Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Obama gun plan meets resistance from Republicans on Capitol Hill

President Obama's sweeping plan to address gun violence was met Wednesday with swift and stiff resistance by gun rights advocates and conservative lawmakers, setting up a tense debate that will be held on the airwaves, in congressional hearing rooms and in communities across America.

The package proposed Wednesday is the most comprehensive in decades. The president called for a new, tougher assault weapons ban and a 10-round limit on magazines, as well as legislation to bar the possession of armor-piercing bullets and require criminal background checks for nearly all gun sales.

Separately, he approved 23 executive actions while calling for additional funding to address mental health and school security.

The movement comes in the wake of last month's school massacre in Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were killed.

"If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try," said Obama, joined at the White House by four children who wrote to the president following the Newtown, Conn., tragedy.

But several lawmakers said the president's proposals in large part would not have prevented a shooting like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School. They accused the president of glossing over potential factors like the entertainment industry and the country's mental health system, making clear that the legislative proposals could face an uphill climb.

"Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook. President Obama is targeting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said. "Rolling back responsible citizens' rights is not the proper response to tragedies committed by criminals and the mentally ill."

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the proposals would merely invite "drawn-out court battles."

"Instead of a thoughtful, open and deliberate conversation, President Obama is attempting to institute new restrictions on a fundamental constitutional right," he said.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, in a written statement, said: "Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons, and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror."

But both sides of the debate were preparing Wednesday for a drawn-out national debate. The National Rifle Association is preparing to launch a major ad campaign and has already started running one ad. The group said Wednesday it would work with Congress on a "bipartisan basis" but that "attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation."

The NRA said: "Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected, and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy" as a result of the administration's plan.


Curt Fouts said...

I ask any Obama fan to tell us how any of the things he signed today during his little dog and pony show would have stopped the Sandy Hook murderer.

Leticia said...

They won't be able to give a good answer, just only repeat what the media tells them.

Jersey McJones said...

Well, since obviously neither one of you have actually read the list of EO's, here it is for your perusal:

1-4, 6-8, 12, 13, 15, 16-18, and 19-23 are all relevant to this particular mass shooting in CT.

Beyond that, what the President is asking of congress could certainly help. Smaller magazines, slower firing, and so forth.

No mature, reasonable, sensible, caring, decent, moral human being would have a hard time understanding this. And you shouldn't need "the media" to tell you anything. It should be self-evident. Besides, liberals aren't the gaping tube zombies with their ears and eyes pinned to America's number one cable news outlet - FOX News.


Liberalmann said...

92% of Americans support new laws regarding weapons. No one is trying to take your(legal) handguns or hunting rifles from you.

Leticia said...

Jersey, I have read it and I DO NOT approve. He does not have the constitutional right to tell us what we can and cannot own! Once again, he is stomping on our 2nd amendment rights. Executive order or not, many of us will not comply with this absurdity.

He is using the CT shooting and then posing with children as pawns to further his agenda.

He is behaving more like a dictator every day than a leader that is supposed to uphold our constitutional rights.

Leticia said...

Lib, I don't believe that. And I am full of supporting the NRA in opposing the orders.

Liberalmann said...

"Instead of a thoughtful, open and deliberate conversation, President Obama is attempting to institute new restrictions on a fundamental constitutional right,"

Lol, yeah and the NRA are being sooo diplomatic. Gimme a break. The time for 'conversation' is over. It's time to act regardless of the few loons out there who disagree.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

From the Brady Campaign:

"A rape can last 30 seconds, but a murder lasts forever."


That's some kind of consolation, is it not?

Do you not feel assuaged and soothed?


Jersey McJones said...

Leticia, what are you talking about? Where in any of the executive orders did Obama ask you to "comply" with anything? This has no effect on you.

You just hate the guy no matter what he does, don't you?

Ya' know, hate is a pretty horrible sin.


dmarks said...

Jersey said: " Where in any of the executive orders did Obama ask you to "comply" with anything? This has no effect on you."

Not all of us are so terribly selfish as you, and willing to shrug and accept bad public policies as long as we are not personally affected. The rest of us have a sense of citizenship, that we are all in this together, and oppose bad policies when they harm the nation and fellow citizens. Regardless of how we are effected.

If we had more people like you, Jersey, we'd still have Jim Crow, or even slavery. After all, the majority whites were not affected by these bad public policies, so why would they object at all?

Liberalmann said...

Obama has asked congress to come up with an assault weapon ban. That's what Americans are asking for and that's what we need.

His Executive Actions are benign and include things like; (finally) designating a Director of the ATF (which the GOP blocked for years becasue they were in the pockets of the NRA) and to collect data related to gun violence (again, this was also blocked by the GOP)

Watch this eye opening video:

Liberalmann said...

And I don't suppose you realize Reagan supports an assault weapons ban.

Learn more before you pontificate such bullshit:

The Question Man said...

The usual suspects,teabaggers, right wing nuts,extreemists types. Wake up, you are now the minority,OBAMA won the election!
It is proven beyond doubt ANYONE who hates Barack Obama is a Right-wing racist!
Can Barack Obama be impeached for the numerous impeachable offenses he’s committed? He has not committed any, so no
Is Barack Obama a dictator? No, he was elected as president
Does Barack Obama hate America? No
Is Obama trying to destroy Ameria? That is CRAZY!
Is Barack Obama a narcissist? No
Is Barack Obama an evil man? No
Is Barack Obama a traitor? No
Is Barack Obama an Anti-American? No
Does Barack Obama hate White people? No
Is Barack Obama a Marxist? No
Is Barack Obama a communist? No
Is Barack Obama a pathological liar? No
Is Barack Obama a Muslim? No
You right-wing racists hypocrites call Obama “shameless” for “using children” to fix gun laws? Here’s a doozy, WHEN DID PLANNING TO BAN CERTAIN GUNS EQUALS “GUN GRAB”!
As expected the only people who have a problem with it are the party of bigots, extremists, and racists. It’s wrong when the black man does it:
In 2006, President Bush issued his first veto to block stem cell research legislation that had easily passed the Republican-controlled Senate and House. In front of several families and their “snowflake” children (so named because they “were born from “adopted” frozen embryos that had been left unused at fertility clinics), Bush explained why the other 400,000 embryos would have to stay on ice.
They’re not taking anything away, census pollers aren’t gonna start confiscating your guns. They’re making it harder for whackos to buy them and getting the completely unnecessary military grade weapons out of civilian reach. Quite frankly, if you vitriolic, conspiracy theorists are the ones so pissed off about all this….I’m *GLAD* President Obama is making changes. I want the right to own a gun, absolutely….but stockpile arsenals is idiotic…of the government is really out to get you, your guns won’t do a bit of good, and neither will your precious constitution.The world applauds Obama for being the first President in god-knows-when to actually take practical measures in reducing America’s appalling gun violence problems, as well as showing some balls in standing up to the gun industry/lobby and it’s army of deluded devotees.
Obama has not exploited anyone is the recent gun control discussion. He has used the Sandy Creek event as an example.
A problem is congress and the fact that they can be bought by a lobby or association.
A common sense approach would be to bring everyone together and go through the pros and cons in a step by step fashion…Agreement achieved at each step.
Extremist views and outliers like some of the leads in the NRA have derailed this type of approach with a disregard for other views.
You Righty nuts comparing him Hitler, Mao, or Stalin is a bit much and is hyperbolic. Frankly it’s just ignorant.

The Question Man said...

NO,Obama is not trying to destroy America!
A fraud? A usurper? He is the legitimately elected President. His birth has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, both through document and newspaper evidence, and as his mother was an American citizen that challenge is moot to begin with.
The question of his political beliefs is ridiculous. A Marxist or Communist would not have settled for a privately owned hospital system as Obama did. The comparisons to Stalin, Hitler and Mao make the comparators look ignorant and stupid. Where are his death camps? Who has he persecuted? What privately owned resources has he nationalized? Not one!
Muslims go to the mosque. Obama goes to church. He eats pork and shrimp. Muslims do not. This is another stupid claim made by stupid people who also claim that Reverend Wright has too much influence on him, without for a second thinking how one argument gives the lie to the other.
As for election fraud, not one shred of evidence has been offered to suggest this either. Quite the opposite in fact, with Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics. You fools constantly roll out photos of dead children killed by drones that were ordered by Obama to kill, but since most of you guys support killing little brown Muslim babies, and soon little black Muslim babies and children in Africa that would be pointless.
Ad hominem comments and remarks by right-wing conservatives are staples in all of their media outlets, whether print, radio, television, or, especially, on the internet. It’s what they do.
When they finally realize that they are not winning a particular argument or issue; when they see finally that people just simply do not accept or believe their continual myth-making, and are prepared to ignore, if not punish them for their continued irrationality – they resort to personal attack. like calling our President, the Commander in chief rude, fabricated and juvenile names.. He’s a “BY”, He’s a “Child President” Calling him “BO” The “Amateur president”. “He’s not my President” is what you’re gonna say. Yes..ALL racists and bigoted scum like them say that. They don’t considering Anyone who is not WHITE a leader!
That’s how the racist right works, and that’s how there are ALWAYS gonna work! Seal with it!

dmarks said...

Question has plagiarized his comments from elsewhere and has mindlessly spammed them into this blog. And who knows how many others.

Not only that, but he is plagiarizing lies:

"That’s how the racist right works"

You have presented no instances of racism from the right. However, you strongly imply racism on your part: the racism that says that Obama's skin color makes him above the criticism that a white President would get.

It fits in with how you have proven yourself a racist elsewhere, as you like to use racist slurs.

dmarks said...

Another correction to Question's purely plagiarized and generally racist rant:

"A problem is congress and the fact that they can be bought by a lobby or association."

On this and so many issues, the Republican-led House is the solution, not the problem. On guns and other issues, they are remembering the public interest and our rights, and are ignoring illegitimate lobbyists, associations, and interests.

This is in sharp contrast to the Democrats, who, for example, cave in contributions for unions, and consistently vote against workers' rights.

Curt Fouts said...

Mr. Mc Jones:

The Sandy Hook murderer stole the weapons from his mom, so the things you enumerate would not have prevented this tragedy.

Let's talk about proper gun storage. Had the mother had the guns locked up as she should have, given she had a mentally unstable person in the house, the shooting would not have happened (We do not know if he would have sought other means).

I also favor increased background checks for the secondary market. That's where 80% of criminals get their weapons.

I have a question for Mr McJones, Liberalmann, and The Question Man:

How many fatalities do we have in this nation each year from "assault weapons?"

Did the assault weapons ban affect these numbers?

Our right to own firearms is on par with our other rights, some of which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Do you see how an attack on one, can open a line of attack on others?

Does it disturb you that people were calling for the government to silence that Florida koran burner and the anti-muslim YouTube filmmaker?

Does anyone here see a connection?

For the record, I see the current President's actions to be no more egregious than past presidents, but that is damning with faint praise.

Gun Control's Potemkin Village

The Question Man said...

dmarks said...
"Question has plagiarized his comments from elsewhere and has mindlessly spammed them into this blog. And who knows how many others."


Get over it and move on with your goddamn life, pussy

Teresa said...

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence,” said the unreleased NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

To those who think nothing of infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights: Why do you want institute a ban that has no affect on crime? That will ONLY AFFECT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS? Gee that takes real brilliance right there. At least Fox News uses common sense and doesn't go along with the gun control mantra like the lib bots here.

The Question Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Question Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Question said: "So get over it and move on with your goddamn life, pussy"

Well, at least you admit you are mindlessly spamming your racist "how dare anyone question authority!" rants all over the place. Not plagiarizing, but just mindless Ctrl-V.

However, I wonder if it is an improvement if you have moved from using racial slurs to vaguely sexist insults. Probably not. Facts, respect, and intelligent arguement appears to be far far from your grasp.

By the way, caught you in a lie about "voter supression". There were no voters being supressed. Sorry, fake voters, illegal aliens, felons in many states are NOT actual voters.

dmarks said...

Question Man said: "The election of a black President not just once but twice and resoundingly the second time has unhinged many on the far right."

Perhaps, but irrelevant. There is no one from the "far right" posting on this or any of the related blogs. However, there are many principled, non-racist, non-extremist conservatives... most of whom, I assume, dislike Question Man's repeated racism that Obama's skin color exempts him from the criticism that a white President, any President would receive.

dmarks said...

And before we banish this racist bigot troll "Question Man" to his cozy spot under his bridge again, let us look once more at the picture of Dr. King, which for some odd reason accompanies his hate filled, juvenile insult peppered and quite racist rants.

Lets remember the real King, a very different individual from "Question Man" in most important ways.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

A very very far cry from the racial supremacist Question Man, who judges by the color of skin first and foremost... which is why he is giving Obama a free pass just because he is black. Why he is doing something the rest of us, who are influenced by reason instead of racism, won't do.

Now if you will excuse me, I will go to find the speech in which Dr. King calls people who oppose all racism "pussies"...

Imagine The Impossibilities: said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Imagine The Impossibilities: said...

Obama wants your guns! He wants to do so one way or another, through Congress or through an “Executive Order” – ORDER you and every law abiding American on what to do and not to do concerning guns! Not though Congress and a vote but - just because Hussein says so. This is the real Obama.
If you’re looking for a reason to be skeptical that the gun control proposals President Obama unveiled yesterday, lets put it this way, Ladies and gentlemen, this is how a Marxist thinks.
The MSM and the Liberals are all up in arms complaining and bitching because the NRA ran an ad about Obamás daughters having armed guards. So what! It’s true isn’t it.
Isn’t it also true that these Hollywood freaks like Rosie O'Donnell uses an ARMED guard to guard her children. Where is the outcry about that?
Chuckie Schumer must believe that he's special, because he wishes to ban private citizens' ownership of firearms, while he carries a gun himself..
No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much - he's able to protect himself,"
Obama wants to disarm the American people. Just like dictators do to their people.
Am I comparing Barrack Hussein Obama to a dictator? Not exactly, but do the homework and you will find that it’s obvious. Both are /were dictator control freaks who want to enact policies that negatively effect millions of people. Both have the “I don’t care what the people think, I’m going to do what I want to do” attitude.
Obama said right from the beginning that he wants to “fundamentally transform America”into what he thinks is the way it should be

Liberalmann said...

Imagine The Impossibilities; What can I say to a clueless lunatic like you?

Teresa said:"To those who think nothing of infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights: Why do you want institute a ban that has no affect on crime? That will ONLY AFFECT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS? Gee that takes real brilliance right there. At least Fox News uses common sense and doesn't go along with the gun control mantra like the lib bots here.
Leave it to you to exemplify someone with little percipience. And once you bring up Fox News as having 'common sense,'you're the 'bot.'No one is infringing on your 2nd Amendment rights. Keep your handguns and hunting rifles as long as they're legal. Reagan supported an assault weapons ban. Sandy Hook would not have happened without the weapons this kid at his disposal. Not to mention Columbine and others.

Watch the videos at the links I gave above and learn something.

Jon Stewart has more sense than Fox News.

Teresa said...


How am I a 'bot'? When I don't even have cable so I don't watch Fox News? Actually the fact that I can think counter cultural and believe differently than ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN means I think whereas I you follow the societal norm without thinking much at all.

I do like John Stewart. He's at least consistent about calling out all politicians.

Teresa said...


You are absolutely correct about Reagan supporting an assault weapons ban. Here is an article explaining Reagan's position and how the president was right to cite the former president.

But I'm still against any executive order that affects the 2nd Amendment. But regardless I may have to depart from Reagan on this one.

Leticia said...

Lib, fine. You can give up your constitutional rights, but I will fight for mine. You think that you are safe? Really? If you hear someone breaking into your home, are you going to act or cower in a closet and hope and pray the police will show up in time to save you? It takes seconds for you to be shot or killed.

BZ, excellent point. But some people just don't get it. Someone tried again to break into my home and I was ready for them. They heard the cocking of my gun and ran off. That's why I want my gun and I refuse to give it up. My family deserves to be feel safe in their home.

Jersey, yes it does effect me and every gun owner. Fine, give up your rights to own any gun of your choice, but I will not. He will NOT infringe on my rights. He does not have the legal right to do what he is doing, it is not up to him, even though he thinks it does.

Question, please do me a favor DO NOT USE GOD'S NAME IN VAIN, ever again on MY BLOG! I will allow most comments but that is absolutely inexcusable and your vile vulgarity will not be tolerated. This is your only warning. I will ban you from posting here.

Furthermore, you are just quoting what the media says or other liberals are saying and your hate of our views is obvious. You are quite mistaken if you honestly believe conservatives believe what you are spewing. It's all MSM propaganda and you are just eating up.

Liberals are welcome here, and I respect what they say, even though most of the time I disagree with them. Use your own voice here not someone else's. It's okay. Think out of the box.

Leticia said...

Imagine, you are spot on and I must say you did an excellent job of explaining this in perfect clarity.

Jersey McJones said...

Again, Leticia, please answer me this; Where in any of the executive orders did Obama ask you to "comply" with anything?

None of you can say.

You know why? Because he hasn't.

Pure and total bovine stool.


Leticia, where did I use the Lord's Name in vain? Please don't lie about me. That's a sin too. Remember, I'm very familiar with Christianity and I know a sin when I see one.

And you lied again about my posting. It contained the actual list of EO's from the White House. The LA Times was just the portal for the link. And NONE of those EO's infringed on your Second Amendment rights in any way whatsoever.

Ya' know, you really offended me, Leticia, and I certainly said nothing to offend you. That was hypocritically and terribly unfair. I'm very disappointed.


Curt, grow up. Find a grown-up hobby. The gun thing is getting old. Whatever the stats, semi-autos are unnecessary to most any adult, mature, understandable use, and are uniquely dangerous. And that sleazy numbers game involving people being murdered? Really??? REALLY??? Grow up.


Radical Redneck said...

Liberalmann said...
"Imagine The Impossibilities; What can I say to a clueless lunatic like you?"

Now isn't that the Pot calling the kettle Black!

dmarks said...

Radical: All it meant was that Imagine presented such a rock-solid argument that Libb could not even begin to dispute it. So he insulted instead.

Par for the course.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

We are facing this situation because people today have absolutely no idea as to the meaning of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", nor do they even take the time to do a little research to find out the framers' of the Constitution, original intent for all of the things they placed into the Bill of Rights.

People need to wise up and realize that just because a politician, lawyer or judge says or declares something, does not make it right or constitutional.

Leticia said...

Jersey, it was the comment from "Question Man" that used the Lord's name in vain, I deleted his comments. I won't tolerate that, ever. I apologize if you thought I was accusing you. You have never disrespected me in that manner. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I will try to explain how Obama is infringing on my rights. Legally, he doesn't have the right to tell anyone what they can own and cannot own, and that includes guns.

2nd Amendment: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Read some of these quotes from our founding fathers:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
Zachariah Johnson

The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry

As you see, the President DOES NOT have the right to infringe on our gun rights nor does he have the power to change the constitution.

dmarks said...

Most Rev: To some, "shall not be infringed" has a big asterisk after it:

* Except when deemed inconvenient in an arbitrary fashion by the ruling elites... a decision which will be supported by a gullible "never question authority" segment of society that is contemptuous of basic human rights.

dmarks said...

More for Question Man. You said Obama cannot be impeached because he does not meet any of the conditions you laid out.

One of them was "Is Barack Obama a pathological liar? No"

Actually, his lies on many subjects are well documented. Do you want a list? It should be easy to find. Anyway, using your own criteria, Obama is deserving of impeachment.

Jersey McJones said...

Leticia, nowhere in Obama's EO's does he impose on your Second Amendment rights. It's not a real issue.


Liberalmann said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Liberalmann said...

Liberalmann said...

Leticia said..."Lib, fine. You can give up your constitutional rights, but I will fight for mine. You think that you are safe? Really? If you hear someone breaking into your home, are you going to act or cower in a closet and hope and pray the police will show up in time to save you? It takes seconds for you to be shot or killed."


I'm constantly amazed at your naiveté. Wingnuts like you actually believe they will have to use their guns against some form of government tyranny in the future, when if the government wanted you dead, they'd drone your ass, lol!

If the founders who wrote the 2nd amendment (which was in response to the whiskey rebellion and the need for state militias to quell uprisings), knew there would be such things as AR-15s, they'd have written a totally different amendment. They knew the Constitution was intended to change with the times. That's why we have amendments.

They also required you to register your guns, limited ammunition and you had to annually pass 'muster.' Know what that is?

No one is asking you to give up your constitutional rights. For crying out loud, no one is asking you to give up your handguns and rifles for the bad guys who invade your home, just give up the child killing machines. And let's stop the NRA from lobbying our government to keep us from having and effective ATF, and keep us from collecting data on gun crimes.


dmarks said...

Yeah right Lib. You end your rant by directing us to a link to a buffoon comedian on a leftist opinion site: all opinion and snark and no fact.

I for one am glad that the NA is lobbying Congress and encouraging them to take their oaths seriously and not not forget the public interest: and to remind them that the ATF has no business harassing lab-abiding citizens, and that date collection should not include anything on those who didnt'd do any crimes.

And yes we do have amendments, such as the Second. Much to the disappointment of those like you who hold basic human rights in contempt.

Kithogan said...

Hey Libman, enough already of your BS.. I for one have heard enough from you about that bunch of crooked and anti America Obama clan and their subservient toads accusing the Republicans day after day of being against the American people because we don't subscribe to I have heard enough of the Obama clan and their subservient toads accusing all who don't subscribe to their radical raping of the USA and waging war on one or another way of American life. and on the Constitution.
This bunch of radical people, through their actions, have declared WAR on my God, the, elderly, the infirm and disabled, the Constitution, the economy, the financial sector, health care, border security, fair elections, truth and every other facet of American society. They just keep attacking and taking more control over our American way of lives.
Even The First Lady who as far as I know has not been elected to anything has been dictating and spewing her hypocritical crap to the American public as she goes on her $4 million dollar vacations and eating everything but the Kitchen Sink, instead of setting an example. The media seems to cast a blind eye and ear when it comes to her outrageous spending. Oh the HYPOCRISY!!

Kithogan said...

Hey Libman, don't you think it's really sad to see how our liberties are dying in America, as our Dear Leader preachers us on "a day of service"??. . .I spent 2 years in the Army serving in Iraq Mr. President, what kind of service did you contribute?

Oh right, you were a "Community Organizer" Lovely.

The Question Man said...

Yeah right Kithogan I guess he didn't have time to get a flight suit with a giant codpiece. Judge Napalitano, Mike Gallagher, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck want to put the POTUS in jail for "Assassinating" a "world leader". Do Republicans "heart" al Qaeda now?

The Whole REPUBLIKLAN PARTY ARE FULL OF RACIST. Gas is starting to go down, General Motors makes a profit, and the Republiklan Party wants to put the POTUS in JAIL.


We all know he's not a Socialist because FOX Washington Bureau chief Bill Sammon said HE LIED about the POTUS being a Socialist.

You have the Koch Brothers destroying Unions and Paul Ryan saying he wants to get rid of Medicare and you want to lynch the POTUS for doing something that Shrub couldn't do. You're a bunch of ignorant, racist hillbillies

Teresa said...

The way you show your ignorance and hatred of conservatives/Republicans is astounding Question Man. You assume the worst possible thing. Shame on you!!!!!!

Conservatives don't give a crap abotu Obama's skin color. You are the one who is obsessed with skin color, and Obama's in particular.

So according to your philosophy every black person who was against Bush's policies was racist.

Conservatives believe in individualism, liberty, personal responsibility, and in constitutional principles. People who believe in Big government believe the opposite of conservatives. Where Big government has occurred around the world it has always led to tyranny in one form or another. But tyranny has never happened under pro-liberty conservative policies.

Obama is a modern European socialist.

Leticia said...

Kith, first and foremost, I thank you for serving our nation. God bless you for your sacrifice.

As to your comments well said and spoken. You and Teresa summed it with perfection execution. Well done.

The liberals refuse to believe Obama is doing anything wrong and hate anyone that goes against him and then proceed to use liberal sites to back up their ignorance on the matter.

I support the NRA and any organization that will adhere to the constitution, period.

dmarks said...

Question said; " General Motors makes a profit"

Of course. Obama rammed through a massive gift of tens of billions of dollars of corporate welfare to GM.

Nice try on the Malcolm X avatar. But do you know anything about him? Toward the end of his life he rejected ALL racism.


Maybe Fabian will, but Teresa can't. I can't. Leticia can't. There's quite simply no evidence of racism from any of us.

"You have the Koch Brothers destroying Unions "

There's no evidence of that. In Michigan, for example, the Koch brothers helped put union membership decisions in the hands of workers, where they belong. If unions vanish and are "destroyed", it is only because it is the will of the workers.

"Paul Ryan saying he wants to get rid of Medicare"

He never said this, and he doesn't want to. You are making stuff up... again.

"You're a bunch of ignorant, racist hillbillies"

You might have a point... if you didn't miss 100% on all 3 points. Ignorant? Just about anyone who has anything to say to you proves you wrong on everything (such as the Paul Ryan medicare quote. go ahead and snow me... i dare you!). Racist? You are the one who exhibits the most racism here. Hillbillies? Well, I will sit and wait for evidence that any of us is one. I think this is probably a case of you being called out on using the racist slur "cracker", and are trying to find some sort of acceptable racist term for all whites.

Here's a clue. Why not just back off from the racism, period?

Bob said...

First of all, the Second Amendment has little to do with the right to possess hunting weapons. It has everything to do with citizens protecting themselves from an abusive government.

Obama's executive orders are interesting in that the mental health directives really don't do anything to go towards solving the problem of crazy people killing innocent people. To make matters worse, he turns loose your private health information to law enforcement agencies. HIPPA is effectively overturned.

Imagine driving in your town, and a cop pulls you over for a traffic infraction. In his query sent to the police department's computer, the information comes back that you have been seeing a psychiatrist and have been taking Prozak. With this bit of information the cop has the right to yank you out of the car and put the cuffs on you because you are a risk and potentially mentally unstable.

Far fetched? Do you really trust your local twenty-three year old cop, or do you really trust government to possess your really personal and confidential information?

Libdude and Mcjersoy are drinkiing the adnmiistrations KoolAide. They have not thought the situation through. Just changing the number of guns out there, or the number of available bullets is meaningless. You are in a losing numbers game with 250 millions firearms in the hands of the public. It is so dumb that you can call it a fools game, and those that advocate gun control under the current situation are, indeed, fools.

Their only other alternative is to take guns away from everybody.

I can only hope that two of the initiatives bear fruit. First of all, schools need to hire protection officers. Secondly, we need to enable our mental health community to identify the potential killers. This will not bring the occurrence down to zero, but it will curtail most of the problem.

dmarks said...

Overlooked here is the situation where the government will missuse data colllected by healthcare service providers in order to harass, assault, and deprive people of their rights. Perhaps this is one of the costs saving features of Obama's healthcare plan: by making doctors into instruments of government harassment, theft, and violence against the public, no-one will want to go to a doctor. There are specific executive orders toward this.

Jersey McJones said...

"The liberals refuse to believe Obama is doing anything wrong..."

Leticia, you obviously aren't reading or listening to any liberals regarding Obama. Otherwise, you'd be intentionally misrepresenting liberal people.

Liberals have a lot of qualms with him and his administration. Remember, to us he's a mainstream, moderate, establishment, Dem-party-man out of Chicago. More educated liberals, moreover, certainly never considered the man some great liberal radical.

But when it comes to these particular EO's, you asked if we libs could find anything applicable to the CT mass murder, and I for one gave quite a few examples, with a automatically visible window, straight from the source, why can't you point out anything in the EO's that restrict your Second Amendment rights???

Why can't you answer that simple question? It's no different than the point of this post in the first place! You asked if a liberal could, and a liberal did, and then you said the EO's infringed on your 2nd Amendment right, and when I asked how, you, and every other conservative here, refused to answer.

So what's the answer? How do these EO's effect your Second Amendment rights?

Are you capable of answering that?

Otherwise, this post is nothing but a display of hypocrisy.


dmarks said...

Jersey: Can you admit that EO's #2, #16 and #17 are downright creepy? Such intrusive information, making doctors into the secret police information gatherers, certainly has no place in medicine whatsoever.

Doctors should be prohibited to spy on people this way. This damages medicine, for sure.

This should have absolutely nothing to do with health care.

Some are great, like #8. But eliminate those three, for starters. I am confident that both the Senate and House will kick the fangs off these monsters, if not outright eliminating them, by ensuring the decent standards of patient confidentiality that these EO's eliminate.

Leticia said...

Thanks Dmarks, I tried but apparently can't get it through Jersey's head that the whole thing is an infringement no matter how it is written or stated.