Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other 'Rights' May Soon be Found

[Strychnine]

Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other 'Rights' May Soon be Found


Tragedy struck leftists all across America last week when a federal appeals court reviewing the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon by the District. The court's inexplicable ruling was based on a "radical" interpretation of the recently rediscovered 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

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.

According to the Washington Post, which upon hearing of the decision had a small editorial seizure it called “A Dangerous Ruling,” the court’s plain reading of the Bill of Rights has given "a new and dangerous meaning to the 2nd Amendment." Apparently, when the Post reads the amendment according to the ancient and safe interpretation (which goes all the way back to the 1970s) all it sees is:

The Population of the nanny State, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects, and retards, must not be allowed to have Arms.

"[T]his radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder," the Post continued, sagely foreseeing a day in the near future when the district might not be the safe gunfree enclave of sanity that it now is. One wonders if D.C. might someday even become the murder capital of the United States without its protective cloak of gun control disarming its law-abiding citizens.

The district's law-and-order mayor, Adrian Fenty, apparently outraged by the disappointing decision, stated afterwards, "I am personally deeply disappointed and quite frankly outraged by today's decision. Today's decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia." It's hard to argue with the mayor when one looks at the cold hard facts: today's murder rate is just 26% higher than it was when the gun ban was put in place in 1978, down from a peak of just 128% higher in 1991 before a nationwide decline in crime driven by demographics took hold. With results like that, I'm not sure D.C. can afford to have its gun violence "decreased" any further.

But its not just D.C. that is at risk from this radical discovery of the so-called "Bill of Rights" (if that’s even its real name), the mayor is also worried that the anarchy of Constitutional limits on government power could spread, commenting: "It has national implications with regard to gun control statutes across the country. It's the first time that a federal court has said that the 2nd Amendment restricts or prohibits gun control."

Of course, it's only the first time a federal source has said that the Constitution restricts gun control if you don't count the 2nd Amendment itself -- which is intended expressly to restrict or prohibit gun control. But then this may be the first time a Federal court has read that far into the Constitution -- it's so easy to get hung up trying to find "separation of church and state" in the 1st Amendment, after all.

A number of sources on the left held up for praise in the decision the one dissenting judge, Karen LeCraft Henderson, whose opinion that the gun ban was constitutionally permissible was based on at least two stellar deductions. The first was that since the District of Columbia is not a state (as in "necessary to the security of a free State…"), then the 2nd Amendment did not apply in that part of America. This is a wonderful precedent, not only for the District, but also for America's other territories such a Puerto Rico.

According to this same logic, Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26 (among others) do not apply in the District either, which means the District is free to a) deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, b) deny the vote to blacks, c) deny the vote to women, d) institute a poll tax, and e) deny the vote based on age. Clearly, Henderson deserves her new status as a liberal hero.

Henderson's second insight was that despite the right belonging to "the people" in the amendment, it actually belonged only to the militia as an organized military force. To believe this, you have to believe that the United States is the only nation on Earth that felt a need to guarantee its government, in writing, the right to have an army -- which is possible, I suppose, if Jefferson foresaw the attitude of the modern Democrat party towards the military.

The mystery of whether the amendment guarantees the people or the military the right to have weapons perplexed a number of commentators taken aback by the decision. Consider this verbal tailspin featured on MSNBC:

"Now, the issue is 27 words. That's the 2nd Amendment's section on the right to bear arms. I'm going to read the 27 words. They say '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.' Now, it's a long-standing legal question in America, and largely unresolved, although partisans on both sides will say it is resolved but a majority of scholars would say it isn't. What does that mean? Does that mean that militias have the right to possess guns or individuals?"

Wow. If only those comments could have been limited to 27 words.

The Washington Post was not afflicted with such uncertainty, however, stating that the amendment applied only to militias (suddenly so popular with the media) and that the ruling was part of an "unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rifle Association… to give individuals 2nd Amendment rights." And you thought that campaign was led by the Founding Fathers.

But what is the "militia"? It is not the army -- by contrast, it was seen as an antidote to having to keep a standing army. It was defined at the time of the Constitution’s writing roughly as "all able-bodied male citizens not in the regular military." (Theoretically it may thus be constitutionally permissible to deny guns to women, old men, cripples, and possibly fat people, but I have to admit I'm against this. These are precisely the groups of people that might need a gun most for self-defense, or possibly for procuring more food.) Viewed in this light, the liberal response to the ruling is, essentially, the right does not belong to the people, so much as it belongs to all civilians.

What the left does not get about the 2nd Amendment is that it is not about the National Guard, or sporting firearms or gun collections. It does not guarantee the government an army, nor does it guarantee civilians the right to hunt and shoot skeet. It's about the right of the people to maintain some portion of the ultimate power of government -- violence -- to themselves.

The Founding Fathers systematically democratized the powers of society through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They democratized the power of law through the right to vote. They democratized the power of wealth through the right to private property (since repealed by environmentalists and courts). They democratized the power of ideas through the right to free speech (since repealed by McCain/Feingold). And they democratized the power of violence (or the capability to commit it) through the right to bear arms (since repealed by "gun control").

The four great powers of man: law, money, thought and violence were thus divided among the people and not reserved exclusively to the connected, the rich, the approved, and the enlisted. That's the basis of our Republic. That's America. And that is, apparently, a total surprise to liberals.

But the deeper reason behind the hysteria over the decision is that for decades the left has been able to make the Constitution into whatever it wanted. The actual words did not matter. When words -- even just 27 words -- mean exactly what they say, then the power to dictate law from a "living" Constitution disappears and liberals are reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right -- a daunting task. When a court can decide that the 2nd Amendment must be respected, the left is on a slippery slope indeed. Who knows what amendment might be rediscovered next? Personally, I vote for the 10th. Regardless, if the trend is allowed to continue, it will be a disaster for the dictatorial left. Thus, I predict the decision will be appealed.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19810

[Fox466]

Very nice. Found a new favorite read as well...

[46Tbird]

lol :cool:

[AL P]

Funny as hell if you ask me.

[Mustangman_2000]

congratulations....you just found the right wing equivalent to moveon.org

and the funniest part of that site is the advertisement to get newt gingrich in your inbox.

newt gingrich is the king dominator of hypocrisy. he was the douchebag that lead the charge against bill clinton to have him impeached about lying about an affair, but all the while he was having an extramarital affair himself.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar08/0,4670,GingrichAffair,00.html

gotta love these "moral majority" republicans......lmao :D

[46Tbird]

You make it seem like everyone here is a staunch Republican.

Trust me, I for one am NOT.

Who gives a fuck about Newt Gingrich? He's a piece of crap. Probably grew up with an ego complex because his parents were idiots that named him Newt.

Not sure if you noticed, but that article was written completely tongue-in-cheek. It is poking fun at the revisionist history that is being preached by the left. Thank GOD a court actually decided to uphold the words (and meaning) of our Constitution.

[Strychnine]

congratulations....you just found the right wing equivalent to moveon.org

and the funniest part of that site is the advertisement to get newt gingrich in your inbox.

newt gingrich is the king dominator of hypocrisy. he was the douchebag that lead the charge against bill clinton to have him impeached about lying about an affair, but all the while he was having an extramarital affair himself.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar08/0,4670,GingrichAffair,00.html

gotta love these "moral majority" republicans......lmao :D


Source aside, did you even read it?

Who fucking cares about the advertisements on the page. Even assholes and douchebags can make vaild points that should be heard.


I'm interested to hear your opinion of this part:

Karen LeCraft Henderson, whose opinion that the gun ban was constitutionally permissible was based on at least two stellar deductions. The first was that since the District of Columbia is not a state (as in "necessary to the security of a free State…"), then the 2nd Amendment did not apply in that part of America. This is a wonderful precedent, not only for the District, but also for America's other territories such a Puerto Rico.

According to this same logic, Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26 (among others) do not apply in the District either, which means the District is free to a) deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, b) deny the vote to blacks, c) deny the vote to women, d) institute a poll tax, and e) deny the vote based on age

[99SVTour]

congratulations....you just found the right wing equivalent to moveon.org

and the funniest part of that site is the advertisement to get newt gingrich in your inbox.

newt gingrich is the king dominator of hypocrisy. he was the douchebag that lead the charge against bill clinton to have him impeached about lying about an affair, but all the while he was having an extramarital affair himself.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar08/0,4670,GingrichAffair,00.html

gotta love these "moral majority" republicans......lmao :D

Oh look he's picked up a new tag line from one of the threads!!! You keep increasing that amazing political vocabulary of yours!

It's hilarious that you claim to be a moderate democrat and I have yet to see you disagree with any liberal idea that anyone has brought forth in here.

By the way, if everyone that based their lives and/or teachings on morals could hold themselves to those morals at all times we'd all be named Jesus.

[99SVTour]

Do the lefties not realize that if an appeal is held up in another court that people will begin joining/creating militias to uphold their 2nd amendment right?

[Trip McNeely]

newt gingrich is the king dominator of hypocrisy. he was the douchebag that lead the charge against bill clinton to have him impeached about lying about an affair, but all the while he was having an extramarital affair himself.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar08/0,4670,GingrichAffair,00.html

LOL. Yeah the only minute difference is I dunno, Clinton LYING UNDER OATH. I didnt hear any testimony from Gingrich, nor was his relationship a mockery of the presidential seat. :confused:

[That_Is_My_El_Camino]

...nor was his relationship a mockery of the presidential seat. :confused:w3rd. One would think that the leader of the free world could pull a little better tail than a tubby brown-bagger.

[Trip McNeely]

That too.

[Casper]

congratulations....you just found the right wing equivalent to moveon.org


Yet another Ad Hominem from someone who "dislikes their use".

Stevo, where's that parrot icon?

[AL P]

Yet another Ad Hominem from someone who "dislikes their use".

Stevo, where's that parrot icon?

Oh, are you expecting him to make any sense whatsoever? I gave up on that a long time ago...

[Mustangman_2000]

You make it seem like everyone here is a staunch Republican.

Trust me, I for one am NOT.

Who gives a fuck about Newt Gingrich? He's a piece of crap. Probably grew up with an ego complex because his parents were idiots that named him Newt.

Not sure if you noticed, but that article was written completely tongue-in-cheek. It is poking fun at the revisionist history that is being preached by the left. Thank GOD a court actually decided to uphold the words (and meaning) of our Constitution.

being serious...i realize that it was exactly that.

i'm not taking it seriously. it's similar to what i posted the other day poking fun at the rules of conservatism, so it wouldn't be fair for me to take offense by this thread.

no biggie.

[Mustangman_2000]

Source aside, did you even read it?

Who fucking cares about the advertisements on the page. Even assholes and douchebags can make vaild points that should be heard.


I'm interested to hear your opinion of this part:

to be honest i didn't read it the first time around. i saw the obvious slant and sensationalism banners and hit x.





Karen LeCraft Henderson, whose opinion that the gun ban was constitutionally permissible was based on at least two stellar deductions. The first was that since the District of Columbia is not a state (as in "necessary to the security of a free State…"), then the 2nd Amendment did not apply in that part of America. This is a wonderful precedent, not only for the District, but also for America's other territories such a Puerto Rico.

According to this same logic, Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26 (among others) do not apply in the District either, which means the District is free to a) deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, b) deny the vote to blacks, c) deny the vote to women, d) institute a poll tax, and e) deny the vote based on age

wow!

interesting, but still inane in terms of rationalizing away amendments to the constitution.

[Mustangman_2000]

LOL. Yeah the only minute difference is I dunno, Clinton LYING UNDER OATH. I didnt hear any testimony from Gingrich, nor was his relationship a mockery of the presidential seat. :confused:

true, but he's still a hypocrite for actively pursuing a man that was guilty of the same indiscretions he was committing. no..let's take it one step further. he was actually having an affair during the clinton probe that he was spearheading. think about that for a minute. that's mental fucking illness right there.

and i'm pretty sure his exposed marital problems and history of affairs didn't help the image of his party any.

you know the newt gingrich's and mark foley's are the pariahs and black sheep of the republican party. just to name a couple of examples......it's got to be a bitch to try and label your party the "moral majority" when in reality it's the diametric opposite.

and the democrats have their fair share of skeletons as well, so don't respond and tell me i'm being one sided. it won't wash......

[Trip McNeely]

true, but he's still a hypocrite for actively pursuing a man that was guilty of the same indiscretions he was committing. no..let's take it one step further. he was actually having an affair during the clinton probe that he was spearheading. think about that for a minute. that's mental fucking illness right there.

and i'm pretty sure his exposed marital problems and history of affairs didn't help the image of his party any.

you know the newt gingrich's and mark foley's are the pariahs and black sheep of the republican party. just to name a couple of examples......it's got to be a bitch to try and label your party the "moral majority" when in reality it's the diametric opposite.

and the democrats have their fair share of skeletons as well, so don't respond and tell me i'm being one sided. it won't wash......
Yes it is hypocritical, but at the same time he didnt have near the standard to hold to be screwing up, nor did he commit perjury in a court.

[46Tbird]

true, but he's still a hypocrite for actively pursuing a man that was guilty of the same indiscretions he was committing. McFly...

Newt was trying to pin the PERJURY on Clinton. You know, the crime of perjury. The fact that it was over a completely outrageous extramarital affair in the Oval Office was just icing on the cake. Yeah those guys were relishing that moment with glee, no doubt about it. I don't think anyone is pushing that moral majority tagline anymore except the liberals that can't stand it...

[Paladin]

LOL. Yeah the only minute difference is I dunno, Clinton LYING UNDER OATH. I didnt hear any testimony from Gingrich, nor was his relationship a mockery of the presidential seat. :confused:

That sure gets ignored by the left wing crazies when they bring up Clinton, doesn't it?

[Paladin]

McFly...

Newt was trying to pin the PERJURY on Clinton. You know, the crime of perjury. The fact that it was over a completely outrageous extramarital affair in the Oval Office was just icing on the cake. Yeah those guys were relishing that moment with glee, no doubt about it. I don't think anyone is pushing that moral majority tagline anymore except the liberals that can't stand it...

Yeah, the Moral Majority was a group who aligned themselves with the Republicans, but that sure gets lost on liberal boy. I bet he sure would distance himself from all the radical groups that align themselves with his dear old Dems.

OK, maybe not. ;)

BTW, love the McFly stuff. :D

[Mustangman_2000]

That sure gets ignored by the left wing crazies when they bring up Clinton, doesn't it?

hate to be the bearer of bad news, but i think you are what constitues the "crazies" in this forum.

wanna know why?

i repeat ad nauseam that i acknowledge bill clinton lied under oath, it was wrong, and it stained his presidency. however, in light of that you still keep incessantly making comments suggesting that i ignore the indiscretions of bill clinton. :confused:

i think if you haven't figured out my position after i have typed it about 20 times in various threads, then perhaps you might be the one with the problem.

would you like me to point out what you so conveniently elide over? how about you say something critical about our former republican speaker of the house was having an extramarital affair during the clinton probe.

i bet you are incapable of saying a member of your party was wrong without any spin.

i do it all the time, but i don't suffer from denial about the faux pas of my political party.

[Mustangman_2000]

McFly...

Newt was trying to pin the PERJURY on Clinton. You know, the crime of perjury. The fact that it was over a completely outrageous extramarital affair in the Oval Office was just icing on the cake. Yeah those guys were relishing that moment with glee, no doubt about it. I don't think anyone is pushing that moral majority tagline anymore except the liberals that can't stand it...

cute.

you're right about the perjury. i have admitted it many times over.

however, i guess you don't have a problem with the former republican speaker of the house and 3rd in line of presidency, having an extramarital affair while he was spear heading the impeachment campaign.

not only is that hypocritical to the extreme, but that is just plain nuts to attack someone for doing what you yourself are doing. he's a nutcase.

[Manly Hangdown]

i acknowledge bill clinton lied under oath, it was wrong, and it stained his presidency.

It stained more than his presidency, big boy.

http://www.danchimviet.com/php/images/092006/dress.gif

[Manly Hangdown]

you're right about the perjury. i have admitted it many times over.

So, you are saying that Wild Bill actually perjured himself under oath? Isn't that a crime? I might be wrong, but I have been told you are supposed to go to jail or something when you lie in court.

No matter, Billy is the best President this country has seen, since Jimmy decided to let the republicans have a try at running things in 1980. Such a gracious man that Jimmy

[Walsted]

cute.

you're right about the perjury. i have admitted it many times over.

however, i guess you don't have a problem with the former republican speaker of the house and 3rd in line of presidency, having an extramarital affair while he was spear heading the impeachment campaign.

I think the relevant question would be whether or not extramarital affairs are felonies where the act was occurring, and if committing a crime is grounds for removal from Congress. If so, then their offenses are similar, and Newt should have been gone, just as Clinton should have been gone for his perjury. If not, Newt wasn't committing a crime, and Clinton still committed felony perjury. I don't know enough about law or the specifics of Newt's case to make a determination as to whether or not Newt commited a crime, though. Regardless of whether or not what Newt did was a crime, Clinton still should have been gone, and those congresspersons who did not vote to impeach were not doing their job.

If anyone knows for certain the applicability of the laws that would be relevant to Newt's affair, please educate us all.

[black01gt]

OK, maybe not. ;)

BTW, love the McFly stuff. :D
"Huh...yeah...good one Delbert! That one really got him good....huh!!!! Oh we're good man! Fuckin yeah man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gut him!"

WHAT A FUCKING JOKE THIS BUNCH OF RETARDED PUNKS IS

What I think is funny is that when all the opposition has gone away is watching you love birds start to turn on each other.

See ya. ;)

[Strychnine]

Seriously?

You guys are some hijacking motherfuckers. Pretty sure Clinton/Newt/etc, is not the issue here :rolleyes:

[Paladin]

hate to be the bearer of bad news, but i think you are what constitues the "crazies" in this forum.

wanna know why?

i repeat ad nauseam that i acknowledge bill clinton lied under oath, it was wrong, and it stained his presidency. however, in light of that you still keep incessantly making comments suggesting that i ignore the indiscretions of bill clinton. :confused:

i think if you haven't figured out my position after i have typed it about 20 times in various threads, then perhaps you might be the one with the problem.

would you like me to point out what you so conveniently elide over? how about you say something critical about our former republican speaker of the house was having an extramarital affair during the clinton probe.

i bet you are incapable of saying a member of your party was wrong without any spin.

i do it all the time, but i don't suffer from denial about the faux pas of my political party.

You accuse me of spin? You are an idiot.

Of course it was wrong for Gingrich to be having an affair, but that still doesn't change anything. Bill Clinton had an affair and LIED about it.

You excused Clinton for being wrong, and I say he should nhave been removedresigned from office just like Foley.

The difference is that you are a hypocrite becuase you want Bsuh removed for a perceived lie, and didn't call for Clinton to be removed for an ACTUAL lie. This isn't about Clinton or Gingrich having an affair, it is about lying. You will never see it because you are a koolaid drinking, liberal rose colored glasses wearing straight ticket idiot Democrat.

[Slowhand]

this is too good.

[Paladin]

cute.

you're right about the perjury. i have admitted it many times over.

however, i guess you don't have a problem with the former republican speaker of the house and 3rd in line of presidency, having an extramarital affair while he was spear heading the impeachment campaign.

not only is that hypocritical to the extreme, but that is just plain nuts to attack someone for doing what you yourself are doing. he's a nutcase.

Damn, you are a fucktard. There is nothing hypocritical about Gingrich wanting Clinton gone because of a lie. It would be hypocritical if he wanted him gone because of the affair while having an affair. Yeah, it was stupid to have an affair, but to use a line you liberals used before Bill lied, it is between him and his wife. Remember when Hillary called the accusations a "right wing conspircay?" It must be that you hypocrites can't see this stuff when it should be so clear.

[Casper]

Not just an affair, but bonking a subordinate. What goes for a lowly private should go for the commander in cheif, right? I mean, if he truly supports the troops...

[FSON]

Not just an affair, but bonking a subordinate. What goes for a lowly private should go for the commander in cheif, right? I mean, if he truly supports the troops...

It depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is.

[Mustangman_2000]

Damn, you are a fucktard. There is nothing hypocritical about Gingrich wanting Clinton gone because of a lie. It would be hypocritical if he wanted him gone because of the affair while having an affair. Yeah, it was stupid to have an affair, but to use a line you liberals used before Bill lied, it is between him and his wife. Remember when Hillary called the accusations a "right wing conspircay?" It must be that you hypocrites can't see this stuff when it should be so clear.


nothing hypocritical about newt gingrich (speaker of the house at the time) being critical of the clinton administration and spearheading the impeachment campaign while at the same time he was surreptitiously having an extramarital affair? don't think that's a bit odd in any way? or perhaps, i don't know, - immoral??

remember, republican = "moral majority" ;) and just when i think the republican no accountability chestnut can't get any more shameful.

you will have to forgive me, but when the people pointing the fingers at members of my party are themselves cheating and being ignoble scumbags. it's very difficult to take anyone seriously and not question the credibility of the source.

bottom line......

i've told you many times that i don't defend bill clinton for lying under oath about the affair and i have said that it was wrong from day 1. my position on this issue has not deviated from day 1.

however, you continue to spew your very trite "rose colored glasses" & "kool-aid" rhetoric. honestly, you make my day when i look at these threads. that's because you're such a complete dolt that you continue to criticize and vilify my statements even after i conceded the fact the what bill clinton did was categorically wrong.

seriously, you have no idea how comical that is.

why don't you make an effort understand my position and you might come to the stark realization that i'm not leftist liberal you think i am. however, that would require you to open your mind and think about things without infusing your automatic prejudice towards anyone one that has a different point of view.

[Paladin]

nothing hypocritical about newt gingrich (speaker of the house at the time) being critical of the clinton administration and spearheading the impeachment campaign while at the same time he was surreptitiously having an extramarital affair? don't think that's a bit odd in any way? or perhaps, i don't know, - immoral??.

It would have been hypocritical of him to try and remove Clinton for having an affair. It was not hypocritical for him asking Clinton to resign for lying. Get it?


remember, republican = "moral majority" ;) and just when i think the republican no accountability chestnut can't get any more shameful..

It was immoral and it sure makes him look bad, but not hypocritical IMO. BTW, your party sure defended Bill's right to have an affair stay private business and said t was between Bill and Hillary, why is it different for Gingrich? Gingrich, and the majority of Americans, just thought a sitting President should not commit a felony while in office, how terrible of him! :rolleyes:


you will have to forgive me, but when the people pointing the fingers at members of my party are themselves cheating and being ignoble scumbags. it's very difficult to take anyone seriously and not question the credibility of the source..

You can question the credibility of the source, but at the time you defended Clinton like all the other liberal fanatics and said it was a right wing comspiracy, didn't you? What about the fact that all of us who weren't cheating on our wives having the same opinion as Gingrich? It doesn't change the fact that Bill lied and committed a felony and all Gingrich did was have an affair. If Bill had come clean and asked for forgiveness, all of this would be a moot point, wouldn't it?


bottom line......

i've told you many times that i don't defend bill clinton for lying under oath about the affair and i have said that it was wrong from day 1. my position on this issue has not deviated from day 1..

You keep saying that lying was wrong, like we all didn't know that. But I will ask you, do you think he should have been impoeached or had to resign for the lie? What about some guy in his office having sex with a subordinate, should he be fired? This is where your intellectual honesty gets tested.


however, you continue to spew your very trite "rose colored glasses" & "kool-aid" rhetoric. honestly, you make my day when i look at these threads. that's because you're such a complete dolt that you continue to criticize and vilify my statements even after i conceded the fact the what bill clinton did was categorically wrong.

seriously, you have no idea how comical that is. .

You have never conceded that Clinton committed a felony, had an affair, had sex with a subordinate and it is not the same as Gingrich having an affair.


why don't you make an effort understand my position and you might come to the stark realization that i'm not leftist liberal you think i am. however, that would require you to open your mind and think about things without infusing your automatic prejudice towards anyone one that has a different point of view.

I understand the way you think better than you know. I defended Bill at first, and then when the lying came out and all you straight ticket idiots came out and defended him like he was some victim, I realized that being a Democrat was more than I could stomach. The Republicans are not perfect, but so far they have come much closer as a party to standing for what I believe in and staying consistent. You Democrats are making up the rules as you go along, just like Hillary does.

I will gladly vote for a democrat once they get a presidential candidate who has integrity, honor, and has the same values that I have. I bet that doesn't happen again in my lifetime since I don't support gay marriage, abortion, the ACLU, secularism, hatred and intolerance of other points of view, and blindly support immoral idiots like you and your liberal Democrat friends did Bill.

[Paladin]

Not just an affair, but bonking a subordinate. What goes for a lowly private should go for the commander in cheif, right? I mean, if he truly supports the troops...

Mustangman will never understand it though.

[Walsted]

Wait, Wait, it all makes sense to me in the context of the original discussion, maybe, I think.

If Newt was in D.C. at the time of his indiscretion, perhaps he did commit a crime by "concealing his weapon." Of course, Bill would also be guilty of violating firearms laws by "discharging his weapon within city limits." This would assume that their weapons are classified as handguns instead of sporting weapons, though, so it may not be applicable.

Or I could be wrong.

[Geor!]

You make it seem like everyone here is a staunch Republican.

Trust me, I for one am NOT.
The majority of people here are. He wasn't singleing anybody out, I don't see what you're all worked up about.

[Mach1Marauder]

and the democrats have their fair share of skeletons as well.
Most of the members of the Democrat party! LOL :p

[Mach1Marauder]

So, you are saying that Wild Bill actually perjured himself under oath? Isn't that a crime? I might be wrong, but I have been told you are supposed to go to jail or something when you lie in court.

No matter, Billy is the best President this country has seen, since Jimmy decided to let the republicans have a try at running things in 1980. Such a gracious man that Jimmy
Hey fucker! I didn't do a damn thing! You must mean "Slick Willy"! :p

[exlude]

Most of the members of American Politics! LOL :p

Fixed!