Confederate Yankee
October 16, 2009
Ballon Bust?
Uh... this doesn't seem to match the Heene family balloon boy story:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:29 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Isn't it illegal to lauch a balloon of this nature?
Also, there seems to be a degree of acting in their alarm that their son may be in the balloon. Note that they did not verify the concept, only started reacting to it.
Posted by: David at October 17, 2009 12:52 PM (Lh/sO)
2
The family knew the boy wasn't in the balloon.
The father built it, he had to know how much it could lift.
Anyway, I went ahead and ran the numbers.
For the balloon to get off the ground with the boy in it, it would have had to hold 45,360 liters of He, or the equivalent of about 46 four foot weather balloons.
Posted by: Matt at October 18, 2009 09:15 AM (54Fjx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
White House to Use Hollywood For Propaganda Push
By itself, this isn't unexpected:
President Barack Obama will return to Texas today for the first time since taking office nine months ago, sharing the stage with former President George H.W. Bush in a forum designed to "engage the nation" in a renewed conversation on volunteerism.
Volunteerism is a great thing and I strongly believe in it. I'm glad that a former and current President can get together to promote the idea of volunteerism.
But like so many things that President Obama has his hands on, there is a perverse selfishness and ideological opportunism associated with this effort.
Big Hollywood has now linked the Administration with the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF) in a bid to use 60+ television programs to push for people to volunteer... for
left wing political advocacy.
Here is a
listing of the shows, by network, that have signed on to participate in stealth propaganda campaign organized by the White House and their allies in the entertainment industry.
We thought it was bad when the White House tried to use the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to push progressive political propaganda.
Obviously, they've set their sights on casting a much greater net, trying to co-op network and cable television to indoctrinate both adults and children.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:02 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm really not clear on how this would be any different then what happens everyday now - other then now we have the white house commies and their useful idiots now admiting up front what they are doing, I mean.
Posted by: emdfl at October 16, 2009 01:08 PM (3ALAP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 15, 2009
"I'm Sure Everyone is Exploring Their Options Right Now."
I contacted several shooting industry sources regarding California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to sign oppressive ammunition restriction bill AB962.
The bill requires ammunition to be held behind the counter, restricts sales to individuals to a maximum of 50 rounds per month, bans direct mail and internet sales, and requires retailers to collect intrusive personal information for each sale
including:
Date of transaction.
Buyer's date of birth, full address, driver's license number, right thumbprint and signature.
Brand, type and amount of ammunition purchased.
Name of the salesperson who processed the sale.
While the law theoretically affects only handgun ammunition, many rifles also shoot handgun-caliber ammunition and owners of those firearms will be affected as well. That information would be turned over to the government which would effectively be able to compile a backdoor handgun ownership database on all California gun owners.
The prohibition does not outlaw the unregistered ownership of handgun ammunition, nor does it stop individuals from crossing state lines to purchase as much ammunition as they desire. In effect, it penalizes law-abiding recreational shooters, while potentially creating a lucrative market for ammunition smuggling into California.
The California Association of Firearms Retailers (CAFR) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) are highly critical of the bill,
stating:
NSSF has estimated that AB 962 would cost California at least $2.92 million annually in lost sales taxes and $629,000 in increased operating costs for state agencies. Lost retail sales in California were estimated at $35.7 million. These estimates followed the recent release of a study by the Governor's Office of Small Business Advocate that show over-regulation of small businesses in California costing the state an estimated $492 billion, almost five times the state’s general fund budget and almost a third of the state's gross product. The Small Business Advocate study also found that California's regulatory burdens costs an average of $134,122 per California business, $13,801 per household and $4,685 per resident each year. Small businesses are 98 percent of the state's enterprises and provide 52 percent of the jobs.
"Despite the excuses given this morning by the governor, nothing will change the fact that this legislation will drive many small, independent retailers already struggling in a poor economy out of business or force them to flee California's burdensome and hostile regulatory environment for greener economic pastures elsewhere-- taking with them their jobs and tax revenue," said CAFR President Marc Halcon.
I sent email to contacts within the ammunition industry, and few seem willing to talk about a possible response.
I asked them all the same specific question: Do you anticipate sanctions by manufacturers against the state of California in response for this law, perhaps similar to Barrett's refusal to sell or service CA state agencies after the ill-advised .50 BMG rilfe ban went into effect?
While anti-trust laws keeps the companies from discussing such an idea with one another, one highly-placed industry source was willing to provide his opinion off the record.
He would not rule out a decision by one or more ammunition manufacturers to refuse to do business with the State of California while the ban was in effect.
"Nothing would surprise me. I'm sure everyone is exploring their options right now."
If ammunition manufacturers do decide to go this route in response, state and local law enforcement agencies may have to find other vendors to supply their ammunition, or face running low on ammunition themselves.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:44 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Arnold has as much to do with the conservative agenda as did Bush. Which is nothing.
Posted by: David at October 15, 2009 05:39 PM (Lh/sO)
2
I thought i read somewhere that the "50 round limit" part got cut at/before the signing?
the text/comments from ah-nold here: http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=68596&catid=2
imply that there's no limit. but yes, the entire thing is stupid. In that article the governator even pats himself on the back for the .50 cal debacle.
Posted by: John at October 15, 2009 07:23 PM (iaV9O)
3
Well, since I fly to CA regularly and go shooting with my daughter I will just have to bring a couple thousand rounds each time I visit.
She can mark them up 100% and sell them to her friends.
Thank you, CA, for some more untraceable income.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 15, 2009 08:07 PM (FGCRY)
4
wouldn't the interstate purchase ban be an unlawful restraint of trade, like the former bans against mail order wine purchases, or am i just being a fool for trying to be logical when we're talking about yet another gun control law?
the 6 element and i are both natives, but moving away is looking better and better every day. what a shame....
Posted by: redc1c4 at October 15, 2009 09:46 PM (d1FhN)
5
Would this mean that the City and County of Los Angeles would be restricted to 50 rounds a month?
Posted by: Keith W at October 15, 2009 10:12 PM (PrTIO)
6
Most of you sound like folks we welcome to Texas. The more honest Gun owners the better.
We don't have earthquakes...Convinced?
Posted by: Marc at October 15, 2009 11:53 PM (Zoziv)
7
Well lets just let Kalifornia slide into the ocean. They elect those idiots let them sort 'em out.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at October 15, 2009 11:53 PM (8kQ8M)
8
with the upcoming census overcount of illegal aliens, CA looks to gain quite a few more gerrymandered ultra-liberal loons in Congress.
But by then CA will be its own 3rd world country.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 16, 2009 12:55 AM (O8ebz)
9
Marc: Glad to hear that. Bought my new house in the hill country 3 months ago.
Posted by: CFM at October 16, 2009 02:39 AM (vt8Y4)
10
Actually, with the increasing large amount of money the US owes to China, it wouldn't be surprising to see China demand ownership of California if the US defaults....
Posted by: _Jon at October 16, 2009 10:19 AM (ehN4c)
11
Step 1. Open a drive through store on the road from California to Los Vegas, right on the Nevada line.
Step 2. Sell bulk ammo. Let customers call ahead, use a website, or fax/email/twitter orders with Paypal or credit cards, so there is essentially a zero wait time at the store's loading docks.
Step 3. Profit.
And I did not have to collect underpants with gnomes.
Posted by: Mikee at October 16, 2009 11:07 AM (dChgD)
12
Yes hey should stop selling there. The truth is that in the long run it will just make Cali even more broke than they already are. They will loose all of that business and all of the taxes that go with those sales. They cant have thier cake and eat it too, if they want to be able to tax the crap out of thier citizens(oh my appolagies, SUBJECTS) they must give them something for it. If you are a decent and conservitive person VACATE the state and leave those Commie assholes to thier vices. Good luck and God speed
Posted by: Spook45 at October 16, 2009 11:53 AM (wmuk+)
13
This is the amount of incredulous influence the--OPEN BORDER--lobbyists (business power brokers and ethnic zealots)) have on certain Democratic devious rabble? Once again the senate top echelon have huddled secretly (BEHIND CLOSED DOORS), recklessly placing E-Verify worker identification system in jeopardy. The obnoxious
R-O-P-E Senate group as its being called on the Internet and nationwide, who are marked as Reid, Obama, Pelosi Emmanuel have indifferently pushed American Workers in the background, allowing the millions of illegal aliens to take their jobs. They have driven into the ground amendments from appearing in the final Homeland Security "conference committee" bill. They eradicated--ANY CHANCE--of a Senate's permanent authorization of the E-Verify program.
They have religiously under-funded, undermined the Senate's mandate to beef up and complete the final 300 mile Mexican border fence. Then again it was never the original border wall as designed by Rep. Duncan Hunter. Illegal Aliens would have first had to scale the--FIRST--fence, run across the two lane highway for the Border Patrol vehicles, then scale an identical--SECOND FENCE. Under funded and weakened just like E-Verify, the police 287(g) arrest and detainment and ceasing the massive ICE raids. Finally the ROPE group strangled the Senate (already) passed ability of countrywide businesses to run their previous hires employees through E-Verify. So you can guess this is a harbinger to drop on the AMERICAN WORKER YET ANOTHER ULTIMATELY EXPENSIVE BLANKET AMNESTY. THOSE TAXPAYERS WILL BE FORCED TO PICK UP A TRILLION DOLLAR TAB. Be advised that Reid D-NV , Pelosi D-CA have one of the largest population of illegal immigrants in the country, who they are subservient too. Remember to expend your frustration and anger at 202-224-3121on your lawmakers. They are juggling with millions of American Workers job lifeline, by pandering to people who shouldn't even be here?
MY SUGGESTION IS DON"T BUY ANY SERVICES FROM BUSINESS THAT DOESN'T DISPLAY THE E-VERIFY PLACARD. Remember the real conniving happens in rooms hidden from the public awareness in conference committees. In addition, Remember Harry Reid as an incumbent Senator who carries the blemish of being anti-American Worker, Anti-Sovereignty must not be re-elected. Speaker Pelosi must go? So must Emmanuel? They have proved they cannot be trusted As NUMBERSUSA president says," With no chance now of E-Verify dying in any minute, because they couldn't annul the 3 year extension? The pro-amnesty forces no longer can try to use it as a bargaining chip. States, counties, cities and businesses can now be quite confident that they can set policy based on the E-Verify program being around." IT'S NOT PERMANENT YET THANKS TO ROPE. This group has given preference to illegal workers instead of the 15 million authorized AMERICAN WORKERS. COMPREHEND MORE OF THE CORRUPTION THAT CANNOT BE DENIED BY POLITICIANS AT JUDICIAL WATCH. NUMBERSUSA will explain in detail the consequences, that includes the 2010 Census, Health Care, hidden welfare programs, Anchor babies, criminals amongst the illegal immigration occupiers. CAPSWEB for OVERPOPULATION information.
Posted by: Brittancus at October 16, 2009 01:42 PM (Kc4uK)
14
Hey CA, you made your bed, now lay in it!!!
Posted by: Andrew at October 16, 2009 07:18 PM (t9+Ir)
15
Just make sure that there's a hill or a curve between your store and the California border. Don't want the CHP surveilling your place from the CA side and harassing your customers, as MA did with people who brought liquor in NH,
Posted by: PKO Strany at October 20, 2009 01:30 PM (+IzXJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
53 House Republicans Call for Jennings Ouster
They see him pushing a pro-homosexuality agenda in his un-elected, un-vetted role as "safe school czar."
I find Jennings unfit for failing to report the serial statutory rape of one of his students, especially since his later activism at least hints that Jennings allowed the rape to go unreported because the 15-year-old male student was having a homosexual affair with a much older man. One is left to wonder if sympathy for their shared preference led him to cover up the crime, whereas he might have turned in heterosexual offenders.
If Obama keeps Jennings on-board, the public will likely remember him for the new position he will represent.
That of Home School Czar.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:06 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I agree this guy is a creep with an agenda, but I remember reading about a later interview with the kid involved. He said he was 16 and actively gay at the time and that the sex was consensual. Whether this is a machination of the White House Ministry of Propaganda is another matter.
Better check on this or you'll have gay rights trolls showing up here in droves getting all bitchy and sanctimonious and stuff.
Funny that schools are permitted to (even reequired to) promote homosexuality in the early grades, but any mention of Christmas or any other trapping of reprehensible religious excess is grounds for instantaneous litigation from the ACLU.
Posted by: bobdog at October 16, 2009 07:32 AM (SKEgy)
2
The student himself has demonstrated that he was 16 at the time he met the older man in question, which is the age of consent in Massachusetts. So, there's nothing here about statutory rape. (For what it's worth, the student has also said that he had no sexual contact with the older man. So it's kind of a moot point.) See here.
Concerning the "pro-homosexuality agenda" he espouses, if you did a little research, you might find that the education he advocates, as with most sex education advocated by liberals, is age-appropriate information about things like wanted and unwanted touching, attraction, romantic and non-romantic relationship building, asserting one's wants (in giving or withholding consent in relationships and/or sexual activities). Teaching children about sexuality is done with the hope (and with proven results: see the Netherlands) that with this information, kids won't think they're freaks for being attracted to people of the same sex, among other things.
So, the kind of thing you would have a problem with if you wanted to preserve the social stigma of non-heterosexual attraction and sexual expression of any kind from a woman.
Posted by: Evan at October 16, 2009 02:12 PM (BEJrz)
3
>>"the kind of thing you would have a problem with if you wanted to preserve the social stigma of non-heterosexual attraction and sexual expression of any kind from a woman."
Were you born this stupid or are you another victim of Americas system of "higher education"?
Posted by: Steve at October 16, 2009 04:02 PM (fjQAS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
So... When are These Guys Getting Kicked Out?
It has now been confirmed that Rush Limbaugh is not longer part of the bid to buy the St. Louis Rams, a political move orchestrated by those willing to risk libel and slander lawsuits to derail a hated political commentator's desire to participate in an entirely legal business transaction.
Rush's "crime" was that he was accused of being a racist. These charges were supported by a series of poorly-faked quotes concocted anonymously online and repeated
ad nauseum by liberals in the media who did not even attempt to verify if these smears were accurate before spreading them.
If the NFL is going to force Limbaugh to drop out of the running to buy the Rams based upon poorly-faked allegations, then the much more credible
471 arrests for real crimes documented against NFL players since 2000 should lead to all of the arrested players still active in the league immediately being immediately suspended, if not terminated.
After all, if accusation is the new standard of proof in the NFL, it needs to be applied to every player and owner evenly. If it isn't, then it's real bigotry... and we know the NFL hates that.
(h/t
Rock Moran for the NFL crime database)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:13 AM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
A businessman decided that having Rush Limbaugh as a partner was against his interests.
So, he decided not to do business with Limbaugh.
Last I checked, this is the kind of free-market solution conservatives believe in. The government didn't keep Limbaugh from becoming a minority owner of an NFL franchise. One of his prospective partners made that decision.
The outrage over this perfectly routine business decision reminds me of the conservative reaction to MSNBC's firing of Don Imus after he called used the term "nappy-headed hos" to refer to a group of college athletes. "Let the market decide!" Conservatives howled.
But the market did decide. MSNBC decided that its business interests were served better by firing Imus than by keeping him on the air. The government didn't take Imus off the air. His employer did. The market decided. Al Sharpton's civic activism amounted to nothing more than his own contribution to the marketplace of expressed ideas over Imus' comments. In that marketplace, Sharpton's ideas proved to have a higher value than those of Imus' defenders.
Now, I agree that the news media should have done a much better job of pointing out that there is no record of Limbaugh ever having praised James Earl Ray as a hero. But it is silly to suggest that Limbaugh has never expressed a racist thought. As just one example, it is racist to characterize a fight on a school bus between black kids and white kids as something that happens in "Obama's America." It is intellectually dishonest to deny the bigotry inherent in that statement.
Limbaugh has built his career and his fortune by generating controversy. He admits this. However, the perfectly predictable and understandable flip side of the rewards he reaps is that he finds himself unwelcome in the company of those who prefer to avoid his brand of controversy. His prospective partners in the NFL venture did not demand that Limbaugh change the nature of his program in order to participate in the deal. They simply decided that his controversial profile presented to great a risk to their bid for the team. So, he's out. It's not personal. It's just business.
Posted by: UncommonSense at October 15, 2009 11:39 AM (XFDTk)
2
Last I checked, this is the kind of free-market solution conservatives believe in.
Slander and libel masquerading as news are not free market solutions. On the bright side, Limbaugh can now demonstrate damages. This should be fun.
Posted by: Pablo at October 15, 2009 11:52 AM (yTndK)
3
As just one example, it is racist to characterize a fight on a school bus between black kids and white kids as something that happens in "Obama's America." It is intellectually dishonest to deny the bigotry inherent in that statement.
Oh, do explain that.
Posted by: Pablo at October 15, 2009 11:54 AM (yTndK)
4
right wing neocon network broke into a story about the afghanistan war to focus on....ta ta da
fatboy rushbo?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: Senorita Bonita at October 15, 2009 11:57 AM (07xCS)
5
@Pablo:
President Obama had nothing to do with the fight.
Limbaugh said that in Obama's America, white kids get beat up while black kids stand around and say, "right on, right on, right on."
Racial identity was the only connection Obama had to the black kids on the school bus. It is racist to attribute characteristics of one person to another based on nothing but race. Using race as a factor in determining someone's character is actually the definition of racism.
It is, therefore, racist to say (not to imply, but to say) that a fight on a school bus between black kids and white kids was characteristic of "Obama's America."
Posted by: UncommonSense at October 15, 2009 12:04 PM (XFDTk)
6
UncommonSense - Your right
Whether you support Limbaugh or not no one can deny he is highly contraversial. It is in his business interest to be contraversial. Every businessman (owner) would have to consider the negative effect on his investment of this association versus the benefits of having him aboard. So we have a basic conflict, the owners desire to minimize public contraversy versus Limbaugh's need to generate contraversy for his business model.
If it was about politics the owners would have embraced him as they are mostly Republicans.
It appears they just did not want the PR problem of having Limbaugh among them.
This sounds like business.
Posted by: Wise Owl at October 15, 2009 01:08 PM (GiqPr)
7
And if all else fails - draw the race card.
Posted by: TWoPolitics at October 15, 2009 01:23 PM (+QfDC)
8
Oye Pablo;
The best defense against libel/slander (the same thing except whether written or spoken) is the literal truth of the contested statement. therefore betcha Fatboy does nothing of the kind. But I do agree it would be great fun: the most since Fox suing Al Franken.
Posted by: willdamon at October 15, 2009 01:45 PM (8isd0)
9
You guys don't get it. Rush's attempt to buy a team was just satire. You're taking it all out of context. He's just trying to entertain his listeners.
Posted by: beetroot at October 15, 2009 02:03 PM (vzU4z)
10
So if I understand the liberals who have made comments. It is now ok to be racist and to have behavior that uses race, ones thoughts, ones political affiliation, etc as a process to deny one the ability to do business. So lets say that someone comes in a store and I feel that he is liberal, or black or any thing else. Then I can refuse to do business with that person, in other words deny him service. It looks like we are back in the 50's according to the liberals and they are comfortable with that concept.
Posted by: David at October 15, 2009 03:47 PM (Lh/sO)
11
@David:
Um... what?
I have seen nothing in this thread suggesting liberals believe racism is okay.
Are you suggesting that Rush Limbaugh is a victim of racism?
If so, that is silly.
Limbaugh is simply experiencing an adverse effect of the burlesque on-air persona that he presents on his radio show. It is entirely possible that Rush Limbaugh is not a racist. However, there is ample evidence based on the things he says that "Rush Limbaugh," the character he plays on the radio, is a racist.
It should not surprise anybody that a group of investors seeking to purchase an NFL franchise would not want to associate themselves with someone who earns his living with inflammatory, even racist, rhetoric.
If Limbaugh is a victim of anything, it is of his own success.
Posted by: UncommonSense at October 15, 2009 04:18 PM (XFDTk)
12
So how much did they have to pay to get him to bow out?
Posted by: garrettc at October 15, 2009 04:45 PM (DQjJA)
13
Uncommonsense,
You and Jesse Jackson are obviously prejudiced toward Rush. I have never heard him utter anything even remotely racist. There are not any quotes that he has made that are racist except those that are unvetted. That means that you don't like him as he is a white, conservative. That statement makes as much sense as accusing Rush of racism. I lived in Mississippi in the 50's and find it unsual that you desire to return to that envirorment.
Posted by: David at October 15, 2009 05:37 PM (Lh/sO)
14
David,
Just because you have never heard him utter anything that is racist does not mean he has never uttered anything that is racist. It only means YOU did not interpret what he said as racist.
Everything you say is subjective. It is up for interpretation. Rush calls Obama a Halfrican American. You think that is fine. I think it is racist. Who is right? It doesn't matter. To the NFL's eyes, the fact that we're debating whether or not he is racist -- or to what level he is racist -- is in and of itself a discussion it would rather avoid. It is selling itself to mainstream America. And controversy is not a part of the sales pitch.
It is interesting that Rush is mentioned as an opponent of Jackson and Sharpton. I paint all three with the same brush. They are a trio of opportunistic windbags who use race and division to make themselves rich. If Sharpton and Jackson are race-baiters, so is Rush. Big Time
All three peddle controversy. They sell outrage. Rush is the SAME as Sharpton. They are two peas, the same pod.
Al Sharpton would not be welcomed to buy an NFL team either.
Posted by: Tim at October 15, 2009 06:22 PM (921kk)
15
This is an incredible indictment on any of you that believe condeming someone on something that they supposedly said. Rush makes my blood boil sometimes but he is no racist. Everything he has said for the last twenty years has been recorded and believe me if there were things that could burn him the MSM would be playing them 24/7. Also, why the name calling? Are you people that have to use name calling so immature that you don't have anything intelligent to offer? I for one have had enough of the black thugs of the NFL and no longer watch any of them. Image? Ha! There are so many social misfits in the league that Rush would be like adding a priest to a prison if were a part owner. And how about the teams that sell shares to anyone? Do they set a limit on how many a person can buy? As to the bus fight, all you had to do was watch it. The police chief that originally called it a racial fight was slapped down by the mayor and changed his story to just boys being boys. Thats why two of the boys were suspended and charged with assault.
Posted by: inspectorudy at October 15, 2009 07:55 PM (Vo1wX)
16
What's being left out of the oh-so-clever "free market" retort is that Limbaugh didn't lose his part in the bid simply because he's controversial. He lost it specifically because he was tied to racist comments *that he never made*. It was those particular yet bogus statements attributed to him that spurred the backlash.
Furthermore, the NFL owners made no collective decision concerning with whom they would do business. This was a demonstrable case of slander that moved Checketts to take measures necessary to preserve the venture. However you look at it, that should not happen.
If the worst thing attributable to him were the McNabb comments, there's not enough to qualify labeling him as a racist. He fails the ridiculous litmus test to which would-be NFL owners have never before been subjected.
Posted by: Shwiggie at October 15, 2009 11:03 PM (10eW0)
17
It's ad nauseAm. Really this poor spelling makes me sick in my stomach!!!
Posted by: liamascorcaigh at October 16, 2009 06:56 AM (UpMxp)
18
It's Limbaugh vs. Sharpton and you've seen the end result with your own 2 eyes. TKO in the 1st round. It is what it is.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 16, 2009 10:49 AM (OX5qU)
19
As usual, Lippy, you are watching the wrong fight, and not even understanding the punches.
The fight is Limbaugh versus Obama, with news breaking that the NFL player rep who was involved in speaking out against Limbaugh has ties to the White House as part of his campaign staff.
As it now stands, only 43% of people would vote for Obama again.
By blocking Limbaugh's ownership, Obamaphiles threw out a good jab. That's all. As polls reveal, the judges--the American public--rather obviously have the anti-Obama team ahead on points.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2009 11:09 AM (gAi9Z)
20
President Obama had nothing to do with the fight.
Limbaugh said that in Obama's America, white kids get beat up while black kids stand around and say, "right on, right on, right on."
Racial identity was the only connection Obama had to the black kids on the school bus. It is racist to attribute characteristics of one person to another based on nothing but race. Using race as a factor in determining someone's character is actually the definition of racism.
Do we not live in Barack Obama's America? Had that happened last year and someone decried "George Bush's America" would that have been off base? Racist?
It is, therefore, racist to say (not to imply, but to say) that a fight on a school bus between black kids and white kids was characteristic of "Obama's America."
You might want to look that word "racist" up. And when you get done with that, maybe you could take a look at Arne Duncan's Chicago schools. Google Derrion Albert.
Posted by: Pablo at October 16, 2009 02:15 PM (yTndK)
21
Limbaugh is simply experiencing an adverse effect of the burlesque on-air persona that he presents on his radio show.
If that's the case, then why were his detractors using false quotes, UncommonSense?
Posted by: Pablo at October 16, 2009 02:18 PM (yTndK)
22
As it now stands, only 43% of people would vote for Obama again.
America is clearly 57% racist, CY.
Posted by: Pablo at October 16, 2009 02:19 PM (yTndK)
23
Here is a list of comments I would like explained by people who claim Limbaugh has never uttered a racist word in his life.
My favorite: "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons."
Rush says that a sport with a lot of black players looks like a battle between two predominantly black street gangs. Raise your hand if you think he would say the same thing about a rugby game. And this is the sport in which he wants to own a franchise?
I also really like this one:
"The days of them [racial minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry. And they want to use their power as a means of retribution. That's what Obama's about, gang. He's angry; he's going to cut this country down to size. He's going to make it pay for all the multicultural mistakes that it has made -- its mistreatment of minorities. I know exactly what's going on here."
Has anyone ever seen Barack Obama get angry? Is there any shred of evidence that he wants "retribution" from white people? No, Limbaugh is playing to a racist stereotype about black men being angry. (Ironic, since between Obama and Limbaugh, only one of them spends three hours a day screaming until he's red in the face.)
Posted by: Evan at October 16, 2009 02:28 PM (BEJrz)
24
CY...with all do respect, it's a serious stretch to blame this on Obama. Some of the racial comments that were referenced from Limbaugh (the real ones and not the bogus ones) were made way before anybody ever heard of Obama. I saw absolutely nothing wrong with Limbaugh owning the team. Why not?!?! Owning a struggling football team shouldn't have to be political and if the money was good, the players (black or white) would've showed up for kick off. He's an entertainer and doesn't believe half the BS that comes out his own mouth but it makes him a lot of cash. But I don't care who is in the WH (Repub or Democrat), these blacks lead by the threat of Al Sharpton were never gonna let this happen. It's not Obama, its just simple, good old fashioned payback.
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 16, 2009 02:54 PM (OX5qU)
25
So your favorite is: "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons."
Well, let's take that in context -- it was after a long diatribe about players' lack of discipline, lack of class, and the NFL validating misbehavior. In context, it's obviously about street-gang behavior, rather than skin color. It was titled "The Classless NFL culture"
See. for example, ". . . there is a culture problem in the NFL that has resulted in a total lack of class on the part of professional players."
I invite folks to examine the transcript at, of ALL places, Media Matters. Hardly fans of Rush:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910120009
Rush IS right about lack of class (not to mention felons) in the NFL. Which is why it's been banned in my home for years. Matters not a whit what color they are.
Oh, and the Bloods and the Crips comment ? Are you SERIOUS ? He mentions the two MOST-known (in the popular cultures) gangs in the US as his analogy, and you think it's about COLOR ?
You think that's necessarily RACIST ? It's SHORTHAND, for God's sale! I heard similar comments in the MILITARY in reference to lack of discipline DECADES AGO! Now, I could also use the Latin Kings or MS13, but THAT would be missed by more people.
The truth is, people LOOKING for racism can find it wherever they look.
Reminds me of the time when they screamed "RACIST" when the DC politician CORRECTLY used the word "niggardly." And before any illiterate fool has a conniption about THAT, look it up and improve your vocabulary.
Damned oversensitive fools.
Posted by: outnow at October 16, 2009 09:12 PM (ZZy/3)
26
"You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people’s lack of understanding"
- Horace Julian Bond, then chairman of the NAACP. and President Emeritus, Southern Poverty Law Center
Posted by: outnow at October 16, 2009 09:16 PM (ZZy/3)
27
CY...with all do respect, it's a serious stretch to blame this on Obama.
Yeah, Lippy, it's not like the White House made Limbaugh Public Enemy Number One a few months back. And it's not like DeMaurice Smith, the point man on this smear campaign, is in the Obama Administration.
Oh, wait. Both of those things are true.
Posted by: Pablo at October 17, 2009 07:55 AM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2009
Non-Felon Left Behind
Michael Vick get his rocks off getting dogs to fight each other to the death, and is welcomed back to the NFL with open arms, along with other convicts and thugs. Rush Limbaugh gets tarred for things he didn't say by a series of dishonest hacks, and that enough to knock him out of the bidding to buy a team.
Maybe if he had actually killed someone, he would have been accepted.
Anybody got Ray Lewis' number?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:41 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yeah, but at least they are letting international felon and Nazi collaborator George Soros stay in the Checketts group. After all, he's an Obama donor, which more than makes up for having helped Hitler out during the Holocaust.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at October 15, 2009 06:16 AM (2MEFn)
2
HEY! Easy there! Ray Lewis didn't kill anyone or any animal. He merely obstructed an investigation.
Posted by: MikeM at October 15, 2009 07:25 AM (30CMs)
3
Boycott the NFL!!! I have and I dont mind letting them know it. I know I havent knocked a dent in their sales but if more start boycotting they will take notice.
Posted by: capt26thga at October 18, 2009 10:39 AM (ow17t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Climate Change Zealots: Stop Breathing, America!
I'm not sure anymore... should this be categorized as religion, politics, or humor?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:20 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The whole "climate" problem could be solved in one day with my solution for decreasing CO2 emmissions.
All libtards that buy into climate change FKA global warming should hold their breath for 30 minutes on November 15, 2009 - now to be known as International Solve Climate Change Day. This will drastically reduce CO2 emmissions AND solve the problem with overpopulation.
Posted by: Penny at October 14, 2009 03:11 PM (5sGLG)
2
Have you noticed that in the US and Europe that the climate change problem is being solved by taxes. The taxes aren't going to anything to do with the climate but they are getting tax money and somehow that make the earth cooler.
Posted by: David at October 14, 2009 03:34 PM (dccG2)
3
I just had my "O.S.M.", as in "Oh sh**, these morons are freaking lunitics."
Posted by: MikeM at October 14, 2009 09:39 PM (30CMs)
4
Yup! Even another OSM. For those who don't closely follow the issue, the most recent findings are that the claim for exceptional warming in the past century were based, primarily, on one tree used as proxy for temperature. There is so much more bad science associated with the Hockey Stick graphic used to excite the folks, that it is becoming a comedy.
Furthermore, the huge uproar over Arctic ice melt records in 2007 were coincident with a minimal Ice Melt Record in the Antarctic. Never heard about the latter did you?
CoRev, editor
http://globalwarmingclearinghouse.blogspot.com
Posted by: CoRev at October 15, 2009 12:00 PM (0U8Ob)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Rush Limbaugh's Critics are Big, Fat Idiots
I don't listen to talk radio, and so I only hear what Rush Limbaugh says when someone else mentions it. That said, he's been on the air as a conservative talker since the mid 1980s, with an audience of 20 million. His political and social views, vocabulary, and style are perhaps more well known than any person on the planet.
That is why recent attempts to attribute a series of false racist quotes to him is so unsettling.
Limbaugh has strong views on many topics, and if he was a hardcore racist, he would have been called out for it decades ago, boycotted, and perhaps forced off the air. But the simple logic it takes to process that thought is
easily blinded by
hate, and a number of left-wing journalists and bloggers have decided to post various false racist quotes attributed to Limbaugh in an attempt to ruin his bid to buy the St. Louis Rams football team.
None of the false quotes even sounds
remotely like Limbaugh in tone or substance, and even more tellingly, none are sourced, a red flag to any competent journalist or blogger in a day and age when such things can be easily falsified on the Internet.
Why do these journalists and bloggers lie? Why do they commit an
easily disproven libel and slander in order to tar an opponent?
It's about power and control, and the moral relativism that infects them, convincing them that even the most blatant smear is justified if it thwarts their political enemies or can help them achieve even the most temporary victory.
There is a very simple reason that conservative media are ascendant and liberal media are in decline. People have learned that liberal media cannot be trusted to get even basic facts right if their agenda can be forwarded with bias and fraud. Fox News and other conservative outlets may or may not be "fair and balanced," but they certainly comes closer to being the most trusted sources of news, because the American people simply find them more trustworthy.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:14 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What the whole mess we now call the MSM has demonstrated is that there are consequences for allowing things to happen. For instance, we allowed most college campuses to be taken over and ruled like little fiefdoms by liberals. Free speech, free thoughts and free association has been eliminated through political correctness and outright intimidation. Conservative speakers now face outright bans on many campuses.
We now have journalism taught in most of the major colleges not as the what, when, why and where; but as facilitation for a particular ideology, and I think you know what that ideology is without me pointing it out.
Now we have a hate crimes bill coming before the Congress that will be passed with little or no fanfare that will do to the rest of the country what has been done on college campuses. Barack has signed on to a UN passed resolution that further restricts our rights. If we as a nation don't wake up damn soon, we will lose all our freedoms.
Posted by: templar knight at October 14, 2009 10:30 AM (968gv)
2
Conservative white is the new 1950s black. Gotta give the Left their target to polarize, hate, attack and blame for all the ills of their inept and corrupt administration.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 14, 2009 11:25 AM (7r7wy)
3
Rush is trying to get back at Jesse and the Reverand. The problem is that if he says something bad about them my response is "so, I know these guys suck." Why does anyone listen to them to begin with?
Posted by: David at October 14, 2009 03:31 PM (dccG2)
4
The sad thing in this post are the terms conservative media and liberal media. When the word media is preceded by either of those words, we're certainly no longer talking about media (news). We're talking about editorial viewpoints.
I don't know nor care if Rush is or isn't a racist. For anyone who care to spend 10 minutes doing just a little bit of research, there is a preponderance of evidence that Rush has no credibility when it comes to reporting "facts". His agenda is to divide the American people and play off their ignorance and fears. His very living and his wealth depend on it.
The only thing more disgusting than Rush's venom is the sad fact that so many people confuse it with Truth.
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 04:01 PM (byA+E)
5
Such a preponderance of evidence that you don't offer proof of it? Perhaps you were going to use WikiQuotes or the irrefutable first-hand knowledge of a Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker?
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 14, 2009 04:43 PM (A5r0Z)
6
Dude said "Rush has no credibility when it comes to reporting facts etc etc"
Dude, if you would pay any attention whatsoever to Rush you would realize how utterly incorrect that statement was. Why don't you listen to him for about a month, and then report back with what you actually find?
Posted by: Rick at October 14, 2009 05:17 PM (FWmwx)
7
AF, Google "Rush Limbaugh Liar" if you want to read some evidence. There's plenty of it there.
Rick, the thought of listening to Limbaugh for a month is revolting. Years ago I listened to him in order to learn how a conman operates. He's very good at what he does. Of course, he isn't to be taken seriously as any sort of news source. His success depends on keeping the right wing stirred up. That's what he does best and he surely isn't going to let the truth get in the way of that objective.
No thanks. I won't be listening to Rush anymore.
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 06:27 PM (byA+E)
8
Dude, you're crazy in looking at Limbaugh as a news source. He's a news commentator, not a reporter, and his agenda is to make a living giving an opinion that can be taken or left. And if it promulgates the cause of conservatism as he sees it, that's just icing on the cake to him.
People listen to Rush to hear his take on the news...which he typically cites and then recites on-air along with relevant sound-clips if available. Citing a Google search as the basis of your accusations is about as baseless as the charges of racism made against him.
Posted by: Shwiggie at October 14, 2009 06:42 PM (Wr78s)
9
Google "Rush Limbaugh Liar"
...and the top two or three hundred hits will be lefty sites that have an axe to grind against him. About as trustworthy as the anonymice who invented these quotes and smeared him with them.
As for what sort of credibility you should give him: no less than any other commentator, and more than many. While he is neither as smart nor as well-informed as he thinks he is on many subjects, he's a very gifted political commentator. He's also one of the simplest, most straightforward men you'll ever meet. He is not a con man. He's not trying to trick anybody. He has two goals: to push the conservative political philosophy for as long as there's breath in his body, and to have as much fun as he can get away with while doing it.
Posted by: wolfwalker at October 14, 2009 06:46 PM (c+TqP)
10
Dude, your answer to my observation that you cite nothing to back up your assertions is to suggest a Google search? Seriously? If I'm to understand this correctly, whatever I find on the internet will be true. Do you work for a major media outlet of some sort? You seem to exhibit the same work ethic as MSNBC or CNN when it comes to making an assertion and backing it up (Hint, that means none).
With the news that Rush has been dropped from the investment group making the bid, it'll be really interesting to see how many journalists, TV commentators and news organizations are named in the slander/libel lawsuit.
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 14, 2009 08:05 PM (A5r0Z)
11
Personally, I'm glad that the group dumped him. He probably is, too. Gives him another non issue to stir up the ditto heads.
It would make no difference what links I might post showing that Rush wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in the face. Your very statement that the first 200-300 returns would be leftie sites proves my point that YOU wouldn't believe it. I'm not lazy. I'm just not going to do your work for you. Wouldn't do any good anyway. To be clear, no, I'm not suggesting that whatever you find on the internet is the truth; far from it! I am suggesting that you do a bit of research for yourself.
I KNOW that Rush isn't a news source. Many people who listen to him everyday (I don't know how they stand it) DO believe that he's in the news business.
There is one bit of hope that I get from Rush. As long as he's the face of the Republican Party and considered by many to be their spokesperson, that's good for those of us who are more reality based.
Rush needs one crisis after another to survive. If one doesn't exist, he'll create one. That's how he makes his living.
Posted by: Dude at October 15, 2009 12:02 AM (byA+E)
12
Let's see, you're the one making the assertion that Rush lies yet you won't provide one example to back that up. I think it has more to do with you being unable to come up with something that isn't Wiki-libel, than any desire on your part to educate us to the vast wealth of truth you claim to possess. You don't agree with him, or most of us, which is quite clear but when your bluff is called to provide a concrete example you simply can't produce.
If it were truth, as you claim, and not a left-wing hack website that you obviously don't hold to the same standards that you claim Rush should follow, a simple copy/paste link should suffice to educate us supposedly "ignorant" folk. As it stands, you simply look like someone who points a gun with the giant red "BANG!" flag on a stick hanging out of the barrel.
Posted by: AFIraqVet at October 15, 2009 12:38 AM (A5r0Z)
13
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 10/15/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Posted by: UNRR at October 15, 2009 07:24 AM (2D++g)
14
"Fire can't melt steel. Google it!" - Rosie
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 09:11 AM (IPGju)
15
Dude, be honest, you never did listen to Rush to any extent. If you did, and feel the way you do, then your brain is vapid.
I'm soory to be so offensive, but when up against an obstinate liberal as yourself is hard not to be.
Posted by: Rick at October 15, 2009 09:16 AM (FWmwx)
16
"Dude, be honest"
Good luck with that.
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 09:31 AM (IPGju)
17
Personally, I'm glad that the group dumped him. He probably is, too. Gives him a cause of action to sue the people who've been sliming him.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Pablo at October 15, 2009 12:09 PM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 13, 2009
Failure to Launch
The only thing that can be said about this level of ineptitude is that it takes a committee to screw things up to this level, so there should be plenty of blame to pass around.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:18 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So some Hispanic was mad there was no Spanish page?
Screw him, and screw anyone who thinks that our political process is open to people too stupid or too illegal to speak/read English.
I might as well go to Germany and cry about how some political party there doesn't have an English language page.
Posted by: smarty at October 14, 2009 07:03 PM (e0Iiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
He's a Buddhist?
Apparently someone in Lakeville, MA decided that vandalizing a golf course was the best way to vent their disgust with President Obama, carving into the green " I 卍Obama."
But even a casual glance at the defaced green immediately tells you something is off: The swastika is facing counterclockwise.
Instead of insisting Obama is a stealth Muslim, are some on the fringe now contending he is a
Buddhist?
Symbols, like words, mean things.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:44 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama said: "There's not going to be 40K troops for Afganistan or anything, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness."
So I got that goin' for me... which is nice.
Posted by: brando at October 13, 2009 05:24 PM (IPGju)
2
I don't know what he is, but I know he is alien to America.
Posted by: twolaneflash at October 13, 2009 05:45 PM (svkhS)
3
These vandals show the same intelligence as the protesters who don't include the bottom vertical in the peace sign and end up advertising for Mercedes-Benz.
Posted by: MikeM at October 13, 2009 08:23 PM (30CMs)
4
I was in Ann Arbor this weekend and saw one of those Mercedes Benz signs set in sidewalk concrete. It said "Peace", and had a heart, and had a Mercedes Benz symbol. There's really no way around it. Hippies love Mercedes.
And someone in Lakeville actually feels that Obama is the path to religious enlightenment. Symbols mean things. You know, we've been told that 52% of the US population literally believes he's the Messiah. They really believe that crap.
Posted by: brando at October 14, 2009 09:18 AM (IPGju)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Chris Matthews Fantacizes About Rush Limbaugh Dying a Violent Death
Uttered this morning:
You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:29 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Whereas when matthews blows up it will be from drinking to long from obumble's crotch-fountain.
Posted by: emdfl at October 13, 2009 03:20 PM (sBfp9)
2
I'm holding my breath waiting for the left-wing blogs to slam him for this hate speech.
Holding .... holding ...
Posted by: Steve at October 13, 2009 04:14 PM (mruUD)
3
I thought Mathews was dead. Maybe only his brain died and he is a zombie.
Posted by: David at October 13, 2009 04:23 PM (dccG2)
4
Hmm, I thought all of the threatning langauge only came from the right. Well, at least that is what the Dems and their media tells me.
Posted by: citizenofmanassas at October 13, 2009 06:43 PM (HD5QP)
5
So a radio commentator is a threat to the President of the USA now? The POTUS is that weak?
Truly, as Orrin Judd said - the clothes have no Emperor.
Posted by: Mikey NTH at October 13, 2009 07:37 PM (TUWci)
6
Seems like a hate crime to me. Frog march him in, toss him in with another deviant and throw away the key.
Oh crap. He'd probably like that. We're screwed.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at October 13, 2009 07:58 PM (7r7wy)
7
Hard to believe what a piece of garbage matthews and many on the left have become.
Posted by: rog at October 14, 2009 08:35 AM (cFGyS)
8
Oh, I don't think that anyone is going to have "jam a big CO2 pellet in his face" for Rush to blow up. He's like the recorded messages in the opening scenes of, mmmm, I forget the name of the series, that self destruct. Thus it shall be with Rush.
I have a dream!!
Posted by: Dude at October 14, 2009 04:09 PM (byA+E)
9
Dude is back!
Libs fantacising about detonating Rush Limbaugh, and Dude is right there confirming that he shares the same view about murder.
Not a big surprise there.
Posted by: brando at October 14, 2009 06:46 PM (IPGju)
10
Yep, Brando, I'm back. I can see that you haven't changed a bit while I was away. You're still in the habit of attributing things to people that they didn't say. You and Rush must be related. Neither of you will let the truth get in the way of your story, huh?
Posted by: Dude at October 15, 2009 12:09 AM (byA+E)
11
Who's this "they" you keep talking about? Related? No. Just because I don't think he should be murdered, means that you declare that we must be related. That's just plain silly. We're not related. You got caught lying again.
Zing.
I'm right and you're wrong again. How many times is this now? It's fun on my end, but it must stink for you. Oh, and when I say wrong, I don't just mean 'mistaken', but rather 'wrong' as a person.
And I'll say it again. These dreams about blowing up people who disagree with you aren't healthy.
Posted by: brando at October 15, 2009 01:20 AM (LjEkE)
12
"Are you watching, Rush?" No, Rush isn't watching your show and neither is anyone else!
Posted by: Mac at October 15, 2009 10:02 PM (1h5/q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
If Your Senator Vote For The Baucus "Bill," Tar and Feather Them
Let's be very accurate about what the Senate is about to vote on today. They are not voting on a health care bill. There is no legislative language. They are voting on nothing more or less than a tentative and vaguely-designed wishlist that they will then back-fill after the fact.
I don't care if you are a Democrat. I don't care if you are a Republican. I don't care if you favor one of the various current health care proposals being offered, or if you'd rather prefer someone come up with a more workable idea.
Regardless of your politics, you should be outraged that the Senate Finance Committee (and the Senate as a whole) thinks it can get away with
this confidence game. It is fraud, a classic bait-and-switch. They intend to vote on vaporware, and then design a substandard product after the fact.
We deserve better than this. We deserve to have real legislation to discuss and debate. Instead, these cowards want to vote on vague generalities so that they can deny their complicity later when it all falls apart. It is gutless, and a blatant betrayal of the citizens they were elected to represent.
Any Senator who votes for the so-called Baucus "Bill" should be dragged into the street, stripped naked, covered in boiling tar, then feathered. I suspect that with the miracles of modern medicine, a good many of them may even survive the procedure.
Unless, of course, their health care plan doesn't cover that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:10 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
well, maybe not boiling tar, which would likely kill them....not that would be any great loss, but still.
how about roof mastic? same general material, hard as hell to get off, and will definitely hold the feathers on.
after all, whats the point of the exercise if they aren't around for the humiliation part of it?
Posted by: redc1c4 at October 13, 2009 04:09 PM (d1FhN)
2
I was also thinking about roofing tar, available in 5 gallon buckets.
Posted by: Smarty at October 13, 2009 08:03 PM (e0Iiu)
3
Pitchforks and torches are optional and encouraged. Seriously though, the most disappointing thing about this whole debacle is the fact these vermin will never face any kind of Justice in this world for the misery they cause wholesale on a daily basis.
Posted by: One Random Guy at October 13, 2009 08:35 PM (h0rLb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 12, 2009
Obamacare Wonders "What's in Your Wallet?"
Don't you just have an extra $4,000 a year just lying around?
After months of collaboration on President Obama's attempt to overhaul the nation's health-care system, the insurance industry plans to strike out against the effort on Monday with a report warning that the typical family premium in 2019 could cost $4,000 more than projected.
Obamacare is premised on the model of socialized medicine that is failing throughout the world, promises to make treating specific diseases less survivable, and will compound it all with increasing government bloat and inefficiencies.
No thanks.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:14 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
But he swore he wouldn't raise taxes on the niddle class! There must be some mistake there...oh, I see what it is. Some idiots BELIEVED him!
Posted by: Tully at October 12, 2009 04:25 PM (tUyDE)
2
He said he wouldn't raise taxes on those make less thean $200,000, but now there is the extra $4000.
I guess the lies start when Obama, Nobel laureate, moves his lips.
Posted by: Neo at October 12, 2009 04:29 PM (tE8FB)
3
It should be obvious to everyone by increasing taxes, and no tort reform, this health reform push was never about reducing the cost. It was all about adding to government power.
Posted by: Rick at October 13, 2009 10:25 AM (FWmwx)
4
in everything thats going on, all the expected higher taxes fees, lindsay ghraham is siding with cap and trade? which will amount to 2,000 bucks added to the bill of even the most impoverished households.
you can expect to have 6-8 thousand dollars taken from your pocket if obama and pelosi get thier way and they still wouldnt have "raised your taxes"
add in nancies value added tax and every time you buy anything you will pay the government for the pleasure.
now your at 10-12 thousand dollars.
someone want to tell me how a family that makes 50,0000 before taxes, is going to stay afloat with 10-12 thousand dollars disapearing from thier wallet????
really! this guy said no one would pay any extra taxes under 200,000. I dont like obama I allways knew what he was though, the ones I really dispise are the idiots who voted for these money hungry power hungry self smug self anointed socialist creeps.
Posted by: rumcrook® at October 13, 2009 10:57 AM (60WiD)
5
"Hey, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f***** up! You trusted us!"
(Another "Flounder moment" for the Obama voter.)
Posted by: Tully at October 13, 2009 11:09 AM (tUyDE)
6
I think you should watch the word "socialized medicine". It is not medicine that is being socialized as much as it is the patient. Medicine is basically already socialized with Medicare. Now the rest of the population will be under the government dictates.
As to the taxes, it is after all the government money. They only let you use a portion. You should be thankful for what they allow you.
Posted by: David at October 13, 2009 11:56 AM (dccG2)
7
And yet our country is way better now than it was when the idiot-in-chief, the boy blunder, George "Dumbya" Bush and the rethuglicans were in control.
Posted by: Oggy Ogglethorpe at October 13, 2009 06:33 PM (h/EEo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No, Jennings Did Not Claim Killing Over Name-Calling is Acceptable
"Safe Schools Czar" Kevin Jennings is a trainwreck for the Obama Adminstration, having hidden sexual abuse of a minor while a teacher, and then hero-worshipping a known member of NAMLA, a perverse group that advocates sex between perverted old men and underage boys. For these incidents alone any Presidential Administration with any sense of decency would ask Jennings to resign, so it is perhaps unsurprising that he still works for the Obama Administration.
But as morally compromised Jennings is, the latest complaint being aired against him is a false allegation that can only come about from a misreading of the point Jennings was attempting to make.
Jennings was not attempting to say that
killing someone over a
sexual smear is acceptable. He was condemning it.
Read the paragraph
in full:
We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being "a man" is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man—don't be a faggot.
Jennings was clearly disgusted with the events he was writing about. He's claiming that a society that promotes murder as an acceptable response to name-calling is abhorrent. And in this one instance, he's right.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:40 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
But like most leftards he is only opposed to killing someone who calls you a faggot. What he believes is that he supports killing people who call faggots faggots. Just as libtards oppose racial discrimination only when favored people are discriminated, but they support racial discrimination against whites.
Posted by: Federale at October 12, 2009 11:49 AM (I6UoW)
2
No he doesn't support killing anyone. All the shooters he was discussing were gay.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 12, 2009 11:54 AM (gAi9Z)
3
You are right that he is not advocating this. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that he was excusing the behavior to some degree because it's the fault of society.
And this is where people are missing the more damning point. Jennings is clearly saying that it's the fault of society for teaching values based on traditional gender roles. Or to put it another way, that the traditional idea of what it means to be a man is a danger to our children.
I don't think this is a belief shared by many people. And it's outrageous of him to suggest that a few isolated cases of violence are evidence for this.
Posted by: Morgen at October 12, 2009 12:04 PM (sxFuJ)
4
I've read about this in a few places as well. I don't understand how anyone could read that he was AGREEING with the mindset when he was clearly what he was arguing against.
Morgen does make a pretty valid point, however.
Posted by: Tony B at October 12, 2009 12:37 PM (OMINP)
5
This isn't about Jennings endorsing murder. Frankly, some of the blogs who picked it up from us have jumped on the headline without reading the post. Thanks to Confederate Yankee for trying to reel this in before it gets out of hand.
If you visit our site, you'll see that what Morgen is saying above was precisely our point all along. This is about Jennings drawing a line between being "a man" and school shootings. It matters because if that's what he believes, then "safe schools" will necessarily be schools where "manhood" is suspect.
I'm not sure most Americans would be comfortable with that, period, much less with putting Kevin Jennings in a position to decide what the proper amount of manhood is. That, it seems to me, is worth talking about.
Posted by: John at October 12, 2009 01:00 PM (NcsIb)
6
I read that paragraph 5 times, and I am not sure that I can follow your line of reasoning. Not aberant behaviour but an extreme expression of a belief??? That at the very least seems ambiguous to me. But with the other two things going, this is over the top. Why not simply say: Killing someone who calls you a fag is totally and always wrong and to be condemned as extremely as possible. Words matter. Read the words he used carefully.
Posted by: TimothyJ at October 12, 2009 03:24 PM (IKKIf)
7
I appreciate your post on this point. I read the Jennings quote myself and found nothing objectionable. There are plenty of things he can be condemned for without trying to make something like this into something it is not. We don't help our credibility by doing so.
Posted by: Spartan79 at October 12, 2009 05:24 PM (aR5oH)
8
I read the whole thing a couple of times, and it sounds like he's putting the blame of the murders squarely on the vicitms. It could be shortened down to "Don't call me gay, or I'll kill ya, and it'll be your fault".
Also he uses the phrase "Homophobia". Words have meaning. Is he just throwing around the word Phobia like a careless idiot layperson, or does he actually mean DSM-4 Phobia like he said?
If these victims were actually diagnosed with homophobia, then I'm not sure if killing them is the kindest thing to do. Nor is blaming them for their own murders.
Posted by: brando at October 12, 2009 07:36 PM (LjEkE)
9
Of course he is saying that now, but just as Hubert Humpfrey said he would eat the 1964 Civil Rights Act if it was ever used to favor discrimination, in the end liberals will be supporting killing their opponents. They just lie when it is convinient. 20 years ago liberals said gay rights was not about marriage, but equality, and of course they were lying.
Libtards say they support freedom of speech, but today want to put Fox and talk radio out of business. It is not too great a step to them arresting people for speaking out. Just look at what is happening in Canada.
Scratch a libtard and you find a Stalinist, and I really mean a Stalinist. One with a blood lust deep in his heart.
He may have not said it today, but deep in his heart he is thinking it, and ten years from now it will be a standard libtard position.
Posted by: Federale at October 13, 2009 11:29 AM (UQeEa)
10
Rush just had a clip from Chris "Thrill" Matthews. Matthews just fantacized about killing Rush like a villian was killed in a James Bond flick. (0940 PST)
This clearly shows that libtards are essentially Stalinist in the real meaning of the term. They want to kill their political opponents.
Posted by: Federale at October 13, 2009 12:43 PM (UQeEa)
11
Chris Matthews, Assassin. http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/lib-chris-matthews-fantasizes-about.html
Deep down, all libtards are bloodthirsty Khmer Rouge like killers.
Posted by: Federale at October 13, 2009 01:18 PM (UQeEa)
12
He's claiming that a society that promotes murder as an acceptable response to name-calling is abhorrent. And in this one instance, he's right.
So he's talking about Islam, then?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 14, 2009 12:20 AM (hV1Vu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Like E.F. Hutton Said... You Earned It.
Progressive bloggers pushing for the adoption of the LGBT agenda President Obama said he would implement on their behalf have now been given the cold shoulder by the White House. Once they complained that Obama failed to live up to his campaign promises, they were summarily dismissed by the Administration as part of "the internet left fringe" that needs to "take off their pajamas."
The reaction to the betrayal is
as you would expect, with lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
I guess it isn't quite so funny when the real teabaggers are dismissed just as easily as those smeared as such.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:07 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sure, I figured that the gay community will get from Obama pretty much what Reagan gave the "Pro-Life" community ... lots of words with the best of intentions, but this White House seems to have lost their minds.
Now, every gab at the White House is personal.
Go ahead Barack et al ... insult your critics into submission. Even Bush wasn't that stupid. I apparently missed this technique for making friends and influencing people.
Posted by: Neo at October 12, 2009 12:11 PM (tE8FB)
2
Wow. Another promise with an expiration date. Who would have thunk it. Besides, where the heck are they going to go, to the Republicans. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!11!!1
Posted by: TimothyJ at October 12, 2009 03:26 PM (IKKIf)
3
"real teabaggers" -- At the risk of being politically incorrect, that's kind of funny!
Posted by: Lipiwitz at October 13, 2009 04:13 AM (bhNGz)
4
I get the joke about the difference between real teabaggers and tea party protesters, and I think it's funny, but Liberals just wont be able to understand it, because they actually believe that it's the same thing.
There's just no talking them out of it. But it's sure funny to mock.
Posted by: brando at October 14, 2009 11:34 PM (LjEkE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 11, 2009
Remembering Learning of the Battle of Oxford
Until I saw this linked on Instapundit, I never knew such an event took place:
On Tuesday, Oct. 1, Oxford, Miss., will be coming to terms with one of the major events of its past. Forty years ago on that day, in the early morning, a force of nearly 30,000 American combat troops raced toward Oxford in a colossal armada of helicopters, transport planes, Jeeps and Army trucks.
Their mission was to save Oxford, the University of Mississippi and a small force of federal marshals from being destroyed by over 2,000 white civilians who were rioting after James Meredith, a black Air Force veteran, arrived to integrate the school.
The troops were National Guardsmen from little towns all over Mississippi, regular Army men from across the United States and paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions.
They had to capture the city quickly; the F.B.I. had intelligence that thousands of Klansmen and segregationists from California to Georgia may have set off for Oxford, many of them armed.
The first troops to reach Oxford found over 100 wounded federal marshals at the center of campus, 27 of them hit by civilian gunfire. Packs of hundreds of rioters swarmed the city, some holding war dances around burning vehicles.
Snipers opened fire on the Army convoys and bricks struck the heads of American soldiers. Black G.I.'s in one convoy were ambushed by white civilians who tried to decapitate them in their open Jeeps with metal pipes....
...The Army troops restored order to the school and the city, block by block. A girl watched a team of infantrymen under attack on the Oxford town square and, according to a reporter at the scene, wondered aloud, "When are they going to shoot back?" Except for a few warning shots, they never did.
This is just another dark chapter in American history that the "higher powers" in our education system preferred us not to know about growing up, like the
Battle of Athens or the
Wilmington Insurrection.
The claim has always been that " history is written by the winners," but have we lost knowing ourselves when both the winners and losers refuse to acknowledge what occurred?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:27 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm with you on the surprise. Glad to at least be learning about it now. Thanks to this internet-thingy that kind of secrecy should be in the past. After seeing the same link you did, I emailed it to my sister and brother-in-law. I'm guessing they'll pass it on as well.
This is how I commented to them on this story:
I had never heard of this event, and don't recall learning about it in any classes. The Civil Rights era is not something I've spent any time studying, not sure why. Certainly these soldiers were the best of us, and deserve to be remembered.
But read that article and think about it for a minute. We were all already alive, being taught by and influenced by the peers of these rioting civilians. Their view was, at that time, widely held, though their actions were far in the extreme. How very much has changed, how quickly.
Sure, there are changes to the technology and the stuff; those things change our actions. More shocking is what has deeply changed, in such a short time - what we think and feel about integration. Has there ever been such a seismic shift in a population's belief system - that did not require massive amounts of death? Usually that kind of change to a population's thoughts and beliefs requires a population-destroying plague, war, or invasion - something to cause complete change in societal makeup, something that makes changing thoughts a matter of survival. Plague devastates the population, peasants become landowners, serfs become shopkeepers, lords become farmers, class lines blur of necessity. But within our lifetime...from thousands rioting over a black guy attending college to the racial composition of my nephews being a big "who cares".
For all her faults, this country and her people amaze me in the most wonderful ways. It's nice to take a step back a gaze appreciatively at what God gave us, and the many good things we've been able to do with that gift.
And in case the message isn't clear - the American Military is without question, the best the world has ever seen.
(FYI, when I write to family, I write in the same run-on sentences with which I speak. They understand, read it in my tone of voice, and are required by law to love me anyway!)
Posted by: Less at October 11, 2009 11:04 PM (PGXeZ)
2
47 years ago. NYT editors did not read the article, first it says "Forty years ago on that day" then says "The Cuban missile crisis unfolded just weeks later, wiping Oxford from the front pages". The actual date was Oct 1, 1962.
Posted by: Richard Roark at October 11, 2009 11:07 PM (Y/4ua)
3
I knew of this, though not that it was that bad, and I know of the White Citizens League attacking the police of N.O. in 1874 (The Battle of Liberty Place. . the NOPD at the time was integrated) and know several people who decry the loss. . . of the successes of the WCL and KKK. They also wish the Fools had won in Oxford, and that we still remain segregated after the take over in Louisiana.
These idiots I know are also having one other thing in common with the WCL and KKK. They are all, to this day, democrats.
As far as we've come, we still have a long way to go.
Posted by: JP at October 12, 2009 01:47 AM (VxiFL)
4
>>"Forty years ago on that day, in the early morning, a force of nearly 30,000 American combat troops raced toward Oxford in a colossal armada of helicopters, transport planes, Jeeps and Army trucks."
Isn't that illegal?
Posted by: Steve at October 12, 2009 07:53 AM (KdFDy)
5
History is written by the poets, writers and film makers who shape popular culture. Thus the brutal reality of the South between 1876 and the 1960s got pushed aside for visions romantic, bucolic or gothic in nature in which race was seldom, if ever, mentioned.
I hadn't heard of this incident, either. That doesn't surprise me. The left isn't about to celebrate the military's role while those writers who do celebrate the military generally aren't interested in the Civil Rights movement.
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at October 12, 2009 09:07 AM (eXdIs)
6
The article is dated September 28, 2002, so "40 years ago" was correct when it was published.
Posted by: rafinlay at October 12, 2009 09:50 AM (kbHJ6)
7
Oh The IRONY!
Contrast this article with the real life 2009 college footbal scene in Oxford this past Saturday when the nearly all-black home Ol' Miss team played the nearly all-black visiting team from.....ALABAMA!!!.... both sides cheered on furiously by their nearly all white fans!!
Irony thick enough to cut with a knife.
Posted by: Earl T at October 12, 2009 09:58 AM (aGdzC)
8
Steve, suggest you read up on just what it is the National Guard is for.
Posted by: DavidB at October 12, 2009 11:03 AM (qo//+)
9
I suggest that you read the article.
"The troops were National Guardsmen from little towns all over Mississippi, regular Army men from across the United States and paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions."
I repeat - is that legal?
Posted by: Steve at October 12, 2009 12:09 PM (G3Qfu)
10
It's a good question Steve. Wikipedia has the following, FWIW:
"There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:
National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act, as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness."
So it sounds like it might be legal. However, I get the impression that the reason the Gov't wanted to keep the whole incident hush-hush, was to both downplay the level of racial strife in the south as well as the fact that the US Gov't sent troops to potentially fire on US citizens. Really a no-win situation, and as such, best to sweep under the rug as quickly as possible.
Posted by: Jason at October 12, 2009 12:54 PM (OSSCz)
11
The above quote was on the Posse Comitatus Act, in case anyone was wondering.
Posted by: Jason at October 12, 2009 12:56 PM (OSSCz)
12
Regulars went to Little Rock, and Detroit in 1967.
Posse Comitatus--they were big on us knowing that at Benning in 69--forbids the use of federal, i.e. regulars, in law enforcement.
Exception is after declaration of martial law.
The Alabama Guard was federalized when U of Alabama was integrated and the governor stood in the school house door. I suppose that made them regulars for the moment.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at October 12, 2009 03:11 PM (d0ih6)
13
I was in the 101st. in 1962. I was not sent to Oxford, but several friends were. These friends told me on their return that the regular army troops were not issued ammunition. It therefore dosn't surprise me that they didn't fire back.
The troops that went were issued both M-1 and M-14 rifles with bayonets. None of them said that they had been fired on.
Paul in Texas
Posted by: Paul at October 12, 2009 03:22 PM (rCmYM)
14
I had a company commander who was a corporal at Little Rock, commanding a gun jeep. Had the old Browning air-cooled thirty on a pintle mount.
The ROE were scary. Fortunately, nutcases like those rioting were smart enough not to mess with paratroopers or there would have been a lot fewer of them the next day.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at October 12, 2009 03:57 PM (d0ih6)
15
The third brigade 82nd. was in Detroit in 67. The story goes that LBJ called and said he wanted a paratrooper on every corner by morning and they were there. Four months later we were in Vietnam to stop NVA infiltration from Ah Shau into Hue. It took five days to accomplish that deployment.
Posted by: bman at October 12, 2009 04:00 PM (gyX4U)
16
Earl T., also note the Alabama lineman who's fight with his white girlfriend got him arrested and almost suspended from the team. If not for her white father who interceded for the black player because he was such a big cog in the big crimson machine. Lots of stuff has changed where George Wallace once stood in the door. I would like to say also that a couple favorite sayings of George was that that there wasn't a dimes worth of different between the republican and democratic parties, so much truer today, he also said that government money meant government control and people did not seem to give a damn. Well do we today or not?
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at October 12, 2009 06:33 PM (8kQ8M)
17
Are you kidding?? James Meredith and the riot at Ole Miss is one of the most well-known, well- publicized event of the civil rights era. And you're just hearing about it now?
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/race/100262race-ra.html
Posted by: Landru at October 13, 2009 02:22 PM (my38P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Daughter Saves Mother After Death Panel Sentences Her to Starve To Death
But don't worry, folks.
It could never happen here.
And no, the reality of socialized medicine killing patients
isn't limited to Britain.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:30 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Are Our Troops Getting the Best Weapons?
In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.
When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.
Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?
Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.
There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of veterans far more qualified to opine on whether or not the M-4/M-16 family of small arms are the best that money can buy, but it doesn't take a great deal of qualification to suspect that the answer to
this question is "no."
The basic weapon design for the M-16/M-4 is over 40 years old. While there have been modifications and upgrades during its service lifetime, it has always been prone to failure in adverse conditions. The shorter M-4 carbine, with an abbreviated gas system, is also said to be less reliable than the longer barreled M-16.
Then there is the issue of the cartridge the weapon uses. While the 5.56 NATO round can create devastating wounds at higher velocities, the shorter barrel of the M-4 reduces the velocity of the small .22-caliber bullet so that at extended ranges, velocity drops off enough that the bullet merely penetrates straight through without immediately stopping the enemy. I've written before about soldiers I've spoken to directly that had to shoot insurgents in the head after multiple shots to the torso
failed to stop them.
Likewise, the cartridge has been criticized from the beginning because the high velocity lightweight bullets fail to penetrate light cover and stop the enemy on the other side. This is a significant problem, especially as U.S. troops typically encounter an opposition with 7.62-caliber weapons that have greater penetration capability.
Our soldiers are armed with a weapon advanced in years with a history of failing at the worst possible time, chambered for a cartridge with a dubious record of stopping the enemy in real-world combat scenarios.
Of course, our military knows this.
The
XM-8 program developed a lighter, more reliable 5.56 weapon. The military cancelled it, but civilians can get a
semi-automatic version for themselves. There are also other, more reliable weapons being used in small quantities in the field, from the
HK416 to the
FN SCAR.
Other cartridges are being tested as well, from the
6.8 SPC specifically developed for the military, to the
6.5 Grendel.
The simple fact of the matter is that we are
not arming our military with the most modern, reliable, or potent weapons.
I'll leave it for others to explain why.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:24 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
For those not overly familiar with things ballistic, my own elementary understanding:
Yes, our people fire .22 cal. bullets, but they're not like the one you shot at summer camp when camps still did that. The military version is the same diameter, but the bullet is longer, and thus heavier.
A little physics. The speed something hits something has much more effect on the damage done than the weight of the the thing doing the hitting.
The idea behind the military .22 cal is that you get this longer, lighter, narrow bullet moving really fast, and it will tumble the instant it hits its target, and that does a lot of damage to the target. The advantage is you get more individual bullets to fire, that will still be lethal, but will weigh a lot less than heavier ammo.
But the key is that those bullets must impact at high velocity to have a lethal punch. A HUGE factor in producing that velocity is the length of the barrel. That is because you have to give the hot, expanding gas TIME to push on the bullet moving down the barrel to get it up to speed. Shorten the barrel, and you lower that speed. Lower the speed too much and you have -- almost literally -- a pea shooter.
Since the resurgence in popularity of the almost 100 year-old Colt 45 Model 1911 pistol, I'm wondering, Bob -- not that I think such a thing would ever happen -- how much of a WWII Thompson submachine gun would actually have to be made out of heavy, machined steel if someone were to update it as a modern assault rifle?
I know, I know, but one can dream.
Posted by: Bill Smith at October 11, 2009 01:11 PM (nvoxV)
2
The Afghan Mujahideen defeated the Soviet empire with a mix of Soviet weapons,Lee Enfields, and God help them even a few old Martini rifles left by the Brits in the 19th century. If the US can't win over there it won't be because the M16 is an inferior weapon(I'd go with an M14, but that's another post). We really need to be asking ourselves what the hell we are doing over there, and if inserting tens of thousands of troops is going to do anything more than piss off the locals, which is something you REALLY don't want to do. Just ask Alexander the Great, the Brits, or the Russians.
Posted by: William Butler at October 11, 2009 01:20 PM (znAs1)
3
My absolute favorite weapon from 1965 - 1968 was the .50 cal. mounted on my APC - what a feeling of power - and special fun with tracers at night. The next favorite was my .45 cal. pistol, but alas you had to be close to the target, but you knew he wasn't getting up! In the beginning we used the M-14 - which was an excellent weapon - ( see the post above) but not suited for a lot of moisture, mud and gunk, but may do well in the desert and mountains - don't really know - it's been a long time.
Bottom line - it is a MASSIVE UNFOGIVABLE SHAME that our military don't have the BEST weapon on the planet - end of story - no excuses.
With current leadership in D.C. I doubt it will get any better.
Posted by: slimedog at October 11, 2009 01:37 PM (Wxgn3)
4
I started Basic Training with am M-14 before transitioning to an M-16. We used to insist that Mattel was the contractor for the M-16. Luckily, within a year, I had transitioned back to a pair XM-21s that traveled with me for the next seven years. I have noticed that the M-21 systems are still around and in high demand by special operators. The 7.62 NATO packs a better punch (especially as range lengthens) is less affected by brush. Personally, I think an M-4 is for clearing urban rooms, but for that I don't see an advantage over an HK MP-5. Disclaimer; I have never handled an M-4.
Posted by: Richard Roark at October 11, 2009 01:55 PM (Y/4ua)
5
Just getting away from the Direct Gas system would do wonders. Yes, it is more accurate at long distances, but even in the Ashcan, it isn't that big a deal to the average troop.
A sustained fire fight will cause the thing to stop working. It will happen, and the fighting there (as opposed to Iraq) is often longer in nature. The Muhj prefered the AK to the AKM because they could use the .22 ammo if needs be in the 7.62. No it was not accurate, or as fast, but lead went down range.
A 6.5-7mm round would do wonders in QCB, and something that still allows the larger amount of ammo per pound is a good idea.
The AR being 40 isn't as big a deal as some of the "replacements" are AR's with improvements. Piston designs that, as with the barrels for a more effective size round, can be used on existing lowers (not that saving money is ever an important thing to procurement processes). Some of the Spec Ops folks are still using a few M14s, whiuch is based on the even older M1 Garand. But, like the 14 was an improved version of the 1, the A4 is something of an improvement of the M16. But they didn't (in my opinion) improve it enough.
The Ar in .458-Socom with a Piston actuator is ideal for room to room, but the thing hold what, 10 rounds in a regular mag? The 222/223 is only good for up to a 7.62/.308 and reliably operate, and the bullet is rather short then. The 6.8 was brought about to try to optimize the size and length and still reliably feed and headspace (there is a wildcat .338/223, but headspacing is a nightmare). Sadly, every alternate round is going to be lacking somehow, but I do think just going to the 6.8-spc and piston uppers would allay much of the troubles we have.
Posted by: JP at October 11, 2009 01:59 PM (VxiFL)
6
Eugene Stoner followed the AR-15 design with the AR-18 which fixed almost all the problems of the earlier design, gas piston design, folding stock, flat top receiver. receiver of steel rather than pot metal. The Govt. was not about to admit to a second mistake after the reliability problems of the M-14 just a few years earlier and have plowed on with an inherently bad design.
I used an AR-18 extensively in the '70s and it was dead solid perfect.
Posted by: georgeh at October 11, 2009 02:18 PM (sp19P)
7
The M-16 family of which the M4 is a recent variant has much to recommend it: Light weight, great inherent accuracy, exceptional ergonomics, very little recoil, substantial quantities of ammunition may be reasonably carried, and easy adaptability to a wide variety of useful accessories. On the downside, however, there are a number of real concerns including:
(1) The gas impingement system is inherently unreliable in combat conditions. It dumps unburned powder and fouling directly into the chamber and action of the weapon. In clean, ideal conditions, it works fine; in combat, it requires substantial maintenance and may be deadly.
(2) The 5.56 cartridge, particularly in military ball configuration (full metal jacketed bullets), can be quite effective if fired from the standard 20" M-16 barrel, but the M4 is some 4" shorter and the resulting loss in velocity substantially reduces the effectiveness of the round on human beings. The round has never been an effective penetrator of cover. Of course, the larger and heavier the cartridge, the fewer rounds may be carried, so this is always a trade-off.
(3) The weapon is not robust and can be rather easily broken if misused. You don't, for example, want to butt-stroke anyone.
For civilian uses, including police work, the current weapon is a near ideal. Of course, this is true because, apart from the many good qualities of the weapon, few civilians will be called upon to fire hundreds of rounds on automatic, or even semi-automatic, in a very short period of time without maintenance.
The trick here--if keeping the AR configuration is the goal--is to retain the many positive qualities of the weapon while including a gas piston design (and a few other smaller refinements). H&K, Ruger and others have done just that in the AR configuration. A more effective cartridge without excessive weight might also be possible, but the easiest solution might be a bullpup design like the Israeli Tavor that would allow all of the positive qualities of the M-16, including a 20" or longer barrel, in a package no longer than the M4. With a revamping of bullet design with the goal of improving lethality without relying exclusively on high velocity, this might be an optimum solution.
Posted by: Mike McDaniel at October 11, 2009 03:46 PM (DJR56)
8
Lot of contraversy here about the M4 and other individual weapons used by our Military.
I know that the M16 I used forty years ago was not reliable but that was just what we experienced in our unit. We favored carrying AKs when we went out (Long Range Patrol) because if we had to fire our weapons (which was a no no) they wouldn't know the Americans were around.
The U.S. Military is not going to just up and replace the M4 all at once, it is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming replacing them a few thousand at a time starting out with our SOF, Rangers and selected Marine units.
All you will ever need to know and more at this link:
FN SCAR
Papa Ray
Central (used to be West) Texas
Posted by: Papa Ray at October 11, 2009 10:28 PM (JpVJn)
9
The M4 and M16 need to be replaced IMMEDIATELY. They simply do not meet acceptable reliance and stopping power standards. Both the 5.56 and 7.62 have too many shortcomings. As does the 6.8 round. The great thing about the 5.56 is that it's small, compact, light weight and accurate. The great thing about the 7.62 is that it hits a lot harder. But where the 7.62 fails is in long range accuracy, weight and size. The 6.5 Grendel round is BY FAR the best round on the market since it combines the accuracy of the 5.56 with the stopping power of the 7.62 round. It shoots further than the 5.56, 6.8 and 7.62, it shoots more accurately than all 3 with a much flatter trajectory and it has stopping power almost as good as the 7.62 round. We need to build a rifle around the 6.5 Grendel ASAP. It should be extremely reliable, extremely durable, extremely accurate, extremely comfortable to use, extremely light weight, extremely customizable and not too expensive. I haven't seen a gun on the market that quite meets all those requirments so we need to get a competition going immediately between gun manufactures to produce those rifles. They should make an affordable semi-automatic version as well so the civilian market can eat them up and make it more lucritive to manufacture them. GIVE OUR TROOPS THE BEST. THEY DESERVE IT.
Posted by: Blackwater at October 12, 2009 04:19 AM (55ZnI)
10
Also let me add that there are indeed AR-15 style rifles that already meet most of those standards if not all of them. But I've never personally handled one so I don't feel comfortable recommending them. But it very well might be that this rifle is already ready to go so we should start filling out large orders for them. The military should be on top of this anyway. If not then shame on them.
Posted by: Blackwater at October 12, 2009 04:23 AM (55ZnI)
11
Another thing they should seriously consider is adding bullpup ammo loading into the gun. It allows the gun to be much more compact without sacrificing accuracy or bullet velocity. It might look strange, feel strange and be a little slower to load but our soldiers will get quickly used to it just like the British and others have. It will also allow for better urban combat and vehicle combat capabilities.
Posted by: Blackwater at October 12, 2009 04:32 AM (55ZnI)
12
We need another John Browning. No one ever complained about his weapons jamming or lacking effectiveness, and we still use the Ma Deuce .50 caliber, which works just fine.
Posted by: Joe Hooker at October 12, 2009 08:35 AM (S92RF)
13
So the AK-47 stopped the Russians and fought us to stand still.... Why reinvent the wheel?
Just convert to the ak-47, much cheaper, reliable and seems to work well in a combat situation. How often do we engagae with small arms at long ranges anyway? Introducing a new style of weapon and a new cartridge will in our political arean will drag on for decades. Do we always need the most expensive stuff?
Posted by: Dave Kangas at October 12, 2009 10:18 AM (XN5Tg)
14
The problem is the direct gas impigment system. After 200 rounds or so, it becomes less and less reliable. It is also sensitive to dust and dirt. This has been a continual problem since Vietnam and has not be solved. An AK variant in 5.56 would be a real solution.
Posted by: Federale at October 12, 2009 12:16 PM (I6UoW)
15
Get 'em all AKs. Problem solved.
Posted by: Bill Johnson at October 12, 2009 09:28 PM (WUwIm)
16
"Bottom line - it is a MASSIVE UNFOGIVABLE SHAME that our military don't have the BEST weapon on the planet - end of story - no excuses."
Yes it is sad that we can't have the best that money can buy. However, being a former military guy, I can understand it.
Say you can buy a decent rifle for a thousand dollars, or you can buy a great rifle for fifteen hundred. You, buying one rifle will probably go for the fifteen hundred dollar rifle. But if you are buying a million of them, you will likely go with the thousand dollar rifle.
It is better to have everyone have a decent rifle instead of a few people having a great rifle, and everyone else a crappy one.
The major problems with the M4 are simple. Shorter barrel means lower velocity. Lower velocity means that the projectile drops below the 2400 ft/s mark where it fragments inside the body. It also means lower barrel pressers that cycle the rifle. Lower barrel pressures mean less functionality.
Now, if you would all think back about six years you may remember public outcry that our troops had rifles that were too long, and couldn't operate as well in buildings, or getting out of vehicles.
So what does the military do? They go with a shorter rifle.
Blame yourselves America.
Posted by: Matt at October 15, 2009 11:38 AM (54Fjx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 10, 2009
Diluted
Democrats in the media and in politics have so over-used cries to racism in an attempt to marginalize legitimate opposition that the word has rapidly lost the stigma attached to it. Indeed, in the context of the political blogosphere, bloggers on the center-right have been using the term self-referentially as a sarcastic bit of snark to the constant knee-jerk claims of racism they know will radiate from progressives.
It's a shame the left has decided to make such reckless use of the word in an attempt to stifle opposition, because when real racism occurs, calling it out with the level of derision it deserves becomes that much more difficult.
This is real racism.
When you walk into the Georgia Peach Oyster Bar in Paulding County, you feel like you've walked into a different era.
Behind the pool tables stands a mannequin in a Klu Klux Klan costume, but it's what's outside of the Patrick Lanzo's restaurant that has some people angry.
Lanzo put up a sign that reads "Obama's plan for health-care: N*&%*r rig it."
Keep that link bookmarked, lefties. The next time you feel the urge to tar someone as a racist as a catch-all smear, you can use that as a touchstone.
Sadly, labeling people such as Lanzo as a racist simply isn't the pejorative it once was, thanks to those who have turned the label into a joke.
Update: Another Black Conservative is on the same wavelength.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:29 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"The term 'racist has been seriously over-used recently. It's time for a one month moratorium on the word to allow it to build up power again. Until then, use xenophobe, sexist, homophobe or fascist to get your insult across."
- Democrat arguing guidelines
Posted by: Kevin at October 10, 2009 09:16 AM (hNk8s)
2
Mr. Yankee,
Go read:
http://www.politicalbyline.com/2009/10/10/georgia-oyster-bar-owner-not-telling-the-truth-about-being-a-racist/
Might wanna make a mention of it.
-Pat
Posted by: Pat at October 10, 2009 09:58 AM (BH4he)
3
Easy folks, we are dealing with an Psychological illness
It explains much of the left's behaviour and we should definetly make use of this suggestion from the article:
"Humor has great value in any attempt to work with projection..."
So when they complain that we are making fun of them, it's okay, it's part of their therapy.
I feel better already.
Posted by: Dr Hooligan at October 10, 2009 10:56 AM (wMqJV)
4
@Pat: bringing facts into this discussion will go nowhere. It's hate that is cultivated here.
Posted by: e40 at October 10, 2009 12:05 PM (rsjdo)
5
Meh. You think that's racist?
THIS is racist.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/10/kill-blue-eyed-babies.html#readfurther
Posted by: Steve at October 10, 2009 12:24 PM (vafEQ)
6
>>"The next time you feel the urge to tar someone as a racist as a catch-all smear, you can use that as a touchstone."
You lead a sheltered life if you think that is the touchstone of racism.
Posted by: Steve at October 10, 2009 12:26 PM (vafEQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 09, 2009
Miami Herald goes Race-Baiting
According to the Miami Herald headline:
Fla. GOP members shoot Muslim targets at gun range
This is the target they were shooting at.
Now, do you see a Muslim, or a terrorist pointing a rocket-propelled grenade?
You can find this and other racist GOP shooting subjects at, uh,
Law Enforcement Targets, Inc.
The real racism here is that several layers of producers and editors at the Miami
Herald thinks "Muslim" and "terrorist" are synonyms. The next time they want to look for people with racial/cultural biases, they'll have to go far.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:54 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So clearly, they are saying that anyone shooting an RPG is a muslim- boy and they are calling the GOP racists?!?!
I read that story and was really curious just what they meant by "muslim targets"
Posted by: Scott at October 10, 2009 12:57 AM (giIn8)
2
IRL, if you hit the little flat spot on the cone, it becomes a reactive target.....
(11 Bravo humor %-)
Posted by: redc1c4 at October 10, 2009 01:50 AM (d1FhN)
3
I suppose if a similar group used a cut-out of a Wehrmacht soldier during WWII, then the Miami Herald would consider that "race baiting" too. You think?
Posted by: So Cal Jim at October 10, 2009 01:24 PM (Dr86Q)
4
Is the Miami Herald implying rhat all muslims are terrorists? Better call CAIR!
Posted by: daleyrocks at October 10, 2009 02:05 PM (3O5/e)
5
They're racist, stupid, and wrong -- the keffiyeh isn't a Muslim thing, it's an Arab thing. True, many Muslims wear it, but it's also worn by Arab Christians.
Posted by: Mike G in Corvallis at October 11, 2009 06:11 AM (61312)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 80 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0844 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0701 seconds, 185 records returned.
Page size 143 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
