http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...e-world-stage/
...Barack Obama is already blundering again on the world stage, with the kind of gaffes that would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times if they had been committed by George W. Bush...

On his trip to Asia this week, President Obama struggled to pronounce the name of Aung San Suu Kyi, the most prominent human rights activist in the world...

Obama also “botched” his greeting of Burma’s new president...

It is rather embarrassing, as well as sad, that the leader of the free world can’t even pronounce the name of the most famous human rights activist on the planet. Or that he is so quick to appease Burma’s authoritarian regime by calling it “Myanmar”...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...in-the-debate/
...This inadvertently hilarious New York Times story this morning lays out the apologists’s explanation: “Mr. Obama does not like debates to begin with, aides have long said, viewing them as media-driven gamesmanship….Mr. Obama made clear to advisers that he was not happy about debating Mr. Romney, whom he views with disdain. It was something to endure, rather than an opportunity, aides said.”

On the face of it, this is absurd: If he views Romney with disdain, why wouldn’t he relish the opportunity to crush him in a debate? Debates aren’t dates or dinner parties or business meetings; they are contests, and Obama is a very competitive person. Why would he only “endure” one, given how utterly wonderful he is? As for “media-driven gamesmanship,” what does Obama call going on David Letterman’s show, or Jay Leno’s, both of which he seems to enjoy mightily?

...The president didn’t lose the debate on Wednesday because he performed badly on Wednesday. He didn’t perform well, to be sure, but others have done much worse with less fallout. He lost the debate because he’s been a bad president.




http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._not_true.html

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter admitted on CNN's "OutFront" tonight that their claim that Mitt Romney's tax plan costs $5 trillion is untrue...

Cutter eventually acknowledged that the closing of deductions accounts for at least four trillion of the five trillion in lost revenues she claims that will not be collected in taxes. Transcript below...

http://politics.kfyi.com/cc-common/m...ticle=10476080

Given how Obama tore Romney a new one in the election, I had thought this pathetic post of yours was a good way to close out this thread.

But then we got your latest gem ---

Originally Posted by playwrite

Given how Obama tore Romney a new one in the election, I had thought this pathetic post of yours was a good way to close out this thread.

But then we got your latest gem ---

-The Obamination lied about the $5 trillion, and Obama got shown up as a phony in the debates. He one anyway. Americas will suffer the consequences. Oh well.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...e-world-stage/
...Barack Obama is already blundering again on the world stage, with the kind of gaffes that would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times if they had been committed by George W. Bush...

On his trip to Asia this week, President Obama struggled to pronounce the name of Aung San Suu Kyi, the most prominent human rights activist in the world...

Obama also “botched” his greeting of Burma’s new president...

It is rather embarrassing, as well as sad, that the leader of the free world can’t even pronounce the name of the most famous human rights activist on the planet. Or that he is so quick to appease Burma’s authoritarian regime by calling it “Myanmar”...

But this one beats the previous in the pathetic category.

Since the Nation's heartbreaking on Friday, Obama has been eloquent in his efforts to begin the near impossible healing process.

And this is your complaint?

Pathetic.

Maybe Shakin Pudding kicked you out, but surely you can find another rock to crawl under. Do us all a favor, hey?

Originally Posted by playwrite

But this one beats the previous in the pathetic category.

Since the Nation's heartbreaking on Friday, Obama has been eloquent in his efforts to begin the near impossible healing process...

-Reading off a teleprompter. Big deal. Even reading off a teleprompter, he still occassionally makes an ass out of himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkK65y_-T4

"corpseman! corpseman!"

Mr Dignity in action. What a disgrace.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Reading off a teleprompter. Big deal. Even reading off a teleprompter, he still occassionally makes an ass out of himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlkK65y_-T4

"corpseman! corpseman!"

Mr Dignity in action. What a disgrace.

You're the disgrace a-hole. No wonder Shakin Puddin kicked you out again.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're the disgrace a-hole. No wonder Shakin Puddin kicked you out again.

-A POTUS who can't even pronounce "corpsman". Loser.

"Corpseman!"


He's sad, actually.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're the disgrace a-hole. No wonder Shakin Puddin kicked you out again.

Ah, such an elevated and rational rebuttal. I stand in awe.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Ah, such an elevated and rational rebuttal. I stand in awe.

Cuddle the a-hole if you want. I'm not.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...e-world-stage/
...Barack Obama is already blundering again on the world stage, with the kind of gaffes that would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times if they had been committed by George W. Bush...

On his trip to Asia this week, President Obama struggled to pronounce the name of Aung San Suu Kyi, the most prominent human rights activist in the world...

Obama also “botched” his greeting of Burma’s new president...

It is rather embarrassing, as well as sad, that the leader of the free world can’t even pronounce the name of the most famous human rights activist on the planet. Or that he is so quick to appease Burma’s authoritarian regime by calling it “Myanmar”...

According to Wikipedia,

"Burmese is a tonal, pitch-register, and syllable-timed language"

which suggests that it is an unusually-difficult language for a native English speaker to master or to even pronounce at the level of the phrase book.

http://www.effectivelanguagelearning...age-difficulty

Category I: 23-24 weeks (575-600 hours)
Languages closely related to English
Afrikaans
Danish
Dutch
French
Italian
Norwegian
Portuguese
Romanian
Spanish
Swedish

Category II: 30 weeks (750 hours)
Languages similar to English
German

Category III: 36 weeks (900 hours)
Languages with linguistic and/or cultural differences from English

Indonesian
Malaysian
Swahili

Category IV: 44 weeks (1100 hours)
Languages with significant linguistic and/or cultural differences from English

Albanian
Amharic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Bengali
Bosnian
Bulgarian
Burmese
Croatian
Czech
*Estonian
*Finnish
*Georgian
Greek
Hebrew
Hindi
*Hungarian
Icelandic
Khmer
Lao
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
*Mongolian
Nepali
Pashto
Persian (Dari, Farsi, Tajik)
Polish
Russian
Serbian
Sinhala
Slovak
Slovenian
Tagalog
*Thai
Turkish
Ukrainian
Urdu
Uzbek
*Vietnamese
Xhosa
Zulu

Category V: 88 weeks (2200 hours)
Languages which are exceptionally difficult for native English speakers
Arabic
Cantonese (Chinese)
Mandarin (Chinese)
*Japanese
Korean


Such is a good guide for Americans in the event that the US Congress starts acting like the Michigan state legislature has acted in December.

...I would be very wary of using a phrasebook for any language in Categories IV or V. I'd guess that of some others -- Esperanto is probably Category I; Yiddish and Classical Latin are probably Category II. Any guesses on Irish or Scots Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, Berber, Quechua, Guarani, Nahuatl, Inuit, Cherokee, or Navajo?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

According to Wikipedia,

"Burmese is a tonal, pitch-register, and syllable-timed language"

which suggests that it is an unusually-difficult language for a native English speaker to master or to even pronounce at the level of the phrase book...

1) "Corpsman" is a word in English. It should be very easy for the Teleprompter-in-Chief to pronounce.

2) If Bush had made that mistake, would you honestly be covering for him?

Based on your track record, let me answer for you: NO.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...
Category V: 88 weeks (2200 hours)
Languages which are exceptionally difficult for native English speakers
Arabic
Cantonese (Chinese)
Mandarin (Chinese)
*Japanese
Korean...

-FWIW, as far as I know, the military uses that list you found, but only goes up to four. When I learned Arabic, it was a level 4 langauge, and as far as I still know, it still is. Same goes for Chinese and Korean.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Ah, such an elevated and rational rebuttal. I stand in awe.

-I thought you had PW on ignore?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-FWIW, as far as I know, the military uses that list you found, but only goes up to four. When I learned Arabic, it was a level 4 langauge, and as far as I still know, it still is. Same goes for Chinese and Korean.

That's from the Foreign Service Institute -- not the military. It puts German in its own category as much more difficult for English speakers due to its Latin-like grammar (three genders and four cases) but still much less difficult than... Czech.

But arguing between classification systems is for experts.

But if Obama jumps the shark by leading a push for confiscatory gun laws, he will vastly trump any other less-than-brilliant thing he has done to date.

I know - one or more of the resident "Blue Crew" who dominate this forum are going to bring up my same warnings about same-sex marriage and marijuana. But this issue is fundamentally different: Unless and until someone provides evidence to the contrary, I am going to assume that, for example, a white male in his 20s with some college education and earning between $35,000 and $50,000 a year is no more likely to be in favor of gun control than a white male in is 50s in those same education and income brackets - whereas in the case of both same-sex marriage and marijuana, the differences would be massive.

Even Newt Gingrich now concedes that the conservatives are going to lose the same-sex marriage battle by attrition (and probably the marijuana battle too). They will not lose the Second Amendment battle by attrition - or by any other means for that matter.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But if Obama jumps the shark by leading a push for confiscatory gun laws, he will vastly trump any other less-than-brilliant thing he has done to date.

Jumps the shark? The gun fetishists already hate his guts even though he has done nothing to them. It's up to the National Rifle Association to decide whether it wants to stand for firearms for anyone who wants them irrespective of the purpose or whether it stands for sport hunters and others with understandable and excusable reasons for owning guns. Heck, the auto industry opposes drunk driving and street racing.

I know - one or more of the resident "Blue Crew" who dominate this forum are going to bring up my same warnings about same-sex marriage and marijuana. But this issue is fundamentally different: Unless and until someone provides evidence to the contrary, I am going to assume that, for example, a white male in his 20s with some college education and earning between $35,000 and $50,000 a year is no more likely to be in favor of gun control than a white male in is 50s in those same education and income brackets - whereas in the case of both same-sex marriage and marijuana, the differences would be massive.

I would expect such groups to move in tandem in view of an inexplicable tragedy. Someone with even a perfunctory understanding of statistics (regrettably rare in America) will recognize the speciousness of an argument that someone will 'get lucky' and have a concealed-carry weapon that he uses fortuitously to plug a nut with a gun. Of course were everyone to have even a perfunctory knowledge of statistics, then instant lotteries and gambling casinos would fail and about everyone not destitute would instead have savings accounts and make regular deposits into them.

Even Newt Gingrich now concedes that the conservatives are going to lose the same-sex marriage battle by attrition (and probably the marijuana battle too). They will not lose the Second Amendment battle by attrition - or by any other means for that matter.

The antipathy toward same-sex marriage can erode through attrition of bigotry. Gays and lesbians are becoming mainstream by adopting mainstream attitudes on such matters as child welfare, and the only question was when the tipping point would happen. A 52-48 position against same-sex marriage became the inverse in about five years, and politicians who recognized the irreversiblity of the trend and had no strong commitment on the issue could make the sudden switch.

The Sandy Hook massacre involves two issues -- widespread availability of firearms to just about anyone, long a part of our American heritage despite its dubiousness -- and the shabbiness of the mental-health system in America, clearly part of the 3T rot that must vanish. Consider how significant the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords by a nutcase with firearms was: a lunatic may have reshaped American history by impairing the abilities of someone who was on the fast track to high political office, even perhaps the Presidency. Undoing the rot in our mental-health system and greatly reducing the availability of firearms entails no contradiction.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But if Obama jumps the shark by leading a push for confiscatory gun laws, he will vastly trump any other less-than-brilliant thing he has done to date.

I know - one or more of the resident "Blue Crew" who dominate this forum are going to bring up my same warnings about same-sex marriage and marijuana. But this issue is fundamentally different: Unless and until someone provides evidence to the contrary, I am going to assume that, for example, a white male in his 20s with some college education and earning between $35,000 and $50,000 a year is no more likely to be in favor of gun control than a white male in is 50s in those same education and income brackets - whereas in the case of both same-sex marriage and marijuana, the differences would be massive.

Even Newt Gingrich now concedes that the conservatives are going to lose the same-sex marriage battle by attrition (and probably the marijuana battle too). They will not lose the Second Amendment battle by attrition - or by any other means for that matter.

What would you consider to be confiscatory? Would a ban on assault-type weapons qualify? I don't think anyone is taking about getting rid of handguns or ordinary hunting rifles.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But if Obama jumps the shark by leading a push for confiscatory gun laws, he will vastly trump any other less-than-brilliant thing he has done to date.

I know - one or more of the resident "Blue Crew" who dominate this forum are going to bring up my same warnings about same-sex marriage and marijuana. But this issue is fundamentally different: Unless and until someone provides evidence to the contrary, I am going to assume that, for example, a white male in his 20s with some college education and earning between $35,000 and $50,000 a year is no more likely to be in favor of gun control than a white male in is 50s in those same education and income brackets - whereas in the case of both same-sex marriage and marijuana, the differences would be massive.

Even Newt Gingrich now concedes that the conservatives are going to lose the same-sex marriage battle by attrition (and probably the marijuana battle too). They will not lose the Second Amendment battle by attrition - or by any other means for that matter.

I don't think he's going to push for gun laws I would call 'confiscatory', but realize that definitions of the term differ. There are people for whom only a total ban would be sufficient, and others who would find a ban on privately-owned nuclear weapons to be confiscatory. But in practical terms, the arguments seem to be over rapid-fire weapons. And he may argue for a ban on the most destructive of those. If so, it will be a political sop to those whose first response to mass murder is to blame the fact that Americans own guns. And it may or may not be a mistake.

The two extreme positions I described above would certainly be a mistake, and I am certain he knows this.

I don't even know where to begin responding to all of this - but I'll try:

1. There is no "generation gap" with the Second Amendment like there is with same-sex marriage or legalizing marijuana - unless one of you can provide a link to some poll that says there is.

2. How many gun owners are registered Democrats? I'd guess, quite a few. And how many gun owners belong to a labor union? Again, I'd guess, quite a few. Thus if liberals and their party go after the Second Amendment, they will lose votes they're getting now - and whose votes will they gain that they're not getting now?

3. Those who are against same-sex marriage are seeking to withhold rights from people. Those who defend the Second Amendment are fighting against taking rights away from people. Therefore the two groups are diametrically opposed to one another. And where's the "irreversible trend" toward gun control? There has been no movement on public opinion regarding it in the 45 years or so that it's been tracked.

4. What would I consider to be confiscatory? What you know and I know is the ultimate goal of the far left - namely, the confiscation of every privately-owned firearm in the United States.

5. Who goes to prison under the gun laws we already have - and who would go to prison under any more gun laws? In New York State, for example, 94% of those incarcerated under that state's notoriously-strict gun laws are African-American or Latino - a far higher percentage than that of those in jail on drug charges. So if the drug laws are "racist," then the gun laws must be akin to genocide.

6. Let's not forget which fringe of the political spectrum was stockpiling guns during the last Awakening - and which side will likely do so again in the next one. So perhaps the left shouldn't wish too hard for gun control. It might come true - just like the right's crusade for the 22nd Amendment ended up biting them in the rear end when it prevented Ronald Reagan from winning a third and maybe even a fourth term as President - in which case the entire political history of the United States in the 1990s and 2000s would have taken a very different course.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I don't even know where to begin -

Begin here -



or here -




I can post a few more if needed, but perhaps it would be even better for you "to begin" to understand that the last thing many of these kids saw was another classmate's head exploding from a high-velocity rifle. I know what that looks like.

I've been a gun owner since the age of 12. I have hunted even earlier than that. I live it the most urbanized area of the US. There is no need for the kind of firepower that walked into that school or in any of the other MASS shootings that have occurred in this country.

The only reason that kind of fire power exists in the civilian population is scared silly little shits trying to compensate for being less than a man.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I don't even know where to begin responding to all of this - but I'll try:

1. There is no "generation gap" with the Second Amendment like there is with same-sex marriage or legalizing marijuana - unless one of you can provide a link to some poll that says there is.

2. How many gun owners are registered Democrats? I'd guess, quite a few. And how many gun owners belong to a labor union? Again, I'd guess, quite a few. Thus if liberals and their party go after the Second Amendment, they will lose votes they're getting now - and whose votes will they gain that they're not getting now?

But police officers are pro- gun control, because they know that gun proliferation makes their job more dangerous. And if people wake up to the facts about guns, opinions will shift back to where they were before the gun nuts started campaigning-- pro gun control.

3. Those who are against same-sex marriage are seeking to withhold rights from people. Those who defend the Second Amendment are fighting against taking rights away from people. Therefore the two groups are diametrically opposed to one another. And where's the "irreversible trend" toward gun control? There has been no movement on public opinion regarding it in the 45 years or so that it's been tracked.

But it started out very pro gun control, and has reached about 50-50. The other fact is that gun ownership has actually been going down; and so has the crime rate at the same time. There might be a connection.

4. What would I consider to be confiscatory? What you know and I know is the ultimate goal of the far left - namely, the confiscation of every privately-owned firearm in the United States.

Confiscation by force will not work; that would just be more gun violence by the state.

5. Who goes to prison under the gun laws we already have - and who would go to prison under any more gun laws? In New York State, for example, 94% of those incarcerated under that state's notoriously-strict gun laws are African-American or Latino - a far higher percentage than that of those in jail on drug charges. So if the drug laws are "racist," then the gun laws must be akin to genocide.

Because these communities are the main victims of guns and drugs. Poverty and discrimination are the main issues, and the tendency to put more of these groups in prison by the authorities-- racial profiling and such.

6. Let's not forget which fringe of the political spectrum was stockpiling guns during the last Awakening - and which side will likely do so again in the next one. So perhaps the left shouldn't wish too hard for gun control. It might come true - just like the right's crusade for the 22nd Amendment ended up biting them in the rear end when it prevented Ronald Reagan from winning a third and maybe even a fourth term as President - in which case the entire political history of the United States in the 1990s and 2000s would have taken a very different course.

An even worse course, you mean. Leftists can easily succumb to the fantasy of violent revolution, and so many of us on the left as well as the libertarian right are pro-gun too-- the nonsense that citizens with guns protects them from the government. And then there's the nonsense that gun control or bans on military weapons violates the 2nd amendment. The real lesson of the Awakening was lost-- that it was cut short and ruined by the assassinations of its best leaders by gun-toting crazies.

Even Newt Gingrich now concedes that the conservatives are going to lose the same-sex marriage battle by attrition (and probably the marijuana battle too). They will not lose the Second Amendment battle by attrition - or by any other means for that matter.

Unless and until they start losing, more incidents like Newtown will continue, and get worse. The people may start to agree with the president, that we "can't tolerate this anymore." And that speech will go down in history as one of Obama's brilliant moments.

Thanks Playwrite, that was very eloquently stated.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...


or here -




I can post a few more if needed, but perhaps it would be even better for you "to begin" to understand that the last thing many of these kids saw was another classmate's head exploding from a high-velocity rifle. I know what that looks like...

-Hmmm... privately owned firearms prevent over 100,000 (maybe over a million) crimes prevented every year. That would be a lot of photos. Even PW wouldn't have the spare time for those.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...The only reason that kind of fire power exists in the civilian population is scared silly little shits trying to compensate for being less than a man.

-Actually, anyone defending their home or business would find an AR-15 handy. I think the famous sequence of Korean grocers defending their store during the LA riots shows them with shotguns, but an AR-15 would have been better, considering the short range of shotguns.

Perhaps the only reason people who want to ban them in the civilian populationares scared bed wetters who are afraid of personal responsibility?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...But police officers are pro- gun control, because they know that gun proliferation makes their job more dangerous...

-Actually, most police aren't gun controllers- the chiefs and sheriffs are, and they're not normally real cops, but politicians. It's a typical case of those with power wanting more.

Most police officers are in favor of wider search and seizure powers.

Do you give it to them?

Most police officers are anti-marijuana.

Therefore...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...The other fact is that gun ownership has actually been going down; and so has the crime rate at the same time. There might be a connection...

-There is evidence is that crime goes down when a state introduces concealed carry. I don't thin k I'm the first one to point that out here. Others provided it, and you ignore it because it doesn't fit your preconceptions, even if the reason for it is common sense.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...Because these communities are the main victims of guns and drugs. Poverty and discrimination are the main issues, and the tendency to put more of these groups in prison by the authorities-- racial profiling and such...

-Nonsense. More blacks and latinos go to jail because blacks and latinos are likely to commit crimes. As you point out, they commit most of those crimes against other blacks and latinos. The biggest beneficiaries of having thugs incarcerated are blacks decent blacks and latinos.

On second thought, this belongs here:

Originally Posted by Odin

Obama is a great orator, unlike W.

-This was great:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE

...and not a teleprompter to be seen.

-If you think "great orator" means reading stuff off a teleprompter, then you have a point. He obviously appeals to the gullible.

Where is the great oration here:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

..."Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

...or in mispronouncing "corpseman"?

Originally Posted by Odin

This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever read...

-Well, reading the words of a POTUS who can't pronounce corpsman, or who thinks we have 57 states, should be the most idiotic thing you have ever read.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...He's the President of the United States of America...
You really think your critique has any weight with anyone?

-Since I've documented that Obama is not articulate and has never made a memorable speech whioch didn't bit him in the ass within a month, it should.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Hmmm... privately owned firearms prevent over 100,000 (maybe over a million) crimes prevented every year. That would be a lot of photos. Even PW wouldn't have the spare time for those.

Nice stats with nothing but self-reported nonesense to back them up. You can thank the NRA for making gun related data unavailalble.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

-Actually, anyone defending their home or business would find an AR-15 handy. I think the famous sequence of Korean grocers defending their store during the LA riots shows them with shotguns, but an AR-15 would have been better, considering the short range of shotguns.

Perhaps the only reason people who want to ban them in the civilian populationares scared bed wetters who are afraid of personal responsibility?

When someone like GEN McChrystal takes the opposite POV, I tend to listen to him, not you. BTW, McChrystal is only one of many sayin the same thing.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

-There is evidence is that crime goes down when a state introduces concealed carry. I don't thin k I'm the first one to point that out here. Others provided it, and you ignore it because it doesn't fit your preconceptions, even if the reason for it is common sense.

No, there is no evidence to suggest that concelaed carry has any effect, one way or the other. Part of that has to do with the lack of data, but even the data available show no correlatoin at all.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

-Nonsense. More blacks and latinos go to jail because blacks and latinos are likely to commit crimes. As you point out, they commit most of those crimes against other blacks and latinos. The biggest beneficiaries of having thugs incarcerated are blacks decent blacks and latinos.

There is ample evidence that crimes committed by blacks and latinos are treated more harshly than crimes by whites. There is also evidence through the Innocence Project that the bias toward guilt is higher as well. Look at the Central Park Rape case that put 5 completley innocent black guys in jail for a couple decades, because the police badgered them into false confessions. Even worse, once errors are found, the criminal justice system tends to oppose the release of known innocents ... especially those of color.

So using crime stats to prove anything is highly suspicious.

Officially, English is listed as part of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European languages. I recall a comment by a linguist that for adults, it is generally very difficult to master a language not related to your own. This can apply even to the sounds of a language, let alone the grammar.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-.. I think the famous sequence of Korean grocers defending their store during the LA riots ...

Oh, yea, that happens all the time.

I'm a gun owner and, in younger days, an avid hunter. There's no need for ARs or large clips, i.e., what walked into that school.

Those things are for pricks making up for their very small dicks and/or crazies who believe someday they are going to shoot a member of the US armed forces. You would think the latter hysteria would bother you for a variety of reasons - if it doesn't, it just goes to show how radically contaminated today's conservatism has become.

One of my betes noires is on prominent display these days - and that is the use of static as opposed to dynamic analysis, as is being done with these polls showing a majority of the country as a whole favoring this gun-control provision or that gun-control provision.

And it is static and not dynamic because it neglects to focus on the only numbers that would really matter in the grand scheme of things - and that is what percentage of people support various gun-control measures in Congressional districts located in red states and currently represented by white Democrats.

For there is where the Dems got utterly blitzed in 1994 after passing the original assault weapons ban - and will get utterly blitzed again in 2014 if they are "successful" this time around.