President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

A second person has died after a masked man wielding a “knife-like” weapon carried out a stabbing attack at a school in south-west Sweden, the local hospital has said.

Swedish media reports said the second victim was a boy, but this could not be immediately confirmed. The first person to be fatally injured in the attack at the school in Trolhättan, an industrial city near Gothenburg, was a teacher.

Two other patients, believed to be pupils, remained in a critical condition, but one had stabilised, the hospital said. It was treating the attacker, whom police have identified as a 21-year-old man, for gunshot wounds, according to reports.

Police have said they do not know the motive for the attack. There were conflicting reports as to whether he was armed with a knife or a sword, or both, when he entered the school at about 10am on Thursday. Students locked themselves in classrooms and cupboards to escape.

Police spokesman Thomas Fuxborg told the Associated Press the attacker carried more than one weapon, including “at least one knife-like object”. Fuxborg said police fired two shots, one of which hit the attacker.

“When we first saw him we thought it was a joke. He had a mask and black clothes and a long sword. There were students who wanted to go with him and hold the sword,” a student told Swedish media.

Some witnesses said the attacker was wearing a Star Wars mask. Others took it to be a Halloween prank.

A statement from the hospital said: “We have four seriously injured patients. All are in surgery right now. One is a teacher and two are students. One is 11 and one 15 years old.

Come on Sweden, get your act together and legislate sword control. BTW, what's up with shooting the alleged perp, don't they know guns can kill people?

[Monker]

More encouragement for illegals and votes for democrats.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-is-about-to-take-massive-immigration-action-far-scarier-than-anyone-could-have-imagined/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_campaign=BestOfDay&utm_content=2015-10-21&dlvrit=1810606

Oh, sure, all of those Mexicans are coming over to take IT jobs.

Moron.

This is a problem but it has NOTHING to do with illegal immigration.

[trekman]

More encouragement for illegals and votes for democrats.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-is-about-to-take-massive-immigration-action-far-scarier-than-anyone-could-have-imagined/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_campaign=BestOfDay&utm_content=2015-10-21&dlvrit=1810606

Oh, sure, all of those Mexicans are coming over to take IT jobs.

Moron.

This is a problem but it has NOTHING to do with illegal immigration.

I couldnt find anywhere in the article where it mentioned Mexicans. I did find this though.
" but will enable hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to also receive work permits despite their unlawful status,” according to The Hill. "

[Monker]

The Benghazi hearing was such disaster that Republicans basically elected Hillary the next President. It's amazing how stupid some Republicans really are.

And, Biden made right decision to not run. After seeing this, he wouldn't have been able to compete. Now, Hillary is going to gain most of his votes, and probably a few more points from Sanders. That puts her up by, at the least, 30pts...it's going to be interesting to see the polls next week.

How much more of this stuff has to happen before ya all see that Hillary is the nominee. Republicans REALLY need to get their shit together. Take care of your own shit before you look at how much greener the lawn is next door...cuz right now, you don't even have a fucking lawn...and your house is being destroyed from the inside.

[Monker]

More encouragement for illegals and votes for democrats.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-is-about-to-take-massive-immigration-action-far-scarier-than-anyone-could-have-imagined/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_campaign=BestOfDay&utm_content=2015-10-21&dlvrit=1810606

Oh, sure, all of those Mexicans are coming over to take IT jobs.

Moron.

This is a problem but it has NOTHING to do with illegal immigration.

I couldnt find anywhere in the article where it mentioned Mexicans. I did find this though.
" but will enable hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to also receive work permits despite their unlawful status,” according to The Hill. "

It's implied...the "immigration issue" is essentially a Mexican border issue. I don't hear people complaining about all of the illegals from India.

I would really like to know where these hundreds of thousands of IT jobs exist. You are buying into propaganda.

This article is taking a REAL ISSUE - the outsourcing of IT jobs - and attempting to tie it into the immigration issue. Why don't they attack the outsourcing of IT jobs? Why haven't they been critical of it for the past 12yrs? Maybe it is because the issue is American corporate greed and how large American companies undercut well paid white collar IT employees by sending their jobs to India, and other countries? THAT is the issue.

Yeah, some IT contractors come to the US from India (and elsewhere, rarely) and require sponsorship, etc. However, implying they are illegals is simply ridiculous and wrong. "hundreds of thousands" is so exaggerated that it is a silly comment.

[Boomchild]

Economists are starting to warn about the risk of a new U.S. recession

Confronted with disappointing data from around the world, economists are whispering a word that hasn’t seemed like a real possibility in years: recession.

“The global economy is uncomfortably close to the edge,” said David Stockton, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... li=AAa0dzB

Of course we will hear from the current administration and progressive liberals that this is all horse crap.

[Monker]

Economists are starting to warn about the risk of a new U.S. recession

Confronted with disappointing data from around the world, economists are whispering a word that hasn’t seemed like a real possibility in years: recession.

“The global economy is uncomfortably close to the edge,” said David Stockton, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... li=AAa0dzB

Of course we will hear from the current administration and progressive liberals that this is all horse crap.

If you take a step back and really read what that article is saying, it is basically, "There will eventually be a recession at some point in the future. If this, that, and this other thing all happen, there could be a recession next year. But, chances are it won't happen. But, we think you should worry about the eventual, inevitable, recession anyway because there has to be a recession at some point because that's how the economy works."

So, really, I doubt anybody will comment on that article at all.

[Monker]

Hillary's 1971 letter to monkers hero, Alinsky.
http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-s ... cwM0BHZ0aW

Ah, President Hillary has such a colorful past. Ya all should just keep on concentrating on the past foolery of the "Demoncrats". I mean, that plan just works so well for you. You "Repoopagains" really know what you are doing. Maybe you're just wearing a Halloween costume, but I doubt it.

[trekman]

Oh, sure, all of those Mexicans are coming over to take IT jobs.

Moron.

This is a problem but it has NOTHING to do with illegal immigration.

It's implied...the "immigration issue" is essentially a Mexican border issue. I don't hear people complaining about all of the illegals from India.

I would really like to know where these hundreds of thousands of IT jobs exist. You are buying into propaganda.

This article is taking a REAL ISSUE - the outsourcing of IT jobs - and attempting to tie it into the immigration issue. Why don't they attack the outsourcing of IT jobs? Why haven't they been critical of it for the past 12yrs? Maybe it is because the issue is American corporate greed and how large American companies undercut well paid white collar IT employees by sending their jobs to India, and other countries? THAT is the issue.

Yeah, some IT contractors come to the US from India (and elsewhere, rarely) and require sponsorship, etc. However, implying they are illegals is simply ridiculous and wrong. "hundreds of thousands" is so exaggerated that it is a silly comment.

Believe what you want. Since it doesnt actually imply or specify I choose to believe they Are talking about the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Obamas friends and relatives. "Syrians' (Muslims) because they are coming no matter what any Democrat, liberal or leftest (or politician)may tell you.

[Boomchild]

Believe what you want. Since it doesnt actually imply or specify I choose to believe they Are talking about the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Obamas friends and relatives. "Syrians' (Muslims) because they are coming no matter what any Democrat, liberal or leftest (or politician)may tell you.

Well a lot of people in the E.U. have not been happy with the influx Muslims from the Middle East either. The prisons there are chock full of them, mostly males. The most common reason for them being put into prison is rape. Who would have thought that would happen? Especially, since they come from a region of the world that puts women on the same level as a dog.

[Monker]

Believe what you want. Since it doesnt actually imply or specify I choose to believe they Are talking about the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Obamas friends and relatives. "Syrians' (Muslims) because they are coming no matter what any Democrat, liberal or leftest (or politician)may tell you.

Believe what I want? Dude, I've had a career in IT for over 20yrs. What you are saying above shows your total ignorance of IT and how large corporations use India contractors to cut the cost of paying US workers. That's not an 'opinion', or "what I choose to believe." It's a fact.

No corporation is going to hire a Syrian refugee for an IT position. These are positions that required college level training. The only jobs these people will be threatening to take are those held by unskilled illegals from Mexico.

I haven't even researched this article, and I don't really need to. Iit sounds to me like all it the government is trying to do is make it easier for companies to hire an immigrant full time from being a contractor. There are some corporations out there (Dupont, for one) whose IT staff is over %90 contractors in, or from, India. Most other companies use India to supplement their IT department because, according to them, they can't find enough skilled IT staff in the US...and the contractors are the first to be axed during a layoff.

But, those pesky Indians have found that most companies would rather contract with someone based in the US than telecommuting from India...So, they take their training in India, and eventually move to the US as an IT contractor sponsored by the company they are contracting with. This is who the article was talking about. Not some displaced Syrian refugee.

Treating this symptom is not going to help anything. If there is a serious effort to stop this, then make it more difficult to contract with off-shore resources, like India. THAT is where the problem starts.

And, maybe you should stop believing the ignorant statements from Trump and Beck, and the like. They are only spewing forth exaggerations and lies to get naïve people like you riled up against things that don't even exist.

[Monker]

And, here is the problem when morons push for more guns to cure gun violence:

http://whotv.com/2015/10/25/ankeny-poli ... e-injured/

So, two people start arguing, get overly agitated and pull out their guns and start shooting each other. This isn't gang violence in a poor run down community. This is in an upper-middle class community - probably a better area than most people in this forum live in.

Is it the fault of the 'guns'? No. It's the fault of the people for allowing guns and gun violence to become so common place that we don't even notice it or are surprised by it. In fact, IMO, most people expect it.

Why else would people allow guns in places like bars and the like? Giving people the ability to kill each other guns out weighs the right of an innocent bystander being shot and killed. Their right to pull out a gun during an argument and start shooting out weighs the rights of everybody surrounding them to be alive.

This is what an attorney friend of mine said about the above article:

I live in the proverbial sleepy bedroom community. Mostly upper/middle class. Good schools. The fastest growing community in the state. And this was less than a mile from my house. At the McDonald's that we go to anytime we spring for a Happy Meal for the girls. What would I have done if I were at the drive through with the girls Saturday night? Apart from the obvious fear of being harmed, how would I have explained it to them? How could I have kept them from being traumatized? Yes, this was a "dispute" not some madman. Yes these people likely knew each other. And yes the two were "only" wounded - not killed. But that's not the point. We are becoming SO DESENSITIZED TO GUN VIOLENCE that this was merely a blip on the news or in my 'hood. I'm at a loss and have no hope of making a change anymore. When we, as a country, could look at a slaughter of children in their classroom and do nothing, all hope was lost.

[Boomchild]

http://whotv.com/2015/10/25/ankeny-poli ... e-injured/

So, two people start arguing, get overly agitated and pull out their guns and start shooting each other. This isn't gang violence in a poor run down community. This is in an upper-middle class community - probably a better area than most people in this forum live in.

And just how often does this scenario occur compared to the one it's being compared to? Also this snippet makes it sound like they are trying to say that it's more serious then the gun violence committed by gangs in poor run down communities.

Why else would people allow guns in places like bars and the like? Giving people the ability to kill each other guns out weighs the right of an innocent bystander being shot and killed. Their right to pull out a gun during an argument and start shooting out weighs the rights of everybody surrounding them to be alive.

I don't know who this article is referring to that advocates "the right to pull out a gun during an argument and start shooting". That to me is pure propaganda. It seems to me the majority of gun ownership supporters want the right to own firearms for protection, collecting, sport and hobby. Not to solve arguments and other frivolous and irresponsible acts . Has anybody pulled a weapon other then a firearm in the same type of situation? The answer is yes and in those cases bystanders have also gotten injured or killed. Again, the majority of supporters want the right for safe gun ownership and are not adverse to a system that effectively keeps firearms out of the hands of those who haven't or may not use them in a safe and legal manner.

[Monker]

Ah, thank you for equating my writing in this post to that of a professional writer.

And just how often does this scenario occur compared to the one it's being compared to? Also this snippet makes it sound like they are trying to say that it's more serious then the gun violence committed by gangs in poor run down communities.

No...that is NOT what I was saying. The point is that gun vs. gun violence can happen anywhere, including at a McDonald's in the nicer parts of town, in your part of town. If a person believes they are above this situation then they are believing a lie they are telling themselves.

I don't know who this article is referring to that advocates "the right to pull out a gun during an argument and start shooting".

I am talking about anybody who believes the second amendment protects everybody's 'right' to own a gun and that it should not be restricted, that we are already doing enough and no other laws or action should be taken to restrict gun ownership. This attitude is putting the right of people to engage in a shootout above the right of society to safely pursue a life of happiness.

That to me is pure propaganda. It seems to me the majority of gun ownership supporters want the right to own firearms for protection, collecting, sport and hobby.

Good. Then they should have no problem with strict rules and laws to protect the public at a McDonald's, a school, a theater, etc. If these people are so bold that they need to put the public safety ahead of their right to carry then they are mentally ill themselves and should not be allowed to own a gun.

Not to solve arguments and other frivolous and irresponsible acts .

Bullshit. Every time a shooting happens the NRA idiots say "if only somebody else had a gun to take that person out." So, yes, they not only want to protect their supposed 2nd amendment "right" but they want to take their guns into schools, theaters, bars, airports, etc...with an irresponsible idea that they are helping protect society when the reality is they are making it worse.

Has anybody pulled a weapon other then a firearm in the same type of situation? The answer is yes

That is true. But, it's not apples to apples because those other weapons are not mentioned in the Constitution. To fix this, we should remove the second amendment...then this argument makes sense. Until then it's just more bullshit design to confuse the issue.

Again, the majority of supporters want the right for safe gun ownership and are not adverse to a system that effectively keeps firearms out of the hands of those who haven't or may not use them in a safe and legal manner.

Good, then they should be fine with renewing a yearly license that allows them to: own a gun and buy ammunition, and a separate license to carry it in public. Along with the license they should be required to pass a mental evaluation and there should be large penalties for carrying without a license, or committing ANY crime while carrying a gun without a license - whether it was used or not. And, there should be no more ammo or guns sold at gun shows.

If these people truly believe what you say, they wouldn't be against it. If they are, then they are full of shit. And, if enough people are full of shit, then the second amendment should just be removed.

[Boomchild]

No...that is NOT what I was saying. The point is that gun vs. gun violence can happen anywhere, including at a McDonald's in the nicer parts of town, in your part of town. If a person believes they are above this situation then they are believing a lie they are telling themselves.

Gee, your so intelligent for pointing out the bleeding obvious. Of course violence of any kind can happen anywhere at any time.

Good. Then they should have no problem with strict rules and laws to protect the public at a McDonald's, a school, a theater, etc. If these people are so bold that they need to put the public safety ahead of their right to carry then they are mentally ill themselves and should not be allowed to own a gun.

Sorry but in reality, even with increased restrictions gun violence will still continue to happen. Some people think such ideas are some kind of magical fix. Having said that, it doesn't mean that I think that we should not look at our current procedures for gun ownership and change them accordingly. The issue is that progressives really want a ban on citizens being able to own firearms. Which I do not agree with.

Bullshit. Every time a shooting happens the NRA idiots say So, yes, they not only want to protect their supposed 2nd amendment "right" but they want to take their guns into schools, theaters, bars, airports, etc...with an irresponsible idea that they are helping protect society when the reality is they are making it worse.

The NRA doesn't speak for everyone on this subject but the anti-gun supporters always seem to want to imply that they do. I know they don't speak for me and I doubt that I am alone. As far as the "if only somebody else had a gun to take that person out", I would question what legitimate studies have been done to prove or disprove such an opinion. What is irresponsible is that some seem to think that every person who has the legal right to carry a firearm in public is irresponsible. Show me the data that proves that.

Good, then they should be fine with renewing a yearly license that allows them to: own a gun and buy ammunition, and a separate license to carry it in public. Along with the license they should be required to pass a mental evaluation and there should be large penalties for carrying without a license, or committing ANY crime while carrying a gun without a license - whether it was used or not. And, there should be no more ammo or guns sold at gun shows.

If these people truly believe what you say, they wouldn't be against it. If they are, then they are full of shit. And, if enough people are full of shit, then the second amendment should just be removed.

It's clear what you really want is a total ban on gun ownership so the suggestions you make above are clearly just a smoke screen. You really don't want a compromise on the subject. Yes, I feel we do need to review and adjust aspects of how people are allowed to obtain a firearm. I do not take the 2 amendment to imply that people should be able to own firearms without any restrictions. I do believe that if it was removed from the Constitution what we would end up with is no citizen being able pass muster on whatever laws or conditions that would be put into effect.

[Monker]

Sorry but in reality, even with increased restrictions gun violence will still continue to happen.

So, what. That's an NRA argument designed to sideline the issue.

Drugs are illegal but people can fine a way to get them. Maybe we should get rid of all drug laws.
Rape and murder is illegal but people still do that. Guess we should make those legal, too.
Driving drunk is illegal but people still do that. Maybe that should allow that, too.

Every law ever created has people who have found a way around it to do it, or just they just ignore it.

I guess anarchy should reign.

Having said that, it doesn't mean that I think that we should not look at our current procedures for gun ownership and change them accordingly. The issue is that progressives really want a ban on citizens being able to own firearms. Which I do not agree with.

Bullshit. The issue is the political power of the NRA has made it IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable compromise. So, fuck it, remove the 2nd amendment and restrict the ownership and use of guns as much as possible.

The NRA doesn't speak for everyone on this subject

No, but you just used arguments made popular by the NRA. Next post you'll probably talk about pulling a gun from your cold dead "not NRA" fingers.

I know they don't speak for me and I doubt that I am alone.

No, you speak for them, using their arguments for them. Seems to me that you've heard so much of their talk that you can't help but quote them almost word for word. Do you still have the ability to come up with your own argument?

As far as the "if only somebody else had a gun to take that person out", I would question what legitimate studies have been done to prove or disprove such an opinion.

Oh, please, we already had that talk when we were talking about the Wild West towns like Tombstone, etc. To clarify that:

Back then the demographic between urban and rural living was the exact opposite as it is today. Most people lived OUTSIDE OF TOWN. They lived on farms, ranches, mines, etc. They came to town to get food, supplies, use the bank, or whatever shops...Or, they got paid and wanted to blow their money on gambling, alcohol, and/or sex, and general partying. Since we are talking about rural folks who almost always had a gun, that created HUGE problems with gun violence. It got so bad that you had to check your guns in when you came into town, and you could be shot on sight if you were caught with your gun.

That is what happens when everybody is allowed to have a gun for "protection". That is the type of laws that were designed to control it, and it did.

What is irresponsible is that some seem to think that every person who has the legal right to carry a firearm in public is irresponsible. Show me the data that proves that.

See above.

People get pissed off and they use their guns to vent their anger. That is simple, basic, psychology. The more guns a populace owns, the more potential their is for violence and death.

If these people truly believe what you say, they wouldn't be against it. If they are, then they are full of shit. And, if enough people are full of shit, then the second amendment should just be removed.

It's clear what you really want is a total ban on gun ownership so the suggestions you make above are clearly just a smoke screen.

Oh, I wouldn't be against that. I would rather have a total ban on guns then the free for all we have now. If we are unable to get those who favor the free for all to come to a reasonable compromise, then I don't think there is any real choice but for the army to go house to house, town to town, and confiscate all guns....and to make a federal law that any officer of the law is in his rights to shoot and kill anybody who carries a gun, openly or concealed.

You really don't want a compromise on the subject.

I would absolutely prefer a compromise. But, I believe the NRA will not allow it under any circumstances. If that is the case, then see above.

Yes, I feel we do need to review and adjust aspects of how people are allowed to obtain a firearm.

No, not just "obtain", but OWN one. If you are mentally ill - you should not own a gun. If you commit a crime - you should not own a gun. So, there should be a yearly renewed license to OWN a gun. If you are caught with a gun and no license - there should be very, very stiff penalties.

I do not take the 2 amendment to imply that people should be able to own firearms without any restrictions.

Which is why it needs to be rewritten or removed the Constitution. Too many people DO believe exactly that.

I do believe that if it was removed from the Constitution what we would end up with is no citizen being able pass muster on whatever laws or conditions that would be put into effect.

Bullshit. That is just made up crap by the NRA to generate paranoia and obstruct anything reasonable getting done.

It also contradicts what you said prior. If you believe there should be restrictions on how people obtain a gun, or if they should own a gun, then the 2nd amendment has no relevancy in this argument anyway - because it is no longer a guaranteed right.

[Boomchild]

So, what. That's an NRA argument designed to sideline the issue.

Drugs are illegal but people can fine a way to get them. Maybe we should get rid of all drug laws.
Rape and murder is illegal but people still do that. Guess we should make those legal, too.
Driving drunk is illegal but people still do that. Maybe that should allow that, too.

Every law ever created has people who have found a way around it to do it, or just they just ignore it.

I guess anarchy should reign.

This is bullshit. No one has made it legal to use a gun to commit a violent act. They haven't made it legal for someone to use a firearm to rob, settle a dispute, commit domestic violence, hold someone against their will etc.. Here you are trying to say that the law has made it legal for those specific acts. That simply is not true. This is just typical progressive spin.

Bullshit. The issue is the political power of the NRA has made it IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable compromise. So, fuck it, remove the 2nd amendment and restrict the ownership and use of guns as much as possible.

Sorry but that is not the answer. If the issue is political power, then you address that directly. No take away citizen's rights under the law. You take away the ability for all special interest groups to be able to wield such power. A good start would be removing the lobbyists.

No, but you just used arguments made popular by the NRA. Next post you'll probably talk about pulling a gun from your cold dead "not NRA" fingers.

A typical white wash response. Simply because someone agrees with some of the views expressed by another doesn't make them on the same page. For example, I agree that firearms as they are sold at gun shows now should not be permitted. I also question the practice of private gun sales in general. I am pretty sure the NRA does not share my views on that. Nor would they share my views on changes to the background checks for a firearm license.

Oh, please, we already had that talk when we were talking about the Wild West towns like Tombstone, etc. To clarify that:

Back then the demographic between urban and rural living was the exact opposite as it is today. Most people lived OUTSIDE OF TOWN. They lived on farms, ranches, mines, etc. They came to town to get food, supplies, use the bank, or whatever shops...Or, they got paid and wanted to blow their money on gambling, alcohol, and/or sex, and general partying. Since we are talking about rural folks who almost always had a gun, that created HUGE problems with gun violence. It got so bad that you had to check your guns in when you came into town, and you could be shot on sight if you were caught with your gun.

That is what happens when everybody is allowed to have a gun for "protection". That is the type of laws that were designed to control it, and it did.

Oh please, cite actual current studies (if there are any) to prove or disprove what has been said. I'm not saying that claim is true.

People get pissed off and they use their guns to vent their anger. That is simple, basic, psychology. The more guns a populace owns, the more potential their is for violence and death.

And when a gun is not available, those pissed off people will pick up something else to get the job done. The problem is the people not the equipment. That's simple and basic psychology.

Oh, I wouldn't be against that. I would rather have a total ban on guns then the free for all we have now. If we are unable to get those who favor the free for all to come to a reasonable compromise, then I don't think there is any real choice but for the army to go house to house, town to town, and confiscate all guns....and to make a federal law that any officer of the law is in his rights to shoot and kill anybody who carries a gun, openly or concealed.



I would absolutely prefer a compromise. But, I believe the NRA will not allow it under any circumstances. If that is the case, then see above.

And there we have it. Your true colors. You really don't want compromise. That is unless the compromise is give me all of what I want first then will talk about about what you want. You sound exactly like a progressive politician. Sprinkle in the right sound bites that you are willing to compromise but in truth your looking to get something completely different.

[Boomchild]

“American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq”__berry obama

The Pentagon conceded Wednesday that U.S. troops are in combat in Iraq after days of dancing around the characterization following the first death of U.S. service member in the campaign against ISIS.

"We're in combat," Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters Wednesday. "I mean, of course, this is a combat zone. There's a war going on in Iraq, if folks haven't noticed. And we're here and it's all around us."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/politics/ ... index.html

In my opinion this is a big mistake.

[Monker]

So, what. That's an NRA argument designed to sideline the issue.

Drugs are illegal but people can fine a way to get them. Maybe we should get rid of all drug laws.
Rape and murder is illegal but people still do that. Guess we should make those legal, too.
Driving drunk is illegal but people still do that. Maybe that should allow that, too.

Every law ever created has people who have found a way around it to do it, or just they just ignore it.

I guess anarchy should reign.

This is bullshit. No one has made it legal to use a gun to commit a violent act.

You're right....what you said is bullshit. You made the argument that just cuz it would be illegal doesn't mean people won't get guns anyway. THAT is the bullshit argument, again propagandized by NRA.

ANYTHING that is illegal some people can still do and get away with it. That doesn't mean it should be legal. Just because some guy with Asberger's can take his parents weapons and go and murder children in his former school doesn't mean we, as a society, should not make it tougher for mentally ill people to get weapons and ammo (ie: license and ammo), make the penalties tougher for those who allowed the mentally ill access to the weapon, and fine anybody who allows a mentally ill person to be trained in the use of a fire arm , and any gun range that allows a mentally ill person to fire a gun be forced to shut down.

Here you are trying to say that the law has made it legal for those specific acts. That simply is not true.

Correct, it is not true that I said that - at all. I am saying that your NRA excuse of not allowing gun control because people will get guns anyway is undebatably stupid.

Sorry but that is not the answer. If the issue is political power, then you address that directly.

Been there, tried that. After the children were murdered in their classrooms there was a huge push to get something reasonable done. And, NOTHING happened because of the unrelenting power of the NRA. Since the NRA and the congressmen they back are so unreasonable, then there really is no choice but to remove the 2nd amendment so "right" in the Constitution that they shield themselves with no longer exists...and push for extremely restrictive gun control.

No take away citizen's rights under the law. You take away the ability for all special interest groups to be able to wield such power. A good start would be removing the lobbyists.

Yeah, right, and how long has that debate been going on? How many kids have been shot in our grade schools and colleges since corporations became people?

Somebody should start the process to repeal the second amendment.

No, but you just used arguments made popular by the NRA. Next post you'll probably talk about pulling a gun from your cold dead "not NRA" fingers.

A typical white wash response.

No it's not. The point is that the NRA's arguments have penetrated our society so deeply that even people like you who supposedly don't agree with the NRA still use their arguments word for word. That is the power of the NRA...you have been influenced by it whether you believe it or not. The proof is in your own words.

People get pissed off and they use their guns to vent their anger. That is simple, basic, psychology. The more guns a populace owns, the more potential their is for violence and death.

And when a gun is not available, those pissed off people will pick up something else to get the job done. The problem is the people not the equipment. That's simple and basic psychology.[/quote]

That may be true...but a gun has the potential to kill or injure a lot more people then most any other item you can think of. Even the vigilante with a gun trying to take out the murderer has a not so small chance of injuring an innocent, or escalating the situation to an even more dangerous place.

I would absolutely prefer a compromise. But, I believe the NRA will not allow it under any circumstances. If that is the case, then see above.

And there we have it. Your true colors.

Yep. That is EXACTLY what I believe.

You really don't want compromise. That is unless the compromise is give me all of what I want first then will talk about about what you want. You sound exactly like a progressive politician. Sprinkle in the right sound bites that you are willing to compromise but in truth your looking to get something completely different.

WRONG. What I want is reasonable gun control. But, the extreme position of the NRA and the political power they have has made it impossible. Since their extreme position has made it impossible then the opposite extreme should be pushed for. Removal of the second amendment and extreme gun control. That is the ONLY option the NRA has left that this country can take.

[Monker]

And, guess what? New Orleans has laxed gun control laws.

You and your lackey's that you follow are full of shit, cherry pick facts to suit your needs, and are generally brainless copy/paste propaganda machines.

[Monker]

“American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq”__berry obama

The Pentagon conceded Wednesday that U.S. troops are in combat in Iraq after days of dancing around the characterization following the first death of U.S. service member in the campaign against ISIS.

"We're in combat," Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters Wednesday. "I mean, of course, this is a combat zone. There's a war going on in Iraq, if folks haven't noticed. And we're here and it's all around us."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/politics/ ... index.html

In my opinion this is a big mistake.

Of course it's a mistake. It was a mistake when W started the war in Iraq in the first place. Yeah, terrorists from Saudi Arabia, trained in Afghanistan...so we go to war in Iraq. Only W would make such a dumb-ass decision.

And, it's HUGE mistake to not get off our oil addiction so we can stay out of the region. I've been saying that since the FIRST Iraq war. By now, no new cars should be sold that use gasoline and we should all be driving Tesla's and the like. THAT should be this countries goal...for national security reasons.

Idiots.

[Boomchild]

You're right....what you said is bullshit. You made the argument that just cuz it would be illegal doesn't mean people won't get guns anyway. THAT is the bullshit argument, again propagandized by NRA.

ANYTHING that is illegal some people can still do and get away with it. That doesn't mean it should be legal. Just because some guy with Asberger's can take his parents weapons and go and murder children in his former school doesn't mean we, as a society, should not make it tougher for mentally ill people to get weapons and ammo (ie: license and ammo), make the penalties tougher for those who allowed the mentally ill access to the weapon, and fine anybody who allows a mentally ill person to be trained in the use of a fire arm , and any gun range that allows a mentally ill person to fire a gun be forced to shut down.

I have said we need to reform our laws and procedures for obtaining firearm licenses. Which would include a way to reduce the chances of things such as what you suggest above.

Correct, it is not true that I said that - at all. I am saying that your NRA excuse of not allowing gun control because people will get guns anyway is undebatably stupid.

Regardless of what controls you put in place it will not be a "cure all". Gun violence will still continue to occur. As I have said before I'm not in the pool of no gun control at all.

Been there, tried that. After the children were murdered in their classrooms there was a huge push to get something reasonable done. And, NOTHING happened because of the unrelenting power of the NRA. Since the NRA and the congressmen they back are so unreasonable, then there really is no choice but to remove the 2nd amendment so "right" in the Constitution that they shield themselves with no longer exists...and push for extremely restrictive gun control.

That's not the only choice. I have yet to see any type of real action to remove the influence and power of the special interest groups and lobbyists including the NRA. Which is big part of the problem. If people are waiting for our legislators to do something about it they are fools. Their all quite happy with the arrangement. That's not an excuse to amended that Constitution as you suggest. That doesn't address the true issue(s). Which is how are government is structured and people in our society.

Somebody should start the process to repeal the second amendment.

If you feel that strongly about it, then maybe YOU should do something about it instead of waiting for "someone" to do it. All I can say is good luck. I doubt you gain enough support for it even if the influence of special interest groups is dissolved.

No it's not. The point is that the NRA's arguments have penetrated our society so deeply that even people like you who supposedly don't agree with the NRA still use their arguments word for word. That is the power of the NRA...you have been influenced by it whether you believe it or not. The proof is in your own words.

Bullshit. Does the NRA want the laws to change concerning firearm sales at gun shows? No. I do. Does the NRA want our laws and procedures to change at all on gun licenses? No. I do. Does the NRA want private gun sales to stop. Nope. I do. Evidently, if someone isn't lock step with your views on this subject, they must be a card carrying member of the NRA.

That may be true...but a gun has the potential to kill or injure a lot more people then most any other item you can think of. Even the vigilante with a gun trying to take out the murderer has a not so small chance of injuring an innocent, or escalating the situation to an even more dangerous place.

Guess you must have missed the whole Boston Marathon bombing. Very simple crude bombs. Of course you would label someone with a firearm and not a member if law enforcement a "vigilante". The same scenario is possible with armed security guards and law enforcement responding to the situation.

WRONG. What I want is reasonable gun control. But, the extreme position of the NRA and the political power they have has made it impossible. Since their extreme position has made it impossible then the opposite extreme should be pushed for. Removal of the second amendment and extreme gun control. That is the ONLY option the NRA has left that this country can take.

I highly doubt it. Regardless of the NRA, what you really want from the get go is gun ownership banned in the U.S.. Your just using the comprise position as cover for your actual more radical solution. If you were a politician and were effective in reaching a compromise it wouldn't be long after it you would be pushing your real agenda. So just spare us all the sugar coating.

[Boomchild]

Of course it's a mistake. It was a mistake when W started the war in Iraq in the first place. Yeah, terrorists from Saudi Arabia, trained in Afghanistan...so we go to war in Iraq. Only W would make such a dumb-ass decision.

And, it's HUGE mistake to not get off our oil addiction so we can stay out of the region. I've been saying that since the FIRST Iraq war. By now, no new cars should be sold that use gasoline and we should all be driving Tesla's and the like. THAT should be this countries goal...for national security reasons.

Idiots.

Bottom line, numerous ways have been tried to hlep the backward populous in that region of the world. Which proves to me it can't be done. I say it's time to pull out completely and let them destroy each other. If they should continue to be aggressive toward U.S. after that, then the solution should be to hit them with WMDs.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Progressives gotta go, in both parties.

United States Senator Mike LeeLike Page
Yesterday at 11:10am
This is how it happens.

Last night while you were sleeping the Senate voted to steal $150 billion dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund. I joined 34 of my colleagues in a vote to prevent this raid. I would like to thank Senator Rand Paul for leading the fight to protect to Social Security from the thieves in Washington, who seem to think that if they steal from the American people at night while they are sleeping that they will get away with it. I was proud to vote with Senator Paul on his point of order that would have protected Social Security, and I ask you to help me shine a light on what Washington has tried to hide from you in the darkness of night.

If everyone who sees this message shares it, it will reach millions of Americans. As someone who has been fighting for years to reform our broken government in Washington, I know it is exhausting, I sympathize with your frustration, and I understand your impatience. But don't give up. Washington wants you to give up.

Just remember, a vote to raid social security in the middle of the night in a desperate attempt to perpetuate an unsustainable spending addiction isn't a sign of strength. It is a sign of weakness.

What a bullshitter. Without progressives, there would be no social security. Alert me when Sens. Lee and Paul fight to raise the SS payroll cap.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I'd just as soon get rid of it and let people set up their own accounts. SS, in trouble. Medicare, in trouble, Medicaid, in trouble. Entittlements are bringing us down. So much to do, so little money.

No thanks. And I give alot of credit to Donald Trump for sticking up for Medicare, while opponents like Dr. Carson try to tear it down and replace it with BS savings accounts. America's safety net is underfunded.

[Monker]

Sorry, but 2014 was the hottest year on record....and 2015 is going to top it...in fact, 13 of the last 15yrs are the hottest on record. You are denying reality if you can't admit global warming is real.

Also, the original NASA article is very sketchy. It disagrees with every other published paper and if it is true then something else has to account for the rise in ocean levels over these time frames. Other studies are going to have to be done to back this up.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616356/What-global-warming-Nasa-Antarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year


What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA

A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than has been lost to its thinning glaciers.

The US space agency research claims an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is "currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from melting glaciers.

Global warming theories have been thrown into doubt after Nasa also claimed current horror predictions into future sea-level rises may not be as severe.

Major studies previously made the case for global warming being a man-made problem, including the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which said that Antarctica was overall losing land ice.

But a Nasa spokesman said: "According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.

"That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

[Monker]

I did not say the NASA article was "wrong". I said it was very sketchy.

I'll say the article that was posted here has a misleading title that is absolutely wrong, "What Global Warming?". It is an undeniable FACT that Global Warming exists. That article was trying to use the NASA article as evidence for something that the NASA article takes in as fact - that global warming is real.

The original NASA article that the article here quoted ADMITS that it is in disagreement with every other study and current beliefs. It ADMITS that if Antartica is not contributing to the sea level rise, then something else is that they are missing.

So, all I am saying is if NASA is right, then other studies should be able to repeat their findings and verify them. If NASA is right, then another source for the rise in ocean level can and should be found. What NASA did NOT say is that global warming does not exist.

As for the other article....

Sure, politics gets weaved into all of this. I'm not denying that.

But...
Politics doesn't cause 13 of the past 15 years to be the hottest ever on record.
Politics doesn't cause the ocean level to rise.
Politics doesn't cause glaciers to disappear around the world.
Politics doesn't cause birds and wildlife to start migrating later in the year, and to migrate further north to areas that were previously uninhabitable.
Politics doesn't cause plant species to grow further north.
Politics doesn't cause the arctic shipping lanes to become open.
Politics doesn't cause previously frozen and glacial areas to be renamed to lakes because they have permanently melted.
Politics does not cause "permafrost" to permanently melt and continue its decay.
Politics doesn't cause acidic oceans, which in turn causes shellfish to die....and force shellfish 'farmers' to treat ocean water to remove the acid.
Politics doesn't cause the carbon isotope that is created by burning fossil fuels to be such a huge percentage of the carbon that is in our atmosphere.
Politics doesn't cause a release of carbon so great that the only other comparable time in Earth's history was a time called "The Great Dying" where 95% of the species on Earth became extinct...an extinction event that rivals that which killed off the dinosaurs.

This is not politics. This is not some made up debating game. These are not predictions made by some computer model - they EXIST - RIGHT NOW. These are simple FACTS.

[Monker]

Clinton and Obama nailed lying about Benghazi. That pesky truth. They just can't keep it quiet.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11 ... testimony/

Oh, like, wow. This is so shocking, and stuff. Perhaps they should investigate it again and subpoena Hillary to testify before congress on live prime-time TV. That will REALLY put her in her place and make the Republicans look good. They should keep doing that over, and over, and over again until election day - because the Republicans have nothing better to do. They can barely elect a Speaker or even agree how to debate each other...so at least this is "something".

[Boomchild]

Well this may shed some light on one of the many reasons things are the way they are in this country.

Hillary Supporters Endorse SHARIA LAW in AMERICA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKosd0xJadE

[Monker]

Well this may shed some light on one of the many reasons things are the way they are in this country.

Hillary Supporters Endorse SHARIA LAW in AMERICA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKosd0xJadE

Yeah, what is wrong is that people like you believe this shit.

There was a thing on the Daily Show in response to one of that showed how stupid college kids were by showing them pictures of various presidents/vice presidents/etc. When the Daily Show did it, they could hardly find anyone on a college campus who did NOT know the answers.

Essentially, people like Mark DIce just cut and use the bits that make a political point...and naive people like you buy into it.