HBM

"I think the point the NRA is trying to make is that you can not control what people do." So why have any laws at all then? "The NRA has been trying to fight for our right to bare arms!" Hey, look, man, you can wear short sleeves, or no sleeves, or no shirt as far as I'm concerned. Go ahead and bare those arms. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I knew I could count on you to stick up for the cops, Jon; in your mind the police can do no wrong. But as for Olsen's service in the Marines, that's a fact, and it's also a fact that he did two tours of duty in Iraq. Your disapproval of his political views doesn't erase those facts. Of course you're part of the same crowd that Swiftboated John Kerry and exalted the draft-dodging coward George W. Bush, so I shouldn't be surprised.

"and the fights/violence" The only violence I've seen -- except in Rome, where some anarchists got crazy -- has been initiated by the cops. There's an ex-Marine lying in a hospital in Oakland today after sustaining a fractured skull when a police tear gas canister hit him in the head at close range. Why didn't you mention that?

"I beleive it is misguided for the most part and belongs to be aimed directly at Washington and this regime's policies." I would remind you that the financial collapse that led to the present Great Recession occurred during a Republican "regime." But you're right that populist anger needs to be directed at Washington as well as Wall Street, because Washington enabled the Wall Street scams that led to the current mess. The Tea Partiers think it's all the government's fault. The Occupiers think it's all Wall Street's fault. When both of them figure out that the real problem is Wall Street's control of and collusion with Washington, maybe they'll join forces. And then look out.

Jon, this is what the sentence says: "Their gripes are about everything from home foreclosures to the Federal Reserve to the high cost of gasoline to the alleged cover-up of the real story behind 9/11." The sentence is describing what some of the OWS demonstrators are complaining about, NOT what the opinion of the Source is. "And while the Source may have never overtly endorsed the "truth" movement, with careful reading, its pretty clear "truthers" populate the editorial staff." And it's abundantly clear that you're full of it, Jon. Do you even personally know any of the people on the editorial staff? I do. They are not "truthers." But you'll just go on believing what you want to believe and employing your "careful readings" to justify your beliefs, so I won't waste any more of my time here.

Bill: $168 BILLION? Try million. Also, the OWS demonstrators are by no means all disgruntled English majors with student loans. And a lot of them aren't real happy with Obama either. Jon: Reading comprehension problem there. Referring to "the alleged cover-up" is rather different from saying there was a cover-up. I've never seen the Source endorse the 9/11 truther nonsense. In fact it's often been taken to task by the truthers for NOT agreeing with them.

Mike: It was a JOKE, Mike, just a JOKE. Dave: And the lawn chair balloonist, don't forget him.