The White House did not heavily alter talking points about the attacks on a US diplomatic mission in Libya, an official said on Saturday.

"If there were adjustments made to them within the intelligence community, that's common, and that's something they would have done themselves," Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, told reporters. "The only edit ... made by the White House was the factual edit as to how to refer to the facility."

My guess is that Holder did it. But whatever. Whether it was actually "done" by the DOD, by state, by the DOJ, we can rest assured that Obama gave the order, similar to a mob boss ordering a hit but not actually pulling the trigger. Probably with Axelrod advising him.

I don't have a comprehensive list, and I'm sure some items on such a list would be cause for debate.

God forbid we embark on something that might require debate; let's just keep arguing against strawmen...

That was the part of the debate where you were arguing with yourself. The rest of us were leading you to the self-awareness that you are in fact OK with some weapons bans, and then a discussion of what weapons should be banned and what other regulations should apply, which you so kindly declined.

My guess is that Holder did it. But whatever. Whether it was actually "done" by the DOD, by state, by the DOJ, we can rest assured that Obama gave the order, similar to a mob boss ordering a hit but not actually pulling the trigger.

Like all governments - including the Bush administration - these people are forever telling lies without technically lying.

What would be the point of cataloguing and debating various weapons before people acknowledge that the right to possess at least some firearms plainly exists?

Thanks for assuring us all. Now we can rest at last.

While the mob thing is a bit silly, I don't really disagree with any of this.

A right can exist and not be a constitutional right. People insisted on their rights long before the US constitution. Same with the dumbass idea of making corporations a person with human rights. That does not have to follow.

What would be the point of cataloging and debating various weapons before people acknowledge that the right to possess at least some firearms plainly exists? Also, when debating gun rights, pointing out that places like Chicago and D.C. had flat gun bans — and would like to reinstate such bans — is not remotely a "strawman."

I'm not really a gun enthusiast--is "flat gun" a synonym for "hand guns and auto/semi-autos"?

Nobody, not even DC/Chitown legislators, is denying "the right to possess at least some firearms", they just drew extremely narrow limits.

is such a fundamental right as to be understood not to even need constitutional protection,

Sure, but until all sides here acknowledge that the right to possess forearms is either protected by the Second Amendment or, per your comment above, is such a fundamental right as to be understood not to even need constitutional protection, there's no sense debating whether Weapon A or Weapon B should be allowed, or whether magazines should be limited to six, nine, or 100 bullets, etc.

No, you insist on having your gods and their pronouncements, don't you? It's not just that it it's not prohibited in the constitution, or mandated by the constitution, it's not even contemplated by the Constitution. Thus, legislation by states or by the national government can be enacted all along the spectrum of possibilities. It's up to us to decide where.

A right can exist and not be a constitutional right.

You can have your views on what should be the law along a spectrum of 0 to 9 and so can I.

Okay, so we're back to you saying what you said you weren't saying.

Remember my Indian Reservation example? The place, a residential place, a natural reserve, filled with volatile and inflammable gases due to dumping by petrochemical companies. Can the state or federal government pass a law prohibiting the ownership and possession of guns?

BTW, just as a matter of curiosity, if the Second Amendment were repealed, what would that mean to your concept of it as a right? Would it still be this sacrosanct right? Could states, localities, the federal government enact legislation banning them?

Why would people be inhabiting such areas in the first place? Regardless, it seems akin to cars and blizzards: The government doesn't ban ownership of cars after a major blizzard hits, but it can shut the roads for a day or two in the aftermath.

Both the Founders and the Constitution made clear that we don't get our rights from the government, and I'm solidly in that camp myself.

... I thought you were actually talking about rights. I guess you were really talking about whims.

You should answer what was put to you, not change it to your liking.

Second, as Harveys Wallbangers noted, and as I mentioned a number of times (Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickok), guns have been banned in places and at times.

Another unresponsive response. What would that mean, if the second amendment were repealed, as to the government's ability to make law on the issue of guns?

The second amendment does not have such clear and unambiguous language, does it? (This last is not a rhetorical question. Why doesn't the second amendment just say, that neither Congress nor the state legislature can pass any law banning the right to have and bear guns. You resting your entire case on "ban" when the amendment says "infringe". Why do you give ground like that?

Here's an off-topic question - I'm going to Boston for the first time as a tourist in many years (only gigs and weddings since college). Before I go invade Sed Sox Therapy with this question, does anyone have any good can't-miss or randomly odd things I shouldn't miss over Thanksgiving weekend? Weird tips especially appreciated.

The conservative radio host pointed to an Italian study which found that the average male penis was 10 percent smaller than 50 years ago.

Sorry for the boring tactical digression.

Obama used her, to her great detriment. Way to treat a minority woman in your administration.

Given that private firearm possession was legal in 100 percent of the United States for decades after ratification, including even by people who weren't, at the time, otherwise seen as enjoying full constitutional protection (women, blacks), the Second Amendment is only ambiguous to people who decided to start playing lawyer some 150 years after the Constitution was drafted and ratified.

During the Revolutionary war, firearms were confiscated from people who refused to sign loyalty oaths to the new government.

Most southern states banned slaves from owning guns. Virginia and South Carolina, among other states, passed explicitly racial laws preventing even freed blacks from owning guns.

You really have no clue what you're talking about here.

The Constitution was ratified during the Revolutionary War?

Every black person in the U.S. was a slave?

You said this: "the Second Amendment is only ambiguous to people who decided to start playing lawyer some 150 years after the Constitution was drafted and ratified."

It was ambiguous to the founders who required loyalty oaths to own guns.

Virginia and the Carolinas passed laws preventing even freed blacks from owning guns.

I didn't say that every single black person was allowed to own guns in 1789. The point was, at least some blacks were allowed to own guns before they were allowed, among other things, to vote.

Given that private firearm possession was legal in 100 percent of the United States for decades after ratification, including even by people who weren't, at the time, otherwise seen as enjoying full constitutional protection (women, blacks),

You mean the people who declared independence from the world's dominant power didn't issue guns to people who might oppose their efforts?

Both the Founders and the Constitution made clear that we don't get our rights from the government, and I'm solidly in that camp myself.

I dunno, any debate between Joe and Morty pretty much vaults to the head of the "unwanted previews of an eternity in hell" designation.

I dunno, any debate between Joe and Morty pretty much vaults to the head of the "unwanted previews of an eternity in hell" designation.

WASHINGTON, DC – Sources confirmed today that hundreds of thousands of military absentee ballots were delivered hours after the deadline for them to be counted, with preliminary counts showing that they would have overturned the vote in several states and brought a victory for Governor Mitt Romney.

Officials say the ballots were delivered late due to problems within the military mail system. Tracking invoices show the ballots sat in a warehouse for a month, then they were accidentally labeled as ammunition and shipped to Afghanistan. At Camp Dwyer, Marine Sergeant John Davis signed for them and was surprised at the contents.

“I told Gunny we got a bunch of ballots instead of ammo,” Davis told investigators earlier today. “He told me to file a report of improper delivery and that the chain of command would take care of it. We didn’t hear anything for three weeks. While we were waiting we came under fire so we dumped a bunch of them in the Hescoes. We didn’t dig those ones back out.”
After military officials realized the initial error, the ballots were then sent back to the U.S. but suffered a series of setbacks.

Twelve boxes of ballots were dropped overboard during delivery to the USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) in the Persian Gulf, then while the ship sailed to Bahrain, postal clerks allegedly pocketed whatever ballots they wanted.
The remaining absentee ballots were loaded onto a C-130, but the flight was delayed until November 1st so the crew could get tax free pay for the month. Once the ballots arrived stateside they were promptly mailed to each state’s counting facility, reaching their final destination on November 7th.

“It’s a shame,” Rear Admiral John Dawes said when asked for comment. “I expected a delay so I ordered that everyone cast their votes eight months ago. It’s really unfortunate that our mail system failed us and directly affected the course of history.”

Upon hearing the news, angry Republicans have begun a demand for a recount, but most military absentee voters have shrugged off the news, with many wondering whether the care packages their families sent six months ago were ever going to show up.

The remaining absentee ballots were loaded onto a C-130, but the flight was delayed until November 1st so the crew could get tax free pay for the month. Once the ballots arrived stateside they were promptly mailed to each state’s counting facility, reaching their final destination on November 7th.

Sources confirmed today that hundreds of thousands of military absentee ballots were delivered hours after the deadline for them to be counted, with preliminary counts showing that they would have overturned the vote in several states and brought a victory for Governor Mitt Romney.

Through error or mischief, the article being passed around as 100% true.

AskMarion says:
November 10, 2012 at 9:08 pm

I have had an amazing response (reads, comments and emails) to this post, which is satirical. The first time I read it, I thought it was true, until I looked around on the originial site.

However… although the Duffel Bag is a satirical site, there have been reports that many of our military personnel were not able to vote because of lack of voting stations, and there are all to often missing ballots.

About 80% of the Duffell Bag’s posts are satirical or humorous, but often when pieces like this are written, they are based on some truth and suspicions; a subtle way of saying look into this without giving up sources or being marked as a whistleblower. Most jokes and humor hit a nerve because there is at least a hint of underlying truth involved.

but often when pieces like this are written, they are based on some truth and suspicions; a subtle way of saying look into this without giving up sources or being marked as a whistleblower. Most jokes and humor hit a nerve because there is at least a hint of underlying truth involved.

Kehoskie is wrong about his textual reading of the second amendment and he is ignorant of the history of gun ownership and government control. He can't think outside his box and he won't inform himself.

Anyway, it's really lucky for America that people as smart as Morty Causa and Sam Hutcheson came along to dispel the incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment

Look, #######. You can't even read well enough for comprehension to *establish my ####### position.* You're a really good example of why abortion should be legal.

Anyway, it's really lucky for America that people as smart as Morty Causa and Sam Hutcheson came along to dispel the incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment that remained in effect in 100 percent of the United States from 1789 to roughly 1960, and in 80-plus percent of the United States from around 1960 until Heller and McDonald, when it reverted back to being in effect in 100 percent of the United States.

So it's your position that it'd be constitutional to ban white people from owning guns?

Is there a single person here who thinks that the government should subsidize the rebuilding houses and businesses on coastal strips where people have been warned about the risks for what seems like forever?

In a disappointing development, Drudge had a substanceless attack headline on Christie this AM, giving it play over the Israel-Gaza war. The radical right attack on plausible 2016 moderates has already begun.

While I agree that attacking Christie is skeezy, he's not a plausible candidate for 2016.

I suppose the Government of North Korea would give serious consideration to nuking one its own provinces if such province was in open rebellion... but even in the case of North Korea- if you are facing a widespread and diverse rebellion- what good are nukes?

could some random rich guy go out and buy a cannon keep it for personal use? I'm sure was completely impractical to do so

This one's for Ray Ray. Scandal envy.

I am not challenging you, because I have little insight into the GOP, but can you explain why the list of not plausible is? I agree with a little over half, but I could see some of them show up. Aside, what are your thoughts on the Democrat side?

Why?

Christie is massively overweight

A few months back someone posted a hypothetical scenario about someone who elected not to insure their house and watched it burn down.

I've seen this posted many times. What difference does it make how big he is?

Mostly their behavior after the election. A lot of these guys have demonstrated that they don't have a commitment to campaigning for president, which is a very difficult, full time job. Mitch Daniels has decided to not act as a partisan actor--he is running Perdue now and doesn't want to comment on Politics. Christie is massively overweight and bowed out of the race this cycle, which is a bad sign for his willingness to campaign in 2016. If Ryan wants to run, he pretty much has to resign from his house seat sometime in the next year or so. He takes too many votes from that seat.

Basically, a lot of these guys either lost the last invisible primary, or have demonstrated an unwillingness to campaign. Jindal's the only 2012 invisible primary loser who started campaigning after the election. That's pretty much what you need to do in order to be considered. It's a pretty wide open field right now, though. I think most of those guys are pretty clearly out, though.

I've seen this posted many times. What difference does it make how big he is?

A few months back someone posted a hypothetical scenario about someone who elected not to insure their house and watched it burn down.

I've seen this posted many times. What difference does it make how big he is?

Look at the before/after pictures of any president. They just age in dog years.

There's nothing funnier than liberals claiming to have a monopoly on open-mindedness.

Wade Hampton was able to equip a larger than brigade sized force out of his own pocket in 1860. Including IIRC two batteries of artillery.

Historically, Americans have generally been reluctant to vote for a fat guy (with Taft being a notable exception).

With the nation's increasing obesity, that may not carry forward, of course.

You ever notice how male politicians never have facial hair?

've not said there's a scandal here. I said Holder should have told Obama about the Petraeus/Broadwell investigation before the election, and Obama used Susan Rice as a patsy to peddle false information about Benghazi for political gain. That's not a scandal; it's politics. If everything I said is true, it is no crime; it carries no penalty.

And I'm not arguing with that. And I'm not putting areas that get a Sandy once every 100 years in the same category that see hurricanes every 5 or 10 years.

Actually, I hadn't. But now that you mention it, I see that it is true. Any ideas why?

In the 20th and 21st century, Americans value images of youthful vigor over images of manly wisdom. The growing obesity demographic may push the weight criteria up a bit from where it currently rests, but Americans want to vote for a candidate they find physically attractive. Modern male aesthetics mean no facial hair. (It also helps in that regard that beards and unshaven faces have been associated with dirty hippies since the 1960s.)

Historically, Americans have generally been reluctant to vote for a fat guy (with Taft being a notable exception).

221. BurlyBuehrle Posted: July 03, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4172237)

Having read most of this thread, and generally lurking here, a couple points stand out to me:

(1) [snip]

(2) Libertarian arguments are very rarely called to task for the "what now?" aspect that they completely ignore. Assume for a moment that we can somehow configure a society where opting out of, say, fire control, only puts your specific property at risk. (Put aside the inanity of that assumption.) A family makes the choice to opt out and pocket the savings. Their house, with all their worldly possessions, burns to the ground. *What Now?* The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit? And, what about the collateral damage -- the children of that family didn't have the agency necessary to participate in the decision to opt out, and yet, they will be harshly penalized. *What Now?* A very similar argument can be made for healthcare. The Hobbesian fantasyland where there are these isolated choices that don't affect others simply doesn't exist. We live in a society, where your choices affect me. Deal with it.

A family makes the choice to opt out and pocket the savings. Their house, with all their worldly possessions, burns to the ground. *What Now?* The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit? And, what about the collateral damage -- the children of that family didn't have the agency necessary to participate in the decision to opt out, and yet, they will be harshly penalized. *What Now?*

Even Katrina, for all of its intensity, caused its biggest damage as a result of the fact that a massive amount of water was perched unstably over a city.