Obama Exercises Executive Actions

[Wells]

In this thread: Obama does more of what the dems spent 8 years crying and moaning that Bush did but now it's a chorus of cheers and worship.

I'm curious at what point did Bush improve our gun laws?

[oblivionx]

So when they ask just don't tell them. You don't have to.

I mean when you take a kid to the pediatrician for a check up its not uncommon for the doctor to check with the parents on basic safety stuff like where they're storing medicine and the like. Talking with patients and patients' guardians about some basic house hold safety is perfectly reasonable.

How many people get nailed by the cops because they didn't know their rights?

Now it's going to be doctors?

All fine if it's your agenda, even if it's 1984 creepy.

[Wells]

How many people get nailed by the cops because they didn't know their rights?

Now it's going to be doctors?

All fine if it's your agenda, even if it's 1984 creepy.

I don't know what you're trying to say here? That cops are going to be arresting doctors for doing something they're allowed to do?

[oblivionx]

I'm curious at what point did Bush improve our gun laws?

How you took what I said and somehow came up with that reply is the real curiosity.

[Grizzly Willy]

How many people get nailed by the cops because they didn't know their rights?

Now it's going to be doctors?

All fine if it's your agenda, even if it's 1984 creepy.

Now, just to make sure, you don't have a problem with the Patriot act, do you?

[oblivionx]

I don't know what you're trying to say here? That cops are going to be arresting doctors for doing something they're allowed to do?

Oh it's the pretend can't follow points time.

Should I respond to you with gibberish now?

[Wells]

How you took what I said and somehow came up with that reply is the real curiosity.

You're accusing us of hypocrisy for being happy that Obama did what was in his power to improve gun control because you claim we derided Bush for doing the same.

When did Bush do what Obama just did?

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 06:14 AM ----------

Oh it's the pretend can't follow points time.

Should I respond to you with gibberish now?

I'm not pretending anything. Your post literally made no sense to me.

[oblivionx]

Now, just to make sure, you don't have a problem with the Patriot act, do you?

I had some issues with it, but it was mostly mitigated by the fact it is temporary.

I don't like most of what they are doing with it and I don't like homeland security much.

[Grizzly Willy]

I had some issues with it, but it was mostly mitigated by the fact it is temporary.

I don't like most of what they are doing with it and I don't like homeland security much.

That's fair. I wasn't aware that the Patriot Act was temporary. That makes it a bit more palpable in retrospect.

[oblivionx]

That's fair. I wasn't aware that the Patriot Act was temporary. That makes it a bit more palpable in retrospect.

Well... they keep extending it. But it was never codified into law and has to be voted on every 2 years I think.

[Seranthor]

So, let me get this straight: the government can instantly track down who owns a car and where it was purchased, but we can't do the same with guns? Why? How in the world does that make sense?

Yes, I know that some states have a gun registry, but why isn't it a national issue?

Cause both guns and car registries belong in state jurisdiction, if a Federal agent or officer wants that information they have to contact a particular state.

[Adam Jensen]

How many people get nailed by the cops because they didn't know their rights?

Now it's going to be doctors?

All fine if it's your agenda, even if it's 1984 creepy.

Good lord that's a paranoid interpretation of that EO. Doctor's aren't going to be arresting people for owning guns. They'll more likely be asking that question when facing mental patients to determine if they can harm themselves or others.

That doesn't give them the authority to arrest or seize weapons for Christ sake.

[Seranthor]

No one has said this.

Really? So you mean to tell me that the crappy economy for the last 4+ years isn't being blamed on Bush? BULLSHIT! Tell me another lie.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 05:27 AM ----------

Not warning Mexico would seem to be consistent with the assertion that neither Obama nor Holder were aware of the operation until later.

That could be the case... however, it seems, that certain documents have been withheld, even to the point where Obama had to stuff them in his desk and claim executive privilege to prevent the committee from seeing. So, sorry, I'm not buying that they didn't know.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 05:29 AM ----------

To expand upon this, nobody has blamed stuff that's happened on Obama's watch on Bush. But Bush did leave a lot of crap for Obama to clean up that happened during the Bush presidency, that a lot of the right has subsequently tried to pin on Obama.

You'll have to see how I responded to Wells... I'll say the same to you... BULLSHIT!

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 05:38 AM ----------

...if you actually believe that you're in for a very rude awakening 10 years from now.

He didn't win because he was "not Bush"... he won because he restored faith in the rest of the world that the model of the free world isn't corrupt by overthrowing a budding religious military empire via integrity and common sense.

You see, there's this thing called "the rest of the world" out there beyond America - and they were starting to get VERY frightened (rightfully so) for what was happening in our country - particularly as our country has an influence across the entire globe. Nobody wants a Christian zealot Al'quieda-like fear-based profit-motivated group mentality being in control of the predominant superpower of the military/economic world. Seeing that mentality willingly get re-elected by its people caused the entire United Nations and the whole rest of the world looking at us going "What...the...F#&@"....

That's why Obama won.

Lets see sparky... Obama was inaugurated on 20 January 2009... the nominations for the 2009 Nobel peace prize were closed on 01 Feb 2009. Thats 12 days. He did enough in 12 days to earn a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize? Really? Sorry... thats crap... he won because he wasn't George Bush

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 05:43 AM ----------

Seran, you should really be more understanding of the others side view and respect their opinion if you wan;t the to support you! Being so militant about this isn't the way!

So I'm militant? perhaps I am. I understand the other side quite well, I just don't happen to agree with them. Besides, I seem to remember a militant someone telling me that militancy was just fine that the opposition they were fighting would eventually cave so they didn't have to bother with being 'understanding of the other side's view'... You wouldn't happen to know who that someone was? Would you?

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 05:45 AM ----------

Are you saying all nobel prizes are jokes?

Not all, some, certainly.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 05:51 AM ----------

*snip*

Sir, I'm sorry, as long as I live and breath I'll never believe you were EVER a Republican, not even a moderate one.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 06:01 AM ----------

HA! ZING! ^_^

By the way... anybody notice that, via the term RINO that Rush Limbaugh coined, that Rush Limbaugh is seemingly shifting his fear-war TOWARDS Republicans? It's like he's sewing the seeds for his own transition to where the most potential customers (money) will be in future...

Also... I've recently held a theory that you can judge a person's quality of interest based on their use of labels.

Who is this Rush person? I've never once watched him? What channel is he on?

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 06:05 AM ----------

I've listened to him, and when I say listened I mean his full programs, not snippets or interpretations of his shows. He's still batshit crazy, completely misinformed, spreads lies and propaganda like its beads at a Mardi Gras parade or candy on halloween, and his talk show is one big rant fest for the extreme right to practice mental masturbation as they listen.

I respect people who are capable of independent thought, and forming opinions based on views presented from multiple different angles. When you hear people parrot something Rush or Fox News said, and you always hear them parrot that stuff word for word, you realize just how incapable of independent thought they are. But I've learned not to tell them that they're incapable of independent thought, and that their views are being shaped by someone else. They find the truth offensive, and they start breaking down into insults, snarky sarcastic remarks about MSNBC (to which I think is just as bias as Fox/Rush, just not as loud or obnoxious) and then start spewing wild conspiracy theories... which they got from Rush's insinuations on his show.

Everything I've seen from you appears like it could have easily been written by David Axelrod and you just copy/paste it. Please tell me you dont truly believe everything you write. As I would then have to question your capability of independent thought.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 06:08 AM ----------

It's not about "what you stance on the issue is", it's about completely blocking the nomination of an ATF-director.
For all I care you could have the hardest pro-gun person on the job, as long as SOMEONE is running that agency!

Because in my country we don't block the nomination of, let's say, the minister of finances for 6 years because we disagree with the opposition.

A political discussion should be won by discussing.
The moment you devolve into insults, personal attacks, lying and the blocking of nominations it stops being a discussion.

Several nominations have been blocked thru the years. the Dems have blocked their fair share as well. Sen. Tower for SecDef and at least one Supreme Court nominee were blocked by Dems.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 06:10 AM ----------

That's fucking bullshit.

No one should be sending bills to goddamn lobbyists, I don't care who the lobbyist is be it unions, the NRA, or goddamn Santa Claus, NO ONE should be sending bills to lobbyists for approval.

One of the key things we need to do to take back this country from the corrupt is break the power of the lobbyist.

So tell me again why the GM and Chrysler bondholders were screwed over in the bankruptcies (bondholders are supposed to be paid first) and the unions got to keep the lions share. Sorry... thats as dishonest as the Tiahrt deal. Both stink.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You'll have to see how I responded to Wells... I'll say the same to you... BULLSHIT!

The impact of Bush on the economy is clear and apparent, and the economy has followed the routine of showing a slow turn around from one president to another, in particular the first two years of the newest president's presidency are loomed over by the economic policies of the previous president's administration, or were you unaware that Bush economics extended two years into Obama's presidency, Clinton economics extended two years into Bush's administration (Bush leg humpers LOVE to point to Bush's first 2-3 years before the economy took a nose dive), etc etc.

You'd have to be blind, deaf, or dumb (or some combination of the three) to not know such things. Ever heard of the Bush stimulus package signed into effect 2008? Of course you haven't. That was Obama's fault! He forged Bush's signature before he was president and put it on that bill and threw this country into a recession!

And you are capable of independent thought, everything I've seen from you appears like David Axelrod wrote it and you just copy/paste it. Please tell me you dont truly believe everything you write. As I would then have to question your capability of independent thought.

I honestly had to google who that was. I avoid MSNBC about as much as I avoid Fox. While Fox is much louder and more obnoxious, both networks contain the same amount of bias. I honestly know a little about MSNBC but enough to know that it's bias, but just happen to know a lot about Fox because trying to avoid Fox News in my state would involve locking myself in my house and never going outside. I listen to BBC and other overseas news stations for my news. I've always felt that gleaning stories from multiple different angles and finding the truth somewhere in the middle of the commentary is the best way to be completely informed on the truth.

[shise]

Can't you see that it's all a strategy to sell guns?


On the other hand, it was about time that they started doing something about this plague.

[Giiggity]

All guns are weapons of war. Pick your terminology however you like. "Firearm", aka an "Arm" that "Fires" or "of Fire", Arm being another word for "weapon". All weapons are fundamentally "of war" no matter their purpose. Their origin is the same - all sourced to the original hand cannons of China and Late-Middle Ages Europe. And their purpose is only one thing: to end the life of something... an deer, a duck, a pheasant or a human.

They are a technology whose only purpose is to bring about death and whose origin is specifically the killing of other human beings.

Genetically you could say, all guns are Weapons of War. Even your favorite hunting rifle, or are you going to seriously tell me that Smith and Wesson (or whoever) in designing said rifle didn't use chambering, rifling and gas reloading technology first pioneered in military weaponry before making your favorite toy?

And before hand cannons...it was swords, bows, arrows. Guns are tools. Saying war is their only use is disingenuous and a way to define a debate in terms favorable to you.

Basically, saying guns only exist to bring death is mostly true (you can bring death to target and clay pigeons, I guess). But you changed your line of logic right after that...don't think I didn't notice. Their origin might have been in the killing of other human beings, but that doesn't mean that is their only legitimate purpose.

My point, with the weapons of war statement (that you tried so hard to obscure with bizarre historical semantics) was that there is a HUGE difference between a semi-automatic handgun or rifle and a 2000 lb mk 84 bomb or a SAW, or a RPG. So much so that trying to lump them together is a deceit designed to appeal to emotions. A handgun has a legitimate claim as a weapon of self defense. A semi-auto rifle does as well, in addition to being a legitimate hunting weapon (although handguns are a good backup). A SAW or an Uzi is not a legitimate self defense weapon, nor is an RPG. Those are truly de facto weapons of war. I think we would actually agree on the president's actions, I just hate people who parrot talking points like "weapons of war" to try and win an argument based on emotion.

[Adam Jensen]

So tell me again why the GM and Chrysler bondholders were screwed over in the bankruptcies (bondholders are supposed to be paid first) and the unions got to keep the lions share. Sorry... thats as dishonest as the Tiahrt deal. Both stink.

You automatically assume you know my opinion on this when I've never even spoken about GM or Chrysler bondholders.

[Seranthor]

You automatically assume you know my opinion on this when I've never even spoken about GM or Chrysler bondholders.

Nope... asked for a statement of fact, specifically why the bondholders were screwed in favor of the unions.... I asked for no opinion.

[Grizzly Willy]

Nope... asked for a statement of fact, specifically why the bondholders were screwed in favor of the unions.... I asked for no opinion.

I have no idea how what you said was relevant to Orissa's post.

[Felya]

I have no idea how what you said was relevant to Orissa's post.

It's called changing the topic to avoid the issue...