The Democratic National Committee excoriated John McCain because he said on “David Letterman,” in regards to the 3000+ soldiers who have died in Iraq, “Americans are very frustrated and they have every right to be. We’ve wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives.” They asserted that MCain had insulted “our brave troops.” McCain subsequently apologized, believing that “sacrificed” would be the better word.
McCain should have told the DNC to sod off. But since he obviously didn’t want to risk an extended imbroglio, he said he used the wrong word. Okay, I’ll do it for him: Sod off, DNC. McCain’s gut instinct was correct, and furthermore the DNC knows it.
To say that young lives have been wasted isn’t to diminish their sacrifice or to demean them. It isn’t to say that they themselves threw away their lives in an empty pursuit. It’s to say that those who were entrusted *with* their lives, to not put them in harm’s way unless absolutely necessary, shirked their responsibility. They’ve done as crap a job at safeguarding our troops as they did safeguarding the Constitution. McCain’s comment was clearly not aimed at the troops; it was aimed at those who sent our troops into a war where they were assured we would be greeted as liberators and be out in no more than six months…while simultaneously destroying our international reputation at a time when, thanks to worldwide sympathy due to 9/11, we could have transformed that tragedy into some sort of true international coalition to fight terrorism.
Wasted opportunity. Wasted lives. The DNC should be ashamed of trying to spin McCain’s word choice into political opportunity and push him into using one that is less loaded…and less accurate. “Sacrifice” implies nobility, but there was nothing noble in the administration’s actions, nothing noble in lying to the American people, nothing noble in declaring “mission accomplished” while thousands more died.
But if “wasted” is off the table, then fine.
How about “squandered?”
PAD
• 
Here’s the thing: Shortly before McCain made that statement, Barack Obama made a similar remark in Des Moines about soldiers’ lives being wasted.
OBAMA: We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.
Naturally, the conservative punditry, being such high-minded individuals, let it pass.
I’m just kidding. They screached like monkeys and of course, Obama quickly apologized. So, I’m fairly certain that when McCain made his remark, the DNC saw an opportunity to put the shoe on the other foot.
Both sides should sod off. We have wasted over 3200 American lives in this debacle initiated by a group of cowards and defended by other cowards like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.
“I’m just kidding. They screached like monkeys and of course, Obama quickly apologized. So, I’m fairly certain that when McCain made his remark, the DNC saw an opportunity to put the shoe on the other foot.”
That being the case, then they handled it completely wrong. If the DNC had asked me (rather than just sending me regular e-mails hitting me up for money) I would have suggested this response:
“We applaud the brave stand of John McCain who, flying in the face of conservative political pundits, has aligned himself with Barak Obama in characterizing the Iraq misadventure as a ‘waste’ of our soldiers’ lives. When Senator Obama used that exact phrasing, he was roundly attacked by GOP talking heads. We expect that those same individuals will now retract their criticism and instead join us in congratulating Senator Obamam on his foresightedness while deploring the highly charged atmosphere that causes some people to attack political candidates simply for making common sense observations shared by the majority of Americans.”
PAD
See, it’s crap like this that costs the Democrats credibility. Why can’t they focus on actually turning their party into something that does ANYTHING except attack Republicans?
BTW, my sympathies lie with the Dems, and I agree with Peter and Den that the conservative pundits were also wrong to attack Obama over this. I’m just sick of seeing the Dems squander (waste?) opportunities like this.
Eric
This is because both the RNC and the DNC are full of crap. Have been for years. They are completely the same in their tactics, and what they do when they get into power.
I’m amazed by the number of people that foolishly think a change of party control will change a single thing of substance in Washington.
The DNC does about as good of a job representing normal Americans as the RNC does.
It’s about scoring points, and of course, it’s always about the “next” election, not about doing what’s right.
This is why people who might actually be different breeds of candidates will never win their party nominations. Whether it’s John McCain or Barack Obama, the party machine will do a good job of destroying them.
I definitely agree that both the DNC and the RNC should sod off (in regards to this issue) but I’ve noticed McCain has been putting his foot in his mouth quite frequently as of late.
Case and point: the “tar baby” comment he recently made.
I don’t think someone thought that one through before they said something.
They should, indeed, have taken the opportunity to say something like “See? Someone who knows from stuid wars is saying this one is stupid.”
If they really felt a need to distort his words for political gain, trumpeting them and exaggerating the extent his actual anti-war comments might well help cut him loose from his natural Republican power base.
Oddly enough, no one asked Cheney to apologize when called Iraq a tar baby when he was justifying Bush I’s decision to not go in and depose Saddam.
It was the Republicans that joined in on that…don’t always point the finger at the Dems, here. All of the candidates have spilled blood into the water, and now they are playing scared. Mike Huccabee, on Bill Mahr’s show, was so cautious that he seemed like a milquetoast. I think the first candidate to truly speak his mind and stand up for himself has a good shot this year.
As always, I agree with much of what you have to say about the political environ we live in. Let us not try to put labels on groups, as siding with either Republican or Democrat (as a party) is like siding with the same team wearing a different jersey. Although I would like a “what if?” scenario to be played out with Gore taking his place as President in the 2000 election. Where would we be? Yes, put President Bush in “harm’s way” and see how long we stay at war 🙂
I’m amazed by the number of people that foolishly think a change of party control will change a single thing of substance in Washington.
Sometimes it does. With a Dem-controlled Congress, there is now actual oversight that has been missing for the last 6 years.
Granted, oversight has the bonus of sticking it to the other side, but the Dems have done a decent job of not getting drunk with power yet.
The DNC is collectively brain dead. John McCain , while fast alienating the people who thought that he was a moderate, still has some influence in the minds of the mainstream and the more moderate conservatives. I would have held that statement up, without going to overboard with it, and pointed out that one of the more respected members of the President’s own party was now saying that the President’s actions have wasted soldiers’ lives. Don’t pound away on the point too heavily, don’t play coy word games and don’t try and sound too smart assed or sarcastic in any public announcements.
The fun wouldn’t have lasted too long. The RNC would have had conniption fits over it and discreet word would have been sent McCain to “correct” his misstatement on Letterman. McCain would have squirmed a bit and talked about his mistaken use of the word and so on. But the DNC would have still had McCain’s first statement to hold up and it would have looked far better for the DNC’s political purposes to be able to say that the RNC reacted to McCain’s words by going into cover-Bush’s-ášš mode and pressuring the fine representative from Arizona to recant his original heartfelt words.
It would also have been a fun little tool for them to swipe at McCain with if he were to end up getting the nod for ’08. After all, in a time when America will need strong leadership to correct the mistakes of the last administration, how strong could McCain actually be to let the lackeys of that same president cow him and make him play the cover-Bush’s-ášš game that they did? Hëll, the DNC is gonna need as many tricks like that as it can get in ’08. None of their likely or potential picks for ’08 are all that promising and could use all the help that they can get.
“…but the Dems have done a decent job of not getting drunk with power yet.”
Oh, just give ’em another two years to get too self confident in their own infallibility and political indestructibleness.
Interestingly, Richard Cohen’s column today, which appears here in the New York area in the Daily News deals with this subject as well.
Whether our troops were actually ‘wasted’ by being sent to Iraq remains to be seen, depending on what ultimately happens there, but at this point, it ain’t looking good. If US troops pull out in a year or two leaving behind a power vaccuum that is filled by a theocracy that acts as a new staging error for terrorists, it would be easier to argue that our troops were wasted, simply because they weren’t able to make a difference. This does not mitigate the courage or dedication of our soldier in the slightest, but if their efforts were indeed wasted, that blame will certainly fall on the current administration who sent them there.
“but the Dems have done a decent job of not getting drunk with power yet.”
You kidding? They spent the last six years complaining that the majority totally ignored and ran over the minority in congress, and they would “never” do the same thing, and that “they” would work with the minority party, and cooperate, how they wouldn’t hold constant hearings, and would repeat the RNC actions of the 90’s with constant witchhunts, but would instead work on governing the country. Suddenly, when in power, they revert to business as usual, and ramrod bills and changes through, without any sort of cooperation with the minority party, open hearings, and get back to the normal them vs us style of politics.
Now personally, I don’t feel the majority party in congress has any responsibility whatsoever to work with the minority party. You want to control things, then win elections. However, it’s funny how quick things change and campaign promises are forgotten.
Well, they have six years of virtually no legislative oversight to make up for, so I for one am glad to see the return of congressional hearings.
As for ramming bills through, actually, the Senate GOP has done a pretty effective job of blocking any meaningful legislation so far, so I wouldn’t worry about the feelings of the poor, neglected republicans in Congress. But of course, these are the same Senators who just a couple of years ago were threatening to use the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster so the democrats couldn’t block any of their agenda. Remember that? Everything should get an up or down vote? Stop the democrat obstructionism? What happened there?
Dear Mr. David,
“To say that young lives have been wasted isn’t to diminish their sacrifice or to demean them.”
I have to say that you’re wrong, sir. Your statements and the statements of men like McCain and Obama do demean our troops, and dishearten them as well.
“They’ve done as crap a job at safeguarding our troops as they did safeguarding the Constitution.”
I am always amazed that people like you use the “salad bar” approach to the Constitution. You will have a little more credibility on your approach to that document, when you support ALL of it, rather then the ones that make you feel warm and fluffy. You would have been in line to stone or lynch “Scooter” Libby if he had used the 5th amendment to try and weasel out of a perjury conviction. For the record, President Bush should not even give pardoning him a serious thought. The man is guilty. A jury said so after charges were brought. I’m not sure if you ever verbally or in writing ripped into Sandy Berger for his felonies, but I doubt you did. Please, prove me wrong.
“…while simultaneously destroying our international reputation at a time when, thanks to worldwide sympathy due to 9/11, we could have transformed that tragedy into some sort of true international coalition to fight terrorism.”
No American should be overly concerned with our international reputation. Just like Mr. Myers stated on this very blog, “Put more simply: I don’t give a rat’s ášš about earning your respect because with your behavior, you’ve lost mine.” With the rest of the world’s attitude on individual liberty, not to mention human rights, no American should take them seriously. Why didn’t the beloved international community do anything about Darfur? I am disappointed in the United States for allowing that to happen, but I never really expected the international community to do anything. The solution to that problem would have meant killing the bad guys. How barbaric?!?!
And the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was not a tragedy. The correct term is atrocity. What happened in Rhodesia and again in R
Comments like yours above do not in any way help our military, but I’m not sure that you truly desire to do so. You are not the kind of person who supports a strong and viable military anyway, that much is obvious. As someone who has been a reader of your work for over twenty-five years, this doesn’t come as a surprise to me. Most of those men joined the United States armed forces because they believed that this country represents the last best hope for liberty in the world. You obviously do not.
When it comes to the DNC or any modern Democrat, what can you expect from them, other than less?
With all due respect,
Robert Preston
“…but the Dems have done a decent job of not getting drunk with power yet.”
Oh, just give ’em another two years to get too self confident in their own infallibility and political indestructibleness.
Yeah, after the 2008 election, all bets are off.
“To say that young lives have been wasted isn’t to diminish their sacrifice or to demean them.”
I have to say that you’re wrong, sir. Your statements and the statements of men like McCain and Obama do demean our troops, and dishearten them as well.”
Despite your sterling performance in “The Music Man,” your assertions are ludicrous. First of all, I’ve had the opportunity to converse at length with military officers who told me point blank they thought that this entire escapade was “pointless,” a “waste,” and “utterly mismanaged.”
If our troops are being disheartened, I’m quite sure it’s not due to comments on my blog or passing thoughts expressed on “Letterman.” Between constantly living with death hanging over their heads, car bombings, bøøbÿ-ŧrápš, kidnapping, lack of proper training, lack of body armor, lack of equipment, tours of duty being extended months if not years…in short, being trapped with an indefinite mission for an indefinite period of time, courtesy of a bungled and mismanaged war pioneered by draft dodgers and incompetents…
With all that, I suspect that my blog doesn’t even register on their “disheartened” meter.
PAD
Dear Mr. David and other readers,
A sentence in my last posting should have been:
“And the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was not a tragedy. The correct term is atrocity. What happened in Rhodesia and again in Rwanda was a tragedy.”
Sorry for any confusion.
Thanks,
Robert Preston
I am always amazed that people like you use the “salad bar” approach to the Constitution.
Please defined what you mean by “people like you”.
I for one, believe in the entire Constitution. That’s all the articles, the Bill of Rights, and the other amendments. Unfortunately, it’s clear that this administration only believes in Article II, the Presidency. Everything else to them is just a bunch of suggestions.
Could you please discuss the issues at hand without making gross generalizations about the opinions of the other posters? This may shock you, but not everyone who finds this administration to be wrongheaded and corrupt shares a single, monolithic view on everything.
Dear Mr. David,
” But if “wasted” is off the table, then fine.”
I can think of several appropriate uses and variations of the word. They are as follows:
Muqtada al-Sadr should be “wasted”.
O.J. Simpson should be “wasted”.
Stanley “Tookie” Williams was “wasted”.
Hugo Chavez is, well, just “waste”.
Hillary Clinton “wastes” oxygen.
Ever at your service,
Robert Preston
I like “their sacrifices have been wasted” myself.
” But if “wasted” is off the table, then fine.”
I can think of several appropriate uses and variations of the word…”
Talking to you is time “wasted.” I can make that determination fairly quickly.
PAD
Oh, best snap I’ve heard in a while:
“America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn’t make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment.”
— Gen. Tony McPeak (retired), member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War
McCain wasn’t in a position to brush off pressure to apologize because as far as I’ve heard reported, he applied the most steady pressure on George Bush to order the surge.
But, yes, the DNC missed an opportunity to leverage McCain’s Freudian slip.
Wasn’t McCain’s appearance on Letterman something like 3 weeks ago?
Really? See, Sunshine, the world does have to occasionally be on our side if we want to be able to function beyond our boarders. Even in military matters, we depend on the cooperation of other countries. The British were a source of invaluable on the ground Intel in both Gulf I and Afghanistan. They went in first, got us information to use in our strikes and scrubbed a few targets as well. Part of the reason that we had them do it was there experience with that part of the world. Piss the Brits of bad enough and we lose a valuable friend and resource.
After 9/11 and just prior to going into Afghanistan, a hëll of a lot of countries offered aid to us in going after those who struck us. Some of that aid was as simple as giving us free passage and staging areas. That does tend to make life, and military campaigns, just a wee bit easier.
That support and good will was there when we were seeking to deal justice to our attackers. It was there as we removed a dangerous presence from power in Afghanistan. It was even there when we spoke of going after the worldwide structure of that enemy.
Then we diverted our focus and got dragged into Iraq and Bush’s foolishness. We went and thumbed our collective noses at the world. We trumped up garbage to use as reason for war and told everybody that they were either with us or against us. Then our leaders and there mouth pieces in the media informed the world that we didn’t need them or that useless dinosaur, the U.N. At least we said that until we found ourselves up to our eyebrows in hëll and went to the U.N. to ask for help in Iraq. And through all that our country’s standing fell in the international community.
Yeah, lets do it your way. Screw all those other countries. They’re week, useless and unneeded baggage. At least until we piss any of them off enough that they decide that we really are on our own. When they tell us that we can’t stage in their country, use their resources, violate their airspace or territorial jurisdiction or count on them for ANY help. Then you’ll find out the costs of your line of thinking and exactly what it means to really be operating alone and in need.
As someone who has been a reader of your work for over twenty-five years, this doesn’t come as a surprise to me.
Would it be petty of me to point out that PAD’s first published work was in 1987?
Oops.
________________________________________
“…while simultaneously destroying our international reputation at a time when, thanks to worldwide sympathy due to 9/11, we could have transformed that tragedy into some sort of true international coalition to fight terrorism.”
“No American should be overly concerned with our international reputation.”
Really? See, Sunshine, the world does have to occasionally be on our side if we want to be able to function beyond our boarders. Even in military matters, we depend on the cooperation of other countries. The British were a source of invaluable on the ground Intel in both Gulf I and Afghanistan. They went in first, got us information to use in our strikes and scrubbed a few targets as well. Part of the reason that we had them do it was there experience with that part of the world. Piss the Brits of bad enough and we lose a valuable friend and resource.
After 9/11 and just prior to going into Afghanistan, a hëll of a lot of countries offered aid to us in going after those who struck us. Some of that aid was as simple as giving us free passage and staging areas. That does tend to make life, and military campaigns, just a wee bit easier.
That support and good will was there when we were seeking to deal justice to our attackers. It was there as we removed a dangerous presence from power in Afghanistan. It was even there when we spoke of going after the worldwide structure of that enemy.
Then we diverted our focus and got dragged into Iraq and Bush’s foolishness. We went and thumbed our collective noses at the world. We trumped up garbage to use as reason for war and told everybody that they were either with us or against us. Then our leaders and there mouth pieces in the media informed the world that we didn’t need them or that useless dinosaur, the U.N. At least we said that until we found ourselves up to our eyebrows in hëll and went to the U.N. to ask for help in Iraq. And through all that our country’s standing fell in the international community.
Yeah, lets do it your way. Screw all those other countries. They’re week, useless and unneeded baggage. At least until we piss any of them off enough that they decide that we really are on our own. When they tell us that we can’t stage in their country, use their resources, violate their airspace or territorial jurisdiction or count on them for ANY help. Then you’ll find out the costs of your line of thinking and exactly what it means to really be operating alone and in need.
“As someone who has been a reader of your work for over twenty-five years, this doesn’t come as a surprise to me.”
“Would it be petty of me to point out that PAD’s first published work was in 1987?”
Hey, be fair. He could have worked in a comic book shop and be including PAD’s letters to retailers about Marvels upcoming plans or new initiatives in his years of reading. He didn’t actually specify that he meant twenty-five years of comic and novel reading.
Then again, it could just be new math. Whatcha gonna do?
Hey, be fair. He could have worked in a comic book shop and be including PAD’s letters to retailers about Marvels upcoming plans or new initiatives in his years of reading. He didn’t actually specify that he meant twenty-five years of comic and novel reading.
That’s true; I’m sure PAD’s direct sales material at Marvel was an excellent guide to his views about the role of a strong military.
r, the Poster Who Used to Post As Robert Preston –
You will have a little more credibility on your approach to that document, when you support ALL of it, rather then the ones that make you feel warm and fluffy.
This coming from the man that says the 27th Amendment should be tossed out, who appears to support a president who has tossed out every Amendment of the Bill of Rights save #2, and so on.
Quite frankly, I’m not sure you’ve ever read the Constitution, much less understood it.
PAD –
With all that, I suspect that my blog doesn’t even register on their “disheartened” meter.
Which is why the whole argument of anything we say lowering the morale of our troops rings hollow and nothing more than political bs.
Dear PAD,
Mr. Atkinson: No, it’s not petty. Thank you for the correction. The line should have been “As someone who has been a reader of your work for over twenty-PLUS years,”
To PAD: If I was unable to keep a timeline intact regarding your writing, blame Marvel, and DC. I still haven’t been the same after The Crisis. The first thing that I read that had your name, as writer on it was the Spectacular Spider-Man. The Death of Jean DeWolfe. I saw the same movie with Lindsey Wagner and the Sin-Eater. I don’t know if Netflix has it, but I’m going to check on it.
You have put your views forth on everything from military intervention, to capital punishment in print before, and yet I don’t think reading your opinion is wasted time. I just strongly disagree with you and a most of your contributors to this site. I thought that your site was open to differing points of view, but obviously it isn’t. I’d hate to waste your time. I do thank you for the use of your site.
Mr. Chandler doesn’t need to be responded to. He wouldn’t have the guts to step into a ring anyway.
Thank you, all,
Robert Preston
Craig said, “This coming from the man that says the 27th Amendment should be tossed out, who appears to support a president who has tossed out every Amendment of the Bill of Rights save #2, and so on.“
Let’s be fair and spot him #3 as well, Craig. I can’t remember anyone saying we should quarter miltary troops in people’s homes during my lifetime.
Well, to be totally fair, he hasn’t tried to prevent women from voting either, so let’s give him the 19th as well.
The jury is still out on the 22nd. 🙂
Too late, you’re cover is blown.
I think it’s obvious Robert Preston is from the future. He’s here to prevent disaster from befalling River City, with a capital D, which rhymes with P, and that stands for Pool.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 20, 2007 03:33 PM
I thought that your site was open to differing points of view, but obviously it isn’t. I’d hate to waste your time. I do thank you for the use of your site.
This site is open to various points of view. The majority tends to skew liberal, but there are moderates and conservatives as well. As Jerry Chandler pointed out to you, I’m a liberal who believes the Iraq War should never have been started, but now that we have I believe it would be disastrous of us to leave until the Iraqi government is truly able to provide security and stability to its people.
Your remarks suggest that like a big baby, you’re announcing that you’re picking up your toys and going home. Good riddance to you, if that’s the case.
If you’re not leaving, please note that this will be my last response to you. I’ve had a history of wasting too much time with trolls in this blog and am beginning to realize through bitter experience that life is too short.
And before you go soothing your bruised widdle ego by deciding that us liberals can’t handle your big scary conservative brilliance, I am a liberal who sees much value in conservatism. I am a fan of George Will and David Brooks. Your ideology isn’t the problem. It’s your obnoxious personality I don’t like.
Posted by: Robert Preston at March 20, 2007 03:33 PM
Mr. Chandler doesn’t need to be responded to. He wouldn’t have the guts to step into a ring anyway.
Wow, you really have no idea what a childish little prìçk you are, do you? Jerry’s a police officer who has more guts than you’ll ever have.
Go to hëll, Bobby.
The 19th Amendment isn’t technically part of the “Bill of Rights”. Only #s 1 thru 10 are. The comment was supposed to be a (good-natured) jab at Craig as much as it was at Mr. Preston. Almost entirely a jab at Craig actually, as I have been unable to finish reading Mr. Preston’s posts for some time. I start reading what looks like a recitation of Bush talking-points and glaze over. That may say bad things about me, but there it is.
Besides, I figured I knew Craig well enough to count on him having a sense of humor about it…
I think it’s obvious Robert Preston is from the future. He’s here to prevent disaster from befalling River City, with a capital D, which rhymes with P, and that stands for Pool.
Are you sure he isn’t an alien sent her to find the last starfighter?
The 19th Amendment isn’t technically part of the “Bill of Rights”. Only #s 1 thru 10 are. The comment was supposed to be a (good-natured) jab at Craig as much as it was at Mr. Preston.
True, but I see no reason why the other amendments are any safer under Bush.
Almost entirely a jab at Craig actually, as I have been unable to finish reading Mr. Preston’s posts for some time. I start reading what looks like a recitation of Bush talking-points and glaze over. That may say bad things about me, but there it is.
I’ve tried, but he engages in too many gross generalizations for my to take seriously. I noticed he’s already completed the pattern: Once he realized that we weren’t just going to nod and say, “why, you’re right, I never realized I was an America-hating terrorist supporter, but now that I know, I will change my ways and be a good conservative” after the third or fourth time he made the same post, he’s now pretending this forum isn’t open to other views. No one has stopped him from posting his views here, but apparently, “open to differing points of view” means “agreeing with my every word” in bushapologistspeak.
Oh well. Seen a hundred times before in a dozen different blogs.
Okay, now that I’ve gotten THAT out of my system…
I think some of my fellow liberals are getting a wee bit too excited by what McCain said. He’s been a vocal critic of the handling of this war, but he voted to authorize the initial invasion, supports the troop surge and believes we need to stay until the war is “won.”
Were the DNC to do as you suggest, Peter, they’d be distorting McCain’s meaning. Yes, yes, I know, the RNC does that sort of thing too. That’s the problem. Each side rationalizes it’s “team’s” excesses because “the other side does it, too.” Two wrongs don’t make a right and ultimately the rancorous atmosphere in Washington is bad for our nation.
Rather than responding to attacks with attacks, I think someone needs to take a stand for something better. I’m not naive, and I recognize that politics has always been rough-and-tumble. But in reading history it seems to me there was a time when our leaders understood that you can inspire something other than anger.
For example, the DNC could offer a statement like this:
“When Barack Obama referred to the deaths of our brave soldiers in Iraq as lives ‘wasted,’ Republicans attacked him for doing so. Now that McCain has used the same term, perhaps we can put aside the partisan rancor and discuss this issue on its merits.
“McCain recognizes that this war has been prosecuted badly, and that troops have died needlessly as a result. But McCain is supporting a troop surge that represents an escalation of a failed policy.”
Short and sweet, and delineates the differences between the two parties.
Yeah, I know. It’d never happen.
Craig J. Ries said:
“This coming from the man that says the 27th Amendment should be tossed out.”
Actually, it was the 17th amendment he opposes.
Some copies of the Constitution insist there is no 27th amendment, that there are only 26. However, my copy states that the 27th amendment essentially gives me absolute power, and that said amendment can never be rescinded. Why’d anyone want to toss that one out?
Whaddya mean it doesn’t count if you just add your own amendments to your copy of the Constitution? You mean you can’t treat the Constitution as a list of suggestions?
Those points aside, I also question who the “people like you” are that Mr. Preston cites in his comments to PAD. Who are people like PAD? Writers? Fathers? Husbands? Sons? Brothers? People who go bowling? People who live near the Eastern seaboard? People who’ve met Stan Lee? People with an Elfquest tattoo? People who do Kermit the Frog impersonations? People who are American citizens? et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Also I’m not sure what PAD’s (and that of “people like him”, apparently) alleged “salad bar approach to the Constitution” is. I suspect, reading between the lines, that it has something to do with the ever-controversial 2nd amendment. Yet, I don’t ever recall PAD saying he didn’t support the 2nd amendment. I believe he has a different interpretation of the wording than groups like the NRA, but that’s not the same thing as not supporting it.
Rick
P.S. On another note, I’d like to make a general request. Could everyone, when quoting another, please indicate whom you’re quoting? It can become hard to follow who’s responding to whom, especially in long-running threads. Thanks.
“Mr. Chandler doesn’t need to be responded to. He wouldn’t have the guts to step into a ring anyway.”
“Wow, you really have no idea what a childish little prìçk you are, do you? Jerry’s a police officer who has more guts than you’ll ever have.”
Nahhh…. I think he knows that. I think he also knows that his posts don’t hold water. He throws out half thoughts, broad brushed statements and bumper sticker comments as though they are the writings of great and towering minds yet fails to actually respond to any reasoned posts that question his POV.
What part of my posts in this thread aren’t worth responding to in his mind? Did he dislike my POV on the DNC’s brain death? Was it my pointing out the fact that other countries gave us needed help in several wars? Was it my pointing out that we could find ourselves up THAT creek without a paddle if we ever went the hard right path and really ticked off as many other countries as some on the right seem to want to? Hey, how about my simple questions put forth in the other thread in response to his request for polite Q&A for debate? Could it have been my pointing out that you yourself don’t fit his brush strokes or that several others here put a lie to his statements post after post after post? Maybe it was my joking around and calling him “Sunshine” up there.
Who knows? Who cares? I doubt even he does as I doubt he’s actually reading half the posts here. Beyond his comments that entirely miss what people are saying or go off into odd areas that just leave you scratching your head, he still isn’t using Hotmail as a spell checker or breaking the body of his posts up by putting a space between his paragraphs. It’s the last two that grate the most.
You want a really strange thought? This is what X-Ray would have been like if he had taken his meds every day. So far, he’s completely random and almost completely senseless, but not as hyper and hostile as good old X was.
Well, other then…
“He wouldn’t have the guts to step into a ring anyway.”
I showed that line to some of the guys I work and train with. Laugh of the day, that.
And Pad is wrong here. I love The Music Man. It was one of the first ten DVDs I bought when upgrading my VHS collection, but he was better in Victor/Victoria and he flat, hands down ruled in S.O.B.
“Yet, I don’t ever recall PAD saying he didn’t support the 2nd amendment. I believe he has a different interpretation of the wording than groups like the NRA, but that’s not the same thing as not supporting it.”
I think it’s kind of antiquated, but my feeling is that if we are to stick to it, then fine: But everyone who owns a gun must serve in a local militia.
PAD
Just for the record, according to this statistical site there are approximately 898 Robert Prestons in the US.
On the other hand, there are only approximately 80 people with the name Peter David, and Zero with the name Drew Barrymore. (She doesn’t exist, statistically speaking.)
What I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t assume someone’s ‘name’ is assumed just because it matches the name of someone famous, unless it is a remarkably unique name, like Moon Unit Zappa or something.
I think it’s kind of antiquated, but my feeling is that if we are to stick to it, then fine: But everyone who owns a gun must serve in a local militia.
How very originalist.
The 2nd amendment actually has some history behind it that gets forgoten a lot of times. Originally, it was partly about the freedom to hunt, despite the fact that this isn’t stated in the amendment itself.
Back in England, before people came to America, all the land was owned by lords. They wanted to hunt on their land and they didn’t want anyone else to. When guns came around, they enacted strict gun control laws so that the rich land owners would be the only ones with the good hunting weapons. That cut down on the poaching.
Then the colonists came to America, which had tons more land than what anyone was used to. With no gun laws in the colonies, they could hunt for food with the weapons. They quickly became used to that, and they knew that was a right the common people didn’t have in England. So guns largely represented a freedom to take care of yourself and your family that the English lords had horded for themselves.
None of this is terribly relelvant today, when nobody *has* to hunt to get food. But I think it’s important in the same way that the “to support a militia” clause is important. It’s part of why the 2nd amendment was important at the time, in a way that doesn’t clearly translate to today’s world.
People with an Elfquest tattoo?
Rick, I would submit that perhaps you know uncomfortably too much about our esteemed host. 🙂
Jerry Wall said:
“This is because both the RNC and the DNC are full of crap. Have been for years. They are completely the same in their tactics, and what they do when they get into power.
I’m amazed by the number of people that foolishly think a change of party control will change a single thing of substance in Washington.”
———-
As good a reason as any to never vote again.
Jerry Wall said:
“Suddenly, when in power, they revert to business as usual, and ramrod bills and changes through…”
———-
Oh-so not true. The Dems can’t get any bills passed that the Repugs don’t want passed. The Repugs simply fillibuster or threaten to fillibuster.
Many bills require 60 votes in the Senate. Currently, the votes are pretty much split 50-50, with Faux Dem Lieberman voting Repug, even though he said he would vote Democratic.
Jerry Wall said:
“This is because both the RNC and the DNC are full of crap. Have been for years. They are completely the same in their tactics, and what they do when they get into power.
I’m amazed by the number of people that foolishly think a change of party control will change a single thing of substance in Washington.”
———-
As good a reason as any to never vote again.