Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

• Belly35

  

  Ty Webb;1421153 wrote:Trickle up poverty?? Are you stupid??
  
  Companies are posting record profits and you're talking about trickle up poverty? I can't take you serious anymore after that statement

  When did making a profit become a bad thing to do? Remember those that make profit buys groceries with their own money. . Kinda like spreading the wealth only with those that work.
• gut

  If you're a taker relying on government handouts then profits are bad because it's like an unearned govt entitlement.
  
  Remember, tax cuts are a form of govt spending...so it follows that profits represent a huge portion of gubmit spending. And takers will be damned if they're going to tolerate someone else taking THEIR handouts.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  More good news:
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/rhode-islands-tallest-building-soon-dark-155746242.html
  
  Then again, our economy isn't nearly as bad as we think - what the heck?
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1421298 wrote:Then again, our economy isn't nearly as bad as we think - what the heck?

  Just keep listening to the leftist media and eventually you too will believe.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  From my newsfeed - this student loan problem is going to be a problem for everyone going forward. Link:
  
  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-housing-stalled-1-trillion-160443449.html
• TedSheckler

  

  Obama giving free plane rides on Air Force One to the Sandy Hook victims' families so he can exploit their deaths even more in Washington in front of Congress.
• QuakerOats

  TedSheckler;1421495 wrote:Obama giving free plane rides on Air Force One to the Sandy Hook victims' families so he can exploit their deaths even more in Washington in front of Congress.

  Simply despicable.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.infowars.com/your-kids-belong-to-the-collective/
  
  
  And some on here said that calling these radicals 'socialists', 'marxists', and 'communists' was out of bounds ....
  
  
  When you let these radicals infiltrate government, media, academia, and law the destruction of your freedom and the existence of the USA hangs in the balance.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ...
• Belly35

  

  First came I didn't build it now my kids are a collective identity ... My life, my prosperity, my business, my home, my saving, my guns, my kids, my will to live are all mine why because I've worked at what I wanted and its the American dream not a Socialist ideaology.
• gut

  That is really a shocking statement, on par with "legitimate rape".
  
  We are all wards of the state. But one reason children - especially other people's children - are so important is because in the grand socialist state we NEED those children to take care of us in retirement. The trick, of course, is to continue to convince the children this great ponzi scheme is worth joining.
• Devils Advocate

  

  QuakerOats;1421526 wrote:http://www.infowars.com/your-kids-belong-to-the-collective/
  
  
  And some on here said that calling these radicals 'socialists', 'marxists', and 'communists' was out of bounds ....
  
  
  When you let these radicals infiltrate government, media, academia, and law the destruction of your freedom and the existence of the USA hangs in the balance.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ...

  Harris-Perry is an extremeIST just like you.
  
  I have never been that extreme, left or right. But you still were compelled to call me a communIST.
  
  So tell me quacker, do you you know what kind of IST Obama is? Do you know the difference? Can you form an opinion free of influence from all of your boiler plate rightIST reading?
  
  And sice we are labeling, what king of IST are you?
• Belly35

  

  Devils Advocate;1421589 wrote:Harris-Perry is an extremeIST just like you.
  
  I have never been that extreme, left or right. But you still were compelled to call me a communIST.
  
  So tell me quacker, do you you know what kind of IST Obama is? Do you know the difference? Can you form an opinion free of influence from all of your boiler plate rightIST reading?
  
  And sice we are labeling, what king of IST are you?

  
  Obama a racist. Hope this helps
• gut

  I only about made it thru the "A's":
  abstractionist
  alarmist
  anticapitalist
  apologist
• believer

  

  antagonist
  abortionist
  absurdist
  anti-federalist
  anti-constitutionalist
  corruptionist
  cronyist
• QuakerOats

  Devils Advocate;1421589 wrote:
  And sice we are labeling, what king of IST are you?

  
  I am a regular American who understands and defends the freedoms outlined by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and one who understands the basis and benefits of our free market economy. A regular American who defends liberty and advocates for fiscal sanity. Some describe that as being a conservative; that is fine, but generally speaking a moderate would/should be so described, except the political spectrum has been dragged so far to the left everything has been skewed.
  
  As for labeling, you might call it that, but it is merely the use of accurate descriptors to properly identify an individual. This is where radical liberals go bat crazy, because they want others to think they are something they are not. Many are socialists, marxists, communists, yet they want others to think they are moderates or liberal democrats; it helps with moving their agenda, as they try not to appear quite so radical while they inculcate the sheeple. I have no problem calling a spade a spade; you cannot have a proper debate without accurate terminology and definitions first.
• fish82

  

  narcissist
• tk421

  

  14 people stabbed at a college in Texas, I bet they sure wish someone had a gun around on campus. When will Obama and this administration decide that we aren't responsible enough to own a knife? Background checks and registration when you want to go to Bed, Bath and Beyond to buy kitchen knives?
• gut

  I was thinking about that...If I'm not in the immediate vicinity, I'd prefer to be alerted by gunfire and go away from it.
• BoatShoes

  tk421;1422353 wrote:14 people stabbed at a college in Texas, I bet they sure wish someone had a gun around on campus. When will Obama and this administration decide that we aren't responsible enough to own a knife? Background checks and registration when you want to go to Bed, Bath and Beyond to buy kitchen knives?

  1. http://www.lonestar.edu/campus-police.htm
  
  ^Those guys have guns...
  
  2. No one has died from the Stab Wounds (So Far). By comparison the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people (and there were also campus police with guns).
  
  32 fatal gun shot wounds that armed police could not stop is worse than 12 non-fatal stab wounds that police could not stop.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;1422403 wrote:No one has died from the Stab Wounds (So Far).

  Lets hope it stays that way. After all Obama said if there is even one live that can be saved, we've got an obligation to try.
  
  On a side note I wonder if Obama is going to be giving any rides on Air Force one to the families of children killed by US drones?
• TedSheckler

  

  He hasn't given any free plane rides to the families of the people that were killed in Benghazi. Must not be able to exploit them.
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;1422403 wrote:1. http://www.lonestar.edu/campus-police.htm
  
  ^Those guys have guns...

  Interestingly, it appears that having a few well-identified personnel being the only ones armed doesn't really seem to solve the problem. On a larger scale, this might be compared to suggesting that police are the only non-military personnel who should be armed. Naturally, I'm not saying that you're suggesting that here. More an observation in light of the conversation as a whole. It would appear that the problem's solution is not having an armed "protective service" and an unarmed rest of the public.
  

  BoatShoes;1422403 wrote:2. No one has died from the Stab Wounds (So Far). By comparison the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people (and there were also campus police with guns).

  There is a bit of chance thrown into this, of course, as there are plenty of examples of stabbings that do kill people around the country. The fact that he happened to not kill anyone with what sounds to have been a relatively small blade really doesn't paint an accurate description of the conversation on knives as a whole or their comparison to guns.
  

  BoatShoes;1422403 wrote:32 fatal gun shot wounds that armed police could not stop is worse than 12 non-fatal stab wounds that police could not stop.

  In result, yes. However, the fact that both are equally possible with armed police in the local area is concerning, is it not?
  
  Make no mistake: Guns are more efficient than knives if the intent is to kill. I suppose this is why I'd prefer that a few of the people near this guy had one when he decided to attempt to kill 12 people. If a criminal is going to bring a knife, I'd prefer a law-abider have a gun. If a criminal is going to bring a gun, I'd still prefer a law-abider have a gun.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1422473 wrote:Interestingly, it appears that having a few well-identified personnel being the only ones armed doesn't really seem to solve the problem. On a larger scale, this might be compared to suggesting that police are the only non-military personnel who should be armed. Naturally, I'm not saying that you're suggesting that here. More an observation in light of the conversation as a whole. It would appear that the problem's solution is not having an armed "protective service" and an unarmed rest of the public.
  
  
  
  There is a bit of chance thrown into this, of course, as there are plenty of examples of stabbings that do kill people around the country. The fact that he happened to not kill anyone with what sounds to have been a relatively small blade really doesn't paint an accurate description of the conversation on knives as a whole or their comparison to guns.
  
  
  
  In result, yes. However, the fact that both are equally possible with armed police in the local area is concerning, is it not?
  
  Make no mistake: Guns are more efficient than knives if the intent is to kill. I suppose this is why I'd prefer that a few of the people near this guy had one when he decided to attempt to kill 12 people. If a criminal is going to bring a knife, I'd prefer a law-abider have a gun. If a criminal is going to bring a gun, I'd still prefer a law-abider have a gun.

  Why's that? Just statistically it doesn't help so unless you're willing to make the argument that more people should have guns so as to increase the likelihood of there being "good guys" with guns around in these events I think it's sort of a moot point.
  
  That said I'm not for taking away guns or anything of the sort. Though I have absolutely zero problem with increased regulation as far as who can buy (stringent background checks, perhaps some sort of license renewal process, mental health requirements, etc). I'm not exactly sure how or what specific policies or where the cut offs should be but that's a conversation that I think is worth having.
  
  As far as stuff like magazine restrictions I'm less concerned about those as I don't think it would make much of a difference.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1422499 wrote:Why's that? Just statistically it doesn't help so unless you're willing to make the argument that more people should have guns so as to increase the likelihood of there being "good guys" with guns around in these events I think it's sort of a moot point.
  
  That said I'm not for taking away guns or anything of the sort. Though I have absolutely zero problem with increased regulation as far as who can buy (stringent background checks, perhaps some sort of license renewal process, mental health requirements, etc). I'm not exactly sure how or what specific policies or where the cut offs should be but that's a conversation that I think is worth having.
  
  As far as stuff like magazine restrictions I'm less concerned about those as I don't think it would make much of a difference.

  
  I'm open to dialogue as to why, statistically, it doesn't help. What statistics are you using?
  
  Honestly, I am sympathetic toward the notion that we do indeed need to do something to protect the innocents in examples like these. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that our government has an obligation to do so (yes, I do think the government should have responsibility to do things ). I'd consider this to be a "common defense" issue, so I'd say it's something we need to consider.
  
  However, I would also submit that it has to be effective in directly fixing the problem, and not connected to a solution through some indirect corollary, particularly if the action would further restrict the rights of citizens compared to where they are now.
  
  The whole "assault rifle" or "ammo" or magazine issue is just silly nonsense. That's not been the problem. Thus, addressing it is not the solution.
• bases_loaded

  

  Blue Angels cancelled for the season. That'll show all those white people who like to spend money what's up. Gotta save that money for more aspen ski trips.