American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 17

View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Member #4112

04-09-13, 11:04

Esten like Obama believe it's their way or the highway. They know they are "right" but are unable to provide any evidence their programs work. Placing someone on the "ignore" list is tantamount to the childish conduct of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you" or "Na Na Na Na".

The solution the Liberals want is more "background checks" expanded to include gun shows and internet purchases which are problematic at best when it comes to enforcement. You might want to know the licensed dealers at the gun shows are already required to and do run background checks, what we are dealing with here are the individuals selling and trading weapons. The requirement for citizen to citizen sales to also fall under this law is simply unenforceable due to the number of weapons already in the hands of private citizens. What is the point in attempting to pass a law that is unenforceable? Can anyone say Prohibition?

As I pointed out in my earlier post the only possible way this scheme could work is for every weapon in every home, business or other location be registered by make, model, caliber and serial number which is simply not possible. I alluded to Canada's attempt to do that very thing with a much smaller population and it was a total failure.

I did enjoy reading Esten's link to why Chicago has so many gun laws but they have failed to reduce the murder rate. The duel excuses are it's not their fault because the criminals are getting their guns outside of Chicago and based on excuse number one you need to make the law national to make it work. The one thing I did notice about the article was it only cited the origin of the weapon and not if the weapon was stolen or the crime committed by the original owner. I think those would be important things to know.

If gun control laws worked, why is there a war in Mexico between the government and cartels?

WorldTravel69

04-09-13, 12:22

The Philippines used our constitution as a guide for theirs.

70 percent of the people have guns.

1200 politicians have been killed in the last 10 years.

http://coolmaterial.com/video/hbos-vice-season-1-trailer/

http://www.maxim.com/tv/hbos-vice-might-be-the-most-intense-tv-show-youve-ever-seen

Jackson

04-09-13, 14:12

Does anyone wonder why AP is now the 2-4 posts a day board it has now become.Hey Toyman,

Have you been doing your research on the Huffington Post?

Here are the real numbers for the past month:

Argentina Private - Daily Posts
=========================
April 07, 2013 = 27
April 06, 2013 = 15
April 05, 2013 = 29
April 04, 2013 = 25
April 03, 2013 = 14
April 02, 2013 = 11
April 01, 2013 = 13
March 31, 2013 = 17
March 30, 2013 = 20
March 29, 2013 = 20
March 28, 2013 = 18
March 27, 2013 = 19
March 26, 2013 = 25
March 25, 2013 = 14
March 24, 2013 = 29
March 23, 2013 = 23
March 22, 2013 = 20
March 21, 2013 = 33
March 20, 2013 = 51
March 19, 2013 = 22
March 18, 2013 = 27
March 17, 2013 = 28
March 16, 2013 = 16
March 15, 2013 = 37
March 14, 2013 = 32
March 13, 2013 = 31
March 12, 2013 = 43
March 11, 2013 = 10
March 10, 2013 = 21

Miami Bob

04-09-13, 14:43

I wonder what this crew is representative of in the cross section of the USA. Back to not viewing the political threads on AP. The political discussions on the wall street journal, yahoo and other places are of more interest.

El Perro

04-09-13, 14:51

I wonder what this crew is representative of in the cross section of the USA. Back to not viewing the political threads on AP. Not the "cross section". The "biopsy".;)

Jackson

04-09-13, 15:58

Among others-name calling, character assassination, preferential treatment for some mongers, deletions without cause, moderator favorites, unknown taboo subjects, mas.Hey Sidney,

Please feel free to Fuck Off at any time.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

04-09-13, 16:11

I posted this under Report POST.

OUT of Line comments.

Hey Sidney,

Please feel free to at any time.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Thanks,

Jackson

Toymann

04-09-13, 16:14

Hey Toyman,

Have you been doing your research on the Huffington Post?

Here are the real numbers for the past month:

Argentina Private - Daily Posts
=========================
April 07, 2013 = 27

March 10, 2013 = 21I was basing my activity numbers on what shows up on the "front page" Jax. What is the huffington post? Must be a funny reference I guess. Toymann.

Ps. Ok. Googled huffington post. LMAO. I am sure you understand why I have never heard of it. That said, I am guessing WT69 and Esten have online, real-time subscriptions. Lol.

TejanoLibre

04-09-13, 20:07

The Bible:

http://www.shotgunnews.com/

In Hard Copy form it's a gun lovers Hustler complete with a centerfold!

I am CONVINCED that it's the defense attorneys that are against the legalization of marijuana and that they are behind gun control because it's the attorneys that will lose so much money that they could make by defending the drug and weapons case defendants.

TL.

Order a copy of SN Today!

I mail-ordered the full-auto trigger group for my .308 HK 91 which converted it to a G-3 fully automatic assault rifle with a selector switch . Single shot , 3 round burst and full auto .

You can order the trigger group but you can't mount it on your civilian rifle without a shitload of permits and signatures , background checks , licenses , etc . You can but you get 20 years at Club Fed !

I guess the point is that you can mail-order an arsenal .

Rock Harders

04-10-13, 00:58

Hey Sidney,

Please feel free to at any time.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Thanks,

JacksonMongers-.

The real question remains: When will the Jackson / Sidney rapprochement happen? It's obvious that Sidney is itching to maneuver his way back into the good graces of the AP community (he wouldn't be posting on here if he wasn't) and that Jackson has a boulder of guilt on his shoulders for banishing Sidney to that toilet known as the Dominican Republic. Perhaps if Sidney could secure the cure for his chronic jungle fever and keep it under wraps for good then Jackson could allow re-entry to the AP house?

Esten

04-10-13, 01:03

An ignore notice is not bragging Toymann, simply an FYI for anyone following the exchanges (and explaining why).

We have no obligation to continue debating with anyone else. And there is no reason to stop posting because one no longer wishes to debate with another individual. That's freedom of speech, not censorship!

I don't know if there are fewer posts on AP these days, but maybe that's because of some people telling others to "get out of the kitchen" ? (sorry, couldn't resist).

There's a word for when you stop debating a rock, or an idiot, or a trouble-maker (take your pick), when you realize it's fruitless to continue engaging someone who practices mischaracterization and misinformation no matter how many times you point it out. That word is smart.

If you don't like the word 'ignore', let's just say I'm going to take a break from helping Doppel recycle his crap.

Esten

04-10-13, 01:09

Sidney is a good guy, I hope he sticks around and hope to see him again some day in BA.

Esten

04-10-13, 01:29

I love this story about John McCain blasting the Republican threat to filibuster gun control. Here's what he said:

"I don’t understand it. The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand. What are we afraid of?" So 90% of Americans want universal background checks, and a handful of Senate Republicans are determined to block even a vote? Oh man, this is going to get juicy.

Toymann

04-10-13, 02:23

If you don't like the word 'ignore', let's just say I'm going to take a break from helping Doppel recycle his crap.Good to see you are separating yourself from the rank and file Esten. Never thought you were a shrinking violet. Toymann is content. Monger on dude. Toymann.

P.S. Bragging about ignoring someone on an Internet chat board is just lame, I agree with Doppelgänger!

Placing someone on the "ignore" list is tantamount to the childish conduct of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you" or "Na Na Na Na".?

WorldTravel69

04-10-13, 13:13

The rest of the Republicans were told the check is in the mail.

I love this story about John McCain blasting the Republican threat to filibuster gun control. Here's what he said:

So 90% of Americans want universal background checks, and a handful of Senate Republicans are determined to block even a vote? Oh man, this is going to get juicy.

Punter 127

04-10-13, 13:32

Survey Finds Law Enforcement United Against Gun Control.

“99 Percent Believe "Assault Weapons" Ban is Not Most Important
Measure to Stop Mass Shootings”

"PoliceOne.com released today the results of an extensive survey of about 15,000 active and retired law enforcement officers of all ranks and from departments ranging in size from less than 25 to more than 1,000.

These results strongly show that law enforcement officers do not support President Obama's gun control agenda. They do, however, strongly support the Right-to-Carry by law-abiding Americans. The survey respondents are united in their desire for politicians to focus on keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and to reject unconstitutional gun control measures that infringe on Second Amendment rights.

"The American people, and particularly the members of law enforcement, want politicians in Washington to stop pursuing a failed political agenda and get to work fixing our broken mental health system, improving school security, and getting criminals off the streets," said the executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox.

The following are some key findings:

99 percent said policies other than an "assault weapons" ban are most important to prevent mass shootings.

Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime.

More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains.

More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.

More than 81 percent said that "gun buy-backs" do not reduce gun violence.

80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.

Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.

More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.

More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.

More than 70 percent said that a ban on "assault weapons" would not reduce violent crime.

More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales.

Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally.

More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama's gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.

Click below to read the complete survey:

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

Do you think cops might know more about crime and guns than leftwing propagandist like Esten?

The current push for more gun laws is nothing but a "failed political agenda".

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Caricoso

04-10-13, 17:45

Member #4112

04-10-13, 18:55

Caricoso

04-10-13, 19:26

Asking 15,000 parents with children in school would accomplish what?

Who is in the trenches every day dealing with crime up close and personal? The scoccer mom in her van or suv hauling the kids around or the law enforcement officer? Who of these two would have the better idea of what would or would not be effective in controling firearm violence?

I am sure our liberal friends would consider the soccer mom to be the most informed.

Facts and experience or Feelings, please feel free to draw your on conclusions.You ask. Who is in the trenches every day dealing with crime up close and personal? (In order to have a valid opinion?) The victims of the crimes, The parents of the children who died and had blood in their hands, their friends etc.

Toymann

04-10-13, 20:25

You ask. Who is in the trenches every day dealing with crime up close and personal? (In order to have a valid opinion?) The victims of the crimes, The parents of the children who died and had blood in their hands, their friends etc.Based on your premise, only those who are the victim of a crime would have a valid opinion regarding the issue / solution. This seems a little extreme, don't you think? In fact, most likely the opposite is true. Good policy always comes from intelligent cool thinking, not emotional passion driven thought. My statement in no way should be interpreted as minimizing the pain and grief associated with being the victim of a violent crime. Just commenting that your statement regarding the "valid opinion" premise is extremely flawed. Happy mongering all. Toymann.

Punter 127

04-10-13, 20:39

You ask. Who is in the trenches every day dealing with crime up close and personal? (In order to have a valid opinion?) The victims of the crimes, The parents of the children who died and had blood in their hands, their friends etc.The blood is on the hands of the killers and the people who insist on "Gun Free Zones" and those who refuse to allow proper school security. IMHO.

"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws.... THAT'S INSANE!!!"

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Caricoso

04-10-13, 21:59

Based on your premise, only those who are the victim of a crime would have a valid opinion regarding the issue / solution. This seems a little extreme, don't you think? In fact, most likely the opposite is true. Good policy always comes from intelligent cool thinking, not emotional passion driven thought. My statement in no way should be interpreted as minimizing the pain and grief associated with being the victim of a violent crime. Just commenting that your statement regarding the "valid opinion" premise is extremely flawed. Happy mongering all. Toymann.You're right. I should have said "Also the Parents" It is ok if we include them? After all they were the ones that paid the highest price besides the victims themselves. Correct?

Is a country of 320 million people. I think that nobody has the monopoly of common sense.

Toymann

04-11-13, 01:16

You're right. I should have said "Also the Parents" It is ok if we include them? After all they were the ones that paid the highest price besides the victims themselves. Correct?

Is a country of 320 million people. I think that nobody has the monopoly of common sense.Coming to Argentina in two weeks. Would love to buy you a beer. Buena Onda amigo. Toymann.

P.S. Pm if you are around and would like to have a cold one!

Pps. I am a republican from the most republican state in the Us, that grew up in a wild ass liberal socialist country. Of course, the parents should be heard and count twice! My dos centavos!

Esten

04-11-13, 02:44

An interesting police poll. Which can be challenged by one very simple fact:

Other developed countries with much stricter gun control measures have significantly lower rates of gun violence.

Certainly some measures will have more impact than others. The universal background check system has perhaps the broadest support, and is just plain and simple common sense. Close the loopholes in the system.

Caricoso

04-11-13, 11:35

Coming to Argentina in two weeks. Would love to buy you a beer. Buena Onda amigo. Toymann.

P.S. Pm if you are around and would like to have a cold one!

Pps. I am a republican from the most republican state in the Us, that grew up in a wild ass liberal socialist country. Of course, the parents should be heard and count twice! My dos centavos!

Thank you Toyman!

I may have to take a Rain check this time, but I certainly will like to meet you on my next stay in Baires.

Punter 127

04-11-13, 13:49

An interesting police poll. Which can be challenged by one very simple fact:

Other developed countries with much stricter gun control measures have significantly lower rates of gun violence. [snip]
It must have just been a coincidence that Esten had a post about the police survey after I brought the subject up, considering I'm suppose to be on his ignore list. Who do you think you're shitting Esten?

"While the most recent murder rate is fairly low for the United States, we often hear that other countries like Australia, Japan and the UK have much lower murder rates. If we want to compare countries, we should not "cherry pick." Let's look at all countries. The United Nations collects such data. Out of 206 countries, the US ranks 103. Smack in the middle.

28745

Data Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html. (Rates are for most recent year, since 2000, of available data).

You might guess that the Congo (30.8) or Uganda (36.3) would have higher murder rates than us. But would you have guessed Jamaica (40.9), Saint Lucia (25.2), Brazil (21.0), Greenland (19.2) and Costa Rica (10.0) do too?

Here is the list of European countries whose most recent murder rates exceeded the USA's.

• Greenland (19.2).

• Russia (10.2).

• Moldova (7.5).

• Lithuania (6.6).

• Ukraine (5.2).

• Estonia (5.2).

• Belarus (4.9)".

But what about guns? Does the US have a murder problem because of so many guns? Again, let's not cherry-pick; let's look at all other countries.

28746

Data sources: UNODC and the Small Arms Survey.

"To the eyeball, it looks like a more heavily armed population goes hand-in-hand with less murder, as an average. The statistics bear that out: the correlation coefficient is negative,.0.23, and it is statistically significant.

You can look for various trends, but there is no evidence here that the availability of guns leads to more murders. Two of the most heavily armed countries, Finland and Switzerland, have murder rates of 2.2 and 0.7, among the lowest in the world. On the other hand, every country with a murder rate at least 5 times greater than the USA's has at least 5 times fewer firearms per person than the USA".

Caricoso

04-11-13, 15:15

It must have just been a coincidence that Esten had a post about the police survey after I brought the subject up, considering I'm suppose to be on his ignore list. Who do you think you're shitting Esten?

"While the most recent murder rate is fairly low for the United States, we often hear that other countries like Australia, Japan and the UK have much lower murder rates. If we want to compare countries, we should not "cherry pick." Let's look at all countries. The United Nations collects such data. Out of 206 countries, the US ranks 103. Smack in the middle.

28745

Data Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html. (Rates are for most recent year, since 2000, of available data).

You might guess that the Congo (30.8) or Uganda (36.3) would have higher murder rates than us. But would you have guessed Jamaica (40.9), Saint Lucia (25.2), Brazil (21.0), Greenland (19.2) and Costa Rica (10.0) do too?

Here is the list of European countries whose most recent murder rates exceeded the USA's.

• Greenland (19.2).

• Russia (10.2).

• Moldova (7.5).

• Lithuania (6.6).

• Ukraine (5.2).

• Estonia (5.2).

• Belarus (4.9)".

But what about guns? Does the US have a murder problem because of so many guns? Again, let's not cherry-pick; let's look at all other countries.

28746

Data sources: UNODC and the Small Arms Survey.

"To the eyeball, it looks like a more heavily armed population goes hand-in-hand with less murder, as an average. The statistics bear that out: the correlation coefficient is negative,.0.23, and it is statistically significant.

You can look for various trends, but there is no evidence here that the availability of guns leads to more murders. Two of the most heavily armed countries, Finland and Switzerland, have murder rates of 2.2 and 0.7, among the lowest in the world. On the other hand, every country with a murder rate at least 5 times greater than the USA's has at least 5 times fewer firearms per person than the USA".You said...Finland and Switzerland have murder rates of 2.2 and 0.7, among the lowest in the world.

Yes! Because people in those countries are "highly" educated. Isn't that guns don't kill people, but people do? Well...give a gun to a "Cu-Cu brain", and he will try it on you. Give it to a "normal" person, in control of himself, with good records, and you kind expect better results. That's the reason background checks (good ones!) are good because at least will deterred the ones watching too many Video games and Rambo movies.

TejanoLibre

04-11-13, 17:15

Caricoso

04-11-13, 18:07

Nobody lives in those countries compared to the USA but the LONE gunman in Norway killed 77 people in one day! Worst killing since WWII. They say that 1 in 4 people in Norway were affected by that massacre .

The rest of the European countries that were mentioned have 12 month winters and the rest of the months are summer so the people just go stir crazy and the severe depression from having 6 months of darkness at times makes them shoot anything.

I'm just guessing.

TL.

They should just fuck somebody every day like we do here to keep sane.Norway is # 11 in the world of the numbers of guns per country (31 guns per 100 residents). (31% a lot eh?) Have they had twice as many, (1 gun per person) would they be able to stop this terrorist? How? People had their guns at home, and they were in total state of panic as you can imagine, by the time they go home and try to get the guy it's all over, and the police was doing its job!

Are we suggesting carrying our guns with us everywhere we go?

Far West! Can you imagine leaving Madahos with a chica that carries a semi-auto to go with a client to the hotel "just in case" because the client has a gun with him? I don't think he'll ever get erected, and will stop mongering that night! Oh yes! She may add her own "Guardaespaldas" while the client is doing her, and if he hits the wrong hole, shit!, the client may have to use his Blue Cross card.

Albert Eistein said more of the same doesn't solve the problem. More guns? Goethe used to say. Well...if you want to know more, travel my friend! Lot's of things are being done better in other places, some not!

Punter 127

04-11-13, 19:56

You said...Finland and Switzerland have murder rates of 2.2 and 0.7, among the lowest in the world.

Yes! Because people in those countries are "highly" educated. Isn't that guns don't kill people, but people do? Well...give a gun to a "Cu-Cu brain", and he will try it on you. Give it to a "normal" person, in control of himself, with good records, and you kind expect better results. That's the reason background checks (good ones!) are good because at least will deterred the ones watching too many Video games and Rambo movies.Are you saying Americans are"Cu-Cu brain"? Are you a USA Citizen?

Expanded Background Checks Will Erode Rights, Not Prevent Tragedy!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/11/Expanded-Background-Checks-Are-About-Gun-Control-Not-Sandy-Hook

"1. Would expanded background checks have stopped Adam Lanza from doing what he did on Dec. 14,2012?

2. Would expanded background checks have at least hindered or slowed what he did?

3. Why are President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Senator Pat Toomey (are-PA), and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg pushing expanded background checks at this moment?

Answers: no, no, and "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Even the ACLU says Reid's gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Sorry if I'm slow to reply but my current location blocks the AP and I can't always get to it.

Punter 127

04-11-13, 20:58

Albert Eistein said more of the same doesn't solve the problem. He (Einstein) was right and more gun laws won't solve our problems. The problem is not guns, the problem is insane people.

More guns? Goethe used to say. Well...if you want to know more, travel my friend! Lot's of things are being done better in other places, some not! I'll try to do that, my life has been pretty sheltered up to now, I've only visited about 15 to 20 counties. lol

CONSIDER THIS...Commentary by Paul Harvey:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.
- From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
- From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938.
- From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies,
homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.
- From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
- From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
- From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
- From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because
of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last
century.

Since we should learn from the mistakes of history,
the next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
find out which group of citizens they wish to have
exterminated.[snip]

Good Day!

Caricoso

04-11-13, 23:37

He (Einstein) was right and more gun laws won't solve our problems. The problem is not guns, the problem is insane people.

I'll try to do that, my life has been pretty sheltered up to now, I've only visited about 15 to 20 counties. lol

CONSIDER THIS...Commentary by Paul Harvey:

Good Day!Let's see...

Where did I say that Americans are see you-see you- brain?

Why do you want to know if I am an American citizen?

Where do you take the facts that if the people on those countries were armed (rifles, guns, grenades, etc). They couldn't have tanks or airplanes, the SS, Stalin, the Turks etc. Were not going ahead with their plans?

Imagine that we have a crazy leader that sends Drones, Tanks, Soldiers etc. How do you stop them with your magnum?

Esten

04-12-13, 00:51

I am loving this policeone.com poll on gun control. It's worthy of attention, but it smells funny.

For one, the timing is quite convenient, immediately prior to potential Congressional voting. What are the regional and political demographics of the respondents? Who wrote it, and what are their affiliations? There's a very heavy pro-gun bias, and the questions seem suspiciously worded. For example:

4. What effect do you think the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have in improving police officer safety? The real question is, what would be the effect on reducing gun violence. Of course police officers would want more people owning and carrying guns, that supplements their ability to stop or neutralize a violent criminal. Let the criminal shoot it out with a civilian, that will keep LE safer.

6. Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?The real question is, would such a ban help reduce the number of deaths in mass shootings.

The poll conveys the "more guns, less gun violence" viewpoint. If that's how it worked, then countries with few guns would have skyrocketing gun violence. And clearly that's ridiculous.

Punter 127

04-12-13, 00:56

Let's see...

Where did I say that Americans are see you-see you- brain?
I simply ask if that's what you are implying when you said this;

Well...give a gun to a "Cu-Cu brain", and he will try it on you. Give it to a "normal" person, in control of himself, with good records, and you kind expect better results. Considering we are talking about American gun control sounds to me like you think Americans are "Cu-Cu brain", yes or no?

Why do you want to know if I am an American citizen?
We all due respect if you are not an American Citizen your opinion is of little value to me, it's an American issue.

Where do you take the facts that if the people on those countries were armed (rifles, guns, grenades, etc). They couldn't have tanks or airplanes, the SS, Stalin, the Turks etc. Were not going ahead with their plans? I said “unable to defend themselves”.

Imagine that we have a crazy leader that sends Drones, Tanks, Soldiers etc. How do you stop them with your magnum?
So you think we should just lay down our arms and become slaves? You can go along quietly to the gas chamber if you like , but I prefer to go down fighting, because that's what Americans have always done.

Long live the Republic!
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!.

Rev BS

04-12-13, 02:35

[QUOTE=Punter127;433112]So you think we should just lay down our arms and become slaves? You can go along quietly to the gas chamber if you like , but I prefer to go down fighting, because that's what Americans have always done.

[b][u]Long live the Republic!

Big changes have come about in America the last 50 years. Some good, alot bad. Now, there has never been a lack of unhappy people in the world, especially when they being marginalized, or feel like they are being marginalized. And usually, minorities are in this category. So, I don't quite get this "slave" issue. Your chances of being a slave is as good as my chances of being a plantation owner. Zero.

Caricoso

04-12-13, 03:14

[QUOTE=Punter127;433112]I simply ask if that's what you are implying when you said this;

Considering we are talking about American gun control sounds to me like you think Americans are "Cu-Cu brain", yes or no?

It sounds to you! (Your perception, and being very defensive is not my fault!) I referred to anyone (lunatic if you will!) who has access to a gun!

We all due respect if you are not an American Citizen your opinion is of little value to me, it's an American issue.

Well...since you are so curious about my integrity o ability to talk about American issues, "Yes" I am an American citizen!, that in almost 40 years had paid more taxes and gave jobs ( Co-own 3 corp.) to more people than the average complainer instant gratification brain out there.

I said “unable to defend themselves”.

I was in the army in Argentina "Seventies'' dirty war. I never got my butt so kicked in my entire life. Two years of training and becoming another different person. Orders were...execute or we execute you! Fortunately I didn't have to hurt anyone. All citizens complied when we were patrolling, but it wasn't always the case for others soldiers and they had to follow those orders. The rest is History.

So you think we should just lay down our arms and become slaves? You can go along quietly to the gas chamber if you like , but I prefer to go down fighting, because that's what Americans have always done.

Do you believe that we are going to be slaves of whom? What gas chambers? Paranoia?

Just watch an episode of Floricenta on (Baires) T.V. and it will change your view and concept of life. Hey! You're my friend!

El Perro

04-12-13, 06:40

Move along please. Move along!

28747

Member #4112

04-12-13, 12:22

Caricoso, in a previous post you stated you are an "American". If this is so why are you using an translation program to post in English?

Caricoso

04-12-13, 12:43

Caricoso, in a previous post you stated you are an "American". If this is so why are you using an translation program to post in English?What translation program?

Punter 127

04-12-13, 13:42

The question was "Are you a USA Citizen?" I never doubted that you are a South "American Citizen".

Punter 127

04-12-13, 13:50

Big changes have come about in America the last 50 years. Some good, alot bad. Now, there has never been a lack of unhappy people in the world, especially when they being marginalized, or feel like they are being marginalized. And usually, minorities are in this category. So, I don't quite get this "slave" issue. Your chances of being a slave is as good as my chances of being a plantation owner. Zero.
You're entitled to your opinion but I strongly disagree with you. You are however right about the chances of me becoming a slave, but you're wrong about the reason why, it's because I don't intent to give up my ability to resist. I realize in todays world most people won't understand this but it's my grand-kids that I'm worried about, not me.

BTW my friend I really wish you and Caricoso would learn how to end a quote [/QUOTE] it really makes your post hard to read.

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode

Caricoso

04-12-13, 15:20

You're entitled to your opinion but I strongly disagree with you. You are however right about the chances of me becoming a slave, but you're wrong about the reason why, it's because I don't intent to give up my ability to resist. I realize in todays world most people won't understand this but it's my grand-kids that I'm worried about, not me.

BTW my friend I really wish you and Caricoso would learn how to end a quote it really makes your post hard to read.

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode[/QUOTE]OK!, About the quote thing. Yes! I did something wrong (erased?) and that's probably the reason it didn't show correctly. You refer to "You" and "Caricoso". Who's "You?"

Now, about being an American. (Yes! I am a U.S. Citizen). Did I meet your requirements?

Is require on this forum to be a U.S. citizen to participate? How about U.S. residents that have given enormous contributions to the country? Can they participate?

Simply. What's the type of person who wont be welcome to this forum besides the one who is unpolite and unrespectful?

Thank You!

Caricoso

04-12-13, 15:24

Caricoso, in a previous post you stated you are an "American". If this is so why are you using an translation program to post in English?Please read what I sent to Punter!

By the way I didn't get an answer regarding your comments of the translation program!

Thank you!

Tres3

04-12-13, 15:34

Member #4112

04-12-13, 16:02

Caricoso

04-12-13, 16:39

Regarding the translator comment:

From the wording of your post, sentence structure, and very odd word selection & placement it appears to me you may be using a translation program to post in English as English may not be your primary language. As I use translation programs on occasion I am familiar with their function and errors when translating from English to another language.

Regarding who can post on the site:

Anyone is welcome, regardless of nationality, to post on AP on any topic they choose.

I am permitted to post here. According to Esten, I must be from Mars. Doppelganger of Mars, not quite the same ring as John Carter of Mars. Although the princess did look a bit Argentine!

There is a caveat, you can post till you piss Jackson off.I don't use any translation programs. Yes! My primary language is not English. I speak and I write with an accent! I love when the girls shake hands with me and the first thing they say is... Hi my name is...Where are you from? Cute!

I know that you would prefer if I post all the time that I agree with you 100%. I'll make an effort!

Anyway, I like you! No hard feelings here!

Member #4112

04-12-13, 18:43

I'm not looking for folks to agree with me, it would be really boring if that occured. I even like Esten & DR even if they are lost souls and blockheads to quote Nancy.

I'll be back in town in July, if your in town first drink is on me.

Monger on dude.

WorldTravel69

04-12-13, 19:46

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

Abraham Lincoln.

I don't remember reading anything about "by the NRA"?

Don B

04-12-13, 20:55

It is too bad that the amount of time that is given to arguing over particulars is not spent addressing the only legitimite function of government, the protection of individual rights.

Not only does our govenment fail to do this but is the biggest violator of those rights. Individual rights, not civil rights, not human rights, etc.

Don be.

Silver Star

04-12-13, 23:44

Esten

04-13-13, 00:35

You ideologues crack me up! The legitimate function of government is whatever the people decide it should be.

If you're upset about the government building roads and bridges, ensuring food and drug safety, prosecuting fraud, and administering programs like social security and medicare, write your Congressman and tell them to stop.

Esten

04-13-13, 00:38

So, I don't quite get this "slave" issue. Your chances of being a slave is as good as my chances of being a plantation owner. Zero.

Some people are slaves of their own paranoia.

Don B

04-13-13, 01:12

Toymann

04-13-13, 02:09

You ideologues crack me up! The legitimate function of government is whatever the people decide it should Wow. So the role of government potentially changes every four years? That's a little lame, don't ya think? Food for thought Esten. Monger on all. Toymann.

Punter 127

04-13-13, 06:13

OK!, About the quote thing. Yes! I did something wrong (erased?) and that's probably the reason it didn't show correctly. You refer to "You" and "Caricoso". Who's "You?" If you go back and read my post again you will find that I was directing my remarks to BlackShirt so he would be the “you” in my statement. In the following sentence I'm referring to you.

Caricoso your poor comprehension of English is not my fault!

All quotes must end with the BB code [/quote] at the end or they will show up like the unending obscure gibberish you've been posting.

Did you ever think about previewing and correcting your post before you submit it? Why would anyone take your post seriously if you don't care enough to even attempt to put it in a proper form?

Now, about being an American. (Yes! I am a U.S. Citizen). Did I meet your requirements?

Is require on this forum to be a U.S. citizen to participate?

Simply. What's the type of person who wont be welcome to this forum besides the one who is unpolite and unrespectful?

Thank You! Jackson decides who is and who isn't welcome on this forum, not me. Again your poor comprehension of English is not my fault! Read what I said again,“ if you are not an American Citizen your opinion is of little value to me, it's an American issue.”
That statement has nothing to do with the policies of this forum.

How about U.S. residents that have given enormous contributions to the country? Can they participate? Sorry but No, U.S. Residents who are not citizens, do not have a say in U.S. Politics.

Punter 127

04-13-13, 06:20

The people who are pro or anti gun control, just like the pro or anti abortion folks, have their minds made up and all of the arguments, no matter how well thought out, are not going to change them. Why waste our time? Give it a rest, and go on to some other aspect of the Obama regime.

Tres3.This may be true with some people but when you look at the gun control polls and the way the numbers swing around it's just not the same as abortion. Many opinions are swayed by current events, biased reporting, half truths, and flat out lies, all of which need to be exposed.

I'm not pointing any fingers here but generally speaking when people on the left want to give a subject a rest it's a pretty good indication that the subject very much needs to be talked about.

Having said that I do agree with Don B that we should be talking about the purpose of government and its legitimate function of protection of individual rights.

Caricoso

04-13-13, 15:53

Punter 127

04-14-13, 03:50

If you go back and read my post again you will find that I was directing my remarks to BlackShirt so he would be the “you” in my statement. In the following sentence I'm referring to you.

Caricoso your poor comprehension of English is not my fault!

All quotes must end with the BB code
at the end or they will show up like the unending obscure gibberish you've been posting.

Did you ever think about previewing and correcting your post before you submit it? Why would anyone take your post seriously if you don't care enough to even attempt to put it in a proper form?

Jackson decides who is and who isn't welcome on this forum, not me. Again your poor comprehension of English is not my fault! Read what I said again,“ if you are not an American Citizen your opinion is of little value to me, it's an American issue.”
That statement has nothing to do with the policies of this forum.

Sorry but No, U.S. Residents who are not citizens, do not have a say in U.S. Politics.

Do you think is correct for you to ask people what nationality they are to see if you can find a fault in that person (You want to look cool!), because you couldn’t on the message that was directed to you?

My English wasn’t clear for you?

By the way, do you reside in Argentina?

Thank you for your answer![/QUOTE] Sir, I did not ask what your nationality was, I ask you if you are USA Citizen. That's not the same thing.

Your understanding of English is poor, and your posting skill are abominable. Just look at your post, the reader has to struggle to separate the quote from message, it reminds me of alphabet soup. If one of my post popped up on my screen and looked like that I would delete it with breakneck speed. One can only surmise that your lackadaisical attitude towards the quality of your work is representative of the Argentine people in general.

To ask someone if they are a USA Citizen when discussing American politics is relevant.

To ask someone if they reside in Argentina when discussing American politics is irrelevant, perhaps it would be appropriate in the “Living in Argentina” thread.

This is my last off topic reply to you,

Chau

Caricoso

04-14-13, 09:34

[/noparse]

Do you think is correct for you to ask people what nationality they are to see if you can find a fault in that person (You want to look cool!), because you couldn’t on the message that was directed to you?

My English wasn’t clear for you?

By the way, do you reside in Argentina?

Thank you for your answer! Sir, I did not ask what your nationality was, I ask you if you are USA Citizen. That's not the same thing.

Your understanding of English is poor, and your posting skill are abominable. Just look at your post, the reader has to struggle to separate the quote from message, it reminds me of alphabet soup. If one of my post popped up on my screen and looked like that I would delete it with breakneck speed. One can only surmise that your lackadaisical attitude towards the quality of your work is representative of the Argentine people in general.

To ask someone if they are a USA Citizen when discussing American politics is relevant.

To ask someone if they reside in Argentina when discussing American politics is irrelevant, perhaps it would be appropriate in the “Living in Argentina” thread.

This is my last off topic reply to you,

Chau[/QUOTE]

Caricoso

04-14-13, 09:41

Don't worry! This is "my last reply" to you!

You didn't like the answer when I said that "I was an American citizen", and because you only like those who agree with you "10,000% your best defense is to start insult me about my English, and the nonsense of asking if I was a US citizen.

Have a great day!

Peter Sideburn

04-14-13, 10:24

A few important interpretive opinions followed by a enumeration of rights and obligations:

1. The Federal Government has very few duties, enumerated below, and NO others allowed under the Constitution and Common Law at the time it was drafted. The other powers go to the States and to the People.

2. Not only do citizens have a right to bear arms; it is their constitutional duty to do so to protect their community and the US, unvaryingly even in the extraordinarily rare event that their own government attempts to take on additional powers not given to it by the constitution or acts against its own people. Clearly, the framers wanted the citizenry to have arms able to do this work in the event that the English, French, etc. attempted to overtake US government. This is one of the strongest arguments illustrating why citizens should not only be allowed to by semiautomatic rifles, but contrarily may be obliged to do so when their constitutional way of life or country is being threatened (i.e. Korea, Iran, terrorists, etc.) It is well known that Japan did not attempt a full scale invasion on US soil, because their generals believed they would meet insurmountable resistance by the citizenry who were well-armed and supplied. Furthermore, note there is a right to form a well-disciplined militia not associated with the government at all in peace time, but an expectation that in times of need, that militia would fall under the command and control of the Constitutionally organized federal government; assuming it is itself following the Constitution. In fact, citizens have a right to militia training. In other words, you should be able not to only own a semi-automatic rifle, but also rely upon your government to help you learn how to use it in the defense of your country.

3. Citizens also have the right to and the obligation to assist with police acts in their community subordinate to the guidance of an appropriate designated leadership structure defined by the local, state, or federal police authority. In other words, when needed a Citizen should be able and willing to be deputized and armed to come to the aid of an appropriate constitutionally consistent policing authority to protect and defend the tenants of the US Constitution and the Personhood of its citizenry against enemies both foreign and domestic. The next time you hear about a citizen watching a violent crime occur without assisting intervention or without contributing to the degree possible to the prosecution of the perpetrator, you know they are not only a coward, but they have not exercised their constitutional duty. The same applies when they try to get out of jury duty.

US citizens are not spectators to their government and its whims, but rather, by design; they are the players and the referees. The Judiciary (i.e. Supreme Court) is not there to legislate or enforce laws, but rather to determine if the currently used "Book of rules" is dependable and undeviating from the Constitution and the Common/Natural Laws applicable at the time it was written. Even more important, is the fact that the US Citizen is obliged to resist laws that are not steadfast with these tenants.

4. If our Citizens do not start paying as much attention to their duties as they do their rights, then their rights will be stripped. If a child does not meet their parent's reasonable rules, then the child's rights get nipped. The more more our government leaders feel they are parents to look out and train the citizenry (which they are not by the way), the more they will believe they can create their social utopia through disciplining the citizenry. The problem is the framers did not give them the right to temporarily or permenantly infringe upon the rights of the citizenry because they didn't view them as children, but rather as equals and partners in this great new republic.

Pete

===================================

Summary of Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties

Discussions of rights are sometimes confused concerning what are and are not rights of the people or powers of government or the duties of each. This is an attempt to summarize most of the more important rights, powers, and duties recognized or established in the U.S. Constitution, in Common Law as it existed at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, or as implied therein. Not included are certain "internal" or administrative rights and powers that pertain to the various elements of government within each level with respect to each other.

Personhood:[1]

"Persons" are one of the two main classes which are the subject of rights, powers, and duties, the other being "citizens". Persons may be "natural" or "corporate". "Citizens" are a subclass of "natural persons". Only persons have standing as parties under due process. Each government has the power to define what is and is not a "person" within its jurisdiction, subject to certain restrictions of Common Law and the Constitution, the 15th Amendment to which requires that it not exclude anyone based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Under Common Law existing at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, "natural personhood" was considered to begin at natural birth and end with the cessation of the heartbeat. But technology has created a new situation, opening the way for statute or court decision to extend this definition and set the conditions under which personhood begins and ends.

Each government may also establish, within its jurisdiction, "corporate persons" such as governmental entities, associations, trusts, corporations, or partnerships, in addition to the Common Law "natural" persons, but the "personhood" of such corporate entities is not created by the government. Its corporate personhood derives from the personhood of its members. Corporate persons must be aggregates of natural persons.

Under Common Law, persons include only individual human beings and combinations of them acting in concert, but it provides a basis for inclusion of entities that are sufficiently like human beings in their behavior to be indistinguishable for legal purposes, such as aliens, androids, or genetically enhanced animals, which have interests, an ability to reason, and an ability to communicate. This would exclude, however, establishment of other things as persons, such as inanimate objects, which have no ability to represent themselves under due process. Inclusion of such inanimate objects as parties to civil due process, in effect making them "persons", has found its way into the U.S. legal system as in rem proceedings, unconstitutionally, through recent seizure/forfeiture statutes.

Although not a well-developed area, there is also a basis for excluding entities which, although they are born to human beings, lack attributes which would enable them to be functionally human, such as some minimal level of cognitive capacity, but such beings must be considered natural persons as the default unless proven otherwise through due process.

Citizenship:

Citizenship is the attribute of persons who, as members of the polity, have certain privileges and duties in addition to those they have as persons. Citizens include those born on U.S. or State territory or naturalized according to law.

Natural Rights:

The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.

Personal Security (Life):

(1) Not to be killed.

(2) Not to be injured or abused.

Personal Liberty:

(3) To move freely.

(4) To assemble peaceably.

(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.

(7) To communicate with the world.

(8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others.

(9) To practice one's religion.

(10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]

Private Property:

(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:

(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.

(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.

(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.

(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense.

Non-natural rights of personhood, created by social contract:

(1) To enter into contracts, and thereby acquire contractual rights, to secure the means to exercise the above natural rights.[1,15]

(2) To enjoy equally the rights, privileges and protections of personhood as established by law.

(3) To petition an official for redress of grievances and get action thereon in accordance with law, subject to the resources available thereto.

(4) To petition a legislator and get consideration thereof, subject to resources available thereto.

(5) To petition a court for redress of grievances and get a decision thereon, subject to resources available thereto.

(6) Not to have one's natural rights individually disabled except through due process of law, which includes:

(a) In criminal prosecutions:

(1) Not to be charged for a major crime but by indictment by a Grand Jury, except while serving in the military, or while serving in the Militia during time of war or public danger.

(2) Not to be charged more than once for the same offense.

(3) Not to be compelled to testify against oneself.

(4) Not to have excessive bail required.

(5) To be tried by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place.

(6) To have a jury of at least six for a misdemeanor, and at least twelve for a felony.[1]

(7) To a speedy trial.

(8) To a public trial.

(9) To have the assistance of counsel of one's choice.

(10) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

(11) To be confronted with the witnesses against one.

(12) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.

(13) To have each charge proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[1]

(14) To have a verdict by a unanimous vote of the jury, which shall not be held to account for its verdict.[1]

(15) To have the jury decide on both the facts of the case and the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of the law.[1]

(16) Upon conviction, to have each disablement separately and explicitly proven as justified and necessary based on the facts and verdict.[1]

(17) To have a sentence which explicitly states all disablements, and is final in that once rendered no further disablements may be imposed for the same offense.[1]

(18) Not to have a cruel or unusual punishment inflicted upon oneself.

(b) In civil cases:

(1) To trial by an impartial jury from the state and district in which the events took place[1] where the issue in question is either a natural right[1] or property worth more than $20.

(2) In taking of one's property for public use, to be given just compensation therefor.

(3) To have compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses.[1]

(c) In all cases:

(1) To have process only upon legal persons able to defend themselves, either natural persons or corporate persons that are represented by a natural person as agent, and who are present, competent, and duly notified, except, in cases of disappearance or abandonment, after public notice and a reasonable period of time.[1]

(2) Not to be ordered to give testimony or produce evidence beyond what is necessary to the proper conduct of the process.[1]

Non-natural rights or citizenship, created by social contract:

(1) To enjoy equally the rights and privileges of citizenship as established by law.

(2) To vote in elections that are conducted fairly and honestly, by secret ballot.

(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials.[17]

(4) To receive militia training.[7]

See also List of constitutional rights.

Disabilities of minority: [1]

Certain of the above rights are restricted, or "disabled", for minors, but the definition of who is a minor and the extent to which each of these rights are disabled for minors, is limited to the jurisdiction over which each government has general legislative authority, which for the U.S. government, is "federal ground" (see below). Minors are the only class of persons whose rights may be disabled without a need to justify the disablement as arising from the need to resolve a conflict with the rights of others, either through statute or due process. The disablement consists of the assignment of a power to supervise the exercise of the rights under the headings of "liberty" and "property" listed above to a guardian, by default the parents, who acts as agent of the State for the purpose of nurturing the minor. The disability is normally removed by statute providing for removal when a certain age, such as 18, or condition, such as marriage, is attained. The disabilities of minority can also be removed earlier by court order or, if statute allows, extended beyond the usual statutory expiration by court order in cases of incompetence. The right to vote is not included among the disabilities of minority, but is defined separately by law, so that removal of the disabilities of minority does not in itself affect having the right to vote.

Constitutional duties of persons under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]

(1) To obey laws that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent.

(2) To comply with the terms of legal contracts to which one is a party.

(3) To tell the truth under oath.

Constitutional duties of citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]

(1) To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.[6]

(2) To help enforce laws and practices that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent, and to resist those which are not.

(3) To serve on juries, and to render verdicts according to the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of statute and common law, and the facts of the case.

Constitutional duties of able-bodied citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:[7]

(1) To defend the U.S. or State, individually and through service in the Militia.

(2) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials when present.[17]

Powers delegated to U.S. (National) Government:

(1) Exclusive powers

(1) To lay and collect import duties.[8]

(2) To pay the debts of the U.S. Government.

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations and Indian Tribes.

(4) To regulate commerce among the States.[2]

(5) To regulate immigration.[7]

(6) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

(7) To establish uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States.

(8) To coin money and regulate its value and that of foreign coin, and to issue bills of credit.

(9) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.[3]

(10) To fix the standard of weights and measures.

(11) To provide and regulate postal services.

(12) To establish protection for intellectual property, including patent, copyright, and trademark rights.

(13) To constitute lower national courts.

(14) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.[3]

(15) To declare war, authorize warlike activities by other than the armed forces, and make rules concerning captures.

(16) To raise, support and regulate the armed forces.

(17) To govern what part of the Militia shall be employed in the service of the United States.

(18) To exercise general Legislation[9] over federal ground, which is limited to federal territories and districts, land purchased from states with the consent of their legislatures, U.S. flag vessels on the high seas, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad.

(19) To guarantee a republican form[12] of government to the States.[3]

(20) To enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with a foreign state.

(21) To declare the punishment for treason.[3]

(22) To prescribe the manner in which the acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state shall be proved to other states and what should be done about them.

(23) To admit new states into the Union.

(24) To make laws necessary and proper for executing the powers delegated to the U.S. government.

(2) Pre-emptive but non-exclusive powers

(1) To provide for the common defense and general welfare.

(2) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.[16]

(3) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.

(4) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress, except the places for electing senators.

(5) To conduct a census every ten years.

(3) Non-pre-emptive non-exclusive powers

(1) To lay and collect excise taxes on commerce or income taxes on persons.[8]

(2) To borrow money.

Restrictions of the powers of the national Government:

(1) No exercise of powers not delegated to it by the Constitution.

(2) No payment from the Treasury except under appropriations made by law.

(3) Excises and duties must be uniform throughout the United States.

(4) Shall pass no tax or duty on articles exported from any state.[5]

(5) No appointment of a senator or representative to any civil office which was created while he was a member of Congress or for which the amount of compensation was increased during that period.

(6) No preferences to the ports of one state over another in regulation or tax collection.

(7) No titles of nobility shall be granted by the U.S. government, or permitted to be granted to government officials by foreign states.

(8) May not protect a State against domestic violence without the request of its legislature, unless it cannot be convened, in which case, without the consent of its executive.

(9) U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction over suits against a state by citizens of another state or foreign country.

Powers delegated to State Governments:

(1) Exclusive powers

(1) To appoint persons to fill vacancies in the U.S. Congress from that state and to hold special elections to replace them. State executive may make temporary appointments if state legislature in recess and until they reconvene, when they shall appoint a temporary replacement.

(2) To appoint the officers of its Militia.[11]

(3) To conduct the training of its Militia.[12]

(2) Non-exclusive powers[4]

(1) To prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections for members of Congress.[10]

Restrictions of the powers of the State Governments:

(1) State constitutions and laws may not conflict with any provision of the U.S. Constitution or U.S. laws pursuant to it.[7]

(2) May not exercise powers not delegated to the State government by the State Constitution.[7]

(3) May not make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

(4) May not pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts.

(5) May not grant a title of nobility.

(6) May not collect imposts or duties on imports or exports without consent of Congress, except fees necessary to cover the costs of inspections and paid to the U.S. Treasury.[8]

(7) May not lay a duty on tonnage.

(8) May not keep troops or ships of war in time of peace or make war without the consent of Congress, unless actually invaded and in imminent danger that does not admit of delay.

(9) May not make a compact or agreement with another state of the U.S. or with a foreign state without the consent of Congress.

Duties of the State Governments:

(1) Must provide a republican form[12] of government to their citizens.[7]

(2) Must conduct honest and fair elections, by secret ballot.[7]

(3) Must give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, and recognize the privileges and immunities granted thereby.

(4) Must extradict a person charged with a crime in another state to that state.

(5) Must organize and train their militias.[7]

Restrictions of the powers of all Governments:

(1) Shall not disable any natural or constitutional right without due process of law, and then only to the extent necessary to avoid infringing the rights of others.

(2) Shall not deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

(3) Shall not suspend habeas corpus, except in case of rebellion of invasion and the public safety may require it.

(4) Shall not issue a search warrant but on probably cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.

(5) Shall not arrest members of Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, while their house is in session.

(6) Shall not question a member of Congress on anything he says during a speech or debate in his house.

(7) Shall not pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.

(8) Shall allow no slavery or involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime of which the party shall have been duly convicted.

(9) Shall not deny or abridge the right to vote to any person on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, for failure to pay any tax, or on account of age if older than 18.

Some arguably needed national powers:

(1) To regulate the manufacture, distribution, operation, and disposition of aircraft and spacecraft, the regulation of their crews, and the definition and punishment of crimes committed on U.S. registered aircraft or spacecraft or on aircraft or spacecraft operating in U.S. airspace.

(2) To regulate cabled or wireless communications beyond a distance of 1 kilometer.

(3) To regulate the production, distribution, and use of nuclear energy, and electric energy transmitted more than 1 kilometer.

(4) To limit tort liability on commerce and commercial articles subject to U.S. regulation of their manufacture.

(5) To pre-emptively pass and enforce laws needed to conserve wildlife and natural resources, to protect the climate and natural environment, to prevent an excess of population, and to regulate public health and workplace safety.

(6) To provide for the punishment of abuses of power by any official, agent, or employee of, or contractor for, any institution of government, and specifically any violations of the Constitution and laws pursuant thereto.

(7) To provide for the punishment of abuses of the natural rights of persons by other persons, in the event that those abuses, if the occurred on state ground, are not prosecuted by a State government.

(8) To define "due process" to include the elements given above which are not now explicit in the U.S. Constitution.

(9) To define the arms to which persons have a right to keep and bear as including "all those weapons which may be carried by one person and which might be useful or necessary to defend oneself or the community, except weapons of mass destruction such as bombs, heavy missiles or artillery, or biological, chemical, or nuclear agents which may cause lasting injury or death."

(10) To make explicit that only natural persons or corporate persons composed of natural persons may be the subject of due process in any civil or criminal proceeding.

NOTES:

[1] This is established in Common Law at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, but is not explicit in the U.S. Constitution.

[2] Originally, "commerce" meant only transfers of goods or services for a valuable consideration, so that "interstate" commerce would not include interstate migration, carrying across a state border of one's own possessions that one intends to keep, the sending across a state border of a gift or inheritance, nor include articles which had not yet crossed a state border, or articles which had "come to rest" with the completion of the transfer. It would not include manufacturing, local sales, or things that are "part of an aggregate" of interstate commerce, or things that might "affect" interstate commerce. Note also that the power to regulate does not include the power to criminally prosecute violations of regulations, but only to seize property through civil process.

[3] These are the only provisions that allow federal criminal laws jurisdiction outside federal ground.

[4] These powers, if not exercised by the State, revert to the people.

[5] This provision would seem to forbid taxes on interstate commerce if export to another state of the U.S. is included, leaving only intrastate commerce or commerce on federal ground subject to excise taxes or duties, although interstate commerce can otherwise be regulated.

[6] This means obeying constitutional laws and practices, and resisting unconstitutional ones.

[7] This is not clearly stated, but implied.

[8] The power to tax is not the power to regulate or license, and vice versa. That is why the powers to tax and to regulate are separately specified. With one exception, which is never used (in Art. 1 Sec. 10), no allowance is made for the charging of fees to cover the costs of regulation, even though this has become a common practice, in violation of the Constitution.

[9] This use of the word "Legislation" is a term of art which grants general powers within its jurisdiction, including powers of criminal and civil law that a State might exercise within its jurisdiction, but unlike a State in that a State would be restricted by a state constitution granting it only certain powers. This is a major gap in the Constitution. Although it applies only to federal ground, it also does not make clear what are the limitations on such legislative power, other than the natural and constitutional rights of persons, and so has been interpreted to allow anything that does not violate those rights. There is a need for a federal sub-constitution, similar to a typical state constitution, that applies to federal ground.

[10] The wording suggests that the States have the power, but allows the Congress to pre-empt it.

[11] But this implies that if the State fails to appoint such officers, local militias are left to elect their own, which was the established Common Law practice at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. But "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress". This means Congress can direct, but not forbid it, and implies that, in the absence of any training conducted by the State, local militias are left to organize and train themselves, which was the established Common Law practice established at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

[12] The term used is "form" of government, but the Framers seem to have meant substance as well, and that is reasonably implied.

[13] The original term was "well-regulated", but this is what was meant. Militias were originally local and independent of official authority, and it was intended that although they be subject to official authority when called into service by such authority, that they also be able to convene and operate independently when not.

[14] "Vehicle" was not explicitly included, but implied as an "effect".

[15] This is needed to allow persons not only to have rights but the means to exercise them, and also to acquire those means if they do not already have them, without which the right would be unduly burdened. However, beyond this right, the community has the general power to restrict contracts for reasons of public policy and not just to avoid conflicts with the rights of others, so that there is not a general "right" of contract, but a "default privilege" of doing so, subject to law, for contracts that do not involve securing the means to exercise their natural rights.

[16] This is worded as "to execute the Laws of the Union", thus allowing States to also call forth their Militias to execute their own laws.

[17] The exercise of general police powers is both a right of citizens, and a duty of able-bodied ones. All citizens are policemen, although ordinary citizens may be outranked by professional police officers when such officers are present in a law enforcement situation.

[18] Likewise, the keeping and bearing of arms, while a right of persons, is also a duty of able-bodied citizens.

FURTHER COMMENT:

Note that there is no right to marry or bear children included among any of the rights listed above. It is not a "natural" right, because natural rights are only rights of individuals, and exercise of a "right" to marry, without the consent of the other, would be an assault. Since consent is required, it is a matter of contract, and contractual rights are created by the community, even if it is a "community" of only two persons. Since the community is normally a larger polity, and since all legal contracts are agreements not only between the contracting parties, but also with the entire community, therefore the community has the power to regulate marriage and childbirth, and has exercised that power since time immemorial, for the benefit of the community.

Note also that the fundamental unit of the social contract is the local community, ward, or village. These may aggregate into a larger "state" or "federal union", but the basis is agreement among those who are in direct contact with one another.

It is sometimes thought that "the Constitution" consists only of the written document. This is not so. The title "The Constitution of the United States" was added after the document was adopted, but "constitution" meant the "basic legal order", and the Constitution consists of both the written document and the common law at the time the document was adopted, which is here referred to as the Common Law in caps. Now, the written document does supersede the Common Law where they might be in conflict, but it does not replace it, and courts must refer to the Common Law for guidance where the written document is silent or ambiguous.

In addition to the written document and the Common Law, the Constitution also includes Treaties, which, although they are valid only insofar as they are not in conflict with the written Constitution, are superior to both the Common Law and to State constitutions and laws, to the extent that those might be in conflict with the Treaties. Thus, some of the Treaties that have been adopted extend and clarify some of the rights, powers, and duties provided in the written Constitution. For example, that is how "federal ground" is extended to include coastal waters out to a certain distance from shore, and the grounds of U.S. embassies abroad, and how the rights of the people are amplified by the Charter of the United Nations and by various bilateral and multilateral Treaties that extend civil and commercial rights to U.S. citizens abroad.

The following diagrams can help clarify the relationship among the various elements of law in the U.S. legal system. Each element is superior to the one below it, although state constitutions are derived from their people, not from the U.S. Constitution. Although not shown, each element also includes the body of writings and recorded speeches of the legislators, diplomats, and judges who wrote the constitutions, treaties, laws, and court decisions, which clarify their intent, and which must be accepted as the basis of interpreting the words as originally meant and understood when there is confusion or dispute over their meaning.

Home » Legal Reform | Constitutional Defense

Original URL: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ll.htm
Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society
Original date: 2000/12/24 — Last updated 2013/3/12

Esten

04-14-13, 14:55

Just to go back to what Tres3 posted. Speaking for myself, I would not say my primary reason for posting is to convince other people. My primary reason is because I enjoy debate as intellectual stimulation. By fleshing out an issue with all sides and arguments presented, I often learn more about the issue, or I at least increase my appreciation of how others view the issue. By letting all the information "stand" as shown, others can also draw their own conclusions as to which side has more weight. There is also the enjoyment factor of exposing weak or contradictory arguments, and there's plenty of that to enjoy here.

Wow. So the role of government potentially changes every four years? That's a little lame, don't ya think? Food for thought Esten. Monger on all. Toymann.The role can change at any time. In our democracy the people have a mechanism to effect that change; an election may be an important part of that mechanism but not essential where there is significant support for something. In the case of a constitutional amendment, you need overwhelming support. But even without an amendment, within what is constitutionally lawful, there is plenty of room for the government to get more or less involved in something (though some may argue that is not changing the actual role of government).

The point is that the government is there to serve the people. "Of, By, and For". Those who claim the only function is to protect individual rights, conveniently forget the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Even Peter's post below shows there is a lot more to it.

Personal Security (Life):

(1) Not to be killed.

(2) Not to be injured or abused.Constitutional support for gun control. I like it! Now would the paranoid gun lovers who equate background checks with gun-grabbing, please sit down, take a deep breath, and exhale.

Silver Star

04-14-13, 18:58

Esten.

To be clear, the USA is in fact a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy (as you state incorrectly), please get your facts straight and do your homework on why the framers of the Constitution by design avoided democracy and created a Constitutional Republic instead...

Just to go back to what Tres3 posted. Speaking for myself, I would not say my primary reason for posting is to convince other people. My primary reason is because I enjoy debate as intellectual stimulation. By fleshing out an issue with all sides and arguments presented, I often learn more about the issue, or I at least increase my appreciation of how others view the issue. By letting all the information "stand" as shown, others can also draw their own conclusions as to which side has more weight. There is also the enjoyment factor of exposing weak or contradictory arguments, and there's plenty of that to enjoy here.

The role can change at any time. In our democracy the people have a mechanism to effect that change; an election may be an important part of that mechanism but not essential where there is significant support for something. In the case of a constitutional amendment, you need overwhelming support. But even without an amendment, within what is constitutionally lawful, there is plenty of room for the government to get more or less involved in something (though some may argue that is not changing the actual role of government).

The point is that the government is there to serve the people. "Of, By, and For". Those who claim the only function is to protect individual rights, conveniently forget the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Even Peter's post below shows there is a lot more to it.

Constitutional support for gun control. I like it! Now would the paranoid gun lovers who equate background checks with gun-grabbing, please sit down, take a deep breath, and exhale.

Rev BS

04-16-13, 04:07

Scum, cowards. To think that these people exist among the human race. So far, no radical islamic have claim credit. To me, it's pointing towards domestic terrorism.

Tres3

04-17-13, 13:55

"Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a "Night Watchman" position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $ 918,000 over budget, we must cut back." So they laid-off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter. Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration?

Anybody? Anything? No? Didn't think so! Bottom line is, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency, the reason for which very few people who read this can remember!

Ready??

It was very simple... And at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL!

Hey, pretty efficient, huh?

AND NOW IT'S 2013.- 36 YEARS LATER.- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

36 years ago, 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

Ah, yes.- good old Federal bureaucracy.

NOW, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

Hello! Anybody Home?

Tres3.

Rev BS

04-17-13, 22:00

Congress has legalized bribery & corruption, so that it is out there in the open. Their median income is about $750,000, almost half are millionaires. So you think they care about you & me. And here we are fighting & arguing about taxes & guns. We are suckers. In the same vein that we walk around advertising for Gucci, Rolex, Apple, etc. All in the name of free expression & free speech.

Esten

04-18-13, 00:28

Yes SS, we have a Constitutional Republic, but within it is a representative democracy. They are not mutually exclusive; they overlap. That democracy is how the people exercise their power at the ballot. The power of elected representatives is however tempered, including a high threshold for constitutional amendments. I noted this in my last post, but perhaps you did not read past the word "democracy". I'm afraid your response is largely about style over substance.

What we saw today in the Senate is quite remarkable:
- The vast majority of Americans support universal background checks.
- The majority of Senators voted for universal background checks.
- But the amendment was defeated because it fell short of the 60-vote threshold (which is not required by the Constitution).

I'm not sure I disagree with the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. But when 45% of Senators (not counting Reid's strategic No vote) oppose a measure that 90% of Americans support, something isn't right. I'm looking forward to seeing the analysis of which Senators voted contrary to the will of their constituents, and their connections to the gun lobby such as the NRA.

In the meantime, congrats to the gun lobby for temporarily fending off the gun grabbers, even though you're in the minority.

Punter 127

04-18-13, 01:28

Four Republicans voted for the amendment, but five Democrats voted against it. One of those Democrats was Reid -- who only switched his vote to oppose it because doing so allows Democrats to call up the measure again. Other Democrats who voted against the measure for non-procedural reasons were Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana. [snip]

Perhaps helping explain Democrats' problems, an AP-GfK poll this month showed that 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. That was down from 58 percent who said so in January [snip]

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/17/background-check-plan-in-trouble-as-dems-call-votes-on-gun-bill/#ixzz2QmQJGVnN

Make no mistake this is just the first trip to the well for the gun grabbers.

a Republican proposal requiring states to honor other states' permits allowing concealed weapons, which faces a close vote; and a GOP substitute for the overall gun measure. The concealed weapons amendment, seen by advocates as protecting gun rights, was vehemently opposed by gun control groups, who say it would allow more guns into states with stricter firearms laws. [snip]

Why would the gun power grabbers oppose a common sense amendment like the “reciprocal concealed carry amendment” after all these people have already had background checks and found to be trustworthy?

Dccpa

04-18-13, 15:59

Tiny12

04-19-13, 00:33

I think I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. If so please let me know. If not, I'm going to start calling you Red Shirt. To avoid any confusion, since you live in Bangkok, "Red Shirt" means a supporter of Karl Marx, not Thaksin Shinawatra.

Congress has legalized bribery & corruption, so that it is out there in the open.So why do you favor a big federal government? Why not shrink the beast, and give power to individuals, and politicians at the local and state level who are more accountable to the people they govern? That's the best way to reduce the influence of corrupt Congressmen.

Their median income is about $750,000, almost half are millionaires. That can't be correct. If half of Congressmen had incomes greater than $750,000/ year, many more than half would be millionaires.

In the same vein that we walk around advertising for Gucci, Rolex, Apple, etc. All in the name of free expression & free speech. I agree Gucci and Rolex are a waste of money. These companies have many competitors, like Hugo Boss, Cartier, Motorola, and Dell Computer. So who is going to decide which of these are going to stay in business? Who is going to pass the regulations to clamp down on free expression and free speech to implement what you want? I guess it would have to be those corrupt Congressmen. Or maybe a dictator could be in charge of this command and control (socialist?) economy. Someone like Hugo Chavez, may he rest in peace.

Mpexy

04-19-13, 05:04

Their median income is about $750,000, almost half are millionaires.

That can't be correct. If half of Congressmen had incomes greater than $750,000/ year, many more than half would be millionaires.1. I agree with smaller government = best. But aside from politics and whether the demographic facts quoted by Black Shirt is right or wrong, assuming they are for a minute, his quote was "median", not average.

2. You are confusing median with average. The median is simply the exact middle number within a chronologically ordered set of numbers (or if no exact middle number exists, the average of the two straddling middle numbers).

Not getting into whether the income data is correct or not, but if "almost half are millionaires", you could indeed have the median be $750 k simply by having the exact middle congressman making $750 k.

E.g. In a set of $1, $50, $500 k, $750 k, $1 MM, $1 MM, 10 MM.

The median is simply $750 k, the middle number of the set.

The average is $1.9 MM, skewed by the top and low outliers.

And the mode is $1 MM, which is simply which number occurs most frequently in the set.

3. To get a real sense of how out of touch congress is with typical income families, you'd likely have to exclude from the set freshman and perhaps all first term congressman. I would suspect that the average would already be quite high, but if you exclude first term congressman that may rotate in / out of office more than the truly long term incumbents, the average and median would probably be staggeringly higher.

El Perro

04-19-13, 10:21

Fucking Chechens. Creating havoc in Russia wasn't good enough for 'em.

Rev BS

04-19-13, 15:05

I think I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. If so please let me know. If not, I'm going to start calling you Red Shirt. To avoid any confusion, since you live in Bangkok, "Red Shirt" means a supporter of Karl Marx, not Thaksin Shinawatra.

So why do you favor a big federal government? Why not shrink the beast, and give power to individuals, and politicians at the local and state level who are more accountable to the people they govern? That's the best way to reduce the influence of corrupt Congressmen.

That can't be correct. If half of Congressmen had incomes greater than $750,000/ year, many more than half would be millionaires.

I agree Gucci and Rolex are a waste of money. These companies have many competitors, like Hugo Boss, Cartier, Motorola, and Dell Computer. So who is going to decide which of these are going to stay in business? Who is going to pass the regulations to clamp down on free expression and free speech to implement what you want? I guess it would have to be those corrupt Congressmen. Or maybe a dictator could be in charge of this command and control (socialist?) economy. Someone like Hugo Chavez, may he rest in peace.Actually, I don't believe I have a communist bone in my body, some socialist cartilage tissue perhaps. Marx was before my time. I like being a team player, and believe in "for the greater good". I detest the guy who says, you all have to quit playing because I am going home, and I'm taking my ball with me.

Sorry for the confusion. In my haste, I quoted numbers a few years back. January 17,2013 saw a report by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets. Org). All 535 members of Congress are worth an average of $966.001. 48% or 257 members of Congress are millionaires. I have failed math since freshman in high school. Thanks to Mxpey for his contribution, but it's Latin to me.

Smaller government, less bureaucracy, I like that concept but that was when horses was still a major mode of transportation. Today, the issues are a little bigger and more complicated, bigger government is a natural product. And we get the government that we deserve as a society, unfortunately, our society is in the Jerry Springer mode right now.

Brand names, luxury items. No problem, if you have the money. But Americans are told that they are failures, ugly or retards or they will catch a disease if they do not possess certain products. And they have to be replace every year or else, they will die. Funny, I just remember that we were actually talking about slavery the other day.

Ah yes, Bangkok where you can survive like a poor king for $25,000, you and your shadow. And you can look good, no matter what color of your shirt!

Tiny12

04-19-13, 16:45

Mpexy, A millionaire is a person with a net worth of $1 million or more. There are very few people who consistently make around $750,000 per year who aren't millionaires. I have no problem with Black Shirt's statement / statistic that a little less than half of Congressmen are millionaires. That sounds reasonable. I highly doubt their median income is $750,000 though. It would be much lower.

These days a net worth of about a million dollars is required, IMHO, to have a comfortable retirement.* Remember that would include the equity in your house. A person who's worth $1 million in the USA isn't wealthy.

I don't think Congress is populated by a bunch of very wealthy people (although some are), or that the wealthy are inherently immoral. I may have misinterpreted Black Shirt's post, but I thought that was where he was going. I do agree that some Congressmen are corrupt, and most cater to special interests.

*That's in the USA. I agree with Black Shirt that $25,000 a year is enough in Bangkok, and "you handsome man" regardless of what brands of clothes you wear.

Punter 127

04-19-13, 23:48

The real reasons the Senate trounced the Obama agenda.

The link Below is a excellent article, "The Gun Rights Consensus".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html

Punter 127

04-20-13, 01:32

Scum, cowards. To think that these people exist among the human race. [snip]

Fucking Chechens. Creating havoc in Russia wasn't good enough for 'em.
I Agree!

So far, no radical islamic have claim credit. To me, it's pointing towards domestic terrorism.[snip]
Sorry, (Mr Red Shirt) Media, No White Tea Partiers Were Involved.

Media Bias: There's palpable dismay at outlets such as MSNBC and Salon that the Boston Marathon bombers were radicalized young men from Chechnya and not angry white males from the vast right-wing conspiracy.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041913-652673-msnbc-salon-blamed-bombing-on-tea-party.htm#ixzz2QyApCoWY

Btw, I hate to burst you bubble, but I don't really think you look all that “good” in red. :D Just mho.

Rev BS

04-20-13, 04:03

I Agree!
Sorry, (Mr Red Shirt) Media, No White Tea Partiers Were Involved.
Btw, I hate to burst you bubble, but I don't really think you look all that “good” in red. :D Just mho.Remember Atlanta in 1996, I was scheduled to fly there the next day, and so I did. So beware of presumptions & jumping the gun.

You have not seen me in red underwear at midnight on Beach Road.

Punter 127

04-20-13, 06:37

Remember Atlanta in 1996, I was scheduled to fly there the next day, and so I did. So beware of presumptions & jumping the gun.
Yes, Atlanta was handled very poorly. BTW judging from some of the early reports the FBI may have ran a background check on one of the Boston Marathon bombers and declared him to not be a threat. They did the same thing with Carlos Bledsoe in Little Rock, before he shot up an Army recruiting station in 2009. So much for the effectiveness of background checks.

You have not seen me in red underwear at midnight on Beach Road.Proof positive that God does exist, and I'm very blessed!

Esten

04-20-13, 13:50

Rev BS

04-21-13, 12:45

I think is a waste of resources, nothing but trying to rewrite history & paint brush inadequacies, miscalculations and bad policies. Pimping to the egos of the super rich donors for what? I guess legacy or in other words, saving face. Well, perhaps, we are fools.

Not just directed at the Bush Presidential Library.

Mpexy

04-21-13, 13:29

I have to agree with the characterization of the Senate vote on background checks as "shameful".

Amazing but true, the vote maintains the loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to purchase guns, without having to undergo a background check. Now such checks don't outright stop such people from getting guns, but they make it more difficult. Why allow a background check system with holes in it? It's like building a dam with leaks. It's a farce.

Look at the polling numbers (Quinnipiac 4/4/2013):
Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
Total 91% Support
Republican 88% Support
Democrat 96% Support
Independent 90% Support
Northeast 92% Support
Midwest 91% Support
South 90% Support
West 91% Support
GunHsHld 88% Support

All political affiliations, geographic regions and even gun owners had overwhelming support for universal background checks. But 45 Senators defied the will of the American people. Instead, these Senators listened to the gun lobby. The NRA scored the vote, meaning they threatened to support or defeat Senators based on their vote. If the Founding Fathers were here today, I think they would be aghast at this perversion of our system of governance.Quoting large majority support as a fundamental reason why Americans ought or should not pass / keep a law is a losing proposition.

For good or bad, and admittedly there is number of bad situations that occur because of this, America has never been about simple majority rule. Most of the fundamental changes in our history has come about because of the push from what was at that point the small minority. E.g. Women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc.

There's also quite a difference between a Republic vs. A straight Democracy. Seems you are confusing which form of government we really have.

Member #4112

04-21-13, 14:32

Esten, your claim of 90% support for gun registration / gun control is a fluke at best. Every poll taken through March and into April clearly indicates a steady decline in support since the pinnacle occurred just after the Sandy Hook tragedy December 20th. Assuming your 90% figure is correct, this "overwhelming support" in 90 days has dropped to less than 45% in the polls. This notwithstanding the nearly 24/7 drum beat of the liberal press on the issue.

A point lost in the hyperbole of the liberals is the fact that nothing being discussed for "gun control" would have prevented either the Aurora or Sandy Hook shootings.

Perhaps we should put this issue in perspective. The latest poll by Gallop asking Americans to list "the most important problem facing the country today", conducted from April 4 through April 7, provides us with very interesting data which is contrary to what the liberals and their allies in the press would like for us to believe. Granted, the website is conservative but the poll is what it is.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/17/poll-americans-dont-think-gun-control-is-important/

Of the 16 issues listed which garnered greater than a 1% response, guns / gun control was 9th. Immigration fared better at 7th. Both issues only archived a 4% rating, interesting. With all the sound and fury from the liberals and the press you would think these two issues would be in at least the top 4.

Actually the top 4 problems were:

1. Economy in General 24%.

2. Unemployment / Jobs 18%.

3. Dissatisfaction with Government 16%.

4. Federal budget deficit / Federal debt 11% (I thought Obama told us not to worry about this?

Heck, even Ethical / Moral / Family decline came in at 5%, one point ahead of Immigration or guns.

Getting back to the gun control debate, anyone who does not agree with the liberals is now demonized, accused of not wishing to protect the children, are no longer considered Americans and their opinion no longer counts. Obama calls it a sad day because those who disagree with him prevailed. Is he not the president of ALL Americans or has the subset of American come to mean only Liberal Americans and those who do not fall in that subset are no longer his concern?

The gun control issue is moot on its face, should the Senate with its Democratic majority manage to cobble together something, to use Harry Reid's words, it is "dead on arrival" in the House.

Member #4112

04-21-13, 14:39

Esten, I know you are not a fan of the requirement of 60 votes to move legislation forward in the Senate, but the Democrats who cry about the rule now, were its most ardent supporters when they were not in the majority. By the way, I believe it was the Democrats who came up with that.

Ever see a "poor" Congressman or Senator after they have been in a few terms? Even if only $700 k is the center line it still puts the people who govern us in the much hated "Rich / Elite" class the liberals and Obama love to demonize. See a problem here? What we need is term limits for the House and the Senate. If it's good enough for the President, it's good enough for the legislative branch. If you stagger it out every 2 years and limit each term to 4 years, they turn over too quickly to get too fat and it becomes prohibitively expensive for the power brokers to keep buying them.

Silver Star, please don't start your pitch about the Libertarians, they are human and just as susceptible to corruption as anyone. Power corrupts!

Esten

04-22-13, 01:23

Quoting large majority support as a fundamental reason why Americans ought or should not pass / keep a law is a losing proposition.

For good or bad, and admittedly there is number of bad situations that occur because of this, America has never been about simple majority rule. Most of the fundamental changes in our history has come about because of the push from what was at that point the small minority. E.g. Women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc.
Of course our elected representatives don't always vote based on poll majorities. And that can be a good thing. But when 90% of their constituents support something, which by any measure is plain common sense, then you have to wonder where they get off essentially telling their own constituents, "Screw you, I'm voting for the 10%". You can't give the finger to the people who elected you and not expect some repercussion. The Senators who voted 'No' on universal background checks are hoping their constituents won't care enough about it come next election. It will be for their opponents, to remind people how their Senator failed to represent them.

Interesting comment about the influence of small minorities. Gun rights and gay rights are both examples. I don't support gay marriage (though I'm not against it either), and I think it gets way too much attention and importance. I like it when Republicans come out and say they support the traditional model of marriage. But the gay movement lobbied and has been successful.

Anyways, the background check issue is unique. How often do 90% of Americans agree on something - almost never. And closing loopholes in the background check system is just common sense. Last week's Senate vote was historic, in a bad way. I am intrigued by it. It isn't going to help Republicans, it will hurt them, the only question is how much.

Esten

04-22-13, 01:35

Tiny12

04-22-13, 04:05

Check this quote from former Republican Senator Al D'Amato:

"By the way, I'm a Republican. I'm not always very proud of what our party has been doing, particularly lately on the national level," D'Amato said. "I think you've got to be a jackass to be voting against background checks for people buying guns."

And the audience applauded...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/al-damato-background-checks_n_3122881.htmlI've only been half-assed following this but read that Pat Toomey (Republican / Libertarian) and Joe Manchin (Democrat) came up with a bill that would have provided for background checks, and probably would have passed the Senate once amended. It initially only had 54 votes, but, again, would have probably passed with amendments. Harry Reid however invoked procedural rules to keep this from happening. Supposedly this was because of orders from his master in the White House. Supposedly Obama would rather have no gun bill instead of compromising, so he'd have something else to try to pin on the Republicans in the 2014 elections.

Member #4112

04-22-13, 10:00

Of course our elected representatives don't always vote based on poll majorities. And that can be a good thing. But when 90% of their constituents support something, which by any measure is plain common sense, then you have to wonder where they get off essentially telling their own constituents, "Screw you, I'm voting for the 10%". You can't give the finger to the people who elected you and not expect some repercussion. The Senators who voted 'No' on universal background checks are hoping their constituents won't care enough about it come next election. It will be for their opponents, to remind people how their Senator failed to represent them.

Interesting comment about the influence of small minorities. Gun rights and gay rights are both examples. I don't support gay marriage (though I'm not against it either), and I think it gets way too much attention and importance. I like it when Republicans come out and say they support the traditional model of marriage. But the gay movement lobbied and has been successful.

Anyways, the background check issue is unique. How often do 90% of Americans agree on something - almost never. And closing loopholes in the background check system is just common sense. Last week's Senate vote was historic, in a bad way. I am intrigued by it. It isn't going to help Republicans, it will hurt them, the only question is how much.Esten, if the poll numbers were ever at 90%, which I doubt, they are without question below 45% and falling now. What part of as far as the IMPORTANT issues of the day for Americans as presented in the Gallop poll only 4% believe gun control is it? How is 4% a majority. The media is making such a fuss over the Senate vote when they know it is going no where in the House. It's moot. By the way the folks who belive in the 2nd Amendment far out number Gay folks, which comprise less than 1.5% of the population, yet liberal politicians are bending over backwards, no pun intended, to meet their demands.

See this is what I'm talking about. Conservatives are too stupid to know what is good for them so we don't count as far a liberals are concerned. Guess I will continue to cling to my guns and religion, to quote the Obamanation.

Punter 127

04-23-13, 01:28

Boston Bombing Suspects Did Not Have Valid Handgun Licenses,

And in Massachusetts a Firearms Identification Card (FID) is required before buying, transporting, or possessing a firearm.

There is no record of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 having a license to carry, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 is to young to get a handgun license. Under Massachusetts law, residents under 21 may only apply for a FID card, which allows the holder to own only rifles that hold 10 rounds or less and shotguns.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/04/21/us/21reuters-usa-explosions-boston-guns.html?hp&_r=2&

This means the handguns and at least one rifle the brothers had with them were acquired and possessed in ways that broke laws already in existence.

This is a good example of how new gun control laws will not deter criminals, they've been ignoring the old laws for years, and they are seldom prosecuted.

Knee-jerk reactionary legislation!

Keeping with the tradition of never wanting a serious crisis to go to waste Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-God's Waiting Room) announced yesterday that he will reintroduce legislation to require background checks for the purchase of Gun powder.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/sen-lautenberg-wants-background-checks-t

Senator Lautenberg seems to ignore that the Boston jihadist would have had little trouble with a background check considering one of them was interviewed by the FBI and found to not be a threat. So what purpose would a background check have served?

However I am curious as to why Lautenberg didn't include backpacks, steel pipe and pressure cookers as items requiring a background check, after all they were all used in the Boston crisis.

"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws.... THAT'S INSANE!!!"

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Tiny12

04-25-13, 16:55

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578438913145965432.html

Fuck the people and blame it on Republicans.

Esten

04-26-13, 00:06

Some of the gun loving RepubliCONs may try to cast doubt on the 90% figure (support for broader background checks). I guess they think they can lie about the polls without people noticing. LOL

The evidence is irrefutable:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
• CNN / Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7. 89% support
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1. 91% support
• CBS News poll, March 20-24. 90% support
• Washington Post-ABC News poll, March 7-10. 91% support
• Gallup poll, January 19-20. 91% support
• Fox News poll, January 15-17. 91% support
• USA Today / Gallup poll. December 19-22. 92% support

But what do you expect from the "say anything" gun lobby?
The same cadre that convinced many Senators to ignore their own constituents?

Peter Sideburn

04-26-13, 21:03

If you include 20+ points and then ask a basic question like "Do you support gun control?" you should expect a positive answer. Nearly everyone believes there is room for improvement. For example, most support reporting systems for mentally ill folks. Few states report and the Federal Gov rarely does anything when it is found that people lied. Most sane folks believe that if you lie on your papers when trying to get a gun you should go to jail. The number one reason denials occur is that the person lies about their criminal background yet they are not arrested and put in jail. I support making lying on the form a felony. I also contend that their are more deaths from guns due to suicide than from murder in especially the younger crowd and nearly all mass murders are crazy. If you prevented criminals from having guns but keeping them locked up after a single violent felony conviction and you provided better mental health services and limited their access, you would drastically lower the gun related violence. No sane person who has looked at the data, including the FBI, believes that the best way to reduce gun violence is to take guns from legal gun owners.

Esten since you like to bust on Republicans so much, could you tell my why there is a direct coorelation between being a mass murderer and being either a Democrat or the child of a Democrat? Nearly all those in recent history from Columbine to the most recent case have met this criteria. Can you explain why Joey be thinks everyone should own a shotgun despite the fact that far more murders are committed with shotguns than with "assault rifles." In fact, more than with all rifles combined.

I support broader imigration reform but it doesn't mean I support every crappy idea thrown out by our legislatures to achieve it. You can't ask a general question and then ascribe that means they agree with a specific bill. This type of rhetoric and smoke and mirrors is disgusting and belittles the great Democrats and Republicans in our history. If the only way you can use statistics is to mislead then you should not use them.

Example:

Someone is shown a Red and a Green Corvette and asked, "Would you prefer Red or Green?" They say, "Green.

The host then runs them over with the Green Corvette and claims they asked for it.

Pete.

Some of the gun loving RepubliCONs may try to cast doubt on the 90% figure (support for broader background checks). I guess they think they can lie about the polls without people noticing. LOL

The evidence is irrefutable:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
• CNN / Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7. 89% support
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1. 91% support
• CBS News poll, March 20-24. 90% support
• Washington Post-ABC News poll, March 7-10. 91% support
• Gallup poll, January 19-20. 91% support
• Fox News poll, January 15-17. 91% support
• USA Today / Gallup poll. December 19-22. 92% support

But what do you expect from the "say anything" gun lobby?
The same cadre that convinced many Senators to ignore their own constituents?

Rev BS

04-26-13, 22:08

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433334] No sane person who has looked at the data, including the FBI, believes that the best way to reduce gun violence is to take guns from legal gun owners./QUOTE]

If you are a legal gun owner, is there proposed legislature to take all your guns away? Or is it only some type of guns?

Punter 127

04-27-13, 02:42

No sane person who has looked at the data, including the FBI, believes that the best way to reduce gun violence is to take guns from legal gun owners.

If you are a legal gun owner, is there proposed legislature to take all your guns away? Or is it only some type of guns?

Just the Camel's Nose In The Tent, and you can bet his body will soon follow.

Upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, Feinstein said: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ ...I would have done it.”

And lets not forget what the bootlicking Obama lapdog said.

But it looks like they will address it around the edges, with a few fixes, while preserving ownership for the qualified masses. I am skeptical this will put much of a dent in the violent crime rate but willing to give it a try. Ultimately, I think there will still be too many cracks in preventing the "bad guys" from getting guns (whether through legal or illegal purchase, or theft). How do you identify a "bad guy" with an inclination for violence but no record ? How do you stop such a person from stealing a gun when there are so many guns out there, sometimes owned by a family member ? So ultimately, a broad ban on guns may be needed, and I would strongly support it.[snip]

Why should we allow any guns to be banned, would the Constitution allow certain books to be banned? ... “The answer is obvious — NO”

Member #4112

04-27-13, 13:32

Esten, if gun control and immigration reform are such hot topics then why do they fall so far down the curve in the poll I quoted at 4% and 5% respectively? I would submit to you they are not but are being pushed by the media. Americans are worried about the economy, jobs and the debt.

In case you have not noticed, we have gun control laws which are not being enforced by the federal government now. How is it that less than 1% of denials are prosecuted when the background check system shows the applicant lied about convictions? So your answer is more unenforceable laws?

Peter Sideburn

04-27-13, 21:05

The current legislation (most of it) is a slippery slope wanting to make illegal weapons that are commonly used for hunting and are less of risk than the weapons not included in the legislation. Big O has clearly stated many times his real intentions, while being surrounded by armed guards of course. The data does not support that large magazines or "assault rifles" are the problem at all. Interestingly, the murder rate by gun consistently dropped, by government statistics, AFTER the assault weapons ban went away. I am not suggesting there is cause and effect here. In fact, I am arguing the opposite. An assault weapons ban against what really are not assault weapons had no demonstrable effect and any intelligent person aware of the statistics would agree that they would not have any effect now. What you don't hear the gun haters say is that we should enforce laws, keep criminals in jail, provide better mental health, etc . Maybe that is because these things would all take a disproportionate number of their base out of the voting populus.
Pete

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433334] No sane person who has looked at the data, including the FBI, believes that the best way to reduce gun violence is to take guns from legal gun owners./QUOTE]

If you are a legal gun owner, is there proposed legislature to take all your guns away? Or is it only some type of guns?

Peter Sideburn

04-27-13, 21:05

The current legislation (most of it) is a slippery slope wanting to make illegal weapons that are commonly used for hunting and are less of risk than the weapons not included in the legislation. Big O has clearly stated many times his real intentions, while being surrounded by armed guards of course. The data does not support that large magazines or "assault rifles" are the problem at all. Interestingly, the murder rate by gun consistently dropped, by government statistics, AFTER the assault weapons ban went away. I am not suggesting there is cause and effect here. In fact, I am arguing the opposite. An assault weapons ban against what really are not assault weapons had no demonstrable effect and any intelligent person aware of the statistics would agree that they would not have any effect now. What you don't hear the gun haters say is that we should enforce laws, keep criminals in jail, provide better mental health, etc. Maybe that is because these things would all take a disproportionate number of their base out of the voting populus.

Pete.

TejanoLibre

04-29-13, 03:30

Absolutely worth watching! It's the Annual White House Correspondent's Presidential Roast. (Conan O'Brian is the Roaster).

http://news.yahoo.com/event/conan-obrien-at-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner/?vp=1

A few strong laughs from the Democratic crowd and a few heavy jokes that were maybe too strong.

Have Fun,

TL.

WorldTravel69

04-29-13, 11:31

They really love the workers.

WorldTravel69

04-29-13, 11:33

A library for Bush. What a joke.

Tiny12

04-29-13, 14:24

They really love the workers.The hypocrisy of the Democrat party knows no bounds. Make 11 million illegal immigrants citizens ASAP because they're more likely to vote for Democrats. But, in order to protect their union paymasters, only grant 150,000 green cards a year to those who qualify for residence based on education and skills.

WorldTravel69

04-29-13, 17:19

It is funny how fast they can work when it affects them.

Esten

04-30-13, 00:23

Tripe #1: The poll question was flawed. The poll questions on background checks weren't vague or general, they were quite specific: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" etc.

First the gun-pushers tried to discredit the 90% support level. Then they try to discredit the poll question. LOL! Next thing you know they'll be claiming the polls greatly over-sampled liberals. That would be problematic though, because some of the polls broke down the response by political affiliation and showed even Republicans had near-90% support for background checks. It is true there are gaps in state reporting to NICS. But lately we've seen some states take steps to improve their reporting. If we are improving the database, doesn't it also make sense to improve the system which uses the database?

Tripe #2: There is an effort to take guns from legal gun owners. False. There was no such proposal, bill or amendment.

Tripe #3: We shouldn't bother trying to reduce gun violence since it isn't the most important issue. Laughable. Since when can / should we just work on one thing? A lot of people think gun violence is important enough to work on.

As some of the gun-pushers may have surmised, the background check issue isn't going away anytime soon. The reason is not mainly because one side "lost". The reason is because Americans just witnessed -- in plain daylight -- a blatantly corrupt vote in the Senate.

Member #4112

04-30-13, 13:35

Esten.

First:

My point was not the poll questions were vague or misleading but ignored the fact we have gun control laws which are not being enforced now. I would like to know the actual demographics of the polls though. That notwithstanding, your answer is to pass more laws not to enforce. It is the liberals / democrats in control of Washington now ATF, FBI, Treasury, Homeland Security, so why aren't they using the laws they now have on the books?

Second:

If there is such an overwhelmingly majority supporting this issue why hasn't it passed the Senate? The democrats have the majority do they not? Why are even some democrats unwilling to support this bill? Could it be they are from states where the majority of their constituents don't support the bill? How could this be possible, a majority of folks against it even though your polls show 90% support?

Third:

Why is the media paying so much attention to this matter? They never paid any attention to all the bills passed by the House to balance the budget, shrink the deficit, and reduce spending. Oh I get it, those were Republican bills and this little circus in the Senate is a Democrat one. So the lovely little liberal news media again shows its left wing bias.

Fourth:

Nothing being discussed will reduce gun violence and what is being discussed would be just another unenforceable law. Criminals don't follow the law, that's why we call them criminals.

Last but not least, this is a tempest in a tea pot, sound and fury signifying nothing. The Dem's can't even get it out of the Senate they control and it is going nowhere in the House.

The billboard in Colorado says it all, it depicts three men in Indian, pardon me – Native American, costumes with the banner "give up your guns, the government will take care of you".

The only tripe I see here is you whining. Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Member #4112

04-30-13, 13:44

WT69 if the best you can do is political cartoons, that's a pretty sad statement. They are a bit amusing though in a cockeyed sort of way.

One question, since the bill which passed the House and Senate regarding the air traffic controllers was bipartisan what is your gripe? It's a shame when the legislative branch has to tell folks to shift money from non-critical projects to critical projects, unless of course Obama only wanted to cause as much pain as possible to the American people in hopes of gaining a partisan advantage. It did not work, his poll numbers are headed down again.

Esten

05-01-13, 00:42

First:

My point was not the poll questions were vague or misleading but Heh, the first tripe was in response to Peter not you. But given that many gun owners think the gun issue is all about themselves, your response isn't surprising.

Hey Doppel, you're a businessman I have a question for you. Let's say you hired someone to represent your interests. And that person went and acted contrary to your interests. In other words, after you hired them they basically told you to phuck off. Would you keep them around?

Peter Sideburn

05-01-13, 01:40

Read Punter's quotes below or search your own. The goal is to become European and to remove all guns. Also, you don't start by taking away the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens to decrease criminal activity. It is just stupid. If you are correct then why didn't we see an increase in gun deaths after the assault rifle ban expired?

Pete.

Heh, the first tripe was in response to Peter not you. But given that many gun owners think the gun issue is all about themselves, your response isn't surprising.

Hey Doppel, you're a businessman I have a question for you. Let's say you hired someone to represent your interests. And that person went and acted contrary to your interests. In other words, after you hired them they basically told you to phuck off. Would you keep them around?

Member #4112

05-01-13, 08:33

Hey Doppel, you're a businessman I have a question for you. Let's say you hired someone to represent your interests. And that person went and acted contrary to your interests. In other words, after you hired them they basically told you to phuck off. Would you keep them around?Esten.

First:

My business does not operate as a representative democracy, it is a dictatorship and it's good to be the king! So your comparison does not work; apples to artichokes – the artichokes being the government.

Second:

Elected representatives are responsible to the MAJORITY of their constituents not the LOUDEST minority. In case you have not noticed, the liberal media does not fall into the category of an elected representative's constituents no matter how much noise they make.

Caricoso

05-01-13, 18:39

Esten.

First:

My business does not operate as a representative democracy, it is a dictatorship and it's good to be the king! So your comparison does not work; apples to artichokes – the artichokes being the government.

Second:

Elected representatives are responsible to the MAJORITY of their constituents not the LOUDEST minority. In case you have not noticed, the liberal media does not fall into the category of an elected representative's constituents no matter how much noise they make.Unless the loudest minority (whoever they may be) bring at lot of $ to the table.

Esten

05-01-13, 23:47

Elected representatives are responsible to the MAJORITY of their constituents not the LOUDEST minority.We agree here. So you understand then, how elected representatives who voted "No" for broader background checks, who listened to a loud minority instead of a large majority of their constituents who support this measure, have put their jobs at risk.

NHDP - Backlash Over Ayotte Vote Against Bipartisan Background Check Legislation Continues to Grow
www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/2013/4/25/nhdp-backlash-over-ayotte-vote-against-bipartisan-background.html

Punter 127

05-02-13, 02:06

Esten is just smoke and mirrors.

Reciprocal concealed carry amendment got more yes votes than the background check amendment.

Background checks, yes votes 54, Reciprocal concealed carry, yes votes 57.

Esten instead of your knee-jerk reaction to always blame Republicans, did it ever occur to you to ask, Why didn't Harry Reid give Congress a better bill?

Member #4112

05-02-13, 10:33

The Democrats in the Senate who voted "NO" did listen to the MAJORITY in their districts as well as the Republicans who voted NO. You just don't seem to get the point here.

Would you now argue since the "polls" show nearly 60% of American's want ObamaCare repealed the Democrats should now switch sides on the issue?

Esten

05-02-13, 23:18

The goal is to become European and to remove all guns. Also, you don't start by taking away the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens to decrease criminal activity. It is just stupid. If you are correct then why didn't we see an increase in gun deaths after the assault rifle ban expired?Peter, I can assure you there is no goal to remove all guns (at least with any significant support). Comments some folks may make, including myself, about banning all guns, are entirely hypothetical. It's in the context of "as a last resort", after first trying to reduce gun violence through sensible approaches which also protect gun ownership. Even then, it's clear a ban is a near-impossibility based on gun support levels and the need to amend the Constitution. So it's 100% hypothetical.

I understand some politicians and lobbyists have made statements like "You and I are literally surrounded. The gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment." and "They're coming for your guns." (words from Mitch McConnell). But these are simply ploys to get gun owners worked up, attempts to manipulate through lies and fear. The truth is there was no proposal whatsoever in the Senate to take away any legally owned guns.

BTW, background checks and an assault weapons ban don't take away one's constitutional right to own a gun. Mass shootings are up since the assault weapons ban expired, but support for this measure is arguably driven by mere common sense.

Dickhead

05-02-13, 23:31

You should all read 'Inevitable Revolutions,' by Walter Lafeber.

Esten

05-02-13, 23:52

The Democrats in the Senate who voted "NO" did listen to the MAJORITY in their districts as well as the Republicans who voted NO. You just don't seem to get the point here.I am pretty sure there were Senators who voted NO on the background check amendment, from states where a MAJORITY supported expanded background checks.

Doppel if you disagree with this, how about let's put it to a test. I got $500 that says I am correct. Do we have a bet?

Rev BS

05-03-13, 04:14

Peter, I can assure you there is no goal to remove all guns (at least with any significant support). Comments some folks may make, including myself, about banning all guns, are entirely hypothetical. It's in the context of "as a last resort", after first trying to reduce gun violence through sensible approaches which also protect gun ownership. Even then, it's clear a ban is a near-impossibility based on gun support levels and the need to amend the Constitution. So it's 100% hypothetical.

I understand some politicians and lobbyists have made statements like "You and I are literally surrounded. The gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment." and "They're coming for your guns." (words from Mitch McConnell). But these are simply ploys to get gun owners worked up, attempts to manipulate through lies and fear. The truth is there was no proposal whatsoever in the Senate to take away any legally owned guns.

BTW, background checks and an assault weapons ban don't take away one's constitutional right to own a gun. Mass shootings are up since the assault weapons ban expired, but support for this measure is arguably driven by mere common sense.You know, you do make sense.

Punter 127

05-03-13, 05:29

Once in a while,

You know, you do make sense.ROFLMAO

My friend you are unbelievably naïve!

Don't fall for his wile, he's a skilled propagandist.

Punter 127

05-04-13, 10:32

Gun Crime Prosecutions Down 40% Under Obama.

http://www.newsmax.com/TedNugent/Gun-Crime-Prosecutions-Down/2013/04/30/id/502125

Obama's Chicago Dead Last In Federal Gun Prosecutions.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040213-650124-chicago-dead-last-in-federal-gun-prosecutions.htm

Figures. Obama Increased Budget By a Trillion Dollars But Cut in Half Domestic Bombing Prevention.

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2013/04/obama-cut-domestic-bombing-prevention.html

Did someone say “Shameful”?

WorldTravel69

05-04-13, 12:51

Here is a few that just got taken off the market in my area. Not good trying to sell them to the Cops.

Gun Crime Prosecutions Down 40% Under Obama.

http://www.newsmax.com/TedNugent/Gun-Crime-Prosecutions-Down/2013/04/30/id/502125

Obama's Chicago Dead Last In Federal Gun Prosecutions.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040213-650124-chicago-dead-last-in-federal-gun-prosecutions.htm

Figures. Obama Increased Budget By a Trillion Dollars But Cut in Half Domestic Bombing Prevention.

http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2013/04/obama-cut-domestic-bombing-prevention.html

Did someone say “Shameful”?

WorldTravel69

05-04-13, 16:55

Some of you complain about this government having tooooo many Regulations.

You could always do this . . .

Don B

05-04-13, 17:26

Some of you complain about this government having tooooo many Regulations.

You cold always do this . . .

cold or could?

That is known as the fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

For my view on the subject see:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/11/where-does-valid-law-end-and-regulation-begin/

Leftists will of course reticule it.

Don B.

Member #4112

05-04-13, 19:43

Esten, since it has been demonstrated polls don't mean much, I'll do you one better. $500 says even with your so called "majority" no legislation is passed for the Obamations signature. Are we on? Is you faith in the so called "majority" strong enough?

My proof is the Democrats who are up for election have decided there is a majority who will throw them out of office at the mid-terms if they vote for this BS legislation so they have declined to do so.

Punter 127

05-05-13, 03:22

Obama and the gun grabbers are now in lie and wait mode.
Which in this case means tell a lot of lies and wait for the next crisis (even if it's a false flag) to push their gun agenda in congress.

WorldTravel69

05-05-13, 11:30

I thought you were smarter than that.

No one wants to take your guns away, just keep them out of the wrong hands.

Or do you have something to hide?

Obama and the gun grabbers are now in lie and wait mode.
Which in this case means tell a lot of lies and wait for the next crisis (even if it's a false flag) to push their gun agenda in congress.

Esten

05-05-13, 14:26

So the NRA had it's convention down in Houston this weekend. Maybe some of our AP gun owners were down there, shopping for the latest Zombie Targets. I wonder if Houston is a more gun-friendly part of the state; here's what the biggest newspaper in Dallas wrote:

And speaking of cowards, the Senate gun vote is an appalling victory for hardliners and hypocrites
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/04/and-speaking-of-cowards-the-senate-gun-vote-is-an-appalling-for-hardliners-and-hypocrites.html/

I listened to some of the speeches. It was mostly far-right extremist programming-- the second amendment is under attack, the victims are the poor law-abiding gun owners, etc etc. They celebrate the defeat of the Senate vote on background checks, even though a clear majority (74%) of NRA members support universal background checks. A festival of self-pity, self-praise and self-delusion.

Esten

05-05-13, 14:50

Esten, since it has been demonstrated polls don't mean much, I'll do you one better. $500 says even with your so called "majority" no legislation is passed for the Obamations signature. Are we on? Is you faith in the so called "majority" strong enough?Nice pivot. But the difference is, I never made any statement on this. It's clear there are many elected representatives who are willing to sell out to lobbyists, instead of listening to the 90% of Americans who support background checks. Time will be needed to replace enough of these "representatives" for a re-vote. You're offer is rather stacked in your favor, so I'll pass. Let's return to what you, DID make a statement on:

The Democrats in the Senate who voted "NO" did listen to the MAJORITY in their districts as well as the Republicans who voted NO. You just don't seem to get the point here.I contend there were Senators who voted NO on the background check amendment, from states where a MAJORITY supported expanded background checks. $500 says I am correct. Do we have a bet? If you can't back up your own statements, we'll all know what you're really all about.

Member #4112

05-05-13, 15:05

Your 90% polls are dust in the wind. The true poll is the ballot box which the Dems in the senate fear which is why they will not vote for it. They fear the majority at election time more than the poll. Do we have a bet? How can it be stacked in my favor if you are so sure of your Super Majority of 90%?

Punter 127

05-06-13, 10:30

Obama and the gun grabbers are now in lie and wait mode.
Which in this case means tell a lot of lies and wait for the next crisis (even if it's a false flag) to push their gun agenda in congress.

I thought you were smarter than that.Sorry I didn't meet you expectations, but I'm sharp enough to know when I'm being hoodwinked.

I guess you and I are on a level field, because I never thought you would be so credulous!

No one wants to take your guns away, just keep them out of the wrong hands.What makes you think they don't want to "take your guns away", what do you base that statement on? And please define "the wrong hands", because it appears to me that the gun grabbers think the American people are the "wrong hands".

"No one wants to take your guns away", If you believe that, I've got a bridge that you just have to buy. I'll even throw in a guarantee for a bridge to nowhere. Because for many on the left, banning gun ownership is the ultimate goal.

It's foolhardy and naïve to believe that the goals of those attacking the Second Amendment are simply attempts at "common sense gun legislation," (a very broad but subjective phrase with a wide array of unconstitutional possibilities).

Law abiding Americans, are in fact, in constant danger from those trying to take away our rights.

"No one wants to take your guns away", that is except of course for New York state, California, Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington State, and more specifically President Obama, Senator Feinstein, San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne, Mayor Bloomberg, and Esten just to name a few.

The anti-gun people know that the only way they can achieve their goal (of confiscating all privately owned guns) is to chip away, little by little, at our 2nd Amendment rights until a de facto ban has eventually been codified into law.

Have you noticed, all of the anti-2nd Amendment groups are Far Left. They call themselves "progressives" but their goals are anything but. A move backwards to Socialist tyranny is not progress.

Or do you have something to hide?Please elucidate the question for me. I'm having a hard time getting to your intelligence level and connecting the question with the current subject.

I have but one thing to say to the politicians / gun grabbers trying to disarm the American people,

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

WorldTravel69

05-06-13, 13:34

Why not try watching another TV station, other than Fox.

The NRA people don't even want background checks.

The NRA is a in the business of helping the Gun Selling Companys. Not Helping to protect the people. Even the First President Bush Quit the NRA.

VP Biden said that nobody wants to take away your 2nd Amendment Rights. They just want to get rid of the Military weapons off the street and the nuts with guns.

Gun shows should be required to do background checks.

When I said Hide, I mean I hope you not trying to hide some illegal weapons, that you are afraid they might find out about.

Sorry I didn't meet you expectations, but I'm sharp enough to know when I'm being hoodwinked.

I guess you and I are on a level field, because I never thought you would be so credulous!

What makes you think they don't want to "take your guns away", what do you base that statement on? And please define "the wrong hands", because it appears to me that the gun grabbers think the American people are the "wrong hands".

"No one wants to take your guns away", If you believe that, I've got a bridge that you just have to buy. I'll even throw in a guarantee for a bridge to nowhere. Because for many on the left, banning gun ownership is the ultimate goal.

It's foolhardy and naïve to believe that the goals of those attacking the Second Amendment are simply attempts at "common sense gun legislation," (a very broad but subjective phrase with a wide array of unconstitutional possibilities).

Law abiding Americans, are in fact, in constant danger from those trying to take away our rights.

"No one wants to take your guns away", that is except of course for New York state, California, Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington State, and more specifically President Obama, Senator Feinstein, San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne, Mayor Bloomberg, and Esten just to name a few.

The anti-gun people know that the only way they can achieve their goal (of confiscating all privately owned guns) is to chip away, little by little, at our 2nd Amendment rights until a de facto ban has eventually been codified into law.

Have you noticed, all of the anti-2nd Amendment groups are Far Left. They call themselves "progressives" but their goals are anything but. A move backwards to Socialist tyranny is not progress.

Please elucidate the question for me. I'm having a hard time getting to your intelligence level and connecting the question with the current subject.

I have but one thing to say to the politicians / gun grabbers trying to disarm the American people,

[center][b]

Jackson

05-06-13, 13:59

WorldTravel69

05-06-13, 23:17

Is that why you deleted my post from yesterday?

WT,

Congratulations for actually posting something that appears to be of your own composition.

It's a refreshing change from your usual idiotic cartoons and quotations from failed union leaders.

Thanks,

Jackson.

Esten

05-07-13, 00:43

The Democrats in the Senate who voted "NO" did listen to the MAJORITY in their districts as well as the Republicans who voted NO. You just don't seem to get the point here.Doppel avoided betting on his statement, because he knows he posted false information. He may try to pivot to his alternate bet, but that's what we call a "red herring". The question here is whether one can stand behind their own words. Clearly, Doppel cannot.

Jackson

05-07-13, 01:00

Is that why you deleted my post from yesterday?WT, that carton you posted yesterday was so pointlessly idiotic that I decided to do you a favor and save you from the latent personal embaressment at having published it.

No need to thank me.

Jackson.

Punter 127

05-07-13, 05:34

Why not try watching another TV station, other than Fox. I don't watch much TV news but what's wrong with Fox News, I thought they were the number one rated news channel? What channel do you suggest?

The NRA people don't even want background checks.Really, I thought they supported the current background check system.

The NRA is a in the business of helping the Gun Selling Companys. Not Helping to protect the people. Even the First President Bush Quit the NRA.I think Barack Obama is the best gun salesman ever! "Barack Obama, Gun Salesman of the Year"..

He's also helped the NRA membership surge to 5 million active members.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-29/barack-obama-gun-salesman-of-the-year.html

Bush 41 was never a true firearms supporter and in terms of how he carried out his Presidential oath to defend the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, Bush 41 was an absolute disaster.

VP Biden said that nobody wants to take away your 2nd Amendment Rights. They just want to get rid of the Military weapons off the street and the nuts with guns. I don't think Biden has a clue what's in the 2nd Amendment or the Supreme Courts rulings on the 2nd Amendment.

If they only want to get "military weapons off the street" why did DiFi's (Dianne Feinstein) bill include semi-automatic rifle, I thought the military only used full-automatic rifles.

"Nuts with guns" or gun nuts?

Gun shows should be required to do background checks.They are required to do background checks, under current law all firearms dealers are required to run background checks.

Did you know it's currently illegal for an individual to knowingly sell a firearm to another individual who can not legally own a firearm? Even for the tiny percentage of criminal guns acquired at gun shows (and the 25% figure for gun stores) does not mean that the criminal necessarily purchased the gun himself at that location. Many people with criminal records use a straw man purchaser. (someone with a clean record who buys the gun, and then transfers it to the criminal).

Straw man purchases have been classified a federal felony since the Gun Control Act of 1968; the federal law against straw purchases was strengthened in 1986 by the NRA-sponsored Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Attacking gun shows is the first step to abolishing all privacy regarding firearms, en route to implementing universal gun registration.

BTW I would support opening the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) via a toll-free number or the Internet, to check the eligibility of buyers for individual sales on a voluntary bases, provided both the seller and the buyer agree to it. I would not support making it mandatory.

When I said Hide, I mean I hope you not trying to hide some illegal weapons, that you are afraid they might find out about.
Rest assured I do not, and I resent your implication of dishonesty!

WorldTravel69

05-07-13, 13:34

So, you violate my 1st Amendment rights?

Freedom of the Press.

The text and the cartoon were reported in the news, the "Truth, you Can Not Handle".

Such plutocracy.

WT, that carton you posted yesterday was so pointlessly idiotic that I decided to do you a favor and save you from the latent personal embaressment at having published it.

No need to thank me.

Jackson.

Member #4112

05-07-13, 13:53

Have you ever noticed liberals are the first ones to scream about their rights being violated and lecture everyone about being tolerant of others views. Well that is right up until you disagree with them, then they are ready to suspend your rights and are totally intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. WT69 I'm ROTFLMAO at your protest.

Tres3

05-07-13, 15:07

I was a member of 2 unions for more than 40 years, and have a comfortable pension. WT69 does not represent the retired union members. WT69 appears to be a disgruntled retiree who wishes he had more.

Tres3.

WorldTravel69

05-07-13, 15:31

I also been in 2 unions for over 45+ years and am happy with my pensions. And still work with the Printers Union.

So why do you say what you say? "Off The Wall".

Jackson can do what he wants to do. He is the CEO of this site.

It's all about Freedom of Expression. That what I did and he did not like it. BFD.

I was a member of 2 unions for more than 40 years, and have a comfortable pension. WT69 does not represent the retired union members. WT69 appears to be a disgruntled retiree who wishes he had more.

Tres3.

Jackson

05-07-13, 15:38

So, you violate my 1st Amendment rights?

Freedom of the Press.

The text and the cartoon were reported in the news, the "Truth, you Can Not Handle".

Such plutocracy.Hey WT,

Apparently you missed an important day in civics class, so let me enlighten you.

"Freedom of Speech" is a constitutional protection of a citizen's right to speak out against the government, and as such it is a restriction on government activities attempting to curtail this right.

However, this forum is a private enterprise, and as such I cannot be compelled to publish whatever you choose to post, much in the same way as the New York Times cannot be compelled to publish every letter you might choose to send to their editor.

What I do in my forum is not called censorship, it's called editing, and it is a necessary function and the responsibility of every publisher who wishes to maintain an organized publication. Of course, as I said previously, in your case I was meerly trying to save you from some personal embarassment.

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

05-07-13, 22:46

I said you were CEO and can do what you want.

But, you are a government of sorts. You Govern this site.

Hey WT,

Apparently you missed an important day in civics class, so let me enlighten you.

"Freedom of Speech" is a constitutional protection of a citizen's right to speak out against the government, and as such it is a restriction on government activities attempting to curtail this right.

However, this forum is a private enterprise, and as such I cannot be compelled to publish whatever you choose to post, much in the same way as the New York Times cannot be compelled to publish every letter you might choose to send to their editor.

What I do in my forum is not called censorship, it's called editing, and it is a necessary function and the responsibility of every publisher who wishes to maintain an organized publication. Of course, as I said previously, in your case I was meerly trying to save you from some personal embarassment.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

05-08-13, 10:22

I said you were CEO and can do what you want.

But, you are a government of sorts. You Govern this site.WT 69 that B/S is so thin it is practically transparent. Stick with the cartoons dude.

Member #4112

05-08-13, 16:44

According to the liberal media's reporting one would believe that blood in running in the streets from rampant and out of control gun violence. The liberals demand a new assault weapons ban and total gun registration, even though we have gun registration now it's not enough for the liberals. No they want every gun in the nation registered, an impossible task, just ask Canada. Esten will argue this point but universal background checks are a euphemism for universal registration.

Now low and behold the fed's on Bureau of Justice Statistics has just released a report documenting a 39% DECREASE in firearms violence since it's high water mark in 1993. Even with the demise in 2004 of the original "assault weapons ban" firearms violence has continued to FALL not rise as liberals had predicted a sharp rise in such violence after the ban ended.

When this is coupled with the new Pew report which compared firearms deaths per 100,000 people, the rate fell by 49%. In 1993 the rate was 7 deaths per 100,000 people which fell to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people in 2012.

According to the Department of Justice / Treasury in 2010 there were 48,321 attempts to purchase firearms in violation of current law but only 44 prosecutions of those violations for a 0.0009 prosecution rate. You have a much better chance of being audited by the IRS than prosecuted by the DOJ for a documented violation.

The icing on the cake is a recent study just completed on Chicago's firearms violence which had some remarkable findings. Black on black firearms violence in Chicago accounted for over 70% of the firearms deaths. Perhaps what we have here is the result of violence on the federal plantation caused by the Democrats darling program called Welfare. White deaths via firearms violence was 4%. Draw your own conclusions.

Esten

05-09-13, 00:52

The NRA is a in the business of helping the Gun Selling Companys. Not Helping to protect the people. Even the First President Bush Quit the NRA.Very true WT69. Also some NRA members resigned following the recent shameful Senate vote. One was a high-profile former CEO, Adolphus Busch. He joined the NRA in 1975, but resigned last month, saying: "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable."

Heir to Anheuser-Busch beer fortune resigns from NRA over gun background checks
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/anheuser-busch-heir-quits-nra-gun-background-checks-article-1.1321379

More proof there are clear-thinking gun owners, in addition to the programmed & paranoid gun owners.

Punter 127

05-09-13, 09:10

Benghazi Whistle-Blowers: 'It Matters'

"The Scandal In Libya: Testimony by the Benghazi whistle-blowers presents clear evidence of shameful political manipulation of the truth seven weeks before an election and a willingness to let four Americans die to maintain a campaign narrative.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050813-655341-benghazi-whistle-blowers-expose-administration-coverup.htm#ixzz2 SkmNXBdn.

The actions (or inaction) on 9/11 and the attempted cover up by President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and UN Amb. Susan Rice are disgraceful and despicable, this administration has no shame or honor.

Member #4112

05-09-13, 10:23

Esten, why do you continue to beat the drum for more background checks when the DOJ does not prosecute those violating the laws now?

The question of do you support background checks for firearms purchases is pretty ambiguous. I support the background check system currently in place if they would enforce it, which they do not with over 48,000 documented violations and only 44 prosecutions in 2010.

The question should be how many people support expansion of those checks to the point of constitutional infringement of privacy?

Keep beating the drum Esten, no one but the liberal media is listening. The issue is dead, the majority has spoken, stop crying about it.

Esten

05-10-13, 01:23

Both more prosecutions AND a better background check system are worthy of support. But the latter gets you more bang for your buck.

The fact that background checks result in purchase denials shows the background check system works, when applied. Prosecutions take time, effort and money, especially with such large numbers of denials. The low-hanging fruit is to close the loopholes that allow people to circumvent the background check system. And prosecution is no deterrent to someone who knows where the loopholes are, and knows he doesn't have to risk denial in the first place.

Get it?

Yes, the majority of Americans have spoken, and many of them saw their will ignored by their own elected representatives. People don't forget when their elected representative basically tells them to phuck off. This issue will be kept alive not only because it's the right thing to do, but it will also be a factor in the next elections. 70% of Americans think it is either "extremely important" or "very important". You probably got suckered by those reports that said only 4% thought the issue was important, when the actual poll question was what they considered the most important issue. A sleight-of-hand that easily fools those who don't pay attention.

Esten

05-10-13, 01:45

Anyone wanting to know the truth about the ratio of prosecutions to gun purchase denials should read the article below. The gun-pushers try to argue we should increase prosecutions before enacting new laws. Aside from being an obvious ploy to evade new laws (that could help reduce gun violence), there is some great exaggeration and deception in the claims of how poorly we enforce current laws. Not surprising at all, though.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/feb/03/mayors-against-illegal-guns/us-files-criminal-charges-fraction-gun-denial-case/

So, there are indications that federal law enforcement authorities could file more criminal charges in cases in which a gun purchase application is denied. But it’s also clear that large numbers of the denials don’t involve any crime at all and some cases are not provable.

Member #4112

05-10-13, 16:28

Still beating the drum I see.

The fact that background checks result in purchase denials shows the background check system works, when applied. Prosecutions take time, effort and money, especially with such large numbers of denials.....

.... You probably got suckered by those reports that said only 4% thought the issue was important, when the actual poll question was what they considered the most important issue. A sleight-of-hand that easily fools those who don't pay attention.Let me see if I have this right, laws already on the books that you seem to admit work, but since it takes time and money to prosecute violators it's Ok to let them slide? Perhaps you don't get the concept that the only laws which work are the ones which are ENFORCED. Folks tend to ignore laws which are not enforced. What is the point of having a law if it's too expensive or inconvenient to enforce it? Now you want more laws to not enforce?

Regarding your little article, some key points you seem to gloss over is they determine which cases they will prosecute and those violations they will let slide. Since you don't seem to know this, lying on the ATF form IS A VIOLATION! So do you want the law enforced or not?

Love the way you think people are "suckered in" when asked a straight forward question regarding what they think the most important problems are. Here we go again, we poor dumb smucks are just too stupid to understand the English language and tell a pollster what we think is the most important issue facing the country. Yep, just too stupid so we need the Liberal Media and the Liberal Elite to tell us what is the most important.

If you assertion the lawmakers just turned their back on 90% of their constituents was true we should see million man marches on the capital, not happening. Give it up Esten, you lost. Even your Liberal Media buddies have folded their tent and moved on.

WorldTravel69

05-12-13, 03:47

How about the history you keep forgetting about.

Don B

05-12-13, 12:14

Yeah same old history. Obama is a disaster and Bush was crummy, then we have Woodrow (He kept us out of war) Wilson and Franklyn (I say to you again and again, your sons will not fight in foreign wars) Roosevelt. Hell, the only good President since Cleveland was Coolidge and I've lived under 14 that I didn't like.

Don B.

Peter Sideburn

05-12-13, 13:27

Your politifact article also points out two nteresting facts that should not be ignored.

The reporting laws found 71000 people who shouldn't be buying a gun, but only lead to less than 77 who they considered prosecuting. It notes that many of these violations were by the same person. Let's be generous and say these 77 violations were committed by 50 people. That means the millions of dollars spent on this backgroud check system achieved a consideration for prosecution in about 0.07% of cases. Note that it doesn't tell us these people were successfully prosecuted and I suspect if known this percentage would approach zero. On the other hand the background check system found that about 25% of the time that they denied a purchase, they were denying a legal citizen with the constitutional right to buy a firearm their rights. So it potentially puts away a criminal 0.07% of the time while denying constitutional rights 25% of the time and you think we need more laws like this Esten? Apply this to any other constitutional right or freedom of you choice and tell me you would support it. What we need are for criminals to go to jail and stay there. Oh, and by the way, the entire cost of the current law's enforcement should be paid by those who attempt to buy a firearm and are found to have a legal reason they shouldn't be in the gun store or at the gun show making a purchase in the first place. Since this would mean that about 3% of the people who try to buy a weapon carry the entire cost. This "fine" alone would stop the vast majority of "illegal" purchases.

Pete.

Still beating the drum I see.

Let me see if I have this right, laws already on the books that you seem to admit work, but since it takes time and money to prosecute violators it's Ok to let them slide? Perhaps you don't get the concept that the only laws which work are the ones which are ENFORCED. Folks tend to ignore laws which are not enforced. What is the point of having a law if it's too expensive or inconvenient to enforce it? Now you want more laws to not enforce?

Regarding your little article, some key points you seem to gloss over is they determine which cases they will prosecute and those violations they will let slide. Since you don't seem to know this, lying on the ATF form IS A VIOLATION! So do you want the law enforced or not?

Love the way you think people are "suckered in" when asked a straight forward question regarding what they think the most important problems are. Here we go again, we poor dumb smucks are just too stupid to understand the English language and tell a pollster what we think is the most important issue facing the country. Yep, just too stupid so we need the Liberal Media and the Liberal Elite to tell us what is the most important.

If you assertion the lawmakers just turned their back on 90% of their constituents was true we should see million man marches on the capital, not happening. Give it up Esten, you lost. Even your Liberal Media buddies have folded their tent and moved on.

Member #4112

05-12-13, 15:25

Esten, let's cut to the real stats that say it all beyond the continued falling firearms death rates, according to the CDC 60% of the firearms deaths are self inflicted I.e. Suicide. Sort of takes all the bluster out of your "rampaging murder" rates. Any response?

Perhaps we should look into the causes of violence on the Federal Plantation known as welfare, since that's what the study indicated with the 70% number of black on black homicides in Chicago?

Tiny12

05-13-13, 01:42

This sounds like a page from the Putin / Kirchner / Chavez playbook:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578478851998004528.html

Not only was the IRS auditing tax-exempt organizations concerned about government spending, debt, and taxes, it was also asking for lists of donors, apparently before any determination that the organizations were up to anything fishy. So you donate to a tax-exempt organization, which may have goals contrary to politicians' tax-and-spend philosophy, and you're potentially on an IRS hit list. Was this Obama's doing? Probably not. But it did go to high levels in the IRS.

Esten

05-13-13, 01:53

On the other hand the background check system found that about 25% of the time that they denied a purchase, they were denying a legal citizen with the constitutional right to buy a firearm their rights. So it potentially puts away a criminal 0.07% of the time while denying constitutional rights 25% of the time and you think we need more laws like this Esten? Apply this to any other constitutional right or freedom of you choice and tell me you would support it. What we need are for criminals to go to jail and stay there. Part of reducing gun violence, is keeping guns from people who shouldn't have them. If 75% of the denials were correct, let's build on that and make the system better. But keeping loopholes that let criminals go around the background check system doesn't make any sense at all.

Oh, and by the way, the entire cost of the current law's enforcement should be paid by those who attempt to buy a firearm and are found to have a legal reason they shouldn't be in the gun store or at the gun show making a purchase in the first place. Since this would mean that about 3% of the people who try to buy a weapon carry the entire cost. This "fine" alone would stop the vast majority of "illegal" purchases.An interesting idea! So why don't we combine these measures together:
1. Fine and prosecute applicants who attempt unlawful gun purchases.
2. Get rid of the loopholes that allow these people to evade background checks.

Surely you can see how #2 is needed to strengthen #1.

Esten

05-13-13, 02:12

Miami Bob

05-13-13, 03:10

Member #4112

05-13-13, 10:15

Yes Doppel, about 1/3 of gun deaths are homicides. Did you just learn that? That works out to about 11000 gun homicides every year, and 70% of all homicides. That is absolutely a big enough number to try to bring it down, especially when simple, common-sense approaches are available.

I know you desperately want me to stop talking about it, but this issue is going to be on my radar for quite awhile. Not just the gun issue itself, but moreso the Senate vote. I'm sure I'll also talk about other things, but I am fascinated by the recent Senate vote. I don't think I've ever seen such a blatantly corrupt vote in DC for as long as I've been following politics.Esten, bang the drum slowly and your arm will last longer. No the suicide rate is not new information, but it is information liberals gloss over when they bring up the numbers for firearms deaths and conveniently fail to mention it. Lie by omission.

This may come as a surprise to you but the Senate does not pass laws by itself and it is a given it is not even going to come up in the House. Esten, if what you say is true regarding the Senate vote, where is the outrage from the constituents? Where are the marches of outraged citizens, if not on Washington, at least in the several states? The only outrage is among a few liberals, even the liberal media has moved on to the debacle in Benghazi and now the new IRS scandal.

Please continue to talk about it all you want. I enjoy the banter. By the way where is the response to the Federal Plantation remark or the study about homicides in Chicago? I know you probably don't realize this, but licensed dealers make up a large part of the vendors at gun shows and they are running background checks. The segment of individuals who sell firearms is a miniscule portion of sales which does not lend itself to regulation.

Jackson

05-13-13, 12:04

2. A certain % of the population must seriously believe that they could fight off the government and armed forces in the USA.Okay, I'll try this one more time.

Some of you guys are so tactically inexperienced that you're embarrassing yourselves, especially when you trout out that tired, worn out "A certain % of the population must seriously believe that they could fight off the government and armed forces in the USA" argument.

Let me explain it to you as if you were a child: The way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thanks,

Jackson.

Member #4112

05-13-13, 14:33

It is interesting to watch our liberal brothers twist in the wind over the gun issue. Obama invested a large amount of political capital campaigning for gun control legislation in the Senate, appearances with victims' families, constant appearances in multiple forums and stumping for more "gun control" for naught. He could not even deliver his own party in the Democrat controlled Senate.

Pile this on top of the debacle of his Sequestration warnings of the sky is falling, standing red faced when it did not happen. Then Obama tries to help the pain along and gets caught red handed having agencies not look for smart ways to cut but the most painful ways, see the Dept of Agriculture memo as one example.

Obama then rejects any attempt to provide leeway with the cuts and shifting funds, vowing to veto any such legislation. He then meekly signs the bill for the shifting of funds in the FAA.

Then comes Obama the TOUGH statesman and the Syria RED LINE, which quickly faded to pink then to nothing over chemical weapons use.

After the heady days of his post-election victory lap and stuffing it up the Republicans' toush on the Fiscal Cliff where he walked away with higher taxes and the Republicans walked away with a sore behind, he has run out of juice. With his favorable rating under 50% again, Benghazi picking up steam even with the liberal press, his depressing handling of the Boston Marathon bomber and now the IRS debacle he is once again foundering. A man of little substance but much rhetoric.

So let our brothers wallow in this defeat, there will be more to follow as Obama continues to drop in the polls. He can forget about the resurgance of the Democrats at the mid-terms, where the party out of power ALWAYs picks up seats in Congress and of course ObamaCare will be in full swing by then and everyone will know what a mess that will be by then. A repeat of 2010 perhaps?

Don B

05-13-13, 16:16

And what's even better is that the measure is backed by a veto-proof majority. This means that as long as those representatives that supported it initially are willing to support it again (in the case of a veto from the Governor), it will become law on July 1, regardless of what the Governor does or doesn't do.

Kansas was brave enough to take the lead in the fight against federal gun control. And now the Kansas Governor and Secretary of State are duking it out with Eric the "Fast and Furious.

But Missouri's bill is even better (in part):

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:8232;.

(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934.

(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.

(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.

(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.

(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and.

(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

It also includes a provision that makes it a criminal misdemeanor for any federal agent to attempt to enforce unconstitutional gun control measures in the state.

Missouri is announcing its complete sovereignty over the feds. They're even declaring gun control acts from 1934 and 1968 to be null and void. Holder is going to have a fit with this one, assuming it passes.

If this does pass, it will be the strongest federal gun control nullification measure in our history. Let's hope it succeeds, and that other states follow suit.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/missouri-legislature-nullifies-all-federal-gun-control/#ixzz2 TCK5 iXEs.

How about that!!

Will be interesting to see what Eric the Red (as in Marxist) does next.

Don B.

Rev BS

05-13-13, 23:02

Esten

05-14-13, 02:23

This is not a rational arguement unless you understand that the root reason is based upon to factors:

1. The arms industry is paying big money for pr and political loyalty.

2. A certain % of the population must seriously believe that they could fight off the government and armed forces in the USA.

3. There are places in this country--USA--where there is a real legit need for firm arms for self protection.

There is not really concerns for anything you are posting. The vast majority in the USA share more in common with your beliefs re firearms than the US Senate.
Hey Bob long time no see. As far as what I post, if I enjoy discussing and debating a topic, it is not a waste of time to me at all.

I agree with your points, including #2. Anyone following the gun debate knows that fighting against a "tyrannical government" was a common defense of the second amendment. Of course in this day and age it's ridiculous, but nevertheless it was an argument hardcore gun owners were invoking.

Regarding #1, have a look at the attached NRA "donation" itemization I came across. No doubt this is just a piece of the money flowing from the gun industry.
28764

Peter Sideburn

05-14-13, 02:53

You say the premise doesn't exist at a time when we now know the administration lied to us in order to get re-elected and put this above the safety of its citizens and that its taxing authority singled out political groups, which were not in line with the grand scheme, I mean plan? Our Country has not been at this much risk during my life time. Our elected officials are now not only incompetent but clearly will and have used their powers in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Open your eyes, Big O is just like other Chicago Politicians: a crook. Nixon got impeached for lying about breaking into the DNC. Big O gets away with lying about the killing of US Citizens, creating an aliby for their killers, and allowing the IRS to target and discriminate against groups to lower their possible fiscal capabilities and as revealed today, to funnel information to competing political interests outside the IRS. And you don't think those who believe in our Country's real values have any reason to exercise their Constitutional Rights at this time in our history. Amazing.

Pete.

Hey Bob long time no see. As far as what I post, if I enjoy discussing and debating a topic, it is not a waste of time to me at all.

I agree with your points, including #2. Anyone following the gun debate knows that fighting against a "tyrannical government" was a common defense of the second amendment. Of course in this day and age it's ridiculous, but nevertheless it was an argument hardcore gun owners were invoking, even our own Punter127 if I recall correctly.

Regarding #1, have a look at the attached NRA "donation" itemization I came across. No doubt this is just a piece of the money flowing from the gun industry.
28764

Esten

05-14-13, 03:32

There's a whole industry that profits from fueling fear and paranoia about the government. Now some of the time there may be some truth to it, and the IRS story may well prove to be an example (let's get all the facts first). Watch the Glenn Beck crowd celebrate that they actually may have found an example. But most of the fuel is profit-driven fabrication or distortion. Peter is quick to conclude Obama "allowed" the IRS to focus on certain groups, even though there is no evidence whatsoever Obama knew. Peter thinks he knows the facts already, but he's only deluding himself.

My favorite moment from the presidential debates: Romney is sure he's got Obama cornered lying about Benghazi, and Obama says "Pull the transcript". And it turned out, Obama referred to Benghazi as an Act of Terror the very next day. Remember that? There's also been no proof that the timing of the attack wasn't triggered by the video protests. Perhaps the so-called editing of the talking points was simply an exercise to not proclaim fact before facts were known. Everybody knew from day 1 that it wouldn't be surprising at all if a terror group was involved. And that is why the GOP are largely making themselves a laughing stock with their Benghazi circus.

And, that is why you'll continue to see Obama's ratings sail fair above those of the House GOP.

You say the premise doesn't exist at a time when we now know the administration lied to us in order to get re-elected and put this above the safety of its citizens and that its taxing authority singled out political groups, which were not in line with the grand scheme, I mean plan? Our Country has not been at this much risk during my life time. Our elected officials are now not only incompetent but clearly will and have used their powers in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Open your eyes, Big O is just like other Chicago Politicians: a crook. Nixon got impeached for lying about breaking into the DNC. Big O gets away with lying about the killing of US Citizens, creating an aliby for their killers, and allowing the IRS to target and discriminate against groups to lower their possible fiscal capabilities and as revealed today, to funnel information to competing political interests outside the IRS. And you don't think those who believe in our Country's real values have any reason to exercise their Constitutional Rights at this time in our history. Amazing.

Member #4112

05-14-13, 09:59

My favorite moment from the presidential debates: Romney is sure he's got Obama cornered lying about Benghazi, and Obama says "Pull the transcript". And it turned out, Obama referred to Benghazi as an Act of Terror the very next day. Remember that? There's also been no proof that the timing of the attack wasn't triggered by the video protests. Perhaps the so-called editing of the talking points was simply an exercise to not proclaim fact before facts were known. Everybody knew from day 1 that it wouldn't be surprising at all if a terror group was involved. And that is why the GOP are largely making themselves a laughing stock with their Benghazi circus.Esten, what an artful dodger you are. Here is the exact transcript of Obama's remarks in the Rose Garden. Obama DOES NOT refer to the incident in Benghazi as a TERRORIST attack. As you can clearly see he only refers to the incident as an attack. Of the 13 paragraph statement Obama does not even mention the word "terror" until the 10th paragraph and then only in a general remark and not directly related to Benghazi, but you can spin it any way you want. I'm calling B / S on this one Esten. Oh I forgot we conservatives are too stupid to think or reason for ourselves we need the liberal elite to read this and tell us what it says.

Now Obama is trying to rewrite history again as Benghazi blows up in his face.

Since you did not take me up on the last bet, how about this: same bet that when Hillary gets subpoenaed before the House committee on Benghazi she takes the 5th,. Are we on?

Here is the link and the text.

http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of USA Embassy Staff in Libya.

Rose Garden.

10:43 am EDT.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens's body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.10:48 am EDT

Esten

05-14-13, 12:02

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. There it is. Obama gives a speech specifically about the attack the day after. If there was a plan to not have Americans think it was a terrorist attack, Obama would not have used those words. The delay in being more direct on other talking points was because they were fact-finding and fact-checking, as they should have been.

Doppel, I'm going to leave you alone for awhile, you're embarassing yourself too badly.

Member #4112

05-14-13, 12:54

Esten, can you read? I posted the entire 13 paragraph statement Obamation made in the Rose Garden. Perhaps you cannot count as well. The statement is 13 paragraphs long and the word terror does not appear until paragraph 10 and it obviously is not in reference to Benghazi but almost a throwaway line.

I swear you and Obama are like kids: " Lookie, Lookie, I did say terror, yes I did." Of course it was not used in conjunction with the Benghazi incident but almost as an afterthought. He did not even use it to describe the 9/11 attack further up in the statement.

Keep on spinning Esten, the only one embarrassed here is you trying to conjure up a response. Weak Esten, very weak.

Peter Sideburn

05-14-13, 13:39

I don't think anything else needs to be said on the other topic as your attempt to defend your Bromance with Big O has shown how blind you are to reality. How about you spin this one for us, as I need a laugh today. If Bush were in office and his Attorney General secretly collected the personal and business phone records and emails of a huge group of reporters (the associated press without their knowledge or apparent legitimate causation would you have been writing about "Evil Bush" on here? Your Bromance buddy just did this (yes the AG is appointed by him and works for him so he can't blame others: He is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer period), and yet I don't see anything written at all by you about the 1st amendment and protection of the press, etc.. Why aren't you screaming foul? Why is it that Big O can ignore the Constitution at will, and you will not open your eyes and see? You know J Carter is getting old, and I am glad he lived to see a Pres who is even worse than he was, but sorry for our Country.

BTW I agree with some of your points about Glenn Beck...he used to be interesting and made a lot of good points but now he is too sensational, verging on crazy at times, and is leading people down a dangerous path with his "Buy Gold, because I want to help YOU make money BS." I am sure you are great guy to hang with and likely a humanist but your defence of the rediculous Big O speaking points when they are factually just non-sense destroys your credibility.

Pete.

There's a whole industry that profits from fueling fear and paranoia about the government. Now some of the time there may be some truth to it, and the IRS story may well prove to be an example (let's get all the facts first). Watch the Glenn Beck crowd celebrate that they actually may have found an example. But most of the fuel is profit-driven fabrication or distortion. Peter is quick to conclude Obama "allowed" the IRS to focus on certain groups, even though there is no evidence whatsoever Obama knew. Peter thinks he knows the facts already, but he's only deluding himself.

My favorite moment from the presidential debates: Romney is sure he's got Obama cornered lying about Benghazi, and Obama says "Pull the transcript". And it turned out, Obama referred to Benghazi as an Act of Terror the very next day. Remember that? There's also been no proof that the timing of the attack wasn't triggered by the video protests. Perhaps the so-called editing of the talking points was simply an exercise to not proclaim fact before facts were known. Everybody knew from day 1 that it wouldn't be surprising at all if a terror group was involved. And that is why the GOP are largely making themselves a laughing stock with their Benghazi circus.

And, that is why you'll continue to see Obama's ratings sail fair above those of the House GOP.

WorldTravel69

05-15-13, 12:23

Here is the next Republican Scandal.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0515/Senior-prostitution-ring-in-N.J.-Two-seniors-arrested-video

Member #4112

05-15-13, 12:50

Is that your photo in the article you attached? Horny old men out to find some game. Say it ain't so WT.

WorldTravel69

05-15-13, 14:57

I wish I knew about it.

But, it is in the Wrong Side of the Country.

Is that your photo in the article you attached? Horny old men out to find some game. Say it ain't so WT.

WorldTravel69

05-16-13, 03:28

WMDs, We Used Under Bush. Well Chemical Weapons anyway.

http://www.vice.com/read/the-vice-podcast-show-reihan-salam-on-uranium-in-iraq-and-the-second-amendment

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/2013312175857532741.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-s-fallujah-legacy-white-phosphorous-depleted-uranium-the-fate-of-iraq-s-children/30372

Punter 127

05-16-13, 19:32

Washington Post Fact Checker Gives Obama “Four Pinocchio’s” on Benghazi Statement

There it is. Obama gives a speech specifically about the attack the day after. If there was a plan to not have Americans think it was a terrorist attack, Obama would not have used those words. The delay in being more direct on other talking points was because they were fact-finding and fact-checking, as they should have been.

Doppel, I'm going to leave you alone for awhile, you're embarassing yourself too badly.
28765287652876528765

Who's “embarassing” himself now?

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/washington-post-fact-checker-gives-obama-four-pinocchios-on-benghazi-statement/

Telling the truth is not one of Esten or Obama’s greatest virtues!

Member #4112

05-16-13, 23:19

I truly love the Obama Administration and all the departments and agencies thereof.

Esten, riddle me this:

How can Eric Holder recuse himself from oversight of the Department of Justice when he is the head of that agency?

When asked directly today about if anyone in the White House knew about the misdeeds at the IRS Obama very pointedly only referred to himself and only to his knowledge of the IG report, strange response to a straight forward question.

If Holder and Obama thought things were rough today, it is only going to get worse as the days and weeks progress.

WorldTravel69

05-17-13, 12:22

Don B

05-17-13, 13:43

Let's go after the Democrats.

We have Benghazi and the IRS.

The Military asks Ambassador Stevens need more security; twice, he said "NO".

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZZATdivmWE

We don't have time for:

JOBS.

IMMIGRATION.

SCHOOLS.

OLD PEOPLE.

ETC. THAT WILL HELP THE COUNTRY GROW!

WE JUST WANT TO TAKE DOWN THE DEMOS AND THE COUNTRY, NOT HELP IT!"It is too bad that the amount of time that is given to arguing over particulars is not spent addressing the only legitimate function of government, the protection of individual rights.

Not only does our government fail to do this but is the biggest violator of those rights. Individual rights, not civil rights, not human rights, etc.

I repeat what I said in an earlier post. How does increased taxes, more and more regulations, less and less individual freedom help the country grow? Specifics please, should be easy after all just look at the progress that has been made by countries further down that path than the US.

As a certified "old people" I especially like the way the government has helped me for 82 years.

Don B.

Jackson

05-17-13, 14:58

Balls Deep sent this to me by email.

I don't know why he didn't feel it was suitable for posting in the forum, but here it is.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2013/05/15/dont-cry-for-me-america-comparing-argentina-and-the-united-states/

NOTE to Sidney: Please note how I added the quote formatting and cleaned up this article by deleting the text associated with advertisements, photo captions, banner links, etc. that one normally captures when copying an article from a website.

Don't Cry For Me, America: Comparing Argentina And The United States

Many observers have pondered if the United States is following the same troubled path as Argentina. In the 1940s, Argentina’s Juan Domingo Perón used government agencies for political gain and created a popular form of fascism called Perónism. In the United States, the recent revelation of the Internal Revenue Service targeting political enemies is a bad omen. Are we on an Argentinean course?

The road to decay in my native country, Argentina, began with the implementation of one of the most powerful collectivist doctrines of the 20th century: fascism. The Labour Charter of 1927 – promulgated by Italy’s Grand Council of Fascism under Mussolini – is a guiding document of this doctrine and provides for government-based economic management. This same document recommends government provision of healthcare and unemployment insurance. Sound familiar?

Since adopting its own brand of fascism, “Justicialismo,” Argentina began to fall in world economic rankings.

•In 1930, Argentina’s gold reserves ranked 6th. After the “experts” took over the central bank, reserves fell to 9th in 1948 (with $700 million), 16th during 1950-54 (with $530 million), and 28th during 1960-1964 (with $290 million).

•The Argentine central bank, created in 1935, was at first a private corporation. Its president lasted longer (seven years) than the president of the country, and it had strict limits for government debt purchases and even had foreign bankers on its board. It became a government entity in 1946.

When Perón assumed power shortly thereafter, he hastily expanded the role of government, relaxed central banking rules and used the bank to facilitate his statist policies. In just 10 years, the peso went from 4.05 per U.S. dollar to 18 in 1955 (and later peaked at 36 that same year). After Perón’s rule, Argentina further devalued its currency to 400 pesos per U.S. dollar by 1970.

Bipartisanship in bad policy-making can be especially damaging. Just as some of President Obama’s interventionist monetary policies were preceded by similar Bush administration policies, some of Perón’s policies were similarly foreshadowed: “Already before we reached power, we started to reform, with the approval and collaboration of the previous de facto regime,” said the populist.

Perón was removed from power in 1955 but his policies lived on. The “Liberating Revolution” claimed it was leading an effort to return to the free-market system dictated by the Argentine Constitution of 1853. But Argentines chose an interventionist, Raúl Prebisch, as minister.

Inflationary policies and political use of the monetary regulatory authority, especially after Perón’s first presidency, devastated the economic culture and rule of law of Argentina. In the United States, the Fed does not have all the powers delineated by Perón, and has not caused as much destruction as the Argentine central bank, but the process has been similar and more gradual. The U.S. dollar buys less than 10 percent of what it did in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created, the debt limit increases regularly—thus stimulating further debt monetization—and monetary authorities have increased their arbitrary interventions.

Under Perón, government agencies gradually got involved in all areas of the economy. We see a similar pattern in the United States–many sectors of the economy now depend on control, encouragement, or direct management. Obamacare is the best example; it is Perónism or corporatism on steroids.

There are similarities beyond the economic realm. Unlike other populist leaders, such as Hitler and Mussolini, Perón did not have belligerent imperialist ambitions. The same can be said about President Obama. His conservative critics argue that he wants to reduce U.S. influence around the world. Moreover, Perón shunned the Argentine founding fathers who favored the free society. Likewise, President Obama is not prone to quoting Madison, Washington, or Jefferson.

But some major differences between cultures still exist, such as the “cult of the leader,” attacking mediating institutions (e.g., Catholic associations and the press), and appealing to the left as well as the right. Regarding the latter, Peron achieved vast influence over most of the three main components of fascism: labor unions, business corporations, and government. It’s not likely that a U.S. leader will gain control of all three of these in the near future. During the beginning of the Obama administration it looked as though much of the business world was on board, but if there was ever a honeymoon, it didn’t last long. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, voiced its opposition during the middle of Obama’s first term, and continues to voice its criticism on several fronts.

Other differences, so far, are:

•The use of government funds for partisan efforts in Argentina is much worse than in the United States.

•The U.S. government is reluctant to directly attack capitalism. Interventions are positioned as “going against capitalism to save capitalism.”

•In the United States, there is greater understanding of the dangers of protectionist and nationalist economic policies.

• There is stronger support for the rule of law in the United States. The control of the judiciary by the Argentine government is reaching tyrannical levels.

A major source of hope in the United States is the strength and variety in governments among the 50 states and the richness of our civil society. Economic power is more diffused in the United Statesand some of it, as I noted in a recent column, is moving south to more conservative states. State spending and regulation has grown, but the federal government does not yet have the power to make the states follow all of its dictates and whims.

Pessimists may argue that the stage is set for an ambitious U.S. president, like it was for Perón, to make the majority of the economy dependent on government. From the year before Perón assumed power and to the end of his rule (1945-1955), total spending by the central government averaged 11% of GNP; this compares with 24% in the United States today. Argentine conservatives created regulatory agencies thinking they would be used for the common good. Likewise, U.S. conservatives have expanded government and regulations. The regulatory state is much larger today in the United States than in old Perónist Argentina. As with government spending, it can be used to control, encourage, or discourage business. Employed by both countries, excessive regulation is a more secretive means of picking winners and losers, which creates more opportunity for corruption. Perón understood that government spending and regulation could be used as tools of power to reward friends and punish enemies. He did it, and he ruined the Argentine dream.

What we’re seeing in many of today’s U.S. agencies, including the politicization of the IRS, demonstrates that the United States is not immune to the Argentine disease. Indeed, if we fail to preserve the institutions of the republic, the American dream will be in grave danger.

WorldTravel69

05-17-13, 15:38

Without some Regulations, you get this.

See photo of the factory in Bangladesh.
Did the 4 American companies using the services of the workers give a shit about them? NO!!!

And What are the Latest Regulations you are talking about?

And What freedoms have been Taken Away?

Check Europe's Unemployment stats, compared to ours.

Unless you mean the lack of the Do Nothing Congress to even help our unemployed.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/EDD-cuts-back-phone-help-to-the-jobless-4524035.php

"It is too bad that the amount of time that is given to arguing over particulars is not spent addressing the only legitimate function of government, the protection of individual rights.

Not only does our government fail to do this but is the biggest violator of those rights. Individual rights, not civil rights, not human rights, etc.

I repeat what I said in an earlier post. How does increased taxes, more and more regulations, less and less individual freedom help the country grow? Specifics please, should be easy after all just look at the progress that has been made by countries further down that path than the US.

As a certified "old people" I especially like the way the government has helped me for 82 years.

Don B.

Esten

05-17-13, 19:39

Yes I still read all the posts, and as far as WaPo's 4 pinnochios, if you read the WaPo article it is based on the distinction between "act of terror" and "act of terrorism". A distinction most people will find ridiculous. Obama's statement was clearly an indirect reference to Benghazi, and whether it's terror or terrorism, to most people it's going to mean the same thing.

Now to the real point of this post. If you thought the Birther conspiracy theory was embarrassing to Republicans, Benghazi could do far more damage.

CIA Requested al-Qaeda References Be Removed From Benghazi Talking Points
http://www.redstate.com/mvespa/2013/05/15/cia-requested-al-qaeda-references-be-removed-from-benghazi-talking-points/

New Talking Point Revelations Should End Benghazi Witch Hunt
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/15/new-talking-point-revelations-should-end-bengha/194092

But while the right has spent more than half a year mired in scandalmongering over the talking points, the emails buttress what Gen. David Petraeus, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified in November: that the intelligence community signed off on the final draft of the talking points, and that references to terrorist groups in Libya were removed in order to avoid tipping off those groups and preserve the ongoing investigation.As Repubs keep digging their hole deeper, while the information keeps re-inforcing the key role the CIA played in Benghazi (and destroying the idea of an Obama administration coverup), it is both sad and amusing to watch the far-right anti-Obama crowd get duped again.

Punter 127

05-18-13, 04:21

You're not worthy of my respect or my time any further. I'm putting you on "ignore".Liar Liar Pants On Fire

Yes I still read all the posts, and as far as WaPo's 4 pinnochios, Why would you read the post of someone "not worthy" of your time, and if your going to read their post why bother to put them on "ignore" ?

There was never any doubt in my mind that you were reading my post.

Now you get four Upside-Down Pinocchio's for being a lair and reading the post of someone you said was on "ignore".
Shame on you.

28768 28768 28768 28768.

ROFLMAO Dude you have zero credibility.

Member #4112

05-18-13, 11:45

Here Esten displays his Liberal Elite arrogance with "you're not worthy of my respect or my time" and "I'm putting you on ignore". No one's opinion has value nor or they deemed to have personal value unless you agree with the Liberal Elite.

Again, no one cries foul faster regarding infringement of their rights than the Liberal Elite. No one denigrates the conservative more viciously than the Liberal Elite regarding "tolerance". Well that is until you disagree with the Liberal Elite's policies then all that tolerance and preservation of rights goes right out the window.

I am sure the Liberal Elite wish to gloss over Benghazi, the IRS and AP debacles, even though Democrats are as outraged as Republicans over both the IRS and AP scandals. I remember one board member asking if you infringe on the 2nd Amendment what is to keep the Imperial Obama Administration from infringing on other rights. I would put forth the proposal the IRS and AP scandals answer that question quite succinctly, nothing.

The IRS is used to suppress and harass political enemies and the DOJ to suppress the freedom of the press, pretty basic constitutional violations. Can you even imagine the firestorm which would have erupted had Bush done this in the wake of the whistle blowers over at NSA during his administration?

As far as Benghazi and "terror"terrorism" is concerned, all you have to do is read what Obama said in the days following the terrorist attack and blaming it on a video and a spontaneous demonstration, it is obvious to all but those like Esten twisting in the wind and pursuing a tortured attempt to rewrite history.

Don't feel bad Punter he put me on "Ignore" as well, it just let's you know you are hitting the target.

Tiny12

05-19-13, 17:03

There's a whole industry that profits from fueling fear and paranoia about the government. Now some of the time there may be some truth to it, and the IRS story may well prove to be an example (let's get all the facts first). Watch the Glenn Beck crowd celebrate that they actually may have found an example. But most of the fuel is profit-driven fabrication or distortion. Peter is quick to conclude Obama "allowed" the IRS to focus on certain groups, even though there is no evidence whatsoever Obama knew. Peter thinks he knows the facts already, but he's only deluding himself.Esten, I posted here earlier that I believed Obama had no knowledge of the IRS's targeting of nonprofits and individuals that favor lower spending and taxes. I've come to realize however that Obama has been very disingenuous. Please see.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Obama and the White House wanted this to happen. That's what they signaled to the world.

Your belief that we should have no fear or paranoia about the government is misplaced. You should read "Go Directly to Jail: the Criminalization of Almost Everything." Or "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent." Do drugs, go to jail. Fuck a prostitute, go to jail. Import lobsters in plastic boxes when the law requires they be imported in cardboard boxes, go to jail for 8 years. The government is out of control and there's every reason to be paranoid.

And Obama is not, contrary to your belief, benign. His administration has prosecuted drug crimes much more aggressively than Bush. About the situation with AP and the IRS, I don't necessarily believe Obama was the person who said "do it." But the culture he created in his administration promotes this sort of thing, more so than any president since Nixon. When you believe as Obama does that Big Brother (government if you haven't read Orwell's 1984) is good, righteous, infallible and the solution to all our problems, then the ends come to justify the means. In the case of the IRS, the end was to get Obama and like minded people elected to government in 2012. The means were to shut off money to their opponents, by scaring the hell out of potential contributors to certain nonprofits, political action groups, and candidates.

Don B

05-22-13, 18:59

Without some Regulations, you get this.

See photo of the factory in Bangladesh.
Did the 4 American companies using the services of the workers give a shit about them? NO!!!

And What are the Latest Regulations you are talking about?

And What freedoms have been Taken Away?

Check Europe's Unemployment stats, compared to ours.

Unless you mean the lack of the Do Nothing Congress to even help our unemployed.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/EDD-cuts-back-phone-help-to-the-jobless-4524035.php

I really don't have the time or inclination to attempt to pull WT69's head out of his ass.

A quote I noticed today.

"More than two-thirds of voters—68 percent—feel the government is out of control and threatening their civil liberties. About one quarter disagree (26 percent).

"Nearly half of Democrats (47 percent), as well as large numbers of independents (76 percent) and Republicans (87 percent) feel Uncle Sam is taking liberties with their liberties."

Polls don't mean anything unless they are in the leftist's favor.

Don B.

WorldTravel69

05-22-13, 19:13

You are right, the Government is out of control.

Why are WE paying this do nothing Congress?

I really don't have the time or inclination to attempt to pull WT69's head out of his ass.

A quote I noticed today.

"More than two-thirds of voters—68 percent—feel the government is out of control and threatening their civil liberties. About one quarter disagree (26 percent).

"Nearly half of Democrats (47 percent), as well as large numbers of independents (76 percent) and Republicans (87 percent) feel Uncle Sam is taking liberties with their liberties."

Polls don't mean anything unless they are in the leftist's favor.

Don B.

Jackson

05-22-13, 21:03

I really don't have the time or inclination to attempt to pull WT69's head out of his ass.That would produce a "giant sucking sound" louder than anything Ross Perot ever imagined.

You are right, the Government is out of control.

Why are WE paying this do nothing Congress?Oh no, not another stupid cartoon.

How can one have a rational discussion with a guy who argues using only cartoons?

WT, are you capable of authoring an original thought?

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

05-23-13, 00:26

Jackson, I know that are an Independent (Republican) and the Truth Hurts.

It is tooo bad that in Argentina you can not get any Independent News Channels.

Only the Way Right Wing Fox News.

"A Picture is Worth A Thousand Words.

I guess you are too Young to Remember that quote?

That would produce a "giant sucking sound" louder than anything Ross Perot ever imagined.

Oh no, not another stupid cartoon.

How can one have a rational discussion with a guy who argues using only cartoons?

WT, are you capable of authoring an original thought?

Thanks,

Jackson

Dickhead

05-23-13, 02:37

It is one thing To post a Bunch of Stupid shit all the time, but it is Even stupider When you randomly Capitalize every third Or fourth word for no Fucking reason.

Jackson

05-26-13, 17:49

Jackson, I know that are an Independent (Republican) and the Truth Hurts.

It is tooo bad that in Argentina you can not get any Independent News Channels.

Only the Way Right Wing Fox News.

"A Picture is Worth A Thousand Words.

I guess you are too Young to Remember that quote?WT,

1. The Fox News Channel has not been available in DirecTV in Argentina since April 1012.

2. In today's world, there is no such thing as "Independent News Channels".

Thanks,

P.S. I assume you understand that DH was mocking YOU?

WorldTravel69

05-27-13, 03:43

Just an Independent Viewers review From the People (Left).

Sorry about Fox, it is great for Laughs.

Since they realized Glenn Beck is not all There.

Sorry About The Caps, (DickHeaD) But I Am A Union Printer!

WT,

1. The Fox News Channel has not been available in DirecTV in Argentina since April 1012.

2. In today's world, there is no such thing as "Independent News Channels".

Thanks,

P.S. I assume you understand that DH was mocking YOU?

Jackson

05-27-13, 19:47

Just an Independent Viewers review From the People (Left).

Sorry about Fox, it is great for Laughs.

Since they realized Glenn Beck is not all There.

Sorry About The Caps, (DickHeaD) But I Am A Union Printer!Yea, and MSNBC never has any hosts/guests whose opinions others might consider "extreme".

Of course I'm still trying to understand why MSNBC gets 800k nightly viewers, and FNC gets 6 million nightly visitors.

Wait, I figured it out! The problem is that the average person is incapable of grasping the brilliant thinking of these MSNBC commentators.

It's a good thing that we have the liberals to figure everything out for all of us who are not enlightened.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

05-28-13, 13:41

WT69, you love polictial cartoons, so how did you miss this gem?

28774

Esten

05-29-13, 00:36

I've been away mongering and had the pleasure to experience a different club format. The main area of the club is a lounge with leather-like seating, upscale and cozy. There is an open seating area near the bar, and a more private area off to the side. Perhaps room for 30 people when full. You meet-and-greet the chicas near the bar. About 7-8 chicas, wearing elegant attire and in the 7.5-9 range. You interview and pick a chica or two. Hang out in the private seating area, chat, kiss and fondle. In the back there are several rooms with nice beds and high-end jacuzzis. Probably the most upscale rooms I have ever seen in a place like this. The jacuzzis are great fun, you can start there and finish on the bed. I took a half-hour session with a chica, excellent time and service. After the session I enjoyed a complimentary drink back in the lounge and chatted with another hot chica before I left. Total time almost 2 hours and cost the equivalent of about $230 US. This included one drink for me and one for the chica before the session.

Just mentioning this since you don't have clubs like this in BA. I'm not sure how to compare the format. Maybe a cross between Nuevo Estilo and a German FKK. Classy dressed chicas and upscale amenities. Just so you know there are all sorts of club formats out there.

Esten

05-29-13, 01:08

I read the earlier posts from Punter and Doppel with amusement. These guys just keep proving my point over and over and over.

If Punter had applied some critical thinking, it might have occurred to him another conclusion was possible. In fact- I did ignore his posts for several weeks. I then changed my mind, and re-instated reviewing them. Only for the purpose of being able to respond to all right-wing propaganda, where appropriate. I believe I responded to his propaganda (not him) twice since then. In light of the facts, Punter's claim of a "lie" doesn't stand up. But it appears he has too much venom to have bothered seeking the facts.

And Doppel's righteous protest about the "Liberal Elite" is also misleading. He conveniently omits the reason why I ignored Punter in the first place. Not because his opinions weren't worthy, but because he lost his temper and threatened me with violence. Given Doppel's track record, no surprise here either.

Deception continues to be a core element of right-wing politics.

Member #4112

05-29-13, 10:26

Don B

05-29-13, 11:36

For you, an Obama supporter, to use the word deception in describing anyone is either the height of ignorance or arrogance in light of the facts which keep coming out on Benghazi, IRS, and the DOJ.

Everyone in the Obama administration up to and including Obama himself is employing in the Sgt. Schultz defense "I know nothing".

Welcome back Esten.

Karl Marx and my grandfather each had a word to describe Esten, WT69, et al.

For Marx it was "useful idiots" and for my grandfather "educated fools".

I, on the other hand, do not consider them either useful or educated.

Don B.

Rev BS

05-29-13, 12:21

Karl Marx and my grandfather each had a word to describe Esten, WT69, et al.

For Marx it was "useful idiots" and for my grandfather "educated fools".

I, on the other hand, do not consider them either useful or educated.

Don B.I should have known it, your last name must be Einstein.

Don B

05-29-13, 12:45

I should have known it, your last name must be Einstein.Ok, "useful idiots" ala Marx you would be OK with? Only you object to my not considering them useful?

Don B.

WorldTravel69

05-29-13, 13:03

My eyes are bad. It is too small to read.

Could you crop and repost please?

WT69, you love polictial cartoons, so how did you miss this gem?

28774

Tiny12

05-29-13, 16:50

Esten, Where is it, what's the name, and did you post a report on ISG? Thanks.

Don B

05-29-13, 17:17

"Durbin wanted the conservative group Crossroads targeted by the IRS simply because they were raising too much money and that meant democrat defeat. No, the libtards weren't about to let that happen.

Durbin's own words:

Hell, yes, I did! I can just tell you flat-out why I did it, because that Crossroads organization was boasting about how much money they were raising as a 501 (c)(4). They were boastful about how much money they were raising to beat Democrats!Don B.

Don B

05-29-13, 17:24

http://conservativebyte.com/2013/05/check-out-rand-pauls-hilarious-comic-act-on-obamacare/

140,000 diagnostic codes, that should inspire one to go into medicine.

Do you suppose there is one for "penis cut off by wife"?

Don B.

Punter 127

05-29-13, 20:43

I read the earlier posts from Punter and Doppel with amusement. These guys just keep proving my point over and over and over. I think Don B. said it best when he said “I crack you up, you disgust me”. .

If Punter had applied some critical thinking, it might have occurred to him another conclusion was possible.Don't pass that kool-aid fool-aid this way, I'm not drinking it.

In fact- I did ignore his posts for several weeks.Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post.

I then changed my mind, and re-instated reviewing them. Only for the purpose of being able to respond to all right-wing propaganda, where appropriate. I believe I responded to his propaganda (not him) twice since then. In light of the facts, Punter's claim of a "lie" doesn't stand up. But it appears he has too much venom to have bothered seeking the facts.I think my claim stands tall, you made a big dramatic tear-jerking production out of putting me on "ignore" but said nary a word when you "re-instated". Typical Esten I guess.

BTW I gave you an opportunity to come clean about me not being on "ignore" when I made the post below.

It must have just been a coincidence that Esten had a post about the police survey after I brought the subject up, considering I'm suppose to be on his ignore list. Who do you think you're shitting Esten? As usual you chose to continue being deceptive.

And Doppel's righteous protest about the "Liberal Elite" is also misleading. He conveniently omits the reason why I ignored Punter in the first place. Not because his opinions weren't worthy, but because he lost his temper and threatened me with violence. Given Doppel's track record, no surprise here either.I agree with everything Doppelganger wrote except you are not a "liberal", you are a totalitarian hell bent on having things your way regardless of what may block your path, including the Constitution.

I have never written anything on this forum that was intended to be a threat of violence. Furthermore I am not responsible for the way your queerly twisted mind misinterprets plainly written English. Is English your first language?

Dude they should put your picture next to the definition below.

lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v.tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods:Esten honesty and integrity have eluded you, nothing you write should be considered truthful until verified.

Now can we get back to politics?

Don B

05-29-13, 20:57

I think Don B. said it best when he said “I crack you up, you disgust me”. .

Don't pass that kool-aid fool-aid this way, I'm not drinking it.

Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post.

I think my claim stands tall, you made a big dramatic tear-jerking production out of putting me on "ignore" but said nary a word when you "re-instated". Typical Esten I guess.

BTW I gave you an opportunity to come clean about me not being on "ignore" when I made the post below.

As usual you chose to continue being deceptive.

I agree with everything Doppelganger wrote except you are not a "liberal", you are a totalitarian hell bent on having things your way regardless of what may block your path, including the Constitution.

I have never written anything on this forum that was intended to be a threat of violence. Furthermore I am not responsible for the way your queerly twisted mind misinterprets plainly written English. Is English your first language?

Dude they should put your picture next to the definition below.

Esten honesty and integrity have eluded you, nothing you write should be considered truthful until verified.

Now can we get back to politics?

Actually it should be philosophy, not politics.

Punter I tried to send you a PM but you have no more storage.

Don B.

Punter 127

05-29-13, 22:39

Actually it should be philosophy, not politics.

Punter I tried to send you a PM but you have no more storage.

Don B.Oops sorry, looks like I need to do some housekeeping, please try again.

Big Boss Man

05-29-13, 23:04

"Durbin wanted the conservative group Crossroads targeted by the IRS simply because they were raising too much money and that meant democrat defeat. No, the libtards weren't about to let that happen.

Durbin's own words:

Don B.If Crossroads was "boastful" about beating Democrats then it was partisan and did not qualify as a nonprofit under 501 (see)(3) and should have been taxed. From the IRS website:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501 (see)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

I liked Barron's editorial page solution, tax every organization. Civil servants should not have to decide whether a group is partisan. Also they should not be under pressure from senators like Durbin to go after certain types of groups.

Esten

05-30-13, 00:18

While Benghazi more or less blew up in Republican's faces, they are still getting some traction on the IRS story. The media needs to do a better job reinforcing the point that these Tea Party groups absolutely warranted close scrutiny. We're supposed to believe they were primarily "social welfare" groups and not political groups?? LOL These applications for tax-exempt status were potentially fraudulent.

Meanwhile, Obama's approval rating has been holding steady and just ticked up to 50%. The Fox News crowd must be going absolutely insane wondering why their fake "scandals" haven't worked.

28776

Tiny12

05-30-13, 03:04

The media needs to do a better job reinforcing the point that these Tea Party groups absolutely warranted close scrutiny. We're supposed to believe they were primarily "social welfare" groups and not political groups?? LOL These applications for tax-exempt status were potentially fraudulent.
28776You may not realize it, but your comments reek of hypocrisy. If it's an organization that promotes the agenda of the Democrat party then it's a legitimate social welfare group entitled to tax exempt status. But if it's a "Tea Party group" biased towards lower taxes and lower spending then its tax-exempt status is fraudulent and its donors should be audited.

Organizations seeking to qualify as tax exempt file applications with the IRS. The IRS accepts or denies them. After having already approved tax-exempt status, the IRS was PREFERENTIALLY looking at organizations the Obama administration disapproved. And I might add, that the IRS disapproved of too. Lower taxes and lower spending (on government bureaucrats, among other things) aren't in the best interest of the IRS and its employees.

Your attitude would be very different if the IRS were PREFERENTIALLY auditing, say, organizations doing research into economic inequality and coming up with analyses that agreed with your prejudices.

Big Boss Man's solution may be the best, eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions. Or confine the tax deductions to organizations that really, really do improve social welfare - vaccinating children in third world countries, giving condoms to Africans, etc. But if you're going to have a system and laws and regulations, the way they are now, the executive branch of government shouldn't manipulate them for its own benefit.

Punter 127

05-30-13, 21:55

“There is overwhelming bipartisan support for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS,”

While Benghazi more or less blew up in Republican's faces, they are still getting some traction on the IRS story. The media needs to do a better job reinforcing the point that these Tea Party groups absolutely warranted close scrutiny. We're supposed to believe they were primarily "social welfare" groups and not political groups?? LOL These applications for tax-exempt status were potentially fraudulent.

Meanwhile, Obama's approval rating has been holding steady and just ticked up to 50%. The Fox News crowd must be going absolutely insane wondering why their fake "scandals" haven't worked.

28776"President Barack Obama's approval rating took a hit amid three controversies surrounding his administration, including an investigation into the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeting conservative groups seeking nonprofit status, a new poll Thursday showed.

Obama has a 45 percent approval rating and a 49 percent disapproval rating — compared with a 48 percent approval, 45 percent disapproval rating from May 1, according to the Quinnipiac University poll.

76 percent of American voters think an independent prosecutor should investigate the IRS controversy, including 63 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of GOPers and 78 percent of independents."

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/obama-job-approval-poll-92023.html

Member #4112

05-31-13, 21:01

Obama so loved the poor he made millions more.

28777

Member #4112

05-31-13, 21:07

Obama and the Amendments.

28778

Member #4112

05-31-13, 21:24

And Doppel's righteous protest about the "Liberal Elite" is also misleading. He conveniently omits the reason why I ignored Punter in the first place. Not because his opinions weren't worthy, but because he lost his temper and threatened me with violence. Given Doppel's track record, no surprise here either.

Deception continues to be a core element of right-wing politics.Esten, no "righteous protest" here, just pointing out your typical liberal elite arrogance when it comes to denigrating those with opinions which oppose your own. By the way, I went back through the posts and saw no implicit or implied threats made by Punter. Perhaps you could post a sample if they exist.

If we my revisit the gun control argument. You clearly stated the senators went against the will of "90%" of their constituents and I responded where are the demonstrations if this were true. You stated they would pay at the polls in 2014.

Perhaps you have not noticed but in Colorado the only people who face any consequences for their vote on gun control laws are the Democrats who are now facing recall elections – why wait till 2014 when you can do it now?

Peter Sideburn

05-31-13, 21:56

Esten

06-01-13, 00:00

You may not realize it, but your comments reek of hypocrisy. If it's an organization that promotes the agenda of the Democrat party then it's a legitimate social welfare group entitled to tax exempt status. But if it's a "Tea Party group" biased towards lower taxes and lower spending then its tax-exempt status is fraudulent and its donors should be audited.And your comments reek of creative and delusional fantasy, not uncommon among conservatives. I provided absolutely no opinion whatsoever on how liberal groups should be treated. Of course I believe the IRS should not be politically biased. But the underlying legitimacy of the IRS reviews is an important and relevant point. Another relevant point is that liberal groups were also investigated, and in some cases denied tax-exempt status. What appears to have happened is bias or at least bad judgement by low-level staffers in dealing with a surge in tax-exempt applications between 2010-12. Most of the applications were from conservative groups.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/behind-the-i-r-s-mess-a-campaign-finance-scandal/

In the year ended Sept. 30, 2010, the division received 1,741 applications from “social welfare organizations” requesting tax-exempt status. Two years later, the figure was 2,774. Meanwhile, the staff of the division tasked with reviewing these applications was reduced as part of a series of budget reductions imposed on the I.R.S. by anti-tax forces.

A far higher proportion of the new applicants wanted to pursue a conservative agenda than a liberal agenda. So without trying to defend the indefensible profiling, it wouldn’t be that shocking if low-level staff members were simply, but stupidly, trying to find an efficient way to sift through the avalanche of applications. It's a far cry from the "Obama scandal" and "The government is out to get you" narratives the right wing is trying to weave. Obama's steady approval ratings at 50% (Gallup) and 52% (Rasmussen) show that Americans aren't buying it.

P.S. Tiny I'll message you the place I went to.

Esten

06-01-13, 01:22

My favorite quote of the week, from Mayor Bloomberg on receiving a ricin-laced letter postmarked in Lousiana.

“The letter obviously referred to our anti-gun efforts. But there’s 12,000 people who are gonna get killed this year with guns and 19,000 that are gonna commit suicide with guns and we’re not gonna walk away from these efforts.”

Rev BS

06-01-13, 05:48

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/30/oregon-woman-raped-after-911-call-goes-unanswered

Listen to this! If you still don't see why the right to own a weapon should not be infringed upon, you're just plain stupid.

Pete.Who is opposing her right to own a weapon? Just what type of gun & checking if she is a criminal in her own right. Please, please, just slow down & think for a minute before firing away. I mean, your mouth.

Peter Sideburn

06-01-13, 06:52

Simply stated she should have whatever type gun she feels she could most easily and completely protect herself and she does need some idiot like Joe be telling her what she needs. A shot gun would likely have worked but an AR or a pistol that holds more than 10 rounds would be fine as well. Many on the left who are in support of the recent legislation have made it clear this is just the beginning of their quest. I have thought a lot and I think maybe a few idiots in Denver with their comments on weapons and rape could just be your kin. I suppose you think she would have been fine with a whistle too or by just talking like the 911 operator. I only wish she would have been armed so she could have fired away her weapon and dropped this scum bag at the threshold. If you were armed and there would you have stopped this? If you were armed in London when the soldier was attacked and hacked to death would you have stopped this? Of course, England started by only limiting certain weapons as well and then slid down pathway to disallowing handguns. It will be interesting to see how large the civil suit is but I supect we will never know because they will not allow this to be released in all likelihood.

Pete.

Who is opposing her right to own a weapon? Just what type of gun & checking if she is a criminal in her own right. Please, please, just slow down & think for a minute before firing away. I mean, your mouth.

Rev BS

06-01-13, 13:37

Simply stated she should have whatever type gun she feels she could most easily and completely protect herself and she does need some idiot like Joe be telling her what she needs. A shot gun would likely have worked but an AR or a pistol that holds more than 10 rounds would be fine as well. Many on the left who are in support of the recent legislation have made it clear this is just the beginning of their quest. I have thought a lot and I think maybe a few idiots in Denver with their comments on weapons and rape could just be your kin. I suppose you think she would have been fine with a whistle too or by just talking like the 911 operator. I only wish she would have been armed so she could have fired away her weapon and dropped this scum bag at the threshold. If you were armed and there would you have stopped this? If you were armed in London when the soldier was attacked and hacked to death would you have stopped this? Of course, England started by only limiting certain weapons as well and then slid down pathway to disallowing handguns. It will be interesting to see how large the civil suit is but I supect we will never know because they will not allow this to be released in all likelihood.

Pete.Come on!! You actually advocate everyone being able to carry handguns? I don't know how fast that beheading was, but you really think you could have stop it. And we can trust you not to miss and hit somebody's grandmother. Oh, that's friendly fire, you know. Sorry, I had good intentions but poor aim. The fucker move at the last second. If you enjoy guns as a hobby, no problem. But to carry a handgun around? I already have a hard time finding enough room for my dick, handphone, keys, wallet, viagra, cigarettes, lighter, etc.

Punter 127

06-01-13, 20:25

Come on!! You actually advocate everyone being able to carry handguns? No, criminals and the mentally ill should not be allowed to carry any type of deadly weapon.

I don't know how fast that beheading was, but you really think you could have stop it. And we can trust you not to miss and hit somebody's grandmother. Oh, that's friendly fire, you know. Sorry, I had good intentions but poor aim. The fucker move at the last second.If it wasn't for the fact that the victim was run over before being beheaded I indeed think it might have been avoided if he had been armed. If you disagree perhaps you will answer a few question for us.

Why were armed police officers sent to the crime scene after the attack?

Why did the officers shoot the attackers?

Was anybody's grandmother hit by the police?

Do fuckers ever move at the last second when cops are pulling the trigger?

The victim in this case was a soldier, are police officers better marksman than soldiers?

Should we take away an individuals right to defend himself because there's a slim chance a third party might be injured?

The attackers used knives, meat cleavers, and an automobile, should we ban those items?

The human capacity to commit violence is not incumbered by a lack of means to do so.

If you enjoy guns as a hobby, no problem. But to carry a handgun around? I already have a hard time finding enough room for my dick, handphone, keys, wallet, viagra, cigarettes, lighter, etc.None of the items you listed will be of any importance to you if you're dead. However if they are more important to you than your personal safety then that's your choice, so be it. But please allow me to decide which is most important for me. Guns are used daily for self defense, can you tell use of a case where "somebody's grandmother" was hit?

In the case of the Oregon lady she was in her home. She states on the 911 tape that her ex-boyfriend had broken in and attacked her before. Why was this guy on the street? Before we start penalizing honest people we need to deal with the criminal recidivism rate in this country. Which leads me to my next question, why is it the left has no problem infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens but yet they're completely spineless when it come to prosecuting and appropriately penalizing criminals? It's just absurd.

Tiny12

06-01-13, 21:30

Esten, Thanks for the link to the New York Times blog, honestly. Now I understand. The tax deductibility of contributions to "Tea Party" organizations isn't the big issue. Contributions to 501(c)(4) groups aren't deductible. The issue is that the IRS wants the names of the donors made public.

Why? So it can fuck them over and stop their contributions to organizations that would hinder the IRS and/or the Democrat Party. Like Frank Vandersloot, whose name was published on the Obama campaign website as a donor to a group that supported Romney. He was harassed by the IRS and Department of Labor afterwards. Or people who donated to Freedom Watch. Five were audited by the IRS, who wanted them to pay GIFT TAX for their contributions to this conservative 501(c)(4) group.

Why is it that you don't read about liberal 501(c)(4) groups being harassed by the IRS? Why weren't the liberal groups asked for the names of their donors? Because contrary to your beliefs they weren't targeted.

You believe low level IRS staffers were the ones responsible, and you're partly right. But how about the Democratic Congressmen like Dick Durbin that wrote letters to the IRS asking them to investigate conservative 501(c)(4) groups? How about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and some other entity, whose name the IRS refuses to release, that asked the IRS for an audit of Freedom Works? How about Obama himself? From the Wall Street Journal,

"The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.

In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

By the way, I disagree with the work Freedom Works was doing, providing cover for President Bush to escalate the war in Iraq and supporting candidates who believed in that during the 2008 election. However selectively going back and targeting them and their donors is dirty pool.

Rev BS

06-01-13, 22:09

No, criminals and the mentally ill should not be allowed to carry any type of deadly weapon.

If it wasn't for the fact that the victim was run over before being beheaded I indeed think it might have been avoided if he had been armed. If you disagree perhaps you will answer a few question for us.

Why were armed police officers sent to the crime scene after the attack?

Why did the officers shoot the attackers?

Was anybody's grandmother hit by the police?

Do fuckers ever move at the last second when cops are pulling the trigger?

The victim in this case was a soldier, are police officers better marksman than soldiers?

Should we take away an individuals right to defend himself because there's a slim chance a third party might be injured?

The attackers used knives, meat cleavers, and an automobile, should we ban those items?

The human capacity to commit violence is not incumbered by a lack of means to do so.

None of the items you listed will be of any importance to you if you're dead. However if they are more important to you than your personal safety then that's your choice, so be it. But please allow me to decide which is most important for me. Guns are used daily for self defense, can you tell use of a case where "somebody's grandmother" was hit?

In the case of the Oregon lady she was in her home. She states on the 911 tape that her ex-boyfriend had broken in and attacked her before. Why was this guy on the street? Before we start penalizing honest people we need to deal with the criminal recidivism rate in this country. Which leads me to my next question, why is it the left has no problem infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens but yet they're completely spineless when it come to prosecuting and appropriately penalizing criminals? It's just absurd.Recently, I was in Los Angeles. I had no need to be Compton or Watts, nor was I involve in any activity that I felt would put me in danger. Yeah, of course, I could be a victim of a random act of violence, but I also could have been killed when my plane felt into the Pacific Oceon. So I was totally relaxed, somehow, you don't seem to be. In my mongering, I have to been to numerous countries that was more lawless than the USA, and I have exposed myself at times to situations far more conducieve to violence than I would ever be in the USA. Should I be packing a gun in Colombia, Mexico, Cambodia, Philippines, Rumania, in a small town around 1 am?

I respect that you feel that you are as prepared as law enforcement to deal with any violent offender. But I would be as nervous as hell if I knew numerous people other than law enforcement were packing guns in any public setting.

So for now, I would rather be Zorro or Bruce Lee.

Peter Sideburn

06-02-13, 01:33

All good lawyers know not to ask questions or make assumptions before they know the answers. Others have so trusted so I suspect the woman in the house or a soldier being assaulted would have preferred to trust someone like me rather than just be a victim. Your logic is flawed. There is a small chance of someone innocent being hurt by friendly fire so let someone certainly be chopped to death or raped to prevent this risk. That risk tolerance and skills should be weighed by the person whose finger is on the trigger. I totally support the government training its citizens at government cost to be able to more effectively and safely utilize their weapon of choice. Some countries do this now with good result. It saves ammo when the skills are needed for national defence. In fact, in both the cases discussed it is likely no shot would have been necessary. Putting a laser bead on the forehead of the terrorist would have likely changed his view about the tempo of him reaching his virgins. The same applies to the boyfriend with and anger management problem. If this wasn't the result then they deserved to be dropped in their next step. More law abiding citizens should carry so the criminals never know when the draw that it may be their last act of terror. Why do you think these pussy killers so frequently target places handguns are not allowed? As soon as someone with a gun shows up to oppose them they typically either whine like a baby or shoot themselves.

Pete.

Come on!! You actually advocate everyone being able to carry handguns? I don't know how fast that beheading was, but you really think you could have stop it. And we can trust you not to miss and hit somebody's grandmother. Oh, that's friendly fire, you know. Sorry, I had good intentions but poor aim. The fucker move at the last second. If you enjoy guns as a hobby, no problem. But to carry a handgun around? I already have a hard time finding enough room for my dick, handphone, keys, wallet, viagra, cigarettes, lighter, etc.

Peter Sideburn

06-02-13, 01:38

Blackshirt, I respect your choice not to carry. You should respect mine to carry when I feel it is in my and possibly my communities best interest. I am not trying to take away your right to NOT carry or own, but rather only to preserve mine to do so.

Pete.

Recently, I was in Los Angeles. I had no need to be Compton or Watts, nor was I involve in any activity that I felt would put me in danger. Yeah, of course, I could be a victim of a random act of violence, but I also could have been killed when my plane felt into the Pacific Oceon. So I was totally relaxed, somehow, you don't seem to be. In my mongering, I have to been to numerous countries that was more lawless than the USA, and I have exposed myself at times to situations far more conducieve to violence than I would ever be in the USA. Should I be packing a gun in Colombia, Mexico, Cambodia, Philippines, Rumania, in a small town around 1 am?

I respect that you feel that you are as prepared as law enforcement to deal with any violent offender. But I would be as nervous as hell if I knew numerous people other than law enforcement were packing guns in any public setting.

So for now, I would rather be Zorro or Bruce Lee.

Rev BS

06-02-13, 03:15

Blackshirt, I respect your choice not to carry. You should respect mine to carry when I feel it is in my and possibly my communities best interest. I am not trying to take away your right to NOT carry or own, but rather only to preserve mine to do so.

Pete.We came from different enviroments & experiences, therefore, our outlooks can be very different. Take care of yourself.

WorldTravel69

06-04-13, 03:50

Dick Head:

Am I wrong.

He says he will spend 40 weeks going after Obama on Bull Shit Charges.

https://news.google.com/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&csid=ee2a390fe7313ef4&redirect=true

Member #4112

06-04-13, 10:03

WT69, so they are going to investigate for 40 weeks, so what. It took over 2 years of investigation on Watergate before Nixon went down. With IRS clamming up and the administration using the Sgt. Shultz defense. I know nothing, this is going to take some time.

Even the giants of the liberal news media turned down Holder's off the record talk offer. Maybe something is going to happen now.

Between Benghazi, the IRS and the news media scandals, Obama's house of cards is about to fall. If that's not enough wait until you see the new insurance premiums under ObamaCare. Even the unions are against it now that their plans are going to get the ax under ObamaCare.

2014 could be very interesting. Perhaps Obama will become a real lame duck his last two years with no ink in his veto pen.

WorldTravel69

06-04-13, 11:55

They are trying to blame Obama for Benghazi,.

How come they did not blame Bush for 9/11?

Because both had nothing to do with either!

WT69, so they are going to investigate for 40 weeks, so what. It took over 2 years of investigation on Watergate before Nixon went down. With IRS clamming up and the administration using the Sgt. Shultz defense. I know nothing, this is going to take some time.

Even the giants of the liberal news media turned down Holder's off the record talk offer. Maybe something is going to happen now.

Between Benghazi, the IRS and the news media scandals, Obama's house of cards is about to fall. If that's not enough wait until you see the new insurance premiums under ObamaCare. Even the unions are against it now that their plans are going to get the ax under ObamaCare.

2014 could be very interesting. Perhaps Obama will become a real lame duck his last two years with no ink in his veto pen.

Peter Sideburn

06-04-13, 12:49

No one is blaming Obama for causing the attack on Benghazi. What possible parallel (s) do you see between Obama's response to Benghazi and Bush's response to 9/11. It seems to me, you presume parallels here as the foundation of your comparison that may not exist. It would be like saying oranges are acidic so why aren't pianos? Please explain what you see as parallels so that, if interested, someone can appropriately respond.

I do see that many blamed Bush for taking us to war in Afghanastan as a response to 9/11 which many on the left "blamed him for" and I do see that one could twist the facts as they were known at the time and claim that the whole "video caused the Benghazi attacks" is parallel to the "Iraq has chemical weapons" arguments before the war, but they are very loose parallels at best because everyone believed the intelligence about Iraq but no one in the intelligence committee ever believed or even used the video preamble non-sense.

Pete.

They are trying to blame Obama for Benghazi,.

How come they did not blame Bush for 9/11?

Because both had nothing to do with either!

WorldTravel69

06-04-13, 15:03

Scandals, Scandals, anything to keep the Country from Growing.

Bridges are are falling apart, roads are full of holes. Congress is stopping all jobs bills that would help rebuild our infrastructure.

WT69, so they are going to investigate for 40 weeks, so what. It took over 2 years of investigation on Watergate before Nixon went down. With IRS clamming up and the administration using the Sgt. Shultz defense. I know nothing, this is going to take some time.

Even the giants of the liberal news media turned down Holder's off the record talk offer. Maybe something is going to happen now.

Between Benghazi, the IRS and the news media scandals, Obama's house of cards is about to fall. If that's not enough wait until you see the new insurance premiums under ObamaCare. Even the unions are against it now that their plans are going to get the ax under ObamaCare.

2014 could be very interesting. Perhaps Obama will become a real lame duck his last two years with no ink in his veto pen.

Jackson

06-04-13, 15:04

They are trying to blame Obama for Benghazi,.

How come they did not blame Bush for 9/11?

Because both had nothing to do with either!WT,

No one is blaming Obama for the attack on Benghazi.

What he is being blamed for is...

1. His administration's decision to order the rescue forces stationed in Tripoli to stand down, and...

2. His administration's attempt to deceive the American people by deliberately and falsely claiming that the attack on Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a u-tube video and not the planned terrorist attack that it actually was.

Both of these actions were necessary at the time to bolster Obama's ongoing reelection campaign's claim that he had beaten the terrorists and defeated Al Qaeda.

In other words, Obama showed that he would allow our foreign ambassadors, their staff, and apparently any other Americans to die at the hands of terrorists rather than risk loosing his upcoming Presidential election.

Disgusting.

However, to force a comparison with 9/11, imagine if President Bush had told the American people that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack but instead was the result of 4 separate airline captains having spontaneously decided to crash their planes because of a salary dispute.

Thanks,

Jackson

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/06/whistleblower-special-forces-rescue-team-ordered-to-stand-down-during-benghazi-raid-n1588396

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/06/18086898-official-us-special-forces-team-wasnt-allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack?lite

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/05/benghazi_hearing_darrell_issa_s_house_committee_s_investigation_of_the_death.html

Punter 127

06-05-13, 00:08

Recently, I was in Los Angeles. I had no need to be Compton or Watts, nor was I involve in any activity that I felt would put me in danger. Yeah, of course, I could be a victim of a random act of violence, but I also could have been killed when my plane felt into the Pacific Oceon. So I was totally relaxed, somehow, you don't seem to be. In my mongering, I have to been to numerous countries that was more lawless than the USA, and I have exposed myself at times to situations far more conducieve to violence than I would ever be in the USA. Should I be packing a gun in Colombia, Mexico, Cambodia, Philippines, Rumania, in a small town around 1 am?Just because you "exposed" yourself and didn't encounter a problem doesn't necessary mean you were safe, perhaps just lucky.

I respect that you feel that you are as prepared as law enforcement to deal with any violent offender. Nope I don't think that at all, I don't have unlimited taxpayer dollars to support my preparedness. But "Surveys of criminals have verified that they fear armed citizens as much as police. Increasing the number of armed responders on the street make it likely that the multi-decade decrease in violent crime will continue.

Can you guarantee that law enforcement will always be available when needed? Were they available for the lady in Oregon?

But I would be as nervous as hell if I knew numerous people other than law enforcement were packing guns in any public setting. Concealed Carry Permits Numbers are Soaring. "The last comprehensive survey of states indicated that more than 8 million concealed carry permits were active across the nation. The data from that report was gathered more than a year ago. It would be reasonable to expect the number of people with concealed carry permits to be over 10 million at this time. To put that number in context, there are about 800,000 full time law enforcement personnel in the United States."

We have between eight and ten million American which are already legally allowed to be armed in public. How many do you think are illegally armed? Which of those two groups concern you the most, and which one would be most affected by new gun laws? Forty nine state currently have some type of legal carry. Illinois just passed a veto proof concealed carry law in the last few days, so soon all fifty state will have some type of legal carry.

I have one more question that I truly wish you would answer, if you are so "totally relaxed" walking around unarmed why do we need more gun laws?

The bottom line is we are a Constitutional Republic and we have a Bill of Rights in which the Second Amendment guarantees that the individuals right to bear arms will not be infringed.

Long live the Republic!

Esten

06-05-13, 00:13

Here's what former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said about the decision to "stand down":

"To send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous,” said Gates in an interview aired on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “Personally, I would not have approved that because we just don't it's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” he continued. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way. And there just wasn't time to do that.”
http://thehill.com/video/sunday-shows/299213-gates-defends-benghazi-response-says-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military

Also, people on the ground in Benghazi were reporting that it initially began as a spontaneous reaction to the video, which was then hijacked. And that's what Susan Rice said. They didn't share all the terrorist information they had right away, because that could have compromised the investigation in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

In both cases we see sound judgement. And these facts aside, the notion that somehow the Obama administration saw the attack as negative for Obama's re-election is absurd. Under Obama we killed Bin Laden and decimated (not eliminated) Al Qaeda leadership. A terrorist attack usually helps rally support around the President. It's a ridiculous premise, which is why it's been viewed (and now confirmed) as little more than a political witchhunt from the beginning.

Esten

06-05-13, 00:20

Take a look at this video, and you will see how utterly desperate and craven Republicans became in their effort to smear Obama and Clinton.

CBS News: Republicans Lied About White House Benghazi E-mails
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/cbs-news-calls-out-republicans-lying-about

Esten

06-05-13, 00:53

Scandals, Scandals, anything to keep the Country from Growing.

Bridges are are falling apart, roads are full of holes. Congress is stopping all jobs bills that would help rebuild our infrastructure.Yes. Republicans don't have a positive agenda. So they are left with their negativity. They keep pandering to their base, but do little to expand it.

However there is an underlying intelligent logic in what they do. First, making the government appear disfunctional serves their purpose of creating just this perception (even when the disfunction is largely their own doing). Second, they want to limit the role of government, so what better way to do that (with the limited power they have) than to not pass any meaningful legislation.

Sounds like a great gig they have, but unfortunately Republicans have also become an obstacle to some important and legitimate government functions, investment in infrastructure being one excellent example. They have even become an obstacle to one of their self-professed goals: reducing the deficit. Republican politicians see themselves as defenders of a great country, but many of them are also seeking celebrity, and collectively they have become a cancer in the country. What we need is an aggressive effort to root as many of them out of office as possible in future elections.

Jackson

06-05-13, 02:23

Yes. Republicans don't have a positive agenda. So they are left with their negativity. They keep pandering to their base, but do little to expand it.Getting rid of ObamaCare, stopping the gutless and insane spending, securing the borders, and reforming immigration are all Republican ideas that to me are a positive agenda.

First, making the government appear disfunctional serves their purpose of creating just this perception...These latest scandals are all manifestations of Obama's general incompetency and appalling lack of executive management experience.

Thanks,

Jackson.

Punter 127

06-05-13, 02:45

Low-Info Voters Keep Obama Ratings Afloat

The scandals that have broadsided the Obama administration in recent weeks have the potential for leaving a gaping hole in the president's standing with the American people, according to a new IBD / TIPP poll.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-polls/060313-658586-low-info-voters-keep-obama-ratings-afloat.htm

28788

Rev BS

06-05-13, 02:50

Just because you "exposed" yourself and didn't encounter a problem doesn't necessary mean you were safe, perhaps just lucky.

Nope I don't think that at all, I don't have unlimited taxpayer dollars to support my preparedness. But "Surveys of criminals have verified that they fear armed citizens as much as police. Increasing the number of armed responders on the street make it likely that the multi-decade decrease in violent crime will continue.

Can you guarantee that law enforcement will always be available when needed? Were they available for the lady in Oregon?

Concealed Carry Permits Numbers are Soaring. "The last comprehensive survey of states indicated that more than 8 million concealed carry permits were active across the nation. The data from that report was gathered more than a year ago. It would be reasonable to expect the number of people with concealed carry permits to be over 10 million at this time. To put that number in context, there are about 800,000 full time law enforcement personnel in the United States.

We have between eight and ten million American which are already legally allowed to be armed in public. How many do you think are illegally armed? Which of those two groups concern you the most, and which one would be most affected by new gun laws? Forty nine state currently have some type of legal carry. Illinois just passed a veto proof concealed carry law in the last few days, so soon all fifty state will have some type of legal carry.

I have one more question that I truly wish you would answer, if you are so "totally relaxed" walking around unarmed why do we need more gun laws?

The bottom line is we are a Constitutional Republic and we have a Bill of Rights in which the Second Amendment guarantees that the individuals right to bear arms will not be infringed.

Long live the Republic!As all previous great civilizations, kingdoms, dynasties, etc. You and I won't be around, it might take a another hundred years, who knows? A divided house will surely fall. Right now, we are seeing a live replay of the "The Last of the Mohicans", as people struggle to remain relevant in a changing society & world. There is a changing of the guard, and there great deal of shuffling on the totem pole. Perhaps you are unaware, but you are part of a grand soap opera, the silliness & stupidity of which boggles the imagination. Wait, just watch the Jerry Springer reruns, and perhaps, you will understand what I mean.

I always thought the proposed guns laws were about the types of firearms in question. Tell me if I am wrong, instead of talking about conspiracies, and some grand scheme to make us like Cuba. I am totally relaxed because it is mostly about being sensible. Something similar to, "you are what you eat".

Take care. If you are worried, just hang around me.(smile).

Punter 127

06-05-13, 07:59

As all previous great civilizations, kingdoms, dynasties, etc. You and I won't be around, it might take a another hundred years, who knows? A divided house will surely fall. Right now, we are seeing a live replay of the "The Last of the Mohicans", as people struggle to remain relevant in a changing society & world. There is a changing of the guard, and there great deal of shuffling on the totem pole. Perhaps you are unaware, but you are part of a grand soap opera, the silliness & stupidity of which boggles the imagination. Wait, just watch the Jerry Springer reruns, and perhaps, you will understand what I mean.I'm so glad we have you God like elitist to save us from our "silliness & stupidity". What would we do without you?

History is full of those who tried the "changing of the guard" thing, Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx, and Joseph Stalin just to name a few.

I didn't watch Jerry Springer the first time around let alone reruns, but I'm pretty sure you've seen every episode multiple times while sucking on a big glass of fool-aid. Do all progressives get their so called "facts" from TV shows and movies?

I always thought the proposed guns laws were about the types of firearms in question. Tell me if I am wrong, instead of talking about conspiracies, and some grand scheme to make us like Cuba. I am totally relaxed because it is mostly about being sensible. Something similar to, "you are what you eat".OK here you go, You are wrong! Even if it was just about the types of guns, I'm opposed to it, we don't need anymore gun laws. Turn Jerry Springer off, put the fool-aid down and read what people like Feinstein and Bloomberg have openly stated as their goals, dig below the surface and don't be so naive. If nothing else go back and read the forum, I've post tons of statistics, graphs, poll results, and quotes to support my position. You haven't answered any of my questions or offered anything to support your theories (save Jerry Springer). I'm quite surprised that you would lower yourself to old progressive tactic of attacking the messenger. But it's a common move for progressives who don't have any facts to back up their position.

If you are worried, just hang around me.(smile).Now that you've shown your true colors that's not likely to happen, and I'm not smiling.

Rev BS

06-05-13, 10:04

I'm so glad we have you God like elitist to save us from our "silliness & stupidity". What would we do without you?

History is full of those who tried the "changing of the guard" thing, Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx, and Joseph Stalin just to name a few.

I didn't watch Jerry Springer the first time around let alone reruns, but I'm pretty sure you've seen every episode multiple times while sucking on a big glass of fool-aid. Do all progressives get their so called "facts" from TV shows and movies?

OK here you go, You are wrong! Even if it was just about the types of guns, I'm opposed to it, we don't need anymore gun laws. Turn Jerry Springer off, put the fool-aid down and read what people like Feinstein and Bloomberg have openly stated as their goals, dig below the surface and don't be so naive. If nothing else go back and read the forum, I've post tons of statistics, graphs, poll results, and quotes to support my position. You haven't answered any of my questions or offered anything to support your theories (save Jerry Springer). I'm quite surprised that you would lower yourself to old progressive tactic of attacking the messenger. But it's a common move for progressives who don't have any facts to back up their position.

Now that you've shown your true colors that's not likely to happen, and I'm not smiling.My opinion is not really important. More crucial for me, is that I tried to get along with everybody the best I can. The golden rule, lest you forget is "do unto others what you you wish they do unto you". And I don't have time to be angry all the time especially about the 2nd amendment. Nobody is stepping on my toes. My balls are not restricted, and I pretty much do whatever I want to do everyday. Nobody is breathing down my neck.

I am sorry you feel that I was attacking you. You expressed your case, and I did mine. That's all there is to it.

Jackson

06-05-13, 13:23

America will self destruct......if the liberals are successful.

Rev BS

06-05-13, 21:12

...if the liberals are successful.Extreme positions on both sides of aisle are destroying America. But the most important issue at hand today, is that America's moral tank is now at near empty.

Esten

06-05-13, 23:59

Getting rid of ObamaCare, stopping the gutless and insane spending, securing the borders, and reforming immigration are all Republican ideas that to me are a positive agenda.

These latest scandals are all manifestations of Obama's general incompetency and appalling lack of executive management experience.Unfortunately, while Republicans do have a few good ideas, they are akin to a small odor absorber placed in a packed dining hall after a meal of franks and beans. It's a good thing, but simply overwhelmed by a vast stench.

The so-called and largely phony 'scandals' are mere manifestations of Republican desperation and gullability. Right wing politicians and pundits pump out their conspiracy theories one after another, captivating their base like a cat is captivated with catnip. In this state, many are unable to apply critical thinking to get to the truth. Top Republican strategists understand very well how to manipulate their base, and anyone who doubts this is simply naive.

As far as leadership you need look no further than Obama. He's the guy in DC willing to compromise and work with both parties. You don't run a company in a constant state of 'my way or the highway', especially when you're losing money. Congressional Republicans could learn a few things from Obama, and until they do, their good ideas will largely remain abstractions, and our debt will continue to grow.

Esten

06-06-13, 00:14

Republicans aren't talking much about the economy these days. That's because it keeps improving. The latest Gallup Job Creation Index increased to 22 in May, the highest score for any month since April 2008. This means more workers reported their employers are hiring, and fewer see people being let go. How could this be happening as we edge closer to full implementation of the Affordable Care Act ?

U.S. Job Creation Best in Five Years
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162893/job-creation-best-five-years.aspx

28789

Punter 127

06-06-13, 05:42

I don't want to belabor this issue but;.

I am sorry you feel that I was attacking you. You expressed your case, and I did mine. That's all there is to it.Really, you were just stating your case when you penned this?

Perhaps you are unaware, but you are part of a grand soap opera, the silliness & stupidity of which boggles the imagination. Wait, just watch the Jerry Springer reruns, and perhaps, you will understand what I mean.When you start equating supporters of personal liberty with the Jerry Springer show you are well past expressing your case.

Then to add insult to injury you added this little snide remark.

instead of talking about conspiracies, and some grand scheme to make us like Cuba.I only see two ways to label your remarks, personal insult / attack or gibberish.

I'm very surprised to see you lower yourself to such tactics, I would have expected it from some others, but not you..

Rev BS

06-06-13, 06:20

I don't want to belabor this issue but;.

Really, you were just stating your case when you penned this?

When you start equating supporters of personal liberty with the Jerry Springer show you are well past expressing your case.

Then to add insult to injury you added this little snide remark.

I only see two ways to label your remarks, personal insult / attack or gibberish.

I'm very surprised to see you lower yourself to such tactics, I would have expected it from some others, but not you..

What I have been trying to say, is that we as a society (especially government) is as dysfunctional as ever we are going to be. Not too much unlike the participants of the Jerry Springer Show. Would you be mollify if I had used "we" instead of "you"? As in the same swamp or pigpen. Other than that, I stand by my remarks.

Punter 127

06-06-13, 06:38

What I have been trying to say, is that we as a society (especially government) is as dysfunctional as ever we are going to be. Not too much unlike the participants of the Jerry Springer Show. Would you be mollify if I had used "we" instead of "you"? As in the same swamp or pigpen. Other than that, I stand by my remarks.Saying "we" instead "you" makes all the difference in the world. Had you done that I probably would have agreed with your statement.

Rev BS

06-06-13, 07:05

Saying "we" instead "you" makes all the difference in the world. Had you done that I probably would have agreed with your statement.Easy as pie, just a slight a misunderstanding.

Punter 127

06-06-13, 08:02

Easy as pie, just a slight a misunderstanding.I'm glad it was a misunderstanding, enough said.

Punter 127

06-07-13, 10:39

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) believes the IRS should be abolished after the institution of a simpler flat tax.

He said the tax code invites agents to abuse and use the machinery of government to target political enemies and said doing so was wrong whether the president was Barack Obama or Richard Nixon.

"I think we ought to abolish the IRS and instead move to a simple flat tax," Cruz said on Fox News over the weekend.

He said the tax code should be simple enough for the average American to fill out on a postcard.

Cruz said such a system would take much of the bureaucracy out of Washington and should get bipartisan support because it is about "empowering the people," and that "ought to be a bipartisan" value.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/04/Cruz-Abolish-IRS-by-Enacting-Simpler-Flat-Tax
I could not agree more, the only thing I can think of that would be better that an across the board flat tax would be a consumption tax. Either way we could do away with the IRS, all we would need is police officers to arrest those that don't pay.

The abuse of power by the IRS is a prime example of why big government does not work.

Punter 127

06-09-13, 12:38

Obama Recovery: Still 7.6 Million Jobs Below Average

Republicans aren't talking much about the economy these days. That's because it keeps improving. The latest Gallup Job Creation Index increased to 22 in May, the highest score for any month since April 2008. This means more workers reported their employers are hiring, and fewer see people being let go. How could this be happening as we edge closer to full implementation of the Affordable Care Act ?

U.S. Job Creation Best in Five Years
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162893/job-creation-best-five-years.aspx

28789Another Esten post that doesn't pass the smell test.

Economy: Although somewhat better than expected, the 175,000 net jobs created in May continues the historically tepid jobs growth trend that has come to characterize the now four-year-old economic recovery.

The result has been continued high unemployment, a vast pool of long-term jobless, and an unprecedented number of people who've dropped out of the labor force.

Highlighting the weakness of the May report is the fact that the number of unemployed climbed by nearly the same amount as jobs created — 101,000 — nudging the unemployment rate up to 7.6%.

As a result, there are still 2.4 million fewer people working than there were in January 2008, the previous jobs peak. And since the recovery started in June 2009, the number of jobs has increased a mere 3.9%, well below the post-World War II average of 9.7%.

In fact, had this jobs recovery merely kept pace with the average of the previous 10, there would be 7.6 million more people working today, and the unemployment rate would be less than half its current level.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060713-659267-obama-recovery-76-million-jobs-below-average.htm#ixzz2VjF5lEyc
Now you have the rest of the story.

Don B

06-09-13, 21:51

Unfortunately, while Republicans do have a few good ideas, they are akin to a small odor absorber placed in a packed dining hall after a meal of franks and beans. It's a good thing, but simply overwhelmed by a vast stench.

The so-called and largely phony 'scandals' are mere manifestations of Republican desperation and gullability. Right wing politicians and pundits pump out their conspiracy theories one after another, captivating their base like a cat is captivated with catnip. In this state, many are unable to apply critical thinking to get to the truth. Top Republican strategists understand very well how to manipulate their base, and anyone who doubts this is simply naive.

As far as leadership you need look no further than Obama. He's the guy in DC willing to compromise and work with both parties. You don't run a company in a constant state of 'my way or the highway', especially when you're losing money. Congressional Republicans could learn a few things from Obama, and until they do, their good ideas will largely remain abstractions, and our debt will continue to grow.Incredible!! What planet are you on?

Don B.

Esten

06-10-13, 00:29

Perhaps my favorite news story last week, Obama appointed Susan Rice as national security adviser. Republicans took their approach of "accuse first, prove later", calling her a liar and part of a cover-up on Benghazi. When the facts came out, Republicans were proven wrong. Apparently Rice wasn't even called to testify, Republicans had plenty of opportunity to do so before this appointment, but likely knew it would hurt not help them. You would think a normal, mature response would be to acknowledge your bad form, admit you were wrong and apologize. Instead, Republicans are still negative about Susan Rice, because they invested so much political capital in their fraudulent thesis.

It's good to see justice prevail. The GOP politics of destruction failed to destroy this woman's career.

Susan Rice and Her Attackers
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/susan_rice_named_national_security_adviser_the_benghazi_investigation_proved.html