By that same logic, any man with a penis who’s within a half mile of the president is threatening to rape the president.

That is just a start in your country. We have the same thing going on over here.

Where did I say that exercising a Constitutional right includes the right not to be considered a nutjob? I didn’t and I don’t believe that. Only liberals believe that their rights include insulation from ridicule for what they do and say. My point is that many liberals (not ALL, but many) would presumptively consider Kostric a nutjob by virtue of the fact he owns a gun at all. I just find it interesting because it further illustrates how far removed liberals are from what the Constitution actually says when they are engaged in debate about “rights,” entitlements, and/or simply what they personally want.

“Careful, you talking about half the population of the country. Ya know….the people.”

Careful? Why? People who support Obamacare ARE, in fact, brainwashed, anti-intellectual zombies. How else would you describe people who actually believe that government spending in the multi-trillions is going to make healthcare cheaper? It’s ludicrous. As for the “The People,” I have complete respect for the fact that Obama and the Democrats in Congress were properly elected to the positions they hold. I also respect the fact that it is their legal prerogative to enact Obama’s healthcare bill, even if only 1% of “The People” were in favor of it. But I refuse to (as you say) “be careful” with my criticisms of a bunch of ignorant dolts who voted for them or support the bill. Of course, I realize that makes me “un-American,” but unlike liberals, I don’t believe I’m exempt from criticism of my views. Obviously, you believe that supporters of Obamacare ARE.

“Obviously ridiculous. If the Constitution guaranteed a right to health insurance, then opposition to universal health insurance, or the lack of it, would be a crime against the Constitution. We could simply sue in court to institute universal health care, and the Supreme Court would mandate it.”

Oh, you’re right, Tano. Liberals would NEVER DREAM of filing a lawsuit and taking it all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that they have a constitutional right to something that isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Yeah, Tano, that’s “obviously ridiculous.” I don’t know where I came up with such an outrageous suggestion. The very idea that liberals might fail to pass some vile, leftist legislation through their representatives and then try their luck with the courts is, I admit, completely absurd.

And by the way, what exactly is a “crime against the Constitution”? Seriously, I’ve been practicing law for over a decade and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard such a silly and pedestrian expression.

“I havent heard that argument from anyone, and neither have you.”

Ummmm, the fu*k you haven’t, Tano.

If I’m not mistaken, I said your comment was bullshit and you lack the capacity to recognize sarcasm when you see it.

Yep. I did say “bullshit”.

Hey, thanks for answering my questions, dick. And what of the population of the country, ya know….the people who are telling Ass Clown in Chief to shove it up left? To Hell with ‘em?

If the Constitution guaranteed a right to health insurance, then opposition to universal health insurance, or the lack of it, would be a crime against the Constitution.

And how about the fact that the Constitution does not grant the US government authority to run health care? Nor does it grant authority to the Ass Clown in Chief to take over private businesses and then put his cronies in charge. Nor does it grant authority to the Ass Clown in Chief to dictate how much people in the private sector get paid.

Funny, isn’t it, how a man who wipes with the Constitution has the temerity to call himself a “Constituional scholar”.

Sorry, but I don’t understand the logic of your comment. I stated that it is standard operating procedure for the right to focus on the real nutzos who show up at lefty demonstrations, instead of talking about the hundreds of thousands of average people who attend.

And so you give us two examples of real nutzos who showed up at lefty demonstrations. Were you simply intending to agree with my point and forgot to say so explicitly?

??????
Aren’t almost all of the people that you would characterize as nutjobs simply doing things that the Constitution guarantees them the right to do – like engage in free speech? Since when does the Constitutional right to do something exempt you from being considered a nutjob for the way you do it?

“the same brainwashed, anti-intellectual zombies who support Obamacare”

Careful, you talking about half the population of the country. Ya know….the people.

“premise their support on the erroneous idea that the Constitution guarantees a right to health insurance.”

Obviously ridiculous. If the Constitution guaranteed a right to health insurance, then opposition to universal health insurance, or the lack of it, would be a crime against the Constitution. We could simply sue in court to institute universal health care, and the Supreme Court would mandate it. I havent heard that argument from anyone, and neither have you.

Chanting “Bush is a terrorist!”, the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.

Nice. That’s the tolerant left for you. Oh, but we(?) only pick the “most nutzo” persons. I forgot.

The angry protest grew so violent that the Secret Service was forced to take the highly unusual step of using a backup route for Bush’s motorcade because the primary route had been compromised by protesters, one of whom pounded his fist on the president’s moving limousine.

And the guy with the gun, what’shisname?, is “threatening”. That makes perfect sense.

Where’s Tano?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzMzYmFkNmEwZjcxOGViNDE2YWNjNzBkM2Y3YzdjMjM=

Talk about selective amnesia (would that be covered under Obamacare?).

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/12/analysis-press-largely-ignored-incendiary-rhetoric-bush-protest/

“Not normal behavior. Attention seeking behavior.”

It’s too foolish for openly gay people to give up an appearance of normal, attention seeking behavior as a standard for rational thinking and consideration of their ideas and beliefs.

A guy who built bombs to kill US soldiers and cops is a well-respected member of Chicago’s liberal “intelligentsia.”

An anti-Semitic preacher screaming “G-d D-amn America” is a spiritual leader.

A guy who advocated putting sterlization chemicals in the drinking water is a science advisor to the president.

Weird criteria the left has for determing who’s a nutjob and who isn’t.

So how can you say “nearby” when you have no idea whether he was or not? I’m “nearby” Disney, but it’s still a 45 minute drive.

Gun on hip with angry threatening sign in big crowd.

What was “threatening” about it? It didn’t say “Check me out! I’m here to kill you, Obama!”

Clearly he was the only one, or else the story would have been different.

He was the only one or the only one the media focused on? With what degree of certainty can you say that he was the only one?

Not normal behavior. Attention seeking behavior.

If it’s normal to carry a gun in that town and it’s legal to do so, what’s not normal about it? If he carries his gun every day or even frequently, I’d say it’s “normal behavior”. By what standard do you make your assertion that it’s “not normal behavior”?

You should be concerned too. There’s no more “Well, he has a hectic campaign schedule” excuses anymore.