Neo

To: Buff -- Mind? I love it! Especially the soup kitchen ... Except ol' Bernie would have his sleeves rolled up and be workin' his butt off.

It does actually make sense for me, the small government guy. Your point regarding me is dead on. Your words regarding empowering through government are correct, as well ... even eloquent ... (look, I'm small government, I'm not anarchy).

I actually "L'd" ... OL!

There are good people who support gun free zones. There are good people who oppose or don't see a need for gun free zones. I'll not weigh in here. I dig you all .... Know only one thing. There are no gun free zones while there are guns. Hang your signs, pass your ordinances ... folly .... "it sure feels good". There was a back and forth, above, about making churches gun free zones. After all, who'd need a gun in church ... And, before the strawmen start arriving, this isn't a call to arm the citizenry. It's both a reminder of free choice and a reminder of the folly of restricting the law abiding to protect them from those who aren't law abiding. Here's an idea ... how about DWI free zones? Perhaps cancer free zones. The threats aren't reading the sign on the wall ... or stopping if they do. Aside from DRK's considered ruminations regarding root causes (he's on to it), most of our conversations around gun violence have to do with policy or legislation restricting the guns. Let's be honest. There's only one gun control that works. That is: destroy guns, don't manufacture guns, and don't import guns. On one hand there's a complete gun ban, and on the other hand there's free choice. In between is legislative meddling designed to make us feel good and gather votes. After the recent TV station incident, I saw a Virginia politician on television. He said (I paraphrase, and do not quote): "This is why I supported legislation in the past requiring deeper background and mental health checks for those getting gun permits". The reporter asked: "Did the alleged shooter have a gun permit?". His reply: "I don't know". Awesome; how comforting. If only the location where the news report was filmed had been a gun free zone ... All of which brings me to the following. Are you pro gun control? Then make your case for a Constitutional ban on guns. A total gun ban would be effective. After we've summited that Everest, we can move more broadly to weapons in general, then to things that can be used as weapons, and then to natural rights and self defense above and beyond our Constitutional rights. This isn't an issue that can be effectively fiddled with at the margin. We have a nation. Either law abiding citizens can arm themselves, or they cannot. We all get a vote. Now, I'll contradict myself. Background checks and rigorous training with demonstrated competence makes sense. I've studied, watched, and participated in the process. It's way too easy to get a gun legally. Little Government Neo for gun acquisition common sense.

Definitely fun and interesting. He sure did hit for the cycle in naming names. This is not my area of expertise (not that that's stopped me before) but I do sense there's an element of animal in all things human. What resonates with me, and in my own words, is the sense of visceral attraction to Trump, policy notwithstanding. None necessary!

Im not sure if another post captures my view better than your friend's letter. I believe I'm on record saying it's way too easy to get guns and their use shows symptoms but not the disease.

I listed her with Christie because they give me the same "hang out" feeling (my vibe). The others appeared because I'd just mentioned them in the post above.

Vibes .... don't ask me why ... Bernie: I'd do something fun, fancy with him. Definitely wine. Could be a museum fund raiser. Maybe a dinner Biden: Football game with tailgate. Open air stadium. Perry: He could manage whatever I'm running. Business, organization. I'd check in from time to time for updates. Total autonomy. Paul: I'd attend his lecture and sit up front. Huckabee: Too easy-church picnic or BBQ. Christie: closest to Hillary in terms of my personal vibe. I'd skip the event. No message for me, and no joy in just plain listening. She's stiff, he's abrasive. Cruz: Never. Too smarmy smooth. I'd be checking for my wallet all the time. Carson: Hanging out with families. I'd like to meet his mom. Trump: I'd like to share a plane ride with him while sitting in a different class. Separated, background noise, and no moving about the cabin.

It's me .... You know ... Alex.

I like ol' Bernie. He and I disagree at the most profoundly basic levels about choice and how human beings behave in an economy, but I like him. I genuinely felt his sincerity this past month. His Iraq speech was principled, impassioned and brave. It was leadership. He's been my most interesting "find" this year. Because I love a story, I'd really dig him doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire. Because I love a story Part Deux, I need Biden in tomorrow. Regarding my attention span: I need Perry, Huckabee, Paul, Christie, Cruz, Carson and Trump out tomorrow. It's early, but I'm ready to focus. PS: I dig some of those guys, but I'm too serious and interested in the heavyweights.

An eyewitness! Insight, and I'm grateful. It's one thing to eat the sausage. It's another thing to watch it made.

I'm here to serve! I did 40 on a treadmill, but that was BEFORE our dialogue. I watched MSNBC. It made me sprint and raised my heart rate. Two sets of twenty on the floor's beyond my pay grade. Wait, I'm going to test that!

Could be the best post I've read on this. Grateful ...

Or that! I'd forgotten that event. Too bad it was pre meme.

Overall agreement, all around. I stayed home from work the day Powell testified to watch him on live television. He was / is as credible and informed a person as there was in the debate, in my mind. That was true then, and is today, to me. His conclusion was wrong based on the evidence we've subsequently gathered. I remember the yellowcake disclosures, years (?) later. I also agree that Americans were mad, which often doesn't lead to the clearest thinking. I'll stop short of attributing that to blaming all Muslims, but I get your point. The quote from Cheney is not one I remember, but it's not inconsistent with any characterization I'd make of him. I see him reaching for a sledge hammer at a picnic if there's a fly near his hamburger.

If that's the case with Bernie, he's not as principled as I indicated. I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. Regarding the cost and length of time, I could not agree more.

Yes, overwhelmingly Republican, but bi-partisan. I would have guessed, without your effort, that House Dems also supported the resolution. Grateful ...

Bernie is a principled man. I respect his decision to vote no. Interestingly, though, he sites "all major U.S. intelligence agencies" and the New York Times as acknowledging the existence of WMDs. He builds his argument not to invade around the premise that the existence of those weapons make the danger of their use greater if there is an invasion. His principled argument assumes no lie, sites sources that point to WMDs, but recommends a different course of action. I'm not going as far as saying he concluded there were WMDs. I could not find that reference. He calls, in the end, for forcefully continuing the inspections Iraq was resisting. A wise man.

In light of the forceful and passionate claim that Bush and his cronies lied, I will re-read UN Security Council Resolution 1441, unanimously passed and including votes by China, Russia, Syria, France and Britain. I will re-read Joint Chief of Staff Powell's UN presentation of evidence which preceded the vote. After that, I will attempt to figure out how Bush and Cheney deliberately and effectively mislead them all. I remain moved by the cost of the error to innocents, soldiers, the nation and the world. I cannot change my analysis of the decision and how it was made solely as a result of being moved by the consequences. You are all good people and your passion informs me.

I stayed! Stayed for Houston, too.

I believe you with regard to lots of voices. My memory is of the loudest and most common, in both parties and across the world. There are millions who can say they were right. I cannot. Post Script: Iraq taught me the folly of "Neo-Con", as I've indicated here, before.

I did lump my Bushes. Both for oil. WMD and terror, B2.

I remember WMDs, Kuwait (oil) and terrorism, in that order. One we believed existed (WMDs), two we knew existed (Kuwait and terror). There was genocide. Lotsa bad stuff. We went because it's a part of the world critically important to us because of oil. It was a huge mistake. When we left, one thing was better(Kuwait) and two were worse (terror and Iraq). It was bad made worse. The folly, as I've written. As I said, I own that. I don't know of anyone who lied to me. Now, regarding President Bush: I will leave you to your own conclusions. I think our analysis of the results are similar.

There's no doubt in my mind that oil is the primary reason we're interested in the Persion Gulf.

Look, I'm no Bush supporter. I'll drop this. I don't carry the day in media much more expressive than a blog. It's folly to try to do so here. I have a view. There's tons to criticize. Lying isn't part of the pile. IMHO. Carry on. I hope Eleven doesn't strain something.