@Elephantman

And if you live in Obama's former state senate district, I imagine that these days, you are one happy hombre to have both a sidearm and rifle. How many murders this week? 10? 20?

I might suggest, for home protection, a pump-action shotgun with a short stock, too.

You know, Elephantman, that little post of yours above just cemented for me why I despise, literally despise, you and your fellow travelers. You are one sick racist SOB. If I were in charge of this site you would be gone.

-- donnaquixote

And donna, you are one paranoid, warped, p.c. liberal.

I have no idea why you pulled that quote out of an off-topic diversion that I entertained for one of the Salon faithful. You know the guy -- the one who, unlike me, actually DOES live in Obama's former state senate district with his three guns. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!) Anyway, all I did was congratulate him on the fact that because he lives in the fractional space of the Obama district that was outside of the city limits of gun-banned Chicago, he actually had the freedom to own those guns that he -- not I -- originally brought up in the discussion.

You remember Chicago. The Obamas' home town. A haven/oasis of a modern urban liberal gun ban. Where more Americans are being shot each month than in Baghdad.

@Elephantman

Elephantman displays the typical neocon mindset that arrest = guilt. This is how they know that everyone in Guantanamo Bay is a terrorist.

-- Tukla in Iowa

Nossir, every single last one of those individuals was and is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

As a matter of fact, I think they were all innocent. They were all set up by the man, framed, and none of 'em's guilty.

See? We agree. Eat the rich. Stick to the man.

"...bona fide accomplices..."

As opposed to the dreamed-up, nonexistent, phony, straw-men accomplices that Salon and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow spent the better part of a week flagellating over...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1217081mugyear20.html

And so, they play "blame the automakers" and enact CAFE standards.

No other nation in the world that I know of has a CAFE standard. If other nations feel the need to reduce gasoline consumption, they tax it.

High gasline prices drive consumer taste in vehicles and, as much as anything, consumer choice in how much driving to do. CAFE standards as "practiced" by decades of U.S Congressional meddling, and now the Obama Administration, are nothing more than a tax on domestic automakers that import and transplant makers either ignore, or rightfully regard as an important competitive advantage.

CAFE is stupid. For 30 years, we have had CAFE standards and mostly rising gasoline consumption. What affects American gasoline consumption is the pump price of gasoline.

The fact that something is "stupid" doesn't mean that Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration won't pursue it anyway. And so they have now, with the most drastic increase in CAFE standards in history.

Note that I don't neccessarily favor higher gasoline prices through drastically increased gas taxes. I don't think the U.S. automakers really want higher gas taxes, either. They simply know what the Congressional Democrats won't admit; that with lower gas prices, people buy the kinds of cars they really want (larger, better-performing) instead of the kinds of cars Democrats think they should want.

I say to Democrats and global warmists; put up or shut up. Tax gasoline, if you are worried about CO2 emissions and auto pollution. Enact the tax, and pay the political price (or take the political credit, if you think there will be any). Just be honest. Quit playing games. Cast your vote, and see what your constituents think.

Yes, back to the speech...

Would Elephantman care to comment on Sharon's secret deal with Bush that Netanyahu expects Obama to uphold?

...

-- Jonathan

No. Take it up with the Current Occupant. Good luck, and have a nice day!

True or false: The RedEye's report on the number of murders in Chicago was as accurate (and a graphically better webpage) than anything you can find on the Tribune, Sun-Times or Reader webpages. Oh, and what's that paper the guys from the Nation of Islam sell?

Addtitonally, E-man...

It's funny you would quote the "Red Eye", otherwise known as the commuters tabloid. That particular issue that you cite had more on the Jonas brothers than the murder rate.

To put it in term you can understand, its kind of like linking to "Us Weeekly" or "OK! Magazine...

-- Jonathan

You rock, my friend! You may have seen me in your neighborhood! I was playing 18 at Jackson Park with a U of C grad student who had been a lieutenant on the USS Cole.

Your neighborhood just might have been marginally safer with the two of us in it.

So, Stan; is it your point that, "yeah, Bush and Obama gave similar speeches, but in reality Bush didn't reign in the settlements process..."

If so, uh, okay.

Then it shall be the measure of Obama on this issue if he actually stops all settlement expansion, yes? And not what sort of flowery language his speechwriters craft for him. Right?

And shall we at the same time give Bush some credit for the Israeli unilateral disengagement from Gaza and several West Bank locations?

So you evaded the import of my question by the simple fact that you were one of the lucky few in Obama's district who lived outside of the putrid far-left kleptocratic union-controlled ward-boss politics of da City of Chicago. Where, according to da first Mayor Daly, da police of da City of Chicago were not dere to cause disorder, dey were dere to preserve disorder...