A great read, and I agree every gun owner should read it.

Good for the NRA, I knew I was a Life Member and gave them all that money for a reason.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

Radical judges are legislating from the bench!!!

And why get on Newsom? The citizens of San Francisco voted for the ban.

but the City's      mayor      and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

 “America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

you're probably correct, Krull shouldn't have singled out the mayor.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

Krull, you should be a speech writer.

"radical left"

"Mike and Larry have both posted that the concerns by gun owners are overblown when it comes to our concerns about loss of our gun rights." - I dont' know about Mike but I don't intend on anyone "losing their gun rights" unless it's the right to be stupid with guns (see the other thread where we agreed)

"radical judges" - i.e., the judges that don't agree with my thinking.  Of course that could possibly disclude a judge that ruled against counting all the votes or one that tried to rule against a family having control of a loved ones wishes.

I've made my point and don't want to be redundantly redundant.

"Gun Rights" is a wedge issue.  There is no way that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will outlaw the ownership of guns on a wholesale level.  This is nothing short of churning the pot for a Republican candidate.

On the other hand, I do have to chuckle at the constant reference to "gun ownership" in relationship to a "militia".  I think we have the armed forces to do that bidding for us.  I certainly hope that no one is going to go "traitor" on us and not "support the troops" by saying they will overthrow our citizenry, thus we must protect ourselves from ourselves.

"we have met the enemy and he is us" - Pogo

I was speaking about politicans and judges with this post, that is why Newsom was singled out.

Larry, my point is simple. The hardcore anti-gunners, which many if not most are from the radical left, are working without rest to take gun rights away from everyone. This is one example of it happening in San Fran.

You and Mike try to sell it as the concerns being unwarranted, or used for another purpose, "a wedge issue".

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

I AM a radical lefty, and I would never dream of taking away your right to own a gun. You need to point your finger at the moderates where it belongs. Also, Democrats are NOT radical lefties, they are moderates, and they want your guns.

they did rule in the gun culture's favor. Pretty remarkable, given the 9th circuit is the most liberal in the nation. But there is a pattern of judges all over the nation legislating from the bench, on both liberal and conservative issues. That is flat out wrong!

As for the Radical Left, Newsom is part of it. I never have assigned the moniker of Radical Left to demos. Look at Lieberman, a long time demo, far from being a radical. Richardson also a demo and not a radical. Obama, he's a radical lefty, as is Kucinich. Radical is just another name for extemism, and that runs through all parties and outside politics.

You Rob, I don't think you are a radical with respect to your political beliefs. You would probably an orthodox anarchist, or perhaps a conservative anarchist. How about that, I consider you a conservative!!! :)

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

I don't know if my laughter is from humor or from sadness that you miss the entire point - discriptive terminology changes based on where the delivery person is coming from.

According to YOU, Schultz is a "liberal mouthpiece".  I wouldn't expect less from someone to the Right of Attilla the Hun.

See....isn't that fun?

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

before I blow my brains out with the gun I don't own.

Chris (I'm using your first name to create an alliance, not separation, please call me Larry), the conteniousness of this point is just plain silly.  As a marketing professional, I'd try to convince you that McDonalds sold health food, thus all the titles in the world are nothing more than rhetoric.

As a daily listener (more than a hit one average quarter hour per month) of Schultz, I would find his position on many issues to be close to a moderate Republican.  Hell, one of his favorite guests, with whom he agrees is Pat Buchanan.  Please don't try to tell me Buchanan is a liberal.

In jest, I'm saying that watching you right now is like watching a man try to win a race with one foot nailed to the ground.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

feelings hurt Gug? Some times they serve as mouth peices, like when a politican writes a book and comes on to promote it. Schultz takes money from politicians. Far as I know Rush, Hannity, et al do not. I could be wrong, but if it were true I am sure I would have heard the liberal noise on that issue by now.

Are Rush, Hannity and so on partisan? Sure. But that is different than a paid mouth peice isn't it? C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

this is going from the ridiculous to the sublime

"SCHULTZ: You can make the case that both al Qaeda and Musharraf would benefit from Benazir Bhutto being offed. You can make the case that the United States, the war hawks in the United States, benefited from her being offed because they’ve never seen a war they didn’t love and this is a chance for more intervention."

The Fargo-based madman really outdid himself with that one"

AND

"The title of the piece was, humorously given that liberal talk radio has done almost nothing in America besides fail miserably, “The Coming Rise of Liberal Talk Radio:”

Add "madman" to my list of rhetorical rhetoric....

Let me guess, Chris.  If this were a conversation on Biblical issues and I posed one paragraph, you'd say I took it out of context. As to the ratings rant, Schultz kicked Dory Monson's butt in the Seattle market so bad that Monson went to right wing pandering to try to redevelop an audience.  I once listened to Monson and Schultz. Monson's blantant pander became so intolerable he lost me entirely - and many others.  You can check the ratings for yourself.  Make sure you compare apples to apples - average quarter hour listeners and not station cume.

You have damned near nailed the other foot to the floor.

Can we attempt to be close to logical with this discussion????

"Ed Schultz accepts money from politicians" and reviewing 3 pages of google results, I can't find anything remotely close to that.

Maybe the politician bought one of Ed's books.  Yeah....THAT would be something you'd never see O'Reilly do.

Let's at least attempt to avoid slandering people on these discussions.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

Now THIS is investigative journalism at it's best:

"Rhodes often jokes on air that she works in radio because of her "bad hair and blotchy skin," but, in person, she turns out to be an attractive bottle-blond who wouldn't look terribly out of place in the front row at an Aerosmith concert."

How in the world can you take a writer seriously that would even go down this road?  What's next?  The size of Hillary's ankles?

Please...Please....please....deliver something CREDIBLE.  Got any FOX stories on Schultz shilling?  You might get my attention even with FOX.

OH...before I forget....NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Schultz accepting money from anyone.  There was fundraising going on (like THAT is a crime???  I donate to Sam Reed), but nothing about Schultz getting money.

Politics aside, Schultz is a radio personality and has every right in the world to charge a fee for his appearances, if that were the case.

Free Republic and National Review calling Schultz "unmoderate" is about like Moveon.org calling Bush a RADICAL conservative.

Larry out.  Horse is dead.

I instantly thought of this...

Host Bill Moyers: "This country has become two choirs, each side listening only to its own preachers. Should journalists take sides when everybody else is polarized?"

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann: "The definition now of being on one side is to have not flag-wavingly supported the President in anything he wanted, not handed him carte blanche after carte blanche after carte blanche."...

Moyers: "A lot of people think you’ve taken sides now. They think you’ve taken sides with the progressive or liberal story." Olbermann: "They didn’t say that a lot during the Lewinsky thing. I always find that kind of ironic as I’ve seen some of the criticism from the right. But what I’ve done on the air in the last 4 1/2 years, and particularly in the last year and a half since the special comments began, is really journalism." — Exchange on PBS’s Bill Moyers Journal, December 14.

Which was followed up by this....

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

with the finger prints of the mentioned Senators and Schultz himself, verified by the bank where they were deposited from, you will refuse to believe me. And that is how liberals work. I know that, and I am fine with it. That doesn't mean someone should not offer some reality when some one makes a statement like Schultz is a moderate.

This conversation spiraled down and you made demands which I tried to satisfy, in a fair game attempt to be civil. I laid out what I said to sum up for you exactly where I am with this and you, and as liberals like to do, the subject and or demands are ever changing. You won't be satisfied no matter what I say. Fine. If you have some question or have some needed clarification, let me know other wise, don't get confused about my claims or my posts.

For your edification, "It doesn't matter what I post Larry, you will claim it doesn't count for this reason or that. You wanted a source and I gave you one. I showed that the story didn't occour in a vacuum. I told you why the guy is not a moderate, and gave you a very recent example. You can lead a horse to water... I can see your points but I don't agree with you and I feel as though I have been pretty good here with references why I disagree. Ok?"

Perhaps you skimmed the previous post or something and missed this bit.

C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

liberal blog, conservative blog, FOX, CBS, NBC, MSNBC.....on and on et al

that says one work about Ed Schultz taking any money from a politician.  I don't need fingerprints, I need one story from any source.  Your other two sources didn't site any such information.  They just spewed their opinion and dispise for Schultz.

::::shrug::::  Ed can't win them all.

edited the part of his post where he accused Schultz of taking money from a politician. It disappeared

Intellectually honest?  Oh my!

What you are quoting is money donated to a politicians campaign.  Apples and Oranges.

You had posted earlier that Schultz accepted money from a politician (thus my question, posted several times) and now, mysteriously, that post is missing.  Must be the spam filter, huh?

Bottom line.  Schultz, Rhodes, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Man in the Moon are all private citizens and can donate to any political person or party and there is NOTHING WRONG with it.

The President of CBS was one of George Bush's largest personal donors in 2004.  Of course, it sounds like Dan Rather may get a refund for him

Liberal talk radio day in DC, such as they hosted for Conservative pundits.

Check your history of the past 12 to 18 months.