Trump v. Clinton v. Moving to Canada/Grand Cayman

[GoMuskies]

Who/what you got?

[waggy]

Grand Cayman has excellent diving, but Canada wins the strip club competition.

[Snipe]

I am a one issue voter. I would like the rule of law when it comes to immigration. We need to be a nation of laws and not men.

Enforce the law and build the Wall!

[muskiefan82]

I applied for jobs in Belgium and Germany. Time to get away for a while I think.

[xudash]

I applied for jobs in Belgium and Germany. Time to get away for a while I think.

What tax rates are you facing in both locations?

[Snipe]

I applied for jobs in Belgium and Germany. Time to get away for a while I think.

As long as you aren't female you shouldn't get raped by migrants. So you got that going for you.

I too would like to see Europe before the fall

[Snipe]

And it isn't so easy to move to Canada. It is a foreign country that both has and enforces it immigration laws. They have a points system you can take online to see if you qualify. They want makers and not takers tax payers vs players. Perhaps that is one reason it is a nice place.

We don't do that. Which is why more people are on welfare in California than any other state. Wonder why that is? And the whole country is going to look more like California. I want to go to Canada to. I could do with higher taxes and state healthcare. What I can't do with is the continued third world invasion.

Enforcement of laws already on the books is what makes me such a radical.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Can you post up where you got that information regarding California?

[/QUOTE=Snipe;543848]Which is why more people are on welfare in California than every other state combined. Wonder why that is? And the whole country is going to look more like California.[/QUOTE]

[nuts4xu]

Can you post up where you got that information regarding California?


Which is why more people are on welfare in California than every other state combined. Wonder why that is? And the whole country is going to look more like California.

I am not sure where Snipe got his information, but with Snipe, it is usually true. I did a quick google search and found California has more "takers than makers" and is one of 11 states that has more welfare recipients than workers. However, I don't see where California has more on welfare than any state combined. It is plausible, as California has more people living there than most states, and a direct pipeline of immigrants streaming in from Tijuana.

[Cheesehead]

I am leaning towards a write-in. I don't want to vote for either if that's our choice.

[paulxu]

Not to disturb the narrative here, but the net migration since 2009 has been outbound to Mexico.

Building a wall might actually keep them in.

[muskiefan82]

What tax rates are you facing in both locations?

None. Jobs are with DOD.

[chico]

I am leaning towards a write-in. I don't want to vote for either if that's our choice.

Monty Brewster, 2016!

[Smails]

Not to disturb the narrative here, but the net migration since 2009 has been outbound to Mexico.

Building a wall might actually keep them in.

Wow that's surprising. Is that legal/documented immigrants, or all?

[paulxu]

Wow that's surprising. Is that legal/documented immigrants, or all?

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

[Mrs. Garrett]

I really can't see myself voting for either of them. If Clinton wins I could probably still live here. If Trump wins both my wife and I have overseas options with our current employers. Even before all of this political crap was going down, my wife's company had brought up some overseas options. So it really isn't out of the realm of possibility that we will be heading out of the US anyway. A Trump presidency just means my wife will likely put it on the table and she's important enough to her company that they will make it happen.

[GoMuskies]

No matter who the President is, I think an international assignment makes sense. Always good to broaden one's perspective.

[ChicagoX]

It's amazing to me that GOP voters would essentially ensure a Hillary presidency and Democratic Senate by making Trump the nominee. I know Rubio isn't the most appealing candidate, but at least he would have a shot in a general election compared to Trump and actually be able debate policy with her. Hillary will finish somewhere in the range of 332-365 electoral votes if Trump is the nominee and win an electoral landslide. Even with an electable nominee, it would have been hard enough for the GOP to keep the Senate with 24 seats up for reelection compared to 10 for the Democrats.

The GOP establishment did this to themselves. People are tired of the entire party being bought and paid for by the highest bidder. The same thing nearly happened to the Democrats with Bernie Sanders' popularity. People want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and not a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

I don't like Trump (nor do I really like Hillary all that much), but you've got to applaud the American voters for at least recognizing that this populist movement is necessary to make a point to the establishment that both parties are tired of having their reps cater to the special interests that fund their campaigns instead of their constituents. It's just sad that the right had to turn to a racist, sexist xenophobe to give the middle finger to an establishment that has been nothing more than pawns for their campaign donors. The days of Reagan and moderation in the GOP are over. His platform wouldn't stand a chance in today's electorate.

[GoMuskies]

you've got to applaud the American voters


The general election is going to be Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.

So no, I do not have to, and will not, applaud the American voters.

Also, I wouldn't be so confident of Clinton beating Trump. Clinton has proven time and time again to be a horrific campaigner. Trump could certainly give her plenty of trouble in the general.

[ChicagoX]

The general election is going to be Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.

So no, I do not have to, and will not, applaud the American voters.

Also, I wouldn't be so confident of Clinton beating Trump. Clinton has proven time and time again to be a horrific campaigner. Trump could certainly give her plenty of trouble in the general.

I agree that both candidates suck, but voters are sick and tired of their politicians being bought off by special interests, and this type of populist movement is necessary if the government is ever going to have meaningful campaign finance reform. You have to start somewhere, and this is what you get when voters can't stand the status quo...a shitty (yet primarily self-funding) candidate who routinely makes racist, sexist and xenophobic comments...and then proceeds to wipe the floor with the rest of the party's candidates.

When your presidential candidates are talking about penis and hand sizes, hair, make-up, spray tans and sweating, you've officially hit rock bottom. Sometimes that's necessary when the party needs to be completely rebuilt.

[X-band '01]

I agree that both candidates suck, but voters are sick and tired of their politicians being bought off by special interests, and this type of populist movement is necessary if the government is ever going to have meaningful campaign finance reform.

The Citizens United case is all but certain to be revisited once a successor is appointed to the Supreme Court. Of course, that's going to take some time given the bickering between Obama and the Senate.

[ChicagoX]

The Citizens United case is all but certain to be revisited once a successor is appointed to the Supreme Court. Of course, that's going to take some time given the bickering between Obama and the Senate.

It wouldn't have to get to that point if the GOP hadn't routinely blocked every proposal for campaign finance reform. Obama and the Democrats have wanted to do away with Citizens United ever since that SCOTUS decision, but the GOP loves their sugar daddies too much to allow that to happen.

[GoMuskies]

Obama and the Democrats have wanted to do away with Citizens United every since that SCOTUS decision


How? Were they thinking of amending the Constitution?

[ChicagoX]

How? Were they thinking of amending the Constitution?

2014: Senate Republicans unanimously rejected a constitutional amendment sought by Democrats that would allow Congress to regulate campaign finance reform. (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/senate-block-campaign-finance-amendment-110864)

2012: Senate Republicans block DISCLOSE Act (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/17/politics/senate-disclose-act/)

2010: Senate Republicans Block Campaign Finance Bill (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128804239)

[GoMuskies]

A constitutional amendment was never gonna happen, and that's the only way anyone other than the Supreme Court can overturn CU.

[Smails]

When your presidential candidates are talking about penis and hand sizes, hair, make-up, spray tans and sweating, you've officially hit rock bottom. Sometimes that's necessary when the party needs to be completely rebuilt.

Meh..sounds like a little melodrama to me. Was the Democratic party at rock bottom in 2008 when BHO and Hillary were trading these hard hitting political statements?

She, how she values the second amendment, she's talking like she is Annie Oakley packin' a six-shooter."

"Senator Obama spent six days posing for cliched camera shots that included bowling gutterballs, walking around a sports bar, feeding a baby cow and buying ham at a Philly [Philadelphia] market, albeit one that is $99.99 a pound."


"They'll (Clintons) promise you anything. They'll even give you a long list of proposals. They'll even come around with TV crews in tow and throw back a shot and a beer."

Let's not act like ridiculous primary-season rhetoric is exclusive to the GOP in 2016, or in any way indicative of a party bottoming out. If that were the case every party would be near collapse during the primaries. Your dog doesn't hunt there.

[xu82]

Is this really the best we can do? This is very broken.

Canada has some great cities, but they get too cold for me. I see no real choice other than Grand Cayman. Sadly....

[bobbiemcgee]

Both are DoucheBags. I'm writing in for Chris Mack. and moving to Norwood.

[xu82]

Both are DoucheBags. I'm writing in for Chris Mack. and moving to Norwood.

Chris Mack might in fact be the best choice, but he has a far a far more important job to do! Leave him alone!

[vee4xu]

The one thing I will say in this thread is that it has a very, very good chance of surpassing the Sooooooooo, Where's the Warming thread.

[sirthought]

As awesome as would be to say our first lady was one of these girls:

http://www.celebjihad.com/celeb-jihad/harlots/melania_trump/melania_trump6.jpg

I'm voting in the first female president of the United States of America. I'm guessing this will be unpopular with some of you. That does not sway me. Carry on with the bash down.

[GoMuskies]

As awesome as would be to say our first lady was one of these girls:

http://www.celebjihad.com/celeb-jihad/harlots/melania_trump/melania_trump6.jpg

I'm voting in the first female president of the United States of America. I'm guessing this will be unpopular with some of you. That does not sway me. Carry on with the bash down.

I cast my vote for Clinton as well. But I could definitely be swayed to Grand Cayman.

[QueensbridgeMF]

Bloomberg

[GoMuskies]

Bloomberg

I like big soft drinks. So he's out. I'm a single issue voter in that particular regard.

[chico]

Would this help anyone make up their minds? Not that I'm a fan of Hillary of all...

2003

[ArizonaXUGrad]

The number seems ridiculous to me. Also, when you look at total 'takers' in states they include everyone. I mean everyone, retirees that get medicare, kids on food stamps, etc. When you toss in kids on food stamps, I am shocked it's not more than 11 states. Comparing the two figures is apples and oranges. A better comparison would be between 'takers' of working age vs. 'makers' of working age. I would imagine that wouldn't produce the same inflammatory result.


I am not sure where Snipe got his information, but with Snipe, it is usually true. I did a quick google search and found California has more "takers than makers" and is one of 11 states that has more welfare recipients than workers. However, I don't see where California has more on welfare than any state combined. It is plausible, as California has more people living there than most states, and a direct pipeline of immigrants streaming in from Tijuana.

[sirthought]

If you are leaning towards Trump and haven't seen this video, it's worth watching.


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

#makedonalddrumpfagain

[Snipe]

[QUOTE=ArizonaXUGrad;543850]Can you post up where you got that information regarding California?

I couldn't find my source on that and looking at the raw data it doesn't appear to be true either.

[bobbiemcgee]

The number seems ridiculous to me. Also, when you look at total 'takers' in states they include everyone. I mean everyone, retirees that get medicare...........

This always pisses me off. We paid in for 50+ yrs., pay our part B premiums and did exactly what the fuck the gov't told us to do. Turns out they swindled us and still are. Many of us continue to pay into it today. So go home this weekend and smack around your parents, or more appropiately, your Congressman.

[Snipe]

Not to disturb the narrative here, but the net migration since 2009 has been outbound to Mexico.

Building a wall might actually keep them in.

The Pew source you cited was only for Mexico. I am not sure the Government really knows how many illegal aliens are actually here. We have been saying 10 or 11 million for over a decade.

And if it is true, it is funny how Romney was viewed as a radical saying that people would self deport, but while under Obama's economy a significant number of people have self deported for economic reasons.

Lots of reasons for Mexicans to leave too, high crime, high cost of living, and too many Mexicans already here to compete with, and they have crappy schools too but I don't think Mexicans in general put the same amount of care in the education of their children.

[Snipe]

I applied for jobs in Belgium and Germany. Time to get away for a while I think.

We had George Bush and then we had Barrack Obama. And nobody really left though people talked about it. If you have opportunities abroad you should go get them and enjoy the world, especially while we have a Europe left.

Is Hilary Clinton going to make people want to leave after living through Barack Obama? Is Donald Trump going to make people want to leave after living through George Bush?

I think it is a funny poll option but the reality is I just don't see it. And once you see what Europe's Immigration "Dreamer" generation looks like up close, you will be happy that we are only being overrun by 3rd world Latin Americans. We have it much better than them. They have a huge rape problem with the Muslim immigrants, and the governments try to cover it up.

[Snipe]

I really can't see myself voting for either of them. If Clinton wins I could probably still live here. If Trump wins both my wife and I have overseas options with our current employers. Even before all of this political crap was going down, my wife's company had brought up some overseas options. So it really isn't out of the realm of possibility that we will be heading out of the US anyway. A Trump presidency just means my wife will likely put it on the table and she's important enough to her company that they will make it happen.

Trump really isn't even much of a conservative. It isn't some right wing cabal. I only like him because I am a one issue voter and I want a wall. He doesn't even need of act of Congress to get started. All he has to do is start enforcing the law. I think he will do that. Other than that he isn't pro war at all. He is going to get a lot of Democrat and moderate votes. He is going to get a good amount of the black vote.

[Snipe]

It's amazing to me that GOP voters would essentially ensure a Hillary presidency and Democratic Senate by making Trump the nominee. I know Rubio isn't the most appealing candidate, but at least he would have a shot in a general election compared to Trump and actually be able debate policy with her. Hillary will finish somewhere in the range of 332-365 electoral votes if Trump is the nominee and win an electoral landslide. Even with an electable nominee, it would have been hard enough for the GOP to keep the Senate with 24 seats up for reelection compared to 10 for the Democrats.

The GOP establishment did this to themselves. People are tired of the entire party being bought and paid for by the highest bidder. The same thing nearly happened to the Democrats with Bernie Sanders' popularity. People want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and not a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

I don't like Trump (nor do I really like Hillary all that much), but you've got to applaud the American voters for at least recognizing that this populist movement is necessary to make a point to the establishment that both parties are tired of having their reps cater to the special interests that fund their campaigns instead of their constituents. It's just sad that the right had to turn to a racist, sexist xenophobe to give the middle finger to an establishment that has been nothing more than pawns for their campaign donors. The days of Reagan and moderation in the GOP are over. His platform wouldn't stand a chance in today's electorate.

I actually like his chances against Hillary. People hate on both of them for sure. If Trump instead is a disaster and the end of the Republican party, well I am fine with that too. Republicans are a bunch of liars, frauds and posers. The only thing that comes close in comparison is Democrats.

If Donald Trump does nothing more than destroy the Republican Party I will raise my beer to him. The GOP Elite is doing everything they can to destroy Trump. They hate him. Screw them, what have they done for the American people. Trump is anti-war and anti-Fox News. Marco Rubio is a handsome young Hispanic that will keep the war machine running and give amnesty to millions of people from his own tribe. What is not to like about an ethnocentric war monger? What the hell has Rubio done but give a good speech.

Governors make the best Presidents. Senators make the worst. And what do we have among the 5 front runners from both parties? 4 Senators and Donald Trump. At least Donald Trump knows what it is like to make decisions, not bloviate on and on while doing nothing. At least Trump knows what is like to make payroll. A friend said to me "he has no experience", and I laughed when thinking of all the experience those four Senators have.

[Snipe]

It wouldn't have to get to that point if the GOP hadn't routinely blocked every proposal for campaign finance reform. Obama and the Democrats have wanted to do away with Citizens United ever since that SCOTUS decision, but the GOP loves their sugar daddies too much to allow that to happen.

The Citizens United Case:

A documentary maker made a film about Hillary Clinton, and the government told them they were not allowed to show it to the public. They fought in court, and Citizens United is their case. Personally, I don't think the government should have been telling even Michael Moore that he can't make political films. Of course, the government didn't do that to Michael Moore. So the film makers took them to court because they have First Amendment rights, and they won.

That of course resulted in the dramatic downfall of the nation, apparently. Elections were never bought and sold before then. Even well over a decade ago the average Senate run cost over 10 million. Where do all your Senators get that money? The first thing you do when elected is start raising money for your next election.

You would never have had Citizens United had some government functionary not decided to tell a film maker that he can't release his film. Right now the government has a database that tracks how much every American gives to candidates and political causes, and that database is open to the public. People have been persecuted for giving to the wrong causes. That is why I am giving to Bernie Sanders. It will signal that I am one of the good guys.

[Snipe]

The number seems ridiculous to me. Also, when you look at total 'takers' in states they include everyone. I mean everyone, retirees that get medicare, kids on food stamps, etc. When you toss in kids on food stamps, I am shocked it's not more than 11 states. Comparing the two figures is apples and oranges. A better comparison would be between 'takers' of working age vs. 'makers' of working age. I would imagine that wouldn't produce the same inflammatory result.

I don't think retirees that have paid their way should be counted as takers. I don't know why you consider it wrong to think of kids on food stamps as takers. I get that it isn't their fault, but they are a very public burden. Through no fault of their own, many bastard children are on the public welfare rolls because we don't properly sterilize felons and people on welfare. They are born into poverty and have very little chance in life because of their shitty parents. It is sad, and we can all weep for the children and weep for our future when they all grow up maladjusted and breed more little bastard welfare children.

[ChicagoX]

The Citizens United Case:

A documentary maker made a film about Hillary Clinton, and the government told them they were not allowed to show it to the public. They fought in court, and Citizens United is their case. Personally, I don't think the government should have been telling even Michael Moore that he can't make political films. Of course, the government didn't do that to Michael Moore. So the film makers took them to court because they have First Amendment rights, and they won.

That of course resulted in the dramatic downfall of the nation, apparently. Elections were never bought and sold before then. Even well over a decade ago the average Senate run cost over 10 million. Where do all your Senators get that money? The first thing you do when elected is start raising money for your next election.

You would never have had Citizens United had some government functionary not decided to tell a film maker that he can't release his film. Right now the government has a database that tracks how much every American gives to candidates and political causes, and that database is open to the public. People have been persecuted for giving to the wrong causes. That is why I am giving to Bernie Sanders. It will signal that I am one of the good guys.

Here are some facts from that case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012103582.html

[Snipe]

"The marketplace for my movie was completely and totally shut down by the Federal Election Commission," Bossie said in an interview Thursday.

Thanks for backing it up. Had they not messed with his little low budget movie, the campaign reforms in place would have stayed in place.

Think of how silly that is. The Movie that changed the nation! Really? Have you ever seen it? Has anyone?

[ChicagoX]

Had they not messed with his little low budget movie, the campaign reforms in place would have stayed in place.

I beg to differ. The corporate interests who own the GOP would have found a way to get their way to allow unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions. If it wasn't this, they would have found another way. Citizens United is the GOP's baby, from the conservative justices who opined in favor of it to the GOP Congress who refuses to fix it because their sugar daddies won't let them.

[GoMuskies]

Congress can't fix it.

[XU 87]

I beg to differ. The corporate interests who own the GOP would have found a way to get their way to allow unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions. If it wasn't this, they would have found another way. Citizens United is the GOP's baby, from the conservative justices who opined in favor of it to the GOP Congress who refuses to fix it because their sugar daddies won't let them.

Yep, that's exactly why Donald Trump is winning. He's got the "corporate interests" supporting him.

Liberals are such hypocrites. Were you complaining about all the money Obama raised in 2008 and again in 2012 He raised so much money in 2008 that he refused the federal matching money. McCaian had to accept the money because he didn't raise anywhere near Obama. Did you complain about that back then? When it's Wall Street, union, and Hollywood money going to democrats, you embrace it.

P.S. Speaking of politics, where is DC Muskie? He hasn't posted in months.

[ChicagoX]

So who drops out after tonight? Rubio and Kasich will have zero states won. Cruz will likely win Texas and already won Iowa. Sanders and Carson are apparently in it for the long haul.

[ChicagoX]

Yep, that's exactly why Donald Trump is winning. He's got the "corporate interests" supporting him.

Liberals are such hypocrites. Were you complaining about all the money Obama raised in 2008 and again in 2012? When it's Wall Street, union, and Hollywood money going to democrats, you embrace it.

As stated previously, Trump and Sanders' popularity is a big F U to the establishments. But don't think that big money still won't play a huge role in Congressional and gubernatorial races, because it absolutely will.

I complain about both parties being bought out by corporate interests, so please don't call me a hypocrite. I just happen to notice that it was the conservative justices who supported it and conservatives in Congress who refuse to do anything about it. If Dems are hypocrites, at least they speak out against it and are actually trying to do something about it. Republicans certainly aren't.

[GoMuskies]

I happen to like corporations. Some of my favorite people are corporations.

[bobbiemcgee]

Liberals are such hypocrites. Were you complaining about all the money Obama raised in 2008 and again in 2012 He raised so much money in 2008 that he refused the federal matching money. McCaian had to accept the money because he didn't raise anywhere near Obama.

So your complaint is Obama saved us money? Mc Cain lost by 10 million votes.

[xu82]

I happen to like corporations. Some of my favorite people are corporations.

So, can your corporation friends get their hair braided in Grand Cayman? My wife had hers done on a cruise stop and it turns out she's "tehnda headed", developing a headache that had her begging for an ISIS style beheading to make it stop. She swears it wasn't the daiquiris, so it had to be having paid perfectly good US Dollars for intentionally inflicted head trauma.

Public service announcement: If you hear "braid your hair pretty lady?", just say no lest they might braid it too tight and make your head explode!

[Snipe]

Yep, that's exactly why Donald Trump is winning. He's got the "corporate interests" supporting him.

Liberals are such hypocrites. Were you complaining about all the money Obama raised in 2008 and again in 2012 He raised so much money in 2008 that he refused the federal matching money. McCaian had to accept the money because he didn't raise anywhere near Obama. Did you complain about that back then? When it's Wall Street, union, and Hollywood money going to democrats, you embrace it.

P.S. Speaking of politics, where is DC Muskie? He hasn't posted in months.

XU 87, There is no standard like a double standard!

[Snipe]

I beg to differ. The corporate interests who own the GOP would have found a way to get their way to allow unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions. If it wasn't this, they would have found another way. Citizens United is the GOP's baby, from the conservative justices who opined in favor of it to the GOP Congress who refuses to fix it because their sugar daddies won't let them.


Yeah, I admit you are right. That is why that didn't do it a decade before. They wanted to wait until the time was just right.

They wanted to wait until some film maker made a documentary and then some government functionary told him that nobody was allowed to see it.

Seriously, this guy was pissed about his first Amendment rights, and he took it to the Supreme Court, and they said he had those same First Amendment Rights that we all have. At least for now anyways.

You are such a fool. Just look at the case. It is some big conspiracy? Watch the movie. It is a low budget flick. Honestly the bit about the White House Travel Office will piss off even you. That guy did nothing wrong, and they strung him up. If you are a true liberal and a champion of the little man, the whole TravelGate coverage of that movie will piss you off. It was the only strong part of the movie and it moved me. The rest of the movie was talking heads, but that guy was non-political and he was taken out for no reason.

This was not some subterfuge, it was a low budget political hack film, with some legitimately decent points. That is why I thought it got banned, because it wasn't kooky enough.

Think about this. Lets do a compare and contrast like we did in High School English class.

FILM: LOOSE CHANGE, 1986


Loose Change is a series of films released between 2005 and 2009 which argue in favor of certain conspiracy theories relating to the September 11th attacks. The films were written and directed by Dylan Avery and produced by Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas and Matthew Brown.

The original 2005 film was edited and re-released as Loose Change: 2nd Edition (2006), and then subsequently edited a third time for the 2nd Edition Recut (2007). Loose Change: Final Cut, deemed "the third and final release of this documentary series"[1] was released on DVD and Web-streaming format on November 11, 2007.[2][3]

Another version of the film, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup, released on September 22, 2009, is narrated by Daniel Sunjata and distributed by Microcinema International.[4]


My short synopsis is that Loose Change is a file that purports that 9/11 was an inside job, George Bush did it, and he did it to get some dead Presidents to his oil buddies. NO WAR FOR OIL!

Seriously, we still have people that contribute to this forum that actually believe that George Bush lied us into war just to benefit his oil buddies. And I don't recall any liberal on this forum actually taking them to task and saying the is not a reasonable probability. NO ENEMIES TO THE LEFT! as the slogan goes, so you won't correct or even mess with them.

So we had a movie about how George Bush's War Machine manufactured an American Tragedy and killed thousands of people and yet this was not banned by the FEC, which is the Federal Elections Commission. Speaking of the FEC, I bet we have hundreds of people that work there that make well over $100,000 a year. Guess they missed that one.

But the good thing is, they caught the Hillary Clinton movie. They might have missed a few Michael Moore flicks, but they caught that Clinton movie and stopped all distribution efforts. That is why Citizens United is actually a case. These are real people. They were pissed. They took it to court.

Now do your Compare and Contrast of Loose Change and the Hillary Clinton movie. I don't even remember the name. It was never formally released. It was barred by our government. Imagine if George W Bush had shut down a Michael Moore movie, or even Loose Change.

Maybe one difference between you and me is that while I would not agree with what Michael Moore has to say, I would fight for his right to say it. And while I might dismiss the Loose Change movie outright as fraud, I would fight for their right to say it. But when Citizens United made a movie about Hillary Clinton, it was shut down by the government of the United States of America. Think about that.

Really. Think about it and think it through. Liberal kind of means you are open to new opinions and all, but not so much now I guess.

[Snipe]

This wasn't banned by the FEC:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qyPVDH6C7M

[Snipe]

Someone wrote a book about killing George Bush. It was noted and received attention. It was not stopped by the government.

A playwright wrote a play about his death. It was also noted. It was not stopped.

I could easily search and find accolades for the above two examples.

In the previous post, I posted a clip from a movie "Death of a President" about the assassination of George W Bush. You can see him quite clearly. They killed him.

Now the book, the play and the movie are all independent of one another. They all have different story lines. I am not piggybacking.

These are all odd. These are all liberal snuff films. If conservatives had independently come up with a book, a play and a movie about killing Barack Hussein Obama I can't imagine what people would say. Head would explode. This really happened. The Government, and the all important FEC didn't do anything to stop the distribution. All of these things happened well before the FEC stepped in to stop the total distribution of the Hillary Clinton movie, which at its most moving part is just about a guy that worked at the White House for decades who was apolitical who had his life destroyed by Hillary Clinton.

Imagine that. And yet Chicago X thinks that this was all some insane plot to get rid of campaign financing. Even though in the aftermath, Barack Obama broke all campaign financing records, and it is pretty well documented that he disabled the credit card contributor controls so that he could receive money from foreign sources as well. I mean it is crazy likea fox how smart these conservatives are to undermine campaign finance reform just in time so that Obama could raise more money than any candidate in the history of the United States of America (twice even). Crazy like a fox!

Honestly Chicago, you are a fool. And I think it is laid bare.

I bet you mutter to yourself too. Go get em brother!

[ChicagoX]

Honestly Chicago, you are a fool. And I think it is laid bare.

I bet you mutter to yourself too. Go get em brother!

Pot, meet kettle. I love being called names by the most insane person on this entire board. Last edited at 1:18 a.m. ET...yet another inane, late-night rant full of whacked out conspiracy theories.

I have no problems with candidates raising money from small, individual donors. It's billionaires funneling millions into Super PACs that is a major problem in politics today. Keep your head in the sand if you want, but you're in a small minority if you don't think it's a problem. A recent Bloomberg poll showed that 78% of respondents want Citizens United overturned, yet you're still obsessed with some movie that has nothing to do with what actually needs to be done. Like many conservatives, you love living in the past!

[BandAid]

If I could move to the Grand Cayman's I think I would've already...Sunshine, beaches, tropical weather. I mean it's been a mild winter here, but still

[xu82]

If I could move to the Grand Cayman's I think I would've already...Sunshine, beaches, tropical weather. I mean it's been a mild winter here, but still

I don't particularly even like Grand Cayman, but I'd love to be your neighbor there. THAT is how much nice, warm weather means to me. If only I could get the wife to agree....

[muskiefan82]

Can they start an exempt tournament on Grand Cayman? Then we could see our Muskies at home every now and then.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

My point wasn't the morality of considering them takers, my point was that conservative think tanks love to include "all" takers when they make their little talking points like the 11 state one. All takers include your retired parents and kids, they are merely inflammatory designed to make conservatives angry about lazy people. How can you consider a kid on food stamps lazy? That is the point I was making.


I don't think retirees that have paid their way should be counted as takers. I don't know why you consider it wrong to think of kids on food stamps as takers. I get that it isn't their fault, but they are a very public burden. Through no fault of their own, many bastard children are on the public welfare rolls because we don't properly sterilize felons and people on welfare. They are born into poverty and have very little chance in life because of their shitty parents. It is sad, and we can all weep for the children and weep for our future when they all grow up maladjusted and breed more little bastard welfare children.

[Pete Delkus]

Based on poor Democratic turnout, and high GOP turnout, how many of these Trump voters are disenfranchised, Blue Collar former Dems, who are sick of liberal policies? The old-guard Dems of 10 years ago are the power behind Trump.

Policies and legislation around Heath Care (ACA Cadillac tax), energy, immigration, etc...haven't done Obama, and Clinton for that matter, any favors with his group.

I would ultimately would vote for Trump, relative to Clinton, as I do think - in some fashion - he'd be able to work with Ryan (as a check/balance) and pass effective legislation. However, what scares me is if this doesn't happen, and he feels he is forced to use Executive Action, which you can thank Obama for proliferating.

Well my daddy worked the furnaces, Kept 'em hotter than hell
I come home from 'Nam worked my way to scarfer, A job that'd suit the devil as well.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I think this has been hashed out and re-hashed a million times. Obama has a total of 231 total EOs vs. Bush II 291 EOs. Obama has about 10 mos. to catch up. On his average, he will sign another 27 before his term is up and will fall short of Bush II. Actually Bush I had 166 total EOs, or 332 for two terms. He is even ahead of Obama. There are presidents in the 1000s including Harry Truman whose most famous EO was to integrate the military.

I am not ragging on you specifically, but this is my #1 pet peeve on chat room posts about politics. People need to seriously vet their posts when using data. Don't just go grab your data from Fox news or some liberal think tank. Go to a spot on the net that legitimately tracks the information you are quoting.


However, what scares me is if this doesn't happen, and he feels he is forced to use Executive Action, which you can thank Obama for proliferating.[/I]

[Cheesehead]

I think this has been hashed out and re-hashed a million times. Obama has a total of 231 total EOs vs. Bush II 291 EOs. Obama has about 10 mos. to catch up. On his average, he will sign another 27 before his term is up and will fall short of Bush II. Actually Bush I had 166 total EOs, or 332 for two terms. He is even ahead of Obama. There are presidents in the 1000s including Harry Truman whose most famous EO was to integrate the military.

I am not ragging on you specifically, but this is my #1 pet peeve on chat room posts about politics. People need to seriously vet their posts when using data. Don't just go grab your data from Fox news or some liberal think tank. Go to a spot on the net that legitimately tracks the information you are quoting.

How dare you use real facts.

I do not like either option for the election. I vote for the person and not the party and I don't are for either one. I just cannot wrap my head that this the best we can do. I mayjust flip a coin and hope it actually flips (NFL reference). Honestly, I do not know what I will do.....but hey, the debates could be entertaining. So we have that.

[Pete Delkus]

Look at Cheese and Az high fiving each other....cute.

Proliferation can mean scope...

"Not all executive orders are created equal. Some are quite forceful, making dramatic changes to policy. Others are more routine, housekeeping issues. To say that one president issued more executive orders than another, tells us little about the scope of those orders or the impact they have on policy."

[Cheesehead]

Look at Cheese and Az high fiving each other....cute.

Proliferation can mean scope...

"Not all executive orders are created equal. Some are quite forceful, making dramatic changes to policy. Others are more routine, housekeeping issues. To say that one president issued more executive orders than another, tells us little about the scope of those orders or the impact they have on policy."

Oh yeah, well your forecasts suck!

As I have stated I am independent voter and probably will do a write-in as a protest to both of our options.

[LutherRackleyRulez]

Interesting commentary from long time Cincy republican, Nick Vehr.....


http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/03/02/vehr-trump-us/81203380/

[Mrs. Garrett]

I think voter turn out is going to be the problem for democrats in the general election. We are already seeing it in the primaries. I just wonder how many young voters who are fired up about Bernie Sanders will actually show up to vote for Hillary?

Obama excited a lot of voters this time around it's Trump.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I am not a one issue voter, I also strongly lean liberal. However, if Hillary wins the nomination over Sanders and fails to have him as a VP, Trump would probably get my vote. I like his stance on healthcare. If it's Cruz, I will take my meager German and move over the pond. Cruz is absolutely scary.


I think voter turn out is going to be the problem for democrats in the general election. We are already seeing it in the primaries. I just wonder how many young voters who are fired up about Bernie Sanders will actually show up to vote for Hillary?

Obama excited a lot of voters this time around it's Trump.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Did you personally track Bush II's EOs to determine their level of forceful drama? If so what is the count? What is Obama's count? Or, is this Obama really losing out because of the "absence makes the heart grow fonder" argument?


Look at Cheese and Az high fiving each other....cute.

Proliferation can mean scope...

"Not all executive orders are created equal. Some are quite forceful, making dramatic changes to policy. Others are more routine, housekeeping issues. To say that one president issued more executive orders than another, tells us little about the scope of those orders or the impact they have on policy."

[X-man]

The Citizens United Case:

A documentary maker made a film about Hillary Clinton, and the government told them they were not allowed to show it to the public. They fought in court, and Citizens United is their case. Personally, I don't think the government should have been telling even Michael Moore that he can't make political films. Of course, the government didn't do that to Michael Moore. So the film makers took them to court because they have First Amendment rights, and they won.

That of course resulted in the dramatic downfall of the nation, apparently. Elections were never bought and sold before then. Even well over a decade ago the average Senate run cost over 10 million. Where do all your Senators get that money? The first thing you do when elected is start raising money for your next election.

You would never have had Citizens United had some government functionary not decided to tell a film maker that he can't release his film. Right now the government has a database that tracks how much every American gives to candidates and political causes, and that database is open to the public. People have been persecuted for giving to the wrong causes. That is why I am giving to Bernie Sanders. It will signal that I am one of the good guys.

Don't waste your money. You are not going to prevent Hillary's nomination by doing so, and therefore the Dem's will win in November no matter how badly you want another outcome. Trump has no chance if he wins the Republican nomination. So I suggest that you instead use your money and help the effort to reduce the length of Trump's coattails. I predict that mainstream Republicans will take this line of attack in the general election in order to try and save their majorities in the Senate and governorships.

[boozehound]

Interesting commentary from long time Cincy republican, Nick Vehr.....


http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/03/02/vehr-trump-us/81203380/





Interesting article. I agree 100% with the piece about compromise of any kind being vilified. We won't get anything of significance done until until we accept the compromise is part of the political process. The GOP has spent 7 years wearing obstructionism as a badge of honor. It has gotten them Ted Cruz and Donald Trump as leading candidates for the Republican nomination.

[bigdiggins]

Interesting article. I agree 100% with the piece about compromise of any kind being vilified. We won't get anything of significance done until until we accept the compromise is part of the political process. The GOP has spent 7 years wearing obstructionism as a badge of honor. It has gotten them Ted Cruz and Donald Trump as leading candidates for the Republican nomination.

Was there compromise when Pelosi directed they had to pass the Affordable Care Act to find out what was in it?

[xu82]

Was there compromise when Pelosi directed they had to pass the Affordable Care Act to find out what was in it?

How else do you find out what's behind Door Number Three?

[paulxu]

Actually it was a great compromise just to begin with. Instead of single payer medicare system, they went with the Republican designed (and implemented in Massachusetts) plan of private insurance and individual mandates.

[xubrew]

I just want America to be great again!! And...this would definitely make America great again!!!


2006

[xu82]

I just want America to be great again!! And...this would definitely make America great again!!!


2006

So, which one do you want for President?

[xubrew]

Kaufmann. If he can come back from the dead, then what the hell can't he do?

[Strange Brew]

I'm voting for Bill Murry because when he does wear underwear, it's usually something unusual.

[xu82]

Kaufmann. If he can come back from the dead, then what the hell can't he do?

Good answer!

[Snipe]

My point wasn't the morality of considering them takers, my point was that conservative think tanks love to include "all" takers when they make their little talking points like the 11 state one. All takers include your retired parents and kids, they are merely inflammatory designed to make conservatives angry about lazy people. How can you consider a kid on food stamps lazy? That is the point I was making.

That is not true. That didn't come from the right at all. It came from the left. People on the right do not describe people on social security as "takers". When people on the left talk about "entitlements" and government expenditures on both welfare moms and social security grandparents, they group them both together. I am with you on this. I would not castigate old retirees either. I don't think anyone on the conservative side started saying that people on welfare were the same as people on social security. It is not true at all. It was the opposite.

[Snipe]

I think this has been hashed out and re-hashed a million times. Obama has a total of 231 total EOs vs. Bush II 291 EOs. Obama has about 10 mos. to catch up. On his average, he will sign another 27 before his term is up and will fall short of Bush II. Actually Bush I had 166 total EOs, or 332 for two terms. He is even ahead of Obama. There are presidents in the 1000s including Harry Truman whose most famous EO was to integrate the military.

I am not ragging on you specifically, but this is my #1 pet peeve on chat room posts about politics. People need to seriously vet their posts when using data. Don't just go grab your data from Fox news or some liberal think tank. Go to a spot on the net that legitimately tracks the information you are quoting.


I love you and all, but I read this and had no clue what you were actually talking about.

[Snipe]

Don't waste your money. You are not going to prevent Hillary's nomination by doing so, and therefore the Dem's will win in November no matter how badly you want another outcome. Trump has no chance if he wins the Republican nomination. So I suggest that you instead use your money and help the effort to reduce the length of Trump's coattails. I predict that mainstream Republicans will take this line of attack in the general election in order to try and save their majorities in the Senate and governorships.

I don't think that Hillary Clinton can actually be elected. I would like to see the odds of if she is actually going to be indicted.

[Snipe]

Keep your head in the sand if you want, but you're in a small minority if you don't think it's a problem. A recent Bloomberg poll showed that 78% of respondents want Citizens United overturned, yet you're still obsessed with some movie that has nothing to do with what actually needs to be done. Like many conservatives, you love living in the past!

I am confident that 78% of the people asked don't even know what the Citizens United case was all about. Do they actually know that it was about the United State Government telling the media that they can't tell a story? That a documentary maker can't tell his story? I doubt it.


yet you're still obsessed with some movie that has nothing to do with what actually needs to be done. Like many conservatives, you love living in the past!

You do realize that I talked about the actual case right? I am still obsessed with some movie? That was the actual Citizens United Case. I am not living in the past. I am citing Supreme Court Precedent.

The United States Government Banned a film that was derogatory to Hillary Clinton.

Can anyone here name just one other film that was banned from the United States Government? I guess just by asking that question that I am living in the past. I bet nobody on this threat can name one single film banned by the USG. The only film that I know of that was banned was challenged and taken to the Supreme Court. And today we know that as Citizens United.

Now don't get me wrong. Dan Rather took fake documents in Rathergate and showed George Bush as a deserter! But the network was never punished. Not to mention the existence of Al Sharpton.

I guess you can't show how a real person in the White House Travel Office was destroyed but you can show fake documents that prove the current President was a deserter. And then you can have Al Sharpton burn down Freddies Fashion Mart and kill some Jews.

[waggy]

Sy Leis banned Deep Throat. Or was is Deepthroat?

[paulxu]

Just for the heck of it, I'm going to point out that the United States government never tried to "ban" the movie. They attempted to enforce the provisions of a bi-partisan campaign reform act called McCain-Feingold that limited certain types of ads immediately prior to an election. The government restricted ads for the movie, or paying for the movie to be shown on broadcast TV (an ad itself) during that window. The movie could be run as a regular movie anywhere.

The court used the opportunity to broaden allowed contributions to candidates from various groups.

But there was no "banning" of a movie.

[X-man]

Don't confuse Snipe with the facts. They don't fit his "world conspiracy" view.

[X-man]

I don't think that Hillary Clinton can actually be elected. I would like to see the odds of if she is actually going to be indicted.

Care to make a bet on the outcome of a Trump-Clinton election?

[xu82]

Care to make a bet on the outcome of a Trump-Clinton election?

I bet we lose.

[muskiefan82]

Care to make a bet on the outcome of a Trump-Clinton election?

What the over/under on U.S. citizens who leave the country?

[blueblob06]

I'll bet less than 1/1,000th of 1% leave. Life goes on.

[GoMuskies]

I'll bet less than 1/1,000th of 1% leave. Life goes on.

I hear Canada is building a wall...

[xu82]

I hear Canada is building a wall...

Is it the North American rule that the country to the south always has to pay for the wall? (John Candy from Stripes would know...)

[Strange Brew]

Is it the North American rule that the country to the south always has to pay for the wall? (John Candy from Stripes would know...)

Tread lightly, I understand he had a tendency to swallow a lot of aggression.

[ChicagoX]

I hear Canada is building a wall...

After watching last night's debate, it's hard to blame them.

[xu82]

What the over/under on U.S. citizens who leave the country?

We probably need to narrow the list of possibilies to the few people who bother to vote.

[RealDeal]

Tread lightly, I understand he had a tendency to swallow a lot of aggression.

Along with a lot of pizza.

[Snipe]

Just for the heck of it, I'm going to point out that the United States government never tried to "ban" the movie. They attempted to enforce the provisions of a bi-partisan campaign reform act called McCain-Feingold that limited certain types of ads immediately prior to an election. The government restricted ads for the movie, or paying for the movie to be shown on broadcast TV (an ad itself) during that window. The movie could be run as a regular movie anywhere.

The court used the opportunity to broaden allowed contributions to candidates from various groups.

But there was no "banning" of a movie.

I wanted to view that movie, and I had no access to that movie. The movie makers wanted me to view the movie, for obvious reasons. I only first watched the movie in the last six months.

You say they had restrictions for advertising, but you don't say they banned it. Were they only allowed to advertise on Sundays after 6:00 PM? What were those restrictions? Let me guess, they were total restrictions that banned them from advertising the movie. I could be wrong, but that is my guess.

The whole "they were not actually banned, they were just restricted" bit rings a bit hollow when you are a God fearing, flag waving country loving American that believes that the First Amendment of our Constitution was 1st for a reason. You are not allowed to tell people that they can't say what they want to say. You just aren't allowed to do that.

Talk about the technicalities all you want. Did you see the movie? Some guys made a movie. It was banned by the government. You pop in and say it really wasn't banned, it is just restricted for a year or so. Say what? We don't do that.

Name one other film, media organization or news team that has ever been "restricted" by the United States Government. I am only asking for one.

If you can't name at least one, your argument may be more hollow than you think. I love you Paul, and you are a Great American.

It just wasn't right what they did.

Maybe the regulations in place could have served a public good. I can admit that is a possibility. But through zealous enforcement Hillary Clinton and her machine had the Government take out a documentary filmmaker because they didn't like the film. They had some government functionary ban or "severely restrict" the film until it was no longer relevant.

Paul, I believe you would be a bigger man if you just called bullshit when you see bullshit just like I do. These people are all liars, knaves and thieves, and they all loot the public trust.

Like this:

George Bush was President. He had a totally Republican Congress, The House of Representatives and the Senate. Full boat. He didn't do anything to shrink the size of government. He expanded it. I still wonder why Big Government liberals really don't like him. He stole their playbook. All he did was spend to infinity. No restraints!

Barack Obama told me he was going to cut the Federal Budget, and he was going to do by efficiency and intellectual prowess. He was actually going to go through the budget "line by line" and reform our nation. Well he didn't do it.

Paul, in the next 30 years I expect us both to be dead. There is come comfort in that. But our children and their children will remain. They are going to have to answer to the coming 20 Trillion in debt.

19,093,150,844,906.08

That is the number right now if you go to this website: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

Warning: It will be billions more tomorrow.

Now think about a world where we have tax payers and tax takers. At some point the tax payers are outnumbered.

That has already probably happened. I used to warn that the dollar could collapse, and I warned of the apocalypse would be upon us.

What if the dollar has already collapsed? What if we are all living in a world which is right now, but I told you the dollar has ALREADY COLLAPSPED, and we just haven't realized it yet. This is a possibility. The dollar is still stronger than many foreign currencies because their central banks mimic our behavior.

We stopped selling bonds on the market years ago. China no longer buys our debt. Nobody actually buys our debt. It technically isn't even debt. We print money, and then they call it "Quantitative Easing". Seriously, that is our new plan under Obama. And I don't blame him. Our system is screwed.

We have so much debt some serious Ivy League economists predicted that with all of our debt, say the 20 trillion, and all of the untold debt like social security and other benefits we owe trillions more. So they said that even if every country in the world wanted to loan us the money, that the entire world economy would not have enough money to lend us even if they saved everything and lent every last dollar to us.

We are on an unsustainable path. There is not enough money in the world to continue funding the American State. So now we just print money and call it "quantitative easing"

This will not end well. Hopefully for Paul and I, we will be dead by then. I personally don't want to live to see it.

[xu82]

Well, THAT was a cheery way to start my Saturday morning! Will I be dead too?

[paulxu]

Snipe, I couldn't agree more with our lack of fiscal restraint as a nation. I too believe that it means tough times down the road.
I was overjoyed at the beginning of this century as we seemed to have straightened the ship out to begin paying off our debt, and handling our financial house somewhat better.
That didn't last too long, unfortunately.
Optimist that I am, I am pleased the annual deficit has been coming down since the recession, and hope for better policies in the coming years to address the challenge for our grandkids sake.

As to Citizens United, it was the McCain-Feingold effort to try and keep the process somewhat clean that caused the restriction. Unfortunately the court took that situation and used it to open the flood gates on campaign financing. I don't think that was good for us as a whole. The court recognized the necessity of trying to keep down "quid pro quo" spending with candidates to reduce political corruption. It just decided on a looser set of controls with PACs, and used the Hillary movie ad question to get where they wanted to go.

This whole election season is already starting out like a movie. Will be interesting to see where we end up.

[bobbiemcgee]

Running low on popcorn.....

[vee4xu]

Saw a yard sign Saturday north of town.

Everyone Sucks
2016

Pretty much sums is up for me.

[xu82]

Saw a yard sign Saturday north of town.

Everyone Sucks
2016

Pretty much sums is up for me.

I'll write you in if you're available.

[vee4xu]

I'll write you in if you're available.

I've always imagined you with much, much higher standards 82. :biggrin:

[xu82]

I've always imagined you with much, much higher standards 82. :biggrin:

Nothing personal, but I'd prefer my Golden Retriever over the current options. How did we get here? UGH!

[vee4xu]

Nothing personal, but I'd prefer my Golden Retriever over the current options. How did we get here? UGH!

Hahaha. No offense taken. Actually, that makes me feel better.

[GIMMFD]

Can you guys move to Antigua? I need more friends to watch X games with...

[SemajParlor]

One of Trump's responses to the Florida shooting.

This man is a legitimate contender to be President of the United States.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742034549232766976

[XMuskieFTW]

Can you guys move to Antigua? I need more friends to watch X games with...

At least you can swim over to the Puerto Rico Tip off.

[NY44]

http://www.c-span.org/video/?411147-1/president-obama-delivers-statement-us-operations-isis

I think this was a particularly good speech by The President. He did a great job of cutting through the crap - and this is one of the first direct attacks that Trump hasn't responded to. If I were Trump, I'd be a little nervous about Obama getting on the trail for Hilary.

[Xville]

http://www.c-span.org/video/?411147-1/president-obama-delivers-statement-us-operations-isis

I think this was a particularly good speech by The President. He did a great job of cutting through the crap - and this is one of the first direct attacks that Trump hasn't responded to. If I were Trump, I'd be a little nervous about Obama getting on the trail for Hilary.

oh he called for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban? That's great...except that the AR-15 is not an assault weapon. He's clueless and a complete wimp, which is why our country continues to get attacked. My question right back to him is, if calling them by a different name is no big deal, then why do you continue to not do it? Because you are scared of what they may think?

[SemajParlor]

oh he called for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban? That's great...except that the AR-15 is not an assault weapon. He's clueless and a complete wimp, which is why our country continues to get attacked. My question right back to him is, if calling them by a different name is no big deal, then why do you continue to not do it? Because you are scared of what they may think?

Add to my reps when you guys catch the irony in this post. Just want to see who else is out there with me.

[NY44]

My question right back to him is, if calling them by a different name is no big deal, then why do you continue to not do it? Because you are scared of what they may think?

Huh?

[Xville]

Huh?

The refusal to call them radical Islamists

[NY44]

The refusal to call them radical Islamists

Yeah I get that's what you're saying, but it makes absolutely zero sense. Tell me, what exactly does he call them that is so horrible? Extremists?

And I just want to keep tally of your grievances with his response. So far I got:
1. The assault weapons ban is too specific because the AR-15 isn't an assault weapon.
2. His description of 'Radical Islamists' is too generic because he doesn't specifically call them 'Radical Islamists'.

[Strange Brew]

Yeah I get that's what you're saying, but it makes absolutely zero sense. Tell me, what exactly does he call them that is so horrible? Extremists?

And I just want to keep tally of your grievances with his response. So far I got:
1. The assault weapons ban is too specific because the AR-15 isn't an assault weapon.
2. His description of 'Radical Islamists' is too generic because he doesn't specifically call them 'Radical Islamists'.

Since most left wing extremists don't know the difference between an M16 and an AR-15 could you please provide your definition of an assault weapon?

[Xville]

Yeah I get that's what you're saying, but it makes absolutely zero sense. Tell me, what exactly does he call them that is so horrible? Extremists?

And I just want to keep tally of your grievances with his response. So far I got:
1. The assault weapons ban is too specific because the AR-15 isn't an assault weapon.
2. His description of 'Radical Islamists' is too generic because he doesn't specifically call them 'Radical Islamists'.

My problem with it is that it shows just how ignorant he is..for one he thinks the AR 15 is an assault weapon, and 2 he thinks coming down hard on gun laws is the issue...people are going to get guns whether legally or not...drugs aren't legal, yet somehow people get their hands on them. The main issue is the one that has to be taken care of which is the Islamic terrorists living and working here in this country.

Yes I have a problem with him not being able to say the phrase. My question is why does he have such a problem with saying it? Because he is worried about hurting people's feelings? It's the same politically correct bs that has permeated this country since he became president.

[NY44]

Yes I have a problem with him not being able to say the phrase. My question is why does he have such a problem with saying it? Because he is worried about hurting people's feelings? It's the same politically correct bs that has permeated this country since he became president.

Again:

Yeah I get that's what you're saying, but it makes absolutely zero sense. Tell me, what exactly does he call them that is so horrible? Extremists?

[Juice]

Again:

Yeah I get that's what you're saying, but it makes absolutely zero sense. Tell me, what exactly does he call them that is so horrible? Extremists?

I think his point is that Obama isn't specific. He calls them extremists or terrorists but not radical Islamic terrorists.

[SemajParlor]

Guns don't kill people, Obama not using the proper terminology to describe mentally unstable people who can legally purchase a weapon that was originally designed for the military kill people.

[SemajParlor]

My head hurts.

[muskienick]

One of Trump's responses to the Florida shooting.

This man is a legitimate contender to be President of the United States?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742034549232766976

Corrected that for you.

[Mrs. Garrett]

I think his point is that Obama isn't specific. He calls them extremists or terrorists but not radical Islamic terrorists.

Sounds like this guy was more of a self loathing homosexual than either of the above.

[ChicagoX]

Manufactured Outrage:

A falsified righteous outrage at things that are basically unimportant and meaningless, frequently employed by politicians, political activists, or the media. Politicians and talking heads use it to garner support for their causes, to claim the moral high ground and to tar their opponents; the media often just uses it in a cynical bid to increase ratings.

[NY44]

I think his point is that Obama isn't specific. He calls them extremists or terrorists but not radical Islamic terrorists.

He makes the connections again and again though. I hear ISIS sympathizers quite often, which is very accurate.

[NY44]

Manufactured Outrage:

A falsified righteous outrage at things that are basically unimportant and meaningless, frequently employed by politicians, political activists, or the media. Politicians and talking heads use it to garner support for their causes, to claim the moral high ground and to tar their opponents; the media often just uses it in a cynical bid to increase ratings.

Cynical? Would congratulating yourself for a tweet be cynical?

[Juice]

He makes the connections again and again though. I hear ISIS sympathizers quite often, which is very accurate.

I was just clearing up the confusion. I'm not arguing for either side of this specific issue of whether he needs to say the words or not. Although, I think Obama's actions (which speak louder than words) have shown he is soft on Islamic terrorism.

[NY44]

I was just clearing up the confusion. I'm not arguing for either side of this specific issue of whether he needs to say the words or not. Although, I think Obama's actions (which speak louder than words) have shown he is soft on Islamic terrorism.

I figured as much and should've made it more clear in my response.

There are a lot of valid concerns about the approach to terrorism, I'd love if the media cycle would talk about those. Instead Trump goes for how the shooters are described, as if the narrative is key.

Also the Dems are filibustering over gun violence right now. Going on 3 hours.

[boozehound]

If 20 dead children in Connecticut doesn't make us think twice about our infatuation with guns, I don't think 50 dead adults in Florida will either. I don't know what to say or think anymore, but it probably doesn't matter.

[boozehound]

oh he called for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban? That's great...except that the AR-15 is not an assault weapon. He's clueless and a complete wimp, which is why our country continues to get attacked. My question right back to him is, if calling them by a different name is no big deal, then why do you continue to not do it? Because you are scared of what they may think?

That is a spurious distinction, IMHO.

The AR-15 is a high capacity rifle that is designed based on a military rifle, with the key distinction being that it is merely semi-automatic, instead of fully automatic. I don't know of anyone who hunts with one, and I know plenty of hunters (several of which own AR-15s, or similar rifles). It is typically regarded as a poor choice for hunting anything other than varmint or small game. It is also generally not an ideal weapon for home defense, where a handgun or short barrel shotgun would be significantly more effective.

I would expect an AR15 to fit the definition of 'Assault Weapons' within the context of any bans that were/are proposed.

[X-man]

I was just clearing up the confusion. I'm not arguing for either side of this specific issue of whether he needs to say the words or not. Although, I think Obama's actions (which speak louder than words) have shown he is soft on Islamic terrorism.

Explain that line of reasoning please. I don't understand that statement.

[Mrs. Garrett]

I was just clearing up the confusion. I'm not arguing for either side of this specific issue of whether he needs to say the words or not. Although, I think Obama's actions (which speak louder than words) have shown he is soft on Islamic terrorism.

I think you're getting this administration confused with the Bush administration.

[xubrew]

We live in an era where within an hour of any sort of tragic event, people collectively seem to rush to it so they can attach their own agendas (be it political, religious, or whatever) to it. Even if their personal agendas don't entirely (or at all) fit, they'll still try and attach them to tragic events. From my perspective, and I speak only for myself, it's almost as if part of them is happy because they get to blast their own agendas to everyone via the tragic event. The good news for them is that I think they're going to continue to have the opportunities. The more divided we are, the more vulnerable we are, and we are currently very divided when it comes to what's best for our safety.

[SemajParlor]

Explain that line of reasoning please. I don't understand that statement.

I think people should google Obama drone killings before saying his actions have shown he is soft on Islamic terrorism.

[Milhouse]

Not sure if trolling....

[X-man]

I think people should google Obama drone killings before saying his actions have shown he is soft on Islamic terrorism.

Bingo!

[SemajParlor]

Bingo!

Really encourage people to read up on Obama's drone policy if we're looking to criticize his response to radical Islamic terrorism. It's pretty damn scary.

http://www.stimson.org/content/obama-administration-receives-poor-grades-reforming-us-drone-policy

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/

[bobbiemcgee]

My problem with it is that it shows just how ignorant he is..for one he thinks the AR 15 is an assault weapon....

Actually, the killer used a Sig Sauer MCX - shoots 45 rounds a minute and they say was developed for the military and police. Basically it's a machine gun if you know how to use it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/06/the_sig_sauer_mcx_used_in_orlando_is_a_modern_spor ting_rifle_not_an_assault.html

Comes in handy as a "sporting rifle" if you want to go out and pulverize Bambi.

[paulxu]

The AR-15 was classified as an "assault weapon" in the federal ban on semi-automatic weapons designed for the military.

Edit: it occurs to me that we had an assault weapons ban for a decade, and it expired in 2004. Since then the number of mass murders has steadily increased, very often with these sorts of weapons.
During the ban, nobody "came and took away your guns." Hunters still hunted, people still had weapons at home for defense.
Having an assault weapons ban might not stop all this large scale killing by people who are nutso...but it might reduce the numbers a little; make it easier to rush the guy, etc.
If you are a hunter and/or want home protection, you really don't need military weaponry. And it is certainly not a step to "take away your guns." It's more just common sense.

[xu82]

Apparently "assault weapon" is a little like "pornography". I'm no expert, but anything that shoots 45 rounds/minute looks like an assault weapon to me!

[Juice]

Actually, the killer used a Sig Sauer MCX - shoots 45 rounds a minute and they say was developed for the military and police. Basically it's a machine gun if you know how to use it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/06/the_sig_sauer_mcx_used_in_orlando_is_a_modern_spor ting_rifle_not_an_assault.html

Comes in handy as a "sporting rifle" if you want to go out and pulverize Bambi.

My dad has a Sig Sauer. It's not a machine gun.

[Strange Brew]

My dad has a Sig Sauer. It's not a machine gun.

In fairness Sig does make machine guns. However, the gun used in Orlando is not a machine gun and quoting a rate of fire while speaking about semi's is silly. I don't blame people as the media is either clueless or intentionally misleading when it comes to guns.

[Juice]

In fairness Sig does make machine guns. However, the gun used in Orlando is not a machine gun and quoting a rate of fire while speaking about semi's is silly. I don't blame people as the media is either clueless or intentionally misleading when it comes to guns.


The media is both clueless and misleading. They don't know anything about firearms but will push the story without the proper knowledge.

For instance, if I could use this picture and ask why a person would need this gun? http://www.lauraburgess.com/clients/sig-sauer/SIG%20522%20rifle.jpg
Most people in the media and viewers would be in shock of this rifle. But they wouldn't know or say that this is a Sig Sauer rifle that shoots .22s. But they'll use images to mislead people regardless of the truth.

[SemajParlor]

Proud to be from CT today. You can say that Sen Chris Murphy and other politicians are being disingenuous by attaching their personal agendas to a tragedy. And that might be true. But living and growing up 2 towns over from Newtown, knowing the area well, and knowing people affected -- it feels like a step in the right direction. For once.

[boozehound]

The media is both clueless and misleading. They don't know anything about firearms but will push the story without the proper knowledge.

For instance, if I could use this picture and ask why a person would need this gun? http://www.lauraburgess.com/clients/sig-sauer/SIG%20522%20rifle.jpg
Most people in the media and viewers would be in shock of this rifle. But they wouldn't know or say that this is a Sig Sauer rifle that shoots .22s. But they'll use images to mislead people regardless of the truth.


Proud to be from CT today. You can say that Sen Chris Murphy and other politicians are being disingenuous by attaching their personal agendas to a tragedy. And that might be true. But living and growing up 2 towns over from Newtown, knowing the area well, and knowing people affected -- it feels like a step in the right direction. For once.

I don't like the whole 'attaching your political agenda to a tragedy' line when it comes to gun control in response to mass shootings. It seems like the perfect time to push your political agenda of enacting reasonable gun control to prevent mass shootings. It's not like these guys are getting paid to push this 'agenda' like the NRA pays the pro-gun crowd.

The more I see the gun obsessed crowd foam at the mouth about gun control, the more I move to the left on gun control. People have an unhealthy attachment to guns in this country. I'm not talking about the people that have rifles for hunting hand handguns for defense - I'm talking about guys like my buddy who has a Saiga-12 shotgun with several 20 round clips. That is way over the top for reasonable home defense use, can't be used for shooting trap/skeet, and is not allowed for hunting in most instances / states.

We already have limits on the second amendment, and it hasn't lead to anybody taking anyone's guns. I'm sure a Claymore mine would be a fantastic tool for home defense, however I'm not allowed to purchase or own one. This is a reasonable limit on my right to bear arms. I would argue that high capacity rifles should be added to that category of 'firearms that people don't need to own', along with fully automatic guns.

I remain pro-CCW, but I don't want this country to turn into the OK Corral with everybody walking around packing heat in case they need to get into a gun battle.

[NY44]

We live in an era where within an hour of any sort of tragic event, people collectively seem to rush to it so they can attach their own agendas (be it political, religious, or whatever) to it. Even if their personal agendas don't entirely (or at all) fit, they'll still try and attach them to tragic events. From my perspective, and I speak only for myself, it's almost as if part of them is happy because they get to blast their own agendas to everyone via the tragic event. The good news for them is that I think they're going to continue to have the opportunities. The more divided we are, the more vulnerable we are, and we are currently very divided when it comes to what's best for our safety.

These arguments are so ridiculous, they come just as often as the behavior you critique. No one is anywhere close to happy about these tragic events on either side of the divide. No one. We're 5 days removed from this event. When is it okay to talk about?

This was a unique incident because it enraged both sides. Either about gun control or about terrorism, and both for a lot of people. Once people stop being outraged and trying to figure out how to stop senseless killing, then you should really be worried.

[boozehound]

These arguments are so ridiculous, they come just as often as the behavior you critique. No one is anywhere close to happy about these tragic events on either side of the divide. No one. We're 5 days removed from this event. When is it okay to talk about?

This was a unique incident because it enraged both sides. Either about gun control or about terrorism, and both for a lot of people. Once people stop being outraged and trying to figure out how to stop senseless killing, then you should really be worried.

One thing that I have found interesting about this particular incident, is that many on the far right are in the position of having to act like they care about homosexuals, despite spending a significant amount of energy and political capital on denying them basic human rights. It's an interesting juxtaposition, IMHO.

[Juice]

I don't like the whole 'attaching your political agenda to a tragedy' line when it comes to gun control in response to mass shootings. It seems like the perfect time to push your political agenda of enacting reasonable gun control to prevent mass shootings. It's not like these guys are getting paid to push this 'agenda' like the NRA pays the pro-gun crowd.

The more I see the gun obsessed crowd foam at the mouth about gun control, the more I move to the left on gun control. People have an unhealthy attachment to guns in this country. I'm not talking about the people that have rifles for hunting hand handguns for defense - I'm talking about guys like my buddy who has a Saiga-12 shotgun with several 20 round clips. That is way over the top for reasonable home defense use, can't be used for shooting trap/skeet, and is not allowed for hunting in most instances / states.

We already have limits on the second amendment, and it hasn't lead to anybody taking anyone's guns. I'm sure a Claymore mine would be a fantastic tool for home defense, however I'm not allowed to purchase or own one. This is a reasonable limit on my right to bear arms. I would argue that high capacity rifles should be added to that category of 'firearms that people don't need to own', along with fully automatic guns.

I remain pro-CCW, but I don't want this country to turn into the OK Corral with everybody walking around packing heat in case they need to get into a gun battle.

I should be more clear. I do think we can add some laws/restrictions/regulations on gun ownership in this country. I just want these writers, politicians, analysts, etc. just to know what the f*ck they're talking about before they start making absurd statements to the public to look like they give a shit.

For examble Harry Reid said this yesterday, "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?" Pretty much all of that statement is absolute incorrect bullshit, but at least he "stood up" for people.

[Juice]

One thing that I have found interesting about this particular incident, is that many on the far right are in the position of having to act like they care about homosexuals, despite spending a significant amount of energy and political capital on denying them basic human rights. It's an interesting juxtaposition, IMHO.

And the left keeps shouting, "Why is someone on a no fly list allowed to buy guns?!" Because the 5th Amendment/Due Process are a thing in this country. Republicans have been more willing to crack down on the rights of what suspected terrorists are allowed to do but the left claimed it violated people's rights. Well the left finds itself in interesting position now too.

This horrible incident has many layers to it that leave both sides looking dumb.

[SemajParlor]

And the left keeps shouting, "Why is someone on a no fly list allowed to buy guns?!" Because the 5th Amendment/Due Process are a thing in this country. Republicans have been more willing to crack down on the rights of what suspected terrorists are allowed to do but the left claimed it violated people's rights.

That's a good point.

[NY44]

One thing that I have found interesting about this particular incident, is that many on the far right are in the position of having to act like they care about homosexuals, despite spending a significant amount of energy and political capital on denying them basic human rights. It's an interesting juxtaposition, IMHO.

If you haven't seen it, I suggest watching Anderson Cooper's interview of Florida AG Pam Bondi.

[boozehound]

That's a good point.

So then why was the left successful in defending due process as it relates to firearms, but not as it relates to being allowed to fly? That doesn't quite hold water for me. A more likely scenario seems to be that the Republicans in congress, must of whom are owned by the NRA, were fine with violating people's 5th amendment rights by not allowing them to fly, but were, for some crazy reason, less supportive of applying similar methodology to gun purchases. I wonder why that could be?

The NRA is very good at what they do, and what they do is try to get as many firearms sold in the US as possible. They aren't 'defending your 2nd amendment rights' because they love the constitution, they are doing it because they love money. Fortunately for them, our politicians to too. And our citizens love their guns. Depending on how you define it, the NRA will spend up to $30MM in an election cycle. That money goes to (1) buying candidates, and (2) convincing people that any small infringement on their '2nd amendment rights' will lead to the government coming into their homes and taking away their guns.

[boozehound]

If you haven't seen it, I suggest watching Anderson Cooper's interview of Florida AG Pam Bondi.

Just watched it. Totally vicious. I love it. I'd love to see more of that regardless of political leaning. The press can play a significant role in forcing honest debate in this country if they choose to do so.

[GoMuskies]

So then why was the left successful in defending due process as it relates to firearms, but not as it relates to being allowed to fly?


As soon as you point to the portion of the Bill of Rights giving someone a right to fly commercial, I'll ponder this question more seriously.

[Juice]

So then why was the left successful in defending due process as it relates to firearms, but not as it relates to being allowed to fly? That doesn't quite hold water for me. A more likely scenario seems to be that the Republicans in congress, must of whom are owned by the NRA, were fine with violating people's 5th amendment rights by not allowing them to fly, but were, for some crazy reason, less supportive of applying similar methodology to gun purchases. I wonder why that could be?

The NRA is very good at what they do, and what they do is try to get as many firearms sold in the US as possible. They aren't 'defending your 2nd amendment rights' because they love the constitution, they are doing it because they love money. Fortunately for them, our politicians to too. And our citizens love their guns. Depending on how you define it, the NRA will spend up to $30MM in an election cycle. That money goes to (1) buying candidates, and (2) convincing people that any small infringement on their '2nd amendment rights' will lead to the government coming into their homes and taking away their guns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/joe-manchin-laments-fifth-amendment-due-process-is/

[xubrew]

These arguments are so ridiculous, they come just as often as the behavior you critique. No one is anywhere close to happy about these tragic events on either side of the divide. No one. We're 5 days removed from this event. When is it okay to talk about?

This was a unique incident because it enraged both sides. Either about gun control or about terrorism, and both for a lot of people. Once people stop being outraged and trying to figure out how to stop senseless killing, then you should really be worried.

I don't see how it can be a ridiculous argument when it's not an argument at all. It is an observation. Not even a day after this incident, everyone began fighting with one another while referencing and trumpeting their agendas. In some cases, it's as if people actually enjoyed getting to say "See, I told you so" while continuing to preach their agendas. I never said that it wasn't okay to talk about it. But, when we talk about it, we don't seem to do so in a manner that is in any way productive. Instead of seeing all of us as the collective victims, we blame each other. He wasn't an NRA member, yet people will line up to blast the NRA. He wasn't a refugee, yet people start teeing off on that issue. I don't think any of the mass shootings involved NRA members or people who immigrated here, yet those are two of the areas people most quickly point to. I think this makes us more vulnerable because we lose sight of what we should collectively be focusing on. Our response to tragedies seems to be to fight amongst ourselves. That's not an argument. That's just what I've observed. If I were to make an argument, it would be that we need to stop doing that. That's not the same thing as saying we shouldn't talk about it. Not even close.

[boozehound]

As soon as you point to the portion of the Bill of Rights giving someone a right to fly commercial, I'll ponder this question more seriously.

Good point. My assumption is that a logical argument could be made that you are violating the right to due process by 'punishing' people who have not been convicted of any crime. Flying commercial is one of many things not specifically addressed in the Bill of rights, however I would argue that many of those things could logically fall under the context of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/16/joe-manchin-laments-fifth-amendment-due-process-is/

So should we maybe change that, then? Does that not seem crazy to anybody else? Or is that just another price we are willing to pay out of fear that the government will take our guns away?

[boozehound]

I don't see how it can be a ridiculous argument when it's not an argument at all. It is an observation. Not even a day after this incident, everyone began fighting with one another while referencing and trumpeting their agendas. In some cases, it's as if people actually enjoyed getting to say "See, I told you so" while continuing to preach their agendas. I never said that it wasn't okay to talk about it. But, when we talk about it, we don't seem to do so in a manner that is in any way productive. Instead of seeing all of us as the collective victims, we blame each other. He wasn't an NRA member, yet people will line up to blast the NRA. He wasn't a refugee, yet people start teeing off on that issue. I don't think any of the mass shootings involved NRA members or people who immigrated here, yet those are two of the areas people most quickly point to. I think this makes us more vulnerable because we lose sight of what we should collectively be focusing on. Our response to tragedies seems to be to fight amongst ourselves. That's not an argument. That's just what I've observed. If I were to make an argument, it would be that we need to stop doing that. That's not the same thing as saying we shouldn't talk about it. Not even close.

I mean, blasting the NRA seems fairly logical if you are opposed to almost anybody being able to buy a semi-automatic rifle and 10 high capacity clips with little/no scrutiny. They are the lobbying organization that fights tooth and nail against virtually ANY limitations on the right to bear arms. I fail to see what the shooter's membership status has to do with that.

[Xville]

I mean, blasting the NRA seems fairly logical if you are opposed to almost anybody being able to buy a semi-automatic rifle and 10 high capacity clips with little/no scrutiny. They are the lobbying organization that fights tooth and nail against virtually ANY limitations on the right to bear arms. I fail to see what the shooter's membership status has to do with that.

It's not the nra's fault that a gunman was freaking crazy and decided to kill 50 people. Personal responsibility is lost on a lot of people in this world.

[Juice]

Good point. My assumption is that a logical argument could be made that you are violating the right to due process by 'punishing' people who have not been convicted of any crime. Flying commercial is one of many things not specifically addressed in the Bill of rights, however I would argue that many of those things could logically fall under the context of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.



So should we maybe change that, then? Does that not seem crazy to anybody else? Or is that just another price we are willing to pay out of fear that the government will take our guns away?

So you're ok denying rights to people based on accusations, associations, race, religion, etc.? Because leftists have been railing against Republicans and the PATRIOT Act for pretty much the same thing when Republicans wanted to also limit the rights of people in the name of security.

[NY44]

I don't see how it can be a ridiculous argument when it's not an argument at all. It is an observation. Not even a day after this incident, everyone began fighting with one another while referencing and trumpeting their agendas. In some cases, it's as if people actually enjoyed getting to say "See, I told you so" while continuing to preach their agendas. I never said that it wasn't okay to talk about it. But, when we talk about it, we don't seem to do so in a manner that is in any way productive. Instead of seeing all of us as the collective victims, we blame each other. He wasn't an NRA member, yet people will line up to blast the NRA. He wasn't a refugee, yet people start teeing off on that issue. I don't think any of the mass shootings involved NRA members or people who immigrated here, yet those are two of the areas people most quickly point to. I think this makes us more vulnerable because we lose sight of what we should collectively be focusing on. Our response to tragedies seems to be to fight amongst ourselves. That's not an argument. That's just what I've observed. If I were to make an argument, it would be that we need to stop doing that. That's not the same thing as saying we shouldn't talk about it. Not even close.

Semantics. You expressed an idea and gave reasons why it is right. That's an argument.

And even if you technically didn't make a ridiculous argument before, you certainly have now. "He wasn't an NRA member, yet people will line up to blast the NRA." Are you kidding? The NRA has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for gun rights. Agree or disagree about gun rights, but they are a significant player in the current gun rights in this country, and few would argue that they have been losing. If you are anti-gun rights, it is obvious you would look to the NRA when the current gun right allowed a weapon to get into the hands of Omar Mateen.

[NY44]

It's not the nra's fault that a gunman was freaking crazy and decided to kill 50 people. Personal responsibility is lost on a lot of people in this world.

Let's unpack this idea, Xville. There are 'freaking crazy' people in this country. Can we agree on that? What do you suggest is the issue? Just that he's 'freaking crazy' and he shouldn't be? Should being 'freaking crazy' be illegal?

[Xville]

[QUOTE=NY44;556761]Let's unpack this idea, Xville. There are 'freaking crazy' people in this country. Can we agree on that? What do you suggest is the issue? Just that he's 'freaking crazy' and he shouldn't be? Should being 'freaking crazy' be illegal?[/QUOTE

There were a million signs that there was something wrong with this guy, and no one did anything about it. This kind of thing happens again and again. Kids get bullied for years, no one does anything about it, and finally the kid snaps, and it's the nra's fault or its the guns fault, no the problem is the people who didn't do anything about the real issue. It's so easy to blame the instrument or product (like it's McDonald's fault that we have an obesity problem in this country), when it isn't the instrument or products faults at all.

[xubrew]

I mean, blasting the NRA seems fairly logical if you are opposed to almost anybody being able to buy a semi-automatic rifle and 10 high capacity clips with little/no scrutiny. They are the lobbying organization that fights tooth and nail against virtually ANY limitations on the right to bear arms. I fail to see what the shooter's membership status has to do with that.

I think blasting the NRA is fairly understandable. Not quite so sure if it is logical or not. Maybe it is, but for me personally that's not who tops my list.

I'm not so certain about this point that I've completely made up my mind, but I think the overall problem is that we don't have the policies and procedures that need to be in place to make our current gun laws enforceable. I think a couple of common sense measures would be that whenever a weapon is purchased (even if it is at a gun show) the weapon must be fired and the forensics of it must be entered into a database. I think this would play a huge role in assisting law enforcement, AND it would lead them to whoever it was that last legally owned the gun.

Another suggestion would be to restrict the purchase of ammunition. In other words, you can't buy ammo unless you have a registered gun for that type of ammo.

The majority of gun violence doesn't come from mass shootings. It comes from densely populated and low socioeconomic urban areas where most of the guns are obtained illegally. I think that's important. It's not that the laws are not adequate. It is that they cannot be adequately enforced. I think the question needs to be why is it so easy to illegally obtain a gun?? And, what can be done about it?? The reason I like the idea of firing all the weapons and registering them is because if someone is buying them legally, but then turning around and illegally distributing them, then at least it would lead you to that person if the forensics of the gun are readily available via the database.

Now, I know this doesn't address this particular issue, or for that matter most issues of mass shootings, but mass shootings are actually a much smaller piece of the gun violence problem than what goes on in the low socioeconomic inner cities where the guns were not legally obtained.

[Juice]

I think blasting the NRA is fairly understandable. Not quite so sure if it is logical or not. Maybe it is, but for me personally that's not who tops my list.

I'm not so certain about this point that I've completely made up my mind, but I think the overall problem is that we don't have the policies and procedures that need to be in place to make our current gun laws enforceable. I think a couple of common sense measures would be that whenever a weapon is purchased (even if it is at a gun show) the weapon must be fired and the forensics of it must be entered into a database. I think this would play a huge role in assisting law enforcement, AND it would lead them to whoever it was that last legally owned the gun.

Another suggestion would be to restrict the purchase of ammunition. In other words, you can't buy ammo unless you have a registered gun for that type of ammo.

The majority of gun violence doesn't come from mass shootings. It comes from densely populated and low socioeconomic urban areas where most of the guns are obtained illegally. I think that's important. It's not that the laws are not adequate. It is that they cannot be adequately enforced. I think the question needs to be why is it so easy to illegally obtain a gun?? And, what can be done about it?? The reason I like the idea of firing all the weapons and registering them is because if someone is buying them legally, but then turning around and illegally distributing them, then at least it would lead you to that person.

Now, I know this doesn't address this particular issue, or for that matter most issues of mass shootings, but mass shootings are actually a much smaller piece of the gun violence problem than what goes on in the low socioeconomic inner cities where the guns were not legally obtained.

Having spoken to officers about this, it's a hard problem to fight. Who do you charge? Often times a firearm is stolen from a law abiding citizen and then changed hands several times between people who have no business possessing a firearm.

The best place you can start? Not electing liberal judge who are lenient on violent crime that often times involve firearms.

[NY44]

There were a million signs that there was something wrong with this guy, and no one did anything about it. This kind of thing happens again and again. Kids get bullied for years, no one does anything about it, and finally the kid snaps, and it's the nra's fault or its the guns fault, no the problem is the people who didn't do anything about the real issue. It's so easy to blame the instrument or product (like it's McDonald's fault that we have an obesity problem in this country), when it isn't the instrument or products faults at all.

Ok - totally fair. Who are these 'people who didn't do anything about the real issue'? Obviously it's not required for someone to have good and supportive friends and family willing to step in if someone becomes troubled or off. If it can be proven his wife knew about the attack beforehand and did nothing, she may be charged. But what about prevention? Being proactive. By all accounts he seemed to be a functioning adult with a steady job. Some have said he acted out and in a bipolar manner at times, but neither of those is illegal. So, specifically, who should have done something?

[Xville]

Ok - totally fair. Who are these 'people who didn't do anything about the real issue'? Obviously it's not required for someone to have good and supportive friends and family willing to step in if someone becomes troubled or off. If it can be proven his wife knew about the attack beforehand and did nothing, she may be charged. But what about prevention? Being proactive. By all accounts he seemed to be a functioning adult with a steady job. Some have said he acted out and in a bipolar manner at times, but neither of those is illegal. So, specifically, who should have done something?

Well, he was questioned twice by the FBI for possibly being involved with terrorists....let's start there. He was questioned but yet was not being monitored...which seems extremely odd to me. So there's one....then there was the ex-wife who said he continuously beat her....if that's true, why did she never say anything? I'm guessing fear but at some point...maybe after the divorce she is almost obligated to say something so that the next person doesn't become a victim by him as well.

In almost all cases there are signs that a person is mentally unstable and doesn't just randomly pop off, going into a school, movie theater etc and just start shooting people.

[XUFan09]

Well, he was questioned twice by the FBI for possibly being involved with terrorists....let's start there. He was questioned but yet was not being monitored...which seems extremely odd to me. So there's one....then there was the ex-wife who said he continuously beat her....if that's true, why did she never say anything? I'm guessing fear but at some point...maybe after the divorce she is almost obligated to say something so that the next person doesn't become a victim by him as well.

In almost all cases there are signs that a person is mentally unstable and doesn't just randomly pop off, going into a school, movie theater etc and just start shooting people.

You are setting your standards rather too high for someone who has been abused, due not only to the psychological trauma and fear those people continue to deal with even after they are theoretically "away" from their abuser but also due to the stigma they frequently deal with when they try to open up about it.

[NY44]

Well, he was questioned twice by the FBI for possibly being involved with terrorists....let's start there. He was questioned but yet was not being monitored...which seems extremely odd to me.

What could the FBI have done? From listening to Comey's pressers, it seems the guy was pledging to conflicting groups, so they didn't feel he had actual connections to any terror groups. This seems to be true.

[xubrew]

Semantics. You expressed an idea and gave reasons why it is right. That's an argument.

And even if you technically didn't make a ridiculous argument before, you certainly have now. "He wasn't an NRA member, yet people will line up to blast the NRA." Are you kidding? The NRA has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for gun rights. Agree or disagree about gun rights, but they are a significant player in the current gun rights in this country, and few would argue that they have been losing. If you are anti-gun rights, it is obvious you would look to the NRA when the current gun right allowed a weapon to get into the hands of Omar Mateen.

I used to think exactly as you do, but not anymore.

I don't own a gun, and wouldn't no how to use one or even load one if you put it in front of me, so I'm not personally worried about someone coming to take my guns since I don't have any in the first place. After knowing multiple people who were murdered, I started reading up on it, and I changed my mind.

I can't find the study where I originally saw this, but this echoes it. Less than five percent (and according to this MSNBC article, it's a questionable three percent) of all murders are committed by the person who actually legally bought the gun. That right there makes me less apprehensive of the NRA. They buy their guns legally, and they're not the ones that are shooting people. It also raises the question that if 95%-97% of all murders are being committed by people who did not legally obtain their guns in the first place, then what good would it do to make legislate more gun control?? What good is a law if we suck so bad at enforcing it?? Instead of legislating more, shouldn't we find a way to ENFORCE what we already have??

So, yes, after thinking about it, I've concluded that rather than attacking the NRA, the more practical solution is to make it less easy for people to obtain guns illegally. I don't know how to do that exactly, but the gun firing registry thing that I mentioned earlier is at least one step toward that. If someone has legally purchased a bunch of guns and distributed them illegally through straw man purchases, and it comes back multiple times that weapons registered to him via the forensics database were used in criminal activities, then you revoke his right to buy weapons.

Another study I saw indicated that of over 124,000 gun distributors, only about 8 percent of them ended up distributing weapons that were used in the vast majority of murderers (although I'm admittedly not sure specifically what that means). But, I think a good general practice would be to attack the eight percent, and to find a way to make it harder to obtain weapons illegally since, yunno, it is illegal to do so.


EDIT: Forgot to link the article...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/

[Xville]

You are setting your standards rather too high for someone who has been abused, due not only to the psychological trauma and fear those people continue to deal with even after they are theoretically "away" from their abuser but also due to the stigma they frequently deal with when they try to open up about it.

i knew that someone would come back and say something like this, and that's fine and I know that I'm setting my standards high. All i'm saying is that there were multiple instances that said "hey maybe this guy has a problem" and nothing was really ever done about it. Guns are not the problem, just like mcdonalds is not the problem if you are obese.

[NY44]

I used to think exactly as you do, but not anymore.

I don't own a gun, and wouldn't no how to use one or even load one if you put it in front of me, so I'm not personally worried about someone coming to take my guns since I don't have any in the first place. After knowing multiple people who were murdered, I started reading up on it, and I changed my mind.

I can't find the study where I originally saw this, but this echoes it. Less than five percent (and according to this MSNBC article, it's a questionable three percent) of all murders are committed by the person who actually legally bought the gun. That right there makes me less apprehensive of the NRA. They buy their guns legally, and they're not the ones that are shooting people. It also raises the question that if 95%-97% of all murders are being committed by people who did not legally obtain their guns in the first place, then what good would it do to make legislate more gun control?? Instead of legislating more, shouldn't we find a way to ENFORCE what we already have??

So, yes, after thinking about it, I've concluded that rather than attacking the NRA, the more practical solution is to make it less easy for people to obtain guns illegally. I don't know how to do that exactly, but the gun firing registry thing that I mentioned earlier is at least one step toward that. If someone has legally purchased a bunch of guns and distributed them illegally through straw man purchases, and it comes back multiple times that weapons registered to him via the forensics database were used in criminal activities, then you revoke his right to buy weapons.

Another study I saw indicated that of over 124,000 gun distributors, only about 8 percent of them ended up distributing weapons that were used in the vast majority of murderers (although I'm admittedly not sure specifically what that means). But, I think a good general practice would be to attack the eight percent, and to find a way to make it harder to obtain weapons illegally since, yunno, it is illegal to do so.


EDIT: Forgot to link the article...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/

I'm sure all of your statistics are correct. It makes sense, but it doesn't make it right. Murder is murder, regardless of the circumstances it occurs under, no matter how rare or how common.

Saying that most murders occur with illegally obtained weapons, doesn't mean we should let the others slide. If there is an opportunity to close holes that allow guns to get into the wrong hands, it's a disgrace if we're not trying to close them. We'll never prevent all crime, but the fact that Omar Mateen didn't break a law up until he pulled the trigger is insane and reckless. It has to be harder than that.

[Xville]

What could the FBI have done? From listening to Comey's pressers, it seems the guy was pledging to conflicting groups, so they didn't feel he had actual connections to any terror groups. This seems to be true.


He could have been monitored for one...pledging to different groups (im assuming these were all terrorist groups) that to me seems like a red flag to me. Normal people don't just go pledging to terrorist groups.

[Xville]

I'm sure all of your statistics are correct. It makes sense, but it doesn't make it right. Murder is murder, regardless of the circumstances it occurs under, no matter how rare or how common.

Saying that most murders occur with illegally obtained weapons, doesn't mean we should let the others slide. If there is an opportunity to close holes that allow guns to get into the wrong hands, it's a disgrace if we're not trying to close them. We'll never prevent all crime, but the fact that Omar Mateen didn't break a law up until he pulled the trigger is insane and reckless. It has to be harder than that.

I think there is a way to stop a lot of mass shootings....more guns. What I mean by that is have armed guards at schools, arm teachers etc. Also have armed guards at public places such as clubs etc. I can guarantee there will be a heck of a lot less mass shootings, and at the very least, a lot less people would die. Just my opinion.

[XUFan09]

I used to think exactly as you do, but not anymore.

I don't own a gun, and wouldn't no how to use one or even load one if you put it in front of me, so I'm not personally worried about someone coming to take my guns since I don't have any in the first place. After knowing multiple people who were murdered, I started reading up on it, and I changed my mind.

I can't find the study where I originally saw this, but this echoes it. Less than five percent (and according to this MSNBC article, it's a questionable three percent) of all murders are committed by the person who actually legally bought the gun. That right there makes me less apprehensive of the NRA. They buy their guns legally, and they're not the ones that are shooting people. It also raises the question that if 95%-97% of all murders are being committed by people who did not legally obtain their guns in the first place, then what good would it do to make legislate more gun control?? Instead of legislating more, shouldn't we find a way to ENFORCE what we already have??

So, yes, after thinking about it, I've concluded that rather than attacking the NRA, the more practical solution is to make it less easy for people to obtain guns illegally. I don't know how to do that exactly, but the gun firing registry thing that I mentioned earlier is at least one step toward that. If someone has legally purchased a bunch of guns and distributed them illegally through straw man purchases, and it comes back multiple times that weapons registered to him via the forensics database were used in criminal activities, then you revoke his right to buy weapons.

Another study I saw indicated that of over 124,000 gun distributors, only about 8 percent of them ended up distributing weapons that were used in the vast majority of murderers (although I'm admittedly not sure specifically what that means). But, I think a good general practice would be to attack the eight percent, and to find a way to make it harder to obtain weapons illegally since, yunno, it is illegal to do so.


EDIT: Forgot to link the article...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/

Going off what you said: If registering a gun were a more universal thing, legally speaking, then anyone in possession of a gun not properly registered to them would be breaking the law.* A cop wouldn't be able to tag the possessor for any more serious crime that they may have committed or may be currently planning to commit, but they at least got them on something. It's a bit tangential, but this strategy brings to mind how Al Capone was caught for tax evasion rather than for many of the more horrific crimes he committed.


* Like driving a friend's car, one could include a provision allowing for the possession of a gun with the owner's consent if the possessor also had a license to carry a firearm.

[NY44]

He could have been monitored for one...pledging to different groups (im assuming these were all terrorist groups) that to me seems like a red flag to me. Normal people don't just go pledging to terrorist groups.

The FBI literally monitored him based on complaints. They're looking for terrorists, and established he was not one because his claims were nonsensical. Again, it's illegal to be a terrorist, and to plot with them, but it's not illegal to be a loon. It's not even legal to be a known loon and get a gun. I think you're underestimating how many needles there are in this nation sized hay stack.

Practically speaking though, what kind of monitoring and how? Your expectations for the FBI are enormous.

[NY44]

I think there is a way to stop a lot of mass shootings....more guns. What I mean by that is have armed guards at schools, arm teachers etc. Also have armed guards at public places such as clubs etc. I can guarantee there will be a heck of a lot less mass shootings, and at the very least, a lot less people would die. Just my opinion.

There was an armed guard at the club....

[boozehound]

I used to think exactly as you do, but not anymore.

I don't own a gun, and wouldn't no how to use one or even load one if you put it in front of me, so I'm not personally worried about someone coming to take my guns since I don't have any in the first place. After knowing multiple people who were murdered, I started reading up on it, and I changed my mind.

I can't find the study where I originally saw this, but this echoes it. Less than five percent (and according to this MSNBC article, it's a questionable three percent) of all murders are committed by the person who actually legally bought the gun. That right there makes me less apprehensive of the NRA. They buy their guns legally, and they're not the ones that are shooting people. It also raises the question that if 95%-97% of all murders are being committed by people who did not legally obtain their guns in the first place, then what good would it do to make legislate more gun control?? What good is a law if we suck so bad at enforcing it?? Instead of legislating more, shouldn't we find a way to ENFORCE what we already have??

So, yes, after thinking about it, I've concluded that rather than attacking the NRA, the more practical solution is to make it less easy for people to obtain guns illegally. I don't know how to do that exactly, but the gun firing registry thing that I mentioned earlier is at least one step toward that. If someone has legally purchased a bunch of guns and distributed them illegally through straw man purchases, and it comes back multiple times that weapons registered to him via the forensics database were used in criminal activities, then you revoke his right to buy weapons.

Another study I saw indicated that of over 124,000 gun distributors, only about 8 percent of them ended up distributing weapons that were used in the vast majority of murderers (although I'm admittedly not sure specifically what that means). But, I think a good general practice would be to attack the eight percent, and to find a way to make it harder to obtain weapons illegally since, yunno, it is illegal to do so.


EDIT: Forgot to link the article...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/

It's crazy that it's so hard to keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the country that has by far the most guns per capital in the world, right?

As Juice mentioned earlier, gun theft gets a lot of illegal firearms into circulation. It's easy to steal guns when 1/3 of households have them.

I do like your registry idea. The NRA has pretty vocally opposed a gun registry though. Which highlights one of the main issues that I have with the NRA, is their general opposition to the 'Well Regulated' part of the 2nd amendment. I have no problem with gun ownership in and of itself. I don't own a gun, but I have family members that do and I enjoy shooting with them (mostly trap/skeet). I think they should be able to continue to do so.


I think there is a way to stop a lot of mass shootings....more guns. What I mean by that is have armed guards at schools, arm teachers etc. Also have armed guards at public places such as clubs etc. I can guarantee there will be a heck of a lot less mass shootings, and at the very least, a lot less people would die. Just my opinion.

I just have two questions about this: (1)Who is going to pay for this police state?, and (2) Do we really want to live in a world where we have armed guards everywhere?

[XUFan09]

There was an armed guard at the club....

Didn't it take a SWAT team with an armored vehicle and stun grenades to take him out?

[NY44]

Didn't it take a SWAT team with an armored vehicle and stun grenades to take him out?

Yup, multiple gun fights across multiple hours.

[Xville]

It's crazy that it's so hard to keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the country that has by far the most guns per capital in the world, right?

As Juice mentioned earlier, gun theft gets a lot of illegal firearms into circulation. It's easy to steal guns when 1/3 of households have them.

I do like your registry idea. The NRA has pretty vocally opposed a gun registry though. Which highlights one of the main issues that I have with the NRA, is their general opposition to the 'Well Regulated' part of the 2nd amendment. I have no problem with gun ownership in and of itself. I don't own a gun, but I have family members that do and I enjoy shooting with them (mostly trap/skeet). I think they should be able to continue to do so.



I just have two questions about this: (1)Who is going to pay for this police state?, and (2) Do we really want to live in a world where we have armed guards everywhere?

1.) we pay for police already might as well put them to good use instead of giving out over 5 mph traffic tickets.....joking...kind of

2.) if it curbs some violence i wouldn't mind.

[Xville]

Didn't it take a SWAT team with an armored vehicle and stun grenades to take him out?

didn't know there was an armed guard...this begs another question to me though. it seriously took that much to get one guy taken out? in a place where i am guessing there were 200 plus people? that's pretty amazing to me.

[bobbiemcgee]

In fairness Sig does make machine guns. However, the gun used in Orlando is not a machine gun and quoting a rate of fire while speaking about semi's is silly. I don't blame people as the media is either clueless or intentionally misleading when it comes to guns.

Funny, since the family of AR 15 and M-16 inventor Eugene Stoner said he intended the weapons for only military use as an answer to the AK47. Said he would be "horrified" by their sale to the public and use in mass murder situations.

[SemajParlor]

I think there is a way to stop a lot of mass shootings....more guns.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk

[Strange Brew]

Funny, since the family of AR 15 and M-16 inventor Eugene Stoner said he intended the weapons for only military use as an answer to the AK47. Said he would be "horrified" by their sale to the public and use in mass murder situations.

Neat. AR is still not a machine gun and would've been a silly answer to an AK. The M16 is a machine gun and is a good answer to the AK.

[MauriceX]

The FBI literally monitored him based on complaints. They're looking for terrorists, and established he was not one because his claims were nonsensical. Again, it's illegal to be a terrorist, and to plot with them, but it's not illegal to be a loon. It's not even legal to be a known loon and get a gun. I think you're underestimating how many needles there are in this nation sized hay stack.

Practically speaking though, what kind of monitoring and how? Your expectations for the FBI are enormous.

I was going to say something similar. I'm not saying we should have more or less FBI surveillance, just making an observation. They are in a tough place because if they do more surveillance, then are accused of invading privacy and spending too much taxpayer money. On the other hand, every time something happens, they get accused of not doing enough.

[bobbiemcgee]

Neat. AR is still not a machine gun and would've been a silly answer to an AK. The M16 is a machine gun and is a good answer to the AK.

I said "essentially a machine gun", 22 rounds in 9 seconds qualifies imho:

[Strange Brew]

I said "essentially a machine gun", 22 rounds in 9 seconds qualifies imho:

You do realize you can do that with most semi-autos, right?

[MauriceX]

You do realize you can do that with most semi-autos, right?

For my own edification (I'm not a gun person, but like knowing things), the thing that limits a semi-automatic most is how fast you can pull the trigger, right?

[Juice]

For my own edification (I'm not a gun person, but like knowing things), the thing that limits a semi-automatic most is how fast you can pull the trigger, right?

With an automatic you can hold the trigger and it will fire the rounds endlessly until you let go. With a semi-automatic you have to pull the trigger each time a round is fired.

[Strange Brew]

For my own edification (I'm not a gun person, but like knowing things), the thing that limits a semi-automatic most is how fast you can pull the trigger, right?

Juice is right and further most handguns citizens have the right to purchase were or are designed for and are currently used by the military/law enforcement so the whole "designed for the military" argument is not convincing.

[Strange Brew]

If you haven't seen it, I suggest watching Anderson Cooper's interview of Florida AG Pam Bondi.

To keep it fair and balanced, I give you the ever fabulous MILO!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLqkizGtFo0 (start at ~ the 12 minute mark)

[Juice]

Holy shit, some of the Democrats are losing their minds and saying stupid shit


I don’t believe we can blame the Orlando shooting on "radical Islam." I do believe Omar Mateen is a product of America’s hypermasculine, police-worshiping society that screamed at him from all directions to stay in the closet, to hide any sort of mental illness, or risk not being a "real man."

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11949302/gun-purchase-orlando

[Strange Brew]

Holy shit, some of the Democrats are losing their minds and saying stupid shit



http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11949302/gun-purchase-orlando

Even dumber many are calling for those under investigation by the FBI to be barred from buying a gun while simultaneously believing a person under investigation by the FBI should be commander in chief of the most powerful military in human history. You can't make this up.

[SemajParlor]

Agreed that was a dumb statement.

On the flip side, we got John McCain out here saying Obama is directly responsible for the shooting because he withdrew troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Juice]

Agreed that was a dumb statement.

On the flip side, we got John McCain out here saying Obama is directly responsible for the shooting because he withdrew troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Democrats think that Bush caused 9/11 and the NRA is to blame for this shooting. How is that any more absurd?

[NY44]

Democrats think that Bush caused 9/11 and the NRA is to blame for this shooting. How is that any more absurd?

I could easily be wrong, it would have been awhile ago, but I'm not aware of any Senators directly blaming George Bush for 9/11. I found McCain's claim to be quite distasteful - and surprising coming from him. That's in the Trump-o-sphere. To be fair, it would be beyond distasteful if anyone said the same about Bush regarding 9/11.

Watched that video Brew, some very valid points. Homophobia is an enormous issue within Islam.

[SemajParlor]

Democrats think that Bush caused 9/11 and the NRA is to blame for this shooting. How is that any more absurd?

Republicans bob apples from the toilet... and they like it!

[Xville]

I could easily be wrong, it would have been awhile ago, but I'm not aware of any Senators directly blaming George Bush for 9/11. I found McCain's claim to be quite distasteful - and surprising coming from him. That's in the Trump-o-sphere. To be fair, it would be beyond distasteful if anyone said the same about Bush regarding 9/11.

Watched that video Brew, some very valid points. Homophobia is an enormous issue within Islam.

It is also an enormous issue with Christianity. I don't know everything about the Islamic faith, but to me it seems that the problems lie within the radical side, just like radical christianity.

[NY44]

It is also an enormous issue with Christianity. I don't know everything about the Islamic faith, but to me it seems that the problems lie within the radical side, just like radical christianity.

Perhaps. It's definitely more than just 'radical' religious believers in some parts of the world though. Last I heard there was something in the neighborhood of 70 countries where being gay is illegal - most being in Africa and the Middle East.

[ammtd34]

It is also an enormous issue with Christianity. I don't know everything about the Islamic faith, but to me it seems that the problems lie within the radical side, just like radical christianity.

Admittedly, I might be wrong. I haven't seen Christian preachers saying this in the US. Westboro are hateful pieces of shit, but there are people equating them to Orlando, which seems disingenuous.


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

[Juice]

It is also an enormous issue with Christianity. I don't know everything about the Islamic faith, but to me it seems that the problems lie within the radical side, just like radical christianity.

Yes but being a homosexual is illegal in Islamic countries. I agree that right wing Christians are insane and need to practice what they preach (loving other like Jesus did, blah blah, etc) on homosexuality but it's not punishable as a crime here.

[XUFan09]

Holy shit, some of the Democrats are losing their minds and saying stupid shit



http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11949302/gun-purchase-orlando
I don't agree with that assessment. However, apparently he was a lax Muslim, and it seems quite possible that he was using radical Islam as a way to legitimize his own personal homophobia. Christianity has its own set of that type too, people who aren't really practicing Christians outside of maybe Christmas with the parents but who then use Christianity as a legitimacy for their railing on "the gays."

However, the fact that these avenues of legitimizing hate exist (whether it be radical Islam, radical Christianity, or some other avenue) are what lead me to still put some blame on radical Islam specifically but also on extremism* in general. These extreme religious voices encourage this sort of act, and it doesn't help that on issues like homosexuality, the extreme sects across different religions actually support each other. Constant spewing of hate in the public sphere will lead to hateful acts. There does not even have to be a direct, explicit encouragement; the culture of hate itself can be enough of an impetus for the more violent and the more unhinged.

* Usually religious in form but including other types too.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[XUFan09]

Perhaps. It's definitely more than just 'radical' religious believers in some parts of the world though. Last I heard there was something in the neighborhood of 70 countries where being gay is illegal - most being in Africa and the Middle East.
True, but overall across the world, I think Christian religiosity is not as widespread. Think of all the beautiful churches in parts of Europe that are mostly attended by only senior citizens. The United States is probably one of the most religious predominantly Christian nations, and even it has large numbers of people who are lax Christians or who no longer identify as Christian. Wow, some lax Christians can still be homophobic, but generally those who no longer identify as Christian would not be supportive of anti-gay laws.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Mrs. Garrett]

Admittedly, I might be wrong. I haven't seen Christian preachers saying this in the US. Westboro are hateful pieces of shit, but there are people equating them to Orlando, which seems disingenuous.


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

You're wrong:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/pastor-refuses-to-mourn-orlando-victims-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/

[ammtd34]

You're wrong:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/pastor-refuses-to-mourn-orlando-victims-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/

Ugh. I saw that, too. Forgot about it already. Gross.

[Xville]

Ugh. I saw that, too. Forgot about it already. Gross.

yep...unfortunately hate isn't limited to one set of people or one religion...there are completely insane freaks everywhere.

[NY44]

yep...unfortunately hate isn't limited to one set of people or one religion...there are completely insane freaks everywhere.

Sorry to break up this nice new wave of agreement, but this is exactly why I believe having more guns across the country is not the best idea...

[JTG]

I get tired of the Christian bashing that goes on in the media. Yes, some Christians bitch and moan about "gays" and profess that they don't care for them, but, and this is a very big but ( not Kim Kardashian big) unlike Muslims, they don't call for gays to be exterminated. That is the big difference between Christians & Muslims. The Muslim religion is currently f'ed up, and is being hijacked by a multitude of batshit crazy assholes.

[kyxu]

Yes, some Christians bitch and moan about "gays" and profess that they don't care for them, but, and this is a very big but ( not Kim Kardashian big) unlike Muslims, they don't call for gays to be exterminated.

I guess that would depend on which Christians you asked.


The Muslim religion is currently f'ed up, and is being hijacked by a multitude of batshit crazy assholes.

I'd say the perception of Islam, not the religion itself, has been what's "f'ed up". Understand, there are over a billion and a half Muslims in the world, with the tiniest of a percentage perpetrating violence under the claimed banner of religion.

[paulxu]

but, and this is a very big but ( not Kim Kardashian big) unlike Muslims, they don't call for gays to be exterminated.

Really? Maybe Baptists aren't Christian. Who knew.

http://www.advocate.com/religion/2016/6/14/baptist-pastor-who-cheered-orlando-murders-isnt-alone

[Juice]

I get tired of the Christian bashing that goes on in the media. Yes, some Christians bitch and moan about "gays" and profess that they don't care for them, but, and this is a very big but ( not Kim Kardashian big) unlike Muslims, they don't call for gays to be exterminated. That is the big difference between Christians & Muslims. The Muslim religion is currently f'ed up, and is being hijacked by a multitude of batshit crazy assholes.

The problem is that you're comparing Christians to the bottom rung and most extreme wackos around. Christians should aspire for more than "we aren't as bad as Muslims."

[SemajParlor]

I'd say the perception of Islam, not the religion itself, has been what's "f'ed up". Understand, there are over a billion and a half Muslims in the world, with the tiniest of a percentage perpetrating violence under the claimed banner of religion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1QfgDkFR5E

[ammtd34]

Eh, I've seen Sam Harris destroy Reza, too.

[SemajParlor]

Eh, I've seen Sam Harris destroy Reza, too.

I love Sam Harris. I think Reza makes some good points here though.

[Juice]

Who should we blame: the NRA or maybe the FBI who allegedly checked this guy out? http://www.tcpalm.com/news/special/orlando-shooting/pga-village-residents-question-how-orlando-shooter-went-undetected-35523c28-ee5e-2242-e053-0100007fa-383208751.html?d=mobile

[NY44]

Who should we blame: the NRA or maybe the FBI who allegedly checked this guy out? http://www.tcpalm.com/news/special/orlando-shooting/pga-village-residents-question-how-orlando-shooter-went-undetected-35523c28-ee5e-2242-e053-0100007fa-383208751.html?d=mobile

This has been addressed in this thread. What do you expect of the FBI? He hadn't broken any laws requiring his gun right (a right which is heavily shaped by the NRA) be revoked. So what do you expect? The FBI to keep 24/7 watch over every suspect?

[Strange Brew]

This has been addressed in this thread. What do you expect of the FBI? He hadn't broken any laws requiring his gun right (a right which is heavily shaped by the NRA) be revoked. So what do you expect? The FBI to keep 24/7 watch over every suspect?

The right was shaped by the NRA? Curious considering the right pre-dated the NRA by nearly 100 years.

[MauriceX]

With an automatic you can hold the trigger and it will fire the rounds endlessly until you let go. With a semi-automatic you have to pull the trigger each time a round is fired.

So I did know that part, but my question was more along the lines of what is the limiting factor? Can a person flex their index finger twice faster than the gun can get a new bullet in the chamber? Or is the gun so fast that there is no real chance of that? Because I can easily flex my finger 22 times in 9 seconds. I would think you could probably fire 4-6 rounds per second if the gun kept up with the index finger.

[Strange Brew]

So I did know that part, but my question was more along the lines of what is the limiting factor? Can a person flex their index finger twice faster than the gun can get a new bullet in the chamber? Or is the gun so fast that there is no real chance of that? Because I can easily flex my finger 22 times in 9 seconds. I would think you could probably fire 4-6 rounds per second if the gun kept up with the index finger.

What is your point?

[MauriceX]

What is your point?

I am just curious to learn more. I've never been a gun person, but I like to be educated on the issues. I'm not taking a stance on anything though. Someone said most semi-automatics can shoot 22 rounds in 9 seconds. I was curious about the "most" part. Is there something that would keep semi-automatics from firing at a certain rate? It seems like there are some people on this board that are well educated about guns, so I figured it would be a good time to ask. Sorry for interrupting the political debate haha :biggrin:

[Strange Brew]

I am just curious to learn more. I've never been a gun person, but I like to be educated on the issues. I'm not taking a stance on anything though. Someone said most semi-automatics can shoot 22 rounds in 9 seconds. I was curious about the "most" part. Is there something that would keep semi-automatics from firing at a certain rate? It seems like there are some people on this board that are well educated about guns, so I figured it would be a good time to ask. Sorry for interrupting the political debate haha :biggrin:

A semi-auto is limited by an individual's ability to flex a finger against a trigger of varying weight.

Edit: And mag capacity

[paulxu]

You can have a lot of fun with your semi-automatic weapon. Get a bunch of friends, an old lawnmower, and head out to the woods:

http://kfor.com/2016/03/28/video-shows-man-shooting-at-lawn-mower-full-of-explosives-before-losing-leg/

[Strange Brew]

You can have a lot of fun with your semi-automatic weapon. Get a bunch of friends, an old lawnmower, and head out to the woods:

http://kfor.com/2016/03/28/video-shows-man-shooting-at-lawn-mower-full-of-explosives-before-losing-leg/

Wow, ugly. Thanks for sharing? If I'm the ATF and a rational, thinking person I'm more concerned about the explosives used than a one pull, one shot rifle.

[NY44]

The right was shaped by the NRA? Curious considering the right pre-dated the NRA by nearly 100 years.

Semantics again. Neat.

[XUFan09]

Semantics again. Neat.
Plus, it seems to imply that the 2nd Amendment (or any aspect of the Constitution) has not been shaped in its interpretation over the decades or centuries. Rather disingenuous.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Plus, it seems to imply that the 2nd Amendment (or any aspect of the Constitution) has not been shaped in its interpretation over the decades or centuries. Rather disingenuous.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

What's disingenuous are those in this very thread and elsewhere who morally relate/blame guns (while knowing little about them) and Christians (who had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this) to blather away the fact an evil (not crazy), democrat, jihadi slaughtered 49 Americans.

[NY44]

What's disingenuous are those in this very thread and elsewhere who morally relate/blame guns (while knowing little about them) and Christians (who had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this) to blather away the fact an evil (not crazy), democrat, jihadi slaughtered 49 Americans.

I'm not sure where you're getting the Christian angle from, I certainly haven't said anything of the like.

He killed them with guns, so yeah, I'm going to relate this incident to guns. 1 + 2 = 3. Easy access to guns + hateful, radical beliefs/motives = Mass killings.

You're never going to rid the world, or just this country, of hate and ignorance. If you add more guns to the society, I think there's higher potential for small incidents turning violent, perpetrators could easily just get more guns, and it's a purely reactionary measure. Someone shoots and another gun carrying person stops them (ideally), that's still very likely to be 1 death. Is that good enough? I'd rather we be proactive with some level of prescreening before a purchase. I hope we can all agree that someone under investigation by the FBI shouldn't have legal access to a guns.

[XUFan09]

What's disingenuous are those in this very thread and elsewhere who morally relate/blame guns (while knowing little about them) and Christians (who had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this) to blather away the fact an evil (not crazy), democrat, jihadi slaughtered 49 Americans.

Specific to this thread, the context in which Christianity was brought up was Christian extremism and how it contributes to a culture of hate and encourages acts like this. Do you consider yourself a radical Christian, Brew? I hope not. If you don't, I don't see why you would feel compelled to defend this fringe group or to defend the mainstream group because people are commenting on the fringe group.

By the way, there's a solid suspicion that he was not a true jihadi but rather used the identification for the extra attention (think of the conflicting groups to which he claimed allegiance at times). He does not fit the profile well at all for someone who's radicalizing, while closely fitting the profile of the "typical mass shooter." Either he's an unusual case of radicalization, or the motivations for the attack were more personal to him. Probably somewhere in between.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/18/482621690/investigators-say-orlando-shooter-showed-few-warning-signs-of-radicalization#

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Specific to this thread, the context in which Christianity was brought up was Christian extremism and how it contributes to a culture of hate and encourages acts like this. Do you consider yourself a radical Christian, Brew? I hope not. If you don't, I don't see why you would feel compelled to defend this fringe group or to defend the mainstream group because people are commenting on the fringe group.

By the way, there's a solid suspicion that he was not a true jihadi but rather used the identification for the extra attention (think of the conflicting groups to which he claimed allegiance at times). He does not fit the profile well at all for someone who's radicalizing, while closely fitting the profile of the "typical mass shooter." Either he's an unusual case of radicalization, or the motivations for the attack were more personal to him. Probably somewhere in between.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/18/482621690/investigators-say-orlando-shooter-showed-few-warning-signs-of-radicalization#

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Not a radical Christian however I'm curious to know why you feel this man was motivated by "hate" expressed by Christian extremism. Or is it just more moral relativism with a tinge of self-loathing Christophobia?

[XUFan09]

Not a radical Christian however I'm curious to know why you feel this man was motivated by "hate" expressed by Christian extremism. Or is it just more moral relativism with a tinge of self-loathing Christophobia?
Because he was born and raised in the United States, so he was in part shaped by a culture that is predominantly Christian. Within that context, he developed a hatred for a subgroup, no doubt primarily due to some combination of a radicalization of his own faith and a personal pathology (which of these two was more prominent is still in question). However, as he was a member of American culture and society, rather than a member of some predominantly Muslim culture and society, he was regularly exposed to the extreme end of Christianity. This extremism served as a useful affirmation and encouragement, essentially a situation, conscious or unconscious, of "at least we can agree on that." Like in politics, extremists in various religions start finding more in common with each other than with the moderates of their own religions.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[NY44]

Or is it just more moral relativism with a tinge of self-loathing Christophobia?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42WNHGr1jGI

[XUFan09]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42WNHGr1jGI
Sounds about right.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Cheesehead]

Trump's campaign manager is gone.

[Juice]

Democrats lied about the gun control bills yesterday.


Senate Republicans agreed to vote on four gun control proposals—two offered by Democrats and two offered by Republicans. The Democratic proposals included Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill linking a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban. On the Republican side, Sen. John Cornyn also offered legislation that would link a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, but his version added due process protections for Americans who are put on the list. The other two proposals expanded the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, although the Republican version did not go as far as the Democratic version. For a brief moment it seemed as if the Senate would take some kind of action.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/21/democrats-tanked-gun-control-to-up-their-election-chances/

[SemajParlor]

Juice, what were you thoughts on the OJ Made In America? Part 4 was probably one of my favorite things ESPN ever did.

[Juice]

Juice, what were you thoughts on the OJ Made In America? Part 4 was probably one of my favorite things ESPN ever did.

I loved the whole thing. I thought it was really interesting and I learned a ton. I was in the 5th grade when the verdict was announced so I remember the case but not nearly in the detail that it was covered in the documentary. Plus part 2 helped frame how volatile LA was at the time, which I would never have known as a white kid from the suburbs of Cincinnati.

Part 4 was interesting because it showed how that trial was screwed from the start even though there was so much evidence. The prosecution was overconfident in the location of the trial. Marcia was overconfident in her ability to connect with black jurors, which is almost like her saying "I have black friends." Darden screwed up because he broke the cardinal rule of litigation, which was stated by one of the people, never ask a question you don't know the answer to. But the prosecution also got screwed because their police officers/detectives/criminalists were incompetent. It's hard to win a case with a racist detective, a criminalist who possibly contaminated evidence, and other detectives who paid no attention to detail. The prosecutors couldn't just not present that evidence or else they would have no case. But it also showed in part 4 and a lot in part 5 that you really have to pay attention during voir dire of the jurors. Because most of them never were going to convict OJ.

[Cheesehead]

"Because most of them never were going to convict OJ."

Yep, the trial became a referendum against the LAPD.

[X-band '01]

I loved the whole thing. I thought it was really interesting and I learned a ton. I was in the 5th grade when the verdict was announced so I remember the case but not nearly in the detail that it was covered in the documentary. Plus part 2 helped frame how volatile LA was at the time, which I would never have known as a white kid from the suburbs of Cincinnati.

Part 4 was interesting because it showed how that trial was screwed from the start even though there was so much evidence. The prosecution was overconfident in the location of the trial. Marcia was overconfident in her ability to connect with black jurors, which is almost like her saying "I have black friends." Darden screwed up because he broke the cardinal rule of litigation, which was stated by one of the people, never ask a question you don't know the answer to. But the prosecution also got screwed because their police officers/detectives/criminalists were incompetent. It's hard to win a case with a racist detective, a criminalist who possibly contaminated evidence, and other detectives who paid no attention to detail. The prosecutors couldn't just not present that evidence or else they would have no case. But it also showed in part 4 and a lot in part 5 that you really have to pay attention during voir dire of the jurors. Because most of them never were going to convict OJ.

Both Parts 1 and 2 outlined the distrust that the LAPD brought on themselves. There were already the Watts riots and other instances where the LAPD would get off scot-free, but the Rodney King trial was akin to throwing a barrel of gas into the fire. This was also why there was a huge police presence during the OJ verdict to ensure that nothing further would happen in the event that OJ was found guilty.

[Juice]

Both Parts 1 and 2 outlined the distrust that the LAPD brought on themselves. There were already the Watts riots and other instances where the LAPD would get off scot-free, but the Rodney King trial was akin to throwing a barrel of gas into the fire. This was also why there was a huge police presence during the OJ verdict to ensure that nothing further would happen in the event that OJ was found guilty.

I found the Latasha Harlins case to be more of an injustice than Rodney King, but yes I agree with your point.

[SemajParlor]

In an event that I thought had been so exhausted/ thought I knew everything there was to know, there was a shocking amount of new pieces of information I learned.

One juror giving the black power sign after the verdict was announced was something I never knew before. Incredible.

[Juice]

In an event that I thought had been so exhausted/ thought I knew everything there was to know, there was a shocking amount of new pieces of information I learned.

One juror giving the black power sign after the verdict was announced was something I never knew before. Incredible.

I saw that in the FX series and thought it was them taking liberties with the story. Crazy stuff.

[xubrew]

I saw that in the FX series and thought it was them taking liberties with the story. Crazy stuff.

I saw that as well and thought it was good, except for OJ. The guy playing him just wasn't OJ.

I'm about half way through the ESPN series. Haven't watched parts 4 or 5 yet. The biggest thing I've gotten out of it so far is that I had forgotten that people actually liked OJ before all this happened. I'm very fortunate of never having to deal with a friend who was abusive or who was the victims of domestic abuse (at least not that I know if, and if I'm wrong, then they hid it extremely well). Having said that, it's disappointing to me that so many of his/her friends, including someone who worked in law enforcement, knew this was going on and did nothing to stop it. They should have called the police on him, or beaten the shit out of him, or both. But, no one did anything.

[Juice]

Even left wing NYC hipsters realize that the Dems PR moves to pass this shitty bill are stupid and violate due process rights
http://gawker.com/the-democrats-are-boldly-fighting-for-a-bad-stupid-bil-1782449026

[X-band '01]

I saw that as well and thought it was good, except for OJ. The guy playing him just wasn't OJ.

I'm about half way through the ESPN series. Haven't watched parts 4 or 5 yet. The biggest thing I've gotten out of it so far is that I had forgotten that people actually liked OJ before all this happened. I'm very fortunate of never having to deal with a friend who was abusive or who was the victims of domestic abuse (at least not that I know if, and if I'm wrong, then they hid it extremely well). Having said that, it's disappointing to me that so many of his/her friends, including someone who worked in law enforcement, knew this was going on and did nothing to stop it. They should have called the police on him, or beaten the shit out of him, or both. But, no one did anything.

That part is remarkable - until I saw the documentary, I didn't know about OJ's previous record of domestic violence. It was swept under the rug.

[waggy]

What I'm hearing from my high placed insider...

Clinton - 260 electoral votes.
Trump - 263 electoral votes.

Result = Martial Law.

[Snipe]

Admittedly, I might be wrong. I haven't seen Christian preachers saying this in the US. Westboro are hateful pieces of shit, but there are people equating them to Orlando, which seems disingenuous.


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

Wow that video is incredible.