Weekdays at 12noon on 770 AM: The Truth
 Michael Medved

Liberal Hypocrisy on Guns, Suicide

December 28, 2012 @ 11:38 am (Updated: 11:53 am - 12/28/12 )

In pushing for dramatic new federal action, gun control advocates often mislead the public with the term "gun deaths." They do so by citing statistics including not only murders committed with firearms, but also including the much greater number of suicides.

Actually, the great majority of more than 30,000 annual gun deaths - nearly two thirds of all those fatalities - occur when people deliberately kill themselves. Counting 19,000 additional suicides by pills, jumping from bridges, slicing wrists and so forth, the number murdering themselves is nearly five times higher than the number killed in firearms homicides. Yet many of the same liberal true believers who say they want to save lives by curbing gun ownership also endorse assisted suicide - providing unwitting encouragement to a culture of self-slaughter that already claims far too many victims.

More Michael Medved

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (94)


  • Add A Comment

  • cigarfan wrote...
    Medved plays dumb
    December 28, 2012 3:19 pm
    Euthanasia....escaping terminal disease....the limits of pain management by modern medicine...and yes even suicide.....is a valid moral choice. MURDER is not. Even if a person chooses a "messy" option of using a gun on themselves ( one would think that using physician assisted suicide would be a wiser choice e.g. Oregon or WA)...this is NOT what gun control advocates are trying to stem. Gun control advocates (correctly or not) are trying to stem MURDERS. Medved uses an odd gap between "gun deaths" and suicides. I think he can tell the difference between suicide and MURDER. We can walk and chew gum Michael.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    My god Medved
    December 28, 2012 5:21 pm
    If you want to put a gun up to your head and pull the trigger, go ahead, be my guess coward. But if you want to put that gun up to my kids head or some other unsuspecting kids head and pull the trigger, I really think that the two are not even in the same zip code. You big DUMMIE,lol.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    sportsG- re-read M.M's blog. I think u missed the point by a large margin
    December 28, 2012 7:16 pm
    eom.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    Guru
    January 4, 2013 6:21 pm
    You missed the entire point, intentionally I think. Michael simply pointed out how statistics are being skewed by gun control advocates. Yes, suicide is an intentional choice and murder is not. So why not point out the difference (and hypocracy) between ALL gun deaths and murders by guns? Rather simple point to the article, ain't it? Gun control advocates aren't necessarily about saving lives, although I'm sure some are. It's all about the control.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Hypocrisy is a defining trait of progressives
    December 28, 2012 5:46 pm
    In 2010 there were 358 deaths to rifles. That includes assault appearing and otherwise. In the same period there were 1704 to knives and 745 to hands/fists/feet. So why are the progressives targeting rifles when feet/fists and hands account for over twice as many deaths and knives more than 400% more deaths?

    Source of information is the FBI, report can be found here...

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-end-gun-deaths-dont-start-with-rifles/article/2516536

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • when reality hits you wrote...
    Total: At least 31940 people died from gun injuries in 2011.
    January 3, 2013 3:02 am
    In 2011, the latest figure available from the Centers for Disease Control, Accidental discharge 851 Suicide 19,766 Homicide 11,101 Undetermined Intent 222 Also 258 people were killed during legal intervention, most of them due to guns. Guns were involved, but were not the primary cause of death: -in 2 fatal accidents. -in 6 homicides. Previous years: 2010 31,328 people 2009 31,177 people 2007 31,224 people 2004 29,569 people
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    Seems I remember a few
    January 4, 2013 6:28 pm
    years ago some box cutters were used to murder THOUSANDS! Why is nobody demanding restrictions on box cutters?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Michael, I'm trying to get the point of your post here, but I can't
    December 28, 2012 6:38 pm
    Unless............. But, remember, suicide is considered a violation of God's commandments. Regardless of what means.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @ron prevost
    December 30, 2012 6:25 pm
    Medved runs the roost of false associations and false accusations against 'liberals', 'democrats', 'progessives' and 'Obama'. He's constantly making connections that only a fevered hate filled brain would make - which is just what he's done here. The usual tactic of associating something that isn't part of the same issue and then blaming them lefties/dems/progressives or Obama for not making the association and then for not dealing with the tangental issue. He's basically failing at forcing a square peg through a round hole and then blaming lefties/dems/progessives/Obama for failing to push that square peg through the round hole. And the stupidest thing is that so many of the right wing believe him as if he were God on these issues.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Sarg
    January 4, 2013 11:37 am
    Example?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Maplefish...
    January 7, 2013 2:55 pm
    Want an example? Read this column, read any column where he attacks Obama, liberals, dems. Then go out and independently determine the facts. You'll find that he nearly always twists just enough facts out of shape until they are are no longer true in order to support his pre-determined conclusion.----------------------------------------- For this column, he says that nearly 2/3 of annual gun deaths are suicides. Convieniently he doesn't mention where he got his stats from, but the 2010 numbers I found rated gun related suicides from 1986 - 2010 only had a total of 19,392 for the entire 24 year period! Making it far, far less than the 'nearly 2/3's of the 30,000 annual gun death' as he claims (http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=262&name=DLFE-636.pdf). The bigger issue however, is that He also makes an entirely unsupported leap in logic from 'we want gun control by ______ method so that we can stop murders' as if it were absolutely the same thing as 'we ignore suicides'. No one except the most grand fool would make that unsupported a leap in logic. Yet Medved does make that leap... Even the most callous anti-gun rights advocate cares significantly about suicides.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hedujg26 wrote...
    What his point is
    December 28, 2012 9:13 pm
    is that liberal anti gun groups are skewing numbers for their own means and eliminating all context for said numbers. They have no problem leaving out information that would detract from their point of view and are willing to misrepresent those numbers. Pretty easy point to grasp.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Good Thing.....
    December 30, 2012 1:42 pm
    ...the pro gun groups aren't skewing data to support their position...oh wait a minute.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • RonJ wrote...
    Ditto
    January 4, 2013 6:25 pm
    and then some
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    No, it;s you guys that have it wrong.
    December 28, 2012 10:29 pm
    The point is that there would be many LESS suicides if guns weren't so prevalent. How many people kill themselves on impulse? Quite a lot, I bet. Think about it: You just found out your spouse cheated on you or left you, or that you lost your job, or that you're so deep into debt that you can't see a way out. Stuff like this can trigger tragic reactions in people.

    Now, it could be argued they'd kill themselves anyway. But having a gun right there in you home means a lot of people can kill themselves instantly without without having to down a bunch of pills they can choose to vomit out if they change their mind. Or how about taking the time to climb a building or a bridge? I bet a lot of people who step out on that ledge are so terrified of jumping they change their minds.

    But once you pull that trigger, there's no turning back.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Hayduke
    December 28, 2012 10:58 pm
    Or they can go out and swerve into oncoming traffic to kill themselves..and end up taking someone else with them. Why do you want extra people to die Hayduke? Why don't progressives care about human life?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @rational
    December 28, 2012 11:58 pm
    You ask: "Why don't progressives care about human life?" Medved states: "Actually, the great majority of more than 30,000 annual gun deaths - nearly two thirds of all those fatalities - occur when PEOPLE deliberately kill themselves. " I would say that the very reason progressives AVOID military enlistment (like Medved in the late 60's/early 70's) is evidence that progressives (and not conservatives) care about saving people's lives. The reason so many conservatives/military personnel commit suicide is because conservatives learn (too late) that PTSD occurs when a PERSON is forced to do immoral unspeakable things - and they discover that they were used/lied to by their right-wing fundamentalist/war profiteering leaders. It's conservatives who cheerlead/beat the corporate drums of war, not progressives.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    cigarfan
    December 29, 2012 2:28 am
    It's conservatives who cheerlead/beat the corporate drums of war, not progressives.

    By far more US troops died under Democrat leadership than GOP. Most wars have begun under democrats...so you have a faulty perception of which is the party of war and death.

    And don't even think you can get away with trying to lie about progressives being the party of life...nearly 40 million babies have been murdered under the democrat protected "right" to kill one's baby. Between the democrat war deaths and the genocide...the GOP has nothing beginning to aproach the death perperated by progressives.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    rational
    December 29, 2012 7:15 am
    "most wars are started by Democrats" You might add that most leaks are fixed by plumbers but it doesn't mean the plumber caused the leak.If abortion is a important issue with you then how about giving us a program on how the needs of those 40,000,000 unwanted babies as well as the 40,000,000 mothers would be met?Hmm how much do you think that would cost to raise a child until the age of 18?Your welcome to have your opinions but in a case like this you need a possible solution in order to give your point any credibility
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    messiah101
    December 29, 2012 4:10 pm
    If abortion is a important issue with you then how about giving us a program on how the needs of those 40,000,000 unwanted babies...

    2 points here, firstly, you admit the only issue is financial...pretty evil in my book to kill babies over money. Second point, if the Christian community were to agree to take care of all the unwanted babies by setting up Christian orphanages and adoption services without government intereference would your side still really agree to disposing of the genocidal practice of abortion?

    I honestly doubt that the left would agree to that...which would show that argument to be nothing more than a smoke screen for favoring genocide.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    abortion and free contraceptives-why do so many think that proper use of contreceptives is expensive or difficult.
    December 29, 2012 5:50 pm
    google Planned parenthood, a women can make $1900 a month a get any type for free. Women often choose to get pregnant cuase babies are cute and welfare beats working in our country.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    rational
    December 29, 2012 10:01 pm
    What leads you to say I believe the only issue is financial? I simply brought up an obvious problem with the birth of the 40,000,000 babies you claim were aborted.As far as your second point?? goes no Christian group to my knowledge has ever agreed to take on the cost and responsibility of picking up the tab for this number of unwanted babies as well as the mothers.If the Christian Right did so then they certainly would be bringing the argument to an entirely new level and putting the pro choice people on the spot but that will never happen and your aware that it won't.No the abortion issue IS simply a Fund Raising issue used by BOTH the left and the Right. Your being used and apparently are not even aware that you are.If any one is using smoke screens it the Right side of this issue
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    messiah101
    December 30, 2012 2:13 pm
    The only issue you raised in 2 points were financial ones, which is why it appears that is your concern.

    And you didn't answer my question...I asked "IF" Christian churches agreed to set up orphanages and adoptions without government interference if you would agree to discard the practice of murdering children. Simple question...yes or no?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @rational
    December 29, 2012 7:18 am
    We are comparing ideologies, not political parties. Why do you think I'm not a Democrat? The contrast is between CONSERVATISM AND LIBERALISM....Medved nor I are going beyond LBJ's DNC...or Dubya's GOP............also...You are missing a critical point...the abortion debate (if you want to bring that up in lieu of sucide....deals with PERSONHOOD....fetuses are not PERSONS....which is what medved is discussing and you are trying to "muddy the water".......it's 2013...not 1973.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @rational
    December 29, 2012 7:30 am
    Medved AND I are going beyond LBJ's DNC ....or Dubya's GOP...is what the line above should have read. Funny how Medved speaks of Hypocrisy when Medved himself (and most conservative talk show hosts) avoided enlisting for Vietnam while paying lip service to US imperialism. Actions speak louder than words eh?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    cigarfan
    December 29, 2012 8:21 am
    It's the do as I say and not as I do mentallity of conservatism that I detest. They are the first to want to bring back prayer to the classroom until a muslim starts praying in the class room,lol.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    I may be wrong but the prayer in classrooms was to be silent.
    December 29, 2012 10:54 am
    I think that's what I remeber.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Guru
    January 4, 2013 11:41 am
    I've not heard anything about prayer in class for years? The occasional prayer before a football game or something, but please provide me with a recent example of the right trying to bring back prayer in school?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    cigarfan
    December 29, 2012 4:18 pm
    In essence I agree with your 2 points. The contrast is not democrat-republican. As I see it, it is progressivism-classic liberalism. Progressivism favors a large, exceedingly powerful and contolling central state (which ends in a fascist or toltalitarian dictatorship). Classic liberalism is in favor of maximizing individual freedom, which also requires individual responsiblity. These two tensions are opposite ends of the spectrum. Most of the GOP and pretty much all of the democrat party are progressives...which is why government grows under both parties.

    And you are correct, the issue abortion can be boiled down to personhood. When a woman finds out she's pregnant the typical reaction is happiness and a proclaimation she's having a baby...but if she doesn't want it somehow magically it is no longer a baby and becomes excess tissue. Wrong. Can you at least consider that you might be wrong? And if you can go there, doesn't it make sense to be cautious to avoid murdering people if there is even a chance you're wrong? What does it say about folks who refuse to accept they may be wrong? If I'm wrong then we were cautious, if you're wrong you are murdering people. Which is the rational stance...be honest?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @rational
    December 29, 2012 10:47 pm
    Rational, let me help you CLARIFY the water (instead of muddying it). As I see it, Progressives rebelled against the Democratic national convention in the summer of 1968 and were attacked by the Chicago police dept, Ohio progressives got shot at from national guards on Kent state University on May 4th 1970, UW progressives demonstrated against the Kent state shootings and marched on I-5 in Seattle on May 5th 1970, progressives demonstrated against the WTO on NOV 30 1999, progressives marched worldwide on Feburary 15th 2003 against GW Bush's imminent invasion and occupation of Iraq, progressives continue to demonstrate against Conservative endorsement of US imperialism and US hegemony. Conservatives do not question US invasion and occupation...Medved and Conservatives encourage it!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    cigarfan
    December 30, 2012 8:03 am
    It is you who is muddying the water. The progressives protest against the democrats and republicans because they're not moving fast enough for the less patient progressives who were protesting. That doesn't mean they don't have, in the long run, the same goals.

    And I, for one, was against the US going into Iraq and stated so before the we went in. I wasn't posting on this site (if it was even here) at that time, but did so on other boards. What you're ignoring is the fact that the democrats voted in favor of the war as well...so trying to blame one group over another is ignoring reality.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @rational
    December 30, 2012 10:01 am
    You write "What you're ignoring is the fact that the democrats voted in favor of the war as well" I have told you many times I am NOT a democrat because of that reason (and other reasons). When progressives demonstrate against the DNC every election...and routinely get attacked by police, My blame is with the ideology of the Capitalist political parties -Democrats or Republicans. Let's make this clear.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    cigarfan
    December 30, 2012 2:11 pm
    My blame is with the ideology of the Capitalist political parties -Democrats or Republicans. Let's make this clear.

    LOL...you and I are making the same distinction with different names...you're calling them capitalists and I'm calling them progressives. I can assure you that what the democrats and republicans are perpetrating on the American public is not capitalism...at least not free market capitalism...crony capitalism perhaps, which is an element of progressivism.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @rational
    December 30, 2012 3:27 pm
    Time to cut the crap: I support progressive issues like the environmnent, socialism and ending US imperialism and US Hegemony. Let's cut to the chase: I've telling you I stand in the Marxist tradition, founded by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and continued by V.I. Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky. I voted for Jill Stein. In the interests of cutting thru the BS...who did you vote for and who are your political influences?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    what Marxist country is the country that best embodies your belief in Karl marx?
    December 30, 2012 6:18 pm
    and why?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @logical
    December 30, 2012 9:20 pm
    France I would say...because it's the closest thing to democratic socialism that I have seen at this time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    cigar-France is not Marxist. Not even close. Do u know what Marxism is?
    December 31, 2012 10:35 am
    Have u been following the decline in France both fiscally and in unemployment?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @logical
    December 31, 2012 1:13 pm
    I agree...and their socialist president is not very socialist. But you asked, so I gave you the closest thing to democratic socialism(not Stalinism) that I'm attracted to in 2013. Strong unions, single payer healthcare, Paris Commune history, and far less of an income inequality between the working class and the ruling class. Far from ideal, but light years ahead of the USA.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    ok but France is NOT MARXIST. If u beleive in Marxist then pick a Marxist country like China, Cuba
    December 31, 2012 2:53 pm
    Your post makes no sense. Typical lefty. U probably have never even been to China-aint no unions there. Ever hear about tianamin square? ever read about Eastern Europe dumping Marxism? Are u an idiot?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @logical
    December 31, 2012 3:44 pm
    ahhh...I see the problem. You haven't read Marx! Marx discusses alienation, unions, proletariat v bourgeoisie, proletariat revolution, wage-Labor & Capital, The Paris Commune, Civil war, Imperialism and many other items. Get back to me when you wish to discuss MARX.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    I gotta go with cigarfan on this.
    January 2, 2013 6:41 pm
    I cannot stand China. China is like the embodiment of all things greed. I can't think of one other country who is less Marxist than China.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    cigarfan
    December 30, 2012 8:14 pm
    I stand in the tradition of Jesus. My political influences include Hayek, Friedman, Washington and Jefferson. In my life I've never had a single candidate that I believed represented my values well. I held my nose and voted for Romney simply because Obama is statist who appears to desire developing a toltalitarian state. Unfortunately, Romney, like Obama, is a progressive. You might call it a hegemony given the desire to supress the individual states. I was hoping to take the slower road to destruction rather than the express lane...the American people voted for the express lane to destruction.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @rational
    December 30, 2012 9:18 pm
    When you boil it all down...(and remove the mud and BS)....You voted for Romney (GOP). Thank you for finally distilling this information and being honest.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    cigarfan
    December 31, 2012 1:20 am
    You may disagree with me, but I strive to be always honest. Don't miss the holding the nose part in voting for Romney...he's a progressive and diametrically opposed to my worldview...and yet Obama was even worse. Does that paint the appropriate picture for you?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Ciggy
    December 29, 2012 8:20 pm
    Veering further off topic: You spit out the statement "....fetuses are not PERSONS..." like it was some indisputable fact that should put the whole abortion debate to rest. It seems more like an abstract concept, like "A fetus IS a PERSON, a sentient being entitled to the same right to life as the rest of us." If you can make your statement without ANY doubt in the back of your mind, I think we've found a character flaw much deeper than your penchant for that socialism nonsense.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    Cigarillo my Pillow
    December 29, 2012 10:50 pm
    Only persons are protected by the right to life. A 5 week zygote/fetus is not a person, thus it has no rights. OBGYN's, Police, Hospitals, Courts, Nurses, US armed forces and pretty much everyone with the exception of right wing pastors....understand where the lines are drawn legally. It's time you do too. If you are having a hard time, read roe v wade.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    An egg fertilized yesterday is a baby?
    December 29, 2012 9:28 am
    As usual, "rational" isn't.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    William Lawn
    December 29, 2012 4:11 pm
    I wasn't aware you were God and and able to determine that authoritatively. Or perhaps you're just another hypocrite deciding you are god and everyone should be forced to believe as you do.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    I Find it Ironic...
    December 31, 2012 2:41 pm
    ...that Republicans are so up in arms about Planned Parenthood but have no problem sending loads of money to Israel where there is government funded abortion on demand. There is your Republican party protecting the unborn.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    Drool-what is an example of R's being up in arms? Against it, some R's yes but up in arms-no.
    December 31, 2012 3:00 pm
    your point is illogical
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    The Point Makes Perfect Sense
    January 1, 2013 9:42 am
    The Rs want to defund Planned Parenthood because part of what they do (with different funds) is provide abortions. Israel does EXACTLY THE SAME THING. I don't see the pro life crowd picketing the Israeli embassy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @cigarfan...
    December 31, 2012 8:43 am
    "It's conservatives who cheerlead/beat the corporate drums of war, not progressives."

    Pure bovine excrement. Here's one of your 'progressive' icons in a moment of gleeful candor after we overthrew a government to protect our worthless fiat money and take their oil.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O86uaisCVY

    How many less wars are we in on Obama's watch? Oh yeah, none.

    On topic... What are the odds the kid that shot up the school was on some sort of psychotropic or anti-depressant drugs. Like the ones they are giving out like candy to our military people, who's suicide rates are approaching combat death rates. How about banning those...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @roomtemp
    January 1, 2013 2:26 am
    I'm not a democrat so you can keep your "icons". I also don't consider democrats anti-war. (Try not to infer I voted for Obama). I consider Progressives those who rebelled against the Democratic national convention in the summer of 1968 and were attacked by the Chicago police dept, Ohio progressives got shot at from national guards on Kent state University on May 4th 1970, UW progressives demonstrated against the Kent state shootings and marched on I-5 in Seattle on May 5th 1970, progressives demonstrated against the WTO on NOV 30 1999, progressives marched worldwide on Feburary 15th 2003 against GW Bush's imminent invasion and occupation of Iraq, progressives continue to demonstrate against Conservative endorsement of US imperialism and US hegemony. Conservatives do not question US invasion and occupation...Medved and Conservatives encourage it!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @cigarfan...
    January 1, 2013 6:37 pm
    "Try not to infer I voted for Obama"

    Fair enough, I'll try. I wasn't trying to be THAT insulting. [Democrat status=retracted. Iconography=deleted.] -grin

    But Sec. Clinton boldly proclaims herself as a "progressive". Which has become another synonym for liberal democrat. (I understand that this is a fairly recent label hijack.) You might want to look a little further back into the history of progressives before you claim that label though. They are often in favor of things like eugenics, forced sterilization, euthanasia, central government planning of everything, etc.

    Where are the anti war marches and protests NOW btw? That's not a question at you, but to you. Are they still marching and it's getting no media coverage? We are still at war in several locations. I haven't seen anything of the code pink types for a long time. (Hmm, last seen in Egypt among the springing Arabs I think. Right before they went to Islamic rule...ruh oh!)

    "Conservatives do not question US invasion and occupation"

    Yes, they do. And some of us are pretty loud about national offense vs. national defense. True conservatives believe in conserving life, freedom, constitutional rule, money, resources, nature, etc. War squanders all of those things. (We're also vocal about things like the patriot act, NDAA, NDRP, and various other erosions of liberty, property, and privacy under both parties.)

    You're confusing republican cheerleaders like Medved with real conservatives. There is a difference. (Another label hijack) Real conservatives have taken to calling those guys neocons. Don't count me among them.

    I do read your posts though. You often have points to make instead of just a bunch of ad-homs. And even though I may not always agree, I'll listen. You're not one of the ones that make me wish for a turbo setting on my scroll wheel. ;-) Sorry for lumping...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    so I have to give up my handgun due to some one who may commit suicide?
    December 29, 2012 10:53 am
    That makes no sense. I will say GUNS SHOULD BE LOCKED UP IN A STELL CASE.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    test
    December 29, 2012 3:43 pm
    ..
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @logical
    December 29, 2012 8:26 pm
    I'll second that (that part about the suiciders swaying policy). It's one of the weakest arguments from the "Guns are icky" crowd.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Dukey
    December 29, 2012 8:47 pm
    Who are you to deprive a potential suicide committer ("victim" doesn't seem appropriate, so I had to make up a word) of the most effective way to get the job done? Let him have it. It beats jumping off of the Aurora bridge and totally wrecking the teak decking on my boat.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Cigarilo
    December 29, 2012 10:09 pm
    Did you also coin that Faux News term "Homicide Bomber"?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    If it was up to conservatives,
    December 29, 2012 6:04 pm
    there would be no United States of America. We would be nothing more than a colony of England and have to kneel down before prince Charles and call him "your Majesty". Conservatives always have and always will be behind the great thinkers. You only have to look at Iran in the sixties compared to Iran today which is run by religious conservatives and see the fate of America if we are to regress and follow the religious right.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Forrest
    December 29, 2012 8:41 pm
    Your unfounded paranoia about the "religious right" is the manifestation of 50+ years of the "religion ain't cool" mindset coupled with the typical liberal (self) loathing of their own home and history. Using your own methodology, one only has to look back as far as the Godless reigns of Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedung to see the horrors of "secularism".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Cigarillo my pillow
    December 29, 2012 10:57 pm
    When you look at Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann running for president, you gotta wonder what kind of insane theocratic ideas they wanted.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    did Bachman get any traction in the primary-No
    December 30, 2012 9:37 am
    No Santorum come close to Romney in delegates no! quit making up senarios that wont happen!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Cigarillo
    December 30, 2012 7:16 am
    The United States is a secular nation. The religious right wants that to end.

    http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims),—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

    It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Forrest
    December 29, 2012 9:13 pm
    The fact is, Forrest, it was left to classic liberals (what you call conservatives) and they did create the United States of America. Even you can't be so deluded as to believe the founding fathers wanted a tolitarian state with a massive central government...if they did the constitution would have looked much, much different.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Rational
    December 30, 2012 7:27 am
    The liberal versus conservative ideology evolves over time. Today's liberal position will be the conservative's position in the future. Today's conservative position will be doomed to the scrapheap of history. Left to conservative ideology, mankind would still be living in grass huts on the African savanna. Conservatives bring nothing to the table in the way of new ideas for the evolution of the human condition.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Forrest
    December 30, 2012 8:01 am
    All you did was follow up a failed argument with a doubling down by repeating it. Perhaps you have some bizaare definition of what a conservative ideology is that'd lead you to making bogus statements.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Rational, let's let our children decide. Teach both theories.
    December 30, 2012 8:16 am
    Alchemy versus chemistry, phrenology versus neurology, magic versus physics, astrology versus astronomy, creationism versus evolution. Then our opinion won't matter. The future will belong to our children, as it should be. I for one have no desire to return to the 18th century. I think you would fit in nicely though.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    Forest-The most idiotic post u have ever made!
    December 30, 2012 9:36 am
    Conserv's want a smaller federal gov, more states rights. Compare Texas to California, both border states, same population and u get the model of a conserv and lib run state.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    logical open mind
    December 31, 2012 6:25 am
    Government grew more under Reagan and the two Bushes than Obama.

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/19/446990/obama-bush-reagan-government-spending/

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    Forest-then Bush and Reagan were not fully conservative were they.
    December 31, 2012 10:38 am
    r u brainwashed or stoned?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    logical open mind wrote...Bush and Reagan were not fully conservative were they.
    December 31, 2012 4:26 pm
    You got me there. Do you want to talk about Jesus?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    forest-why would I want to talk about Jesus?????
    December 31, 2012 6:03 pm
    I am out of weed-pls explain.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    "If you think the billionaires aren’t rich enough, women have too much control of their bodies and workers get paid too much, this GOP is for you".
    December 29, 2012 6:28 pm
    Just a good line stolen from the internet. The republican party is dead. We just need to cover it with dirt so it doesn't stink so bad.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Forrest
    December 30, 2012 7:59 am
    The republican party is run, for the most part, by folks with the same ideology as the democrat party. The only difference being the extent to carry those progressive ideals.

    The alternative is classical liberals most closely represented (although not perfectly) by the tea part folks...which are hated by both the democrats and most republicans because they stand against the progressive ideals of totalitarian government.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    ya Forest, abortion is illegal, planned parenthood does not have free birth control and facilities all over the place and
    December 30, 2012 9:40 am
    the global free trade economy hasn't happened. Honest to God most libs are plain stupid and cant think for themselves.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Forrest
    December 30, 2012 8:16 am
    We Conservative Americans ARE the United States of America. You mind numbed Useful Idiots only infest our nation with hate and racism and allow Obamunism to spread his Anti-American agenda through out my nation. That very agenda you Parrots blame on Bush!

    Your Dear Leader was given 4 more years of power in my America. I guarantee that your regimes thirst for power will be it's downfall. More and more of Obama supporters are waking up and beginning to bail from the SS ObamaNation.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    It's me! Ha ha!
    December 30, 2012 9:19 am
    When did they wake up, after last months election that indoctrinated him for four more years,ha,ha,ha,. With your type of logic, is there any wonder why the rwnj are not in the White House. Your America died in the 1950's and is not coming back, you better learn to live in the future or you are destined to be left in the PAST.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    Sportsg-I agree that the country has changed and smaller federal government will never happen as the demographics have and will continue to change
    December 30, 2012 9:44 am
    Come back to me on this exact date 40 years from now and I bet u will see that huge federal gov and the huge welfare, single mom society was not beneficial to the country in the least. In fact I will bet u $500 that even u will agree that the USA is a weaker country in 2052.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    logical open mind
    December 30, 2012 10:59 am

    That's a huge assumption Logical. I think if the people run our government like it was intended and not the way it is run today. Our government would probably be smaller and more effecient. Right now people don't have a voice within our federal government, our leaders only listen to deep pocketed lobbyist, business interests and that's it.

    They throw bones at the republican and liberal parties i.e. religions, gun rights, immigration, social services and faux diversity and we the sheep line up on both sides and argue over things that is small and don't matter much in the larger scheme of things while the two party system work for the deep pocketed special interest lobbyist and big business.

    I think government is too big, it's astronomical and is still growing, but until YOU AND ME hold our legislatures, local, state and at the federal level accountable and quit keeping the incumbents on the job just to keep doing the same thing? Things don't change is you keep doing the same thing. Now, I detest the right side because they say they want smaller government, but there was a candidate who campaigned on smaller government Ron Paul and Gary Johnson to a lesser extent I think and guess who they selected? Mitt "flip flop" Romney? That's why I am an independent voter.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    sportsg-I voted for Gary Johnson and I ALWAYS VOTE AGAINST THE INCUMBENT ON NATIONAL AND state races.
    December 30, 2012 6:30 pm
    I have done this for 20 years. I made a assumption based on my work experience with Europe, not as a tourist but a colleague, eating with European families and talking openly. (they dont have politicsl correctness as much). I am convinced that the US voter is very, very ill-informed. I think we are on the long slide in the wrong direction. Will the D's ever, ever try an alternative to the single mom welfare destruction? doubt it Will the middle class ever want to pay $10 for $10 of government?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    logical
    January 1, 2013 2:00 pm
    The USA recently had a stretch where the GOP controlled the WH for 20 of 28 years certainly they had time to move in the direction you find acceptable but they did not I guess you should be pointing to the political right as the source of most of the problems that we are experiencing today.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • logical open mind wrote...
    sportsg-Dear Sir, do u really think the problem in places like chicago will magicaly go away if the majority votes straight D?
    December 30, 2012 8:34 pm
    The cesspool known as Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there have been *****446 school age children shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. ******62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year with almost two weeks to go. So why isn’t this news worthy? Is it because it would embarrass those anti second amendment nuts who brag about Chicago’s tough gun laws? Is it because most of the kids who were shot and killed were minorities? Or is it because the corrupt media doesn’t want to show Chicago in a bad light? Amazingly, no Obama crocodile tears either. For those of you too dense to get the point of this post, it’s to make the point about gun laws. No matter how tough the gun laws are, the crazed, nut jobs will find a way to get them and if they so chose, use them. No draconian law can stop this, no matter how well intentioned the law is, or if it’s just about leftists grabbing power from citizens and taking away their constitutional rights.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Lord Ha ha!
    December 30, 2012 10:10 am
    Your "Conservative Americans ARE the United States of America" membership card and $1 will get you a cup of coffee at any McDonalds....lol
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    sportsguru That is why we Americans will be rescuing our nation from the like of you people.
    December 30, 2012 10:19 am
    American is not dead. It, we, have just lost our way. It is our fault that your that your Dear Leader was re immaculated. Ours and ours alone. We will correct our mistakes. Along with the help of you people and your beloved regime beginning to feed off of it's self, we Americans will take our nation back and return us to a representative form of republic. In 4 more years, even 2 more, Obama will become a lame duck dictator. Only the most mindless of the Useful Idiots among you will be able to ignore the damage of this regime to our nation. Or when our tax dollars run out and inflation is sky high and we are in our third, fourth, fifth ObamaRecession.

    The Gravy train for you Left wing Parrots will end. It is such a shame that it did not end for you Parrots and we Americans having to pay for it last November. It will end. If for no other reason than it goes broke!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }