SBLive handles Blank-O with kidgloves
Is it just me, cuz I certainly expected better from SBLive in dealin with our treasonous ex-governor. Seems you guys lobbed a bunch of softballs at her and spared her the grillin she so rightly deserved. Maybe I'm jumpin the gun here but my sources in the governor's mansion tell me you guys soft-served her.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Treasonous?
|
Quote:
|
The feminine side of Kathy Blanco shows she has a very big heart. Having six kids and being a family person shows. This is a very hard state to be Governor of. I think she did the right thing by stepping down so this state could move forward. I hope Bobby has the back bone to get the job done.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Al...I'm really there with ya.. I think the unarming of law abiding citizens during a disaster is a disgrace against our constitution!! yes I do! (plz note the exclamation marks) But I seriously doubt that was Blanco's doing..... There is plenty of blame to go around regarding the Katrina disaster.... Plenty.. surely you agree? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's a video of some folks who had their rights violated. |
If any of you have NOT viewed the above video, I urge you to do so! I had seen it once, but I viewed it again, and it brings my blood to a boil every time. Those people who had their guns confiscated, illegally confiscated, would've been within their rights to offer armed resistence, and no jury in the country could in good conscience do anything but call their actions justified. If you folks in the membership have any appreciation for the gravity of this crime, I hope you'll join me in formally demandin and insistin that every single law enforcement officer involved as well as their superiors be brought up on charges of high treason against the republic and executed, which is the penalty for that most serious crime. If you consider yourselves Americans and freedom lovers, it is your patriotic duty to ensure that this heinous crime and the criminals who perpetrated it are brought to justice.
|
>that every single law enforcement officer involved as well as their superiors be brought up on charges of high treason against the republic and executed
Exaggerate much? |
>Yes, T-R-E-A-S-O-N-O-U-S! Thats what I call it when someone takes a dump on the Second Amendment and wipes their butt with the Constitution. What do you call it?
I would call it Unconstitutional. Why is, in your opinion, ignoring one part of the Constitution (the 2nd Amendment) an executable offense, but ignoring another (the definition of treason) not? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
n. 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 2. A betrayal of trust or confidence Any violation of the Bill Of Rights is treason, but most especially a violation of the Second Amendment, since it is this very right that safeguards all of our other inalienable rights against a tyranical government. Ergo, their actions constitute treason. End of story. |
New Orleans could have been hit by a hurricane at any time in the last 100+ years. It could have happened under Edwards or Treen or Roemer, but it didn't. Blanco won that lottery by chance, and suffers these days because she is white and also because of liberalism.
I seriously doubt any politician could be prepared for such a disaster, not because the scientists didn't predict the event wouldn't eventually happen, but because of a rise in socialism. What we witnessed was the lack of government being able to save the day. Only liberals think the government should be reponsible for your life and welfare. And if that his true, it is nice not to be responsible for your own well being, just let the government take care of it. The result is having your guns taken away. The result is being stuck in a hell hole. Many people don't get it, because they want to rely on the government instead of themselves. People who put faith in their government over themselves don't deserve to survive in a world where survivial of the fittest still rings true. Some people are not able to take care of themselves, elderly, children, etc. But I would rather rely on my family, my church, my friends, and my paid help anyday of the week over government, and I don't even give them 30% plus of my paycheck. |
Quote:
I agree with everythin you've said, Rhertz. I dont blame Blank-O for bein unlucky enough to have Katrina happen on her watch. But I believe she was complicit in and thus culpable for that unconscionable crime against the law-abidin people of that area, and she should be punished for it. |
I just now watched the youtube and I agree that the cops were and are way off base taking the weapons away from citizens and of all times when they most need it. I think the cops got a case of to much power in that situation and should have been held responsible for their actions. I am sure they would not want to have their weapons taken if they where in their own home. OH but they are cops and privilege comes with that. Kathy Blanco is a puppet and her handlers screwed the pooch.
|
Quote:
Also allowing millions of illegal aliens live in our country and get drivers licenses. Were do I stop? I will sum things up by blaming "government" and not one single individual. That rings "scapegoat", "fall guy", "bagholder" to me... Such massive failures could not possibly be any one man's (or woman's) fault. It was a total breakdown of the institution who takes our tax money or else puts us in jail. Really it is yours, mine, and the other guys fault - every single citizen who votes for larger and larger government to save the day instead of voting for smaller government and greater personal responsibility. Blanco was voted in. Elected by the greatest system on earth (albeit flawed). Why not blame all the voters? Are they not ultimately responsible? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Unless given some facts that point to Blanco, I do not think she made the decision to disarm citizens. Lots of rogue public servants were doing all sorts of crazy stuff that day such as looting, preventing escape, disarming people, etc. I bet she saw it all on the news like you and I. Bush is pro-gun. Why do you not hold our President responsible for disarming Americans? After all, they were Amercian citizens as well as Louisiana citizens. I do agree someone (the person who make the call) should be held responsible and put on the spot to explain his actions and suffer the consequences for violating our federal constitution in a major way! |
1 Attachment(s)
God loves the GOP. Good old people. I do not think Bobby would have to use Katrina to "try" and make the GOP look bad like sour grapes Blanco. I am for LA too but not a spaced out old woman that sheet herself when the heat was on. She is trying to strike out right now but a one legged duck does not pack much of a punch.
Attachment 1743 |
Al, what bothers me the most, is this. Where is all the outrage from other politicans for disarming citizens? Where is the outrage among citizens for that matter? What bothers me is the new generation of "sheep" being cultivated. I'm about to take my 14 year old son out duck hunting on youth day this weekend. Yes I let my child blast ducks with a real shotgun. :eek: How much longer will that be legal? I am fully sensitive to the erosion of our civil rights and the ACLU ain't helping the right folks IMHO..
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Blanco is part of the democRAT machine like Mary, Mary is slated to be next to go. Now that would icing on the cake. God willing and creek don't rise. Brother Ray is nothing short of a joke like Dollar Bill Jefferson. Time to clean up this state the GOP backlash has begone. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." So "any violation of the Bill Of Rights is treason" is ludicrous. If that were true every single President of the United States (including the current one) would have been executed because every single Presidential administration since at least Lincoln has had at least one Executive action ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I ask again, why do you consider it acceptable to personally selectively ignore portions of the Constitution (such as the very specific definition of treason) but when someone else does it (such as the not-court-verified right for an individual to bear arms) you consider it an offense worthy of execution? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"during the years of Chief Justice Earl Warren's Court (1953–69), when most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (1868; "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens"). Gun rights advocates interpret the Second Amendment as a guarantee to individuals of the right to keep and bear arms without any government interference whatsoever. Researcher David B. Kopel of the New York University School of Law concluded that the Supreme Court has generally agreed with this interpretation. In "The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Second Amendment Cases" (St. Louis University Public Law Review, vol. 18, no. 99, 1999) he wrote: [T]he question whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right can be pretty well settled by looking at the thirty-five other Supreme Court cases which quote, cite, or discuss the Second Amendment. These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments. Consider for a moment the spirit or intent of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms is an "inalienable right", meanin that it is "God given" and as such can be neither given nor taken away by men (the government), provided you've not been convicted of any serious crimes or adjudicated mentally deficient. The Second Amendment holds the distinction of bein our most important inalienable right, as it is the ultimate insurance that our other inalienable rights remain just that...inalienable and inviolate. Violations of this most precious right are a direct threat to our Constitutional Republic, to our way of life, and without a doubt meet the definition of "levying War against the United States" (again defined as "We The People"), and therefore rate the ultimate penalty, lest everything this country stands for be lost. Simply put, Joe, if you're a legally armed American citizen and your own government disarms ya, they're deprivin ya of your right to "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit O' Happiness"...in other words, the government becomes the enemy when they wage war on us, and that is treason! You're poorly served by your penchant for semantics, as it is usually your undoin in these debates. By your logic, the Rosenbergs should never have been executed, since we were not at war with the Soviet Union. You may not have invented "political correctness", but it sure as hell seems to be your guidin philosophy. |
Quote:
Ron Paul Odds Slashed Dramatically: 15 to 1 from 200 to 1 It was only two weeks ago that 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul was listed at Sportsbook.com with odds of 200 to 1. In fact, early in the month he was not even offered on the political betting menu. My how things have changed in the past month. Carrie Stroup here with some startling news concerning Ron Paul. Sportsbook.com (see website here) had experienced such a dramatically insurgence of betting action on Mr. Paul over the past two weeks they were forced to slash odds from 200 to 1 to the current 15 to 1 odds. "Ron Paul is a serious contender whose grass roots campaign is growing dramatically," explains Payton O'Brien, Senior Editor of Gambling911.com, one of the world's leading political betting news sources. "No other single candidate for US President has received the type of interest generated here at Gambling911.com." Case in point, articles on Ron Paul in some cases generated four times the amount of interest than both Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani articles combined. Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés in her piece for The Moderate Voice questions whether Paul will jump to the third party, something the folks at Sportsbook.com are watching closely as well since 15 to 1 odds still offer a tremendous payout for gamblers ($1500 for every $100 bet should he win) "Could Ron Paul’s freshest strategy be to keep showing up for all his party’s nominee debates, bringing his message out over and over again… and then, near the midnight hour, maybe suddenly say, You know what guys? I’m booking. I’m going to run Third Party. Not the future First Lady Mrs Paul unfortunately, but Carrie Stroup continues to monitor Ron Paul betting odds along with all other US Presidential candidates. "A lot of people right now, seem to be thinking it might make stark sense to vote third party. All across the blogplanet one can read post after post from writers on the left, right and middle, fed up with two parties who’re coughing a 2 cylinder engine up the mountain of US woes, while loudly proclaiming they’re running a finned Hemi. Many people think they look and act the same. Only different colored socks. Maybe." Representatives from Sportsbook.com agree that the backing of Paul is has been significant enough to shorten odds to what might very well amount to the biggest slashing in online gambling history. "Read all the blogs, the Ron Paul news forums, and you'll see people saying they have either placed bets or considered placing bets on their favorite candidate at those high odds," a Sportsbook.com representative told Gambling911.com late Wednesday. "We will likely be slashing odds further in the coming weeks and quite possibly days since Ron Paul's momentum is really building." For online gamblers a win would mean more than just money in one's own pocket. Ron Paul is the only candidate with 20 to 1 or better odds of becoming the next US President who supports legalized online gambling. A handful of his colleagues, including Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, attached an measure to curb some forms of online gambling to an unrelated port security act. Paul considered the act "underhanded" and a perfect example of what is wrong with today's political system. Paul was also one of the few who had no other choice but to vote against the port security act due to the slimy tactics used during the waning days of Congressional session last October in getting the measure passed into law. ---- Related Articles: Ron Paul Presidential Odds Slashed in Half Online Gambling Community: Don't Underestimate Ron Paul Popularity Online Gambling: Don't Underestimate Ron Paul Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Wants Internet Gambling Legalized ---- Carrie Stroup, Gambling911.com Originally published May 30, 2007 10:15 pm ET |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Damn, we're going to have to come up with some more efficient execution methods if we're going to rub out the hundreds of thousands of people that commit the heinous act of "violating the Bill of Rights" every year. No offense, but if I have to choose between Thomas Jefferson's standard for "treason" and yours, I'm going to go with Tom and the gang. |
barring some sort of nuclear holocaust that wipes out everybody but him, Ron Paul will never be President of the United States. He's even less electable than Obama. He's the Howard Dean of the right.
It's too bad, because he'd probably be better at it than whoever is going to win, but the man has absolutely no chance of winning. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh, and just so ya know, I think its great that you've so successfully emulated Moe Howard's hairstyle and mannerisms...right down to that laconic, dour, vaguely dissatisfied demeanor he was so famous for. I mean, we all need role models, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right? |
Where exactly did you see my haircut? I have "typical white boy," not anything like a Moe. Maybe if I was Chinese.
Hahaha, I'll let your "coup de grace" stand on its own as an example of you schooling me. That thread was the EXACT one I was thinking of earlier. I can just imagine you sitting back in your chair and smiling "Man, I really took him apart with those irrefutable points and superior logic." You can't even understand when you've completely lost an argument even when you have to resort to such obvious BS as "the potential reward makes the small losses worth it." It's kind of like a Special Olympics contestant grinning over his "participation" medal. "I won! I won!" There was a great "This American Life" a few months ago about a guy that used to buy annuity payouts from lottery winners before most lotteries offered lump sums. He said almost every single one of them he came across was so irresponsible with money that they were dead broke within a few years of winning. Kind of shoots a few holes in the "Lottery players are a financially savvy bunch" theory, doesn't it? Have you ever actually been in a convenience store on a Saturday or Wednesday night? Take a look at the folks standing in line for the Powerball machine and tell me they look like folks that know how to responsibly handle money. If you play the lottery for anything more than entertainment you are a fool, your off-topic and nonsensical arguments notwithstanding. |
I hope I never piss either of you two off! :D
|
Quote:
Ya still dont get it. Your arrogance would be tragic if I had to live or work with ya, but since I dont it's just hilarious. There ya were, the guy that actually won one of those much-coveted SBLive I-Pods...yeah, you, the guy who's own mother cleaned up on a gamble, the guy who thinks the lottery is a tax on people with poor math skills. You're the guy who's smarter than the other 200,000,000 people in the country? I'm sure all those folks standin in line at the convenience store to play the lottery would be as awed by your brilliance as I am. Lemme ask ya somethin, Corky...where in the HELL did ya find someone willin to pro-create with ya, CBARC? Not that I feel all that sorry for your wife, but it just wasnt fair to your kids. Somebody should'a made sure ya didnt piss in the gene pool. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:21 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
2008 Shreveport.com