BoatShoes;1774046 wrote:

like_that;1774035 wrote:
Paul Ryan passed the recent omnibus bill that Obama signed and is being threatened with a primary challenge. People were begging Chris Christie to run last time but he hugged Obama during Hurricane Sandy and he has been forever banished to RINOland.

As Rush says, conservatives want republicans to fight Obama, not work with him. That has been the way it is since day one. Any republican that is seen working with him or looking to compromise is branded a RINO. Rubio still cannot recover from e0Ben talking with Chuck Schumer.

Ole Barry has accepted the hand he has been dealt. Hopefully he realizes how much he failed during his first two years.

Again, that reverts back to trying to build relationships since he took office, but he didn't. All those examples come after Obama established is reputation. He made it very clear from day 1 it was "US" vs them. It's hillarious how previous presidents weren't allowed to use the "he was given the hand he was dealt" excuse, but somehow the media and obama supporters give Obama a pass on it. This is part of the reason why I call you a fanboy.

BoatShoes;1774032 wrote:Ok now we are talking....her is a conservative open to some government spending. Maybe we can compromise? How bout it is Financed with a generalized tax on firearms and bullet manfacturers and distributors with rates contingent upon the rates at which their products are used in violent crime?

How about not. Shall we institute a special tax on automobiles because they are used to kill people in DUI's?

How about protecting vulnerabilities without infringing on freedom.

How about ending the Assault on the 2nd Amendment.

iclfan2;1773561 wrote:Smart guns are stupid. Also, Obama straight up lied that you can buy a gun online and not have a background check, and the idiotic White House tweeted it. He borderline called people in the nra anti American and anti children. Him crying and parading that pastor's wife around was a total joke as well.

No mention that there are more guns and that the murder rate has been declining (don't care about the suicide numbers).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

he danced around this when Taya Kyle questioned him at the town hall meeting. his claim was in places with more guns, the murder rate is higher and in places with less guns, its lower. I guess he forgets what the laws are in Chicago...

like_that wrote:What your are missing out on is the people don't trust this weasely administration and their disregard to the constitution. The way they go about their business; you give them more backgrounds and they will slowly weasel their way to banning all guns.

If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.

Ha ha, just kidding. Fuck you your insurance isn't good enough you have to buy something more expensive.

I have had Facebook arguments with people who say "nobody wants to take your guns. Why can't we have common sense background checks?" And then 2 minutes later they say "nobody really need an AR 15" Oh? So you want to take me AR 15? I thought nobody was taking my guns?

That is why I have 0 interest in compromising. The gun grabbers do want my guns. They just can't take them all at once, so they are trying to do it little by little and act like I'm crazy because I'm not dumb enough to believe them.

FatHobbit;1774140 wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/janet-reno-on-gun-control-in-1993/

Look this stuff up before you post it. The Janet Reno quote is patently false.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1774162 wrote:http://www.snopes.com/janet-reno-on-gun-control-in-1993/

Look this stuff up before you post it. The Janet Reno quote is patently false.

I usually do a better job of that... You are correct

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1774162 wrote:http://www.snopes.com/janet-reno-on-gun-control-in-1993/

Look this stuff up before you post it. The Janet Reno quote is patently false.

There have been plenty of lies to go around on this issue, and you can't criticize this without noting the pinnochios garnered by the Prez. ... Not the least of which was the implication that what he was proposing was going to stop the epidemic of mass murders that have proliferated under his leadership.

Critically thinking people agree... But like you said a page or two back.." It's a start"
Start to what???? Care to elaborate?

iclfan2;1773561 wrote:Smart guns are stupid. Also, Obama straight up lied that you can buy a gun online and not have a background check, and the idiotic White House tweeted it. He borderline called people in the nra anti American and anti children. Him crying and parading that pastor's wife around was a total joke as well.

No mention that there are more guns and that the murder rate has been declining (don't care about the suicide numbers).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't really get the criticism of him crying? The guy went to the funerals of 20+ murdered innocent children. I'd imagine being at something like that would definitely bring up serious emotion for the rest of their lives


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

like_that;1774048 wrote:

BoatShoes;1774046 wrote: Again, that reverts back to trying to build relationships since he took office, but he didn't. All those examples come after Obama established is reputation. He made it very clear from day 1 it was "US" vs them. It's hillarious how previous presidents weren't allowed to use the "he was given the hand he was dealt" excuse, but somehow the media and obama supporters give Obama a pass on it. This is part of the reason why I call you a fanboy.

Give me a break though the Republican Party has had a war on the President since his election just as the Democrats did on George Bush after they felt stung with Gore's loss


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

like_that;1774048 wrote:

BoatShoes;1774046 wrote: Again, that reverts back to trying to build relationships since he took office, but he didn't. All those examples come after Obama established is reputation. He made it very clear from day 1 it was "US" vs them. It's hillarious how previous presidents weren't allowed to use the "he was given the hand he was dealt" excuse, but somehow the media and obama supporters give Obama a pass on it. This is part of the reason why I call you a fanboy.

He spent an entire year trying to pass Mitt Romney's healthcare plan under the counsel of the same expert who advised Romney and which both Mitt Romney and John McCain would have pursued had they won in 2008.

In other words, he spent a year trying to pass a bill grounded in ideas produced by conservative institutions and he was dismissed.

That is what actually happened but golly why couldn't Obummer work with people who were steadfastly opposed to him unlike any other president in modern times - even when he offered the other party's ideas!

fanboy;1774238 wrote:

like_that;1774048 wrote:
He spent an entire year trying to pass Mitt Romney's healthcare plan under the counsel of the same expert who advised Romney and which both Mitt Romney and John McCain would have pursued had they won in 2008.

In other words, he spent a year trying to pass a bill grounded in ideas produced by conservative institutions and he was dismissed.

That is what actually happened but golly why couldn't Obummer work with people who were steadfastly opposed to him unlike any other president in modern times - even when he offered the other party's ideas!

State vs federal. Please study the difference, thanks.

Glory Days;1774122 wrote:he danced around this when Taya Kyle questioned him at the town hall meeting. his claim was in places with more guns, the murder rate is higher and in places with less guns, its lower. I guess he forgets what the laws are in Chicago...

Chicago is a poor example because you can get any gun you want in Gary, Indiana and you have a constitutional right to cross state borders freely.

Big city mayors routinely point out that 9/10 guns in their crimes come from states like Indiana.

The relevant controlled example is Hawaii which has something like third strictest gun laws and the lowest level of gun violence.

Isolated Alaska on the other hand with little firearms regulation is on the opposite end of the spectrum with high levels of gun violence per capita.

So I say perhaps we could pass Hawaii's rules nationwide? Obviously they do not violate the second amendment since they have not been struck down and they have had success there. Maybe thatvwould be a model pro gun activists could accept if there were some kind of measures also put in place to prevent future congress' from going toward bans,etc.

like_that;1774240 wrote:

fanboy;1774238 wrote:
State vs federal. Please study the difference, thanks.

I understand the difference but you are aware that before he lost in 2008 Romney was promoting Romneycare as the model for the national level as well as conservative policy analysts in think tanks. It was not until Obama made the idea unclean that they backed away from it. The federalism argument was trotted out as a way to try and save face when you go and nominate the guy who Obama stole his major policy achievement from.

BoatShoes;1774243 wrote:

like_that;1774240 wrote:
I understand the difference but you are aware that before he lost in 2008 Romney was promoting Romneycare as the model for the national level as well as conservative policy analysts in think tanks. It was not until Obama made the idea unclean that they backed away from it. The federalism argument was trotted out as a way to try and save face when you go and nominate the guy who Obama stole his major policy achievement from.

Yes, I am not a fanboy with you, so just because he was GOP candidate, doesn't necessarily mean I agreed with him there. See how it works not being a fanboy? Now go on, please try harder telling me what I think.

He spent an entire year trying to pass Mitt Romney's healthcare plan under the counsel of the same expert who advised Romney and which both Mitt Romney and John McCain would have pursued had they won in 2008.

McCain's plan was quite different, didn't mandate participation, and offered tax credits to those who weren't insured at work.

HitsRus;1774185 wrote:There have been plenty of lies to go around on this issue, and you can't criticize this without noting the pinnochios garnered by the Prez. ... Not the least of which was the implication that what he was proposing was going to stop the epidemic of mass murders that have proliferated under his leadership.

Critically thinking people agree... But like you said a page or two back.." It's a start"
Start to what???? Care to elaborate?

I consider it a start to addressing the widespread commerce of guns with no traceability or qualification of the buyer. I also consider it a start in doing something to address the ability of mentally deranged people from acquiring weapons. I have heard the statement that Obama's order wouldn't have prevented mass shootings from occuring. Maybe it would have or maybe not - we'll never know. Putting more resources into background checks, providing a route for identifying people who are not mentally stable enough to have access to guns, and beginning a dialogue on utilizing technology to make guns "smart" i.e. able to be located via GIS software, only accessable by the licensed owner, etc.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1774260 wrote:I have heard the statement that Obama's order wouldn't have prevented mass shootings from occuring. Maybe it would have or maybe not - we'll never know.

In some cases, we DO know, yet it didn't stop the president from using their relatives as props. He should be deeply ashamed for that.

BoatShoes;1774241 wrote:Chicago is a poor example because you can get any gun you want in Gary, Indiana and you have a constitutional right to cross state borders freely.

Big city mayors routinely point out that 9/10 guns in their crimes come from states like Indiana.

the problem is, you can ban all guns for everyone and people will still get guns in Gary, Indiana. and its not a constitutional right to take guns across borders or else California's gun laws would have been repealed. What is legal in one state isnt always legal in the next state.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1774260 wrote: I have heard the statement that Obama's order wouldn't have prevented mass shootings from occuring. Maybe it would have or maybe not - we'll never know.

It shouldn't be that hard to prove. How many weapons from the sensationalized tragedies were purchased without a background check? Or would have been stopped by a background check. I know the guns from Sandy hook were purchased by his mother and she had to have a license to own them. That wouldn't have been stopped at all