Seeking Alpha

In an attempt to stir up conservatives in Congress, former Senator and now Heritage Foundation...

In an attempt to stir up conservatives in Congress, former Senator and now Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint is urging Republicans to stand their ground against the President in the upcoming showdown over the debt ceiling. "The government itself is not going to shut down, DeMint says, "In fact, I don't think people are even going to notice it."
Comments (85)
  • This guy is seriously out of touch. Would have been hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
    18 Jan 2013, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Regardless of whether one is sympathetic to DeMint's general politics, hostile, or somewhere in between...


    If the US stops paying its bills... people ARE going to notice it. The statement that no one would notice is, oh, curious.
    18 Jan 2013, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • Everyone needs to see past this "us and them" mentality. Its just a smoke screen to redirect your attention from the "real" issues. Democrat or Republican are nearly one of the same- they both can't balance a budget and spend like drunken sailors. Its just a matter of who raids the golden taxpayer coffer fist.
    18 Jan 2013, 07:55 PM Reply Like
  • ditto, again another GOPer out of touch with reality and Main Street. Wall Street bankers may not notice or see any change in their income but Main Street will definitely feel the pain! Which planet does he lives on!
    18 Jan 2013, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • It's actually becoming brutally obvious to the average American how belligerent and obstructionist segments of the Republican party have become. Few can understand what value shutting down the government might have and fewer still will see it as a good thing in any context at all.


    The last Congress bears the dubious distinction of being the least productive by enormous margin in the history of the nation, passing a total of 220 public laws, with the next least productive Congress being the 104th under Clinton (also a Republican Congress under a Dem President), which passed 333 public laws, almost 50% more.


    Perhaps this Congress is looking forward to trying to break that record. And be even MORE useless to Americans, if fathomable.


    And somehow I doubt that Congress' inability to make law will be blamed on the President, no matter how one tries to spin it.
    18 Jan 2013, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • So, are you saying you want Obama to have unlimited spending authoity and remove the "check and balance" process of requiring congressional approval to raise debt limit? Seems dangerous to me.
    18 Jan 2013, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • Spending bills originate in Congress. It isn't Obama waving the credit card around, he's the one waiting to sign the check to pay the bills.


    This spending has already been authorized, the debt ceiling is a technicality. Congressional Republicans are trying to retroactively impose an alternative fiscal agenda on legislation and spending previously approved. It's just... stupid.
    18 Jan 2013, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • J 457 - you are woefully misinformed as to what the debt ceiling permits and constrains. It has nothing to do with future spending (except insofar as Republican obstructionists attempt to force the issue) but everything to do with funding past spending that was duly approved by Congress.


    Even with a routine increase in the debt ceiling, Obama will not have unlimited 'spending authoity' (sic), as all appropriations originate in Congress, currently one house of which is under the firm control of Republicans.


    You need to take a Civics refresher to review how government budgeting, spending and appropriations take place.
    18 Jan 2013, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • Maybe we have 50,000 laws too many already, and they're just running out of ideas on how to restrict our freedoms further...
    19 Jan 2013, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Why can't they pass a law that allows honest, hard-working Americans to own their personal nukes, all in the spirit of the Second Amendment of course.
    19 Jan 2013, 08:01 PM Reply Like
  • Aw, ya' converted me again. I agree - we have too few laws. What's a good number of new ones we should hope for each year? 3,000? 5,000? The number of new laws is a great metric by which to measure our leaders.
    19 Jan 2013, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • John, It's all about ensuring freedom and protecting Americans against tyranny. Those are the laws that our elected Representatives should focus on. There is no one number, it's the nature of the laws. I think Americans should have the right to carry nukes. Do you disagree? If not, why are the Republicans in the Congress not doing anything about it?
    19 Jan 2013, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • They already made it a law that we can't have them. Maybe there are no takesy-backies...
    19 Jan 2013, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • So you agree that everyone should have to right to have nukes, Jon?
    19 Jan 2013, 10:44 PM Reply Like
  • That would be a violation of several different laws, as well as a treaty violation, I think (non-proliferation, or some such).


    Would you like everyone to have one?
    19 Jan 2013, 11:30 PM Reply Like
  • What about the Second Amendment John? You do not care about it any more?
    19 Jan 2013, 11:31 PM Reply Like
  • Very much in favor of the 2nd Amendment, and the right to bear arms. Do you think the 2nd Amendment should apply to nuclear weapons? I don't. Guns, yes. I'm okay with the fact that they require special licensing for fully automatic weapons, too.


    So, you think the number of laws our politicians get passed is a measure of their "success"? When they finally legislate away of our freedoms will the U.S. be a perfect place?
    19 Jan 2013, 11:59 PM Reply Like
  • Why just guns, John? Is a militia really well-armed in today's world unless they at the minimum have some F-22s and B-52 bombers? With nukes, of course.


    Like I said before, I do not have a fixed number for laws passed. It's quality that matters, not quantity. Don't you think arming the militia well to comply with the Second Amendment should be one of the highest priorities of the Republican Party?
    20 Jan 2013, 12:06 AM Reply Like
  • I think the Republicans will have done a good job if they can just ensure the existing rights we have now are not taken away. Especially by lame-duck Presidential fiat.
    20 Jan 2013, 12:20 AM Reply Like
  • Why settle for so little John? The Constitution requires a well-armed militia, does it not? Do you not care about the Constitution?
    20 Jan 2013, 12:22 AM Reply Like
  • It is well armed. Enough so to take down a tyrannical government, if the need arises. Do you think the militia would need nuclear weapons to accomplish that? Do you think the government would use nuclear weapons to quell a rebellion?
    20 Jan 2013, 12:36 AM Reply Like
  • You really think people armed with semi-automatics and drum magazines will be able to take out tanks and helicopters, John? Remember what happened at Waco, TX? What if Koresh had nukes? Do you think the ATF would dare to attack him then? Nukes, of course, are solely for defensive purposes. Just like semi-automatic rifles with drum magazines.


    Also, don't you think violence would drop to 0 if all citizens were armed with nukes?
    20 Jan 2013, 12:43 AM Reply Like
  • John, Any comments? Are you for freedom or not?
    21 Jan 2013, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • Yes, I'm for freedom. Violence would indeed drop to 0, as everyone would be killed by nuclear detonations, or the fallout from same.
    21 Jan 2013, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • John, nukes don't kill people, people kill people.
    21 Jan 2013, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • @ Macro Investor,


    "Why can't they pass a law that allows honest, hard-working Americans to own their personal nukes,..."


    Because allowing such "ordnance", outside of federal "possession", would violate most federal, state and local codes regarding the "safe" storage of explosives.
    21 Jan 2013, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • What about the second amendment and freedom?
    21 Jan 2013, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • Issue some IOU's for a few weeks and maybe people will awaken from their slumber and recognize the country needs to balance the budget and stop borrowing .50 of every dollar spent. The politicians will keep running a muck until forced into some accountability. It won't happen by itself....
    18 Jan 2013, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Let's raise taxes on the rich and balance this budget already. What a mess. We need the money.
    18 Jan 2013, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • They already did and spent the money on the Sandy relief bill in one day flat. The bill is so full of pork those people will be lucky to see anything from that 60 billion. But some will see newly paved roads in Guam and new weather satellites...
    18 Jan 2013, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • We need more then.
    18 Jan 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • Cut the defense budget by 50%, effective immediately. Those losers in the Pentagon have managed to lose not one but two wars in little more than 10 years. Time to cut them off.
    18 Jan 2013, 11:16 PM Reply Like
  • Lemming Leader to all the Lemming Followers:


    "Just close your eyes and jump. It will be fine."
    18 Jan 2013, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • I'd be for a shutdown, if it actually saved any money. But it never does. Just winds up being more vacation time for already overpaid and underburdeoned Gov't employees. They get to vote too ya know.


    Last time there was a Gov't shutdown, I never noticed.


    If that's what it takes for a reality check, to get somebody to do something more than can kicking, have at it.


    Nevermind the $180M per hr 24/7/365 in deficit spending.


    It's called "Sustainability", and it isn't.


    Votes appear more important to many, than the younger generation, they are stealing from.


    Some day, who knows when?


    But the Markets will teach them ALL a lesson.


    It is then we will all truly notice, and pay a price.


    Greece is the Word!
    19 Jan 2013, 04:42 AM Reply Like
  • 1. There is no real difference between the current Republican's and Democrats. They both want to acquire power by buying voters with other people's money.


    2. The real problem is the idiots (voters being bought) that think the free ride can continue. If you have a job you need to start paying attention, because before long welfare recipients will be making more than you are. At least the hangers-on are smart enough to know who is protecting their interests.


    3. At this point everything needs to be cut at the Federal Level. Period. In fact a government shutdown would be a good start.


    4. Right now there is only one group desires to cut spending. That group is the Tea Party (not the Republican party). If you don't realize this, then you have just been bought hook, line, and sinker. Be happy, but beware, your bubble will bust sooner or later and you'll be forced to faced reality. Only it will be too late for your children.


    5. Unless you have in excess of something like $10 million stored away somewhere you will not be able to avoid living in the future in poverty. The fair common economic situation is poverty. There has never been and never will be a common economic situation where everyone is well off.


    Think about it and you see that 'fair' means everyone in poverty, except a few rich government elites.
    19 Jan 2013, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • All you Austerity freaks and budget cutting freaks, take a really good look at Europe and specifically Germany. The net effect of all there austerity is that the European economies are declining even the steam roller German economy. This country needs more revenue and significant budget cuts; but, let's not take such a big bite all at once that we choke the recovering economy in the process like the Europeans have done!
    19 Jan 2013, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • Bear bait, you don't seem to get it. By screaming and demanding that the federal budget should be zero, we will have only a slight chance of getting it cut by something small like 1%. No one in their right mind is expecting drastic cuts (because that will never happen), but we do need and expect a cut.


    Definition: A cut means spending less this year than we did last year and has nothing to do with budgets or planned spending.
    20 Jan 2013, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • Why do you want that Neil?
    20 Jan 2013, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • "Why do you want that Neil?"


    Assuming you mean why do I think Federal spending should be cut?


    If so, it is because there is nothing more wasteful than the federal bureaucracy. If we need more spending to help people, then do it at the state level. Most states (IIRC) have balanced budget requirements and if state spending gets out of control, people and business will/can move elsewhere. States cannot print their own money. For you low information voters, there are natural checks and balances that will work.


    Today, there are no checks and balances at the federal level. That is unsustainable, unless one is ok with America devolving into a two bit tinhorn dictatorship where a few in D.C. control everything and one only gets the handout if one can prove support for the current dictator.


    Now you low information voters will say, "no way, that can't happen here, we are representative republic." However, Obama has proven that the constitution and everything it stands for mean nothing to the ruling class. While that suits the low information voter today, history indicates that will change once power is cemented.
    21 Jan 2013, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • Why not just raise taxes and balance the budget?
    21 Jan 2013, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • They just raised taxes. It did nothing in regards to balancing the budget.
    21 Jan 2013, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • Clearly they didn't raise it enough then.
    21 Jan 2013, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • How much is "enough"?
    21 Jan 2013, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • Till we balance the budget, of course. Balancing the budget is paramount. It takes priority over all other socio-economic goals. Right?
    21 Jan 2013, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • "Why not just raise taxes and balance the budget?"


    Really, too bad they did not teach economics where you went to school.


    But none-the-less, let me explain.


    1. There is not enough untaxed income left to be of any benefit taxing the rich. "Taxing the rich" is a hollow campaign slogan. The last time I calculated the amount, taxing the rich at 100% of income would only pay current government spending for about 5 to 6 months.


    2. That means that the other half of the current spending has to come from asset confiscation or from taxing the non rich. Both of these are political non-starters.


    3. That only leaves reducing spending or printing more money. Printing more money is just stealing from the next generation's children. That's probably what'll happen, considering our degenerate politicians thirst for money at any cost.
    22 Jan 2013, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • Neil, Can you please do you math again?
    22 Jan 2013, 01:22 PM Reply Like
  • "Neil, Can you please do you math again?'


    No need to. If you think my math is wrong, then you do it and publish it here. Be sure to include your assumptions.
    22 Jan 2013, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • _You_ made a random comment with no proof and now _I_ have to do the work to disprove it?
    22 Jan 2013, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • @Neil459, your post is wrong on the facts and on how it treats taxation.


    First of all, the top 1% of the U.S. population controls 40% of its wealth (read 'real estate' and 'hard physical assets') and 10% controls 80% of its wealth. Thus, simple logic says that a tax system that taxed (or 'confiscated') said wealth could easily fund government operations merely by taxing that top 10% and giving a tax holiday to the bottom 90%.


    Second, the 'budget deficit' and 'national debt' are empty tropes used by demagogues intent upon further emasculating people who actually work for a living to the profit of the 'rentier class' (those who make their money from rents and dividends). There is simply no need whatsoever for a balanced budget or for reducing government debt, not when people who make their living from capital gains and dividends pay a lower marginal tax rate than those who make their living from the sweat of their brow.


    So stop parroting right wing dogma, crack your Keynes and grow up.
    22 Jan 2013, 11:16 PM Reply Like
  • "Second, the 'budget deficit' and 'national debt' are empty tropes used by demagogues"


    Sorry, please get a dictionary and at least attempt to understand the English language. I never mentioned anything about budgets or debt. For the hard of reading, I said we need to reduce spending such that government spends less than it takes in.


    "First of all, the top 1% of the U.S. population controls 40% of its wealth (read 'real estate' and 'hard physical assets') and 10% controls 80% of its wealth. "


    You act like this is a bad thing, Oh, I forgot, your indoctrination taught you it was a bad thing. Ok, first name one country where this is not the case. In every other country, if it is not the top 1% of the wealthy, then its the top 1% of the government. In a country like Russia they hide behind some slight of hand that allows them to say the country owns the wealth, but really? Only the ignorant, or a Democrat would believe that.


    The wealthy will always be in control, taxing only changes the wealth from the people that worked hard for it, to the people with the power to steal it.
    23 Jan 2013, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • "_You_ made a random comment with no proof and now _I_ have to do the work to disprove it?"


    No matter how much I prove it, you won't believe it. So it's not worth the work. If you want to prove it, then you do the math. Otherwise just continue to believe the lies from the President and the media. It does not take any work to do that and its probably the same thing your friends are doing. Just be happy, the truth does not matter to most people as proved by the election.
    22 Jan 2013, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • So you can't prove it. Thought so. This is what happens when someone repeats soundbites from right wing talk shows.
    22 Jan 2013, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • Macro is what happens when someone tries to master the art of non sequiturs and strawmen, and fails miserably. He is getting good at obfuscation, distraction, and never managing to really say anything, though.
    22 Jan 2013, 08:43 PM Reply Like
  • John, You never told me why the population shouldn't have the right to carry nukes. For self-defense, of course. Against tyranny. Just like the Second Amendment wanted.
    22 Jan 2013, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • "So you can't prove it. Thought so. This is what happens when someone repeats soundbites from right wing talk shows."


    Unlike you, I don't believe anything in the media. That comes from living in Missouri and being raised by depression era Grandparents.


    If you have not done the calculation yourself, how do you know it's not true? I have and if you do it, you will find the truth. But I know you are scared of the truth so don't spend the hour looking it up and checking the assumptions. That way you can continue to support the lies that make you feel good even if they are lies.
    23 Jan 2013, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • If you have done the calculations you can easily post it. You won't. Says a lot.
    23 Jan 2013, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • "John, You never told me why the population shouldn't have the right to carry nukes. For self-defense, of course. Against tyranny. Just like the Second Amendment wanted."


    They should, as long as they are qualified and can handle and operate them safely. Not many people I know are qualified or would be comfortable handling nuclear materials so it is an ignorant non-practical argument.


    You do however make a good point, there should be no limit to the 2nd amendment, provided one is qualified and mentally healthy. The line being drawn arbitrarily around assault weapons is ridiculous and it's only purpose is to give the government more power.


    The population having weapons does not guarantee a free country, but removing weapons from the population is the first law passed when dictators take over. Check your history. There must be a reason, and it's not to protect the Children.
    23 Jan 2013, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • I am very happy to see at least one patriot speaking up in favor of everyone in American having the right to bear nukes. No wonder we have the Tea Party Patriots in Congress with the trust voters place on the US constitution.


    But, I am still not sure if you are a true believer in the US constitution. I don't think the Second Amendment cares about training or mental capacity. Are people without training or lacking in mental capacity not Americans? The Second Amendment gives all Americans the right to bear any and every arm possible, right?
    23 Jan 2013, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • John Adams said it best: "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."


    And the author sums it up:


    "Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating."


    Besides the common sense arguments against allowing WMD's (or WGD's - weapons of greater destruction) while still allowing U.S. citizens to possess "guns" (rifles, pistols), there are several other takes on the question at . It's interesting reading material, if you ever get tired of trolling SA.
    23 Jan 2013, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • "I don't think the Second Amendment cares about training or mental capacity." It also does not mention felons not being allowed to have guns, at some point common sense has to kick in.


    The point of the Constitution was to limit government, not limit people. Somehow the powerful have turned one of the best attempts at creating a free society into just another power trip.
    23 Jan 2013, 08:40 PM Reply Like
  • So Americans without training or lacking in mental capacity are not people? It is OK to limit their rights? Wow, the arrogance of some liberals never cease to amaze me.


    Do you believe in the Second Amendment or not? You can't just trample on the Constitution by citing common sense. Next you know someone would ban drum cartridges citing common sense.
    23 Jan 2013, 08:43 PM Reply Like
  • John, Is this the text of the Second Amendment?


    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


    Tell me, how does it allow pistols and rifles and not nukes?
    23 Jan 2013, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • Ask the Supreme Court. They're the one's who trample on following the Constitution and its various amendments verbatim.


    Maybe your pal Sonya can get the court to allow nukes.
    23 Jan 2013, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • John, I am asking for _your_ opinion. Why do you think the Second Amendment doesn't allow law abiding Americans to have nukes?
    23 Jan 2013, 08:16 PM Reply Like
  • In my own opinion? 'kay. Because there is no defense against someone's use of one (if they are using it in self defense). I don't care if my next door neighbor had M-60's perched on top of his house, if they were for self defense. But he can't lob a nuke at an intruder without affecting my well-being, so, in my personal opinion, WMD's go too far above and beyond to be considered a self-defense mechanism.


    It truly is a shame that innocent people are killed by psycho/sociopaths that get their hands on guns, but the damage is at least limited in scope. As I said earlier, permit WMD's under the 2nd Amendment, and there will be zero vilolence because everyone will be dead.
    23 Jan 2013, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • John, That's not what I am asking. I know that you are part of the liberal establishment that is bent upon destroying the rights of Americans to own nukes. I am asking you where in the Second Amendment do you see lack of rights to own nukes? I would like to remind you here that nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Would you prefer instead that only the bad guys have nukes?
    23 Jan 2013, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • There is nothing specifically in the 2nd amendment that prohibits owning nuclear weapons. I believe it is read pro-fascia, and if so, the founders would not have included nuclear weapons (or guided missiles, or laser beams fired from satellites, etc.)


    You've needled me long enough, and I've tried to answer you.... Why do you think U.S. citizens should / should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons?
    23 Jan 2013, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • You believe, John? You are such a liberal. Next you will say that the founders wouldn't have allowed drum magazines and assault rifles either.


    I support Americans owning nukes because of the Second Amendment of course. It's a kind of armament, and the Second Amendment clearly allows Americans to own arms. That's why Americans are allowed to own drum magazines and assault rifles, right? Same reason.
    23 Jan 2013, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • No surprise - no real discourse from you. You are a troll.
    23 Jan 2013, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • Do you have any reason to counter my position? Just name calling wouldn't hid the truth, John, that you hate the Constitution and what it stands for - freedom (to own nukes).
    23 Jan 2013, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • Okay. Sounds great.
    23 Jan 2013, 09:36 PM Reply Like
  • Why do you hate America and what it stands for, John?
    23 Jan 2013, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • Why do you?
    23 Jan 2013, 10:02 PM Reply Like
  • I don't John. I support the Second Amendment and the freedom that it provides to Americans to own nukes. You however do not support that freedom because you are afraid that someone would nuke you.


    John, the bad guys will always have nukes. Why do you want to deny the right of honest, law-abiding Americans to defend themselves with nukes?
    23 Jan 2013, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • You do, actually. The reason you do, is that you know the "bad guys" would use the nukes, and millions of people would die... Why do you want millions of people to die? Cars are not a granted right anywhere in the Constitution of it's amendments, and cars kill more people that guns OR nuclear weapons. Shouldn't they be made illegal?


    Why do you hate people?
    23 Jan 2013, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • John, If you think a law against owning nukes is going to keep the bad guys from owning nukes, then you are sorely mistaken. Otherwise a law against owning guns would have kept guns out of the hands of bad guys too. You and I both know that such is not the case. So, bad guys will always have nukes and the only way honest, hard-working, law-abiding, conservatives Americans can defend themselves is by having nukes too. All for self-defense, of course.


    I do not see your point about cars. The Constitution says nothing about cars.
    23 Jan 2013, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • Nukes don't kill people. People kill people.


    If you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes.


    You'll have to pry my nuke out of my cold, dead hands.


    Did I miss any of the bumper stickers?
    23 Jan 2013, 10:33 PM Reply Like
  • Exactly, Tricky.
    23 Jan 2013, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • Which bad guys have nukes? Laws against owning guns don't work, anyways - witness Chicago and New York City. Which bad guy would I be defending myself against who has a nuke? Please be specific. I have been threatened with a gun before, but I have never been threatened with a nuke by someone.


    Your 'nuke' thing is just weird.
    23 Jan 2013, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • John, Don't believe all the propaganda that you hear on MSM. There are bad guys and yes they are after nukes. The world is a very dangerous place. You seem to have the blessed life of a East Coast liberal. Good for you, but you clearly do not understand what is going on in the real world.


    You may think that I am "weird", but that's typical liberal talk. Look down upon real Americans as much as you want John, real life patriots who own assault rifles and drum magazines merely for shooting dear or protecting themselves, and now want to own nukes. Do it, John. Do it. It only exposes you as an out of touch liberal.
    23 Jan 2013, 10:50 PM Reply Like
  • Wait, I forgot the key one...


    If you outlaw private citizens from owning nukes for self defense then it's just a SLIPPERY SLOPE until we're all enslaved in a North Korean style dictatorship.
    23 Jan 2013, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • Remember, Tricky, First they came for your nukes ...
    23 Jan 2013, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • I own an "assault rifle". Looks cool, and it's fun to shoot. I have a pistol and a "deer rifle", too - also fun to shoot. I don't even hunt deer, and don't rely on any of them for defense (that's what dogs are for). Maybe dogs should be made illegal, too. Maybe we should all be given a nuke, a vial of anthrax, and two gold bars at birth. Whoever ends up with the most gold bars wins.


    Since you won't answer my questions sincerely, I'm just feeding you...


    I'm much happier being a 2nd amendment supporting "conservative" than I would be as a liberal troll who will not even honestly answer the same asinine questions that he asks of others.
    23 Jan 2013, 11:13 PM Reply Like
  • John, The Constitution says nothing about golds bars. The Constitution also says nothing about giving arms for free. People have to stand on their own two feet instead of asking for handouts. So nukes must be bought, not given.
    24 Jan 2013, 07:08 AM Reply Like
  • Does this chick have nukes?



    The talk of barbeque and Jesus kind of makes me suspicious.
    23 Jan 2013, 11:22 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)