Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-04-27 at 1.58.13 PM
Your host at work.


  • ***


« | Main | A Dear Caught in the Spotlight »

November 27, 2015


Shaun Appleby

Amen. And ditto for the media whose business model enshrines suckerhood.


This incident is going to ground up and regurgitated by the right-wing wurlitzer. Blame will goto President Obama and the ginned up war on cops, the attack shall be made understandable becuase of the righteous anger at Planned Parenthood, and finally since the domestic terrorist is a white male the ultimate whitewash shall be blaming mentl health.

The Republicans and conservative hate machine will be free of guilt and go right back to producing these Right-wing domestic terrorists.


The media needs to quit referring to him as a "gunman" and call him what he is: a terrorist.

Peter G

Hmm. I'm watching MSNBC right now and like CNN and all the other major news sources they refuse to speculate on what the motives of the shooter might be. Just like they did over the recent events in Paris right? I'm serious. They are waiting for some official statement of motive as if that will explain or justify these terrorist acts. It's like watching the Republican Party try to figure out how to deal with Trump. The underlying logic is the same. There.are a lot of viewers they don't want to offend by stating the obvious.


It's hard to beat the "liberal" NYT, sometimes called the "paper of record," for pure cowardice. There are two mentions of surreptitious videos of PP officials discussing fetal organs and a click-through, but nowhere is it mentioned the videos were edited to make them highly misleading.

Liberals like to think of wingnuts as being in a bubble. A more useful alternative is a feedback loop. Conservatives pay most attention to the "news" that feeds their prejudices, which increases the slant to attract their attention, they become more outraged, and so on to delusion and beyond. It's not just the candidates that are at fault, it's the entire Republican and conservative political structures including the think tanks, media outlets and others.

David & Son of Duff

"It is wise for the police not to speculate."

And therefor unwise for you to do so!

Peter G

Why? It never stopped you. What do you think David? That this guy was a crazed Muslim terrorist determined to attack American freedoms? Or do you want to play the odds and go with Christian terrorist? Either way it is terrorism. Also either way it is a bit of a problem for the right wing nutters who've been demonizing PP and promising to shut down the government over its funding. They can't really condemn these murders without risk of offending the Trumpists for whom this would be cause for celebration. In any event they will attempt to evade responsibility by arguing this guy is just an armed nut and not a Christian armed nut for whom Chritians need not be required to apologize. Then all they have to do is explain why they don't want to do anything about nuts having access to assaul rifles either.


Televised infotainment is brought to us by media conglomerates. Ignoring Newscorp (Fox) leaves Comcast, Time-Warner and Disney. They aren't going to upset Christians, gun owners, or people who generally support corporations or "conservative values." The protests and boycotts of the '80's and '90's already won that battle. PBS is now commercial and no better.

David & Son of Duff

Oh, alright then, Peter, since you encourage me I will try my hand at some speculation:

It is wise for the police not to speculate. Meanwhile, all reasonable people can hang this crime around the harpy neck of President Obama, the serpentine throat of 'HillBilly', the vile chords of Eric Holderand the entire, immensely irresponsible Democrat Party -- which has become an accomplice to domestic terrorism.

How was that?


I'm torn between brainlessly childish and childishly brainless.

The Dark Avenger

Conservatism and the cult of Our Lady of the Shopkeepers, what else could you expect?


Between April 2009 and February 2015 “more people have been killed in America by non-Islamic domestic terrorists than jihadists.”


Maybe Duff will tell us how he's superior to said Lady.

The Dark Avenger

And Eric Holder is no longer the A.G. of the United States, but when has David ever been concerned with reality?


Actually, we don't have to quibble about this. Terrorism is given a precise definition in U.S. law:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 113B › section 2331

The Raven

This turns out to be what is called "stochastic terrorism." (It has a name. I used to call it trolling for crazies.) So do we outlaw that?


It would be more effective if, instead of simply repurposing the quote verbatim with democratic names, you made even a pro forma effort to explain how they have encouraged domestic terrorism. Otherwise it just looks lazy.

I'll get you started, reimagine every recent incident of assault rifle wielding madman attacking Planned Parenthood, mosques, schools, kindergartens etc as scary black teenagers launching frontal attacks on police stations. Once you get yourself worked up into a good lather with this alternate reality, explain to me why the democratic rhetoric about race and policing in America is so dangerous.

After that exercise all you have to do is read insert reality, replace democratic names with Republicans, and you're well on your way toward sanity

David & Son of Duff

@ Bob:

"I'm torn between brainlessly childish and childishly brainless."
Would that be the original or my effort?

@ DA:

I'm aware that Holder went but I couldn't remember the name of the lady and anyway, he was in the job for six years so he deserve most of the blame for the sorry state of the States.

@ Eric:

"It would be more effective if, instead of simply repurposing the quote verbatim with democratic [Republican] names, you made even a pro forma effort to explain how they have encouraged domestic terrorism."
Perhaps, Eric, you might care to pose the same question to our distinguished host!

The Dark Avenger

Well, David, you could've used the Wikipedia to find out again, but then problems with short-term memory are to be expected with people in your age group, especially since the leeches in Malaysai seemed to have drained you of all your common sense as well as some of your blood when you were there.

David & Son of Duff

You may be surprised to know, DA, that I do have other things to do with my time and pinpointing every deadbeat pol in the USA is not high on my list of priorities - not least because there are so many of them. But there again, you always do things bigger 'over there'.


@ David

Your effort. You know, we've had a lot of fun over Duff Beer, but I'd like to think we've grown past political correctness and can be more direct. The name of the beer was derived from the idiomatic expression "sitting on your duff" where "duff" equals "ass":

Now don't you feel better having that aired out?


He wouldn't know reality from a hand full of pills washed down with Merlot, but he's not concerned. The chicken-and-egg aspect is interesting, though.


We probably couldn't do anything about the web, but it would help to have the Fairness Doctrine back for broadcast outlets. Do you think Reagan's Robots knew what would happen when they killed it?

David & Son of Duff

Oh dear, Bob, even you can usually do better than that - 'E' for Effort is all I can give you!


Well its his blog and so I don't expect him to make constant internal references to points he has raised before; eg stoking peoples hatred of PP with increasingly hysterical and often fabricated rhetoric (see for example: Carly Fiorina's entire contribution to this discussion) is a dangerous game that can end in violence.

So, I'm willing to connect the dots between his past statements and his most recent post because there is a logical consistency there. I remain, however, endlessly interested in how you pin right wing nuts shooting up planned parenthood clinics on Clinton, Obama, and Holder?

All ears buttercup


You're generous with the vote of confidence, but the parallel really couldn't be improved.

The Dark Avenger

Well, David, you might as well have a template with 'Ol' Big Ears', Lorretta
Lynch, the Hillarybilly and the rest of your tiresome, epicene insults so that the next time a conservative does something untoward, you are already to go and you don't have to strain the dozen or so neurons left in your frontal lobe when composing your latest screed.


How long will our leaders stay silent and not call them what they are:

Radical Christian Terrorists
Radical CHRISTIAN Terrorists

Only when they call it what it is will this end.


Anne J

Of course the party of personal responsibility won't apologize or issue any statement of shame for the violence they helped create. When they speak of personal responsibility, they always mean yours or mine, but never their own. They're already on their usual stigmatize-the-mentally-ill mode. It's like auto pilot to them now.

David & Son of Duff

Morning all!

@ Jeff:
You ask "How long will our leaders stay silent and not call them what they are?"
I would hazard a guess that it will be as long as it takes for 'Ol' Big Ears' to tell us that it is *Muslim* terrorists who slaughter people en masse whenever and wherever possible.

@ Anne:
After 51 years of marriage I do realise that there is a difference between male and female logic but why would any political party that believes in *PERSONAL* responsibility apologise for the behaviour of individuals?
In the meantime, we wait patiently for the party that encourages mass demonstrations to apologise for the vandalism and crime that usually ensues. Mind you, I won't be holding my breath!

David & Son of Duff

How very wise and prudent of our distinguished host to advise against speculation. It appears that the shooter is a man with a fairly long police record, no known political affiliations, and who describes himself as "female" on his voting registration - yeeeeees, quite! It is still not absolutely clear whether he was attacking the 'Butcher's Shop', aka, Planned non-Parenthood, or that it was merely in the background. A final irony to end a tragedy is that the murdered police officer was a practicing Christian. If indeed he died protecting the 'Butcher's Shop' one is left choking on the irony!

The Dark Avenger

Ah, yes, the "magic words" syndrome! Just follow the following three steps, and it will work!

1. Call them "Muslim terrorists".

2. ?????????????

3. Victory over Muslim terrorism!

David & Son of Duff

@ DA:
Oh, I see, you mean like:

1: Call the perp a Republican

2: ?????????????

3: Victory over the Republicans

It's all so simple when you look at it out of your Left eye!

The Dark Avenger

Nope, David, 'Ol Big Ears' found, that, like terrorist Muslims, all you have to do is describe what Republicans do without calling them terrorists, and people catch on quickly as to their real motives and agenda.

Too much Merlot at lunch, again, David? Your replies lately have certainly smelled of the bottle lately, to coin a phrase.

The Dark Avenger

Except if you read what he wrote, he says it is wise for the police not to speculate. That doesn't mean a ban of anyone else doing so, including the rest of us non-cops following the case.

Was reading for meaning something you never quite mastered, David?


What's your point? According to the Associated Press, Saturday 28 November 2015 22.33 EST:

"The man suspected of carrying out a deadly attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic that offers abortion services in Colorado said “no more baby parts” after his arrest, according to authorities."

There might be a clue in there somewhere Sherlock.


And just in case you missed it, genius, the R candidates have been making hay with the phonied up video:

Peter G

Eric I believe you have stumbled upon the kernel of the algorithm that generates Duffian outputs. That's it! It's connect the two dots. The first dot is whatever he wants to believe and the second dot is what he wants to say. It is convenient and efficient, requiring only the two neurons and leaving the spare for other purposes.

David & Son of Duff

@ Bob:
Well, Bob, according to NBCN:

"But the [anonymous] sources stressed that Dear said many things to law enforcement and the extent to which the "baby parts" remark played into any decision to target the Planned Parenthood office was not yet clear. He also mentioned President Barack Obama in statements."

It also appears that Mr. Dear is a sandwich short of a picnic so my guess is that in so far as he has any political views he's more likely to be Democrat supporter!

@ DA:
"terrorist Muslims"!!!! But there's no such thing as a "terrorist Muslim", your POTUS says so, or to be precise, he can't bring himself to actually use the two words together!

And alas, not nearly enough Merlot for lunch today because I was driving home!

The Dark Avenger

Why would saying terrorist Muslims make a difference, David? Your faith in incantations approaches the level of your Iron Age Briton predecessors, who thought painting themselves blue wood terrify their enemies in combat.

Peter G

Another of those amazing coincidences is it not David. He meant to shoot up an Arby's but accidentally walked in to a PP office near nothing else?. Redstate is attempting a better defense by pointing out that he never discussed religion or Planned Parenthood with his neighbors. Unfortunately in the very same quotation from those neighbors is also the statement that everyone stayed away from him because they thought he was a dangerous nut. They didn't talk to him about anyone or anything if they could help it. So they are going with the pure coincidence theory as you are but a little judicial editing was in order.

As unimpressive as I find your Pee Wee Herman level School of Rhetoric arguments ( I know you are but what am I ) I give you credit for a valiant effort. I must point out however that you are fighting on the wrong front. It is playing out exactly as I thought it would. Barring a few desultory tweets the Republcan field is keeping their heads down and hoping no one will remember what they all had to say about PP and how they even tried to use it to shut down the whole government. It seems it has dawned on them that women can vote. Poor Carly, her brief flirtation with double digit poll numbers came from exploiting pictures and videos that did not come from PP. And now she be asked about pictures of dead bodies that did. That's unfair you and your people will cry. Oh I do hope so. Fairness is nothing you either recognize or deserve. So I wonder who you will imagine you will convince or persuade here. We're not your problem. You are your own problem.


The Sunday talk show Republicans I've seen are trying the same tactics. They're ignoring as many inconvenient facts, spouting as many false equivalences and changing the subject just as hard as they can. Doubtful it's going to work on anyone who doesn't already fall for that kind of simple mindedness.

Peter G

You know whose views would be interesting to know? Those of the Duffer's wife. I wonder if he is as patronizing to his wife as he just was to Anne. As to logic perhaps he could explain why all Muslims should be held culpable for the actions of some and particularly so by the people who purportedly believe so strongly in personal responsibility. So much for the logic of Duffers.

David & Son of Duff

@ DA:
"Why would saying terrorist Muslims make a difference, David?" well, because it's a true description but for some reason your POTUS can't bring himself to say it. So you're a Dem, you tell me!

@ Peter:
So, Pee Wee Peter, as it is now fairly clear that the perp was a lone nutter (probably with a drug habit) and nothing to do with the Republican party, can anyone induce our host to withdraw the suggestionthat the crime be hung round the necks of sundry Republicans who had absolutely nothing to do with it?

Incidentally, thank God our host is returning tomorrow. I have tried my very best to keep this blog going single-handed whilst he lazes away in down-town Missouri or where-ever, and all for no money! Still, I'm sure he'll send me a Christmas card!

The Dark Aven

Trying to turn the question around, David?

I would say that he should say that when he describes the current subject of discussion as a terrorist Christian, if the initial reports are correct, that his attack was launched because of an anti-abortion attitude, something found 99.999% among those who have a Christian POV, at least in this country.

I'm sorry in advance if you expected a differen response.


The shooter was incited by the Republican party's use of doctored video to outrage their base to get them out to vote. It matters not whether he was a registered member. He was set off, at least in part, by their irresponsible rhetoric.

My boyhood Brit friend used to tell me that if he could say something to make me angry it proved he was smarter. I'm not sure how common a British characteristic that is, but the logic is suspect, to say the least. And he was a boy. One in his first childhood.

Masochistic old men don't get paid, they pay hookers with spike heels and whips. You can be wrong about anything and everything, can't you?


Anti-abortion terrorism concerns and GOP complicity aside, it bears noting that this is yet another example of an individual with a criminal record (domestic abuse and animal cruelty) who was generally agreed to be a creep having no difficulty whatsoever legally obtaining an assault rifle ... just sayin' ...

David & Son of Duff

The rest isn't worth bothering with but Eric's comment is worth an addition. I do not know but I would bet the deeds of the house on the fact that the perp in this case, like so many others, was a user of drugs. It always provides me with a cynical smirk that Lefties of the no-brain variety never cease complaining about availability of guns but rarely if ever raise any objection to the supply of drugs!


Another misdirection. If drugs are the cause then no one in England or Wales must ever use drugs:

Number of Murders by firearms in the US, 2012: 8,855

Number of Murders by firearms, England and Wales, 2012-2013: 30 (equivalent to 164 US murders)

Many more statistics and source links:


Its really odd that in a thread Duff kicked off by saying that it is "unwise [to speculate]" he has gone on to declare (with no evidence of supporting arguement) that the shooter was mentally ill, on drugs, a democrat, and in no way influenced by right wing anti-abortion rhetoric. I can only assume he makes no personal claim to wisdom?

Now he further surmises that I have 'no objection' to the supply of drugs. Aside from being a total non-sequitor to distract us from the gun control issue, it turns out to be untrue. My wife happens to be a substance abuse counseler, so I hear quite a bit about it from her, and in my offline life I'm a physician and do quite a bit of thinking about the availability of drugs in our society. Almost all of the self-induced harm we see in the hospital is caused by abuse of substances, which roughly in order of impact are; tobacco, alcohol, amphetamine, cocaine, opiates. And that's not even talking about people's unhealthy relationship with food ...

But I digress. That is all 'true, true, and unrelated' and honestly a fairly remedial trolling attempt by Duff. The simple matter of fact is that it is too easy to get a gun in this country. It is a significant issue of public health. Nevermind the murder statistics, orders of magnitute more people take their own lives with firearms and suicide attempt by gun much deadlier than attempts by other means.

In a society no one has unlimited rights, because they necessarily infringe on the rights of others at some point. My favorite example is driving. We feel entitled to drive because our society was designed with cars in mind and they give us freedom, mobility, and convenience. For many people it is a necessity they can't function without. And even so we recognize that cars are dangerous pieces of machinery that can cause significant harm, intentional or not, to yourself or others. Therefore you need to show proficiency in operating it, pass a test, be licensed, register your vehicle, buy insurance, follow traffic laws, and your car itself has to meet minimum safety standards to be considered safe for the road. And your license can be taken away if you prove dangerous or irresponsible (ie DUIs).

All that needs to be done is to apply this same logic to guns. Those people who are responsible gun owners will be able to comply. Most crazy people will not. If they still want a gun they have to break the law to get one and then you prosecute them. Its not actually that complicated and it is frankly embarrassing that we are the only major world power to have not figured this out.


@ David Duff Ha, My "call them RADICAL CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS" was in jest. I was mocking the pseudo-conservative rhetoric that you and others employ and you are such a nitwit that you didn't even see it. After reading your other comments it is clear you are a horrible dolt, willing ignoramus and useful idiot all wrapped into one internet troll.


The solution to gun violence isn't complicated, but the implementation of it is. No other advanced country has a conservative Supreme Court that's made an absolutist, ideological ruling on the right to own a gun that flouts the context of the 2nd amendment. Guns are also especially central to our history and culture. Duff in incapable of better than remedial trolling, but you have to give him points for determination.

David & Son of Duff

I would correct Eric on one particular point, I did not "speculate" because by the time I wrote my original comment details concerning the perp were already published. In contradiction to the strong implication by our host, there is no evidence that the perp is associated in any way with the Republican party.

So that brings us to the problem of gun laws in the USA about which I have no fixed opinion. 'Over here' we have a very different society and history and frankly the two nations cannot be compared. I would simply suggest that an ordinary law-abiding citizen of the USA has two *potential* enemies from whose predations the possession of a gun might be useful as protection, they are, criminals and the government.

It seems to me from 'over here' that your criminal class has totally unfettered access to guns which even the strictest of gun laws would not touch. By disarming the law-abiding, you simply make it even easier for the criminals to prey on them at will.

Secondly, it is blindingly obvious that the scope and power of your government (irrespective of party) has grown like Topsy since WWII. Of course, at the moment, 'y'all here' are very happy to see it increase even more under a Democrat president but you may rue the day when a rabid Republican takes over and uses those powers in ways you had not imagined. Dare one say, the warning 'Trump'-et sounds!

Do not believe your own propaganda that there is such a thing as "American exceptionalism". Just remember that governments *everywhere* want to disarm their people, not to protect people but to protect governments!


Since you've decided to up your game in this case I'll answer your points that are interesting. Our two countries can be compared. They are both considered "advanced" as opposed to developing or third-world countries, and of course we're closer to England than any other country. Except for our state of Louisiana our laws on all levels are based on English common law, and of course the original settlers were nearly all English. You're correct that after the Revolutionary War our histories diverged, but we still have much in common.

Two uses of guns you didn't mention are unique to our home territory. One is protection from and elimination of the original inhabitants. The second is protection from African slaves, which has not yet faded.

There are countless studies that show guns in the hands of civilians do not effectively control crime. On topic here is the fact that Colorado allows concealed carry permits and, according to news reports, there were people carrying guns in the area the PP shooter went berserk. The police had a difficult time stopping him, never mind civilians, who were completely ineffectual.

As far as protecting ourselves from the government, the idea might have had some merit in colonial times, but even military grade weapons have no chance against a modern government that controls things like helicopter gunships and nerve gas. At this point the idea is ludicrous. In a democracy the government needs to be controlled by participation of the governed.

Like it or not, government is going to continue to grow. As society becomes more complex there's more that needs controlling. For example, it's now possible for interested people to do a certain amount of genetic engineering at home. Common over-the-counter drugs can be chemically altered to produce dangerous street drugs. Air traffic must be controlled, and so on and on.

We that comment here often make fun of the idea of "American exceptionalism" and agree Trump somewhat resembles Musollini or Franco or the other guy. In fact, however, he only represents about a third of one party. We're aware that doesn't mean he shouldn't be taken seriously in some ways.

David & Son of Duff

Well, Bob, I'm always eager to spread good news, so let me tell you that according to the FBI the rates per 1,000 of population for the crimes of burglary, aggravated assault and robbery have all declined steeply from 1990 to 2009. Could it, do you think, have anything to do with the fact that more and more citizens are 'tooled up'?

So, according to your operational assessment in which common citizens without recourse to helicopter gunships and nerve gas stand no chance can we assume then that we have absolutely nothing to fear from terrorists? And in an age where very soon terrorists will have access to bio-chems there is nothing for governments to worry about?

The Dark Avenger

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, David, polling has found that during the period you cite, the rate of gun ownership remained about the same, neither trending upwards more than a few points, or going downwards in any significant way.

Otoh, more gun owners are buying more guns, which would account for the increase in sales since 'Ol Big Ears' took control of the country.

If you have a hypothesis on how burglars, muggers, and robbers are deterred by people who already have guns having more guns, I'm all ears, as we say here in the Colonies.


No, I don't think the drop in the crime rate has anything to do with arming the public. I'd argue crime would have decreased faster without guns. The factors that contributed most to the rise of crime in the '70's were the baby boom, specifically having a record number of men of crime-prone age around all at once and the Vietnam War, which created disrespect for law and government. There are also some interesting theories about the effects of burning leaded petrol on human judgement skills.

Of course governments have to worry about terrorists as do ordinary citizens. I personally trust the government more to keep me safe than a bunch of my neighbors packing heat.

David & Son of Duff

I agree absolutely that these social questions are exceedingly tricky. Nevertheless, according to 'HuffPo' (your favourite rag around here!):

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation recorded more than 16.8 million background checks for gun purchases in 2012, the highest number since the FBI began publishing the data in 1998. A record number of requests for background checks for gun buyers went through on Black Friday in November, the FBI reported at the time, in part because of fears that President Barack Obama and other lawmakers would tighten gun control laws."

The FBI was quick to point out that the actual number of guns purchased was not available because those submitting to background checks might purchase more than one gun. However, what is clear is that is worth studying the fact that gun *sales* have increased enormously and that surely must have some social effect.

The other factor is that with the porous border 'down Mexico way' I suspect the number of illegal guns has increase tremendously. Anyway, the fact is that crimes against private households and their inhabitants has decreased, so let's drink to some good news - and yes, a decent Merlot will do me nicely, thank you for asking!

The Dark Avenger

Well, David, the gun manufacturers certainly had a Merry Christmas that year!

David & Son of Duff

Bob, I didn't say that an armed citizenry would protect you against terrorism, only that it would deter a government from over-reaching its powers. In other words, such a government would risk making the armed citizenry the new 'terrorists'!

And I do not discount other factors influencing the drop in home robberies etc, better locks and security devices will have been one factor, but even so, these days your average burglar will have to think very hard before attempting to break and enter!


So is a drop in home robberies, if it is tied to guns, worth the increases in murder, accidental death, mass shootings and successful suicides? Would you like to have our gun problems in England? From what I see in your media most Brits wouldn't.

David & Son of Duff

Bob, if you go here:

And scroll down to the first two graphs on the right, they make interesting viewing. Quite what conclusions you can draw is difficult. In essence the problem seems to lie with the 14-25 age group in the '85 to '95 decade. The kill rate shot up (no pun intended) and then almost equally plummeted down again! This matches almost exactly the 'deaths by handgun' stat. Unfortunately the graphs only run to 2005.

A fascinating if intractable problem, so I'm jolly glad the responsibility is not mine!


Interesting. I suspect it still has to do with the baby boom. Most people think of it as having been in the mid 1940's - '50's, but the high birth rate lasted from 1946-1964. There were waves of crime-age men.

To the left of the second chart the article reads "Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame." If memory serves this is the period when cheap, semi-auto handguns started being imported in high volume. Cocaine and crack were also popular then.

According to the HuffPo, which I actually don't often read, there was another, larger baby boom in 2007:

That adds to the argument for stronger gun laws.

Peter G

Nobody said he had anything to do with the Republican party. But he said he heard what they had to say about Planned Parenthood. And he acted on that willfully disseminated misinformation. And, like I said, I will gleefully watch while the Republicans are hung out to dry with key demographic groups, like the women you so patronizingly disdain. With help like yours the Democratic candidate cannot fail. Start practicing saying this, President Hillary Clinton.


I agree that SCOTUS is a major impediment to sensible gun laws, but remember that the present radial interpretation of the 2nd ammendment of gun ownership as an individual right penned by Scalia is a very recent development and open to be challenged by a future court. That said, I agree some victory at the supreme court will be necessary for meaningful progress.


Many, if not most, other developed countries are able to effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You have a rather defeatist attitude for someone so hot on American exceptionalism, unless you think we are only exceptional in our incompetence.


Forgive the speculation, but lets say for the sake of argument that the PP shooter obtained his guns legally as several other high profile mass shooters have done recently. Does not this speak to the inadequacy of the present background check system? Or do you think people like Mr Dear should be 'tooled up' ?


While there have been details published to suggest that he is mentally unstable, there has been nothing suggesting he was on drugs, "a democrat" or uninfluenced by right wing antiabortion rhetoric.

In fact the published stories that describe what sound like mental instability such as his rambling interview with police do just as much to suggest the influence of recent anti-abortion campaigns such as the doctored PP videos (i.e. his comments on "no more baby parts")

Nor too, has there been anything to support Ted Cruz speculation that he is a "transgendered leftist." Who knows WTF that was all about ...

Anyway, the point stands, you speculate quite a bit ... which you apparently consider most unwise

The comments to this entry are closed.