Random Political Thoughts

[Yorkshire pud]

Keep an eye on Barry's girl in this video.  WTF? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRRn6kJ2LFo

What a bitch!! Boycott fresh veg and apples right now. They've been sullied by the harlot who is clearly not a Stepford wife..She done should know her goddam place.

You listening Obama? You done switch that bitch's backside right now.

[PB the Deplorable]

What a bitch!! Boycott fresh veg and apples right now...

Well sure, that was the reason they made the video - can't slip anything past ol' Pud.  Usually.

But you didn't notice anything... awkward?

[Yorkshire pud]

Well sure, that was the reason they made the video - can't slip anything past ol' Pud.  Usually.

But you didn't notice anything... awkward?

Nope. I've seen US TV in the US, it's up there with the best I've seen of it. Hey, it's better than Ricki Lake. If it gets your obesity epidemic down, (And the UK is getting the same way-i'm not popping at the US) it won't be a bad thing. K.I.S.S. is the way with vids like this, It's not the best production in the world, but it's simple, and let's face it, it's reaching out to simple folk..Oh I know the comments on the YT channels point to 'being told how to live and eat', but you know what? Some NEED to be told, because they're sure not intelligent enough to work it out themselves. Michelle might have made herself look a bit silly, but it doesn't matter, if gets the message across then it's worth it. Some people are literally eating themselves to death.

[SciFiAuthor]

Nope. I've seen US TV in the US, it's up there with the best I've seen of it. Hey, it's better than Ricki Lake. If it gets your obesity epidemic down, (And the UK is getting the same way-i'm not popping at the US) it won't be a bad thing. K.I.S.S. is the way with vids like this, It's not the best production in the world, but it's simple, and let's face it, it's reaching out to simple folk..Oh I know the comments on the YT channels point to 'being told how to live and eat', but you know what? Some NEED to be told, because they're sure not intelligent enough to work it out themselves. Michelle might have made herself look a bit silly, but it doesn't matter, if gets the message across then it's worth it. Some people are literally eating themselves to death.

People eating or smoking themselves to death is a good thing. If one supports an NHS or Obamacare, then people need to be dying to make it infinitely sustainable. They need to be dying before 60 actually. In great numbers, and soon. We can't afford a myriad of 90 year old healthy people--Alzheimer's wracked--healthy people, walking around with any system on earth. We need them dead sooner.

As such it's only a matter of time before bad health is advanced by the pop culture as a good thing. Do drugs, get fat, smoke, etc. will be a new mantra before it's all over. There's no other choice. So just drop it all now and get fat and die, and you'll be fine. Otherwise you'll be a fossil banging on about old ideas to the fat young people.

Or become a humanist and wonder how we're all going to pay for this and come up with some new ideas so we all live better.

[West of the Rockies]

Hmmm... Well, SciFi, what you argue does NOT appear to be the "mantra" of people in countries with national health systems, so it appears your doom and gloom scenario is flawed.

[West of the Rockies]

You know what, god-damnit, I almost wish we would get a "true" Conservative or TP president so I could from day one piss on every idea and utterance of that person the way conservatives have done with Obama.  I would begin on Day One by declaring "Worst President Ever" and then saying I wanted his/her presidency to fail (a la Limbaugh).

[NowhereInTime]

I think it should be clear to free people that one size does not fit all.  We're not all the same no matter how much a big Federal Gov would like it to be so.  Education should be locally controlled.  The Dept of Ed should be eliminated.  We have gone downhill ever since Carter created it.

No. You don't get to make up your own wing nut facts and despoil children's minds, potential,  and futures with them. This very sickness,  this idiotic,  turn back the clock provincialism, is what's destroying this country.

[PB the Deplorable]

You know what, god-damnit, I almost wish we would get a "true" Conservative or TP president so I could from day one piss on every idea and utterance of that person the way conservatives have done with Obama.  I would begin on Day One by declaring "Worst President Ever" and then saying I wanted his/her presidency to fail (a la Limbaugh).

We already did that with Reagan.  Remember how frustrated the D's were when the economy boomed and Soviet expansion was reversed?  Instead of being happy the disastrous Carter era was over, they bitched and lied about what was happening.

History has a way of repeating, your wish may come true.  Let's hope so, we really need it.

[PB the Deplorable]

No. You don't get to make up your own wing nut facts and despoil children's minds, potential,  and futures with them...

That's right, only the D's are allowed to do that.

[PB the Deplorable]

... declaring "Worst President Ever"...

Uncanny how that turned out though

You know what, god-damnit, I almost wish we would get a "true" Conservative or TP president so I could from day one piss on every idea and utterance of that person the way conservatives have done with Obama.  I would begin on Day One by declaring "Worst President Ever" and then saying I wanted his/her presidency to fail (a la Limbaugh).

Look at it this way - during the campaign we learned of his many suspect comments regarding our friends the Moslems.  We realized he was coming out of the corrupt Chicago Machine.  We learned of his choice of 'churches' and heard the tapes of the 'Rev' Wright.  He refused to provide ANY personal documents routinely released by every other candidate in modern history.  It turned out his neighbor and BFF was domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.  His closest associates were known Red Diaper Babies.  Some of his comments during the campaign - the ones that weren't completely meaningless like 'Hope and Change' - were pretty appalling, and so were Moochelle's.

Suspicion and opposition sure seem like the appropriate response to a candidate like this to me.

I wish he'd failed in passing ObamaCare.  I wish he'd failed when he stepped in just at the right minute to support the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda in Libya.  I wish he'd failed in creating those Trillion and a half dollar annual deficits.  I wish he'd failed in packing the appeals court and purging the military. I wish he'd failed in worsening our relationship with countries like Russia and China, and wrecking our relationships with places like Saudi Arabia, Israel and even our NATO and SEATO allies.

I wish he'd failed in covering up the various scandals like Benghazi, Fast & Furious, using the IRS and the Justice Dept to harass his political opponents.  And setting up the vast saturation spying operation.

I hope he fails going forward in ruling as a dictator, issuing illegal Executive Orders instead of respecting separation of powers and other limits to his office by respecting Congresses role in either passing new legislation or not passing it.

Because of his disinterest in encouraging an economic recovery and his inability to even understand how our economy works, we are going to have 8 years where millions don't have jobs they otherwise would, 8 years of lost savings for their kids educations and retirement.  8 years of people not getting job experience.


Opposition to Obama is not just some made up BS by people rooting for the other team.  That's what the D's do.  This was there for all to see during the first campaign, and it was ignored.  If you want to treat the next President the same way, but with no real reason, feel free.

[Yorkshire pud]

Do you have all this on speed dial?

Look at it this way - during the campaign we learned of his many suspect comments regarding our friends the Moslems.  We realized he was coming out of the corrupt Chicago Machine.  We learned of his choice of 'churches' and heard the tapes of the 'Rev' Wright.  He refused to provide ANY personal documents routinely released by every other candidate in modern history.

And how many Presidents since the war have had so much demanded of their personal life in document form? Approximately.

It turned out his neighbor and BFF was domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

If you know of anyone you suspect of being a terrorist it's your public duty to tell the authorities I would have thought. No?

  His closest associates were known Red Diaper Babies.  Some of his comments during the campaign - the ones that weren't completely meaningless like 'Hope and Change' - were pretty appalling, and so were Moochelle's.

Wow, Presidential hopeful who uses spin to get into office shock. No, really? I wonder what the catch phrases will be used next year in the year long run up.. "Please vote for me because (Insert phrase agreeable to PB)"

Suspicion and opposition sure seem like the appropriate response to a candidate like this to me.

Hmmm, you were outvoted.

I wish he'd failed in passing ObamaCare.  I wish he'd failed when he stepped in just at the right minute to support the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda in Libya.  I wish he'd failed in creating those Trillion and a half dollar annual deficits.  I wish he'd failed in packing the appeals court and purging the military. I wish he'd failed in worsening our relationship with countries like Russia and China, and wrecking our relationships with places like Saudi Arabia, Israel and even our NATO and SEATO allies.

It's Muslim, not Moslem. As for the rest, Jeeze, Obama did that ALL by himself? Whata guy.

I wish he'd failed in covering up the various scandals like Benghazi, Fast & Furious, using the IRS and the Justice Dept to harass his political opponents.  And setting up the vast saturation spying operation.

I hope he fails going forward in ruling as a dictator, issuing illegal Executive Orders instead of respecting separation of powers and other limits to his office by respecting Congresses role in either passing new legislation or not passing it.

He's the President; He's elected on a mandate to lead. If the Congress (who lets's face it are all Democrats...oh wait) is sticking him the bird at every stage he's going to over rule them...doesn't your constitution make provision for that? You know, the one that is sacrosanct. Or otherwise you'll get a Republican (in this case) administration by default, because the President would be a figurehead only and just be nodding through whatever Congress said..

Because of his disinterest in encouraging an economic recovery and his inability to even understand how our economy works, we are going to have 8 years where millions don't have jobs they otherwise would, 8 years of lost savings for their kids educations and retirement.  8 years of people not getting job experience.

Conveniently overlooking the preceding twenty years leading up to it. Do you expect the deficit to miraculously evaporate and a clean sheet be there for him to start with on day one? Or do you expect as was the case, a whole heap of hurt back in 2008, that is still hurting because of previous fuck ups? I know what my money's on.

Opposition to Obama is not just some made up BS by people rooting for the other team.  That's what the D's do.  This was there for all to see during the first campaign, and it was ignored.  If you want to treat the next President the same way, but with no real reason, feel free.

Yes, and the opposition was overruled..If and when the next President is a republican, will you be demanding his or her persoanl details to be posted? Will you be scrutinising what his or her spouse does on a daily basis? Will you be trawling through online archives and posting who they associated with back when they were at university and posting it on here?

[PB the Deplorable]

... And how many Presidents since the war have had so much demanded of their personal life in document form? Approximately...

None of them - they've released it voluntarily.  It's customary.

Remember the feeding frenzy when Romney released the customary summarized versions of his tax returns instead of unprecedented copies of actual returns.  That's how the Media usually reacts when normal records are not released fast enough.  Except for Obama.

... If you know of anyone you suspect of being a terrorist it's your public duty to tell the authorities I would have thought. No?...

You've heard of double jeopardy?  Ayers and his commie wife were tried and the trial was botched.  More evidence appeared later but it was too late.

He ADMITS what he did.  He says he's sorry he didn't do more.  He says it in current interviews, not in the distant past.  He's pretty open about it, very smug.  None of it is in dispute.  You should look into it.

That's who Obama chooses to hang with.  As a mentor

... Wow, Presidential hopeful who uses spin to get into office shock. No, really? I wonder what the catch phrases will be used next year in the year long run up.. "Please vote for me because (Insert phrase agreeable to PB)"

Hmmm, you were outvoted.

It's Muslim, not Moslem...

The point was that everything he said that wasn't schlock was suspect, not that he mostly appealed to people with meaningless catchphrases.

Moslem can be spelled either way.  It's confusing unless one realizes Arabic does not have written characters for vowels - the written language has only consonants.

... Jeeze, Obama did that ALL by himself? Whata guy...

Correct.  Name me one country that we have better relations with since the day Obama took over.  And please don't say Iran.

... He's the President; He's elected on a mandate to lead. If the Congress (who lets's face it are all Democrats...oh wait) is sticking him the bird at every stage he's going to over rule them...doesn't your constitution make provision for that?...

You do realize our system is different from yours?  It is specifically set up so as to NOT concentrate power in the hands of a few people, or one person.   It's meant to require consensus and for things to move slowly. 

The President was not given the power to arbitrarily 'overrule' the Congress.  I'd love to see what you think is the authority for that.  He has certain articulated powers, the Congress and Judiciry have certain articulated powers - some of them overlap, but not all or even most.

The President is elected to manage the Federal government.  To carry out the laws the Congress passes (and have been signed by him or an earlier President).  He is Commander-in-chief of the military, but Congress declares War.  He is the top Diplomat, but the Senate confirms his ambassadors.  He has great influence over what new legislation is passed, but is not a dictator. He appoints federal judges and policy making department managers (the Cabinet Secretaries and their immediate staff, and others like the Fed Chairman), but the Senate confirms them as well.  Congress has the power of the purse, passes a budget - but the President has to sign it.

Of the House, Senate, President, and Supreme Court, the House members were originally the only ones directly elected (Senators are now as well), and were listed first in the Constitution.  As a body, they were to be the most important.  They represent the People directly. 

After ObamaCare passed, the People fired the Democrats and hired Republicans to run the House.  Pretty sure they have mandates to represent their constituents too.  It's not all about the President.

... Conveniently overlooking the preceding twenty years leading up to it. Do you expect the deficit to miraculously evaporate and a clean sheet be there for him to start with on day one? Or do you expect as was the case, a whole heap of hurt back in 2008, that is still hurting because of previous fuck ups? I know what my money's on...

The very highest annual deficit before Obama was what, $400B?  And everyone in both parties denounced it.  The bailouts and stimulus at the end of 2008 were supposed to be one-time events.  Obama and the spend happy Dem's in the House and Senate then jumped on that, used it as the new baseline, and had annual $1.5 Trillion annual deficits after that.  That's on them.  We have not even had a budget under Obama - every year it's another 'Continuing Resolution', spending what was spent last year plus an increase.

Even though the R's now control the House (but not the Senate), you saw what happened last year when they go against Obama - they are accused of 'shutting down the government'.  And the Media backs that charge up and turns them into the boogeyman.

... Do you expect the deficit to miraculously evaporate and a clean sheet be there for him to start with on day one? Or do you expect as was the case, a whole heap of hurt back in 2008, that is still hurting because of previous fuck ups? I know what my money's on...

It's been 5 years.  Obama has done approximately zero to get the economy going.  Is there a point when this failure is on him?

It seems like we should be there by now (in putting at least some of the blame on him), especially since his world view is wrong and he is thus incapable of creating conditions for the economy to thrive.  Even if he wanted to, which he doesn't

... and when the next President is a republican, will you be demanding his or her persoanl details to be posted? Will you be scrutinising what his or her spouse does on a daily basis? Will you be trawling through online archives and posting who they associated with back when they were at university and posting it on here?

We won't have to demand their documents, they're routinely released.  That's the point - what is he hiding, and why have the Media been covering for him?

I don't scrutinize what he and Moochelle do daily, but some of it comes across my screen. 

As far as their associations, I will if they are friends with people that wish us harm.  You know, like radical Islam, hateful preachers, domestic terrorists, radical Marxists.  Hopefully that won't be the case.

[PB the Deplorable]

I have a few questions for our liberal or left leaning posters.

I keep hearing how 'right-wing' the Republican Party has become.  How even Reagan wouldn't be welcome in the party now, etc. 

To me the Republican Party is not even Conservative.  The base clearly is, but not the leaders in the House or Senate.  Or even the majority of the rank and file members in those bodies.  Nearly all politicians that are Conservative are in the party.  Many of the governors and members of the state legislatures are Conservative.  There are a certain amount of House and Senate members who are.  But the national party in DC is not.

In my life there has always been a battle within the party between the Conservatives and the wishy-washy Establishment R's.  With the Establishment R's typically winning out.

Oh sure, people like McCain talk the talk during their campaigns, and even throw a bone or two to the Conservatives from time to time.  But when they get back to DC they mostly don't really seem to stand for anything.  They don't seem to mind Big Government, it's just that they want to run it instead of the D's.

When do they talk about the Constitution?  When do they talk about reducing the size of government, or, more to the point, do something about it?  When do they make the case for Conservative ideas?  When do they fight for any of this?  Very seldom, if ever.

There were many Repub Presidents in the past 100 years or so.  The only ones that were Conservative were Reagan and Coolidge - this does not mean some of the other Presidents (R and D) were not good, just that they weren't Conservative


To me, the D's have swung much further Left than they were even 10 yeas ago.  There used to be D's that were strong supporters of the military, of America's place in the world.  They went along with Reagans tax cuts, and denounced too much spending and the deficits.  Where are there Dems like that now?


Anyway, my question is what specifically makes you think the R's are so much more 'right-wing' than they were in, say, the Reagan years, or anytime after that?

[PB the Deplorable]

My next question is about the Tea Party.  I've seen posts that just slam them, and I wonder why.

To me the Tea Party stands for returning to a smaller more limited government, reducing annual deficits and the national debt, reducing the size of government, reducing taxes, increasing opportunity.

And certainly part of that is opposing anything Obama - or anyone else - is doing not in agreement with the above.

Most of these issues are things many if not most people agree with. 


I get that some people don't agree with the Tea Party with some of these issues, but what is it that makes them the worst people in the world?

[PB the Deplorable]

My other question is about the deficits, national debt, and monetization of some of the debt (monetization means the Fed prints up money out of thin air and buys the new debt, thus increasing the money supply)

What do you think is going to happen down the line?  Can we just continue to borrow money and print more with no consequence for the foreseeable future? 

Interest rates are almost nothing now, what happens when they go up to 5%, 10%, or higher?  We'll owe all that interest on a much higher national debt than in the past - where is the money to pay that coming from?

The National Debt is something like $17-18 trillion, I've lost count.  But not included in that are Federal pensions, future Social Security and Medicare costs, shortfalls in ObamaCare - this has been estimated to be an additional $80-100 Trillion more.  Where is that money going to come from?

Will we have massive inflation?  A destroyed currency?  Default on our debt - including SS, Medicare and the pensions?  After the economy gets back on track will the Fed take that newly printed money out of the economy?  How, by reissuing the debt they bought?

How does all this play out?

I'm especially curious what the Libs/Progressives think about this.

[West of the Rockies]

Paperboy, I like you. But I for one do not have the time or patience to pointlessly respond to your multiple word walls of questions.  Nothing I say would be valid just as everything YP or NiT or Ben say sounds to some people only like so much babble.  Again, it becomes clear to me that we are all - your side and my side - pissing in the wind.  Meanwhile, the fat cats get fatter, littering the landscape with dead birds:  us.

[PB the Deplorable]

Paperboy, I like you. But I for one do not have the time or patience to pointlessly respond to your multiple word walls of questions.  Nothing I say would be valid just as everything YP or NiT or Ben say sounds to some people only like so much babble.  Again, it becomes clear to me that we are all - your side and my side - pissing in the wind.  Meanwhile, the fat cats get fatter, littering the landscape with dead birds:  us.

Well, ok - the walls of words were mostly for background so as not to have to rehash all that.  The 2 questions I had for the Libs are 1) why do you think the Republicans as a Party are much further 'right wing' now than before, and 2) why do the Libs so revile the Tea Party.

The 3rd question was for anyone - what do people think is going to happen down the road with all this new debt and new currency we are creating?


I have not seen anyone address any of this other than to assert the first and second questions as simply common knowledge.

[Lunger]

Another study that presents information and is read by someone with a preexisting bias leading to a very subjective conclusion... kudos.

Look, definitions are all over the place. So let's be honest. Having sex with someone of the same sex is plain and simple homosexuality. But that isn't the whole truth... far from it. So to make the blanket statement that homosexuals have a greater propensity... well it smacks of "now I gotta good reason for hating fags." When really what you have is a good reason to be concerned for inappropriate sexual contact with children by some percentage of men.

But all of us use a certain amount of reasoning in everyone of our daily tasks, even them no good homosexuals. When someone decides that sex with a child makes sense; there sexual identity isn't the causal factor. But give anyone with a sub 80 IQ and blammo it is the queers.

Oh and by the way Freund... there is some good reading. No really: plethysmography... Who knew? I have been doing some variation of that all my life. Preferential rape is a good subject too, no really, funny aside, good reading.

It doesn't seem to be a very subjective conclusion at all.  It's just a conclusion that you don't like.  People don't angry when presented with lies.  They get angry when presented with truth.

Are all child rapists homos?  No, of course not.  But for such a small amount of the total population they sure do more then their share.

[Yorkshire pud]

It doesn't seem to be a very subjective conclusion at all.  It's just a conclusion that you don't like.  People don't angry when presented with lies.  They get angry when presented with truth.

Are all child rapists homos?  No, of course not.  But for such a small amount of the total population they sure do more then their share.

But nothing to do with homosexuality. Just as the vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexuals, has nothing to do with being heterosexual. However most paedophiles were abused when they were children.

[onan]

It doesn't seem to be a very subjective conclusion at all.  It's just a conclusion that you don't like.  People don't angry when presented with lies.  They get angry when presented with truth.

Are all child rapists homos?  No, of course not.  But for such a small amount of the total population they sure do more then their share.

People don't get angry when presented with lies...ok.

[albrecht]

But nothing to do with homosexuality. Just as the vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexuals, has nothing to do with being heterosexual. However most paedophiles were abused when they were children.

Though I'm sure there are bi-sexual pedophiles but in most circumstances, at least judging from the scandals in the RCC, the BBC scandal, Franklin Coverup, etc there appears that even pedophiles have a preference (or choice). So a homosexual pedophile goes after the little boys and a vice-versa.

Certainly though there are some who seem to be just in it for the awful sadism and like abuse, not necessarily sexual abuse, for their own sick reasons. But to say that homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia ignores not only common sense (even as a baby there is a major difference between boys and girls) but also history and the prevalence, early-on in pedophile groups (like NAMBLA and others) in the LBGT movement, marches, and organizations. There were even political parties, albeit fringe, in some European countries promoting the stuff. Thankfully most of the homosexual activists today have figured out that going in with pedophiles (or even non-pedophile but bizarre parades of sadism, homosexual activity, nudity, costumes, etc) aren't the way to look "mainstream" or to appeal politically to the vast majority of society.

[Little Hater]

2) why do the Libs so revile the Tea Party.

That's easy - you can't buy the votes of people who only want smaller government. You can't bribe them (us) with expensive 'programs'. Scares the hell out of the big government people.

[PB the Deplorable]

And just because the good ol' ACLU will represent NAMBLA in court doesn't show them to be a sick twisted organization.  Oh wait, it does.

[albrecht]

And just because the good ol' ACLU will represent NAMBLA in court doesn't show them to be a sick twisted organization.  Oh wait, it does.

It is interesting that the ACLU, and like organizations in the UK, always step up for pedophiles or when questions of "porn", "age of consent", etc changes but, oddly, are never there for things like, say, the 2nd Amendment. And rarely speak up for the right of free speech when, say, parents want to speak out about abuse of the CPS, secrecy of family courts, or a child wishes to express her religion in school.

[onan]

It is interesting that the ACLU, and like organizations in the UK, always step up for pedophiles or when questions of "porn", "age of consent", etc changes but, oddly, are never there for things like, say, the 2nd Amendment. And rarely speak up for the right of free speech when, say, parents want to speak out about abuse of the CPS, secrecy of family courts, or a child wishes to express her religion in school.

yet the aclu came to limbaugh's defense regarding his substance abuse.

[albrecht]

yet the aclu came to limbaugh's defense regarding his substance abuse.

I'm sure there isn't much of personal behavior that they won't defend. Unless it is wholesome, mainstream, or traditional. I take that back, they sometimes, when pressed do. But very rare. Usually it is the outcast, the pervert, the drug-addled, the terrorist that they defend. Good for them, everyone is allowed counsel and defending. But it is interesting how they "pick and choose" their cases and never on the 2nd Amendment. Will be more interesting to see if they keep their "righteous indignation" of defense of the minority when previous normal things like Christians, married people, small business owners, farmers, gun owners, businessmen, etc become the minority. Will they defend us with such vigor?

[PB the Deplorable]

They'll defend someone like Rush Limbaugh or Oliver North if they think it will help them establish precedent for one of their scummy clients in the future.

And so that people will be able to point to a case or two and then claim they are evenhanded.

[RedMichael]

Wanted to chime in randomly regarding the government looking into whether they can order a drone strike against a US citizen who is working with Al'Qaeda.

Yes...I suppose they COULD try to order a drone strike against him...OR just casually be open to the press about trying to get a drone strike in the works. That way you: Make him nervous, make those around him not want to be around him or do anything with him because he will bring them death, avoid having to actually order a drone strike. You have caused more damage to Al'Qaeda by him switching from being an asset to a liability than just killing him would do. Bonus points if they kill him for you.

I can't believe any news outlet hasn't looked at this objectively. Or it probably doesn't matter to them...ratings are ratings. "This just in, the US military held a press conference regarding a planned drone strike. Here is the in individual who they want, where he most likely is, and where they are at in the process. What a scoop!" I mean I know about the old saying "Never look a prize horse in the mouth." but c'mon.

[Yorkshire pud]

What difference does it make if the target is a US citizen?

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm sure there isn't much of personal behavior that they won't defend. Unless it is wholesome, mainstream, or traditional. I take that back, they sometimes, when pressed do. But very rare. Usually it is the outcast, the pervert, the drug-addled, the terrorist that they defend. Good for them, everyone is allowed counsel and defending. But it is interesting how they "pick and choose" their cases and never on the 2nd Amendment. Will be more interesting to see if they keep their "righteous indignation" of defense of the minority when previous normal things like Christians, married people, small business owners, farmers, gun owners, businessmen, etc become the minority. Will they defend us with such vigor?

Is Little house on the Prairie back on TV?