ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Yet you don't think Iran should have nukes...imagine that?

BTW, know who has the money? The "thugs".


LOL. Jesus.

1. Iran doesn't have Constitutional rights, moron. So yeah, I'd prefer they don't have a bomb. I'm not going to lobby for them to have one.

2. I have no idea what you're talking about with your second sentence. Who has the money? And why is thugs in quotation marks?
 
LOL. Jesus.

1. Iran doesn't have Constitutional rights, moron. So yeah, I'd prefer they don't have a bomb. I'm not going to lobby for them to have one.

2. I have no idea what you're talking about with your second sentence. Who has the money? And why is thugs in quotation marks?
So you think that if nukes were made available to the general public...or just anyone with enough money to buy one that any and all rouge groups wouldn't find some patsy or sympathizer who was a US citizen to purchase one? That they wouldn't get them the money?
How about if your local mosque took up a collection?

If my neighbor wants to buy a fully loaded fighter jet, who am I to stop him? He worked hard for his hundreds of millions of dollars cash he's going to have to pony up
You make reference to the cost as if that would be the deterrent that kept those weapons out of the hands of most people. You also, although it may have been someone else made reference to "thugs"... If there are any groups who have plenty of money it's groups like ISIS and drug kingpins. Just wanted you to think about your answer and the unintended consequences of your thinking.
 
"If nukes were made available to the general public".

What does that even mean? Who do you think is going to make a nuke available to the general public? Haliburton or Dick Cheney or something? Gonna start mass producing nukes with all the excess nuke fuel they have laying around with no regard for the crippling financial liability that would come down on them if they sold a nuke to someone who used it against the American people?

You come up with these dumb situations that aren't the least bit plausible to argue for more gun control.

We're talking about US government regulation. You really think a law is needed to prevent someone from buying a fighter jet? Once again, that's moronic. No cartel in the world is going to buy a fighter jet and if they do it will get blown out of the sky before it gets close to doing any damage.

Or maybe they'll opt for the stealth option before driving it off the fighter jet dealership lot.
 
Nobody does the rathole routine like fuzzyrq. Averages 5.7 questions per post, with escalating stupidity.
 
Nobody does the rathole routine like fuzzyrq. Averages 5.7 questions per post, with escalating stupidity.
The people who don't like questions are the people who don't have the answers or know that their answers expose the weaknesses in their argument.

Thanks for playing.
 
The people who don't like questions are the people who don't have the answers or know that their answers expose the weaknesses in their argument.

Thanks for playing.
Yep, really hard to counter classic fuzzyrq arguments like "ISIS will wear out their welcome" and "Hillary gets mistreated".
 
How much longer will we disgrace our currency and buildings with the names and likeness of former slave owners?
 
[laughing]

So Iran is granted the right to Bear Arms by the US Bill of Rights? Awesome. That's just ****ing awesome. Learned something new today. Enjoy.
Not what I said.

What keeps a US citizen who is sympathetic to Iran from purchasing anything that is legal? Once they have it, what keeps them from using it?
 
Where tf is this nuke store at, anyways?

Also....for real....are you trying to equate what these foreign groups are already scratching money together to buy right now on foreign and black markets with current US domestic citizen gun regulations?

I mean, that may be one of the biggest argument stretches I think I've seen on here, maybe ever.
 
The essence of any argument for taking away personal freedoms.

When you argue that the second amendment gives the right for any citizen to own any weapon then you open yourself to those questions.
The truth is few people actually think that everyone should have the right to own ANY weapon therefore they favor some sense of "gun control". The only real argument is about where the line should be drawn.
 
I'll happily answer your questions, Fuzz. Just realize how stupid they are.

You're worried if we don't implement government regulation, Billy Joe Redneck is going to drive down to his local nuke store and buy a nuclear bomb. Or go to his local fighter jet dealership and get one with all the bells and missiles.

That's just mind numbingly dumb.
 
When you argue that the second amendment gives the right for any citizen to own any weapon then you open yourself to those questions.
The truth is few people actually think that everyone should have the right to own ANY weapon therefore they favor some sense of "gun control". The only real argument is about where the line should be drawn.

Also the Supremes have ruled that laws restricting the sale of certain types of weapons are Constitutional in Heller v. DC:

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion.
 
I'll happily answer your questions, Fuzz. Just realize how stupid they are.

You're worried if we don't implement government regulation, Billy Joe Redneck is going to drive down to his local nuke store and buy a nuclear bomb. Or go to his local fighter jet dealership and get one with all the bells and missiles.

That's just mind numbingly dumb.
It is mind numbingly dumb to think that if it is LEGAL to own something that someone isn't going to own one or that manufacturers aren't going to take the money to build one more.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have the money to purchase an entire wing of fighter aircraft. A fully armed F-22 costs $150 million... they could buy 20 each and have several billion left over.

Again, when arguing the 2nd amendment, taking a hard line stance one can argue that by not allowing me to own any weapon is violating my "right to bear arms".
I've asked several times now... where are you drawing the line as what it legal to own and what is not legal to own?
 
I would love to know everyones take on a man named earl holt. This guy is the biggest conservative douchebag known to man. The guy doniates money to all things republican. His racial undertones are well known. He has contributed to a total of 3 gop members who were black. And one being a black woman who is giving him donation back. Most of these guys are giving back their checks they received from him including mitt Romney, McCain, bush, Chaney, plain, kruz, and it goes on. My question being why would you want to be associated with this guy? This isn't the 1860 election or even 1960. Say what you want about guys like sharpton but he doesn't come straight out and admit his views on race even if you want to believe what you think of him. What's sad if one of his pasties were to win this would rank up their the idea Obama is a secret Muslim.
 
After attempting to decipher that incoherent drivel, I guess it sounds like Earl Holt is a jackass.

Were candidates actively soliciting donations from him specifically, or did he just donate to their campaigns?
 
1. It is mind numbingly dumb to think that if it is LEGAL to own something that someone isn't going to own one or that manufacturers aren't going to take the money to build one more.

2. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have the money to purchase an entire wing of fighter aircraft. A fully armed F-22 costs $150 million... they could buy 20 each and have several billion left over.

3. Again, when arguing the 2nd amendment, taking a hard line stance one can argue that by not allowing me to own any weapon is violating my "right to bear arms".
I've asked several times now... where are you drawing the line as what it legal to own and what is not legal to own?

1. Yes, it is mind numbingly dumb to think if the federal government isn't banning US citizens from owning nuclear bomb that US citizens are going to be able to go out an buy nuclear bombs.

2. That's not even worth responding to. But really, what do you care if Bill Gates owns 20 fighter jets (we'll assume you're price is correct, which I doubt). Who gives a shit?

3. This is the first time I've seen the question asked. I'm not drawing the line anywhere.
 
This is why the air campaign has been ineffective, via The Hill:

U.S. and coalition air forces are aiming for zero civilian casualties in airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), frustrating some lawmakers who say the military campaign is progressing too slowly.

While officials say they can never be absolutely certain of who’s on the ground, U.S. and allied forces are refraining from airstrikes against ISIS if there’s a risk of even one civilian casualty.

“There’s a target of zero civilian casualties, so if there are civilian casualty concerns, we would continue to monitor a target or a potential target to see if there is a way to mitigate that,” said an Air Force official.
 
Pretty obvious the goal of the ISIS air campaign is for zero American casualties as well. Pretty hard to do actual damage to that outfit of the #1 (or #2) worry is to prevent airmen from being put in any possible harms way.
 
Did you read the report?
Do you understand what the report says?

All extremist are a tiny fraction of any group. So if their research showed that right-wing extremist groups would attempt to recruit veterans who had skills and training in areas which would serve their causes...they shouldn't says so. W-C, are you being politically correct? Sure sounds like it. Don't call a spade a spade because it might offend other shovels???

Ahhh, argue with a cop here and you'll get your ass shot. We have plenty of examples. So what is your point?
I can compare other countries with stiffer gun laws. 80% of the population of Canada lives within 100 miles of the US, watches the same television programming and is culturally nearly identical. And the Canadian Mounties aren't any more confrontational than any US cop. Plus they have easy access to guns right across the border.

Yes WC, I've traveled to most every part of the world with the exception of Africa and the middle East...even been to both Russia and China...I'm not uninformed.
Then you must really have a hard time understanding or processing information. Or, you are just really gullible.
 
You make all kinds of wild accusations about what politicians said, but you never provide any links to back up your statements. I can tell you right now if a liberal, moderator or conservative politician said what you are alleging Reid, Pelosi and Feinstein said their political careers would be severely damaged if not over.

Honest question where DO you get your information from? why do you never link your sources? are you afraid everyone will laugh at you?
You must be joking. They have lied and said all kind of things in the past and have been caught at it but, liberals have no problem with lying to get what they want as long as it fits in with their agenda. Give me a break about careers being over.
 
As I predicted, Donald Trump is rising in the polls. In fact, he is now polling in 2nd place in the important early primary in New Hampshire.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...y-in-n-h-taking-second-place-in-suffolk-poll/

He just seems to say what a large percentage of Republicans want to hear. It's good that he will be on the debate stage's to represent the views of rank and file party members.
The media must be slobbering at the thought of Trump vs Cankles.

The entertainment value is off the charts. Their debate literally could be the most watched TV event in history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustinTXCat
I think the appeal with Trump is not so much whether he is a good candidate, but that he just isn't PC like others. It's almost like he just wants to say what he thinks about stuff more than actually being president.
 
Give me a link

to back up "all these lies" your talking about. If true they should be all over the internet. I'm not defending Reid or the others, I'm defending the truth - something you play fast and loose with.
Really, why is it so hard for people to provide a link to what they allege? There is far too much opinion and not enough clear facts on this board.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fuzz77
I think the appeal with Trump is not so much whether he is a good candidate, but that he just isn't PC like others. It's almost like he just wants to say what he thinks about stuff more than actually being president.
Sometimes not being PC and being an abject moron get conflated
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamo0001
My House!!!
[eyeroll]
No you thin skinned bitch, it is the People's House. the sooner you & Michelle learn that Jan 2017 the better.

The Bernie Sanders popularity only proves one thing, Pokahontas Warren shoulda jumped in and is pissing away her one and only good chance at the WH. She's already 66, will be 70 next cycle. And will never be more popular with the left and certain segments of the general pop than right now. As she is forced as a Sen to actually take stands and cast votes that stuff evaporates.

The opportunity to be President is a fleeting thing to not pass up thinking it will be even better next time. Ask Chris Christie, or Bobby Jindal, both coulda made strong runs in 2012. Now, forget it, both wont break 1%. Every smart analysis/opinionator knows the GOP race is a 3 way match - Jeb, Walker, Rubio. Can't see anyone else in the crew passing up those 3 headliners.
 
^ Rack. Fake Indian Lady really is missing the most golden of opportunities. Hillary really is a weak candidate (don't misinterpret that as my view on the odds of her winning, fuzzdee) with already one instance of getting swept out immediately when the new face pops in.

Dumb move on her fake Indian part.
 
Nobody does the rathole routine like fuzzyrq. Averages 5.7 questions per post, with escalating stupidity.

He and Deee are pros at the non-sequitur routine. When theyre defeated, which is often, they just ask some crazy question that makes no sense in an attempt to deflect the defeat.

"So you say the 2nd amendment should protect fun owners? WELL WHAT IF THE MOON WAS MADE OF CHEESE??" - Fuzz/Dee
 
As I predicted, Donald Trump is rising in the polls. In fact, he is now polling in 2nd place in the important early primary in New Hampshire.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...y-in-n-h-taking-second-place-in-suffolk-poll/

He just seems to say what a large percentage of Republicans want to hear. It's good that he will be on the debate stage's to represent the views of rank and file party members.

I think both he and Rand represent a change from the norm, which is very attractive to many voters.
 
Good to see five unelected assholes legislating from the bench again.


Did John Robert's history indicate he would be a left wing judicial activist before being appointed? Or did he finally just learn about the NSA file on him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
Good to see five unelected assholes legislating from the bench again.


Did John Robert's history indicate he would be a left wing judicial activist before being appointed? Or did he finally just learn about the NSA file on him?

More logistics than jurisprudence. If struck down, there wouldve been chaos. The court hemmed themselves in when they bent over backwards to uphold the individual mandate; when it clearly should have been struck down.

Like most noted, once Obamacare got moving there would be no reversing it. Its too big.

This also highlights Obamas basic legal strategy for many of his positions. Basically, take some giant action (legal or not), then force it to be drug through the system, only for the EO or legislation to be too far gone for the court to reverse for unwritten fear of chaos.
 
Insurance companies write a law, Congress passes it, Obama signs it, no one read it, the law that was passed is Unconstitutional so the Supreme Court goes ahead and rewrites it.

The Obama administration goes after certain people based on political leanings. Public finds out. Administration tries to delete the evidence. Directive gets put in place to preserve the evidence. The administration goes ahead and deletes the evidence anyway. No criminal charges will ever follow.

The corronated Democratic POTUS candidate kept a secret email server to keep communications hidden from detection in direct violation of federal law. That server was wiped clean of everything she didn't want to have to produce as required by law. She will be the next president. No criminal charges will come.

The US government still has the ability to collect every records of every single one of your communications.

The POTUS refuses to enforce immigration laws and has promoted a large uptick in illegal border crossings. Illegal aliens are not punished for breaking the laws of the country they're invading, but are given benefits.

More people in the country are net takers of federal tax dollars than are net funders.

What country do we live in?
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
He and Deee are pros at the non-sequitur routine. When theyre defeated, which is often, they just ask some crazy question that makes no sense in an attempt to deflect the defeat.

In the minds of the wackos like yourself I'm always "defeated", because logic and facts from reputable sources like the Congressional Budget Officer, The Bureau of Labor and Statistics or FactCheck.org are all part of the great left wing conspiracy in your minds.

I'm not here to "win" just to expose nonsense to the impartial readers of the forum who seldom if ever post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fuzz77
ADVERTISEMENT