Vote for a bat-shite crazy Tea-Bagger female with a spine and big brass balls, versus a whimpering jellyfish of a Democrat with neither a spine nor balls.

Harry "Bend With The Wind" Reid couldn't lead the Senate, even if he had 75 Democrats on his side. OTOH, Senator Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies" might prove useful to "thin the Senatorial herd". In fact, dueling managed to eliminate the USA's very first "private for-profit central banker" Alexander Hamilton, proving once and for all that dueling does have it's place.

This is nothing short of incitement to armed insurrection. Just when you think the GOP can't sink any lower into their mire of moral bankruptcy, along comes another bat-sh*t crazy wingnut extremist to prove you wrong. Sheeeesh.

"Live free or die" has just been updated to "Elect me or die."

Maybe this is the road to her higher aspirations.

She wants to be elected and if she isn't elected she can shoot it out with the government.

Another perfect representation of the GOP these days.

was her dismissal of the Gallup poll. Then she pronounced that the fact that Republican primary turnout was 4 million votes higher than Democratic turnout was a more meaningful statistic. That Rachel. What a genius.
"Real numbers." Yeah, and so is the weight of bullshit.

This is NOT a call to violence, but why doesn't any reporter ask, if a Democrat is disgruntled with the election results, can he/she use "second amendment remedies" to "take out" Sharron Angle. I would love to see the look on her face if she is asked this.

The interview with Ms McCain was quite interesting. It seems she is determined to establish a place for moderate Republicans. She felt her apartment would be sufficiently commodious to be getting started.

I have a question: Are we bothered by the principle Angle is invoking, or the reasons for which she is invoking it?

I ask because I think a lot of progressives were thinking along the same lines when the Bushevik Administration was proceeding in its railroading of the Constitution and basic rights. I mean, if the Busheviks had, say, declared martial law, and said that gay people should be arrested wherever they are without warrants, wouldn't we be supporting armed revolution?

Now, Angle is invoking it not for reasons justified by such a situation, but because she feels entitled to have her side win everything all the time. Naturally, that's batshit crazy and dangerous.

But is the principle itself wrong? Wasn't that how the country was formed in the first place?

I think the polls will be way off - many Dems and Repubs don't want to vote for either of these candidates. A college buddy of mine lives in Vegas and said while he would never vote for Angle, he is sick of Reid, especially after he cowared on health care and the NY "mosque" issue. He joked he was going to write-in long-time Vegas resident Vince Neil. No doubt the vote will probably be more about keeping the other candidate from winning and not true support of the vote cast.

I thought using violence to overturn the will of the voters was only done in Third and Fourth World countries? I guess the tea baggers prefer dictatorships to democracy.

rick perry has named several areas in Texas hit by the storm yesterday as disaster areas

Opening them up to federal funding

Nothing succeeds like seceeding.

You mean she will "have her rivals EXECUTED" just like Saddam Husein DID ?!!

Dude, I think you need to work on your reading & comprehension skills.

Dude, read & comprehend. My logic is "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

You're quite the debater, lol.

Considering how well Rachel Maddow usually manages to stay on top of things, I'm a bit surprised to see that neither she nor any of her staff caught the August 25th broadcast of the ABC program "Top Line" which featured an interview with RNC spokesman Doug Heye. Here's a pertinent quote from the show:

Heye: Well, we embrace whatever the candidate needs to do to win.

Freudian slip, perhaps?

There it is, folks...and right from the horse's mouth, yet. No conditions, no qualifiers, no "within reasons" -- if Heye's choice of words is anything to go on (and I see no particular reason why it shouldn't be), what he's saying is that there's quite literally nothing a GOP candidate could say or do which the party would consider so extreme that it would warrant reprimanding or rejecting that person. Slowly but surely, the Republican Party has been moving further and further to the right over the past couple of decades -- so in all honesty, it really shouldn't come as any great surprise that Angle's statements have not automatically relegated her to the fringe. I can't tell you how many times over the last ten years that I've seen some conservative/Republican post something on a message board to the effect that all Democrats/liberals/progressives should be kept under police surveillance, rounded up, held without trial, stripped of their rights and their citizenship, imprisoned for life, tortured, eviscerated, executed, and/or damned for all eternity...to my mind, that tells you something about the mindset of the GOP today.

I've said this before, and I might as well say it again here...on some level, the Democrats could stand to take a leaf from the Republican Party playbook, even though it would mean lowering themselves to their level. Trying to fight fair when the other person has already made it clear that he has no reservations about hitting you in the kidneys and below the belt means that you're most likely going to end up with a face full of canvas.

I would be the first to agree that the idea of running a democracy in which the folks who lose an election have a constitutional right to take up arms to dispute the results, represents a pretty serious design flaw. But there it is, right there in the 2d Amendment. That amendment is clearly not at all about private gun ownership, and certainly not any sort of guarantee that private gun ownership not be regulated, given that it refers to a "well-regulated militia". But it says that that well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and contemporaneous writings make it indisputably clear that the Founders meant the security of that free people from their government, not just potential foreign invaders. In the cointext of the Bill of Rights, that would be the federal govt. A significant bloc of states was not going to sign on to the Union without the Bill of Rights limitiations on the federal govt.

It's not as if the Founders had any choice but to put this rather serious design flaw into the founding document. The states all had their seperate armies, their state militias, much larger than anything contemplated for the federal govt. They simply were not going to give up the security of that situation, peace through superior firepower, to enter a Union headed by a new and untested federal govt that would have been granted a monopoly on armed forces.

The Founders had to include a guarantee that the states could keep their militias as their way to exit the Union at any indefinite time in the future, in order to get them to come in the front door right at that moment. This "Right of Rebellion" (and that's exactly what it was called at the time) was as much a part of the Original Sin written into our Constitution as the provisions allowing slavery. There wasn't going to be a Union without slavery, and there wasn't going to be a Union without doors to disunion built into the structure -- however much it was understood at the time the potential disastrous consequences of those compromises.

It goes without saying that the 2d Amendment has been left on the trash heap by history. The states have long since given up maintaining any military forces, much less anything that would stand any chance against federal armed forces. But, as is not uncommon with our Constitution, we never changed the document to reflect changing reality. So we still have this right of rebellion on the books, right there next to protections for the right to free speech, only, unlike free speech, which is still an irreplaceably valuable right, the right to rebellion is nothing but a disaster waiting to happen. It could only be asserted now by some combination of suborning the federal armed forces (i.e., the Oathkeepers) and an arms race by the states, as they build up the militias needed to make this "right" a practically assertable reality.

There are conditions under which a system in which the states all have armies would work, after a fashion. The Union managed alright at the outset, when all the states had large armies, and all of them larger than the US Army. You could argue that our first great constitutional crisis, the one provoked by Federalist overreach in the form of the Alien and Sedition Acts, was handled effectively by the nullification of TN and KY, backed up by their militias. Even the most strongly Federalist states were not about to go to war to enforce the Supremacy Clause, not over the Alien and Sedition Acts, and that reality brought on a general backing away from the brink. The division of the Union into armed camps can be seen as creating, in 1799, an atmosphere of admirable caution, working against asserting majoritarian tyranny unrealistically.

Today, of course, a resurgent regime of opposing state militias would operate as anything but a calming influence. Only hot-breathed fanatics like this Angle person are behind this idea, and it is clear that this sort of demagogue would use the new rules to constantly try to get their way within the Union by threats and brinksmanship. There would be miscalculations and counter-threats, and very soon the threats would need to be made good, and we would be in our next Civil War.

We need to get rid of the 2d Amendment, period. Offer to replace it with something that actually protects a right of personal gun ownership if you like, but we simply need to get rid of the Right of Rebellion. Throw in Art IV, sec 4 and the Tenth, just to close all the doors to disunion. The Civil War didn't change the Constitution. No war can change the Constitution, but hopefully that war taught us a lesson. It is well pastr time to apply that lesson and close the doors to disunion.

Republicans in general, and the teatards in particular have lost all notions of restraint, civility, and decorum, and have no place in a civilized society. They are doing more to damage this country than foreign terrorists could ever hope to accomplish. They're ripping America to pieces, and they don't give a damn - as long as they win elections.
It's time to shut them down. Not with guns, fear, anger, and violence, like idiots like Sharron Angle are advocating, but with the power of the ballot. Anybody with a functioning frontal lobe needs to get out this November, and we need to absolutely crush the GOP and Tea Party candidates under an avalanche of votes.

...the mainstream's gotten a lot wider with so many idiots pissing in it...

...is that regardless of whether Angle has any real intention of acting on it or not, the impulse is clearly there. She and Palin wouldn't be using gun-related language if they weren't having fantasies (whether they consciously acknowledge it or not) of pulling a "Rambo" and quite literally blowing the opposition away. I think we all know that admitting it on the record possibly might (and I stress might!) be the one thing that would cause the Republican Party to turn against them. However, while they can try to deny it all they like, in the dark and tangled forest of their private thoughts -- and yes, that was a deliberate "Excalibur" reference -- I'm inclined to suspect that the idea of conducting an all-out purge in this country is one that they actually consider rather tempting,