We knew that Obama campaigned on change. Now we know that he was referring to his policy positions.

Right! Something had to be done to plug all those holes and keep his drivel from dribbling out. Now if only something could be done about the bigger problem of keeping it from spewing out of his mouth.

I’d be willing to give Biden the benefit of the doubt and say he has a point. But nobody has any idea what the blazes it could be, least of all him.

For one thing, they’ll all vote Democrat.

I guess “gender inequities” is the new Progressive euphemism for rape on college campuses. Go ahead and scream, “Help! I’m being gender-inequitied!” Unwittingly, Salazar was right in one sense when he said a woman doesn’t always know for sure if she is going to be raped. For example, she might (also or instead) be robbed and murdered. But we all know one thing: a firearm can make-up for the usual “gender inequity” of physical strength or for a weapon wielded by an attacker.

… police officers carry guns to initiate offensive attacks and acts of intimidation. He could not get himself to admit the former.

The chief error that the “PC” Police Chief James made was to define the term "offensive weapon” too narrowly. He implied that a gun is an “offensive weapon” because it is designed to cause injury or potential death, or to intimidate someone with the prospect of these outcomes. (It would be amusing to have him define a defensive “weapon.”) He did not consider the situation in which a weapon could be used – either to initiate an attack or to deter or stop one – until he started talking about why police officers have guns. Then he had a dilemma. He either had to admit that citizens could also use a gun defensively to “face any oppositions” (that is, to defend themselves against attack by violent criminals) or let stand the impression that

Toure accuses liberals of bias against blacks. It is liberals who starting “talking about” gun control. We don’t know if liberals would be talking about gun control if Adam Lanza had killed black kids. But it’s safe to say that, whatever Toure is “talking about,” he will bring race into it.

I’m sure he does -- not! These politicians get rich spending our money.

... it this way, we [the people] are the richest nation in the history of the world. We [the people] are now the richest nation in the world. We [the people] have the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we [the people] are so rich, why are we [the government] so broke? Is it a spending problem? No.”

It “kind of begs the question,” What do you mean “we,” Harkin? Harkin equivocates in his use of the pronoun “we.” What he really means is the government can’t be broke as long as people can be taxed more. Below, the bracketed insertions in his quote make plain how he uses “we” in two different ways: “First of all, I want to disagree with those who say we [the government] have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we [the government] have a spending problem. And when they talk about that, it’s like there’s an assumption that somehow we [the government] as a nation are broke. We [the government] can't afford these things any longer. We [the government] are too broke to invest in education and housing and things like that. Well look at