The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

In the continuing GOP war to destroy California, one of the budget negotiators from the Republican side, one of the 2 Senate votes for the bill (3 are needed) seemingly lost his temper a little bit and said something along the lines of "If you're not going to listen to your leadership then you ought to find new leadership."

 

Today, the California Senate Republicans replaced him.

[lostfan]

the cartoon goes along with the news story of a TV chimp that went crazy and attacked some lady. it didn't even register to me as that was supposed to be Obama. more of a hilarious cartoon making fun of congress.

 

Obama didn't write the stimulus plan. talk about a overreaction.

 

wow

I'm not saying the cartoon is racist since I know what it's supposed to be saying, but as to how the picture of a monkey and a joke about the stimulus bill (with Obama being the main one that was pushing it so it's pretty easy to infer that's who they were talking about even if they weren't, oh and he happens to be black) didn't trip someone's common sense filter, I wouldn't know. I honestly don't even see the connection or get the joke btw.

Edited February 19, 2009 by lostfan

[lostfan]

I was having a similar conversation with whitesoxfan101 not too long ago. The common reaction of someone who's not racist upon being accused of racism is to just laugh. When someone IS racist for whatever reason or says something obviously insensitive and doesn't want to admit it and get called on it, they get defensive and argumentative.

[bmags]

You're RNC Chairman Steele ladies and gentleman:

 

"We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles," Steele told the Washington Times. "But we want to apply them to urban-suburban hip-hop settings."

 

"It will be avant garde, technically," he said of the new public relations team he's signing on. "It will come to the table with things that will surprise everyone - off the hook." He also added: "I don't do 'cutting-edge.' That's what Democrats are doing. We're going beyond cutting-edge."

 

[NorthSideSox72]

"It will be avant garde, technically," he said of the new public relations team he's signing on. "It will come to the table with things that will surprise everyone - off the hook." He also added: "I don't do 'cutting-edge.' That's what Democrats are doing. We're going beyond cutting-edge."

He sounds like the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert.

 

Synergy! Out of the box! Bleeding Edge!!!!!

 

[GoSox05]

You're RNC Chairman Steele ladies and gentleman:

 

"We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles," Steele told the Washington Times. "But we want to apply them to urban-suburban hip-hop settings."

 

"It will be avant garde, technically," he said of the new public relations team he's signing on. "It will come to the table with things that will surprise everyone - off the hook." He also added: "I don't do 'cutting-edge.' That's what Democrats are doing. We're going beyond cutting-edge."

 

 

Does this mean we are gonna get more Karl Rove rapping. I hope so.

 

[kapkomet]

He sounds like the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert.

 

Synergy! Out of the box! Bleeding Edge!!!!!

Sounds like my old boss(es) at my former place of employment... except they didn't know what the f*** they were talking about only to make it sound good... oh wait, Dilbert, exactly.

 

Except the lead one was a female, which made it worse.

[bmags]

It's not avant-garde, but it's BEYOND cutting edge... democrats. are. f***ed.

[kapkomet]

It's not avant-garde, but it's BEYOND cutting edge... democrats. are. f***ed.

[BigSqwert]

Heh

[NorthSideSox72]

Palin talking gibberish again.

 

She apparently wrote a request to Obama, to keep on the books a last minute law that Bush signed, allowing for people to carry concealed weapons in national parks (as long as the follow existing state regs in effect).

 

Now, putting aside the issue itself (where some good arguments could be made either way), let's look at a quote from Palin:

 

"As you know, my state contains vast, pristine areas where the ability to carry firearms can address a potentially life-threatening situation, enabling citizens to respond to bear and other wildlife conflicts,"

 

Please stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about. We are talking about CONCEALED weapons (unless the article is wrong). That means pistols. A handgun against a Grizzly you'd encounter in Alaska is worthless, you might as well use a tennis racket. And anything smaller than a Grizz or Polar Bear, you aren't going to get attacked by anyway. The only gun that is any real use against a Grizzly or Polar Bear, is either a large bore shotgun, or a serious high powered rifle.

 

I am sooooooo glad she wasn't elected to high national office. She really is the female equivalent of W.

 

CAVEAT: The article states this is about concealed weapons, but at other times, talks about loaded weapons generally. If this is referring to guns in general, its a very different story, and nevermind.

 

[StrangeSox]

It's my understanding that, previously, you weren't allowed to have any loaded weapons in national parks.

 

Edit: Here's an article talking about the new rule which sort of explains the old rule. Only unloaded and stored/ dismantled weapons were allowed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9021601151.html

 

In other Palin news, Bristol Palin said "abstinence is unrealistic" for teens.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/02/16...palin_says.html

Edited February 19, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

I thought that Bristol Palin quote was funny. She is one of many living examples of why abstinence-only education is retarded.

[lostfan]

Heh

I come across people like that person routinely, where if I just sit and explain simple logic to counter their wildly distorted view of realit, it just has zero effect. It's like they're brainwashed. I've come to find that, with only a few exceptions, people who rant about "socialists" and "government handouts" and say things like "I work for a living" have no idea what they're talking about whatsoever. And unfortunately there's a lot of them out there.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Palin talking gibberish again.

 

She apparently wrote a request to Obama, to keep on the books a last minute law that Bush signed, allowing for people to carry concealed weapons in national parks (as long as the follow existing state regs in effect).

 

Now, putting aside the issue itself (where some good arguments could be made either way), let's look at a quote from Palin:

 

 

 

Please stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about. We are talking about CONCEALED weapons (unless the article is wrong). That means pistols. A handgun against a Grizzly you'd encounter in Alaska is worthless, you might as well use a tennis racket. And anything smaller than a Grizz or Polar Bear, you aren't going to get attacked by anyway. The only gun that is any real use against a Grizzly or Polar Bear, is either a large bore shotgun, or a serious high powered rifle.

 

I am sooooooo glad she wasn't elected to high national office. She really is the female equivalent of W.

 

CAVEAT: The article states this is about concealed weapons, but at other times, talks about loaded weapons generally. If this is referring to guns in general, its a very different story, and nevermind.

 

I do not like Palin, and generally agree that she is not very intelligent, but I dont think this is an issue at all. My father owns a cabin in the Adirondacks next to a stream where he can go trout fishing etc...He just recently acquired a carry/conceal permit. He did it b/c when he goes up there he is in the middle of nowhere with sketchy cell service. There's always the possibility he could run into a black bear, coyote, fox, etc...He carries a .44 Glock and mace. This is in case he were to encounter a bear or whatever and needed protection. A bear's skull is extremely hard and a shot to the head probably wouldnt even kill it. However, it may be enough to scare it off or if you shot it in the right place (heart, eye, neck) it could even mortally wound it. Basically, carrying a concealed weapon in national parks isnt about killing/hunting animals. it is about personal protection. And yes, you very well may be attacked by something smaller than a bear in Alaska (wolves) and worry about it. Or even a rabid animal (if rabies is even a problem up there). Basically what I'm saying is IMO you are knocking her for supporting what I feel is actually a fairly sensical (sp?) rule if you think about it a little more closely. This isnt a case of her being stupid.

 

[Texsox]

Palin talking gibberish again.

 

She apparently wrote a request to Obama, to keep on the books a last minute law that Bush signed, allowing for people to carry concealed weapons in national parks (as long as the follow existing state regs in effect).

 

Now, putting aside the issue itself (where some good arguments could be made either way), let's look at a quote from Palin:

 

 

 

Please stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about. We are talking about CONCEALED weapons (unless the article is wrong). That means pistols. A handgun against a Grizzly you'd encounter in Alaska is worthless, you might as well use a tennis racket. And anything smaller than a Grizz or Polar Bear, you aren't going to get attacked by anyway. The only gun that is any real use against a Grizzly or Polar Bear, is either a large bore shotgun, or a serious high powered rifle.

 

I am sooooooo glad she wasn't elected to high national office. She really is the female equivalent of W.

 

CAVEAT: The article states this is about concealed weapons, but at other times, talks about loaded weapons generally. If this is referring to guns in general, its a very different story, and nevermind.

 

Gee, I hate to disagree, but a .44 mag and a coupled decent, reasonably placed shots, could do wonders. The best likelihood would be to have the bear flee, unless you really nail a great shot, which is unlikely in this situation.

 

We will agree that there are plenty more useful ways to avoid the situation, bear bagging food, making noise, being aware of your surroundings, but I will not totally discount the use of a high caliber handgun.

[NorthSideSox72]

I do not like Palin, and generally agree that she is not very intelligent, but I dont think this is an issue at all. My father owns a cabin in the Adirondacks next to a stream where he can go trout fishing etc...He just recently acquired a carry/conceal permit. He did it b/c when he goes up there he is in the middle of nowhere with sketchy cell service. There's always the possibility he could run into a black bear, coyote, fox, etc...He carries a .44 Glock and mace. This is in case he were to encounter a bear or whatever and needed protection. A bear's skull is extremely hard and a shot to the head probably wouldnt even kill it. However, it may be enough to scare it off or if you shot it in the right place (heart, eye, neck) it could even mortally wound it. Basically, carrying a concealed weapon in national parks isnt about killing/hunting animals. it is about personal protection. And yes, you very well may be attacked by something smaller than a bear in Alaska (wolves) and worry about it. Or even a rabid animal (if rabies is even a problem up there). Basically what I'm saying is IMO you are knocking her for supporting what I feel is actually a fairly sensical (sp?) rule if you think about it a little more closely. This isnt a case of her being stupid.

As I mentioned, the rule isn't stupid. I specifically stated that the rule itself isn't what I took issue with.

 

Palin's statement is what I took issue with - a governor spouting on about something she obviously doesn't comprehend.

 

First... "you could run into a black bear, coyote, fox, etc." and "wolves"... Not once in the history of this continent has a coyote, wolf or fox ever killed a human being. Not once. Any fear associated with them is entirely old wives tales.

 

Second, I was specifically talking about Grizzly (same works for Polar) Bears, which was her example, and a handgun is a lot more likely to piss it off than scare it off.

 

I've spent a lot of time in the woods, I'm fairly well versed in these issues. There ARE predatory animals that a handgun might work on if necessary, and that have also on occasion attacked humans - mountain lion and black bear are about it, and even with black bear, its iffy if a man-stopper is going to work. Might or might not. And again, in both those very rare cases, a shotgun or rifle is much more useful.

 

I actually agree with the law, as it pertains to allowing guns generally in the parks. I am not quite so sure about the concealed part, which provides no defensive value to speak of, but I could see a general 2A argument working for it. So I could be talked into it.

 

But Palin trying to say that people need to carry concealed pistols because of Grizzlies is just ignorant, which was my main point.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Gee, I hate to disagree, but a .44 mag and a coupled decent, reasonably placed shots, could do wonders. The best likelihood would be to have the bear flee, unless you really nail a great shot, which is unlikely in this situation.

 

We will agree that there are plenty more useful ways to avoid the situation, bear bagging food, making noise, being aware of your surroundings, but I will not totally discount the use of a high caliber handgun.

Go find any book or reasonably expert person regarding defense against Grizzlies, and see what they say about handguns. They are useless in that purpose, and may actually make things worse.

 

You want to defend yourself in Grizz country, you do what I do - shotguns (12 gauge or bigger) with alternating slugs and 00 buckshot, and/or OC spray.

[bmags]

holy s*** northside is jack london

[Balta1701]

This is a fascinating conversation to find in the Dem thread.

[NorthSideSox72]

holy s*** northside is jack london

 

No, but I am a big fan of his writing. And Aldo Leopold, and John Muir, and Sigurd Olsen...

 

[Texsox]

Go find any book or reasonably expert person regarding defense against Grizzlies, and see what they say about handguns. They are useless in that purpose, and may actually make things worse.

 

You want to defend yourself in Grizz country, you do what I do - shotguns (12 gauge or bigger) with alternating slugs and 00 buckshot, and/or OC spray.

 

Useless, that is where we will disagree. If it comes down to grabbing a nalgene bottle or tennis racket, or a .44, I'll take the handgun, you take nothing, because the handgun may make it worse. If nothing else, the noise may scare them off.

 

Having said that, I would rather have the 12 gauge with almost anything loaded

 

Having said that, I would rather have, what I have, knowledge to avoid the situation in the first place.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Palin's statement is what I took issue with - a governor spouting on about something she obviously doesn't comprehend.

 

First... "you could run into a black bear, coyote, fox, etc." and "wolves"... Not once in the history of this continent has a coyote, wolf or fox ever killed a human being. Not once. Any fear associated with them is entirely old wives tales.

 

http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=76887&sc=4

 

A six-member jury handed down its findings in Prince Albert Thursday afternoon after deliberating for about four hours.

 

The jury found that the 22-year-old Ontario student, who was on a work co-op at Points North Landing in 2005, died from "injuries consistent to that of a wolf attack."

 

Second, I was specifically talking about Grizzly (same works for Polar) Bears, which was her example, and a handgun is a lot more likely to piss it off than scare it off.

 

Palin said:

"...enabling citizens to respond to bear and other wildlife conflicts"

 

That leaves open for 'other than bear' conflicts.

 

And that may be the case with bears as you say, but a well-aimed shot from a .44-cal could also scare the bear or wound it enough where it'd rather not bother attacking any further. I acknowledge the odds are miniscule that such a situation would ever arise but if I was somewhere like that and I was up there to do non-hunting activities, I'd feel safer in bear country with a gun on me than without one, which isnt to say that I would actually bring one with me.

 

I've spent a lot of time in the woods, I'm fairly well versed in these issues. There ARE predatory animals that a handgun might work on if necessary, and that have also on occasion attacked humans - mountain lion and black bear are about it, and even with black bear, its iffy if a man-stopper is going to work. Might or might not. And again, in both those very rare cases, a shotgun or rifle is much more useful.

 

I actually agree with the law, as it pertains to allowing guns generally in the parks. I am not quite so sure about the concealed part, which provides no defensive value to speak of , but I could see a general 2A argument working for it. So I could be talked into it.

 

But Palin trying to say that people need to carry concealed pistols because of Grizzlies is just ignorant, which was my main point.

 

I think she was more pointing out that as one reason why they should be allowed the right to carry concealed weapons, not as a necessity.

 

I don't know how the law in Alaska works but I know in NY that if you have a carry permit you are required to conceal the gun if you are carrying it.

 

I guess I just disagree that it was an ignorant statement on her part.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=76887&sc=4

 

 

 

 

 

Palin said:

 

 

That leaves open for 'other than bear' conflicts.

 

And that may be the case with bears as you say, but a well-aimed shot from a .44-cal could also scare the bear or wound it enough where it'd rather not bother attacking any further. I acknowledge the odds are miniscule that such a situation would ever arise but if I was somewhere like that and I was up there to do non-hunting activities, I'd feel safer in bear country with a gun on me than without one, which isnt to say that I would actually bring one with me.

 

 

 

I think she was more pointing out that as one reason why they should be allowed the right to carry concealed weapons, not as a necessity.

 

I don't know how the law in Alaska works but I know in NY that if you have a carry permit you are required to conceal the gun if you are carrying it.

 

I guess I just disagree that it was an ignorant statement on her part.

 

I actually wasn't aware of that 2005 possible attack. Best list I could find (wiki) shows that 2005 attack was probably the only time a wolf in the wild has killed anyone in the US or Canada since the countries existed. Interesting trivia though - 1 is different than zero. Although even in that case, it sounds like it was far from conclusive, and may not have even been the case.

 

But on the main point I was making, I'll stick to it. If you can't use an effective weapon as noted earlier, you are better off following all the other non-weapon methods of defense against Grizzlies. You can find those all over the web I am sure. By using a weapon that is likely to just wound, you are making things worse for yourself, and possibly provoking an attack that would not have occurred at all.

 

I am all for regular gun laws extending to parks. But as a defensive weapon against animals, it makes no real sense. The only good reason I know of to carry a gun, is for other humans.

 

 

 

[mr_genius]

I'm not saying the cartoon is racist since I know what it's supposed to be saying, but as to how the picture of a monkey and a joke about the stimulus bill (with Obama being the main one that was pushing it so it's pretty easy to infer that's who they were talking about even if they weren't, oh and he happens to be black) didn't trip someone's common sense filter, I wouldn't know. I honestly don't even see the connection or get the joke btw.

 

I revisted this controversy (within my thoughts) during a particularly boring and lengthy meeting at work today. I decided to flip-flop on the cartoon being published, and here is why: When I read the cartoon I immediately saw "congress does the work that a trained chimp could". This is because of the words "write a stimulus bill" and I know congress wrote the bill. However, I think it must be assumed that the majority of people who would see the cartoon have no idea who wrote the stimulus bill and probably just assume that is was Obama. Now, with such a view, that would certainly make the cartoon excessively offensive. For me to understand this I decided to place the words "Next time they'll have to find someone else to sign the bill" in the word bubble being said by the officer. Of course, in this context, the cartoon is blatantly racist.

 

The Post should not have published; even though, admittedly, I would have missed the potential mix up as well. But I'm not a newspaper editor and thats not my job, someone should have recognized a potential issue.

 

All this being said, I'm sure there will be some opportunists (looking at you Sharpton and MSM) who will go on one of their "everone is racist except me" crusades because of this. Oh well.