Quote of the Day: Who New Yorkers Are Edition

 

“The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” – Governor Andrew Cuomo, Cuomo: Extreme Conservatives…have no place in the state of New York [at timesunion.com]

comments

  1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Well that’s nice. Same drooling slobber, different day.

    1. avatar Albaniaaaa says:

      Statists like this ass are pro-assault weapon, except only with the guys they control. What a surprise.

      1. avatar Veritas says:

        Remember Cuomo is tyhe man who brought you the NINJA loan and the housing bust.

  2. avatar the ruester says:

    Sounds alot like Hitler. (ducks)

    1. avatar Jake says:

      I was going to make a Herr Cuomo joke but you beat me to it.

      Someone say Godwin’s “law” I dare you.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Okay… I will. He’s not Hitler. He’s not herding Jews into camps. The rhetoric otherwise is silly and lacks historical perspective.

        He does look a little like Hitler, though…

        1. avatar Gregg says:

          Adolph had to start simewhere

        2. avatar PhilWilson says:

          What Gregg said. Hitler was blowing spittle into the mic long before he was rounding up Jews and others. The rhetoric is so similar it’s scary. If it was just some random idiot, I’d blow it off. But this is the governor of one of the largest states. And these statements are being made against a background in which we have elected officials in DC right now proposing a bill that take steps toward censoring their political opponents on the net, an admin that openly uses the IRS and other agencies as tools to suppress opposition, Federal law enforcement being trained to believe that mentioning the US Constitution is a potential red flag for being a terrorist, and pushing a national school curriculum that focuses more on socialist indoctrination than on actually preparing children to compete.

          I don’t know if it is possible to stop them. But we sure as hell don’t have a chance if we hesitate to call them out for being what they are.

        3. avatar Jake says:

          Genius. It is amazing the lengths people will go to in order to deny the lessons of history. There was a lot of effort, a lot of emotional manipulation, and a lot of politics that went into years of building the monster of the Third Reich. Acknowledging the reality of where forcefully exclusionary behavior inevitably leads should not be considered an internet crime just because some self aggrandizing blogger (godwin) decided to try and make a fake law he named after himself go viral. The distinct example of how Nazi Germany was grossly birthed forth from the minds and hearts of easily manipulated, angry citizens by a despicable few is a lesson that should never be forgotten, never mind made impossible to teach by internet fiat.

          I will say though that Gregg put it more succinctly. The only way to kill a weed is to see it when it starts growing and pull it out by the root.

        4. avatar Cliff H says:

          Hitler had a hard-on for Jews, that was his thing, but he also lumped Slavs and Gypsies into his hate bucket. Not to mention negroes and communists and sometimes homosexuals. Hitler was not just about hating Jews, he was about hating people and groups he didn’t like and couldn’t trust to join his club.

          Anti-semitism is NOT a requirement for being compared to Hitler or any of his Nazi boot-lickers.

      2. avatar Daily Beatings says:

        “Il Duce” is more fitting.

        1. avatar rosignol says:

          Using Photoshop to make someone look like Hitler is a lot easier, and I kinda doubt most people would recognize a picture of Mussolini by sight these days.

        2. avatar doesky2 says:

          Or Il Douche

  3. avatar 505markf says:

    So, basically, anyone who does not agree with Cuomo does not belong in the Empire State. I think he stated his position pretty well. So much for government for the people. The sheer size of his ego is something to behold. “Agree with me or leave.” I am sure that about half the population of your declining state, Mr. Cuomo, wishes they could do exactly that.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      What Mr. Cuomo is endorsing is tyranny of the majority, or as some people say “might makes right”.

      Many people in our nation are no longer satisfied to “live and let live”. Rather, they want to force “change” on other people. In other words millions want the state to beat, imprison, banish, and/or kill citizens who are different from them.

      We are moving into a very dark chapter in our nation’s history. Our laws used to be a stopgap measure to sanction criminals who harmed other citizens either financially or physically. These days, our local, state, and federal governments are passing more and more “laws” that sanction people for who they are, not for behavior that harms someone.

      1. avatar Jimmy Wade says:

        +9000

      2. avatar Bob says:

        ^^ this ^^

      3. avatar JAS says:

        “What Mr. Cuomo is endorsing is tyranny of the majority……”

        Tyranny of the majority is called a democracy. That’s why we are a Republic, with a bill of rights that protect the individual. Pure democracies are all destined to fail because they impose the will of the majority on the minority and the individual.

        1. avatar Swarf says:

          Exactly. People seem to conviently forget that when they disagree with whichever minority right is being discussed at time.

          To paraphrase: “minority rules for me, but not for thee.”

        2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          True. Now if “we” could just uphold idea that even rights which are in contravention to Leviticus are still rights…

      4. avatar Accur81 says:

        Well said, sir. My wife wants to visit NYC. I have no such desire. It’s hard enough being an independent constitutional conservative in SoCal.

        1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

          Why are wives so obsessed about visiting NYC? Mine wanted to go for the holidays. We have been there twice already and I have seen enough.

        2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          I went to see the library, which everyone should.

          After that, it’s time to leave.

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Wives all see NYC as Fifth Avenue, the Easter Parade, and Times Square early on a Sunday morning after a refreshing Spring rain.

          Those of us who successfully escaped see things somewhat differently…

        4. avatar Ted says:

          NYC is an over-crowded, smelly, expensive, shit-hole. I had the displeasure of working there for a friend for a couple of months. I could not believe the numbers of people that have been brainwashed to endure the commute to that vile place – all in the name of a bigger house.

          Upstate NY is a completely different state. It very much resembles the rest of America. Unfortunately for the remainder of the state, NYC dictates the politics.

          The whole “city living” thing is great for history professor types that love being able to walk to museums or sit next to bums on the subway, but it ain’t for me.

        5. avatar MothaLova says:

          Russ, you said it. The library is all there is to see – and maybe the Frick. No other reason to stick around.

      5. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        Well said indeed.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      On one hand, Cuomo is clearly an asshole.

      On the other hand, here on TTAG, I very often see the sentiment that “liberals are not welcome in free states” and that they are “like locust”. It’s ironic that when the same exact thing is voiced by a douche on the other side, everyone’s suddenly up in arms about it.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        The difference is that we are Constitutionally correct and he’s an idiot.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Then you should talk about this difference. All I see in the comments here is bashing him because he told the people to GTFO, not because he did tell them that for some particular reason.

          Besides that, freedom of movement is also a constitutional right. This includes the right of people to move to a different state and settle there.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        “I very often see the sentiment that “liberals are not welcome in free states.”

        int, some people are moved to comment here even when their ability to express themselves succinctly is inadequate to the emotions they are feeling. The important thing in viewing those comments to understand the depth of feeling that moved them to make the attempt.

        While I prefer to live “Liberal Free”, and would if I could, I think the sum of what MOST commenters on TTAG are trying to convey is that, “Liberals are not welcome to come to free states and try to change them politically into the same failed statist and socialist regimes they just left.” That is a very different proposition from an outright prohibition which seems to be what Mr. Como is promoting for conservatives.

        It is amazing to me how quickly these socialist politicians forget that it is the productive conservatives who most often provide the jobs and taxes that allow their Progressive fiefdoms to survive. It’s also amazing to me how many conservatives fail to make this connection and exercise their prerogative to GTFO voluntarily.

        “New York and Andrew Coumo can go to Hell – I’m going to Texas!”

    3. avatar Veritas says:

      Progressives are just facists without the brownshirts.

  4. avatar B K says:

    Wow. Wrong on so many levels…..

  5. avatar John Moses says:

    New Yorkers are cowards who ceded their liberty to master long ago. They are not worthy to be considered my country men. I will never set one foot nor spend one dime in that foul state.

    1. avatar Gurney Halleck says:

      Woah. I find that pretty offensive. AS a native New Yorker I plan on staying in NY and fighting for the freedoms I believe in. I agree that my state is full of and led by absolute idiots that seem to hate the constitution and the ideals America is based on. However there is huge group of us upstate New Yorkers that include sheriffs and senators that are fighting the safe act. Running away is not an option we love our home and won’t give it up. your support is greatly appreciated.

      1. avatar Jwestham1 says:

        I agree.

        I’m from NY, born and bred, and our laws are controlled by progressive liberals from NYC and RINOs from Long Island, where the majority of the population lives.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          So secede from NY and form your own state… There’s plenty of precedents and you have the UN charter on your side.

        2. avatar SelousX says:

          Well, it’s getting closer to the time to go RINO hunting at the polls.
          Yes, with your ballots.

        3. avatar Veritas says:

          I was born in NY and left as soon as I could get out. NY has all the charm of Bombay, the morals of Soddom, and the collective intelligence of the faculty lounge of Amherst.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        To continue the Nazi analogy, many Jews remained in Germany believing they could either fight off or survive the pogroms. Many waited until the last minute and then it was too late to leave. How did that work out for them?

        I know, “It can’t happen here.”

    2. avatar BillF says:

      And as an American do you deserve Obama/Holder/Kerry, etc?

      1. avatar John L. says:

        As a country, yes we do. We elected Mr. Obama, and all of the results – good and bad – are on our collective ledger. We got the government we elected. End of story.

        As individuals? Harder question. I believe people have the right to be wrong about some things, and that it is *not* the government’s job to police the thoughts, beliefs, and desires of its citizens.

        Disagreeing with other citizens, even or especially a majority of them, is a right we all have. I choose to live in a country that respects the right of people to disagree with each other.

        So, I’d have to say yes – we collectively and individually deserve our present government because we are choosing to live within its framework. That has implications, one of which being that sometimes a government will be elected with whose policies I strongly disagree.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          I reserve the right to respect the right of other people to disagree with me, AND the right to not respect people who disagree with me on obvious Constitutional issues.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        We also elected to the white house a 100year parade of POS TR/Wilson/FDR/JFK/LBJ. Now Obuma.

        The “problem” is not new or sudden. We tried the gradual change approach under Reagan.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          You left out Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    3. avatar Totenglocke says:

      A perfect description. The subjects of the Imperial State crave oppression and have voted for it at every opportunity for decades. You reap what you so.

    4. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      Who’s side are you on? What you said is as bad as what Cuomo said. By your own admission, you don’t come to New York so clearly you weren’t standing in the cold and the mud last February with me and 10,000 other gun-rights advocates outside the state capitol. You weren’t there for any of the other hundred of rallies pro-gun forces have held, either.

      There are many fine patriots in New York (ever hear of upstate?) who are putting their money, time, sweat and political muscle where their mouths are. Unfortunately outnumbered by the libs in New York City and the suburbs. But we’re still fighting. People like you who pile crap on us are only helping the enemy.

      This attitude that we’re a bunch of pussies who have ceded our rights when none of his have voted for this, we fight this as best we can, and in many cases we refuse to comply, is sickening. It makes you as big a tool as Mike Bloomberg or Shannon Watts.

      One final note, a lot of us New Yorkers donated a crap-load of money, sent tons of letters and e-mails (I did over 500 myself) and made phone calls to defeat Manchin-Toomey. Why did we bother? We’d already gotten smacked with “universal background checks,” why should we care if the rest of you had to suffer?

      We did it because we understand we’re all in this together. Get the hint?

      1. avatar Landbarger says:

        Well said, DT. We shouldn’t forget the rallying cries to those who’ve faced dire odds before:

        “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” – W. Churchill

        The battles continue in legislatures across America. The fight has come to CO, and may soon arrive in VA as well. We should all be encouraged by (and encouraging to) the Californians, New Yorkers, and others who fight on.

    5. avatar Swarf says:

      I see a lot of blustery talk here about RINO hunting and seceding, so what is it you guys propose as an alternative?

      What is your ideal state?

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        I do not believe there is an “ideal” state at the moment because the Progressive cancer is everywhere, but Texas, with all its faults, seems like a good candidate.

        If we adopt the Liberal playbook and swarm into Texas in numbers sufficient to over-ride the Liberal statist rot there may be a chance to save some of the states before the country implodes completely.

      2. avatar Philip says:

        Montana.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Lived there – 1970-1972 and 1977-1978. Beautiful place, but the economy sucks and it is freakin COLD!

          If you like snow and cowboys, go for it.

      3. avatar Veritas says:

        My ideal state is one in which no one from NY is allowed.

  6. avatar don says:

    Sorry New Yorkers, you deserve the government you have.

    1. avatar 505markf says:

      I agree only in the sense that the people who voted for Cuomo (and his long line of predecessors), or who did not vote at all, deserve what they got. The people who voted and worked for the opposition do NOT deserve what they got.

      The political machine in NY state is controlled by NYC just as Illinois is largely controlled by Chicago. The people who live outside of those metro areas are so different it is like night and day. Those people do not deserve what they get from the state government. They are a very oppressed population with little recourse besides to live with it or leave.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        The people who continue to live there while knowing that each day they will lose more freedoms absolutely deserve it. This isn’t some surprise that came after an election, this has been a trend in the Imperial State for decades. Those who see the train coming and refuse to get off the tracks deserve to get hit.

        1. avatar PavePusher says:

          How many times should people surrender and leave, before they stand and fight? If no-one ever fights back, how long will it be until we CAN’T fight back… anywhere? How long until there is no-where else to go?

          You, and everyone who supports your advice, HAVEN’T THOUGHT IT THROUGH.

          Try again.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          If you are living in the United States and not already rebelling, you are a hypocrite.

        3. avatar Cliff H says:

          You can leave New York and still fight the Liberal regime from outside the borders rather than continue to support that regime with your productivity and taxes.

          Jews, Poles, Free French, Dutch and many other nationalities did exactly that from England during WW II. Some stayed behind and worked as partisans, but alone they could not have destroyed the Axis powers.

          If you stay in the occupied zone you must make every possible effort to subvert the power structure and understand that THEY are not inclined to play fair or deal lightly with you if you are caught at it. Act accordingly.

          If Coumo wants the conservatives out I think they should oblige him. Then wait and see how long it takes before he is standing hat in hand before Congress begging for the feds to bail New York out of bankruptcy.

        4. avatar MothaLova says:

          What Hannibal said. Totenglock, you’re full of bluster and not much sense.

        5. avatar Veritas says:

          Amen to that. If you choose to reside in a cancer ward, don’t complain about the lepers who are also living there.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      So we all, Americans, deserve barry and slow joe? Why are we complaining then. You got the government you deserve don.

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

        Is it Slow Joe or Sloe Joe? I thought they called him that because he was drunk all the time.

        1. avatar The average American says:

          That would make him the hardest partying teetotaler ever.

    3. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      I would remind all the people posting about New Yorkers being “responsible” for their fate, that from 1994 to 2004 you all lived under the same, pre SAFE-ACT gun laws that New Yorkers endured. Does that make you responsible for the Federal AWB we all hated? I’m going to say no.

      I would love not to live in New York. Unfortunately, I moved here and built a life before I got interested in guns. You see, not all of us had the blessing of growing up in a gun-friendly family. Some of us did not have a beloved relative who instructed us in the way of the gun. Some of us had to find their interest in guns later in life. I grew up in a very anti-gun family, and didn’t see the truth until my 30s, by which time my business and family roots here in New York were set deep.

      Even so, at that time New York was still okay on guns, especially outside of NYC and the immediate suburbs.

      In year 2000 we got hit with a ridiculous “Assault Weapons Ban” (modeled on the federal law) that restricted features. Worse, we suffered under a 10 round mag cap, which was not really an issue because larger mags were grandfathered and there was no way to prove if that 30 rounder of yours was pre-ban or post ban. Gun shows at the Westchester County Center in suburban NYC were wall to wall ARs and AKs with standard cap magazines. All grandfathered. All available for purchase right there, out in the open, with nothing more than a NICS check.

      It was the knee-jerk SAFE Act which pulled the rug out from under us with its “assault weapon” ban (though featureless rifles are still allowed,) all “high cap” mags completely banned, registration, and the 7-round limit which was just overturned.

      It’s been a year. The law hasn’t even made it to the Supreme Court yet. We haven’t even had the first post-SAFE Act election. So maybe before everyone screams “you reap as you sow” and “move” we should take a deep breath and see how things go down in November and in the courts.

      It’s not helping to blame this crap on your fellow gun owners and enthusiasts. We work just as hard, if not harder, as you do to protect our rights.

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    His definition is old and tired. He’s calling back to a “Republican” that is a dying breed and completely ignoring the existence of libertarians.

    It’s generally the geriatric Democrats who accuse me of being one of those “extreme Republicans” that Cuomo is describing. They’re either left dumbfounded or assume I am a liar when I tell them liberty is the cause and I quite sincerely could not care less if you want to marry 35 people of differing genders and races or have an abortion every other week.

    I think the worst thing that could happen for these people is for the old guard Republicans to finally die off. It’s easy to call up the “war on women” or the “assault on gays”. It’s not so easy to make enemies out of champions of liberty for all. they’ll be reduced to “guns are scary” and “de-regulation will kill the polar bears.” Both of which are defeated with hard numbers and economic reality.

    Take all this social/bible nonsense off the table and all they’re left with is lying as a party platform showing true totalitarian colors.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Stop propagating the myth that Libertarians are an alternative form of conservationism. Libertarians are the opposite side of the same coin as Progressives. They are most extreme part of the left-wing coalition. Personal autonomy is not liberty. You don’t believe that then read this article:

      http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income

      Libertarians and Progressives support the same foreign policy
      Libertarians and Progressives place social rights over political rights
      Now Libertarians support socialist redistribution over the free market just like Progressives.

      When private institutions and markets get in the way of personal autonomy Libertarians go with state every time.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Some libertarians believe in self-ownership and some don’t. The ones who want to participate in the political process are statists who do not believe in self-ownership. They want to take the gun of government and point it at the people they want to point it at just like any democrat or republican.

        Sure, they say they will point it at fewer people but in principle they are no different from dems or pubs.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          You do have a point but what don’t get is that you are making my case.

          Real Libertarians like Hayek and von Mises believe in free markets and republican government — pointing the gun less often and at fewer people as you say. Faux Libertarians like you are extreme left-wing radical syndicalist allied with Progressives to destroy civil society. We know how your story ends — the Progressives shoot the radical syndicalist first and go on to create a Stalinist dictatorship.

        2. avatar Jeff says:

          uh huh

        3. avatar rlc2 says:

          I don’t know specifically what Bob or Shire-man believe about Libertarians, as their post is somewhat short- but I do agree with tdiinva that the most likely outcome of the Progressive-Libertarian alliance he posits is a bad end for Libertarians. Read what happened to Trotsky after opposing Lenin, and then Stalin.

          Obama, Feinstein, Cuomo, and Hillary, are perfect examples of the absolute corruption that power brings – and the sheep who call themselves liberals, progressives, or (statist) libertarians simply don’t understand how they are being taken for a ride by those who know whats best for the rest of us…

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        @tdiinva

        Any asshat can *call* themselves a libertarian.

        1. avatar rlc2 says:

          Yes. And unfortunately, Libertarians are even more dis-united and dysfunctional than the RNC.

      3. avatar Shire-man says:

        There’s a reason I avoided Libertarian (capital “L”).

        Ideally anarchy would be the way of the world but so many people need a false parent to coddle them or to beat up the kid who picks on them in school.

        As long as the driving force is liberty for all, absolute and unadulterated, then it’s fine by me. Party affiliation is pointless. A politician is either supporting liberty or tyranny regardless of self-proclaimed affiliation. You’re either free or you arent and we here in America, even in the “free states”, arent.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          “Ideally anarchy would be the way of the world but so many people need a false parent to coddle them or to beat up the kid who picks on them in school.”

          Anarchy reigns in the ghetto. How is that working out for you?

          “The state of nature [anarchy] is solitary, brutal, poor, nasty and short.”
          T. Hobbes.

        2. avatar Drew says:

          Anarchy lasts exactly as long as it takes for two people to realize that together they can overwhelm any one of the supposedly free individuals roaming the wastes. Anarchy like democracy and communism makes a compelling case for its self unless you try to implement it using actual people. Or as you said, people want government. That being true anarchy is a system that can’t work when applied to people. So why would you even consider it as a possibility?

        3. avatar Cliff H says:

          If anarchy, or pure libertarianism, were the answer to man’s political and government issues I strongly suspect the learned men who created our constitutional republic would have at least discussed it as part of their debates on the nature of the country they were attempting to create. They certainly saw how well anarchy didn’t work for the Indians.

          The fact that they did not leads me to believe that neither of these systems are remotely viable.

          Anarchy leads to autocracy, feudalism and eventually monarchy and elitist aristocracy. Rule of the many by the most powerful and ruthless.

          Libertarianism leads to constant quarrels amongst neighbors over whose rights are being repressed and I cannot see a viable republic or confederation coming from this.

          The Founders had it “almost” right and it has taken the Progressives they feared more than 230 years to figure out how to subvert the country they designed. Perhaps the solution is not radical, but simply a reasoned look at the tactics of the political factions subverting our country and an effort to amend or re-write the Constitution to correct those omissions.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          Not all libertarians are anarchists. And e.g. Jefferson would be considered a stereotypical libertarian today.

          As for what the Founding Fathers have designed, I would like to remind that it included things such as slavery enshrined in the Constitution, no right to vote for women, and a great many other deficiencies. Hell, it took the “progressives” over 100 years just to make it so that all citizens could actually vote! So don’t idealize it. It’s a good model to learn from, but it was imperfect in many ways.

      4. avatar int19h says:

        You are absolutely right. Libertarians and progressives are on the same side of the political spectrum – the one that looks forward. “True conservatives”, as the name implies, are proto-Taliban, wishing only to return the society to a rigid hierarchy of authority backed by religion that existed for millennia before the liberal and progressive cause got kickstarted during the Enlightenment.

        I just wish more libertarians would realize that, abandon conservatives to sink on their own, and then we can have some meaningful political competition between liberals and libertarians as the two major parties.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Radical Syndicalism (what you call Libertarian), Socialism and Fascism are reactionary doctrines that date from the late 19th Century. None these doctrine look forward. They seek a regression in society to primitive times. Of the three the Radical Syndicalists are the fools of the movement. They always get exterminated first.

          Everybody thinks John Lennon’s Imagine is about socialism. That is incorrect. Imagine is theme song of the faux Libertarian.

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          “True conservatives, as the name implies, are proto-Taliban, wishing only to return the society to a rigid hierarchy of authority backed by religion that existed for millennia before the liberal and progressive cause got kickstarted during the Enlightenment.”

          That is such a load of shit that I can barely suppress the tendency to get a…

          What a bucket-load of Liberal/Progressive piss flavored Kool Aid!

          True conservatives are not the people you describe – those people are extremists who seek as much as any left wing group to exercise fascist statist control over the lives of other people and subvert the very meaning of LIBERTY. Hence, probably, the “Libertarian” backlash.

          I submit to you, sir, though I suspect you will dismiss it out of hand, the TRUE CONSERVATIVES are those of us who see the magnificent work of our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States of America, and all the high-minded ideals represented by the Federalist Papers and the recorded debates on the subject of government and the resulting Constitutional Republic they created, and wish to conserve THAT.

          I am a conservative. I am NOT a Christian fundamentalist. I am NOT a fascist. I have no desire whatsoever to interfere in the daily lives of any other person so long as they respect my rights and the rights of others as outlined in the Constitution and the restrictions on the role of government as described in Article I, Section 8 of that document.

          THAT is a True Conservative, not the political abomination you fantasize.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          Cliff, the words are what people make of them. I could similarly tell you that the word “liberalism” was not originally meant to describe the views of Dianne Feinstein, but rather those of Thomas Jefferson. But nevertheless that is what it means in the present day in American politics. We can dislike it a lot, but if we want to communicate successfully getting our point across, we need to speak the language that everyone else speaks.

          Simply put, people don’t see Ron Paul as “true conservative”, but they see Rick Santorum as one. So when you self-identify as “true conservative”, that’s whom they will align you with.

          Honestly, though, I don’t care what you call yourself, or what the party calls itself. Parties have rebranded different ideologies many times over. If “Republican” is going to mean “constitutional libertarian” in the coming years, that’s great (though I still have my doubts). It certainly doesn’t now.

          And if you are one of the people who can turn the Republican party around and make it into the modern pro-constitution, pro-economic freedom and pro-gun rights party, more power to you.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Folks, face reality.

      Post-election, D, R L, or I become POLITICIANS.
      They appoint their supporters and backers.
      They build their staffs.
      They perpetuate the Government bureaucracy that sustains them, their staffs, and their appointees.

      And they Propose laws, good or bad, that make them look like they’re doing something.

      THAT’S reality.

  8. avatar mike says:

    Very progressive of the governor. In essence, agree….or agree to be locked up.

  9. avatar Gil Elliott says:

    No problem, I will continue to avoid New York like the plague it is.

  10. avatar Gs650g says:

    The democrat party is as inclusive as ever..
    Pretty soon walls are going up between states and the NE will build one.

  11. avatar BLAMMO says:

    He sure is in love with the sound of his own voice. Just like his old man.

    Interesting how people forget how bad a governor Mario was. So bad that the blue state of New York voted out the 3-term incumbent Democrat in favor of a Republican who nobody ever heard of (Pataki).

  12. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    Typical
    And not surprising. They call Republicans haters while using the most vial and hateful language they can come up with. When they can’t win on ideas they fall back to the old worn out name calling.

    1. avatar Jimmy Wade says:

      “You Republicans are big doo doo heads! Get out of my room!!”

    2. avatar rlc2 says:

      Yep. Its getting to where you can predict what party the pol is from just based on the contempt for their own constituents.

  13. avatar Coe says:

    Is it me, or does Cuomo just looks like a dictator in every photo of himself…

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      It seems every Democrat politician does (I’m libertarian, so it’s not simply because they aren’t Republicans). Every time you see Bloomberg, Cuomo, Feinstein, etc – hell, even Obama most of the time – they honestly look like any news footage of a dictator furiously ranting. Maybe what your mom said is true – if you keep making that face it’ll stick that way.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Mr. Glocke, as a self-confessed libertarian, perhaps you can help clear some of the stink from earlier comments.

        Can you describe for us, as a member of the group, what YOU believe the truth of libertarianism to be. Some of us with still-open minds would like to know.

        Rich Grise, feel free to chime in here as well.

  14. avatar RockThisTown says:

    Akin to Nancy Pelosi saying Congress ‘doesn’t have a spending problem.’

    Those dang extreme conservatives who want government to stop spending more money than it has! That’s not who NYers are Gov? Pot, er, NY, meet kettle, er, Detroit.

  15. avatar CharlieFoxtrot says:

    Awesome comment Uncommon_sense!

  16. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    My thoughts….

    1. I am proud to be pro-life. What is the opposite? Pro-Death? I thought the Democrats passed the SAFE act for the “children”, but yet they support killing them.

    2. If being pro-assault weapon is bad, why don’t they disarm or speak badly of the police? The 2nd Amendment protects my right to own those very weapons.

    3. As for me not belonging in NY, I look at it that NY does not deserve me, my tax money, or my support. As far as I am concerned, NY does not belong in the U.S.

    1. avatar 505markf says:

      Sorry, man, but have to gently call you on that one. So, either agree with me or leave? That sounds exactly like Cuomo’s argument.

      1. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

        No, I am not implying that. I truly feel sorry for my fellow patriotic, pro-2A citizens behind enemy lines in NY. I know they are fighting hard and did not vote for this junk. However, there comes a time when you have to cut your losses. NY is a cesspool of welfare liberals who will vote for every failed socialistic/communist/statist policy of the 20th century. My heart goes out to those people who do not deserve this and I just want them to know they would be welcomed with open arms in states like Texas.

        1. avatar slicer87 says:

          Then Texas will bre turned into another NY. This crap spreads like cancer from state to state. If you keep running away when the fighting gets too hard, soon you will run out of pro gun states to escape to.

        2. avatar Davis Thompson says:

          I thank you for this.

        3. avatar 505markf says:

          I get you. But understand that NY State is very, very different from NY City. NY State is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been and it is filled with good people who just want to be left alone by their government to have the lives they choose. While some can, and do, leave, for others that is no simple thing.

          Regarding Texas as a destination, yeah I get it. I grew up there but moved away. I would offer that NM has mostly better gun laws than TX, much better Mexican food, and 4th Amendment protections that far exceed those in the US Constitution. We are a poor state and do not have the employment opportunities, but we do have mountains (real ones). Just sayin’. 😉

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        No, it is not “agree with me or leave,” it is “Agree with the Constitution you swore to uphold and defend or leave.”

        It seems to me that while they have not published it formally, New York has by their actions in fact seceded from the United States and so it is not our choice that they should leave, but a choice they have already made for themselves.

    2. avatar Robert Seddon says:

      They are firearms, NOT weapons sir. It becomes a weapon when aimed AT someone with finger on trigger .. weapon is the intent of the person, not the item itself. WEAPON is used to color the minds of mindless liberal drones who are attacking the 2ond amendment, generally the main stream media bought and paid for by the democratic party.

      1. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

        I should have used quotation marks. I know they are not weapons, or “assault weapons”. I was just using their language to prove a point. That being…

        If NYS has been purged of “assault weapons” why do the police need MRAPs, machine guns and banned “assault weapons”? Are they planning something against the unarmed citizenry?

        1. avatar slicer87 says:

          Yes, to control them.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        Come on. They’re a subset of weapons. Spend a few minutes studying the history and design of firearms. From the first rudimentary personal firearms to modern sporting rifles, they are made to throw little chunks of metal through flesh. Sure there may be some customized guns made for target shooting but every major firearm advance has been based on military needs. And you know what? Guns kill people. That’s why our military and police carry them. That’s why millions of Americans carry them in case they need one for self-defense. Freakin’ own it, because else they’re gonna win when they say “you don’t need 8 bullets to kill a deer!”

  17. avatar T says:

    Just think, this is the guy who had presidential aspirations in 2016?!

  18. avatar Robert Seddon says:

    Someone should tell him about Colorado …. 🙂 …..

  19. avatar ST says:

    Let us set aside party labels and go back to basics.

    What is the goal of a Politician?.A cynical answer is “to get re-elected” ,but lets get even more basic.Conceptually, the job of a representative in our government is to be the voice of their constituency.

    A politician who bucks the will of the people who elected them will be one the street by next election year.That basic fact is why New York Republicans supported the SAFE act, and a North Dakota Democrat voted against Obama sponsored gun control .

    It is easy to pump our fists and say ” DOWN with Cuomo/Feinstein/Schumer etc.” But they’re just a symptom.The disease are folks like the NY tourist who threw up at the sight of an AR15 in a rental car.People like her are the quiet, ignorant majority.Hoplophobes like that don’t go to campaign rallies, don’t wear pins, and don’t rock bumper stickers .They simply pull the lever for whichever candidate will do the most damage to the Constitution, because they feel the Bill of Rights is obsolete.

    Regrettably, I cannot see a solution to the problem.With some exceptions, by the time someone gets to voting age their political mold is set harder then a Glock frame .You can take folks to the range and show them the utility and fun of gun ownership, but that’s not going to directly translate to a different political decision.

    As California demonstrates, that state has more gun owners by number then almost any other state in America.Their laws yet are almost the worst in the nation regarding gun rights, because at the end of the day the majority of gat owners in Cali don’t associate guns with politics.For that majority, regulating or even banning certain guns is an administrative problem, not a matter of civil rights.

    Fixing this requires long tem cultural surgery.And I doubt we’ve got that much time.

    1. avatar Pedro Of NYC says:

      +1

    2. avatar int19h says:

      >> As California demonstrates, that state has more gun owners by number then almost any other state in America.

      They also have the most residents by number than any other state, so large numbers of gun owners don’t necessarily translate into a meaningful majority. This is especially true in the political system which does not accommodate true proportional representation, so a minority can be shut out completely simply by cutting the voting districts just right.

  20. avatar Matt in TN says:

    We already know who New Yorkers are. The sort that will about vomit when they see a rifle in the trunk of a car.

    1. avatar BillF says:

      I don’t vomit at the sight of a rifle in a trunk. I have a rifle in my trunk. And a handgun on my person. And a collection in my safe and on my wall. You’re painting with a broad brush my friend. There are many gun-owners north of the city. Just not enough to have the vote. If every single person north of NYC voted our way we’d still be outnumbered. The 5 boroughs and Long Island outnumber the rest of the state.

  21. avatar Pedro Of NYC says:

    To T Gov QuHomo still has aspirations for the white house. That’s why he passed the Safe Act, QuHomo thought he could ride this baby to 2016, buuuut the northern part of the state begs to differ, so his numbers are tanking. He wants at least a 60% approval to win & he ain’t getting it. They want his ass out. Whether he is reelected in Nov remains to be seen. Unfortunately NY has had the democratic machine for 100 years so its tough, but not impossible for a true republican to win, at best a we get a rino.

  22. avatar BigDaddy says:

    I think that if Andy doesn’t like us gun owners and thinks we should leave, maybe he should stop putting his hand into my pocket and taking $6000 in state taxes like he did last year.

  23. avatar Drew says:

    Mister Cuomo mister Cuomo a question, now that you have identified these undesirables via their religious beliefs and parsed them out as a minority do you have a final solution of some sort to remove them from society and if so dose it involve trains and camping?

  24. avatar Yoel Grauberg says:

    His calm demeanor and mild rhetoric are effective in exposing the dangerous radical extremist terroists GOP citizens of NY. At least the Democrats are the party of acceptance, tolerance and sensibility.

    I fear the Democrats reluctance to use the terror tactics of the GOP puts all NYers in danger. They need to drop their adherence to civil discourse and use the tools of the hostage taking Teaparty.

    It might even be time to round up anyone who opposes the Democrats, for their own safety. Some time in a FEMA re education camp to consider the error of their radical positions, until they can be re admitted into polite Democratic society.

  25. avatar ninjaTED says:

    Very well, Governor, allow me to retort. In the senate, the vote was 43-18-1(yea-nay-excused), the republican vote was 11-18 against. Most of those republicans were downstate/long island republicans. (i.e. democrats.) The assembly voted 104-43-3, with republicans voting 7-35 against. Either way, even if EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN had voted against, you still would have gotten this through. So please, don’t try to put this on us.
    Second, I’m glad you were able to define us so neatly. I mean, I didn’t realize that being pro-second amendment, or anti-statist, or simply in favor of not passing unconstitutional legislation meant that I was de-facto anti-gay, or right-to-life. See, I thought that I wasn’t either of those things. Thank heavens you’re here to make sure I know what I’m thinking, Governor Cuomo.
    Third, how wonderful your world must be, knowing that your viewpoint is the only valid one. Someone disagrees? Throw ’em out! Screw the First Amendment; you’ve already screwed the Second, so what’s one more?
    I have news for you, Governor. Some in New York are right to life. Some are anti-gay. (It’s an stupid thing to be, but so is being a hippie, and there’s lots of those here too.) New Yorkers are pro-2A, LOTS of them. Keep it up, and we may decide YOU’RE the one who needs to leave.

    1. avatar Pedro Of NYC says:

      +1

  26. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    He really doesn’t want to be president, huh?

    1. avatar Gene says:

      Maybe a different career? That picture would make a fantastic cutout for a school carnival bean bag toss.

  27. avatar rlc2 says:

    Wow. You can almost see the foam around his mouth. Well we know “what kind of people” are allowed in New York, according to Cuomo.

    Reminds me of the “bitter clinger” comment by Obama in a private fund-raiser in San Francisco.

    A divider, not a uniter.

    PS: apologies for slightly OT, but NY related…

    More Cracks in the MAIG’s already shaky foundation:
    http://www.examiner.com/article/maig-removes-members-list-from-website-after-bloomberg-embarrassment-exposed?CID=examiner_alerts_article

  28. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    I hate to break it to the Gov, but Catholics (that is, him) are pro-life and much of the resistance to gay marriage comes from the African American and Latino community.

    But John Edwards is bummed. Looks like he’s about to be lose his “Biggest Douche in the Universe” award.

  29. avatar RKBA says:

    …and the CIVIL WAR v2.0 clock moves another minute closer to 12:00…

  30. avatar jwm says:

    There is no such thing as free states or slave states. There is America. The constitution and bor are the law of the land. Regardless of zip code. Those who keep saying to move are accepting that the constitution and bor are not valid. They are agreeing with the opposition that 2a isn’t a natural, or god given right.

    1. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

      I think you miss understand. I think the RKBA is a natural right given to all humans. However, I have little hope the citizens of North Korea will ever be able to experience it. As Sun Tzu stated in the Art of War…“Every battle is won before it’s ever fought.” You have to know how to fight and when to cut your losses and regroup your resources and push back.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        The RKBA is in print as the law of the land here. Giving up a state or city simply concedes to the other side that maybe the RKBA can be removed from the citizens. Let’s get every American the right. Then we can worry about other countries.

        Personally, I’d like to see the US base all treaties and trade agreements with other countries on whether or not those countries recognise a universal RKBA for all people everywhere. Dreamer that I am.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Why do you care so much about it being “in print”? If you do, well, there’s a small print there today that makes it into something entirely different. But it’s print, too.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        So what does it mean to have a ‘natural right’ that is unobtainable? You get a pat on the back in the afterlife and an apology for getting born somewhere?

        1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          Should one find oneself in a place in which the free exercise of ones inherent rights is curtailed or proscribed, then it is ones right and obligation to alter or eliminate the offending system or regime.

          This might be best accomplished from within or without, and anyone fighting for their rights and those of others is, and should be proud to be, “a fiver.”

          This is my country, right or wrong, but I oppose the wrong rather than accepting it as the “way things are.”

    2. avatar S.CROCK says:

      the rkba is a God given right, but some state governments that try to limit it more than others. there are free states and slave states and those who say move to a free state are not accepting that the constitution is invalid. they are accepting that the government in slave states think it is invalid and will try to treat you as if you have no rkba.

      my state would prosecute me if i tried to defend my life with an 11 round mag. if you are told a set limit on how much ammo you can have to defend yourself, that is not freedom.

    3. avatar Totenglocke says:

      That’s cute, you missed the memo that SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution was invalid decades ago.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Yep missed that one. It wouldn’t have been legal anyway.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          The question then is, “To whom do you appeal?”

          SCOTUS is an autonomous body of men appointed by politicians for their perceived political views and in that position for life or until they decide to quit. You cannot even vote the bastards out!

          If they get it wrong, either intentionally or otherwise, where do you go to get a correction?

          If they get it wrong enough, that’s where the First and Second Amendments come into play and that is why the Bill of Rights denies the government, including SCOTUS, any authority to infringe on those rights.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          The entire existing system of SCOTUS ruling on constitutionality is deeply flawed. But it came into being because the Founders have not actually set up anything else. There’s nothing in the Constitution that defines the procedure for handling constitutional challenges; SCOTUS self-appointed itself to do so way back in the day because such a challenge appeared, and there was no-one else to pass the bucket to.

          By now, it is clear that the system is not a particularly good one, fraught with decisions that are outright bad (Dred Scott, Plessy, Schenk, Korematsu, numerous Commerce Clause rulings etc) as well as ones that disregarded due process for the sake of a good objective. It is also clear that the system encourages both parties to game it by appointing judges that clearly identify with a specific political outlook, and rule based on it rather than the law (like Scalia and Sotomayor).

          A different system is clearly needed, and I think there already is one: trial by jury. It was deemed to be important enough that the Constitution explicitly mandates it for crimes with significant penalties. Surely determining the meaning of the Constitution is at least of equal importance, and therefore justifies the same approach? And surely, Constitution being the basic law that is intended to be simple to read and understand, is something that regular citizens can meaningfully reason about and judge upon?

          I could imagine a system where there is a “presumption of unconstitutionality” on any law that is challenged in that court, unless the jury rules otherwise (say, by a 3/4 supermajority, to parallel the number of state legislatures needed for an amendment).

          We could go further and require that any vote should also be accompanied with a reference to the specific clause of the Constitution that is involved; and should the first jury vote rule that the law is unconstitutional, there is then a second vote, with a simple majority requirement to pass, that would automatically translate to a constitutional amendment proposal – so that on matters on which there is insufficient consensus, but clear disagreement over the meaning of the Constitution, the matter would go to a constitutional referendum, the result of which would be reflected in an amendment that would disambiguate that meaning for future cases.

  31. avatar S.CROCK says:

    “right-to-life” if that is not who new yorkers are, does that mean they are right to murder?

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      In the negative sense: not so much right to murder as no right to not be murdered.

  32. avatar Hudson says:

    I wouldn’t want anti-gay right-to-lifers in my state either. Those people creep me out.

    Not understanding those rights are as important to some people as the right to defend yourself is to all of us is something that absolutely blows my mind.

    1. avatar De Facto says:

      You are clearly on the other side of the ideological divide as conservatives, but like it or not those people who “creep you out” are your allies and still have a healthy chunk of the voting demographic. The Republican party has been trying to toss conservatives under the bus and it has cost them two elections. Is it really wise to sow division in the ranks of people of the gun?

      Besides which, there are just as many creepy libertarians out there. Arguably more, given the number of pothead libertarians I know.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        > The Republican party has been trying to toss conservatives under the bus and it has cost them two elections.

        What cost the Republicans two elections is not tossing the fundies under the bus. When Romney said all the stupid fundie shit that he said during the primaries, his fate in that election was sealed. Don’t even get me started on Todd Akin and other guys like him. If you looked at the polls and saw the split by demographic (age, gender etc), then the message is clear: young people are increasingly social liberal, and this doesn’t change as they grow older. So Republicans are going to lose voters every year if they insist on being Taliban lite. Libertarians have a choice: they can stay on that ship and try to keep it from sinking for a while more (but it’s delaying the inevitable, and if they stay for too long they’ll sink with it). Or they can run their own ship.

        > Is it really wise to sow division in the ranks of people of the gun?

        Many pro-gun people don’t define themselves solely in terms of guns. Guns are valuable, but so are other rights and freedoms. Allying with the fundies over guns means throwing those other rights and freedoms away, and it sows division elsewhere just as well.

        1. avatar De Facto says:

          No one in their right minds or with half an ounce of common sense would have called McCain or Romney “conservative” – hence why conservatives refused to vote for both candidates. The Republicans chose two middle of the road candidates who were not fundamentalist enough for the conservatives and not radical enough for the liberals. Hence an overwhelming victory for Obama, both times. You have your theory, I have mine, and I’m sure we can both quote stats at each other. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

          You may be right about the new generation being vastly liberal – God knows they’ve been indoctrinated into it from Pre-k on up. I have heard millenials say that “Obama and the Democrats weren’t trying to take your guns” and that “common sense restrictions” are reasonable, we have “no need” for silencers or high capacity magazines, etc.

          So yes, most Millenials lack the ability to formulate consistent, logical worldviews, have no attention span and lack the intelligence to understand the perils of a gilded cage. That being the case, we as the people of the gun are SOL. They will join the Democrats and lockstep with the rest of the drones and we will continue our descent into slavery.

          As long as you’re willing to part with your guns, you might do all right in their brave new world.

          But it will be their world. Not yours. God help you if you ever disagree with the majority. Conservatives weren’t the ones that came up with re-education camps.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          I didn’t say that the new generation is generally liberal – only that they are social liberal. This means strongly pro-same-sex-marriage, pro-drug legalization, and generally pro-personal freedom. Abortion is a more controversial topic, but there’s growth on the pro-choice side as well; most definitely there’s a rejection of the hardliner “no abortions ever” stance.

          They are not necessarily liberal on other things, though. Economic liberalism, gun rights etc are still very much contested by both sides there. The point is that if economic liberalism and gun rights will keep getting bundled with “sex is icky”, “tough on crime” and “we have to teach kids in schools about how evolution is a filthy lie”, quite a few people will pass on it that otherwise wouldn’t.

    2. avatar RKBA says:

      Show me where your ‘right’ to redefine a word/term/concept that has been is use (and unmodified) for thousands of years (or as long as men/women have roamed the Earth) is protected by the US Constitution.

      Show me where your ‘right’ to murder an unwanted human life (that can not defend or speak for itself) is protected in the US Constitution.

      FLAME DELETED

      We are not allies. I don’t want you on my side of the line.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        The 10th Amendment.

        Having said that, just because the right is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, or even when Constitution explicitly denies that right, doesn’t mean that the right is not natural or valuable. For over 50 years, the constitution of the United States legalized slavery and denied slaves the right to life and liberty.

        1. avatar RKBA says:

          Reading. Comprehension. Try it.

          Where does this give you the ‘right’ to redefine the meaning of a word or tradition that is as old as the human race?

          Where does this give you the ‘right’ to kill a defenseless human life form?

          10A:

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          Try it youself. What the 10th makes clear is that the federal government possesses no power to either define marriage or to ban abortions (and no, fetuses aren’t human beings – but even if they were, feds still don’t have the power to regulate that).

  33. avatar Nedd Ludd says:

    Il Duce 2.0

    “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

    “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities.
    It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
    …FRANK HERBERT, Chapterhouse: Dune

  34. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Andrew, azende me. Tuzeprovenos sfachim!

  35. avatar Anonymous says:

    Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

    So… let me get this straight. Some liberal/moderate republicans are elected and taking a stance against the “SAFE” act and Cuomo is going to label them “extreme conservatives” for doing such. Then he is going to say that these “extreme conservatives” have no place in the state of New York… even though they were elected… like Cuomo. Then Cuomo is going to assert who “New Yorker’s Are.” I’m sure the good people of New York like being told who they are, what they believe in, and who they should elect.

    1. avatar Bdk NH says:

      Cuomo is a cult of personality politician who was born and bred to ascend to the Presidency. He is the quintessential NY elite and the American version of royalty. The man is closely tied with the Kennedy (married to one) and Clinton families most assuredly would wear a crown as Governor of NY if he could.

      Cuomo’s role in the mortgage crisis as HUD Secretary should have insured that his political life was over if our system worked as it should. As Secretary, he personally spearheaded the efforts to insure that minorities and underprivileged people were given mortgages they simply couldn’t afford. Arguably, this man’s leadership in HUD was the most significant contribution by a single person to our current economic problems.

      Even with this being well known, NY State overwhelmingly elected him Governor. Assuming he doesn’t run himself (and he might) odds are good that he would have a significant leadership role in the imminent Clinton administration. Vice President Cuomo anyone?

  36. avatar Sammy says:

    Andy is deporting conservatives? I used to go to trade shows at the Javits Center in the city, but no more. BTW I lived there for over 20 years, I left 25 years ago but it was a lot different then. So was I. Can’t exile illeagels, but he shows conservatives the door. Nice.

  37. avatar Don1974 says:

    Way to be tolerant of other points of view Governor!

  38. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Y’know, the conservatives want all kinds of laws to control and shelter all us “born sinners” for our “own good.”

    The liberals want all sorts of laws to protect us “irresponsible” people from the Big Bad World, for our “own good.”

    While the left at least does not make policy based on the hope that the world will end before we run out of oil, that’s just not enough of a plus to offset the minuses.

    I do wish that both wings would go take a steam bath in a cyclotron and let the other eighty percent choose our own financial, medical, nutritional and religious/moral paths.

    Well, and that we’d give New York back to the Dutch.

  39. avatar Aharon says:

    Dude has a really big mouth figuratively and literally.

  40. avatar Kyle says:

    Label the opposition extremist, typical extreme leftist. Sadly I feel that he will be re-elected.

  41. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I like the idea of autonomous city states. They would be separate from the rest of the states In order to protect the minority from their stupidity.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      I could support a Constitutional amendment to the effect that any urban metropolitan area that exceed a certain population should attain city-state status. This should include all cities within the metropolitan area where the borders were adjacent to each other. (i.e. Los Angeles Metro, Chicago Metro, New York metro, etc.)

      These city-states, INCLUDING Washington D.C., should have all the rights and obligations of the other states and be represented on the flag as smaller stars between the larger stars, as necessary.

      After their almost certain Progressive/Liberal/Socialist policies drive them to bankruptcy and their population abandons them until they are below the threshold for City-state status they must be returned to the original state to deal with. THAT would be the hard part.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        On reflection, I think it would be a mistake to give each of these city-states two senators. That is an issue that would bear further consideration.

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

    Good thing Mr. Asshat belongs to the party of “tolerance”.

    It would be refreshing if we could split up the country. Let the northeast and California form their own country and kick out all the Bible thumping, baby loving cooks to go live with the rest of us rubes in flyover country. In 2 years NY would look like Haiti and the rest of us could bask in the schadenfreude.

    1. avatar PhilWilson says:

      Which is why they cannot ever afford to let that happen. Their glorious world of tomorrow (see 1984; the movie Brazil) cannot be sustained if freedom exists as a shining example of a better way. If they are allowed their way, they will eventually hunt down every last one of us, even the hairy bastards living in the woods in Alaska, and stick us in little cubicle apartments in some urban hell hole where we can be watched and our every activity can be taxed and regulated.

  43. avatar Ralph says:

    Il Douchebag is living proof that the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.

  44. avatar Nick says:

    This is the face of the modern Liberal Democrat Party: angry, intolerant, bigoted, self righteous. It’s scary that Cuomo is actually considered a contender for the Democrat Presidential nomination. But, he’s the face of about half the country now.

    During the days of the old Soviet Union they put political dissenters into mental institutions. Anyone who disagreed with Communism, or the Communist Party, HAD to be crazy – right? Likewise, a demagog like Cuomo believes that only he, or people like himself, are the true arbiters of what is correct and right; and people who disagree with him are either stupid, mentally incompetent, or criminal and should be treated as such.

    But for all the brave talk on the Internet about how we need another Revolution, or how you’re going to give the authorities your ammunition one round at a time at 2400 fps, the vast majority of the people in this country won’t support you. Leading up to the American Revolution large groups of colonists formed Committees of Safety, and of Correspondence, led by reputable men who wielded influence in their localities. Towns had well established Militias and militia duty was recognized in the law. None of those conditions exist today. Unlike then, 1/3 of the country doesn’t feel so aggrieved that they’re willing to sanction boycotts and armed insurrection. Our present government – at all levels, and unlike the old colonial administrations – is vastly powerful and its intelligence capabilities are such that it can quash dissenters before they become too much of a threat.

    Unfortunately, Cuomo and the core of the Democrat Party are ruthless and are supported by a vast bureaucracy and media. They are control freaks who are driven by a religious belief in their mission to change this country into one that conforms to their vision. They don’t care about the Constitution if what it says disagrees with their ideas and they don’t recognize any limits on what they can do. And they have spent the last 40 years using the schools, the media, and popular culture to change the way young people (who grow up to be voters) think about what it means to be an American. We now have several generations of citizens who have been taught to believe that we have been given our “rights” by a benevolent government which can and should limit them for our own good. Individualism and self reliance are bad, and communalism and conformity are good. Because Liberals are driven by envy and jealousy, anyone who works hard and becomes successful is evil. Because it’s only “fair” that we all be the same, mediocrity is the new standard.

    I’m very pessimistic about the future of the United States. It certainly feels as though the Country I grew up in and served in uniform – is dead.

  45. avatar IdahoPete says:

    I very much appreciated the gov’s comments, since they ensured that NY is permanently off my list of tourist destinations. I sent him an e-mail to this effect, which I am sure he will ignore.

  46. avatar Rich Grise says:

    Anyone who claims to be “pro-life” who isn’t demanding an end to Obama’s wars is a liar or a minion of Satan.

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

      While I have some major issues with our military involvement in the middle east, I would contend that there is a huge difference between killing people who are committed to killing us and killing babies.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Yes, unborn babies are unknowns and innocent. They need and should be protected.

        Enemy combatants are not unknowns and are NOT innocent. They are antithetical to our way of life and wish with all their heart to kill as many of us as possible in order to secure for themselves a place in heaven for all eternity (and 72 virgins).

        I can be pro-life while still admitting that some people just need to die, and they know who they are.

        “Any set of fools can make a baby. The trick is to make an adult worth keeping.” – Cliff Heseltine, “Prosperity” (unpublished)

  47. avatar henry bowman says:

    Pat Buchanan has a gift with words. Recently, he floated an analogy that has helped me to define my own life purpose in politics:

    “And Tea Partiers now play the role of Red Army commissars who sat at machine guns behind their own troops to shoot down any soldier who retreated or ran. Republicans who sign on to tax hikes, amnesty or favor attacking the 2nd amendment cannot go home again.”

    The same must be true of immigration restriction Protection of the 2nd Amendment—and all the other political issues conservatives care about.

    We are called to man the machine guns behind our own lines because our cohesiveness as a group, like the Soviets, must be coerced.
    Our enemies enjoy the luxury of an ideologically unified and cohesive political army. Ours, however, is a lot bigger, but a lot clumsier.

    Hopefully, the weight of numbers will play out in American and Texas politics the same way it did on the Eastern Front.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Henry, as a student of the Soviet Union and the Great Patriotic War I find the comparison of Tea Party conservatives with NKVD death squads offensive and historically inaccurate.

      Soviet troops were mostly conscripts not long after the beginning of Barbarossa when millions of volunteers were squandered and/or abandoned to captivity in the Nazi blitzkriegs. The conscript troops, inadequately trained and poorly armed (even if they gave you a Mosin-Nagant, which was not a guarantee, it is nearly impossible to fire it effectively or accurately while running across a minefield and into the teeth of an MG-42).

      In those conditions the only sort of discipline that could coerce anyone into the attack was the near certainty that whether you went forward or turned and ran you WOULD be shot. I fail to see how this relates in any way whatsoever to the situation we see in the RINO party and the Tea party conservatives who are attempting to replace them.

      What the Tea Party is doing, IMO, is not machine-gunning RINOs who falter in the assault, but rather testing them for their political will and holding over them the threat of being opposed in free elections and voted out of office if they fail in their duty to the citizens who elected them. This is a far cry from being shot down for failing to toe the party line.

      Further, the GOP/RINO/Republican party, setting aside the lack of accurate political correlation, is in the position of the Soviet government, of which the NKVD was the enforcement arm. I cannot see anywhere in America where the Republican Party considers the Tea Party their enforcement arm. The Tea Party fits better the role of dissidents working behind the scenes to subvert a corrupt regime while desperately hoping not to be sent off to a Gulag.

      1. avatar henry bowman says:

        Yeah that was not the best comparison but you know what I mean…If the Neo Cons Statist want to run, run as Democrats, there is very little difference between the parties…

    2. avatar int19h says:

      Seriously? A party of “small government”, keeping its ranks strong and uniform by force? That’s rich.

      By the way, commissars most certainly didn’t personally man the machine guns of barrier troops. But then barrier troops are generally misunderstood, anyway. They didn’t actually work the way you see in “Enemy at the Gates” and other similar fiction Eastern Front movies. They were stationed several kilometers away from the front line, and their goal was to intercept actual deserters (and if a soldier is that far back away from his unit, then chances of him being one pretty good). Even then they didn’t actually mow down people on sight – a suspected deserter would be arrested, and they’d run a quick field tribunal to decide what to do next. Statistically, 96% of all soldiers detained that way were simply turned back and rejoined their unit, or sometimes held until more deserters would accumulate, and then a new unit would be formed out of those and sent back to the front. Out of the remaining 4%, less than 2% were executed, and normally it was done in a rather formal way, in front of the unit from which the soldier had deserted.

      Now, as commissars were officers in their own right, they had the same right that any other officer had – to ensure the execution of orders by any means up to and including lethal force (though the special twist with commissars was that they also had that power over the officer of the unit they were detached to). That’s more or less what their standard issue sidearm was for. Such use certainly happened, and probably more often for Soviets than any other army just because of how dire their situation was in the first two years of the war, but even USMJ recognizes that insubordination in wartime is a capital crime that the officers can summarily punish if necessary to maintain order in their unit.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        In Stalingrad, except when the Volga froze in the winter, there was no possibility of retreat or desertion. Once a soldier was delivered to the combat zone he was there until killed, wounded and evacuated, or the fascists were defeated, and he knew it.

        During this battle the NKVD reports show that approximately 10,000 Soviet soldiers were executed for desertion or cowardice in the face of the enemy, which means they had to have been shot after turning away from the assault. They may or may not have had Maxims set up to encourage the attack, but they certainly had troops whose sole duty it was to stop any retreat (“Not One Step Back!” – Joseph Stalin, Stalingrad, 1942).

        Once the Soviets took the offensive in Operation Uranus this ceased to be a significant problem.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Order #227 (aka “Not One Step Back”) was targeted at officers, not at rank and file soldiers. Its whole point is to prohibit officers from issuing a command to retreat. It was most certainly not issued at Stalingrad – it dates to July 1942, a whole month before the battle of Stalingrad even began. I would suggest reading a translation of the whole thing – it’s actually rather verbose, and outlines the rationale for it.

          10,000 soldiers executed in Stalingard actually chimes well with what I told, given the sheer amount of troops there. Keep in mind that Soviets lost 1.1 million of soldiers dead in that battle; the total number of people who fought it it was even greater. 10k out of 1 million is 1%, so it would seem that Stalingrad has actually seen fewer executions for desertion than Red Army on average during the war.

          As noted earlier, they didn’t set up MGs to mow down retreating troops. Those executed did actually get some semblance of due process (insofar as such is possible during wartime) – an arrest, either by their immediate officer in case of turning away from the assault, or by border troops in case of a genuine desertion, followed by a court martial. Some small percentage were also shot directly by the commanding officers during the battle (with their sidearm, not an MG), but a common occurrence it was not.

  48. avatar Jus Bill says:

    New York is nicknamed “the Empire State” for a reason.

  49. avatar SamlAdams says:

    Third rate intellect grafted to a fourth rate temperament We’re trying to get rid of him. But politicians like Cuomo are like getting snot all over your fingers. Shake and shake, but can’t get it off.

  50. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

    If liberal Cuomo’s SAFE Act is the first in the nation to restrict magazines to seven rounds and is, by his own admission, the “toughest, strongest” law in the nation regulating firearms, then doesn’t all of that by definition make HIM the extreme one?

  51. avatar Mediocrates says:

    I guess it’s time to start building the camps. Hahahaha. Karma.

  52. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

    Cuomo is a poster child for whats wrong with this country’s politicians. Born, raised, and stuck in NYC, sigh

  53. avatar Pat says:

    Libtards (democrats) equal death. Don’t vote for them now. Save the bullets for later.

  54. avatar Mike_Mahanahan says:

    “Anyone who has a different point of view from me actually doesn’t live in the state, that’s a fact.”

  55. avatar J says:

    Only in office a year and already talking pogroms.

  56. avatar Dustin Eward says:

    Hate Speech at it’s finest…

  57. avatar tommyr says:

    Andy is as dumb as a case of tampons. Feel free to quote me on that! FUAC! Right up the a**, without lube.

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