(Both this post and an earlier one by the Editor were modified because of tone used)

But the left has done a better job with PR (and pandering) than the right has, and their loyal faithful are no less sheeep-like in their blind support of them.

For example, the Tea Parties of a few years ago received bad press from just about every news outlet, yet the Occupiers are the darlings of the left and the media, despite the crime and filth in their camps, not to mention that they portray themselves as the 99 percent yet they all come from well-off families.

The Tea Parties were decried as a contrived “astroturf” movement organized by rich “conservatives,” but who organized the Occupiers? Was it really a spur-of-the-moment gathering of poor liberals? Ha.

Do liberals really love Hispanics or poor people, or do they really just love thier votes?

You raise some good points!…Conspiracy theories are rampant all over right and left, but Pierce’s book examines the right. The right has exposed themselves in public debate in an embarrassing way more times than the left, because some Republican congressmen, as we know, just made stuff up and called it the truth (one sorry example: Atkins gobbledygook about rape)…Even Bobby Jindal told the Repubs. to stop being the stupid party.

When a congressman is talking about a problem and where science has a pretty good lock on the answer, some of them choose an absurd alternative answer. It leaves most people with “true” common sense gaping in disbelief.

For all these congressmen who say they are men of faith, I believe God’s intent was for them to use the brains He gave them.

2–The column dealt with the ability of Congress to deal with the problem of violence and said that simply outlawing guns would not fix the problem.

Doug says he changed his mind on an assault weapons ban. That’s his choice and he was, at the time, the column you mention was written, still undergoing therapy for a brain injury.

http://www.thepaincomics.com/

“One of several reasons why the “debate” over guns, like a lot of other debates in this country, has been so intractable for so long is that neither side trusts in the other’s honesty or good faith. Each side believes its own stated arguments to be, quite simply and truthfully, their real arguments, and sees their opponents’ arguments as transparent smokescreens for their “real,” more insidious agendas.”

Just thought I should throw that out for comment.

J.

Thanks…

Wondering why you would carry this over from the other article too. It’s probably best that we refrain from commenting on each other. Most times we are not going to see eye to eye, and that’s OK!