Some points in response to Michael Smerconish:
The incident of heckling at the White House that precipitated this article by Michael Smerconish was not caused by an opponent from the GOP or a conservative. The entire event was a room full of invited left wing Obama supporters; and the rude heckler causing the disrespectful disruption, Jennicet Gutiérrez, was just a more wacked-out leftist with a few less cards in her deck than the rest of the crowd.
With regard to Joe Wilson interjecting “you lie” into Obama’s speech………I agree that this was an insolent, rude, disrespectful, out-of-bounds interjection; that should not have happened. However, let us also remember that, as rude & wrong as he was for shouting it out, Joe Wilson was correct in what he said. Obama was stating to Congress that taxpayer funded ACA benefits would not be available to illegal aliens, and that statement is and was un-true.
Saying that “….much of the criticism leveled at President George W. Bush in his second term was beyond the pale of decency....” is a grotesque understatement of the horrendous disrespect and vindictive insults hurled by the Democrats and the political left at GWB when he was president. In like manner, saying that “…….the treatment of Obama had been exponentially worse.” is a grotesque overstatement; and further, Obama and his minions themselves are no strangers to the practice of hurling mud and attempting to destroy opponents. What does one expect after Pandora’s Box has been opened?
June 28, 2015 at 9:23 a.m.
So topper11 responds with a "No"
June 27, 2015 at 2:51 p.m.
Many people, like Pookie, will undoubtedly object to Silence_Dogood's comments. Can anyone pose a cogent reasonable argument as to how Silence's comment #2 is incorrect?
June 27, 2015 at 12:13 p.m.
No, kurtw, you are correct. If a bartender observes obvious signs of intoxication and/or has personal knowledge of the amount of alcohol consumed at that particular time, then he/she can be held responsible…..but this is a very specific case. Obviously, we do NOT hold the liquor or grocery store responsible if the alcohol sold is abused at some point after sale; that would be the individual abuser’s responsibility.
Let’s also look at Iajoci’s other example. Yes, are car is a tool and you can buy a car that drives in excess of 100 mph. If you do so, and create carnage on our streets, then you (the individual acting irresponsibly) will be held accountable and face legal penalties.
By Iajoci’s logic, if you buy a car and a bottle of Wild Turkey, then get drunk and drive 100 mph into a family of four; we should throw the liquor store clerk and the car dealer in jail, and somebody should come take my car away from me. I tend to disagree.
June 21, 2015 at 12:19 p.m.
First let me state that I am not a gun enthusiast. I am not a member or supporter of the NRA. I personally own one weapon, a shotgun, which remains nearly continuously locked in a wall mount in my closet. I have it in case I should ever need it to defend my home and family. I have never used it for this purpose, and hope I never do. I do not carry it or any other weapon, never have, and do not wish to; but at the same time I don’t begrudge others this right.
Why is the automatic response of the political left to use any opportunity and any tragedy to shift the discussion to guns and gun control (never let a good crisis go to waste)? The gun is a tool; it is not the root cause of the violence, the perpetrators are.
Why are we not automatically discussing what would have caused a mindless animal like Dylann Roof, and all the other senseless mindless perpetrators (black, white, hispanic, asian, etc.), to commit acts of grotesque evil. Why are we not discussing the narcissism that permeates our society; the degradation and loss of any sense of personal individual responsibility and any driving moral values?
For one thing, in the case of Dylann Roof, I understand that he was another weak-minded worthless drug user. Why are we not discussing this, the contribution of this on his mental defect, and the obvious bearing it had on the tragedy that ensued? Drug use is a highly common theme associated with the violence in our streets. Why don’t we discuss the changing the inane politically correct way we coddle and make excuses for the mindless worthless drug users among us?
Drug users fund crime in our streets. Drug users fund the international drug cartels. Drug users fund terrorism here and abroad. Drug users kill us in our homes, in our streets, in our places of business, and now in our churches. Let’s discuss changing the inane popular notion that drug users are “victims”, and that we need to show tolerance and understanding? Drug users are not “victims”, drug users are the problem.
Why are we discussing gun control and getting rid of guns? Guns are a tool, not the root cause of violence. Why are we NOT discussing things like drug user control, getting rid of drug users, and holding people responsible for their actions?
June 20, 2015 at 7:23 a.m.
The immigration laws of the United States can be best reformed by finding the political will to predicate changes on four completely reasonable principles addressing application for entry, disposition of immigration law violators (illegal aliens), granting of publicly funded benefits, and birthright citizenship. By addressing these four areas, US immigration law can take away the incentive for making illegal entry into the United States, and greatly simplify enforcement…………….
1. No illegal alien gets to stay. No amnesty of any kind.2 Any illegal alien caught is deported and forever barred from returning.3. No publicly funded benefits or services of any kind.4. No birthright citizenship (contrary to popular belief this is not a settled Constitutional issue)
We do not need to engage in profiling; simply make it untenable/unlivable for them to stay and the illegal aliens will leave.
The President’s unilateral action & the “comprehensive immigration reform” plans I have heard are entirely unacceptable, because they are all predicated upon amnesty. I am very willing to accept immigration reform that facilitates legal and controlled entry into this country for anyone from anywhere; and once these four principles are accepted, other reforms that are necessary to ease restrictions and bureaucracy involved with legal entry will be facilitated. We will be free to discuss any other reasonable reforms that would facilitate the legal application process. We can discuss and implement laws allowing more legal entries. We can discuss and implement making requirements less stringent. We can discuss and implement streamlining the path to permanent residency and/or citizenship. We can discuss and implement a controlled and legal guest or migratory worker program. We can discuss and implement tougher enforcement and consequences for employers who employ illegal aliens. We can discuss any reasonable reforms, as long as it is recognized that the United States has an absolute right and duty to protect its borders and control entry of any and all persons from other areas of the world.
What we cannot have is any law or policy which provides incentive of any kind to enter or remain in the United States illegally, or which provides any hope that by entering or remaining here illegally there will be a path to permanent residence or citizenship.
June 16, 2015 at 8:27 p.m.
I understand that Nancy Pelosi also voted against this. So obviously both Tim and Nancy are racists. Remember, for years now we've been told that racism is the only reason anyone could have for disagreeing with Obama.
June 13, 2015 at 12:44 p.m.
@lemmingsfollowblindlyI'm not endorsing your proposal for a Trump / Hefner ticket but, again, this would be an improvement over the current situation.
June 8, 2015 at 3:22 a.m.
@ cambridgeMock all you like.......The fact is, even with all their faults, either would be better than the current occupant of the White House.BTW, it's Palin.
June 7, 2015 at 7 p.m.
They could not have escaped if they had been permanently locked in a cell an chained to the wall 24/7/365.
June 7, 2015 at 6:47 p.m.