POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

[FlagDUDE08]

Continue.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Regarding EOs, Obama is one of the leanest in history according to Pew(pewpewpewpew):
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

He has the fewest per year since Grover Cleveland. Things that happened in the same year Cleveland left office:

Klondike Gold Rush began
Edison invents the precursor to the movie projector
Amelia Earhart, Frank Capra, and William Faulkner were born
The first Boston Marathon was held
Stars & Stripes Forever was first performed
Oldsmobile was founded
Dos Equis was first brewed

From the second of three threads created for 45.2.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

From the second of three threads created for 45.2.

Saw that and was about to create a fourth for gits and shiggles, but couldn't think of a good line to play on your 3 threads.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

What was the third title? I saw dxmnkd316's title about 45.1 closing by executive order...

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Saw that and was about to create a fourth for gits and shiggles, but couldn't think of a good line to play on your 3 threads.

I almost did another as well. The threads were:
POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides
POTUS 45.2 - Use This Thread. The Previous One Was Closed By Executive Order. (I almost used the word presidential fiat )
POTUS 45.2 - Syrians Need Not Apply

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ravel-ban.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Way to go America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Getting back to what we were talking about before, though, something tells me the Office of SoS and SoHS will be quite busy over the next couple of months reviewing visas for exceptions to the order, which are allowed as such in there. The protesters would be much more productive if they called the aforementioned offices on behalf of the friends looking to enter instead of receiving a few bucks from George Soros to rabble. Also, I find it funny that people are stating it has nothing to do with any law signed by Obama, when the law is very clearly referenced in the order.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...refugees/index.html?client=ms-android-verizon

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

instead of receiving a few bucks from George Soros to rabble.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm still waiting for my check...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Tying into the thread title (not intentionally), a little history lesson on Gerald Ford and Vietnamese refugees... http://www.infowars.com/flashback-anti-trump-dems-opposed-vietnamese-refugees/

 

[Jimjamesak]

I'm still waiting for my check...

Seriously. Where's my money?

 

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm going to take one more run at explaining the SSA gun grab. Between the political spin in the two articles I posted and my own snarky comments it is a bit hard to understand if you're not familiar with guns.

No one is losing their gun rights because of their disability or whatever reason they're on social security. That doesn't play into this at all. Where people lose their rights is when they either run out of money(there is probably a different term than bankruptcy) or someone else takes over their finances. It doesn't matter why someone else manages their finances. It should go without saying there is a wide range of reasons someone might manage a SS recipient's finances.

I have no problem with people losing their gun rights because they are judged to be a danger to themselves or others based on a medical expert's opinion. This had nothing to do with that though and is a blanket ban based strictly on finances. It is important to understand the distinction between the two. Hopefully this clears up the confusion.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm still waiting for my check...

If you've ever carried one of those really nice MoveOn.org posters, you received it.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

That is one instance, obviously, but there are a lot of others that have nothing to do with one's mental state. There are some where it's a matter of convenience or the person is just poor managing their money. Antoine Walker went bankrupt after all. A lot of people here are putting the cart before the horse and fundamentally misunderstand the rule.

So now, even after you were proven wrong not once, not twice, but 3 times USING THE LINKS YOU PROVIDED we are supposed to now ignore that you were wrong because at some future date you might be right? And we should ignore the law YOU WERE RAILING AGAINST and the articles YOU POSTED railing against said law that said nothing of what you pretend they do because some other law somewhere MIGHT say what you pretend it says?

Your level of dissonance and paranoia makes youtube vloggers look on point. I mean the logical leaps you make in your posts on this subject are so out there I am not even sure Breitbart himself would have been able to follow them.

edit: you posted again about it. Now we dont get it because of spin and snark? YOU ARE THE ONE PROVIDING THE SOURCES!! So now the articles you believe are spinning it to sound less like what you think?

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

My buddy has been to countless protests and if anyone would've gotten paid it's him. But Flaggy believes in alternative facts delivered by fake news sites that give your computer and brain IDK how many viruses so that's why he seems to think that.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

It should go without saying there is a wide range of reasons someone might manage a SS recipient's finances.

Yeah, like they forgot half of the banks they put their money in over the years or they consistently forget where they're going and aren't allowed to drive anymore. People don't just give up power of their finances or have that priviledge taken away unless it's an absolute last resort.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm going to take one more run at explaining the SSA gun grab. Between the political spin in the two articles I posted and my own snarky comments it is a bit hard to understand if you're not familiar with guns.

No one is losing their gun rights because of their disability or whatever reason they're on social security. That doesn't play into this at all. Where people lose their rights is when they either run out of money(there is probably a different term than bankruptcy) or someone else takes over their finances. It doesn't matter why someone else manages their finances. It should go without saying there is a wide range of reasons someone might manage a SS recipient's finances.

I have no problem with people losing their gun rights because they are judged to be a danger to themselves or others based on a medical expert's opinion. This had nothing to do with that though and is a blanket ban based strictly on finances. It is important to understand the distinction between the two. Hopefully this clears up the confusion.

Based on what you describe, it wouldn't be limited to medical conditions either. What if it's a stay-at-home spouse that had little to zero knowledge about finances, and then just went on a spending spree once the spouse died?

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew...Flag is on your side. As such you should know your whole point is null and invalid! You might as well divide by zero

 

[aparch]

Based on what you describe, it wouldn't be limited to medical conditions either. What if it's a stay-at-home spouse that had little to zero knowledge about finances, and then just went on a spending spree once the spouse died?

Does she collect Social Security or Disability? Then she's an idiot with credit collections calling her every day, and can keep her guns.


*Edit* Now, if she's the one who put the cat in the refrigerator next to Grandpa's car keys, then we may want to get her checked out to see if she's mentally there still...

 

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm going to take one more run at explaining the SSA gun grab. Between the political spin in the two articles I posted and my own snarky comments it is a bit hard to understand if you're not familiar with guns.

No one is losing their gun rights because of their disability or whatever reason they're on social security. That doesn't play into this at all. Where people lose their rights is when they either run out of money(there is probably a different term than bankruptcy) or someone else takes over their finances. It doesn't matter why someone else manages their finances. It should go without saying there is a wide range of reasons someone might manage a SS recipient's finances.

I have no problem with people losing their gun rights because they are judged to be a danger to themselves or others based on a medical expert's opinion. This had nothing to do with that though and is a blanket ban based strictly on finances. It is important to understand the distinction between the two. Hopefully this clears up the confusion.

just stop. you are completely wrong. This has nothing to do with bankruptcy, or even voluntarily turning over control of finances.

If we do not find an individual to be disabled based on a mental impairment, he or she has not met the reporting requirements and we will not report them to the NICS.