timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Saints without knowing the facts I have to agree with NCC that your definition of well regulated seems far-fetched. Do you have anything written by the FF that would indicated that well regulated meant well equipped?

 

[ATC1]

All right, but let's take the school example. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. After Newtown, ATC1 (I think it was him) made the argument that the elementary school was chosen BECAUSE it was a gun free zone- he called it a "soft target". He argued that schools should not be gun free zones, that it would be safer if responsible teachers and other adults were armed, and that quite possibly that massacre would have been prevented.



How do you respond to this argument?

Prevent would not be completely accurate especially now with the terror threats. However, I don't see how putting a gun in a responsible person's hand in a mass shooting can result in making a bad situation worse. As you said, the Newton shooter shot himself at the first sign of police siren. What if he met resistance a lot sooner? Would he have shot himself in the event someone in the building was carrying? Or lets say it takes the shooters attention away from his targets to a threat. Would that give more time for the police to arrive, or perhaps a chance for a number of people to get away? The recent college shooting Chris Mintz an Army Vet tried to stop the gunman from entering a classroom. Just think if he was able to protect himself and those around him better?

I will admit the absolute worst that can happen is the shooter gets himself killed or shoots another person in the mist of panic. I think most people by now realize that the best thing to do in the event of a shooting is to find cover or play dead. It certainly isnt to run toward the shooter. However, lets say I hit someone in the line of fire. First of all I would be crushed. However, I am not targeting that person, so to get a fatal shot would be less than if the shooter was targeting the person himself. That might seem farfetched to some people, but I dont think people realize that it takes a good shot to kill someone with one shot. Hence why we usually get more injured then dead even when people are targeted. The Newton shooter was allowed to shoot the victims multiple times at close range. There was just no threat of anyone even rushing him.

For those saying I could get shot by police. I have not seen a scenario where this has happened, and would have to be a perfect timing scenario because the altercation would last seconds, but in the event. First time I see law enforcement the hands go up. I also dont think the police would be targeting the person that found cover first. It would be the guy in the open with the AR.

I hear the phrase more guns is not the solution. I dont see how giving the good guys a fighting chance is not a possible solution. Having an unidentified responsible person in a room carrying a gun allows for quicker response and the element of surprise IF the person decides he has the opportunity to intervene. Doesnt mean he has too. This goes into the line of tactical gear for police. Not every situation calls for it, but with proper training we get what occurred during the car shootout with police the other day. Suspects dead and no further loss of life.

I agree with DD and NCC. It is too easy to get a CCP IMO. There should be more intensive training and I think we are coming to that. There are states now that allow people to carry in places they would not normally allow. i.e. State buildings, schools, bars, churches. They are required to jump through more hoops to carry in these places. Perhaps still not to most peoples standards, but it certainly isnt a you own a gun? Oh we trust you with carry. These are also in areas that dont have a lot of crime, so I dont know how much of a deterrent it would be. I just hope that there isnt an incident where someone with a CCP does something to help gun control lobbyist in these places. I think we might be able to reduce that number with more required training.

Interesting commentary, ATC. But isn't it getting easier to get a CCW rather than more difficult? Seems like some states are making it easier.

Have not broken down state by state, but I know in the state of Missisippi you can apply for an extension on the CCW to allow more areas of carry, but you have to do more through the process. I believe Utah and Missuori can now have teachers or school staff carry under certain circumstances and permission from school board etc. I will agree in most if not all states that allow CCW the process is too easy.

 

[timschochet]

We're all ignoramuses in here when it comes to elections, John, especially this year. And that includes all of the so-called experts as well. Not one political pundit on TV or elsewhere predicted that Trump would have this kind of staying power. Not one. I think that if Trump himself was being honest (a rarity) he would admit to being as surprised as anyone else.

The litmus test will be New Hampshire IMO. Iowa tells us little because a caucus is a heavily organized affair. But if Trump wins the primary in NH all bets are off and the panic starts.

I know that in one of the Trump threads a few people including Maurile Trembilay and the Commish have expressed their delight in all this mainly for the upheaval it's causing in our political system. I don't share in their enthusiasm. I'm disgusted and not a little frightened.

I'm less and less worried the more I process it. No one is paying attention yet. Once Trump is forced to get into specifics, he's going to be exposed for the buffoon he is. Plus every shady deal, every dead hooker is going to get scrutinized. He's going to crash and burn imo.

Here's the problem with the no one is paying attention yet argument: they are. As I keep pointing out, the GOP debate ratings are through the roof. They've never had ratings like this before. And the reason Trump appears on so many talk shows is that he gets ratings. Almost everyone knows who Trump is and what he has to say. I would bet that no politician running for President has ever had this much exposure, not even Obama in 2008. And he's still leading the polls. You think he's going to get scrutinized but he's already said stuff that would kill any other candidate a dozen times over. It just washed off him and his numbers go up.

 

[timschochet]

Say I don't understand this whole 3D printer stuff. How's that work? Can you really make a gun at home with a 3D printer? What's that involve and how hard is it? How expensive? And what else can you make with it?

 

[BassNBrew]

Say I don't understand this whole 3D printer stuff. How's that work? Can you really make a gun at home with a 3D printer? What's that involve and how hard is it? How expensive? And what else can you make with it?

Yes, If you have the plans, can program the machine, and know how to assemble it. Of course the equipment isn't cheap. The could ban all guns in the US and confiscate them…it would still be cheaper to buy one on the black market.

 

[BassNBrew]

Tim - Sounds like the co-workers used to make fun of the shooter's beard. I thought CA was the state of tolerance and all the hateful people were confined to the South.

 

[RBM]

We're all ignoramuses in here when it comes to elections, John, especially this year. And that includes all of the so-called experts as well. Not one political pundit on TV or elsewhere predicted that Trump would have this kind of staying power. Not one. I think that if Trump himself was being honest (a rarity) he would admit to being as surprised as anyone else.

The litmus test will be New Hampshire IMO. Iowa tells us little because a caucus is a heavily organized affair. But if Trump wins the primary in NH all bets are off and the panic starts.

I know that in one of the Trump threads a few people including Maurile Trembilay and the Commish have expressed their delight in all this mainly for the upheaval it's causing in our political system. I don't share in their enthusiasm. I'm disgusted and not a little frightened.

I'm less and less worried the more I process it. No one is paying attention yet. Once Trump is forced to get into specifics, he's going to be exposed for the buffoon he is. Plus every shady deal, every dead hooker is going to get scrutinized. He's going to crash and burn imo.

People are paying attention but a large percentage don't care/have no interest in specific policies/plans.

Love to see an honest poll done to see the percentage of would be voters and how concerned they are with hearing specific plans from these candidates. I bet it would be high.

 

[BassNBrew]

Question for you Tim. If you had to pick one defining issue for the election, would it be the economy stupid, immigration, ISIS, something else, or something that has yet to happen?

 

[timschochet]

Tim - Sounds like the co-workers used to make fun of the shooter's beard. I thought CA was the state of tolerance and all the hateful people were confined to the South.

California may have a greater history of racial hatred and bigotry than nearly any state in the union.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Enough of this light-weight stuff........

Tim, did you have a Jewfro?

 

[timschochet]

Question for you Tim. If you had to pick one defining issue for the election, would it be the economy stupid, immigration, ISIS, something else, or something that has yet to happen?

For the Democrats, it's the economy. For Republicans, it's illegal immigration and ISIS. In the end it will likely be the economy, unless terrorists do something really awful- like 9/11 awful.

 

[timschochet]

Enough of this light-weight stuff........

Tim, did you have a Jewfro?

No, I'm pretty bald.

 

[timschochet]

But I'm a good negotiator though!

 

[McGarnicle]

We're all ignoramuses in here when it comes to elections, John, especially this year. And that includes all of the so-called experts as well. Not one political pundit on TV or elsewhere predicted that Trump would have this kind of staying power. Not one. I think that if Trump himself was being honest (a rarity) he would admit to being as surprised as anyone else.

The litmus test will be New Hampshire IMO. Iowa tells us little because a caucus is a heavily organized affair. But if Trump wins the primary in NH all bets are off and the panic starts.

I know that in one of the Trump threads a few people including Maurile Trembilay and the Commish have expressed their delight in all this mainly for the upheaval it's causing in our political system. I don't share in their enthusiasm. I'm disgusted and not a little frightened.

I'm less and less worried the more I process it. No one is paying attention yet. Once Trump is forced to get into specifics, he's going to be exposed for the buffoon he is. Plus every shady deal, every dead hooker is going to get scrutinized. He's going to crash and burn imo.

Here's the problem with the no one is paying attention yet argument: they are. As I keep pointing out, the GOP debate ratings are through the roof. They've never had ratings like this before. And the reason Trump appears on so many talk shows is that he gets ratings. Almost everyone knows who Trump is and what he has to say. I would bet that no politician running for President has ever had this much exposure, not even Obama in 2008. And he's still leading the polls. You think he's going to get scrutinized but he's already said stuff that would kill any other candidate a dozen times over. It just washed off him and his numbers go up.

Maybe my faith is misplaced but in the end I trust the American people. I still think there are more discerning people than idiots, and as this all plays out there will be one or two things that actually stick, and he'll start bleeding. Once the numbers start going in the opposite direction, he'll drop like a stone.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Enough of this light-weight stuff........

Tim, did you have a Jewfro?

No, I'm pretty bald.

So, not even the Larry Fine look?

 

[timschochet]

So the female attacker pledged loyalty to ISIS. ####### great.

No reason not to call this terrorism now. No reason not to blame ISIS, right?

 

[timschochet]

Enough of this light-weight stuff........

Tim, did you have a Jewfro?

No, I'm pretty bald.

So, not even the Larry Fine look?

No, sorry.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Comment on the latest news story: a "Messianic Jew" is not a Jew; it's a Christian who celebrates Jewish holidays.

Like Jesus?

Im no expert on Jesus but I don't believe he was a Christian, as that religion started AFTER his death.

I am no expert on any religion, nor am I an expert on Jesus. Just a throw away comment by me.

 

[timschochet]

Why do the Detroit Lions always find ways to lose in the worst possible way?

It has to be worse at this point to be a Lions fan than a Clippers fan or a Cubs fan, right? I mean there just never seems to be any hope, nothing to celebrate, no great playoff victory to remember- nada. And so many crushing defeats...

 

[timschochet]

Comment on the latest news story: a "Messianic Jew" is not a Jew; it's a Christian who celebrates Jewish holidays.

Like Jesus?

Im no expert on Jesus but I don't believe he was a Christian, as that religion started AFTER his death.

I am no expert on any religion, nor am I an expert on Jesus. Just a throw away comment by me.

Thats why I offered a throwaway response.

 

[RBM]

Why do the Detroit Lions always find ways to lose in the worst possible way?

It has to be worse at this point to be a Lions fan than a Clippers fan or a Cubs fan, right? I mean there just never seems to be any hope, nothing to celebrate, no great playoff victory to remember- nada. And so many crushing defeats...

Browns might be worse.

 

[timschochet]

My only hope of avoiding having to pay tommyboy $500 is if Obama doesn't veto the Senate bill and agrees to gut Obamacare. Hmm. Kind of low odds...

 

[Limp Ditka]

Enough of this light-weight stuff........

Tim, did you have a Jewfro?

No, I'm pretty bald.

So, not even the Larry Fine look?

No, sorry.

But when you had hair, it was.....?

 

[timschochet]

Why do the Detroit Lions always find ways to lose in the worst possible way?

It has to be worse at this point to be a Lions fan than a Clippers fan or a Cubs fan, right? I mean there just never seems to be any hope, nothing to celebrate, no great playoff victory to remember- nada. And so many crushing defeats...

Browns might be worse.

But they have Jim Brown and Paul Brown- I know the Lions also had success in the 50s but it's not as well remembered.

 

[timschochet]

Enough of this light-weight stuff........

Tim, did you have a Jewfro?

No, I'm pretty bald.

So, not even the Larry Fine look?

No, sorry.

But when you had hair, it was.....?

You guys are awfully persistent on this question. Yeah if I let it grow out I suppose I was a bit Alan Dershowitzy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints without knowing the facts I have to agree with NCC that your definition of well regulated seems far-fetched. Do you have anything written by the FF that would indicated that well regulated meant well equipped?

It's not just well equipped, it means well ordered, which means administration, command structure, the arming, the uniforms, everything.

It also raises the question of who does the regulating. The right is a "right of the people" therefore the regulation comes from the people themselves.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us
well-regulated
Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all
well-regulated
courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a
well-regulated
clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every
well-regulated
person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her
well-regulated
mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every
well-regulated
American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

[timschochet]

When you say "the people" does the regulating, doesn't that mean the government more that it means some individual guy? People is a collective term.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

When you say "the people" does the regulating, doesn't that mean the government more that it means some individual guy? People is a collective term.

No, in the USC, "the People" is always separate from the federal government and the state. It's three different things, and the federal government is never referred to as such, it is always the president, Congress (and then House or Senate) or the courts.

If you had a government which simply said it represented the rights of the people and the people both have rights but have no rights because the government holds all the rights on behalf of the people then you either end up with absolute monarchy ( l'etat c'est moi) or the USSR.

 

[timschochet]

All right so let's get down to the nitty gritty then: in your view does the Constitution allow the state to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

All right so let's get down to the nitty gritty then: in your view does the Constitution allow the state to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms?

Let's put it this way - has the state when it's done this rendered it impossible for the people to form militias when the security of a free state is in danger?

I'd say in the case of Heller, the DC cop who wanted to own a handgun, yes. In that situation the state has completely taken away the ability to keep and bear arms whatsoever. So that is not ok. But I think the state can regulate in ways lesser than that. I think it's ok to say that arms meant rifles and pistols back then, not cannons and the sort of materiel that would be used by militaries (bazookas, missiles, SAMs) today would be right out. I think assault riffles are the pretty clear demarcation which are either necessary for a well-regulated militia or not. They probably are. People have a problem with an amendment but it does say what it says.

 

[timschochet]

But can the state say when and where you can have a gun? (CCW, gun free zone)?

Can the state require background checks and make the purchase of a gun illegal for felons, mentally ill, suspected terrorists?

Can the state require registration of every gun?

Can the state require a gun license and training?

Can the state place special taxes on guns as it does cigarettes?

Can the state make certain guns illegal such as AR-15s?

Can the state limit chamber and bullet capacity?

 

[timschochet]

And also Saints when you wrote that the state can make illegal weapons like the military would use (SAMs, bazookas, etc) aren't you screwing up your own argument by distinguishing between a military and a militia, and insisting that the military has the right to be more powerful than the militia? If the military can always defeat the militia due to much more powerful weapons, what is the point of the militia again?

 

[timschochet]

It seems to me that if one carries this logic of a militia needing to defend itself from the threat of a tyrannical government to its consistent end, then there shouldn't be ANY restriction on what a private citizen should be allowed to own. SAMS, drones, nuclear weapons all might be necessary for Joe the rancher to resist the power of the federal authorities.

 

[RCon]

OK. I've never heard that before. Interesting.

Because it's a ridiculous way to define the sentence. Mental gymnastics and gyrations.

IMO, it's the only explanation I've ever heard that makes that phrase make sense in context with the rest of the text. The well-regulated militia part never made sense to me any other way. Neither the gun-rights nor gun-abolitionists explanations ever made any sense. Defining regulated as a synonym for equipped turns the entire text of the amendment into something that makes perfect sense.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And also Saints when you wrote that the state can make illegal weapons like the military would use (SAMs, bazookas, etc) aren't you screwing up your own argument by distinguishing between a military and a militia, and insisting that the military has the right to be more powerful than the militia? If the military can always defeat the militia due to much more powerful weapons, what is the point of the militia again?

Well the latter would be a flaw in their reasoning. The Framers did not expect or want a standing military. I'm not saying it would have any effect or serve any purpose but the people do have the right to defend themselves and also determine their own government, and unfortunately in history that has often been determined at the point of a gun, I think that's the point of the amendment.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It seems to me that if one carries this logic of a militia needing to defend itself from the threat of a tyrannical government to its consistent end, then there shouldn't be ANY restriction on what a private citizen should be allowed to own. SAMS, drones, nuclear weapons all might be necessary for Joe the rancher to resist the power of the federal authorities.

Well if you're gonna keep and bear arms they have to fit inside of your house or on your person.

But you may have a point, did the Framers expect that militia could operate without cannon and such? I don't know really, but obviously they were contemplating ordinary personal arms that a person could possess.

I also think the 'tyrannical government' thing is overstated. The Brits obviously (as NCC has/will point out) had the right to quarter troops in your house and also to seize your weapons. I don't think people had any inclination of going back to that. It would probably amuse or worry the framers to hear a "liberal" of today basically making the Tory argument that the crown does indeed retain that right some 200+ years after the USC was finished.

 

[RCon]

We're all ignoramuses in here when it comes to elections, John, especially this year. And that includes all of the so-called experts as well. Not one political pundit on TV or elsewhere predicted that Trump would have this kind of staying power. Not one. I think that if Trump himself was being honest (a rarity) he would admit to being as surprised as anyone else.

The litmus test will be New Hampshire IMO. Iowa tells us little because a caucus is a heavily organized affair. But if Trump wins the primary in NH all bets are off and the panic starts.

I know that in one of the Trump threads a few people including Maurile Trembilay and the Commish have expressed their delight in all this mainly for the upheaval it's causing in our political system. I don't share in their enthusiasm. I'm disgusted and not a little frightened.

I'm less and less worried the more I process it. No one is paying attention yet. Once Trump is forced to get into specifics, he's going to be exposed for the buffoon he is. Plus every shady deal, every dead hooker is going to get scrutinized. He's going to crash and burn imo.

Here's the problem with the no one is paying attention yet argument: they are. As I keep pointing out, the GOP debate ratings are through the roof. They've never had ratings like this before. And the reason Trump appears on so many talk shows is that he gets ratings.Almost everyone knows who Trump is and what he has to say. I would bet that no politician running for President has ever had this much exposure, not even Obama in 2008. And he's still leading the polls. You think he's going to get scrutinized but he's already said stuff that would kill any other candidate a dozen times over. It just washed off him and his numbers go up.

Maybe my faith is misplaced but in the end I trust the American people. I still think there are more discerning people than idiots, and as this all plays out there will be one or two things that actually stick, and he'll start bleeding. Once the numbers start going in the opposite direction, he'll drop like a stone.

No way on the bolded. However, I imagine a larger percentage of the discerning people vote.

I still like my proposal for voting. Everyone gets a vote, but you can either vote in reality TV contests or actual elections, but not both.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We're all ignoramuses in here when it comes to elections, John, especially this year. And that includes all of the so-called experts as well. Not one political pundit on TV or elsewhere predicted that Trump would have this kind of staying power. Not one. I think that if Trump himself was being honest (a rarity) he would admit to being as surprised as anyone else.

The litmus test will be New Hampshire IMO. Iowa tells us little because a caucus is a heavily organized affair. But if Trump wins the primary in NH all bets are off and the panic starts.

I know that in one of the Trump threads a few people including Maurile Trembilay and the Commish have expressed their delight in all this mainly for the upheaval it's causing in our political system. I don't share in their enthusiasm. I'm disgusted and not a little frightened.

I'm less and less worried the more I process it. No one is paying attention yet. Once Trump is forced to get into specifics, he's going to be exposed for the buffoon he is. Plus every shady deal, every dead hooker is going to get scrutinized. He's going to crash and burn imo.

Here's the problem with the no one is paying attention yet argument: they are. As I keep pointing out, the GOP debate ratings are through the roof. They've never had ratings like this before. And the reason Trump appears on so many talk shows is that he gets ratings.Almost everyone knows who Trump is and what he has to say. I would bet that no politician running for President has ever had this much exposure, not even Obama in 2008. And he's still leading the polls. You think he's going to get scrutinized but he's already said stuff that would kill any other candidate a dozen times over. It just washed off him and his numbers go up.

Maybe my faith is misplaced but in the end I trust the American people. I still think there are more discerning people than idiots, and as this all plays out there will be one or two things that actually stick, and he'll start bleeding. Once the numbers start going in the opposite direction, he'll drop like a stone.

No way on the bolded. However, I imagine a larger percentage of the discerning people vote.

I still like my proposal for voting. Everyone gets a vote, but you can either vote in reality TV contests or actual elections, but not both.

Ha, that's great. Can we do that with candidates too, once they've been on a reality show they can't run for president?

 

[RCon]

How many tyrants has this well regulated militia overthrown?

Well, I guess King George would be one.

More to the point, does it matter? No matter how many tyrants have been overthrown, wouldn't the more important question be "How many times has the amendment been revoked?"

 

[RCon]

We're all ignoramuses in here when it comes to elections, John, especially this year. And that includes all of the so-called experts as well. Not one political pundit on TV or elsewhere predicted that Trump would have this kind of staying power. Not one. I think that if Trump himself was being honest (a rarity) he would admit to being as surprised as anyone else.

The litmus test will be New Hampshire IMO. Iowa tells us little because a caucus is a heavily organized affair. But if Trump wins the primary in NH all bets are off and the panic starts.

I know that in one of the Trump threads a few people including Maurile Trembilay and the Commish have expressed their delight in all this mainly for the upheaval it's causing in our political system. I don't share in their enthusiasm. I'm disgusted and not a little frightened.

I'm less and less worried the more I process it. No one is paying attention yet. Once Trump is forced to get into specifics, he's going to be exposed for the buffoon he is. Plus every shady deal, every dead hooker is going to get scrutinized. He's going to crash and burn imo.

Here's the problem with the no one is paying attention yet argument: they are. As I keep pointing out, the GOP debate ratings are through the roof. They've never had ratings like this before. And the reason Trump appears on so many talk shows is that he gets ratings.Almost everyone knows who Trump is and what he has to say. I would bet that no politician running for President has ever had this much exposure, not even Obama in 2008. And he's still leading the polls. You think he's going to get scrutinized but he's already said stuff that would kill any other candidate a dozen times over. It just washed off him and his numbers go up.

Maybe my faith is misplaced but in the end I trust the American people. I still think there are more discerning people than idiots, and as this all plays out there will be one or two things that actually stick, and he'll start bleeding. Once the numbers start going in the opposite direction, he'll drop like a stone.

No way on the bolded. However, I imagine a larger percentage of the discerning people vote.

I still like my proposal for voting. Everyone gets a vote, but you can either vote in reality TV contests or actual elections, but not both.

Ha, that's great. Can we do that with candidates too, once they've been on a reality show they can't run for president?

Sure. Hell, let's take it a step further. Once you've watched a reality show, you can't run for any office at all.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Ok next on my President list.......

....... no wait, damn, i finished that. Ah well, back to guns I guess.

 

[bosoxs45]

Tim, What's your favorite Rolling Stones album? I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

 

[timschochet]

Just finished listening to the last 15 minutes of a Townhall with John Kasich. Damn I really like this guy. Don't always agree with him but he is such a good, thoughtful, nuanced guy. If somehow he got the nomination I might have to abandon Hillary.

A new campaign promise: if elected Kasich said he will invite Roger Waters and Dave Gilmour to the inaugural and insist they get back together.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, What's your favorite Rolling Stones album? I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

Anything with Mick Taylor. Probably Exile or Sticky Fingers.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, I feel obligated to report this to you.

The Daily Beast just reported in an oh by the way at the end of a major expose about Trump, this: "his lawyer, mentor, and close friend, Roy Cohn..."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/26/inside-donald-trumps-empire-why-he-wont-run-for-president.html

So you nailed it. That's two degrees of separation from Joe Mac there.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I feel obligated to report this to you.

The Daily Beast just reported in an oh by the way at the end of a major expose about Trump, this: "his lawyer, mentor, and close friend, Roy Cohn..."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/26/inside-donald-trumps-empire-why-he-wont-run-for-president.html

So you nailed it. That's two degrees of separation from Joe Mac there.

Awesome. Roy Cohn the Jewish gay paranoid right wing attorney. ever see the James Woods HBO movie? Really good.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, I feel obligated to report this to you.

The Daily Beast just reported in an oh by the way at the end of a major expose about Trump, this: "his lawyer, mentor, and close friend, Roy Cohn..."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/26/inside-donald-trumps-empire-why-he-wont-run-for-president.html

So you nailed it. That's two degrees of separation from Joe Mac there.

Awesome. Roy Cohn the Jewish gay paranoid right wing attorney. ever see the James Brooks HBO movie? Really good.

No, I remember it but never saw it. I read a fair amount about Cohn and McCarthy at one point. Mostly because it was such an odd period in American politics. How did this junior senator from Wisconsin get to wield so much power so quickly through one committee?

 

[timschochet]

Because like Trump McCarthy was willing to tell brazen lies that a large sector of the public wanted to believe. Most politicians don't dare do this. They may tell lies about their own affairs (such as the Clintons) but they don't lie about political facts that can easily be disproved. McCarthy played on the fear of traitors in the country after Alger Hiss was found to be a spy. No Hiss, no Rosenbergs, no McCarthy.

 

[Joe T]

How many tyrants has this well regulated militia overthrown?

One?

 

[timschochet]

How many tyrants has this well regulated militia overthrown?

One?

Not by themselves though. We needed the French.