Presidential populist Bernie Sanders came under blistering fire Tuesday for opposing efforts by families of Sandy Hook shooting victims to sue gun manufacturers.
Sanders, in an exclusive interview with the Daily News last week, said, “No, I don’t,” when asked if victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer.
This of course elicited a response from Hillary Clinton who said:
“I was against it, and he was for it, to give immunity from liability to gunmakers and sellers,” front-runner Hillary Clinton told supporters at a campaign event at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn. “We can reverse this, and 92% of Americans and 85% of gun owners agree that we should.”
However she was not the only one to have sharp words for Sanders over his response.
Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy said the public doesn’t need “apologists for the NRA.” “He is just wrong,” Malloy, criticizing Sanders, told The News.
“He is dead wrong on guns. He had an opportunity to educate the people of Vermont about guns. Vermont is small enough that he could have gone house to house to educate people about guns.”
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy took to Twitter to shoot down Sanders’ gun stance, saying the presidential candidate is out of line.
“For Sanders to say that the Sandy Hook families should be barred from court, even if the weapon was negligently made, is wrong,” Murphy tweeted.
“Bernie is a friend, but this is really bad. Dems can’t nominate a candidate who supports gun manufacturer immunity.
As you know I am not a single issue voter, and I think single issue voters are idiots, however dealing with the shocking number of shooting deaths that we have in America, and the overwhelming number of guns in the hands of people who should never have even one in their possession, is a priority that I think most liberals have in common.
Personally after reading that New York Daily News interview with Sanders I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody still supports him in this race.
I guess cognitive dissonance is not only a trait to be found among the conservatives in this country.
Sanders supporters will soon be insulting the families whose children were slaughtered in Sandy Hook. Clinton must be paying them or something.
ReplyDeleteLumping us all into one category is just fucking stupid.
Delete"Sanders supporters" doesn't mean "all Sanders supporters," but fair enough, I'll rewrite it: "some Sanders supporters..."
DeleteThanks for your editing suggestion.
Clinton's paying them? That was pretty stupid. Are you a Trump supporter?
DeleteAll Sanders supports are fucking stupid.
Delete9:55 - Okay. You're entitled to your opinion. However, I disagree that all Sanders supporters are stupid. I have sparred with quite a few in the comments here over the past months, and many of them are nice and very thoughtful. I look forward to unity with those Sanders' supporters when the Democratic primaries are over.
DeleteOT-Trump told Attkisson that Obama’s “incompetent” and “I know more about nuclear than he will ever know.”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-responds-to-obama-saying-he-doesnt-know-anything-about-the-world/
...Just as Trump is impervious to learning anything, he is also impervious to being ridiculed for it. If you don’t like him, you better shut up about it. Why? Because he will murderlize you, that’s why.
Delete“Anybody that hits me, we’re gonna hit them 10 times harder,” Trump said in summing up his domestic policy to Sean Hannity in November 2015.
This has begun to trouble some people. Ann Coulter, an extreme right-wing Republican, said last week: “Our candidate is mental. Do you realize our candidate is mental?”
Yes, Ann, we do.
He is mental, mean-spirited, a bigot and a dolt. But he is also a natural-born citizen of the United States, a resident here for at least 14 years, and 35 years of age or older. Which is all the Constitution requires.
But keep this in mind: The only people who have voted for Trump thus far have voted in Republican primaries and caucuses.
Trump, in other words, is a creation of today’s Republican Party. So don’t blame all of America for him. Or think all of America can’t stop him.
Even Republicans are beginning to realize what this means.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-tries-to-hijack-america-want-to-stop-him-221596
“Anybody that hits me, we’re gonna hit them 10 times harder,” Trump said in summing up his domestic policy to Sean Hannity in November 2015.
Delete----
Melania repeated that line in her prepared statement at a WI rally. I thought Trump was lying when he insisted she wrote the statement by her ownself and now I think it's almost certain he was lying.
I've read that article and read another one, too. Others should read the follow-up to the Daily News interview and analysis. Here it is:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5
Read both and the second did not change my perception of the 1st. Sanders is a one trick pony, has shown nothing new since he started running, and has some hefty skeletons in his closet that his DEM rival has not shown to the light of day. You can damned well believe the GOP nominee will not be so nice. Sanders will lose and lose big if he is the DEM nominee, no matter who is on the GOP ticket.
DeleteAlso, this analysis: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/this-new-york-daily-news-interview-was-pretty-close-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/
Deletehttp://www.thewrap.com/bernie-sanders-is-under-fire-again-on-ny-daily-news-front-page-photo/
DeleteYou may not be a single-issue voter Gryphen, but Bernie is a single-issue candidate. Bernie is using the democratic party like Trump is using the republican party.
ReplyDeleteAgree! I lived in California in the seventies and Gov. Jerry Brown (thank goodness he's back again!) made ALL state colleges, community state and university levels FREE. I only paid a student activities fee of about fifty bucks, lab fees and books.
DeleteThe program was shut down when Reagan became governor- he suddenly realized all of these students had plenty of time on their hands to protest.
Anybody who imagines that free college education would be voted in by a Republican led congress who would prefer citizens/voters to be kept passive and ignorant is (California) dreamin'.
Wild Tortoise
Anonymous 9:42:
DeleteI grew up in northern Cali.and was a student at Santa Rosa J.C. starting fall of 1973 and there was tuition, it was low and they had a set fee for a full time student because a rich guy left his money to the college which is probably the best J.C. in the country. I got a scholarship for Berkeley but never used it, they had tuition that was much higher than SRJC. I then took some Poli. Sci. courses at San Francisco State where I worked my ass off and paid tuition in the late 70s. Tuition was made free in 1868, so Jerry Brown who was born in 1938 was not involved. Tuition began under Reagan in the 1960s. Reagan was the governor just prior to Jerry Brown who took office in 1975 so Reagan raised the tuition in the 60s before J.B. even arrived and it was not free in the 1970s. Pat Brown J.B.'s father was governor starting in 1959, but he did not make tuition free either, it was already in place. We had for govs Pat Brown, then Ronnie Rayguns, then Jerry Brown. What planet are you from?
Hi, Celia- 9:42 here. Looks like we just missed each other by a few years in the California College system. Here's what you missed...
DeleteAnd I did make a mistake, it was actually Governor Pat Brown who sponsored the California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960. As an aside, he was a wonderful Democratic governor, like his twice-elected son Jerry.
Tuition was free at that time, until Reagan changed things in 1969. Note: this timeline is from wikipedia.org "California Master Plan for Higher Education" and bio material for Gov. Pat Brown.
As a senior in high school, the Vietnam war was a national tragedy, on the news every night. This was just before the draft began to use the lottery system, and every 18 year old boy I knew was still able to get a college deferment. Very minor fees made it possible for everyone to go to college and as well as getting an education, lives were saved by deferment.
I went to UC Irvine in 1971 and then transferred out of state. Reagan began to institute tuition fees in 1969, but for me it was still insignificant two years later. By the LATE seventies it had risen to the degree you remember.
It was interesting for me to go back and see what all happened to cancel one of the best education plans in the country. Very complicated situation, including property tax-payers revolt, as well as social upheaval.
This still supports my original point, which is that Sanders' claim that he can make college free without universal congressional support is simply not possible.
I wish. I had it, I loved it.
O.T., you certainly seem to be on a tear today.
Planet Rude, or lacking free tuition for finishing school?
Wild Tortoise
If somebody stabs a person with an oneida fork, is oneida getting sued? If someone is beaten to death with a baseball bat, is the bst manufacturer getting sued? Where does it end. Bernie has a point. If we used the majority's logic of holding the gun manufacturer accountable, then the cigatette companies should be out of business because of all the lawsuits potentially filed. I hate all the shootings, so maybe we should just outlaw guns. Villify the nra, not bernie.
ReplyDelete@8:44 What's function does a gun have other than to kill? You're welcome.
DeleteDo you really not know that cigarette companies have been sued?
DeleteUnlike guns, cigarette companies don't have blanket immunity. So far, they haven't gone out of business.
Edit: Hey, and guess what! Baseball bat companies (and sellers) have been sued because their aluminum bats are dangerous for use by kids (apparently they allow the ball to be hit too hard).
Right! Can we sue Jack Daniels if a person causes a death while driving drunk?
Delete9:08 you are just plain wrong, and dumb. Typical liberal.
DeleteHey Gryph, when are you going to do an article on all the gun violence and gun deaths in in all the strict gun control liberal run cities? There are often more deaths per gun violence every two weekends in Chicago than Sandy Hook. Hows that gun control working? Why aren't the libs talking about it? Maybe talking about what the real problem is?
You could sue them. Alcohol companies don't have blanket immunity. That doesn't mean your lawsuit wouldn't get thrown out, but you could sue them.
DeleteIn fact, alcohol companies have been sued over issues with their product, for example, Four Loko.
The issue isn't whether some lawsuits are frivolous or silly or justified. The issue is that the gun industry (and sellers) get special protection where most industries don't.
Wow, thanks for the very intellectual retort! Changing the subject just because you have no answers again @9:18?
DeleteWhy don't you tell us what the "real problem" is? Or should I say "who?"
DeleteCome on, you know you want to write it.
Puh-leeze. If I were playing "Clue" I would do my stabbing in the drawing room with sterling only, thank you very much.
DeletePerhaps if the gin manufacturers could be sued, they would then stop bending over for the NRA and put locks on every gun sold, quit selling ammo that pierces bullet-proof material, and get military weapons out of the hand son the public?
DeleteIt's all moot anyway:
DeleteProtection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
Gun manufacturers can't be sued for the unlawful behavior of those who buy their products.
The point is none of the businesses you mention have IMMUNITY from being sued. You can try to sue them. You wouldn't win but you could try.
DeleteAsk Senator Sanders why the gun industry get blanket immunity by other industries don't.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-10/bernie-sanders-supported-gun-company-immunity-but-opposed-it-for-other-industries
Anonymous 8:46 AM,
DeleteFast food restaurants, really? Yea I would have opposed that too. There is a difference here. Manufacturers sell to retailers who have requirements to meet. Why would fast food restaurants,insurance companies, dietary supplement producers be protected? Who would want that except those industries. They also list machine tool manufacturers, but this is not about people using the tools to murder someone, it's about the failure of the product and misusing a product generally means failure to mitigate and your own neglect so the lawsuit is dropped. This is comparing apples and oranges.
Every industry would love to be protected the same way gun manufacturers are.
DeleteSandy Hook victims should have the right to sue the negligent parent that left the gun available to the shooter. The legally purchased firearm performed as designed and without any negligence on the part of the manufacturer. The weapon was manufactured and purchased legally.
ReplyDeleteUntil the law is changed, the manufacturer should have no liability in this case.
The negligent parent is dead.
DeleteCorrect.
DeleteCorrect to what 8:58 said. Not 9:18.
Delete8:58 - Maybe the lawsuit is without merit, maybe not. I don't know how the Sandy Hook families would present their case. But to give blanket protection to one industry so their liability can't even be adjudicated is twisted.
DeleteYou know, I understand you like Hillary. Good for you, I lkie Bernie. I think either one would be a better president than any repub; however, the fact that you keep insulting us Bernie supporters with shit like "cognitive dissonance", and basically treating us like a palin lap dog is pretty shitty. I was hoping that we could all behave like adults and just agree to disagree and have each others back if one or the other wins. For fucks sake, it's not like we are that far apart on policy issues.
ReplyDelete"For fucks sake, it's not like we are that far apart on policy issues."
DeleteIt's refreshing to hear a Sanders supporter say that. Maybe it's only his most vocal supporters, but mainly I hear that she's no better than a Republican (or that she actually is a republican).
Sorry Sunshine, but it was the Bernie supporters who started attacking Hillary.
DeleteIt's Gryph's blog, he can say what he wants.
DeleteThank you for saying this. I come to this blog because I am a liberal and because I thought we barely dodged the Sarah Dumbass bullet in 2008. I supported Bernie in the AZ primaries, but I will support whoever the Dem nominee is in the general. For that reason, I have not trashed HRC on any blog or FB page I participate in, and I am upset with people who do. I feel the same way about hardcore HRC supporters. Bernie might win it. Either of them will be one million times more preferable to Trump or Cruz or any other oozing slimy Republican. Thanks for reading.
DeleteSanders is Trump in DEM clothing.
ReplyDelete+1000
DeleteUgh, enough with the Bernie bashing. I'm not sure I support him, but I certainly don't support Hillary, especially on this issue--it's a red herring. Ask her, does she support people of other countries suing the US and US weapon manufactures when the US military kills people in "collateral damage"? We're the largest exporter of weapons, there's no way she'd allow that.
ReplyDeleteDoes Bernie support that?
DeleteBernie doesn't know what he supports.
DeleteWhy do you not want others to know Bernie's stance on different issues? How is that bashing him? He obviously thinks weapons manufacturers are above the law.
Delete@ anon 9:25 am
DeleteWell we do know that DEadBeat Dad Bernie didn't support his biological child Levi. And pretended that Levi was his first wife's child instead of his gfs.
Don't like it? Leave.
DeleteIt's a red herring just like we shouldn't talk about outrageous attacks on women and reproductive rights because we need to focus on what's really important.
DeleteIt's a red herring because as already stated above, gun manufacturers are immune. It is also important that we shouldn't use one data point to make a decision. Clinton has supported numerous foreign policy disasters such as the Iraq war that killed many times more children in senseless deaths as had been killed at Sandy Hook. Although by far she is not the one most culpable, blood is nevertheless on her hands, undeniably. Should she be subjected to lawsuits?
DeleteWell, we are arguing that gun manufacturers shouldn't be immune, that Bernie Sanders should not have voted for their immunity and that he is tone deaf in the way he speaks about gun violence in this country.
DeletePeople can focus on more than one thing at a time. Just because we aren't happy with what's gone on with American weapons in other countries doesn't mean we also can't be unhappy with the gun industry in our own country and what happened at Sandy Hook.
You call it a red herring because you think we are using it to deflect from Clinton. Meanwhile, Gryphen and many of us have been outraged for many years by the freedom gun manufacturers have in this country.
Hillary Clinton has had enough of Bernie Sanders
ReplyDeleteIn an exclusive interview for POLITICO's 'Off Message' podcast, the former secretary of state compares Donald Trump to foreign demagogues and says she's not even sure her primary opponent is a Democrat.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-has-had-enough-of-bernie-sanders-221495
HRC"“There is a persistent, organized effort to misrepresent my record, and I don’t appreciate that, and I feel sorry for a lot of the young people who are fed this list of misrepresentations,”
Delete“I hope I’m a better candidate. I feel like I am. I mean … I’m not a natural politician,” she said. “I’m not somebody who, like my husband or Barack Obama, [where it’s] just — it’s music, right?
GO HRC!
Should breweries and distilleries be able to be sued for misuse of alcohol? Alcohol's only purpose is to get people drunk and when they become drunk they do horrible things like beat their wives, crash cars, have unprotected sex, etc.
ReplyDeleteOr do we hold people accountable for their own actions?
The fact is, gun manufacturers can be sued for flaws in their products like safeties that don't work. What they can't be sued for is how someone misuses their product. End of story.
Way to mix apples and oranges. Alcohol has the same function as a gun? No.
DeleteAlcohol has many purposes other than getting people drunk,you fucking moron. Guns are for killing only so killing someone with a gun is not misuse. End of story.
DeleteThat is totally wrong 9:30, and is typical false argument, and stupid argument.
DeleteStupid lib and your false arguments.
Sounds like you got into the sauce early today.
DeleteGuns have other purposes than killing. Preventing killing or physical harm is one of them. That's a big reason more and more women are purchasing guns. There are times when just the knowledge you have a gun prevents attacks.
Target shooting is another.
What was the purpose of the gun Adam Lanza used at Sandy Hook?
DeleteLegally you could sue an alcohol maker you may or may not win, but Bernie is saying gun manufacturers are above the law and can't be sued under any circumstances.
DeleteTarget shooting is just pretend killing. Self-defense is still a use of weaponry to harm, right? You sound like you're into the NRA Koolaid, early and always, TD. So sad.
DeleteWho taught you how to debate? Home schooled?
Delete10:05 all self defense using any type of weapon can cause injury or death. Be it baseball bat, fists, frying pan, guns, knives...... Thankfully guns are available for self defense as they really are the best self defense.
DeleteA bat is for baseball. Hands do other things. Frying pans are for cooking. Knives are for food, too. But a GUN only exists to kill. You can murder with many things, but they have other primary functions and usages. The primary function of a gun is to kill. FACT.
Delete12:47, how many times in one paragraph can you be totally wrong? It makes you look dumb and incapable of anything but the shallowest of thought. The only point you have proven is that you are an obnoxious gun control advocate who has not the first clue about guns, which is fairly typical.
Delete3:17 - what a lame response. Why can't you address the point? Guns are for killing; they are a weapon. Calling me names here does not change that. Maybe you're too emotional to have a firearm? Think about it.
DeleteWrong 3:35. About everything.
DeleteYou should get yourself a caretaker as you are obviously incapable of responsible adult behavior and decorum in the outside world.
Still crazy after all these years.
DeleteI agree that individuals should be able to sue gun manufacturers and then let the courts figure it out.
ReplyDeleteWho is Bernie Sanders to say no to us?
O/T Bernie Sanders how come you didn't disclose your full income taxes?
What are you hiding from us?
What about transparency?
I say no to it.
DeleteYour reasoning holds no water.
9:29, do you think all industries should have the same kind of blanket immunity as gun manufacturers and sellers? Because Bernie doesn't. He voted against a bill that would prevent people from suing McDonald's for causing obesity.
DeleteThe "cheeseburger bill" and the gun liability immunity bill occurred one day apart!
Why does Bernie Sanders believe gun manufacturers should have liability immunity but burger manufacturers shouldn't?
So I can't sue you because Bernie Sanders said so?
DeleteThis is about people suing those who make the guns when their loved one is shot. How does the manufacturer cause that to happen? If people believe this is logical should a person whose family member is killed by a car be able to sue the care manufacturer? Should the person who has been stabbed with a knife be able to sue to knife company? This is just nuts. We knew that yesterday if Bernie won Wisconsin things were going to get ugly and strange.Is this all they can come up with. That case will be thrown out, if the gun shop did not do a background check or sold a yuge amount of ammo to someone, yes, that is negligent, but the people selling legal guns in a legal way how is that to be logically litigated?
ReplyDeleteHere is what was actually said because that particular paper has issues:
" Daily News: There's a case currently waiting to be ruled on in Connecticut. The victims of the Sandy Hook massacre are looking to have the right to sue for damages the manufacturers of the weapons. Do you think that that is something that should be expanded?
Sanders: Do I think the victims of a crime with a gun should be able to sue the manufacturer, is that your question?
Daily News: Correct.
Sanders: No, I don't.
Daily News: Let me ask you. I know we're short on time. Two quick questions. Your website talks about...
Sanders: No, let me just...I'm sorry. In the same sense that if you're a gun dealer and you sell me a gun and I go out and I kill him [gestures to someone in room]…. Do I think that that gun dealer should be sued for selling me a legal product that he misused? [Shakes head no.] But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of wrong people. So if somebody walks in and says, "I'd like 10,000 rounds of ammunition," you know, well, you might be suspicious about that. So I think there are grounds for those suits, but not if you sell me a legal product. But you're really saying...
Daily News: Do you think that the discussion and debate about what defines a legal product, what should be a legal product, hence AR-15s, these automatic military-style weapons...which is the grounds of this suit at the moment is that this should have never been in the hands of the public.
Sanders: Well, you're looking at a guy...let's talk about guns for one second. Let’s set the record straight because of…unnamed candidates who have misrepresented my views. You're looking at a guy who has a D, what was it, D minus voting record from the NRA? Not exactly a lobbyist for the NRA, not exactly supporting them.
But it's interesting that you raised that question. If you'll remember this, if you were in Vermont in 1988 [gestures to Vermonter in the room], three people were running for the United States Congress. We have one seat, Vermont. Two of them supported assault weapons. One candidate, Bernie Sanders, said, in 1988, "No, I do not support the sale and distribution of assault weapons in this country." I lost that election by three points. Came in second. And that may have been the reason, that I was opposed by all of the gun people, okay? So to answer your question, I do not believe, I didn't believe then and I don't believe now that those guns should be sold in America. They're designed for killing people.
Daily News: So do you think then, with that in mind, that the merits of the current case are baseless?
Sanders: It's not baseless. I wouldn't use that word. But it's a backdoor way. If you're questioning me, will I vote to ban assault weapons in the United States, yeah, I will."
So many excuses for Bernie. Pretzel logic.
DeleteHere are two examples of suits against manufacturers that have been both legally accepted and successful:
Delete1) Cigarette manufacturers who knew for many years that their product was both addictive and caused cancer. Suits were brought by those who were injured and relatives of the deceased, including those injured by inhaling second hand smoke. Result- fines and labeling, with punishment to those who sell the product to minors.
2) Ford's Pinto model which caught fire in rear-end collisions. It was proven in court that Ford found it more economical to pay out claims than to spend the money required to fix the problem.
Ralph Nader, of course, cut his teeth with his book "Unsafe at Any Speed" about the deaths resulting from poor design of the Corvair.
Maybe Bernie should have taken notice of Nader, since he's really an election-spoiling third party candidate at heart.
Coulda been Gore, instead we got Bush and his pet goat on the morning of Sept. 11.
Wild Tortoise
Your logic is so fucking obtuse 9:32 it is beyond ridiculous....
DeleteLets start with the Ford Pinto. It caught fires, it was a manufacturing defect. If a gun had a manufacturing defect that caused injury, a gun manufacturer would absolutely be able to be sued under current laws.
Nothing stopping that.
So basically, you couldn't be any more dumb.
Gun control nuts are so f-ing dumb.
Dear Mr. Toroise, your reasoning lacks logic and standing. As I pointed out up above, gun companies can be sued for faulty products. There have been many lawsuits over injuries and deaths caused by faulty safeties on guns.
DeleteThe examples you gave weren't for misuse of the products listed, they were for defects the products had. If someone stuffed your mouth and nose full of cigarettes and suffocated you, your family couldn't win a suit that the cigarette company was to blame.
The same if someone used a Ford Focus to purposely run you down.
@ anon 9:37am
DeleteYou do realize that because of people like Bernie Sanders that no one could sue a gun manufacturer for selling a defective weapon. There, perfect comparison to the Ford Pinto. But all you fucking sanders supporters are so fucking dumb.
9:37am, are you incapable of debating without cursing and insulting? Of course not, berniebro.
Delete9:37 - Your rude name calling has no function on this blog. You are too emotional to be rational, and too anti-social to be effective. You're all over this board calling everyone for sensible gun control "dumb libs." You're just making our case for us with your limited intellect and lack of civility exhibited here.
DeletePeople can sue cigarette companies, even if they started smoking after the dangers of tobacco were well-advertised, even when cigarettes are used in the way they are supposed to be used. The point isn't whether they have a case, but whether they have the right to sue and to let a judge decide if their suit has merit. Gun manufacturers are immune to that beyond liability for manufacturer defect.
DeleteWrong 10:05 completely diufferent issues and you are plain wrong.
DeletePeople are and will and can sue a gun manufacturer for a gun DEFECT. You can always sue for a defect that causes injury or harm. Are you really this dumb?
9:32 here- My apologies. The similarities are so obvious to me that I didn't clarify my point as well as I might have.
DeleteGun manufacturers are very well aware that the only real use for assault weapons are to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. It's not a defect, but a conscious choice to choose money over lives.
Please explain how that is different from a cigarette company choosing sales/money over lives and health?
The case of the Ford Pinto is slightly different because it involved a specific mechanical defect. However, again the company chose saving money that could have been spent for a safer design thus causing deaths by being burnt alive.
Get it now? Regulations and the right to fight for them can save lives while a free-wheeling repuglican style government does not....
Personally I'm glad that we can sue corporations for all kinds of injuries, including contaminated medicine, defective farm machinery, etc., etc. At this point, gun manufacturers are pushing hard against this.
Oh, and by the way, it's MS. Tortoise to ya'all.
Wild Tortoise
Funny, nearly everyone on this thread has called each other "dumb." Pop Quiz: Is this the correct spelling of "ad nauseam"? We'll find out who's "dumb" now, won't we?
DeleteSame way the tobacco industry caused young people to smoke ( and were successfully sued over it). By marketing weapons to young children.
DeleteThere is no reason to market pink guns. Now as gun owner this may have led to shootings of children by children. Camel cigs can no longer market Joe the camel so the gun makers don't need to market colorful pink weapons.
Dumb Tortoise is a more appropriate name.
DeletePlease stop name-calling, @3:19. You're too emotional to own a gun?
Deletehttp://img.ccrd.clearchannel.com/media/mlib/1674/2016/02/default/hillary_vs_bernie_0_1454747073.gif
ReplyDeleteGryphen said ..."Personally after reading that New York Daily News interview with Sanders I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody still supports him in this race. "
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's for reasons like this Gryph... The difference between these comments by Bernie and Hillary in 2011 concerning a trade agreement involving Panama. You know that big story coming out now about the Panama Papers? This is why these comments are relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSGV_ZQ0D8A&ebc=ANyPxKrE-jHIMHPE8NWNOgJMQJyH7tQNpr6CnlvWoSY3hgIVem_I94ZWrkKXPmH4Gx6n39yl2yT4E22TpbzCl1qjSHatenvLGQ&nohtml5=False
Doesn't it bother you that Bernie Sanders can't articulate his plans to achieve the cornerstone and biggest issues of his campaign?
DeleteThe Panama Trade Agreement was initiated and negotiated by the Bush Administration. Clinton is no more to blame for it than President Obama. Look it up.
DeleteBernie invests in fracking: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/3/1509959/-If-Bernie-Sanders-Doesn-t-Support-Fracking-He-Should-Check-His-Investments
Do you have proof nobody else has or just more insinuation?
Delete10:30 Huh?
DeleteMy response at 10:30 was aimed at the OP.
Delete"Doesn't it bother you that Bernie Sanders can't articulate his plans to achieve the cornerstone and biggest issues of his campaign?"
DeleteYes. It bothers me a lot. It also bothers me that he can't, or won't, give a simple, dictionary-style definition of 'democratic socialist'.
10:10, why did President Obama claim ownership of it then? And why did Hillary Clinton proclaim how hard she worked to pass it?
Deletehttp://www.trade.gov/fta/panama/
The previous administration had ratified it? There were a number of things that Obama had to uphold that were passed in the Bush Administration era. "The negotiations were officially completed on December 19, 2006, though elements were still to be renegotiated. The agreement was signed on 28 June 2007, and Panama's National Assembly ratified it on the following 11 July, before the twelve hundred page document had been translated into Spanish." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama–United_States_Trade_Promotion_Agreement
DeleteJust fucking be honest with your bullshit. You would love a workaround law that would put all American gun manufacturers out of business. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteEvery time gun ownership gets threatened, people horde more guns. Frankly libs are more responsible for more guns on the street than any other entity.
Just crazy people like you hoard guns, Mr. Wingnut! I've never bought a gun in my life! And I never will.
DeleteYes, liberals are at fault for the obsessive, paranoia of gun rubbers.
DeleteConspiracy theories and fearmongering that gun ownership is threatened is a documented marketing tool of the gun industry.
DeleteIf I deliberately run somebody down with my car and kill them. Should the victims family be able to sue Volkswagen?
ReplyDeleteSuing gunmakers isn't the answer, we need to change the gun laws.
They can sue VW. They may not get very far, depending on the basis of their lawsuit. The auto industry doesn't have the same degree of immunity that gun manufacturers have for some reason.
DeleteYou can sue VW for not making their cars safe enough (or to get them to add more safety features). You can't sue gun manufacturers for not making guns safe enough (or to get them to add more safety features).
We had a pesky problem with our car. Whenever it decided to, it would accelerate, and you had to literally jamb the transmission into neutral with both feet on the brakes, the emergency brake did absolutely nothing. We filed a lawsuit and got an "emergency recall" from Lexus to "fix" the problem. We decided to have an arbitrator, which was a joke, then what's called a class action lawsuit (A joke with a clown nose). We sued the dealer, the salesman and Toyota, we walked away with a five grand loss on a month old car. Fast forward four months, and we got an "emergency recall to update software..... on a car we handed into a dealer and signed off on.
DeleteSo yeah, you can sue for anything, but you won't always get justice by any means. Will I buy a toyota or lexus again? nope. Will I recommend a friend buy one? Hell no.
Gryph, it's finally happened...
ReplyDeleteAfter 8 years, I now check your blog for interesting HRC vs. Bernie discussions and not posts about that other person.
Hooray!
+1! I never read the Palin posts now, either.
Delete"According to Politico, Clinton on Monday told a private gathering of New York lawmakers that statistics are coming out soon that show many of the guns used by New York criminals come across the border from Vermont."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wcax.com/story//31650376/clinton-claims-ny-criminals-getting-guns-from-vt
Hillary is a liar and will say anything to further herself.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html?_r=2
Bernie is a big liar. He says he's against fracking but his investments support it.
Deletehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/3/1509959/-If-Bernie-Sanders-Doesn-t-Support-Fracking-He-Should-Check-His-Investments
DeleteShe's not lying. Many guns do come into NY from Vermont.
Deletehttp://digital.vpr.net/post/states-drug-problem-feeding-underground-gun-market#stream/0
11:14 You get to call "Check Mate". 2/7/14
Delete"Jim Mostyn is the resident agent in charge in the Vermont office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). He said drug dealers who come to the state quickly learn that not only is Vermont a fertile market, but it’s also an easy place to pick up a weapon. Those firearms are either stolen or bought by a straw purchaser – a buyer with a clean record who is purchasing the gun for someone else, such as a convicted felon, who may not be legally allowed to own a gun. The guns are frequently traded directly for drugs, court records show, and often end up in metropolitan areas like Springfield, Mass., Boston, or New York City."
"While the drugs that flow into Vermont along major highways are wreaking havoc for law enforcement and social services in the state, the guns going south pose a different threat to the communities where they end up. "
Anonymous10:46 AM,
DeleteThat's what some Sanders supporters do - lie by calling Hillary a liar when it is Sanders who is lying.
It doesn't really matter if you think all industries and sellers can be sued for any reason or if you think all industries should have immunity except for cases of known or unknown defects.
ReplyDeleteMy problem is that Sanders makes a special exception for gun manufacturers and sellers. He doesn't support the same kind of immunity for other industries.
Bernie Sanders want transparency from Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteBernie Sanders how about transparency with your taxes?
HILLARY CLINTON DISCLOSED HER TAXES.
Bernie Sanders is going on The View tomorrow, please please ask him.
Another thing if you heard Bernie Sanders’s stump speech once you will hear it again. No matter where he is, no matter what he's doing.
Bernie will just blame it on his wife again.
DeleteSanders is right on this issue. Gun manufacturers make a product when used illegally kill or injure. The weapon doesn't
ReplyDeleteknow if someone is mentally ill. Now if a gun was manufactured where is blew up in ones hand when the trigger is pulled, then a suit is warranted. Suing for damages because S&W, Glock or others makes a legal product is like suing Ford or General Motors because a drunk driver ran into you because after all someone must pay.
Well, cigarettes didn't know that their user would get lung cancer. But their manufacturers did and the successful litigation against them transformed how cigarettes are sold and marketed.
DeleteGiving immunity to gun manufactures would derail our ability to use litigation (which must have a sound legal basis to be successful) to address the catastrophic gun problem.
This has been repeated throughout the thread.
DeleteYou can sue auto manufacturers and cigarette companies and mcdonalds and most other industries for anything, even beyond defects. You may not get far. That's for a judge to decide.
But you can't sue gun manufacturers for anything BUT defects.
Why the double standard?
Oh, let them have this one. They refuse to talk about Hillary's problems-TPP, Keystone, fracking, cluster bombs, Wall Street secret transcriptions, donations to Bill's foundation corresponding to her work at the State Dept., their work expanding the prison system beyond what the Republicans even wanted, "running them to ground", she said when referring to all the young black "super predators" they'd be saving us from. Oh, and that little war thing. There's more, but I'll be surprised if this sees the light of day. One more quickie-she supported DOMA and NAFTA and was anti gay marriage until about three years ago. But she's the real progressive. Whatever.
DeleteOk, just heard from a friend who runs a Biloxi casino. Biloxi' mayor denounced MS's new anti-gay bullshit. Then again, Biloxi is pretty much the only place in that state that has intelligent people.
ReplyDeleteBernie Sanders is a hypocrite and his liberal supporters don't seem to care one bit.
ReplyDeleteYou're an idiot!
DeleteBrilliant retort!
DeleteOT but I was just wondering if there was any way to check to see if the Palins and any of their LLC will show up in the Panama Papers.
ReplyDeleteThis is what Senator Sanders said when interviewed after Sandy Hook:
ReplyDelete"if you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
This is how Sanders supports gun control, by saying even the strictest gun control wouldn't have a profound effect. That sounds like an NRA talking point to me.
Right-wing freaks often point to gun murder statistics going up in Australia post the assault weapons ban. The fact is that a lot of gun murders happened over the next ten years but they were from criminal gang turf wars and nobody even took any notice except the police.
DeleteWe have no more mass murders because there are no more mass murder weapons. So Bernie Sanders is 100% wrong.
You guys get off the old feeble man who wants to be a 75 years old president. He knows not what he says.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about that interview. Even I was dismayed, and I've never had much respect for Bernie Sanders. It's hard to figure that you can spend your lifetime in politics, run for president in your dotage, and still be so unaware.
ReplyDeleteBernie Sanders on foreign policy
ReplyDelete" I haven't thought about it"
What the fuck??? He is running for president and hasn't thought about foreign affairs at all!!
I support Bernie. If there are any other Bernie supporters left on this blog, here is an article that you might want to read:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/barney-vs-bernie-sanders_b_9624560.html
Barney Frank has always looked out for his own political interests and I suspect he has larger aspriations. "Once we shed the notion that big government is the enemy of the banks, we see clearly through to the truth, that big government is the friend of the politician who wants to work for a bank." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/barney-frank-joins-a-bank/article/2566564
DeleteWhen a person is asked a question and answers with a question what does that mean? Does that suggest is deflecting and can't answer? I just saw a CBS News reporter asked BERNIE if he should apologize to the families of Sandy Hook, a question asked by HRC. His response well she should apologize to all the families of the Iraq war and then continued with talking points of what HRC should do. I find this very disingenuous and deflecting because he doesn't want to answer or can't answer. This is just a small point but it just is another red flag that BERNIE is who he say he is. JMHO
ReplyDeleteIt's called deflection. Changing the subject because he has no answer. Like a child does when caught with something.
DeleteYou're spot on, Gryphen. One Issue voters can be their own worst enemy. Like it or not, Bernie became a politician when he signed on the dotted line, same with Hillary and Donald. I'm sick of hearing "When I'm president, we'll have free this and free that" then having to pull teeth to find out how they'll do it and/or how high our taxes will go up, and that goes for all the candidates. I 'm voting for Hillary, but if Bernie is the Candidate, I'll vote for him.
ReplyDeleteHillary was in Philly today, it took me ninety minutes to get home, a feat that usually takes a half hour. I never realized how much bs is involved with streets closed, detours, and cops on their last raw nerve. I got home, and she was on the other side of town. I think I'd still be in traffic had I left a half hour earlier.
The transcript of the interview runs to 45 pages. Sound bites and snippets are certainly sensational. Read The New York Times for unbiased coverage of the interview.
ReplyDeleteMakes more sense to sue the politicians who make the laws. Bernie voted against assault weapons. Sue the ones who made it legal for people to purchase. The company who made the weapon followed the "law" the politicians made
ReplyDelete