Quote of the Day: Bipartisan Agreement Edition

“…this phenomenon is not confined to one side of the political spectrum. Liberals feel just as strongly about states’ rights when it comes to decriminalizing marijuana and issuing driver’s licenses to immigrants who are in the country illegally as conservatives do when it comes to protecting gun ownership, resisting mandatory health insurance and combating voter fraud.” – Jon Healey in If you love guns, Missouri could soon be heaven [at latimes.com]

comments

  1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    linky thing no worky

  2. avatar spacecoaster says:

    It’s a typical progressive read. I feel a little dumber for just scanning over it But here is the link, for the masochists.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-missouri-gun-law-vetoed-20130705,0,2873210.story

    1. avatar ihatetrees says:

      Yeah, phrases like immigrants who are in the country illegally…” raise the flag of crap writer trying to fill space.

  3. avatar Sam S. says:

    So to rephrase “Politicians endorse states’ rights only when it lends to their own partisan agendas.”

    I think the majority of us are already familiar with this concept.

    1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

      ^This
      Same-o, same-o
      irrespective of party………..

  4. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

    I’m sorry, but I just can get around, “We feel just as strongly about aiding and abetting criminals as you do about protecting your natural, God-given rights.”

  5. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    “One criticism of the bill that actually seemed to give its proponents pause is that it would impinge on free speech. A provision of the bill would make it a crime to publish any identifying information about someone who owns or is licensed to carry a gun. As Nixon pointed out, this presents a 1st Amendment problem and would result in such perverse outcomes as barring newspapers from running pictures of “proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer.”

    Supporters shrugged off the problem, saying lawmakers could fix it in a later session. Yet they seemed to miss the irony inherent in the provision. The point of the prohibition was to protect gun owners from being targeted by thieves, but this fear tacitly acknowledges that having a gun at home doesn’t necessarily make a person safer.”

    So anything you own makes you less safe because you could be targeted by thieves. Got a car. You’re a target. Got a big screen TV? You’re a target. For that matter if you’ve got a hot wife you make your home a target for rapists.

    1. avatar Chaz says:

      How do regulations like HIPPA and FERPA fit in? Are these actually some kind of prior restraint? How is protecting privacy of guns owners different from protecting privacy of health information, of student information?

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Mr. Healey missed the irony of his own logic.

  6. avatar ensitue says:

    I’m reading Delarue’s ‘Gestapo’ page 6 of the introduction covers the above

  7. avatar jwm says:

    States Rights gives us abortions such as California and New York where our constitutional rights as Americans are subordinated to the tyranny of the majority.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      The alternatives are greater majorities setting policy for the rest of us. If you’re okay with some dumb yankee in New York or some hippie in California making decisions for you wherever you live, then by all means push for greater centralized government. A strong federal government has worked brilliantly thus far, right?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I’m not pushing for a strong central government. But all Americans, regardless of zip codes, are covered in the BOR and constitution. And if the states are not living up to their responsibilities then we need a higher authority to appeal to. Otherwise, why have a constitution at all if the individual states are simply going to ignore it?

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Actually, the individual states are trying to PROTECT the Constitution from the Usurer-in-Chief.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Rich, i fail to see that Ca. NY, Mass., Conn., and now Colorado are trying to protect the constitution from barry and gang.

          I agree that some states are trying to stand up to the Feds. But as long as there’s 1 California out there, we do not have a free country.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Well, for God’s sakes, what makes you think that getting the feds involved can possibly do any good?

          Ever heard the term, “Fifty Laboratories of Democracy?”

          Yeah, the Fed is effed up, and CA (and others) are effed up – that just means I have to be especially vigilant in protecting my own Liberty.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          If each state just goes it’s own way, what’s the point of the constitution and the BOR? Are they even valid anymore?

        5. avatar Rich Grise says:

          There is no apostrophe in the possessive its.

        6. avatar jwm says:

          That’s your reply? To go grammer Nazi on me? Follow my comments from thread to thread, you’ll have a full time job correcting my spelling and grammer mistakes.

        7. avatar Matt in FL says:

          *grammar

          I know, I know. I couldn’t resist.

        8. avatar jwm says:

          Doh!

  8. avatar Bob4 says:

    Hmm. The 2nd amendment is the only tool that gives the people the collective power to block tyranny. Many people recognize this, and they will fight to their last breath to protect the 2nd amendment. Can the Democrats say the same thing about their sacred cows? Would they risk death for their cause? How can they compare the importance of the 2nd amendment to any other political cause?

  9. avatar C says:

    If i wasn’t paying for illegal immigrants and failed leftist policies in their states, i wouldn’t give a shit.

  10. avatar In Memphis says:

    In other words the liberals agree with us BUT do what they want!? Yea, uh huh.

  11. avatar supergrover says:

    sooOOOOOooooo…
    only republicans are against voter fraud? Hmm.
    that explains a few things.

  12. avatar Nine says:

    That’s a punchable face if ever I saw one.

  13. avatar Matt in FL says:

    It’s not nice to stereotype people based on appearance, but I didn’t have to read the article to know that the guy pictured above is in favor of illegal immigrant amnesty and weed legalization.

  14. avatar Wood says:

    The term is “illegal alien”. PC relentlessly creeps in.

  15. avatar Pat says:

    Giving drivers licenses to ‘illegal immigrants’ is effing insane.
    Stupid, evil libtards (democrats).
    See how diseased looking this pencil necked liberal is in the photo.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email