[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]2busy wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
How the fuck does a convicted sex offender illegal alien (who ended up with probation only and not even deported) get access to a US Senator ?[/quote]
Constituency outreach?
[/quote]
They put off arresting him from just before the election to a month after…
Why?[/quote]
Lol I think the “why” is quite apparent.[/quote]
It is. The corruption there is incredible.
Sort of on topic:
Here is the ad in question (auto play video)
Now here is Carney’s responce:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/wh-nra-ad-repugnant-cowardly-154358.html
I find it funny that Bam’s kids are off limits politicaly while Bam can stand on the graves (hat tip Shapiro) of the Sandy Hook kids, and have other kids stand next to him while he rules as a king today…
Almost past the point of anger and into full on laughing at the people that supported this loser.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sort of on topic:
Here is the ad in question (auto play video)
Now here is Carney’s responce:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/wh-nra-ad-repugnant-cowardly-154358.html
I find it funny that Bam’s kids are off limits politicaly while Bam can stand on the graves (hat tip Shapiro) of the Sandy Hook kids, and have other kids stand next to him while he rules as a king today…
Almost past the point of anger and into full on laughing at the people that supported this loser. [/quote]
I know.
Obama Uses kids to appeal to emotion
NRA Uses his kids to appeal to logic
Obama “HOW DARE YOU!??!?!?!”
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sort of on topic:
Here is the ad in question (auto play video)
Now here is Carney’s responce:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/wh-nra-ad-repugnant-cowardly-154358.html
I find it funny that Bam’s kids are off limits politicaly while Bam can stand on the graves (hat tip Shapiro) of the Sandy Hook kids, and have other kids stand next to him while he rules as a king today…
Almost past the point of anger and into full on laughing at the people that supported this loser. [/quote]
I know.
Obama Uses kids to appeal to emotion
NRA Uses his kids to appeal to logic
Obama “HOW DARE YOU!??!?!?!”[/quote]
Lol, pretty much. Thank you for the good wrap up of my thoughts. You communicated it perfectly.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sort of on topic:
Here is the ad in question (auto play video)
Now here is Carney’s responce:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/wh-nra-ad-repugnant-cowardly-154358.html
I find it funny that Bam’s kids are off limits politicaly while Bam can stand on the graves (hat tip Shapiro) of the Sandy Hook kids, and have other kids stand next to him while he rules as a king today…
Almost past the point of anger and into full on laughing at the people that supported this loser. [/quote]
I’m in the process of writing an article in defense of the NRA’s ad right now.
Generally, the privacy of the President’s kids is supposed to be respected. But if the issue is gun control for kids in schools, and the President has kids in school and is using guns to protect them, then it’s entirely fair game. Not to mention the fact that kids were trotted out into the President’s corner of the ring earlier today.
This short Op-ed piece has some persuasive statistics regarding crime, gun ownership, and the unintended consequences of D.C.'s attempt to ban guns from 1976 to 2008 when the laws were repealed.
WSJ from this morning - A Gun Ban that Misfired.
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: A Gun Ban That Misfired - WSJ ban misfired
This is all fog, alot of background checks are useless. I had 2 done where my felony didn’t even show up at all.
Not to mention, they do not prosecute any of those who lie on an application.
Obama did nothing more than score political points.
I would argue, there are more of those points against him than for him.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sort of on topic:
Here is the ad in question (auto play video)
Now here is Carney’s responce:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/wh-nra-ad-repugnant-cowardly-154358.html
I find it funny that Bam’s kids are off limits politicaly while Bam can stand on the graves (hat tip Shapiro) of the Sandy Hook kids, and have other kids stand next to him while he rules as a king today…
Almost past the point of anger and into full on laughing at the people that supported this loser. [/quote]
I’m in the process of writing an article in defense of the NRA’s ad right now.
Generally, the privacy of the President’s kids is supposed to be respected. But if the issue is gun control for kids in schools, and the President has kids in school and is using guns to protect them, then it’s entirely fair game. Not to mention the fact that kids were trotted out into the President’s corner of the ring earlier today.[/quote]
Pretty much. I can’t imagine anyone with an open mind and realistic level of education could see this any differently. However, based on the comments on the politico peice, OFA is out in full force covering for their lord and savior.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Would any of these measures have stopped Adam Lanza?
[/quote]
That’s not the point and you know it. Sandyhook provided the opportunity for a major power grab. The election is barely over and we haven’t even started the second term. But as soon as Obama had “more flexibility” along with an opportunity to massively change the balance of power between the people and the state, he took it.
This next four years is going to see America turned into Britain. [/quote]
I know it.
I was wondering if it was as obvious to everyone else as it was to me.
Would you believe it just today I was talking to my neighbor and friend from London and asked her about the political climate and she said to me:
“You got out of the UK just in time.”
Can you believe my luck?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anyway, no hard feelings.
[/quote]
Same here.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sort of on topic:
Here is the ad in question (auto play video)
Now here is Carney’s responce:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/wh-nra-ad-repugnant-cowardly-154358.html
I find it funny that Bam’s kids are off limits politicaly while Bam can stand on the graves (hat tip Shapiro) of the Sandy Hook kids, and have other kids stand next to him while he rules as a king today…
Almost past the point of anger and into full on laughing at the people that supported this loser. [/quote]
I’m in the process of writing an article in defense of the NRA’s ad right now.
Generally, the privacy of the President’s kids is supposed to be respected. But if the issue is gun control for kids in schools, and the President has kids in school and is using guns to protect them, then it’s entirely fair game. Not to mention the fact that kids were trotted out into the President’s corner of the ring earlier today.[/quote]
Pretty much. I can’t imagine anyone with an open mind and realistic level of education could see this any differently. However, based on the comments on the politico peice, OFA is out in full force covering for their lord and savior. [/quote]
What if Tim Tebow came out on stage (with other children who could have been aborted) and supported the Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion position on Roe vs Wade ?
Do you think the Left would be outraged ?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sort of on topic:
Here is the ad in question (auto play video)
Now here is Carney’s responce:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/wh-nra-ad-repugnant-cowardly-154358.html
I find it funny that Bam’s kids are off limits politicaly while Bam can stand on the graves (hat tip Shapiro) of the Sandy Hook kids, and have other kids stand next to him while he rules as a king today…
Almost past the point of anger and into full on laughing at the people that supported this loser. [/quote]
I’m in the process of writing an article in defense of the NRA’s ad right now.
Generally, the privacy of the President’s kids is supposed to be respected. But if the issue is gun control for kids in schools, and the President has kids in school and is using guns to protect them, then it’s entirely fair game. Not to mention the fact that kids were trotted out into the President’s corner of the ring earlier today.[/quote]
Pretty much. I can’t imagine anyone with an open mind and realistic level of education could see this any differently. However, based on the comments on the politico peice, OFA is out in full force covering for their lord and savior. [/quote]
What if Tim Tebow came out on stage (with other children who could have been aborted) and supported the Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion position on Roe vs Wade ?
Do you think the Left would be outraged ?[/quote]
Do you think the Right would be outraged in that instance? General rule of thumb is both parties do essentially the exact same things in the exact same positions (obstructionist minority, overbearing majority, etc) and then are outraged when the other side does it.
With that being said, I am a lefty in these parts and see the whole trotting children out on stage thing to be disgusting.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sort of on topic:
Here is the ad in question (auto play video)
Now here is Carney’s responce:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/wh-nra-ad-repugnant-cowardly-154358.html
I find it funny that Bam’s kids are off limits politicaly while Bam can stand on the graves (hat tip Shapiro) of the Sandy Hook kids, and have other kids stand next to him while he rules as a king today…
Almost past the point of anger and into full on laughing at the people that supported this loser. [/quote]
I’m in the process of writing an article in defense of the NRA’s ad right now.
Generally, the privacy of the President’s kids is supposed to be respected. But if the issue is gun control for kids in schools, and the President has kids in school and is using guns to protect them, then it’s entirely fair game. Not to mention the fact that kids were trotted out into the President’s corner of the ring earlier today.[/quote]
Pretty much. I can’t imagine anyone with an open mind and realistic level of education could see this any differently. However, based on the comments on the politico peice, OFA is out in full force covering for their lord and savior. [/quote]
What if Tim Tebow came out on stage (with other children who could have been aborted) and supported the Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion position on Roe vs Wade ?
Do you think the Left would be outraged ?[/quote]
Do you think the Right would be outraged in that instance? General rule of thumb is both parties do essentially the exact same things in the exact same positions (obstructionist minority, overbearing majority, etc) and then are outraged when the other side does it.
With that being said, I am a lefty in these parts and see the whole trotting children out on stage thing to be disgusting.
[/quote]
To be fair, at least bringing kids who were almost aborted out in support of a pro-life stance would be more relevant than using kids in a gun control debate, where childrens’ safety is only a small piece of the pie. However, it would still be an appeal to raw emotion, and I’d say it’s probably still not appropriate.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
General rule of thumb is both parties do essentially the exact same things in the exact same positions (obstructionist minority, overbearing majority, etc) and then are outraged when the other side does it.[/quote]
Agree
[quote]With that being said, I am a lefty in these parts and see the whole trotting children out on stage thing to be disgusting.
[/quote]
This is what I’m getting at. How does this seem like a good idea to people?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Proposals are not laws.
It is VERY doubtful that any of these proposals will pass both Houses of Congress.
Flame away.
Mufasa[/quote]
Why are they calling it “executive” orders then? An executive proposal has no meaning and is barely newsworthy.[/quote]
It makes him appear “stronger on violence” to the sheep. It’s all about appearances in politics. The substance is often irrelevant if the flash is there. Likewise the substance is often belied by the complete LACK of flash when nasty rider bills and other things are snuck through…
As CS stated:
…General rule of thumb is both parties do essentially the exact same things in the exact same positions…
Mufasa
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Would any of these measures have stopped Adam Lanza?
[/quote]
Possibly, or at least reduce the deaths
Adam may have failed the background check before he stole the guns from his mom. He may have failed to quickly reload a 2nd 10 round magazine and only killed 10 instead of 20 kids. With no armor piercing bullets he would have failed to kill any children wearing their bullet proof vests. The school counselor may have talked him out of the whole thing.[/quote]
Beautiful application of sarcasm sir. I lol’ed.
I agree, but the emotional play by Obama is sick.
What Obama offered is watered down bullshit.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I agree, but the emotional play by Obama is sick.
What Obama offered is watered down bullshit. [/quote]
Shapiro kills it here.
I want to read his book, but I have to finish the history book I’m on now, and have another in line in front of it.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I am not against gun ownership but when people start bringing up a “strict” reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as though the framers were infallible fortune tellers they are in effect saying that slavery should still exist and women should not vote, among other things. If they were wrong about those things then it means they could have been wrong about others.
[/quote]
Right… the founders were about as close to infallible fortune tellers as you will ever see outside of a Las Vegas magic show. No nation is perfect because man is not perfect, but we came as close as it f__kin got. I’m so sick of some of you pussy whiners that are so enthralled with your ability to “write so eloquently” but couldn’t think your way out of a paper bag.
Where does the Constitution of the United States say slavery should exist or still exist? And contrary to most liberal haters not everyone owned slaves. That’s such a misnomer. Over and over again the “liberal white guilt” reveals itself with the idea that all American blacks come from slavery and the majority of American whites owned slaves.
Slavery wasn’t an American invention it was a global problem at that time.It wasn’t just the “evil Founding Fathers” using slaves, unfortunately that was part of the culture at the time. Free blacks in the south owned slaves, some of whom fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War.
As with abortion, not everyone supported slavery at the time. They did what they could to abolish it, and eventually did. A century from now, who’s to say future generations won’t look back on us and think we’re evil for allowing abortion?
While we’re on that subject let me remind so many liberals who the F do you think traded their black brothers into bondage as they still do today? That part of the slave trade always gets left out of the liberal media’s portrayal of early America. Public education history teaches as if slaves magically appeared in the cotton field.
Besides African slavery there were indentured servants mostly white that came to America and had to work off what they owed for the privilege. They often lived under horrible conditions and died before gaining their freedom. The Constitution didn’t say it should exist or still exist.
Funny liberal pukes push abortion under the guise of “right to privacy.” Tell Barack Hussein my guns are none of his business. Besides a right to defend my family and my property I have a right to privacy.
So don’t get so loose with your description of the Constitution’s framers. The founding fathers got more right than any other nation in history and the unending line of immigrants coming to America proves that over and over.
Countingbeans said something memorable in another post. He expressed his dislike of the fact that his child is required to take a seven week bullying class in health, but only two weeks on the Constitution. Fuck liberals.
