They must have forgotten that if you are white you aren't allowed to disagree with anyone who is black. Why do you call them "hate" signs? I don't see any hate against a particular race.

Same in Colorado.

Yes, so much better that I used a whole box of Kleenex.

Considering that white people are the majority in this country, it is a good possibility. If I were a betting man, that is where my money would go. Still, most of our Presidents have had an attempt on their life either by some loonie like Hinkley or someone who felt they were screwed over by him.

Seeing as how high is popularity was, I would be surprised myself. That is unless something tanks even further.

Why not? Call it racism and use it to stifle the other side.

Exactly! If a progressive doesn't agree with you they just have to call you a racist and your opinion is automatically invalid.

right or wrong, within your rights or not, it's a just plain stupid and classless move. who does that? you gotta be crazy or have some ridiculous chip on your shoulder and lack the intelligence for a good debate to just flash a gun around to let people know you mean business. what are you, some sort of simian?

the real problem i see is that republicans aren't denouncing these people as crazy and saying this isn't the way we discuss or make policy. these people aren't the base, they're the fringe. and just as liberal fringe groups need to know they make policy harder to discuss, so do the conservatives.

i vote for who's going to do the best job for me, a normal american, (yes, i own guns, no i don't take them around in public and think they'll help make policy), and not appease or join hands with gun toting, ignorant, angry rednecks. what happened to winning the votes of the everyday american? those of us too busy to go to protests all day, too worried about our future to paint placards and march, too intelligent to flash guns around, and too serious to put up with scare tactics?

Unless you have a CCW permit...and carry it concealed

You ask a question but you answer it yourself. :D Why?

It's not that easy. Dog that bites handler gets into trouble. Saying anything about him could affect 2nd amendment rights. That set of rights is being fought for by one of their owners. Problem is that both sides are not independent. Both sides are owned by many various groups. Something that pisses me off. After all, with our vote, we own them. Now that we do, what right do they have to resell themselves? Do you think Dems will condemn something done by one of their handlers? You take my money, you best do as I say if you want the money to keep flowing.

Exactly.

While these guys might not be doing anything illegal, they are certainly guilty of poor judgement.

Simply walking by a hornet's nest will most likely not get you stung. However, poking at it with a stick will raise the possibility by a significant percentage even though you are certainly free to do so...

OK so this guy who you do not know is a simian and an ignorant angry red neck. And the Black Panthers who carried guns in Oakland were freedom fighters, right?
The guy did not flash a gun, he was wearing it on his back. I agree that if he was brandishing it or making a threatening move with it, he should have been arrested at the very least. However, he was making a political statement (1st Amendment) about his rights under the 2nd Amendment.

Was it the wisest way to do it? Maybe not. Was it effective in getting press? yes.

Whatever he was doing to call him what you did is not justified.

And why would he be making that statement, the discussion is about heath care, right?

jeez, you republicans really just have a black and white fight response, don't you? how do you jump to the inference that i'm in cahoots with the black panthers of all people? that's a stretch. and, no, i don't support the black panthers use of firearms to make policy as well. just as stupid, IMO. and just as effective too. obviously we've still got racism, that whole campaign didn't work, this one won't either.

carrying a gun around is not a political statement, it's a threatening albeit empty gesture. in todays world, that is an ignorant rednecky thing to do. this isn't the 1700's, policy is made a little differently now. if you can't play by the rules of civilized society, you are off kilter, there is something wrong with you, i don't think i'm in the minority of this line of thinking.

if all you want is press, by all means, get naked, paint yourself red, and run around in public to get on the big ol' tee vee. big deal, that harms a cause more than helps or informs the debate in any way.

i'm sorry, but the ignorant cowboys were voted out of office, remember? it left an ugly bitter taste in my mouth knowing that that's how business was being done. still taste like crap when i see the slack jawed in the news thinking this is how you get stuff done. that "bring 'em on" attitude pushes those of us in the middle camp far to the other side to dissassociate with this lifestyle. it's what helped the repubs loose the election to begin with. i shudder to think my elected reps listen to these people. we don't negotiate with terrorists as a policy, why start now?

maybe i'm an insensitive jerk but, the truth hurts....

The title of this thread.
 

Say,

I would not be at all surprised if the words used in the first sentence didn't set off some kind of trip wire in the basement of the Secret Service. :eek::eek: I suspect they eavesdrop on those kind of words being used in a sentence or word grouping. Maybe even store them for future profiling. Think of the irony!

Probably tucked awy in that vicious Patriot Act thingy.;)

I'd prefer that he find a way to make his 2nd Amendment point without creating yet another distraction for the President's Secret Service team. Their job is hard enough without having to watch some knucklehead with a gun.