I'm sorry if you mistook the link about the AIP here in Alaska. I definately don't agree with their platform. Sandy seems to think that is what I was meaning, I believe. I don't.

What I did is give a link for the AIP platform. I do not agree with these people nor do I agree with most of what they say. Of course every platform has one or two items that agree with most others, but I just can't condone them.

I didn't mention I know Todd Palin personally, but I do. I still voted for Sarah the first time.

I was just hoping that the new governor (Sarah) would do what she said she would, and so did many other Alaskan's. We've been told lies, led to believe something when its not, and the list goes on. Sarah's dad was my teacher in Wasilla. I should of know better, but I still voted for her.

McCain surely won't get my vote this year, because of Sarah. He would of had a better chance with Kay Bailey Hutchinson. His mistake will show its ugly head on Nov. 5th. Oh John, what could of been, and now won't.

Count this independent voter for Obama and Biden in 2008.

"Sarah Palin is the former mayor of a small town in Alaska. She hangs out with a bunch of wacko people straight out of Northern Exposure. Their ideas are looney, but they are not violent, not harming anyone."

Except, of course, that Vogel was murdered by a fellow secessionist.

They stockpile guns, fool, because they intend violence.

"Her so called extreme positions on guns are held by the current President and Vice President and a large majority of people in this country."

The "current President and Vice President" stole the election in 2000 -- which hardly evidences compliance with rule of law, let alone concern for what the law actually is and isn't.

As for that "large majority": if so -- and you present no evidence for your assertion -- they are wrong. You'd know that if you'd read the ENTIRE Constitution JUST ONCE.

"A large enough group that the Democratic party won't even say the words gun control without diving for cover."

I agree: they are afraid because they know as little about the legal history of such as the Second Amendment as do you. The first draft of that Amendment included, until final vote, a single posited individual right. It read as follows:

"But no person religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall not be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in the MILITIA] in person."

That's the ONLY "individual right" debated concerning the Second Amendment. It was voted DOWN, which means that Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" ANYTHING.

"Lighten up people, stop demonizing your opponents."

You mean like accusing Obama as being that most hated thing a Muslim -- even though he isn't? You're lecturing the wrong faction, fool.

"And you wonder why no one wants to run for public office."

Obama is running for public office. I venture that he is not "no one". Nor, fool, is he demonizing anyone; you'll have to look to those you are defending -- the treasonous crackpots Palin and freinds -- for those who are doing the demonizing.

If Gov. Palin and her husband wish to politically associate with people that want to secede from the United States, then that disqualifies her from holding the office of Vice President, much less that of President. See, there's this little thing of an oath to the constitution of the United States of America that must be sworn before entering that office, and with the Governor's ties to a group that wants nothing to do with said constitution, there is an issue with the validity of any oath she would utter. There is another point to be made which is this.... Senator Obama was 8 years old when Ayers was in this group that he (Ayers) is no longer in. Sarah and Todd Palin were adults when they were involved with AIP and they continue to be involved with AIP.

Lets see...a guy who was around a person that, although never convicted, was a violent anti-war protestor over 30 years ago who has since become a mainstream citizen, or a wife and husband that within the last decade have been members of a party that wants nothing to do with the United States and who still contribute to that party's conventions. It's pretty clear which person should not be the leader of the United States. And if you picked the latter, then you are truly deluded.

That last line should read, "If you picked the latter to be the leader, then you are truly deluded".

It's been a long day.

interesting quote from Chryson

I find it very interesting that Chryson quotes the US Constitution to defend his right to bear arms. I thought he did not want to be part of the US.

-- logicaleft

_____

There is one pseudo-law fiction common to virtually all far-right loons including those who claim to be "Libertarians". It is the fundamental, irrational, circular claim that the US Constitution authorizes revolution, and therefore authorizes the destruction of the US Constitution.

If one quotes those clauses in the US Constitution which show the exact opposite -- see Art. I., S. 8., Cl. 15 and 16 -- one will be called all sorts of names, beginning with "traitor" and the like.

These are not reasonable people. These are not educated people. These are not people who have any interest in learning. Any interest in objectivity, or objective reality. They are two kinds of paranoid: clinical, and those which arise from lack of sufficient accurate information, combined with total rejection of education. They only believe what they want to believe, truth being irrelevant to them.

They are people who make up what they want the law to be, and then cherry pick whatever information they find which they believe supports their fantasy. Whether it's law or not -- whether it's sane or insane -- isn't their concern. All that matters to them is having it their way.

At most innocent, they see the Founders -- about which they know nothing except perhaps that they derive from sanitized Hollywood movies -- as "Gods Against the Sky". "The good old days," in their view, was a fantabulous "Libertarian" utopia of limited or even no gov't where everyone wore a gun on each hip. Where "self-defense" was the norm, as substitute for the requisite lack of "gov't intervention/oppression" of law enforcement. Where they have an absolute and unlimited right of "self defense" while being totally incapable of conceiving of anyone engaging in "self defense" against THEM.

Some of us have been dealing with these America-hating loons, eyeball-to-eyball, toe-to-toe, since at latest the late 1980s. They are the same loons which produced (as the article indicates) the fake "militia" "movement"; Randy Weaver; David Koresh; produced Tim McVeigh. Falsely insist that the purpose of the militia -- contrary to all Constitutional provisions and laws to the contrary -- is to "defend against" the gov't.

And, though they don't say it too often out loud, that the purpose of the militia is to overthrow the gov't based solely upon their assertion that it is being "oppresssive," blah, blah, blah.

By contrast, most have been laughing about all this, which has allowed them to dupe the laughers, and make progress in their subversions. Look at the election theft in 2000. Look at the SC UNPRECEDENTED ruling on the Second Amendment. Look at the Republican VP candidate. Look at the hate-speech attacks, totally devoid of and even contrary to fact and truth, being spewed by the major party Republican candidates "as if" it were normal and mainstream, instead of what it actually is: far-right lunatic fringe America-hating fanaticisms of several kinds including "Christian" white supremacism of the most virulent and poisonous kinds.

It's time to stop laughing and to seriously pay attention.