American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433944]Come on!! You actually advocate everyone being able to carry handguns? [/QUOTE]No, criminals and the mentally ill should not be allowed to carry any type of deadly weapon.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433944]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.[/QUOTE]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.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433944]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.[/QUOTE]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.

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.

[QUOTE=Punter127;433948]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.[/QUOTE]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.

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.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433944]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433952]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.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433954]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.[/QUOTE]We came from different enviroments & experiences, therefore, our outlooks can be very different. Take care of yourself.

Dick Head:

Am I wrong.

He says he will spend 40 weeks going after Obama on Bull Shit Charges.

[URL]https://news.google.com/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&csid=ee2a390fe7313ef4&redirect=true[/URL]

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.

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!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433976]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433977]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![/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433976]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.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433977]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![/QUOTE]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

[url]http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/06/whistleblower-special-forces-rescue-team-ordered-to-stand-down-during-benghazi-raid-n1588396[/url]

[url]http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/06/18086898-official-us-special-forces-team-wasnt-allowed-to-fly-to-benghazi-during-attack?lite[/url]

[url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/05/benghazi_hearing_darrell_issa_s_house_committee_s_investigation_of_the_death.html[/url]

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433952]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?[/QUOTE]Just because you "exposed" yourself and didn't encounter a problem doesn't necessary mean you were safe, perhaps just lucky.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433952]I respect that you feel that you are as prepared as law enforcement to deal with any violent offender. [/QUOTE]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?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433952]But I would be as nervous as hell if I knew numerous people other than law enforcement were packing guns in any public setting. [/QUOTE][B]Concealed Carry Permits Numbers are Soaring.[/B] "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!

Here's what former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said about the decision to "stand down":

[QUOTE] "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.”[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://thehill.com/video/sunday-shows/299213-gates-defends-benghazi-response-says-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military[/URL]

Also, people on the ground [I]in Benghazi[/I] 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.

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
[URL]http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/cbs-news-calls-out-republicans-lying-about[/URL]