| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
Riceroni – The San Francisco Retreat
What is going on in San Francisco? I mentioned yesterday a blog post by Bryan Preston where he called yesterday’s elections in San Francisco a “San Fransecession” but wanted to expand on the SF elections today. First, here’s a recap of the results:
SF Voters Pass Gun Ban; Oust Military Recruiters
SAN FRANCISCO — Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city’s public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters.
With 100 percent of San Francisco precincts reporting on Wednesday, 58 percent of voters backed the proposed gun ban while 42 percent opposed it.
Measure H prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and make it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.
Only two other major U.S. cities — Washington and Chicago — have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.
Supervisor Chris Daly, who proposed the measure, said the victory showed that “San Francisco voters support sensible gun control.”
Citing statistics that show most homicides in the city involve handguns, Daly said “every life that’s saved with Proposition H is a big win.”
Although law enforcement, security guards and others who require weapons for work are exempt from the measure, current handgun owners would have to surrender their firearms by April.
A coalition led by the National Rifle Association has said it plans to challenge the initiative in court, arguing that cities do not have the authority to regulate firearms under California law.
Davey Jones, chairman of the Committee to Oppose Handgun Ban, said a recent wave of gun violence in the city may have hurt his campaign, but opponents believe the right to possess handguns is necessary for self-defense.
“We focused our message to seniors and to women and to the gay community,” Jones said. “Of course we’re disappointed. We believe that we did not get the message out.”
The military recruitment initiative also won with 60 percent in favor and 40 percent against.
Measure I, dubbed “College Not Combat,” opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.
Instead, Proposition I encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military’s appeal to young adults.
Can you *believe* this mess? I mean, I know we’re talking about one of the most, if not THE most liberal cities in our country, but c’mon! This doesn’t even sound American to me. Banning military recruiters from schools. Measure H is an outright violation of your right to bear arms.
Let’s not forget the 8-3 vote back in July by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors against a resolution supporting a bid to move the historic battleship Iowa to the city as a floating museum.
If SF is an example of what happens when bonafide liberals hold the power, then let’s hope that they never gain control of Congress and the WH collectively again. This is insane.
(Cross-posted at California Conservative)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
23 Responses to “Riceroni – The San Francisco Retreat”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
It’s acceptable to tell two people who love each other that they can not get married(Texas) because they happen to be gay but, it’s wrong to try and get rid of tools that kill people. Someone is nutz here and me thinks it might be Texans. Peace
Steve,
Liberalism is becoming a mental disease. You hate Israel. You hate the US. You hate Texans. Who are you going to hate next?
Ban the military? Fine. Next disaster DO NOT send the NG.
Banning guns only proves the idiocy of the voters.
The intent of the Second Amendment is to guarantee our, “we the people,” the right to bear arms was to protect us, “We the people,” from the government, and those who wish to do “we the people” harm. What SF has done is render itself impotent in defending itself from the government, or others, by asking that the government take away a right set in place by our founding fathers to protect “we the people” from excesses of the government.
The NRA has already filed suit against this measure, and the Mayor of San Francisco has said he believes it (the gun ban/turn in) will be tossed out.
Those who believe confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens will stop violence know nothing about what has happened in the UK. (Violent acts have increased.) The UK anti-gun groups now want knives over a certain length banned, including kitchen knives. UK mothers had better be prepared to carve turkey with their nail files. OOPS! Sorry. I just gave the anti-gun groups their next target: nail files.
Bachbone,
I remember that one of the Scandnavian countries wanted to ban baseball bats because their soccer houligans and other “youth” gangs used them as weapons.
That’s Liberals for you. They try to ban inanimate objects instead of focusing on the problem, evil humans.
I hate nothing except violence. Those that enable violence and war, I pray for. Peace
- Steve…. We all hate violence, so stop already with the moral equivalence and broad brush maleprop arguments.
- I’ll tell you what I’d really hate. To sit and watch, helpless to help you, while the rioters in NO wandered the streets shooting anyone that got in their way, including you and your family, simply because people that refuse to deal with reality denied you and me our constitutional right to arm ourselve’s in self defense…
- Lets work on the ills of the real world we live in, where some are more than happy to deny you ALL your constitutional rights by killing you if they can get away with it. Then we’ll tackle Utopia when the reality of things have changed….
- This is just the anti-reality, anti-everything opposition to the world, playing their usual “gee if only” wishful thinking head games, which are bad enough in fantasy, but even worse – get people killed. I think the people that back these sorts of “out of touch with reality” initiatives should stick to video games and let the adults run the show.
- Big Bang
Utopia would have no violence Steve. What would you the president do after 3,000+ people were slaugtered in a 2 hour period, and this was a track record of attacks against the U.S for over 2 decades that we haven’t responded to?
Let’s bring it closer to home. Let’s say you were witnessing my children being hurt/killed (I’m using my children so you don’t think I’m attacking you), if your words are failing to stop the attacker – what are you to do? Do you use force to stop my children from being hurt/killed?
My opinion is that you need to read Dennis Prager’s take on Pacificism. His take is that pacificism is evil. It is worse than someone choosing vegetarianism because vegetarianism only hurts that person but pacificism allows others to get hurt. I’m paraphrasing but you really should seek his work. He is a man of God also. There are plenty others who talk about Jesus wasn’t teaching those in a position of leadership to offer another cheek in the sense that if someone kills someone you offer the killer another one of your peoples. The passage about turning your other cheek was concerning YOUR OWN BODY and not what a LEADER should do.
I pray that Democrats and liberals like yourself do not get into national power any time soon with your attitude.
ism = the belief in.
pacifism is the belief that non violence is the answer.
While there is evil that must be triumphed over it is fine to act peacefully or choose non-violence but there are plenty of times when force or violence is necessary to stop good people from perishing.
- SF is going to cross the line once too often when they don’t have a Dem State DA carrying their water for them and the fit is going the hit the San.
- Bang
I’m not suggesting suicide, rather non-violence. After any violent death my first reaction is why? Revenge does not enter the thought process. Often any action is worse than no action. bush made a mistake by illegally invading Iraq. The only group less effective than bush and the neo-cons is al qaeda. For both groups the fight is the thing and without the fight there is nothing. You can only beat Al Qaeda by making them the enemy in the eye’s of the people. By staying in Iraq the US becomes the enemy. Peace
Steve wrote, “I’m not suggesting suicide, rather non-violence”
So what are you suggesting as a response to 9/11? A trial? Legal action? A fine levied on Saudi Arabia?
Steve wrote, “After any violent death my first reaction is why? They’ve answered that question Steve. What do you think the Islamists answer to that is? (I know you are new so beware that Islamist is not just someone is is a Muslim or practices Islam – get to the answer)
Steve lied again by writing, “bush made a mistake by illegally invading Iraq What law was broken I asked? You never answered above. Why was that action illegal in your eyes? Are the 30 countries that accompanied us breaking the law also?
Steve wrote without perspective, “For both groups the fight is the thing and without the fight there is nothing. Before we engaged there was 9/11. What would’ve been you response to 9/11? If you stop fighting and a guy keeps hitting your face what do you do? How do you remove the fight when the other party doesn’t allow the fight to be removed? It only takes one to have a fight!
Steve wrote, “By staying in Iraq the US becomes the enemy. If the fight isn’t removed, yet we leave Iraq, what happens to the peace loving people in Iraq that want Democracy (purple thumbs) the day after we pull out? (be honest)
You people claim to want peace, but a city that has taken two concrete steps toward peace is being derided and mocked. Didn’t Bill O’Reilly invite terrorists to blow up the Coit Tower? Isn’t that giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Wouldn’t that make him guilty of treason?
San Fransisco is America. Texas is America. Boston and New York are America, so are Cedar Rapids and Topeka.
Why do you guys hate America?
ooh this is such a good converstation…
Why do you hate America Norah? No need to answer that.
If a concrete step towards peace was determined by a leftist to be unilateral disarmament should we take that step or if we didn’t take that step would we be accused by leftists as not wanting peace?
What would the result of unilateral disarmament be Norah? Would it be peace or would it lead towards our quick destruction.
Soooo… Peace as defined by a liberal is those who are evil winning…. And yes, I do consider that America is good and the people who want the infidel to convert or die is evil. Islamists (not peace loving Muslims) need to learn to coexist with the rest of the world. Additionally, we have the right to defend ourselves in order to attempt to keep the peace.
SF wanting to shun our military is not helpful towards having peace. It actually makes the enemy think that their game plan is working and might egg them on even more to attack us as they think we are this close “” towards surrender.
OKay, you seem to have a little trouble staying on topic. I didn’t say anything about unilateral disarmament, and neither did SF. Being a city, they have no authority on enter into international agreements.
It’s very simple: a majority of their citizens voted against firearms, and to encourage schools not to allow military recruiters. Not to “ban” the military, not to “forbid” people from joining it if they so choose, but to remove the military presence from classrooms. I don’t happen to think it belongs there, either. Kids are there to learn, and the voters are saying, if they want to be all that they can be, they can seek out the recruiting office on their own time.
SF is an American city (has this point gotten through to you yet?) and to invite AQ to come and blow it up is utterly reprehensible. In effect, you’re saying that people who don’t share your political philosophies deserve to die. And if it really happens, I hope for your sake that there is no God.
Norah, SF is just surrendering. They want everyone else to take up the duty of protecting them. They are shirking their oblgations and are very unpatriotic, as you seem to be.
Norah wrote, “I don’t happen to think it belongs there, either. Kids are there to learn
Then remove all people representing all careers on career day. Don’t single out one profession. As you said… Kids are there to learn.
Norah wrote incorrectly, “and to invite AQ to come and blow it up is utterly reprehensible
Nobody did that.
It would be like this. Someone who saves 10% of their money every paycheck viewing a neighbor who doesn’t save anything and lives paycheck to paycheck. He/She remarks, “they will have a hard time when their A/C unit goes kaput”. That’s not wishing that their A/C unit goes kaput or wanting them to have a hard time. The analogy isn’t exact but it points out what you are stating that people want or wish and you don’t know what people want or wish. It isn’t possible. In fact you are incorrectlly attributing wants and wishes to me so I know 100% that you are incorrect.
PCD,
They are shirking their oblgations and are very unpatriotic, as you seem to be.
Hear that, ST? Sounds like an ad-hom.
I believe in the democratic process, which is what decided these new policies in SF. If you think that makes me “unpatriotic”, then one of us is pledging allegiance to the wrong country. (And it ain’t me.)
Baklava:
Norah wrote incorrectly, “and to invite AQ to come and blow it up is utterly reprehensible
Nobody did that.
Yes, actually, Bill O’Reilly did that. And several people here defended what he did.
And, sorry, but that’s a terrible analogy. Are the taxpayers contributing to the neighbor’s faulty AC unit, thus giving him a right to expect that someone will help him if it breaks down? And if he comes to his neighbor with the savings and asks to borrow a fan, will the guy say “Screw you. I don’t care if it is 101 in the shade, it’s your own fault”?
Once again, the military is not “banned” from setting foot in SF, only discouraged from actively recruiting high school kids. Not everyone voted for that resolution. Nobody is being prevented from joining. SF taxpayer money is still being shoveled into Iraq by the billions. So for you people to say they should all burn if the terrorists come and it’s their own fault anyway is morally reprehensible.
Do you get it yet?
Norah, PCD’s post was made around the same time mine was …. he likely didn’t have a chance to view it until afterwards.
I am going to do my best to police the comments section but again to repeat to all: I am trusting you to police yourselves. I cannot catch everything. Keep in mind there are also times when I may not think that something is a personal attack that someone else does.
Since SF is a net importer of Tax dollars from Federal and State taxpayers, you are biting the hand that feeds you, Norah. What is morally reprehensible are cut and run liberals who think it is ok to leave Saddam in power to kill anyone he wishes and to do nothing about it. You would have supported Chamberlain in WW2 and left the Jews, Gypsies, etc, to their fate because they didn’t get rid of Hitler themselves.
Norah wrote, “Do you get it yet?”
I get that you will continue to incorrectly attack Bill and myself just as you’ve done others in other threads. It’s a common trait of liberals.
Though I have seen conservatives attack others incorrectly (though not as often). Why must you put people on the defensive and have them explain theirselves to you Norah?