Printable View
Absolutely worth watching! It's the Annual White House Correspondent's Presidential Roast. (Conan O'Brian is the Roaster).
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/event/conan-obrien-at-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner/?vp=1[/URL]
A few strong laughs from the Democratic crowd and a few heavy jokes that were maybe too strong.
Have Fun,
TL.
They really love the workers.
A library for Bush. What a joke.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433355]They really love the workers.[/QUOTE]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.
It is funny how fast they can work when it affects them.
[U]Tripe #1: The poll question was flawed.[/U] 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?
[U]Tripe #2: There is an effort to take guns from legal gun owners.[/U] False. There was no such proposal, bill or amendment.
[U]Tripe #3: We shouldn't bother trying to reduce gun violence since it isn't the most important issue.[/U] 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.
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?
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.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433375]First:
My point was not the poll questions were vague or misleading but [/QUOTE]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?
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.
[QUOTE=Esten;433384]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?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Esten;433384]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?[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433386]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.[/QUOTE]Unless the loudest minority (whoever they may be) bring at lot of $ to the table.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433386]Elected representatives are responsible to the MAJORITY of their constituents not the LOUDEST minority.[/QUOTE]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
[URL]www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/2013/4/25/nhdp-backlash-over-ayotte-vote-against-bipartisan-background.html[/URL]
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?
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?