Guard Dog

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of political decorum is not a consideration? So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign This is his strategy. Rather than pay for air time he says off the wall stuff that gets the media talking about him in a negative way 24-7. Watch any news network, he is all they are talking about. Then he inoculates himself against the bad effects of it by shouting about media bias (which they created because they ARE biased but that is beside the point) and every time they do it is free air time. They talked so long about Obama being the "founder" of ISIS they practically planted the idea in everyone's head who didn't hear it from Trump himself. And the more networks like CNN insist it isn't true the more people believe it IS true because they don't believe a word the news media says anymore. It is actually a very interesting situation. The major news networks have been ruining their own credibility with the public for 30 years. Now Trump is turning their own hubris against them. The scary thing is it might work. I hear you but if this was his expected outcome why are most Trump supporters saying the media is biased agasint Trump as if this is a bad thing? Are you saying the objective of the Trump campaign is to get media to be against Trump so they can indeed say " the media is biased" ? One of the objectives yes. That the media is biased towards the Democrats is just a universally accepted fact in this country. Trump is the first one to try to use that to his advantage though. As for his supporters, most folks will drink the kool-aid if you pour it for them.

An RBI double in the 1st an A-Rod got to f--k us on last time: http://m.mlb.com/gameday/rays-vs-yankees/2016/08/12/448596#game=448596,game_state=final,game_tab= I haven't been following the Rays or Marlins as much since the Olympics started (I'm sort of obsessed with it) and the break has been nice. The Rays are just hard to watch. The struggle to get runners on and leave them there more often than not. The sad thing is Longoria is having a great season. But one guy can't carry a team in baseball.

Is it Star Wars? Yes. No Skywalkers? Yes. OK, count me in.

You beat me to it!

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of political decorum is not a consideration? So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign This is his strategy. Rather than pay for air time he says off the wall stuff that gets the media talking about him in a negative way 24-7. Watch any news network, he is all they are talking about. Then he inoculates himself against the bad effects of it by shouting about media bias (which they created because they ARE biased but that is beside the point) and every time they do it is free air time. They talked so long about Obama being the "founder" of ISIS they practically planted the idea in everyone's head who didn't hear it from Trump himself. And the more networks like CNN insist it isn't true the more people believe it IS true because they don't believe a word the news media says anymore. It is actually a very interesting situation. The major news networks have been ruining their own credibility with the public for 30 years. Now Trump is turning their own hubris against them. The scary thing is it might work.

Bruce, don't get too excited. It's only August. In August of 2000 Gore was leading Bush, in 1988 Dukakis was leading the other Bush, Romney & Obama were in a dead heat (the election wasn't that close) and Obama was blowing out McCain (the election ended up being pretty close). We haven't even had the debates yet. A LOT can happen. Especially if Johnson gets in and offers a viable 3rd choice. If Jill Stein gets in (which is looking like a possibility) it's Hodor hold the door after that. After the last debate THEN you can start believing the polls.

I found a dead guy in the dumpster behind Baja Beach Club in Coconut Grove. The degree was in is coat pocket.

But the thing is that people often will clinch for free speech because the intent behind the protected word is insane or hateful. We don't allow people to curse or use racial slurs because we consider that "bad". We don't allow somebody to scream "fire" in a movie theatre because of the damage it would do. But if mr "hold mah beer" comes along with a revolver in his shorts and blows off his manhood, the bra would say that he should have been allowed to hold his gun as he chose. Anyway, putting aside that rhetoric for a moment, my point to you was that Youseem to be viewing the constitution as a document that is consistently unchanging and the very concept of removing an amendment is unthinkable. But we have done it before. And I am willing to bet that by the time you are on your death bed, the second amendment will be treated removed Oh no right is absolute. Scalia himself wrote in Heller that the 2nd Am was subject to reasonable restrictions. But complete prohibition is not reasonable. Take Concealed Carry for example. That is not a right. No court has ever said the 2nd Am allows you to carry your piece with you. In the most proper Federalist way imaginable every State has decided for itself how that privileged will be granted, if at all. And, in a most un-libertarain fashion I'm ok with that. But the entire amendment being repealed in my lifetime? I find that doubtful. Not impossible, but doubtful.

@WoD:The court CAN'T make the 2nd Amendment go away. It is a thing. All they can do is reinterpret it to say that it does not protect an individual right. I forget the name but there was a case n the 30's where the Court specifically said it was not an individual right. So from 1788 to 2009 the status of the "individual right" was in question and all during that time there was no prohibition. There were restrictions at times. Some worse than others but generally the Congress and State legislatures has been made to pay a high electoral price for meddling with that. If you remember a few State Reps in Colorado lost their jobs in a recall for signing a particularly odious bill and that was right after the movie theater shooting. I'm not saying there isn't a danger. There is. But, while the left will continue to nibble around the edges the real danger is not imminent. @Calax: To eliminate the protection of the 2nd Amendment all together would require a Constitutional Amendment. That would mean 2/3 of the states would have to agree to give up their freedom. And do it knowing they are forcing the other 1/3 to give up theirs. That would be a hard sell on both counts NRA or no. You must understand that would break the country as no issue has since 1860. As to your second point I think every liberty protected by the Constitution, as well as those that are not should be zealously defended. Always and unflinchingly.

Doesn't really seem fair does it?

Now you're contradicting yourself. That's exactly what I said earlier. Do you think they won't jump at the chance as soon as they get it? Remember, SC can do anything, there are practically no limits on their power. Yes but it can only do it in a case that is before it. To give them the chance to overturn it it would take someone with standing to file a lawsuit, it would fail, appeal and have it fail to the federal appeals court, then the federal district court, then the Supreme Court. At any point it could be scuttled by any court refusing to hear it. The SCOTUS itself may refuse to take it because Heller is recent. It a hell of a hill to climb. It would take years. A lot of them. A lot can happen in that time. And lets say it did. Lets say in 2022 (because six years is how long the original suit took) the court overturns Heller. That does not repeal the 2nd Amendment. It will be in jeopardy from the legislature but they have been made to pay a high price for gun control before. And the NRA will still be around and will still be powerful. Congress will still face the wrath of the voters every two years. And even if they were inclined they would not start with complete prohibition. Yes, there is a danger that should be fended off now by making sure people like Clinton don't get to pick to many judges (for many good reasons besides this one) but that danger is not imminent. It's down the road a ways. just over the horizon.

Biles might be the best gymnast the US has ever produced. She makes the impossible look easy.

@ WoD. Hurlshot is right... to a point. And I think you might be missing why he is right. Heller did more than just struck down a ban on having guns in the home in Washington DC. For the first time in the 228 years that have passed since the US Constitution was ratified the Court confirmed that the 2nd Amendment does in fact protect the individual right to own a firearm. Think about that. For 228 years the first clause has been screwing up the second by being misinterpreted as a condition for the second rather than a reason for the second. That was huge. And yes what one court does another can undo. That is a concern. But generally the Supreme Court does not revisit recent decisions and as I pointed out if a case on point were filed today it would be years before it could make it's way to the Supreme Court. If they would even take it. As I posted before judges like Ginsburg, Breyer, & Kagan scare the absolute hell out of me because in their world view there are no individual rights save those the State sees fit not to oppose. When the government is a party in an argument before them they will side with the government nearly every time and the law be damned. Hillary will give us more of that. That is what I fear. @Hurlshot & everyone else: The 2nd Amendment will never be safe. Never. The left wants that one gone more than any other because it is the linchpin of every other desire they have. So long as the citizenry is armed the power of the government will never be absolute. Yes, yes we have many discussions about the possibilities of success of an actual armed insurrection. We will not agree on it. But that it is possible at all and that there would be a blood price to pay if some future political cabal tries to seize power IS the very reason the Founders included it. As you have read me quoting many times the price of liberty it eternal vigilance. Yes gun rights are safe right now and yes what Hillary is suggesting in not unreasonable. The real threat to the 2nd amendment does not come from a President or legislature now or in the near future but from a Court that undoes the individual right aspect of Heller some point down the road. That is one reason why WoD and others oppose Clinton's potential Court picks. Step 1 is seating justices who WILL undo it.

Anyone who actually loves the 2nd Amendment will tell you shooting a President (or anyone else) is the WORST thing you can do. Not only because normal folks don't f-----g kill people but using a firearm will only fuel more gun control. As I posted earlier, the thought of Hillary Clinton picking judges terrifies me. She will pick people who do not believe in individual rights or liberties. They make noises collective rights and how the Constitution is a "living" document (it is not) but what they are all about is the empowerment of the State over the people. The ruling philosophy of Justices Ginsburg, Bryer, Kagan, and Sotomayor (only most of the time in her case) is that the power of the Government is absolute. If that doesn't frighten you, it should. But even if Hillary wins and puts another of their ilk on the Court in Scalia's seat it is extremely unlikely Heller will be revisited before at least one new Justice is appointed. And we will have the opportunity to neuter a Clinton administration in 2018 and dispose of it in 2020. And if worse does come to worst and there is a prohibition and confiscation of firearms then there will be armed resistance. It is the final measure against tyranny. Just as the Founders designed.

They better take Carmelo Anthony out for a steak dinner tonight. He just saved them in the 4th.

Dammit man. I just saw John Saunders from ESPN passed away.

Which was which again? I'm so glad I don't have to make that choice!

Yeah, much like the whole "Russia, please hack Hillary" thing, this was pretty clearly a not-particularly-coherent attempt at a joke. I wouldn't call the coverage particularly biased, though-- you'd see over-the-top headlines had any candidate said something like this. This is what the media does-- spot a "gaffe" and broadcast it far and wide. It's the easiest kind of campaign reporting to do, and it draws eyeballs far better than policy analysis or poll results. (It probably feels like bias against Trump because he says idiotic stuff like this so regularly. Shockingly, when you nominate a candidate who thinks that observing common standards of decency in public discourse is a bad thing, you're going to get a candidate who says a lot of poorly considered stuff.) No it is bias against Trump. In one week Hilzilla lied about what Comey said about her, said she "short circuited", had to be virtually carried up a short flight of stairs, had the Orlando's terrorist's father seated right behind her while she commemorated the victims, just had e-mails released detailing how she used the State Department to pay off Clinton Foundation donors, and probably half a dozen other things I'm forgetting. Not to mention she explicitly hoped for Obola's assassination in 2008, which the media never mentions. And yet it's all "Trump, Trump, Trump" Socialism for thee but not for me: http://ijr.com/2016/08/668817-fresh-off-his-campaign-to-make-socialism-great-again-bernie-sanders-buys-600000-summer-house/ Oh and lets not forget. She (and the DNC) accused the Russians of hacking in and releasing their e-mails that exposed them trying to torpedo Sander's Primary Bid. But it was really Seth Conrad smith, a DNC staffer who did it. And Hillary ordered his murder: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/

Yeah, much like the whole "Russia, please hack Hillary" thing, this was pretty clearly a not-particularly-coherent attempt at a joke. I wouldn't call the coverage particularly biased, though-- you'd see over-the-top headlines had any candidate said something like this. This is what the media does-- spot a "gaffe" and broadcast it far and wide. It's the easiest kind of campaign reporting to do, and it draws eyeballs far better than policy analysis or poll results. (It probably feels like bias against Trump because he says idiotic stuff like this so regularly. Shockingly, when you nominate a candidate who thinks that observing common standards of decency in public discourse is a bad thing, you're going to get a candidate who says a lot of poorly considered stuff.) I expect Mr. Trump will get a talking to from the Secret Service today. Something along the lines of "Please don't do that again"

OOORAH! Nothing like sitting in the hot August SoCal sun wearing Charlies.

Well that foot has been swallowed: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-second-amendment-people-could-do-something-about-clinton-judge-choices/ I don't take this as a call to violence. But it was a pretty stupid thing to say even by his standards. Of course the reaction, particularly the pro-Hillary media has been over the top. MSNBC started off their election coverage last night be saying, and I quote "Donald Trump Calls for Assassination of Hillary Clinton".

Could be just the four degrees of separation thing. Edit: Also remember the Clintons are connected to many more people than an average person. Just Bill's mistresses have to be in the thousands. Most people also don't have an army of conspiracy theorists and hack-journalist enablers desperate to tie them to any and all potentially nefarious conduct that happens within a sparrow's flight of any building they once walked into. The playbook is simple-- the public will laugh off the occasional ridiculous accusation, but if you throw an endless stream of ridiculous accusations at the wall for 30+ years, folks who aren't paying very close attention will start to wonder whether there's fire behind all that smoke. Well most of them are pretty easy to dismiss. But the one he was having an affair with who committed suicide by shooting herself in the back of the head with a rifle is a little hard to overlook. The rest might be just smoke the the Susan Coleman case has a little orange light coming from it.

no My understanding is they can stop the car, order the driver out and search the driver and may apply the "plain sight" rule to the car but it stops there. Anything else needs either a search warrant, consent of the owner, or a hell of a probable cause. On that note let me ask you a question. One of the exceptions that grants probable cause is what the police call a "protection search" for weapons. In Tennessee we have a "duty to notify" rule that compels us to inform the police we are dealing with if we are carrying a concealed weapon, if they ask. So if I'm carrying (I do have a permit) and inform them I am does that give them the cause for the protection search?

Oh I'm not suggesting they "ordered" any of them killed. But damn there is just so MANY. It's hard to believe they are all just coincidences.