyland and our confused critters open fire on the roller coaster. I think thats about the sense of your stories, so Ill stick by that one.

Uh...
"Under your argument however the critters have the consitutional right to bring arms to work."

They DO...

"I prefer my critters unarmed. Disney does as well. It's their right to regulate their employees."

First, who cares what you prefer? Second, it is NOT their right to deny people their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

"Plus, if they're unarmed, when Goofy gives me a hug and grabs my shapely a$$$, I'll KNOW it ain't a gun in his pocket!"

Huh, you and a dog....why am I not surprised?? C'mon, you're making this too easy...

Maximilian
I think I may not have presented my point clearly enough. The point I was trying to make was that these drugs should be regulated exactly the way we regulate alcohol. If that were the case, employers would have the same recourse as they do now with drunks. I'm not trying to make a case for medicinal marijuana, I'm not a scientist and I agree that many of those advocating the legalization of medicinal marijuana seem to have a higher that average chance of wearing Eau d'Patchouli, but it doesn't seem to make any sense to legalize and regulate alchohol and not do the same with other drugs.

Cia
"The Constitution does not protect your rights from business owners, it protects them from the government. Now, Congress can pass laws that bind businesses by the same rules, but they have not in the case of gun rights."

So you're saying that a businesses rules supercede the constitution?

Sophie, give it up
The Supreme Court rule in the Second Amendment's favor. Your militia argument is null and void.

The mentally ill often have their rights curtailed when they represent a danger to themselves and others. This applies to more than just gun rights.

Felons also have certain rights diminished. This hardly contradicts the conservative agenda which is much tougher on criminals.

Since We're
throwing out crazy scenarios, what if sophie and her group were accosted by armed men waiting to ride Space Mountain.

And Donald Duck came over and shot the bad guys.

How much you wanna bet she would want him arrested?

Sophie 3:09
Is this directed at me or Max Power?

Max Power
"So you're saying that a businesses rules supercede the constitution?"

No, what I'm saying is the Constitution only covers the sphere of government. It is completely silent about how people relate to each other or how they relate to corporations.

What Congress has done is enact laws that protect citizens from having their rights violated by private parties, such as discrimination in employment or housing. But I'm not aware of any similar extension of gun rights.

Cia
"What Congress has done is enact laws that protect citizens from having their rights violated by private parties, such as discrimination in employment or housing. But I'm not aware of any similar extension of gun rights."

Ok, understood, but private parties do not get to pick and choose which parts of their country's constitution they get to agree with. And if it's the government's job to protect our inalienable rights, then it's not up to the government to pick and choose which parts of the constitution THEY get to protect.

They are either our rights or they are not. Now I agree there needs to be a measure of common sense when applying these rights, but the constitution is the law of the land and no one is above it. Not private parties, not corporations, and absolutely not the government.

LeftRudyRight
Fair enough.

I believe that marijuana produces stronger, more permanent effects than moderate and even severe alcohol consumption. Its increased potency over the years renders its light-drug status questionable. My opinion is shared by the majority of lawmakers and hopefully the citizenry which is why the ban stands.

Ultimately Americans must decide for themselves if marijuana is harmful enough to eliminate. Legalization proponents should stick to the basics: arguing that it's a safe enough recreational drug to lie within the realm of personal responsibility. These cancer sob-stories amount to emotional pandering.

Salt is not bitter
It is salty, like truth it preserves. Salt has a sting to corruption, so it seems corruption would perceive it as bitter.

Maximillian
either, but specifically Max's

Either there can be some reasonable regulation of the 2nd amendment or there cannot.

If the "shall not be infringed" is taken literally, waiting periods, background tests (for mental stability or criminal record), mandatory training, etc.. are all unconstitutional.

The lisense itself is unconstitutional.

Max, man you're hurting me...
...here. You've got me backed into a corner where I have to agree with Sophie. Sort of.

As a big believer in private property rights, I as a small business owner make my rules. Now we don't have any specific "No Firearms" policy here and half the pickups in the parking lot probably have a shotgun behind the seat, but if I wanted that to change it's my call. I won't because I really don't see any reason to but then again we aren't exactly Disney Land either.

Now I can see where Mickey shouldn't need an elephant gun, so it being a free country if the employees have a problem not being armed they can work someplace else but the owner sets these rules.

You can't tell me whether or not I can own a firearm, but you have every right to tell me I can't carry one onto your property.

Cia
When congress passed the Civil Rights amendment, it established a precedence that constitutional principles can apply to the private sector. Therefore, restricting firearm carrying by law-abiding employees or customers (as Costco underhandedly attempted) is not only unenforceable, it's illegal.

Max Power
"They are either our rights or they are not. Now I agree there needs to be a measure of common sense when applying these rights, but the constitution is the law of the land and no one is above it. Not private parties, not corporations, and absolutely not the government."

What you've expressed is your interpretation or ideal of the way it ought to work, but that's not how it works in practice. Corporations routinely perform all sorts of things that might be classified as unreasonable searches, or exclude people they don't want to hire or do business with.

Most limit these to common sense kinds of things, because nobody wants bad press. But there are plenty of examples of groups that do things the government could never get away with.

Maximilian
"I believe that marijuana produces stronger, more permanent effects than moderate and even severe alcohol consumption. Its increased potency over the years renders its light-drug status questionable. My opinion is shared by the majority of lawmakers and hopefully the citizenry which is why the ban stands."

The first part is wrong:
http://blog.austindefense.com/2006/10/articles/marijuana-co ntrolled-substances/marijuana-vs-alcohol-which-is-harmful/

The second part is half right. But law-makers are not qualified to declare anything unsafe unless it is supported by scientific data, which it is not in this case according to the CDC.

And as for the majority of the citizenry, you may be right about that, but just do a Google on "movement to legalize pot" and you'll see every state in the republic has one.

The intentions are good, but the road to hell....

Maxim
you are quite wrong about medical pot. There is substantial medical evidence of its benefits for many terminal patients most notably cancer victims.

Many can get pain under manageable control with pot when they would need mass, incapacitating amounts of opiates to do the same.

It is also beneficial for increasing apetite, especially for those undergoing radiation.

You've clearly never seen someone die a painful drawn out death.

Otherwise I don't think you'd be so quick to lightly dismiss their "sob story".

Although I will admit it was prescribed a bit liberally. My brother got some for back problems. Good Stuff!

Sophie
Restrictions on the mentally ill and felons apply to many constitutional rights not just guns. Due to their inadequacies, volitional or otherwise, they do not enjoy the rights of ordinary citizens.

If this qualifies as "reasonable firearm regulation", then so be it. Mind you, the DC ban was neither reasonable nor was it regulation.

Cia
"Most limit these to common sense kinds of things, because nobody wants bad press. But there are plenty of examples of groups that do things the government could never get away with."

And do you think this is right?

BTW, I'm enjoying the debate, thanks...

Yeah Max!
What about property rights!

You tell em Leroy!

Maximilian
I completely agree with your second paragraph. I would have you note that in states were marijuana initiatives on the ballot have succeeded, the people decided and they were promptly ignored by the federal government. As for your first paragraph, again I'm no scientist, but the long term effects of marijuana use vs alcohol are debatable. What constitutes moderate or sever consumption of either one? What's worse, liver failure or lung problems (which would be a non-issue if the MJ is eaten and certainly hasn't made cigarettes illegal)? But the short term dangers are clear. One can absolutely drink themself to death in a very short period of time (binge drinking leading to alcohol poisoning), yet I have never heard of a case of a marijuana OD leading directly to death. As much as the cancer sob-stories amount to emotional pandering, so do the 'for the kids' arguments for keeping most drugs, especially marijuana, illegal.

Maxim
I wasn't talking about the DC ban in specific. Frankly I agree with the ruling.

I do however get irked when the NRA fights ANY regulation of the gun industry.

Either there is reasonable regulation or there is not.

and reasonable of course is up for debate.

But to stand by "no infringement" literally would mean lisenses are technically unconsitutional.

Oh Come on now, Fabius
you know the unknown answer!

Money!

There's money to be made by the 'good guys' too.


Maximilian
"When congress passed the Civil Rights amendment, it established a precedence that constitutional principles can apply to the private sector. Therefore, restricting firearm carrying by law-abiding employees or customers (as Costco underhandedly attempted) is not only unenforceable, it's illegal."

I don't recall anyone bringing legal action against Costco, nor the company being cited for violating its employee's civil rights.

Incorporation (as the process of applying Constitutional provisions to the states via the 14th Amendment is known) is usually done through the courts. Someone must bring a suit alleging a violation of those rights and then the court must rule in their favor.

As I've said, I don't know of any such case.

Sophie
I prefer chiropractic to pot.

You might refrain from presuming what my own life experiences and perhaps I'll treat you to the same decency.

Marijuana increases hunger because it dilates the stomach. Forgive me for doubting that modern medicine can't produce the same effect more safely.

I'd also exhibit less skepticism if the legalization advocates did not push such a slippery slope of other conditions which pot magically alleviates.

Bottom line: if marijuana makes people have fun and feel cool without seriously harming others, then use that as the argument for legalization. Don't tout this idiot-maker drug for its cure-all hocus-pocus. Snake oil is already abundant. If any more is produced, the genus will soon be extinct.

leroy and sophie
Ahhh...finally the counter-point I was waiting on...Figures a conservative would be smart enough to see it.

Yes, property rights come first. BUT I will ask you, where does it end? Do you get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution to follow? Do you get to decide whether or not your employees get to speak freely on your property? Do you see what I'm saying? You don't want your employees to bring guns into your building why? Because they MIGHT shoot someone?

Then give up your car keys next time you go to a restaurant that has booze.

But yes, if someone wanted to come into my home and they were armed, I have a right to refuse them entry.

Oh and sophie, you must be dumber than a bag of doorknobs not to see this...

More Stupidity
"You know, that *&$% umpire that called my kid out when he was safe by a mile?...I'll show him.... "

Same old crapola from the left.

Just Google Kennesaw GA, crime goes down with more gun ownership....

Got anything else except intellectual dishonesty?

Cia
Courts often don't rule in favor of gun rights. My point is they should.

I hope the Disneyland workers win their case. It will be another historic victory for the US constitution.


Max Power
I've been enjoying the debate as well.

To be honest, I don't know if it's right. The way I see it, it's a collision of the rights of two groups: the right of a business owner to set rules for his business and to govern his property, and the right of a potential customer to carry his weapon.

How do you decide whose right is more important? The whole reason for having a social contract is that we give up some rights to protect others. In this case, neither has ceded the rights he is claiming. I don't think either should have to.

Most sensible business owners should realize that trying to force people to disarm themselves while doing business with you is going cause you to lose customers and damage your reputation. An armed customer might just save you from a robbery attempt; you never know.

I don't think most people are going to make a fuss over a guy with a concealed carry permit carrying a gun most people don't even know is there. It's probably the public display of firearms that makes people nervous more than anything else. Too many people in this country are afraid of guns as an abstract idea.

ModMark
Not surprised you're in sophie's corner, you shouldn't be such a lap dog ya know...

The constitution doesn't say anything about going topless or whatever. In some cases it should be a felony (think Rosie O'Donnell)...

The constitution DOES say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If it's the government's responsibility to protect our rights, then shouldn't it protect all of them?

Cia
There's nothing to debate about your last post, I agree...

Maximilian
I know where you're coming from. I'm a gun rights supporter, but I'm not sure if compelling a private property owner to put up with something he doesn't want to is the answer here.

Cia
"I'm not sure if compelling a private property owner to put up with something he doesn't want to is the answer here."

This is the heart of the issue, I'm not sure there is a good solution.

ModMark
I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just putting out an argument. So far property rights is the only valid counter-point.

Everything else has been hysterical nonsense which tells me most people on the left have no idea what they are talking abut when it comes to gun rights and gun ownership.

ModMark
"Snap...Ahhhh"

That could either be the sound of a coworker's waistband in which case I don't want to know what the ahhhh is, or the sound of a bottle of fine beer being opened and enjoyed...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

Max Power
Actually, as I said, we don't have a policy one way or the other. A few weeks ago one of the welders out in the shop was showing off an SKS he had bought, it never crossed my mind as being unusual but then I can see why bank tellers might see it a little differently.

As to speaking freely, well I guess it all depends on what they're saying now doesn't it? You telling me that you work someplace where there's absolutely nothing you can say that will get you fired?

As far as your business, it's no different than your home. You own it, it's yours and you make the rules, unless you have partners nobody else gets a vote, it is not a democracy it is your business. People want to make the rules on how they think the business should be run, great, let them start their own.

And as to picking and choosing which parts of the constitution to follow, do you mean like freedom of association? Well I guess so because if you want to associate with someone during work hours then it needs to be another employee right?

Gestell/Sophie
No serious gun-rights advocate demands anarchy. Certain restrictions to our constitutional rights. The first amendment is a good example (no yelling "fire" in a theatre, no presidential assassination talk - I know many liberals who just HATE this). The NRA supports reasonable firearm ownership regulations (no felons, no WMDs, etc.). Frankly, the comment about shooting the umpire was illogical rhetoric. If you make such loaded assertions, don't be surprised by rude responses.

And Gestell, you still haven't responded to my 1:39 post, how disappointing.




Also....
Even property rights have a limit, otherwise Eminent Domain would not be an issue.

Max Power
I just mentioned this thread to a lawyer buddy of mine here in Philly and he sent me the exact same link as you posted earlier (3:39 PM). He's a huge Simpsons fan and I notice you're also posting from PA. You wouldn't happen to be a real estate lawyer from Philly with a penchant for fine whisky and cigars, would you?

Cia
I have enjoyed debating you and appreciate your points.

Many business owners take exception to serving certain ethnicities. I find denying the rights of gun owners to be equally contemptible since responsible firearm ownership is no more dangerous than skin pigment. Whether the civil rights law can be justified on legal grounds remains debateable. Since it is the law of the land, I see no reason not to apply it to other constitutional rights. Private property is sacred but by no means sovereign.

leroy
You'll get no argument from me regarding property rights. If you had a business and some employees started talking union, you should be able to can all of them if you wanted to.

If they started showing up naked you should be able to can them.

If they started waving guns around and they knew it was against the rules then you should be able to can them.

But what if one of them had a small pistol in a concealed holster and you never knew it was there and he ended up saving you with it one day at work. Would you can him?

Max Power
I agree that even property rights have limits but, man, the recent eminent domain abuse (Kelo decision) is scary.

LeftRudyRight
Well I love Whisky and fine cigars, and I am a huge Simpsons fan. But I am not a lawyer...

The fellow you describe gives me hope that not all lawyers sleep in coffins and rise with the moon....

Maximilian
Well maybe that's why the 2nd Amendment is so valuable...

Max Power 4:32
You do address a good point that businesses don't have the right to enforce their anti-gun rules. Frisking employees and customers is illegal except under very unique circumstances. Americans who don't brandish their firearms carelessly have little to fear other than symbolic frustration.

Maximilian
I've really enjoyed the discussion too. You've made me think about some things I hadn't really considered before.

Gun owners are an easy group of people to demonize in this country, especially in areas that lean heavily liberal. They own dangerous things that people fear and don't understand, and it's not an attractive thing to advocate for, unlike other popular causes in the US. But it was one of the most important things our Founders considered.

Maybe it was the experience of that founding generation that kept the Constitution quiet about how people should relate to each other when rights came into conflict. They'd just broken away from tyrannical regime and their biggest fear was of government, not their neighbors. That's how you know things have really changed.

Maximilian
"Americans who don't brandish their firearms carelessly have little to fear other than symbolic frustration."

I guess that's a big part of the problem too. The mere sight of a gun makes some people jump to ridiculous conclusions about the person carrying it.

Max Power
Unfortunately, I don't think he sleeps very much at all. I'm not sure what part of PA you hail from so I don't know how closely you'd be following this case, but he's working on the casino issue here in Phila. On account of you taking Max Power as your screen name (unless it is your real name, which would be, to borrow from some of my pathcouli wearing friends, totally awesome), I will now start referring to him as either Rembrandt Q. Einstein, Hercules Rockefeller, or Handsome B. Wonderful.

Cia
"Maybe it was the experience of that founding generation that kept the Constitution quiet about how people should relate to each other when rights came into conflict."

Maybe, but maybe they were hoping people would be able to take personal responsibility for their actions and any government intervention wouldn't be necessary.

LeftRudyRight
I'm just outside of Philly.

And sadly it is not my real name...

Max Power
I agree, and I think that might be why it went without saying. I don't think they ever envisioned the victimhood that has overtaken America.

Max, somehow I think...
...you might be missing something here.

The lady who does the books and helps keep us afloat has her CCL and I have no doubt that she's got that Smith&Wesson in her purse most if not every day.

For the type of work going on it would be akward for someone to have a small arm strapped to them, but as we have no rules regarding it then, no I wouldn't can someone over a firearm. But seeing how welding machines, cutting torches, grinders and gun powder don't play well together me and the guys might have to have a little safety discussion if they start walking around decked out like John Wesley Hardin.

However, if you own a company and have a policy against possesing a firearm at work and discover an employee has broken that policy it is up to you how you handle it.

Alright
Fall in, maggots.

Modmark, front and center.

Listen up everyone, what you have in front of you now is a little pissant who's a prime example of the pathetic and tasteless nothings that many so-called moderates tend to be.

Too afraid to make a stand and choose a side, they would rather blow with the wind and go where it takes 'em.

Eventually, that's all they're able to do: blow.

Go on, ya little pissant. Blow for all it's worth.

Ah, hell, now I'm disgusted even talking about ya.

'Nuff said!

Fall out!

leroy
In such cases where carrying a gun presents a unique danger, certain rules are fine. The workers rights would be properly accomodated by an employer-provided gun locker. This would enable employees to protect themselves during their commute especially to or from a bad neighborhood.

Thanks for a great debate, everyone!

Colleges...
...I work at a small college and this sounds very familiar. The "squeaky wheel always gets greased" and the students know it. Our spineless president plays right along.

leroy
In such cases where carrying a gun presents a unique danger, certain rules are fine. The workers rights would be properly accomodated by an employer-provided gun locker. This would enable employees to protect themselves during their commute especially to or from a bad neighborhood.

Thanks for a great debate, everyone!

Christian Lib: Mike Failed Peanut Resear
No, No, No! It was you, Christian Lib! You missed the point. If you can't tolerate peanuts, you are free to drive! You are not free to limit the rights of everyone else. Did the peanut intolerant passenger not know ahead of time? Then it was he/she that failed to reseach ... not professor mike!
WHAT A TWIT!

Ah Slaughter is Cuddly Curtal?
I should have guessed!

I could tell that Sergeant was pretend military...A little over the top, no?

That curtal sure does like playing make believe doesn't he?

leroy
No I'm not missing anything. I'm agreeing with you. Your company, your rules.

Speaking of critters
do ya'll know there is a group of people with a certain little fetish where they dress up in furry animal costumes to have sex?

They even have a name - "furries" and social clubs...

Now Sophie has been around the block, but even she can't get her mind around THAT concept!

Sorry - Off Topic!

Goes to show that humans are a strange species.

The dry cleaning bill has got to be murder!


yeah right
Sophie writes: Monday, July, 14, 2008 1:43 PM
"We all know who the rudest
drivers are....admit it!

Those with a fish or Jesus loves me bumper sticker!

And if they still have a "W" sticker, they clearly shouldn't even be allowed to drive and it shows!"

Why do you post here? The fact that you insist on posting here proves the point of the article. The only reason you show up here is to thumb your nose in the faces of people you know disagree with you. I'm not saying liberals shouldn't post here, and many do and make good arguments, but your posts are just silly, stupid, insulting crap. I love how you start your post by saying "admit it". Like were all secretly thinking "oh we know were the rude people." I've been a teacher for almost 10 years, and it's clear who the liberals and conservatives are. When a student misbehaves at school the conservative parent disaplines the kid, the liberal parent defends the kid and blames me for their kid's behavior. Narcissism is so much more prevelant in liberals. They can't stand the thought of their kid not being perfect because it means they're not perfect. The fact that you come here and make insulting statements towards people who you know don't share your worldview shows your narcissism. You know your not going to change people's minds, but you come here anyway because it's all about you. If all you want to do is take silly shots at conservatives the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org are out there for you. This is a conservative forum so I doubt most here are just going to "admit it".

Sophie...
...for crying out loud.

Will you stop putting those kinds of mental images into my head this late in the day. Or even early in the morning don't do that.

Furry animal costumes, what in the world do you read to come up with some odd ball information like this? On second thought, don't tell me.


"Furries"....oh man.....

OK
sophie your post at 5:54

ok that was a little funny....

Right on Scott!
Great post! You are so right...I taught school until I became so sick of the liberal parents wanting us to do their job for them, I went into the business sector. By the way, I have one of those fish on my car, Sophie...and I put one on my visor to remind me not to thumb my nose at people like you, so please be sure to have a great day!

Oh lighten up Scott!
I provide comic relief. It's my generous liberal nature that makes me do such a thoughtful thing.

Had you ever heard of "furries"?

I wish I could say I was making that up!

Remember the Article?
I have been fascinate by the string of comments. By the way, property rights (home or business) are infringed ALL THE TIME - such as covenanted communities (no basketball hoops, certain paint colors) and civil ordinances (weeds, abandoned vehicles, ADA laws, Civil Rights laws, zoning). There are LOTS of prohibitions and requirements for "private" businesses, and NO, you don't have the right to ignore those laws just because the business is your "private property". Having said that, as a big supported of gun rights, I am appalled that a non-security Disney employee (in costume or out) could bring a concealed weapon to work. All patrons are screened and would be denied access even if they had a CCP. I'm not afraid that someone will go "nuts"; that could happen anywhere... I just don't think it is appropriate.

Oh, yeah!
Great article! The whole idea was just like "you might be a liberal if..."

Sophie writes:
"my dog is smarter than your president"

"My garden statue of St Francis of Asissi is amarter than Sophie."

correction
smarter

Disney ban
I guess a little research pays off... an employee only wants to keep the gun in the locked car in the employee parking lot, NOT on the park grounds. The employee (and Florida law) only protect the employee's rights to store the gun in the car if the employee has a CCP.