Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range
    • From:


Comment Archives: stories: News: National

Re: “Former Montana Teacher Re-Sentenced For Rape of Student

The judge has said he intends to retire when his term expires at the end of the year. So the judge will retire with a full pension paid for by taxpayers and will not be held negligent in any way? Sounds like something that would only happen in America.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jeremiah Price on 09/27/2014 at 1:07 PM

Re: “Old Debts, Fresh Pain: Weak Laws Offer Debtors Little Protection

Tactics exist to successfully NOT repay private student loans and credit card debt. Author “The Art of Debt Guerrilla Warfare, how to beat debt collectors when your back is against the wall.”

Posted by Thomas McFreeman on 09/18/2014 at 2:45 PM

Re: “With Appearance in Iowa, Clinton Takes Big Step Toward 2016

nm saw that they said 2008! Huuzaah!

Posted by norelationswithLewinski on 09/15/2014 at 6:06 PM

Re: “With Appearance in Iowa, Clinton Takes Big Step Toward 2016

Wasn't there a year when mrs. clinton already made an attempt to run for president, but she was ousted because of her crybaby bs?

Posted by NeverInhaled on 09/15/2014 at 5:14 PM

Re: “With Appearance in Iowa, Clinton Takes Big Step Toward 2016

The question that the deep state controllers are undoubtedly asking here is "will this particular puppet give us the most bang (no pun intended) for the buck?"

In other words, "Will she further our agenda enough to have her be next?"

Somewhere in Switzerland:

"Slick Willie did a great job of furthering our plans, but Junior Shrub, with the guiding hand of Minister Cheney, really got things moving."

"Our plan to completely disgust the sheep by, cynically, sticking Mr. Hope and Change in there, has seemed to work like a charm, so it should be a cake walk for us this time around to toss any other cynical option we want for the top spot."

"Let's see...recently....

we've slotted a southern cracker: Carter
we've slotted an actor: Reagan
we've slotted a spook: Bush senior
we've slotted a horndog: Clinton
we've slotted a moron: Bush junior
we've slotted a black homosexual: Obama"

"After this last one, how is it even possible to take cynicism to the next level?"

"It's hard for most of us to even believe that we had to plug in (no pun intended) this last one in order to get the sheep ready for a woman, but this country is still getting used to getting the women out of the kitchen, so it was necessary."

"This particular puppet may actually give us a bit more military projection than old Hope and Change (no pun intended), although he took us exactly where he was directed to."

"After all, previous women that have been head of state, have demonstrated a very desirable hawkish approach to advancing our agenda....I'm thinking Thatcher and Indira Ghandi now."

"Maybe we should see if Billary can raise some hell like we're ready to see now."

"I can't wait to see those 'Billary For President' stickers."

"By the way, any VP lackey will work, as long as they're bought and paid for."

"Let's have a toast to our next American puppet!"

Posted by watcher on 09/15/2014 at 4:48 PM

Re: “Why Do Democrats Keep Trying to Ban Guns That Look Scary, Not the Guns That Kill the Most People?

I find the answer to the title of this article to be rather obvious. Politicians are trying to ban the scary looking guns because there is a chance they may get that to pass. There have been enough mass shootings and media fear mongering at this point that politicians can push a ban on assault weapons without losing to much face, some people even want them to. At least, as Sparafucile so beautifully stated, they could if anyone could agree on what an assault weapon is.

Trying to ban handguns or create an all encompassing firearm ban would be absolute political suicide. This is America, we have the right to bear arms, and we love our guns. If pigs sprouted wings and started to fly and such a bill we to pass, it would be mass chaos in the country. You would have millions of irate gun owners. Would you honestly want to be the one to be in charge mitigating that damage or retrieving their weapons?

It's not rocket science Hell would have to freeze over before you were able to ban handguns or all guns in America.

Posted by Kiki on 09/15/2014 at 1:37 PM

Re: “Why Do Democrats Keep Trying to Ban Guns That Look Scary, Not the Guns That Kill the Most People?

The story starts off with, and bases its entire premise of public support on a preposterous notion: "Over the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned."

If you can find three people in ten who can agree on what an "assault weapon" is, then perhaps you can start to claim that people want something done with them.

I bet if you asked most Americans if DiHydrogen Monoxide should be regulated by the FDA, most would agree.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Sparafucile on 09/15/2014 at 10:14 AM

Re: “Why Do Democrats Keep Trying to Ban Guns That Look Scary, Not the Guns That Kill the Most People?

Why do people keep blaming democrats, liberals, republicans , pagans, etc. It seems like people after time get sick of getting rammed by the donkey so they choose the lesser evil and suck off the elephant. Then when the elephant rams them they go back and suck off the donkey. It seems like to replace them would only encourage the rat and the snake to step in and do the same. How about figuring that out instead of all of this nonsence.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Politically Incorrect on 09/14/2014 at 9:38 PM

Re: “Why Do Democrats Keep Trying to Ban Guns That Look Scary, Not the Guns That Kill the Most People?

How is he misinformed? Thats just like telling some one oh yeah..... no you!
Anywho the citizens already have a disadvantage when it compares to fire rate. Citizens are already legally bound to only posess semi-automatic weapons, Wheras I am sure that any serious forces will be using fully automatic weapons against citizens.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by AnonymousCoward on 09/14/2014 at 6:26 PM
Posted by donaldaq63 on 09/14/2014 at 5:03 PM

Re: “Why Do Democrats Keep Trying to Ban Guns That Look Scary, Not the Guns That Kill the Most People?

Well, pocket aces. maybe society just needs to grow up and accept that as long as a very few get to control power AND take all the wealth we are going to have crime. Maybe providing enough jobs to cover the population of the country, and assuring those jobs pay enough for people to actually LIVE on without working multiple jobs would eliminate the need for anyone to live off the taxpayers, PERIOD. But I suspect you are not willing to back such bold ideas, you'd rather blame the poor for their predicament, instead of addressing the real causes. I bet you vote Republican because you think that working actually means you can make it on your own. Guns should be legal, but you should need a license, you should need insurance, and you should need training...JUST LIKE CARS, big rigs, airplanes...and other machines that can cause death and injury.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by donaldaq63 on 09/14/2014 at 5:02 PM

Re: “Why Do Democrats Keep Trying to Ban Guns That Look Scary, Not the Guns That Kill the Most People?

The push to ban scary looking guns is a conjuring trick devised by devout anti-gunners in and out of government who will settle for banning some guns on their way to banning them all.

Since it's a given that the ultimate goal here is to ban all firearms, regardless of what the slick talking 'gun control' proponents say, let's take a look under the hood here to uncover the real motivation for this, using the tried and true question 'Cui bono ?'

Once firearms are banned for non-military and non-police use, the local, state and federal governments, along with organized and free-lance criminals, will have an overwhelming monopoly on violence and control in this country.

So all of these groups will definitely benefit from the ban, while everyone else will potentially lose in the equation, since they'll always be on the wrong end of the barrel.

It's been repeatedly demonstrated all over the world for hundreds of years that the pie hole is no match for the gun barrel, despite what the optimistic dreamers claim.

Even though most aware people realize that the military and police do actually have a virtual monopoly on violence and do have some weapons waiting in the closet that are potentially worse than brandishing firearms, the ability of citizens to keep firearms acts as a modest check on the over-application of violence and control by some overzealous enforcers and certainly also keeps a check on potential perpetrators.

Since the vast majority of the citizens have already shown that they are willing to give up their freedoms in order to feel they are safe from the current 'Goldstein' (the 1984 bogeyman) creation, it's doubtful that, there will ever be any kind of uprising that would require weapons parity with those who currently have a monopoly on violence.

And thus it's clear that this whole debate on so-called 'assault' rifles is really just smoke that distracts from the real issues that need to be addressed.

Misdirection Anyone?

And who is it that benefits from this misdirection?

1 like, 4 dislikes
Posted by watcher on 09/14/2014 at 3:48 PM

Re: “NFL Star Peterson Charged With Child Abuse; Will Not Play Sunday

I'm not sure how one lovingly takes a switch to a child, but ok. I love the fact that he thinks it's ok because his parents loved him in the same way. If you think it is just fine to hit a child to make them understand what is right and what is wrong- then YOU are the one who needs a good whoopin'.

Posted by Jim Self on 09/14/2014 at 11:06 AM

Re: “Why Do Democrats Keep Trying to Ban Guns That Look Scary, Not the Guns That Kill the Most People?

Once the definition of "assault weapon" is established and accepted, and a law is made to regulate them, that definition can be amended again and again to include other things. Lawmakers need not change the law, but how an assault weapon is defined. It's gun grabbing 101. Instead of flash suppressors, 100 round mags the new definition would become any weapon that uses detachable magazines, or fires more than 5 rounds. The nation should stop coddling criminals and thugs, and get tough when crimes are committed with guns or ANY weapon. These types of predators should not be allowed back in society, and executed immediately. No more living off the tax payers for 30 plus years. Why not concentrate on eliminating the criminal instead of going after the weapons people can use to defend their homes and family? It’s time to come out of the failed “make love not war” era and get serious about eliminating the real threat, people that don’t obey the law. Criminal control NOT gun control!

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Pocket Aces on 09/14/2014 at 8:25 AM

Re: “Why Do Democrats Keep Trying to Ban Guns That Look Scary, Not the Guns That Kill the Most People?

Seriously, good luck banning handguns.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by donaldaq63 on 09/13/2014 at 10:02 PM

Re: “Utah Teacher Shoots Self With Concealed Weapon

Apparently we can't legislate away stupidity, but it is possible to legislate it in.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by skunk on 09/11/2014 at 5:00 PM

Re: “Utah Teacher Shoots Self With Concealed Weapon

That teacher can join the Idaho State University instructor who shot himself in the foot while teaching class about a week ago.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by PHRED on 09/11/2014 at 4:49 PM

Re: “Utah Teacher Shoots Self With Concealed Weapon

graf#3 should be "No one *else* was injured..." eh?

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by tva on 09/11/2014 at 4:33 PM

Re: “Obama to Set Out Plan to Go On Offensive Against Islamic State

"describe what our game plan's going to be."

Could it be that Mr. "Hope and Change" is so clueless he's not aware of what the 'game plan' has been?.....Nah!

Just in case he didn't get the memo, here's the ongoing game plan:

The real policy is being run by the unofficial deep state, the government that has nothing to do with the elected officials who are supposed to be in charge. This is a plutocracy, which intersects with organized crime. And this is the real government of the United States of America.

Unfortunately we do not have a democratically elected government here anymore. We do not have a Constitution anymore. So, this imperial deep state has been taking US taxpayer dollars and probably a lot more CIA drug-smuggling dollars. There is a massive drug smuggling operation.

So ISIL is massively armed and funded by what we might call the real deep state of the West, which is an organized crime organization. They are getting their arms from the deep state network that ties together the sort of unofficial real governments, not the elected governments, but the deep states of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and Qatar.

The whole purpose is to allow extremists and sectarian secessionist forces in the Middle East to do their dirty work, to break up these countries into little pieces in line with the Zionist plan, Oded Yinon, for the balkanization of the Middle East.

There is the official aid that is being sent, the nonlethal aid being sent to the so-called good terrorists, the pro-American people who have absolutely zero support in the region…but behind the scenes, the real action is where the weapons are being secretly given to ISIS. And this has been going on for quite some time. It is the same method all over the world. The US empire does this everywhere: it essentially covertly arms and funds groups in a way that is deniable.

Posted by watcher on 09/08/2014 at 8:28 AM

Re: “Obama Delays Acting on Immigration Until After November Election

An interesting thing about this whole immigration fiasco is that there's a strong contingent of people in the U.S. now that are doing their best to make sure that current illegal immigrants don't come anywhere near to doing to the current resident population, what the original European 'illegal' immigrants did to the original native population.

Let's see, unlike the original European 'illegal' immigrants, the current illegal immigrants aren't slaughtering and forcibly driving the current population off their lands. They're also not forcing the current resident population to learn their language, religion and culture. They're not forcing the current resident population to abide by their laws and edicts. Etc, etc, etc.

As a matter of fact, the only thing that the current illegal immigrants are doing that's the same as the original European 'illegal' immigrants, is not getting 'legal' permission to enter the country.

Things have clearly come a long way since the original European 'illegal' immigrants murdered their way across the American continent, so let's get some perspective here and relax on the militant reactionary self-righteousness when it comes to dealing with current illegal immigrants.

Posted by watcher on 09/07/2014 at 3:16 PM


Top Viewed Stories

© 2017 Boise Weekly

Website powered by Foundation