Why should I care? Why should you?

See over on the right it says

Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone,

It’s Oliver opinion and he’s entitled to it. I personally don’t think Oliver equates the actions of a few assholes with the campaigns as a whole, or the candidates themselves, for either side. the rest of us get that, why don’t you?

Also, so much for you never using the “but they do it, too” gambit.

Seems like just a few weeks ago you were saying you never go there.

And still three weeks to go!

SQ, remember, we are dealing with a person who thinks that Oliver writing the word “sad” is an example of him trying to spin something into “a grand Rovian conspiracy”.

I think this just about sums it up for Jay Tea.

I’m more than willing to limit candidates’ liability to just what they and their organizations say. But if that’s not the standard being applied across the board…

J.

Nor did the lady in NYC. Neither perpetrators were representative of the candidates, so how about we let it go?

Bygones.

Perhaps you ought to review the actual laws on the books, where it is clearly established that the police have NO obligation to protect individuals from crime.

Please quote me the law that says the police have NO obligation to protect individuals from crime. While DeShaney v. Winnebago says that the Due Process Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services, that case deals solely with police department liability for a failure to protect under the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution. It leaves open the possibility that state constitutions or federal or state law can impose such a duty.

Yet another example of Obama saying things that completely fly in the face of his established record. “Pay no attention to that gun-grabber behind the curtain!”

Even things that are individual rights, such as the First Amendment, can be overridden if the government has a compelling interest and a narrowly tailored remedy. One can argue as to whether D.C. has a compelling interest in combating crime, and whether a handgun ban is a sufficiently narrowly tailored method, but it demonstrates extraordinary ignorance of how constitutional law actually works to say that if X is an individual right, it cannot be limited.

Moreover, conservatives such as Justice Thomas have taken issue with the idea that the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments. Originally, it applied as a limitation solely on the power of the federal government, and even today, after the 14th Amendment and over a century of incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court still doesn’t apply all of the Bill of Rights (such as the 7th Amendment) to state and local governments. So even if the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, there’s a question as to whether it can be used to restrict the police powers of state and local governments.

Obama has not only studied but also taught constitutional law, so I suspect he’s a little more versed in these nuances than you are. Whoops, I said “nuance,” instead of living in a fantasy land in which anything that’s declared an individual right must be unlimited.

That’s because the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right. The Supreme Court got this one wrong, and the Woods Foundation got this one right.

That is SO enlightening. Perhaps you ought to review the actual laws on the books, where it is clearly established that the police have NO obligation to protect individuals from crime.

But that attitude does tie in quite nicely with Obama’s record on the 2nd Amendment — how he supported the DC absolute gun ban, how he agreed to the complete ban of handguns, and served on the board of the Woods Foundation that spent millions trying to establish that the 2nd Amendment is NOT an individual right, but the sole example in the Constitution where “the right of the people” means some amorphous “collective” right exercised only through government.

As I said before, Ms. Takehara did NOT deserve to get roughed up. But she certainly put herself in a very, very stupid position, and paid the price for it.

She apparently hasn’t learned her lesson. After one guy couldn’t convince to leave him alone short of force, she’s gonna go out and “get in the faces” of more people.

And thanks for that full quote, PG. Yet another example of Obama saying things that completely fly in the face of his established record. “Pay no attention to that gun-grabber behind the curtain!”

J.

This is apparently the new definition of political canvassing. I’ll remember that.

No he’s not. All he wrote in relation to this story was the single word “Sad”. Why do you lie?

“THIS is what Obama meant by ‘get in their faces’”

I wish to goodness that McCain supporters could read full paragraphs instead of just one clause a day.

“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,” he said.
“And if they tell you that, ‘Well, we’re not sure where he stands on guns.’ I want you to say, ‘He believes in the Second Amendment.’ If they tell you, ‘Well, he’s going to raise your taxes,’ you say, ‘No, he’s not, he’s going lower them.’ You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case.”

Yes, Obama was telling me to hit my friends. It’s all clear now. He’s figured out that little Asian women will terrorize their friends into voting for him.

Personally, in December I will be making a blood donation. This will earn me my 7-gallon pin from the Red Cross. In other words, I will have donated roughly five times my entire body’s supply of blood over my lifetime. I would argue that I have done more good through that than Obama did for Chicago’s schools. Those are MY “moral chops.”

And I’m not “afraid” of Ms. Takehara. I’m afraid FOR her, because her type of aggressive stupidity gets people in trouble — as shown once already.

As far as the link to the Obama supporter beating the McCain supporter with her own sign in New York City… here’s a blog article, complete with a copy of the felony criminal charges:

http://thesilentmajority.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/up-date-on-the-assault-against-a-mccain-manhattan-volunteer/

THAT, people, is thuggery.

J.

That’s right Jay, your posts and those of your ilk are playing a role in inciting this anti-Obama violence, and we’re not going to forget about your deviant, dishonest behavior after all of this is over.

There’s a reason you’ve never been involved in a charity board to help education: it’s because you lack the moral chops, as, I can see, do many of the McCain supporters, like the violent thug who assaulted that canvasser just trying to do her volunteer work for the campaign like a good citizen. Learn about citizenship, sometime, Jay, and maybe you’ll have a moral future.

Just what is McCain’s deal with these lobbyists? And more importantly, what favors is he doing for and receiving from their corporate and foreign clients?

First of all, linky please.

Second, did Sen. McCain call her personally to express his sympathy?

Nancy Takehara is the reason this campaign works. Not a dumbass. A patriotic, involved American.

And you are scared of her. Really scared of her. And that makes me happy.