CommentsDisplaying Abysmal's 10 most recent comments.

• Largest in Company’s History: HP Prepares to Cut 27,000 Jobs

  May 24, 2012 at 2:11am

  In reply to socialism.rocks.

  I agree! And when a poor quality reputation and lack of innovation comes back to bite you, that is proof that Capitalism Rocks!

• ‘I Want Him to Win’: Sarah Palin Endorses Orrin Hatch Over Tea Party-Backed Challenger

  May 24, 2012 at 1:42am

  In reply to Scottscobig.

  Senator Hatch’s record includes (hat-tip Club for Growth):

  Voted YES on TARP (RCV #213, 2008)

  Voted YES to increase the debt limit at least five times (RCV #354, 2007; RCV #54, 2006; RCV #213, 2004; RCV #202, 2003; RCV #148, 2002)

  Voted YES to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (RCV #157, 2008)

  Voted YES on SCHIP (RCV #353, 2007) • Voted NO on defunding the Bridge to Nowhere (RCV #262, 2005), and supported billions of dollars in other wasteful earmark spending.

  Voted YES on the Medicare drug benefit (RCV #459, 2003)

  Voted YES on No Child Left Behind (RCV #371, 2001)

  Enough said! Throw the bum out!

• Rep. Allen West Says He’s Willing to Discuss Tax Increases If…

  May 24, 2012 at 1:35am

  In reply to readyfornov.

  Allen West is disingenuous. If 535 member of Congress each find a program that eliminates $350M over 10 years (equally $35M/yr on average), then we are talking $18.7 billion of savings a year, or less than 1.5% of our current deficit. That leaves us firmly planted on the road to financial disaster, especially considering the deficit is rising at a rate higher than 1.5%/year.

  Furthermore, balanced approaches (fancy word for raising taxes while cutting spending) toward austerity do not work. Here is more information for those interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQu7V9pMK48

• Man Shoves Reporter, Screams N-Word on Live TV

  May 22, 2012 at 2:35pm

  In reply to The-Monk.

  Because he was going to be on television…

• Explicit NYPD Rant Caught on Tape: ‘I’ll Take My Gun and Shove It…’

  May 22, 2012 at 1:03am

  In reply to spirited.

  Perhaps even worse than the completely unprofessional nature of the cop in question is that the commenting “law enforcement sources” dismiss the behavior and suggest that it is acceptable. It must be well understood that this behavior is NOT acceptable – police officers have their authority delegated to them by the people they serve, and they must not be permitted to believe that they can, “Do whatever the f–k they want.” Police officers are in a position of authority, and accordingly, must be held to a higher standard of professionalism than ordinary citizens.

• Krauthammer: Daniels‘ GOP Response ’One of the Best’

  January 25, 2012 at 2:46pm

  In reply to RightPolitically.

  This is a prime example of a critical deficiency in the average American’s evaluation of politicians – the preference of style over substance.

• What Does Rick Santorum Really Think About Romney’s Days at Bain Capital? He Tells Us

  January 12, 2012 at 5:07pm

  In reply to Freedomluver.

  At least we know where Santorum stands on the Patriot Act – he believes it is constitutional. Here are excerpts from the New Hampshire debate on Saturday evening, in relevant part:

  PAUL: …I think the Fourth Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can’t go into anybody’s house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant. This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment…

  SANTORUM: Well, Congressman Paul is talking about privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, which I agree with him in, I don’t necessarily agree that the Patriot Act violates that.

  Source: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/2012-abcyahoowmur-new-hampshire-gop-primary-debate-transcript/2012/01/07/gIQAk2AAiP_blog.html (search for PATRIOT))

  Santorum states he believes in some vague notion of privacy. But he is fine with the FBI writing its own search warrants absent judicial review and subsequently searching your property in secret while making it look like a burglary. The Patriot Act also provides for the FBI to write its own search warrants to secretly obtain private records including library records, medical records, and grocery store purchases. I would suggest that if Santorum is OK with this, then he is likely okay with the NDAA, and will likely continue expanding police powers in elected office.

• Did Cops Beat a Canadian Man to Death for Hugging the Wrong Woman?

  January 12, 2012 at 3:31pm

  In reply to Alborn49.

  Great question, Alborn49!

  This story is important in context with another recent story posted on TheBlaze regarding an L.A. cop that punched an unruly female bus passenger in the face. In that story, the woman was clearly agitated and yelled directly in the face of the police office. The officer responded but rearing back a punching the woman in the face, in what appears to be an act of frustration.

  Oddly enough, most Blaze commenters are taking the side of the police! Some justify this because they believe spitting was involved, but spitting is not reported in the story, is not evident in the video, and is not alleged by the police. Regardless, we the people delegate a tremendous amount of power to the police, and as such, they must be held to a equally high standard. It is never okay for a police officer to abuse the authority they are afforded out of frustration or anger.

  Individual police officers must be held accountable for abusing their authority. Otherwise, it is likely their abuses will escalate over time, and some day we may begin seeing cases similar to this story here in the USA.

• Another NYC Tourist Arrested on Gun Charges Despite Having Permit

  January 10, 2012 at 8:19pm

  In reply to JustMel71.

  @PubliusPencilman – Thank you for your reply!

  I am uncertain as to precisely what you mean by “threat of harm.” I would contend that threatening to harm someone (even with empty threats) is still a harmful application of speech, and my argument remains unchanged. I would equate this to pointing an unloaded gun at someone with the purpose of intimidating them – this is a harmful application of arms.

  However, I think it is more likely that you are equating “threat of harm” with capacity or potential to cause harm. While I agree that some may consider the capacity to cause harm frightening, its possession is not a threat in-and-of-itself. After all, police officers openly carry guns in public, but their possession of the capacity to cause serious bodily injury is not a threat. A large bodybuilder’s ability to overpower a smaller man may be intimidating, but the possession of this potential is not a threat. The government possesses fighter jets and frequently conducts military training exercises overhead, but this is not a threat.

  The 2nd Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore, any law that limits or undermines an otherwise law-abiding citizen of their right to equip himself with firearms is unconstitutional. Whether a majority of NYC citizens supports such a law is immaterial, as this never justly trumps the inalienable characteristic of this natural right.

• Another NYC Tourist Arrested on Gun Charges Despite Having Permit

  January 10, 2012 at 3:57pm

  In reply to JustMel71.

  @PubliusPencilman who states “none of you seem to accept the logical conclusion that the 2nd Amendment must also have limitations for the purpose of public safety.”

  Firstly, I would point out that the framing of your argument starts with an incorrect assumption. Specifically, you are framing that the right of freedom of speech and the right to bears arms are rights granted to us by the Constitution. This is incorrect. These are natural rights that all human beings have regardless of whether the government recognizes them under the law. The Constitution actually serves to protect these natural rights, not grant them, within our legal structure.

  Secondly, you imply that accepting “limitations” on the first amendment logically applies to the second amendment. [I put limitations in quotes because we are actually discussing limiting other limitations here] What I think you are missing is that these free speech “limitations” are targeted specifically on applications that harm others. We agree that our right to free speech does not allow us to use speech in a manner to harm others as you described. The correct logical application of this concept to the 2nd Amendment, then, is in limiting the harmful application of arms onto others. In that sense, the equivalent “limitations” already exist in laws that criminalize robbery, murder, and other incidents where arms are used to unjustifiably harm others.