U.S. Politics

Page 342 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Because those D's knew it was going to fail and knew that the NRA would spend massive amounts of money for their challenger in the next election.

That bill might not have stopped Newtown, but it was a sensible and warranted measure that failed because of campaign contributions (not voter approval or disapproval). Period.
As does most everything in DC.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Soooo, the question was, "would anything in this bill have prevented Newtown?"

The extremely short answer is, no.
Sorry if you're not getting it, but the bill wasn't about Newtown.

You are aware we have background checks now, right? And you are also aware that it's a federal crime to lie on background check. And certainly you must be aware that Cryin' Biden famously proclaimed "we don't have time" to track down and prosecute those that lie on their background checks.

But I guess yet another law will fix all that:rolleyes:
We don't have a universal background check system, dude, that's what the bill was about. No checks for Internet sales, no checks for gun shows, no checks for private sales. One would think you'd be all for that, considering the entire point of expanding background checks was to reduce the chances of criminals and "mentally ill" from buying guns - isn't that your root causes? Well, here's Obama and the Ds trying to address your root causes. And there's your Rs declining. All red herrings all the time with righties.

If you guys were serious you might start by earning a little public trust
OK, let's have a look at what the public has to say about that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/

Ninety-two percent of Americans favor background checks for all potential gun buyers, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

Universal background checks are one of the proposals that President Obama has called on Congress to pass as part of his proposal to combat gun violence in the wake of the massacre in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December.

Only seven percent of respondents in the poll, which was conducted before the president's press conference, said they oppose background checks for all potential gun buyers.

Support for universal background checks went across party lines: 89 percent of Republicans and 93 percent of Democrats and independents were in favor, as well as 93 percent of gun households and 85 percent of those living in a household with a member of the National Rifle Association.
Huh. 89% of Rs, 93% of gun owners, and 85% of households with an NRA member support Obama's approach. 7% in favor of the NRA's. Yeah, looks like Obama and the Ds aren't the ones going against the public's wishes.

Hmm ok, so they're on board with Obama on background checks. How about generally?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/21/poll-pew-obama-gop-guns-energy-immigration-sequester/1934233/

Hmm ok, so they basically share the same priorities as Obama. How about how the public views Republicans?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/republican-poll_n_2765432.html

Ooh. Not so good.

and enforcing laws already on the books
Dude, we covered this already - the DOJ has had to scale back enforcement because - thanks to you righties - their budget has been slashed. Same with federal and local police forces. So sure, we can give them more money so they can afford to hire more enforcement officers etc, but then you yell and scream about government spending. Doesn't really matter what they do, the right will find something to complain about.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/ohio-sex-education_n_3109223.html

A two-year budget bill advanced by Ohio's state House of Representatives on Tuesday would defund Planned Parenthood, redirect that state money to Christian-run "crisis pregnancy centers," and impose a fine of up to $5,000 on teachers who provide certain kinds of sex education instruction to their students. The sex education amendment to the budget bill, introduced by Rep. Lynn Wachtmann (R), encourages schools to teach abstinence-only education and bans sexual education that condones "any gateway sexual activity or health message that encourages students to experiment with sexual activity." The amendment also prohibits teachers from distributing contraceptive materials and bans public schools from using the services of any individual or organization who “endorses student nonabstinence from sexual activity as an appropriate or acceptable behavior, or if that individual or organization promotes, endorses, advocates, or condones gateway sexual activity.”
How is anything supposed to get done when Rs have gone completely bat**** insane?
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I won't try to emulate MI's excellent debunking of this piece of absolute bovine excrement, as he covered all the salient points. But Pat, linking to "americanthinker" really is a non-no, because of all the many right wing batsh!t inane sites on the webz, this truly is one of the most nasty, virulent, up to their eyeballs in guano pages. I blow wind in their general direction.

As for the NRA, I feel about them rather like Henry II was meant to have felt about Becket. If only the organization could be 'killed off' by one hit. The way the NRA has been allowed to gain, and wield, its insidious extreme conservative influence is one of the major disgraces of Merikan society. I'd like to think that they would be the zombie's first target.
i found this one by following links in the comments sections of one of the articles talking about the defeat of the background checks. i saw another one linking illegal aliens to murder rates.

like MI, i think the vast improvements in trauma care aren't given enough weight when looking at statistics on murder rates, drunk driving deaths, etc., as well as factors like improved crash safety ratings and such.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
All I can tell you is that my wife is a sushi (sashimi actually) snob. She lived in Hawaii and patronized some Japanese sushi chef there who is apparently well known...I don't know who he is from Adam, but I am guessing it was probably pretty great sushi. Guru and Nikko are the only two places in Charlotte she will eat sashimi. Sure, it probably doesn't match places closer to the ocean, but for Charlotte, the place is great.

Me, I know BBQ. You want to know where to eat BBQ in NC, and I can lead you down the path to hog heaven.
Now I'm going to have to go out for sushi AND super yummy pork products. Yer killing me here.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Sorry if you're not getting it, but the bill wasn't about Newtown.

We don't have a universal background check system, dude, that's what the bill was about. No checks for Internet sales, no checks for gun shows, no checks for private sales. One would think you'd be all for that, considering the entire point of expanding background checks was to reduce the chances of criminals and "mentally ill" from buying guns - isn't that your root causes? Well, here's Obama and the Ds trying to address your root causes. And there's your Rs declining. All red herrings all the time with righties.

OK, let's have a look at what the public has to say about that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/

Huh. 89% of Rs, 93% of gun owners, and 85% of households with an NRA member support Obama's approach. 7% in favor of the NRA's. Yeah, looks like Obama and the Ds aren't the ones going against the public's wishes.

Hmm ok, so they're on board with Obama on background checks. How about generally?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/21/poll-pew-obama-gop-guns-energy-immigration-sequester/1934233/

Hmm ok, so they basically share the same priorities as Obama. How about how the public views Republicans?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/republican-poll_n_2765432.html

Ooh. Not so good.

Dude, we covered this already - the DOJ has had to scale back enforcement because - thanks to you righties - their budget has been slashed. Same with federal and local police forces. So sure, we can give them more money so they can afford to hire more enforcement officers etc, but then you yell and scream about government spending. Doesn't really matter what they do, the right will find something to complain about.
Sorry if you're not getting it, but the bill wasn't about Newtown.
It was a simple question with an even simpler answer. Tell me, why were Newtown parents in the Senate gallery yesterday? Why fly those families to lobby for the bill? I'm truly curious.

We don't have a universal background check system, dude, that's what the bill was about. No checks for Internet sales, no checks for gun shows, no checks for private sales. One would think you'd be all for that, considering the entire point of expanding background checks was to reduce the chances of criminals and "mentally ill" from buying guns - isn't that your root causes? Well, here's Obama and the Ds trying to address your root causes. And there's your Rs declining. All red herrings all the time with righties.
And we don't enforce the laws already on the books. Pass another law that won't be enforced. Why?

Huh. 89% of Rs, 93% of gun owners, and 85% of households with an NRA member support Obama's approach. 7% in favor of the NRA's. Yeah, looks like Obama and the Ds aren't the ones going against the public's wishes.
Given how concerned the corrupt politicians are about staying in office one has to wonder why would they go against these overwhelming numbers??

Maybe it's because, try as the left might, Americans are not real concerned with gun control. I posted this yesterday. you must have missed it.

Few in U.S. See Guns, Immigration as Nation's Top Problems




Yep. Just 4% of America is whipped up about this issue.

It really is too bad Obama hasn't been this worked up over economic issues... but then that's not really in keeping with his divide and conquer strategy, is it?

Dude, we covered this already - the DOJ has had to scale back enforcement because - thanks to you righties - their budget has been slashed. Same with federal and local police forces. So sure, we can give them more money so they can afford to hire more enforcement officers etc, but then you yell and scream about government spending. Doesn't really matter what they do, the right will find something to complain about
Bull****. This has nothing to do with money it's just more cynical politics. The federal budget this year is 3,900 Billion. This admin doesn't give a wit about gun violence. The ends (strict gun control) justify the means (raging inner city gun violence).
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It was a simple question with an even simpler answer. Tell me, why were Newtown parents in the Senate gallery yesterday? Why fly those families to lobby for the bill? I'm truly curious.



And we don't enforce the laws already on the books. Pass another law that won't be enforced. Why?



Given how concerned the corrupt politicians are about staying in office one has to wonder why would they go against these overwhelming numbers??

Maybe it's because, try as the left might, Americans are not real concerned with gun control. I posted this yesterday. you must have missed it.

Few in U.S. See Guns, Immigration as Nation's Top Problems




Yep. Just 4% of America is whipped up about this issue.

It really is too bad Obama hasn't been this worked up over economic issues... but then that's not really in keeping with his divide and conquer strategy, is it?



Bull****. This has nothing to do with money it's just more cynical politics. The federal budget this year is 3,900 Billion. This admin doesn't give a wit about gun violence. The ends (strict gun control) justify the means (raging inner city gun violence).
My Math Prof. dad used to have a book entitled "How to Lie with Statistics" on his desk, I see you have read it.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
My Math Prof. dad used to have a book entitled "How to Lie with Statistics" on his desk, I see you have read it.
Here's my statistics:
Drunk driving fatalities in the US: a gazillion
Drunk driving fatalities in Saudi Arabia: zero

...which demonstrates that women can't drive.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
My Math Prof. dad used to have a book entitled "How to Lie with Statistics" on his desk, I see you have read it.
Looks pretty straight forward.

The question was "what do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?"

And an overwhelming 4 out of every 100 persons polled responded with the answer "gun control."

But not to worry. A few more years of hysterics from the left and that number might double.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Cobblestones said:
Here's my statistics:
Drunk driving fatalities in the US: a gazillion
Drunk driving fatalities in Saudi Arabia: zero

...which demonstrates that women can't drive.
THAT is comedy... for all of you to wound up to notice.
 
Scott SoCal said:
I realize they force smaller competitors out. Walmart did not invent the model they use.

Again, somehow the country survived when huge supermarket chains put out the local grocer.

Consumers drive this, not vice-versa.
Consumers don't drive anything. They are sheep and will go to whichever pasture is most convenient.

Except as far as business goes legislation impacts decisively on what the pasture looks like and there are forces behind this that aim to drive consumers to the pasture of choice. It is thus the businesses that drive consumers and not vice versa.

Wal-Mart is disgraceful, not because it supports the republican party, but because it is a horrendous business model as far as salaried workers are concerned (although naturally this is why it supports republicans).

Whereas what you have said in another post about Wal-Mart catering to a low end retail market and that's why it can't "afford" to increase salaries is so utterly ridiculous that it doesn't even bear thinking about.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It was a simple question with an even simpler answer. Tell me, why were Newtown parents in the Senate gallery yesterday? Why fly those families to lobby for the bill? I'm truly curious.
Why was Giffords there, too? Why was Maisch there? To support the passage of gun control legislation, duh.

And we don't enforce the laws already on the books. Pass another law that won't be enforced. Why?
Sorry, did you miss that study showing that states with more gun laws have lower rates of gun violence? Because gun control measures work, dude. I know the right absolutely hates that, but unfortunately it's true.

Given how concerned the corrupt politicians are about staying in office one has to wonder why would they go against these overwhelming numbers??
Yeah. You do have to wonder. They're your people, the one's you vote for, so why don't you ask them yourself? Or perhaps stop voting for them?

Maybe it's because, try as the left might, Americans are not real concerned with gun control. I posted this yesterday. you must have missed it.

Few in U.S. See Guns, Immigration as Nation's Top Problems


Yep. Just 4% of America is whipped up about this issue.
Odd. Only a quarter of Americans are whipped up about the economy and even fewer about jobs. Guess it's not such a big deal.

Only 4% believe that gun control is the most important problem, dude, not that it's not a problem. In other words, 4 out of 100 Americans believe that guns are a bigger problem than the economy, jobs, climate change, everything else. Which is actually a pretty significant number - I would've thought it'd be maybe 1% at the very most.

It really is too bad Obama hasn't been this worked up over economic issues... but then that's not really in keeping with his divide and conquer strategy, is it?
Well next up is that long-awaited Republican jobs bill, which...oh wait, no, my mistake, it's the 35th - 36th? lost track - symbolic vote repealing Obamacare. Well surely the R-controlled House is doing something, eh?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/congress-unproductive_n_2371387.html

OK maybe not.

Bull****. This has nothing to do with money it's just more cynical politics. The federal budget this year is 3,900 Billion. This admin doesn't give a wit about gun violence. The ends (strict gun control) justify the means (raging inner city gun violence).
If you want more judges and more police officers and more ATF agents and more equipment etc etc etc you're gonna have to pay for it. Despite the caseload increasing every year, the ATF (nor the DOJ for that matter) budget hasn't changed in decades. You're the businessman, wtf do you think is going to happen when you have more and more clients but the same number of staff?

btw did you know that the ATF hasn't had a Director for almost 8 years now? Wanna know why? Because the Rs keep blocking Obama's nominees. They blocked Bush's, too. Do you know why the Rs keep blocking ATF director nominees?

Congressional Republicans have been upset at the management at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which authorized a botched sting operation near the Mexican border that put guns in the hands of drug criminals.

But Republican leaders, responding to complaints from gun-rights lobbyists, have refused to confirm a director for the bureau since it was split from the Treasury Department eight years ago.
Can you guys just secede and leave already?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Cobblestones said:
Here's my statistics:
Drunk driving fatalities in the US: a gazillion
Drunk driving fatalities in Saudi Arabia: zero

...which demonstrates that women can't drive.
That makes sense.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
rhubroma said:
Consumers don't drive anything. They are sheep and will go to whichever pasture is most convenient.

Except as far as business goes legislation impacts decisively on what the pasture looks like and there are forces behind this that aim to drive consumers to the pasture of choice. It is thus the businesses that drive consumers and not vice versa.

Wal-Mart is disgraceful, not because it supports the republican party, but because it is a horrendous business model as far as salaried workers are concerned (although naturally this is why it supports republicans).

Whereas what you have said in another post about Wal-Mart catering to a low end retail market and that's why it can't "afford" to increase salaries is so utterly ridiculous as to not be worth thinking about.
You seem to relish in your ignorance. Just as Walmart cant force people to work there they cannot also force people to shop there.

You do realize that the average Walmart worker is among the lowest skilled employable worker, right? And yet, Walmart employs them. One would think you would appreciate that.
 
Scott SoCal said:
You seem to relish in your ignorance. Just as Walmart cant force people to work there they cannot also force people to shop there.

You do realize that the average Walmart worker is among the lowest skilled employable worker, right? And yet, Walmart employs them. One would think you would appreciate that.
Nope it's about human dignity and greed, other than my ignorance. Evidently your business model doesn't account for that. Indentured servants had a better deal, though how is this possible, today, in the "land of opportunity?" At least they were provided with food, accommodation, clothing and training. What, consequently, is there to appreciate?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
rhubroma said:
Suprised nobody is remarking about the poisoned letters sent to Obama and Senator Wicker.
I mentioned them but I think that was in another thread. Strange the idiot went after a Republican and then a Democrat. That sorta blows the whole racist white guy theory out of the water....or did he send that letter just to throw off the real target? Start out with the White Senator from Mississippi and then go after his actual target? :eek:


Nah ,,,,,, the guy was making threats for quite some time to Senator Wicker so I guess he decided why not include the president without a birth certificate. :rolleyes:
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
I mentioned them but I think that was in another thread. Strange the idiot went after a Republican and then a Democrat. That sorta blows the whole racist white guy theory out of the water....or did he send that letter just to throw off the real target? Start out with the White Senator from Mississippi and then go after his actual target? :eek:


Nah ,,,,,, the guy was making threats for quite some time to Senator Wicker so I guess he decided why not include the president without a birth certificate. :rolleyes:
Senator Wicker approved of the gun restrictions bill, hence there may well be a connection with Boston. We'll have to wait and see though.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
I mentioned them but I think that was in another thread. Strange the idiot went after a Republican and then a Democrat. That sorta blows the whole racist white guy theory out of the water....or did he send that letter just to throw off the real target? Start out with the White Senator from Mississippi and then go after his actual target? :eek:


Nah ,,,,,, the guy was making threats for quite some time to Senator Wicker so I guess he decided why not include the president without a birth certificate. :rolleyes:
He believes that he's uncovered a secret government program to sell bodyparts. I don't think he's all there.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Why was Giffords there, too? Why was To support the passage of gun control legislation. um, duh.

Oh wait as second...is this a lead up to another rightie conspiracy theory that I'm missing here? Oh man, I walked right into that.

Sorry, did you miss that study showing that states with more gun laws have lower rates of gun violence? Because gun control measures work, dude. I know the right absolutely hates that, but unfortunately it's true.

Yeah. You do have to wonder. They're your people, the one's you vote for, so why don't you ask them yourself? Or perhaps stop voting for them?

Odd. Only a quarter of Americans are concerned about the economy and even fewer about jobs. Guess it's not such a big deal.

Only 4% believe that gun control is the most important problem, dude.

Well next up is that long-awaited Republican jobs bill, which...oh wait, no, my mistake, it's the 35th - 36th? lost track - symbolic vote repealing Obamacare. Well surely the R-controlled House is doing something, eh?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/congress-unproductive_n_2371387.html

OK maybe not.

If you want more judges and more police officers and more ATF agents and more equipment etc etc etc you're gonna have to pay for it. Despite the caseload increasing every year, the ATF (nor the DOJ for that matter) budget hasn't changed in decades.

Jesus, you're the ****ing businessman, wtf do you think is going to happen when you have more and more clients but the same number of staff?

btw did you know that the ATF hasn't had a Director for almost 8 years now? Wanna know why? Because the Rs keep blocking Obama's nominees. They blocked Bush's, too. Do you know why the Rs keep blocking ATF director nominees?



Can you guys just secede and leave already?
Sorry, did you miss that study showing that states with more gun laws have lower rates of gun violence? Because gun control measures work, dude. I know the right absolutely hates that, but unfortunately it's true
Three words for you. DC, Chicago, Atlanta.

Yeah. You do have to wonder. They're your people, the one's you vote for, so why don't you ask them yourself? Or perhaps stop voting for them?
It just may be that this issue only really stirs up the far left ideologues. See the Gallup poll for confirmation.

Odd. Only a quarter of Americans are concerned about the economy and even fewer about jobs. Guess it's not such a big deal.

Only 4% believe that gun control is the most important problem, dude.
Yep, that's what the poll says. To listen to you though one would think gun control was on the top of everyone's mind. It must just blow you away to know that most aren't too concerned with it... and that a far higher percentage are concerned with economics. If you combine the "economy" and "jobs" it is 42 out of 100... 10X that of gun control. I mean, gun control didn't even out poll Ethic/moral/family decline. Given how much air time has been given to the gun control issue I think it's safe to say you guys have totally failed.

If you want more judges and more police officers and more ATF agents and more equipment etc etc etc you're gonna have to pay for it. Despite the caseload increasing every year, the ATF (nor the DOJ for that matter) budget hasn't changed in decades.

Jesus, you're the ****ing businessman, wtf do you think is going to happen when you have more and more clients but the same number of staff?
Hmmm, with nearly a 4 trillion dollar budget and a 1 trillion dollar deficit year over year we just can't seem to get our priorities in order. Too many Solyndra's I guess.

Can you guys just secede and leave already?
I dunno. I'm in Cali. I think we seceded a couple decades ago.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
rhubroma said:
Nope it's about human dignity and greed, other than my ignorance. Indentured servants had a better deal, though how is this possible, today, in the "land of opportunity?" At least they were provided with food, accommodation, clothing and training. What, consequently, is there to appreciate?
I'm curious. On the average employee pay scale, at what point would you consider Walmart to be a "decent" employer?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
rhubroma said:
Senator Wicker approved of the gun restrictions bill, hence there may well be a connection with Boston. We'll have to wait and see though.
Probably. You gotta watch those Elvis impersonators.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY