2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

[Rover]

Lulz. You truly are hilarious.

Of course it expired, but why didn't they pass it again? Because the NRA had the political strength to make it unappealing to the Democrats in Congress.

The NRA doesn't care if Democrats are elected. They care about guns. Until they see a threat, they aren't going to oppose it.

You would need 60 votes to pass legislation like that nowadays in the Senate. With the GOP kowtowing down to any special interest, and the gun lobby is near the top, the Dems can't impose laws. Unlike health care which has a budgetary component that can be put through the reconcilliation process, and hence only need 51 votes, I'm not sure a plausible scenario can be constructed to do that for gun control legislation.

Now someone will point out the Dems did indeed have 60 votes at one point, but that was for a whopping 4 months and was consumed by health care legislation. Nominally they held it for a little longer, but Kennedy wasn't casting too many votes from his death bed.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Good Lord, you people have been at this all week? If you'd have gone on a holiday long bender like I did, you'd be a lot happier right now.

But, lets recap the week that was...

1) Don't know if this is enough for a new show called Mormons Behaving Badly, but it looks like yet another Idaho Senator got lugged. At least this one wasn't trying to pick up men in the airport bathroom, but a DUI arrest seems strange for a man who proclaims to not drink because it violates his faith. Could we be seeing the umpteenth social conservative Republican hypocrite who talks the talk but can't walk the walk (at least not according to the arresting officers)? Nahhh....

http://theweek.com/article/index/238203/sen-mike-crapos-dui-arrest-the-fallout

2) Next, we can chalk up this week as the time when the House Speaker became officially useless. Now the orange skinned freak expects the Senate to take action, when in fact revenue items must originate in the House. If The Boner can't get it together and carry out the basic fundamentals to do his job, he needs to resign. Nothing would be funnier than seeing Cantor or Ryan have to swallow a tax hike that gets forced down their throat thanks to a previously GOP written law.

3)Finally, despite some wimpiness out of people like Sen Conrad who long for the country club Senate of yonder years where deals are made over a couple of rounds of golf and a couple more rounds of martinis, looks like Dems are forcing Obama to hold firm on tax policy. Furthermore, even idiot Harry Reid seems to have figured out the GOP's game, and refuses to bring up a bill unless the GOP Senate stops their whining and backs it too. As I said before, the GOP has no leverage. Come Jan 1st, the deficit is projected to go down trillions of dollars as tax hikes and sequestration kick in. Obama needs to insist on a stand alone bill if he wants rates for $250K and below to stay the same. That nets him about 2T in tax increases to lower deficit. Then I'd trade The Boner's offer of 800Bn in broadening the tax base for spreading around some of the defense cuts. That takes it up to $4T in deficit reduction on top of $1T already agreed upon from the previous round. Last bill trades entitlement reform for debt ceiling extention. Should be able to find another trillion there.

Once again, in a fit of schadenfreude delerium, we are treated to an exegisis on the most important libstain value: hypocricy. Beloved Democrat icons don't (generally) claim one thing then do another. They're just pigs and drunks and pervs and criminals and they don't make much of an effort to hide it. The late Louis Grizzard suggested Teddy Kennedy should have worn a bag over his head during the interrogation of Clarence Thomas for "sexual harrassment."

Good thing Hitler wasn't a hypocrite. He threatened the "destruction of the Jewish race in Europe" in an address to the Reichstag. He didn't hide his goals only the details, like a hypocritical Repubican would have. That makes him better, right?

 

[DavidSec17]

This is stupid on multiple levels. For starters, wasn't there a shooting at Fort Hood a couple of years ago? Following your dumb theory, that shouldn't have happened, no?

Fort Hood is a "gun free zone". Marines must surrender weapons upon entering Fort Hood.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

You would need 60 votes to pass legislation like that nowadays in the Senate. With the GOP kowtowing down to any special interest, and the gun lobby is near the top, the Dems can't impose laws. Unlike health care which has a budgetary component that can be put through the reconcilliation process, and hence only need 51 votes, I'm not sure a plausible scenario can be constructed to do that for gun control legislation.

Now someone will point out the Dems did indeed have 60 votes at one point, but that was for a whopping 4 months and was consumed by health care legislation. Nominally they held it for a little longer, but Kennedy wasn't casting too many votes from his death bed.

Even more hilarious is this idea you cling to that only the GOP is beholden to special interests.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Fort Hood is a "gun free zone". Marines must surrender weapons upon entering Fort Hood.

Good point, although I'm guessing you meant to say "soldiers." And it's also a good thing that "Dr." Hasan wasn't a hypocrite. He is a jihadist, murderous nutbar Muslim pr*ck, and he didn't much care who knew it. That makes him better, right?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Even more hilarious is this idea you cling to that only the GOP is beholden to special interests.

If SEIU demanded that Obama walk, naked, on a tight rope over the Atlantic, he'd be looking around for a balance pole and someone to hold his utes.

 

[Rover]

Fort Hood is a "gun free zone". Marines must surrender weapons upon entering Fort Hood.

Ummm....then who shot the guy?

 

[goldy_331]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Ummm....then who shot the guy?

Civilian police officers on duty at the Fort IIRC.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Once again, in a fit of schadenfreude delerium, we are treated to an exegisis on the most important libstain value: hypocricy. Beloved Democrat icons don't (generally) claim one thing then do another. They're just pigs and drunks and pervs and criminals and they don't make much of an effort to hide it. The late Louis Grizzard suggested Teddy Kennedy should have worn a bag over his head during the interrogation of Clarence Thomas for "sexual harrassment."

Good thing Hitler wasn't a hypocrite. He threatened the "destruction of the Jewish race in Europe" in an address to the Reichstag. He didn't hide his goals only the details, like a hypocritical Repubican would have. That makes him better, right?

Opie I'll leave it to you to explain your fascination with Hitler. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the old boy but I'll keep my suspicions to myself for the time being. Lets just say I don't see how he enters into modern day American political discourse. BTW - I'm curious where the same people righteously outraged at Priceless are after reading your little diddy...

Moving on, I don't ever recall Ted Kennedy presenting himself as a superior moral human being let alone telling you that's why you should vote for him. Maybe conservatives like yourself enjoy getting fed a banquet of BS by so-called holier than thou types who in the private lives are paying for their mistresses abortions, picking up men in airport restrooms, or keeping 2nd families. After all, you can't spell conservative without "con". Did you ever think though that maybe you're getting played for a sucker by these creeps? Lastly, before you defend the guy any further, ask yourself this: With Congress not in session before X-mas, what exactly WAS the dude doing driving hammered in suburban DC late at night anyway instead of being home with his family. I wonder if there's another shoe left to drop here.

 

[Rover]

Civilian police officers on duty at the Fort IIRC.

So there were armed personnel at the base which would blow geezer's theory all to hell if I'm not mistaken.

PS - I believe the woman who shot him was a member of the military.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Opie I'll leave it to you to explain your fascination with Hitler. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the old boy but I'll keep my suspicions to myself for the time being. Lets just say I don't see how he enters into modern day American political discourse. BTW - I'm curious where the same people righteously outraged at Priceless are after reading your little diddy...

Moving on, I don't ever recall Ted Kennedy presenting himself as a superior moral human being let alone telling you that's why you should vote for him. Maybe conservatives like yourself enjoy getting fed a banquet of BS by so-called holier than thou types who in the private lives are paying for their mistresses abortions, picking up men in airport restrooms, or keeping 2nd families. After all, you can't spell conservative without "con". Did you ever think though that maybe you're getting played for a sucker by these creeps? Lastly, before you defend the guy any further, ask yourself this: With Congress not in session before X-mas, what exactly WAS the dude doing driving hammered in suburban DC late at night anyway instead of being home with his family. I wonder if there's another shoe left to drop here.

Thus speaks the president of the International Gerry Studds Fan Club.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

So there were armed personnel at the base which would blow geezer's theory all to hell if I'm not mistaken.

PS - I believe the woman who shot him was a member of the military.

She was a police officer.

 

[Rover]

Thus speaks the president of the International Gerry Studds fan club.

HA You Lose Opie! And not for the first, second or bazillionth time. In fact I voted against Studds and FOR a Republican (forget his name) in conjunction with being old enough to vote for the first time back in the day. Funny of all the names you could have brought up, you chose the one I had actually cast a vote against. Must be something about you I guess...

PS - Are there any more polls you'd like to unskew for us?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

HA You Lose Opie! And not for the first, second or bazillionth time. In fact I voted against Studds and FOR a Republican (forget his name) in conjunction with being old enough to vote for the first time back in the day. Funny of all the names you could have brought up, you chose the one I had actually cast a vote against. Must be something about you I guess...

PS - Are there any more polls you'd like to unskew for us?

Have you ever, up until this moment, had a bad word to say (here) about Studds (who actually did screw under age Congressional pages)? Or did you confine yourself to condemning Mark Foley (who didn't screw any Congressional pages)?

While you did the right thing in voting against that perv, did you give him high marks because he wasn't a "hypocrite" about being an ephebophile?

 

[Rover]

Have you ever, up until this moment, had a bad word to say about Studds (who actually did screw under age Congressional pages)? Or did you confine yourself to condemning Mark Foley (who didn't screw any Congressional pages)?

While you did the right thing in voting against that perv, have you criticized him? Or is he given high marks because he wasn't a "hyprocrite" about being an ephebophile?

Opie I could care less who Studds is in a consensual relationship with, unlike Foley who I don't believe had persmission to raid the male house page dorm like it was some sort of all you can bang buffet. However, as Studds was censured by the House I worried about his effectiveness to serve my district after those actions and hence he lost my vote. As for not mentioning him, this all happened over 20 years ago IIRC.

While I had moved away before redistricting made him my town's Congressman, I also would not have cast a vote for Barney Frank and again its got nothing to do with his preferences but because he's in general a sleazy guy (don't like people hanging out with prostitutes), he spent about one day a year in his district and didn't even maintain his own residence (used his sister's house), and lastly was terrible for constituent services from my own family's dealings with him. Makes sense since he was rarely back from spending time in DC. I've often blasted Rep. Frank in my time out here over these issues.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Opie I could care less who Studds is in a consensual relationship with, unlike Foley who I don't believe had persmission to raid the male house page dorm like it was some sort of all you can bang buffet. However, as Studds was censured by the House I worried about his effectiveness to serve my district after those actions and hence he lost my vote. As for not mentioning him, this all happened over 20 years ago IIRC.

While I had moved away before redistricting made him my town's Congressman, I also would not have cast a vote for Barney Frank and again its got nothing to do with his preferences but because he's in general a sleazy guy (don't like people hanging out with prostitutes), he spent about one day a year in his district and didn't even maintain his own residence (used his sister's house), and lastly was terrible for constituent services from my own family's dealings with him. Makes sense since he was rarely back from spending time in DC. I've often blasted Rep. Frank in my time out here over these issues.

Bulletin: you can't have a "consensual" sexual relationship with an underage person. So in Roverworld, being a hypocrite about wanting to have sex with underage pages, but never doing it is worse than actually committing that particular felony? Because Studds (when caught) freely admitted what a disgusting degenerate he was. And your only concern was his loss of effectiveness in Congress, not that he was an admitted felon? Got it. As to Barney, he only operated one gay bordello in his home. It's not like he made a habit of it.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

So there were armed personnel at the base which would blow geezer's theory all to hell if I'm not mistaken.

As usual, you are nothing but a large, ugly, sweaty mistake made of a pile of stinking mistakes. We all know that wherever there are Muslim terrorists, there is bound to be stupid senseless violence whether or not there are armed guards. That's an essential part of a fake "religion" that values the killing of "infidels" above every other virtue. HOWEVER, my point was that when you tally them up, more mass shootings in the United States (and Australia, Britain, and Vancouver) have happened in "Gun-Free Zones" over the last 20 years than outside them. Go ahead, count them. You'll be surprised by the numbers, if you're honest with yourself. But I don't expect you to ever find a dose of honesty, you waste of space.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Meanwhile Maricopa County Sheriff Joe "publicity stunt" Arpaio has announced he'll station armed members of his volunteer "posse" in schools. I'm betting the kids feel safer already.

http://www.kpho.com/story/20435838/arpaio-to-deploy-armed-volunteer-posse-to-schools

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

As usual, you are nothing but a large, ugly, sweaty mistake made of a pile of stinking mistakes. We all know that wherever there are Muslim terrorists, there is bound to be stupid senseless violence whether or not there are armed guards. That's an essential part of a fake "religion" that values the killing of "infidels" above every other virtue. HOWEVER, my point was that when you tally them up, more mass shootings in the United States (and Australia, Britain, and Vancouver) have happened in "Gun-Free Zones" over the last 20 years than outside them. Go ahead, count them. You'll be surprised by the numbers, if you're honest with yourself. But I don't expect you to ever find a dose of honesty, you waste of space.

Wrong again. Are you the only person left who thinks that when "Dr." Hasan gunned down those GI's it was Muslim terrorism? For cripes sake, it was "workplace violence." Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

So if you aren't a member, you disagree with them?

Did I say that? I didn't even claim 10% were NRA members. In reality, the NRA considers 'promotion of firearms' to be among its top aims. In practice, the NRA is against most significant gun control changes...and has usually been supportive of lower gun control in areas. 57% percent of Americans are for increased gun control with 30% for decreased gun control. The NRA does not represent the average American.

Good point. They're advocating a majority position: That the U.S. Constitution properly grants the right to bear arms. There has never been a time when this was a minority view. I'm not a member of the NRA myself, but definitely would be again if I thought that right were in actual danger.

If that were all the NRA was about...none of this would be an issue. I and most other Americans believe the second Amendment is anywhere from fine to important.

The problem is that the NRA stretches the intrepretation to includes circumstances that are not necessary under the second Amendment and that most Americans don't want.