General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCharles Schulz got it right in this Peanuts toon
Found on the The Pragmatic Progressive Page
tiny elvis
(979 posts)thus he is not credible and his point is moot
GeorgeGist
(25,318 posts)right?
tiny elvis
(979 posts)and do not get me started on trying to identify the manufacturer of that chimera of a firearm
gateley
(62,683 posts)TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)I expect he got a lot right.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,165 posts)Also licenses to cut hair and do manicures.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... is a treasure and a keeper... going in the scrapbook! Thanks, Playinghardball!
AverageMe
(91 posts)Those Republicans who are against an assault weapons ban are crazy. I could not imagine why anyone would be against controlling the availability of assault rifles with clips of up to 100 bullets after Sandy Hook (Newtown). I support the right to defend yourself, or go hunting, with a handgun, rifle or shotgun, but I see no reason for the assault rifles. So I went to Free Republic (a conservative Republican web community) to see their reasons.
These Republicans want the assault weapons to defend themselves, but not against criminals. They want these weapons of mass destruction of children to defend themselves against the US government. They see the US government, particularly President Obama, as their enemy who is taking away their freedom and liberty. They believe we are headed down the road to a dictatorship under Obama. They see the taking away of these assault weapons as just the required first step Obama needs to accomplish this. They see themselves as patriots who are defending the Constitution. Some are calling for a revolution now, as in 1776, after all the Boston "Tea Party" was one of the first acts of that revolution.
The current presidential line of succession, as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is: Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D), and secondly Speaker of the House John Boehner (R). Very few times are the President and Vice President together in a non-tightly controlled environment, the presidential inauguration is one such occasion in which this is true. If the unthinkable happened, and both President Obama and Vice President Biden should die, a Republican, John Boehner would be our President. John Boehner's policies would be the exact opposite of those of President Obama and Vice President Biden's. The presidential line of succession should be changed so that the presidency would not switch parties if there was a co-ordinated attack by madmen on both the President and Vice President.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)That would actually be a hard thing to set up, not having it switch parties if both Prez and Veep go at the same time.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The current line of succession is:
Vice President
Speaker of the House
President Pro Tem of the Senate
Secretary of State
then the rest of the Cabinet in a specified order (roughly, order of creation of the department)
It's the inclusion of the two Congressional leaders that raises the possibility of a party switch effected by violence. Just delete those two positions from the list. (One argument that's been made is that it's unconstitutional to have Congressional leaders in there, anyway, because the separation between the executive and legislative branches should be preserved.)
The succession after the Vice President is merely a matter of statute. It could be changed without a constitutional amendment
icarusxat
(403 posts)How do we stop Republicans from shooting people?
Takket
(21,552 posts)Obviously he hated America.
Schultz? Hmmmmmmmmm where have i heard his name before? Oh yeah, he was a NAZI!!!!!!!!! I saw it all on Hogan's Heros!!!!!!!
Signed,
Typical Republican moron.
FredStembottom
(2,928 posts)Why would Charlie Brown (a child ) get a driver's license?
And I can't recall Schultz wading into anything political in his toons.
I would like to think that he did do this, however.