I do what I wanna do, **** it.

[Yinzerlyn]

I didn't watch the speech, but I saw the crocodile tears. What a ******* PHONY. He can't get out of here fast enough.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I don't interpret the term "arms" in the constitution to mean any/all weapon in the equivalent caliber and capabilities as the government.

Oh, I absolutely do....Madison even spells it out in the Federalist Papers #46. Madison indicates that, at any point, the maximum force that can be brought to bear by the government to enforce its mandates is but a small fraction of the might of an armed citizenry.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

View attachment 2034

Wow! The lowest rated, lowest viewed cable network news program, the one most often criticized for its blatant partisanship, ran a survey and it showed a massive Liberal bias?

*THUD*

Let me pick myself up off the floor. Be right back.

 

[Tibs]

Wow, hell is about to freeze over. I actually agree with Bill O'Reilly on this.

<iframe class="video-embed" src="https://mediamatters.org/embed/207784" width="480" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen scrolling="no"></iframe>

 

[Tibs]

I didn't watch the speech, but I saw the crocodile tears. What a ******* PHONY.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

So Tibs, you can determine which tears are real, and those that are crocodile tears, correct? Who's on stage, and who's moved by raw emotions?

 

[Tibs]

So Tibs, you can determine which tears are real, and those that are crocodile tears, correct? Who's on stage, and who's moved by raw emotions?

Nope, and I'm not the one saying Obama is "a PHONY" or calling his emotions "crocodile tears."

 

[ark steel]

The legal gun owners are already reasonable....we don't need that dipshit telling us to be anything.

 

[ark steel]

I assume this must be relevant to The Big O being a phony PoS, but I can't figure out how.

 

[ark steel]

I'm not the one saying Obama is "a PHONY" or calling his emotions "crocodile tears."

I am and I don't have to be able to determine real tears from crocodile tears. Just look at the PoS involved. I have my answer.

 

[Rod Farva]

Your freedom lasts - and goes only as far - as long as you're not infringing on someone else's freedoms and rights. If only you libs were able to see that this must work both ways. The constitution is not an empty check to allow everyone the right to do anything they wish. Regardless of how badly some want to interpret the 2nd amendment in that manner.

You seem to have confused the Constitution as a document that restricts the activities of people when in reality it is a document written and designed to restrict the actions of government. The Constitution is EXACTLY an "empty check" that allows people (the states) to do as they please with anything NOT specifically mentioned in it. I have never ( and no currently legal gun owner has ever) infringed on anyone's rights. But you evidently think your rights are more somehow more qualified or more deserving of protection than mine. Why?

 

[ark steel]

You seem to have confused the Constitution as a document that restricts the activities of people when in reality it is a document written and designed to restrict the actions of government. The Constitution is EXACTLY an "empty check" that allows people (the states) to do as they please with anything NOT specifically mentioned in it. I have never ( and no currently legal gun owner has ever) infringed on anyone's rights. But you evidently think your rights are more somehow more qualified or more deserving of protection than mine. Why?

Some are more equal than others?

 

[Superman]

Wow, hell is about to freeze over. I actually agree with Bill O'Reilly on this.

<iframe class="video-embed" src="https://mediamatters.org/embed/207784" width="480" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen scrolling="no"></iframe>

**** that.
you do realize that this will prevent the very people Bomma wants to remove guns from - the mentally ill or in need - will stop seeking treatment or even not go for fear of their physician(s) violating HIPAA and the government then being able to remove their weapons and ability to defend themselves. an example would be a solider returning from war with PTSD, refusing to go to a mental health physician for help with his PTSD out of fear (imagined or real) of losing his weapons and ability to defend himself.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

My wife called me yesterday and said she had just seen this at work and that it was the worst fake cry she had ever seen. She is not a hardcore conservative or even all that political so I have to say she see the Bullshit clearly.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/singapore.php

Why do gun laws work in other countries? For instance Singapore and South Korea have near zero gun deaths per year.
In Singapore if you have a gun illegally you face imprisonment and caning. If you commit a crime with a gun you get the death
penalty. Pretty simple and pretty effective.

In South Korea you can own a gun for hunting, but you have to store it at the local police station.

Seems to me if 30K plus Americans are dying unnecessarily by gunshot each year, the President of the United States should
be required to take action. If its not in the constitution, we better get it in there.

It is in the Constitution *******! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It is in the Constitution *******! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

SSShhhhhh, he's a Liberal. It is a part of the party platform to work towards the destruction of the Constitution.

Sad...these folks don't get just how important that document is to their freedoms, and work diligently to undermine it, thinking it will improve their lives.

You know how you can go into those hurricane simulators, for $1, and feel 90 MPH winds? I wish there was a Communist or Somali-type simulator we could stick these Libtards into for a day or twenty. I bet after trying to speak their minds, say to a Government soldier and trying to tell him he's a scum-bag baby killer, they'd quickly change their feelings about our freedoms...if they lived to tell about it.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Nope, and I'm not the one saying Obama is "a PHONY" or calling his emotions "crocodile tears."

So you're saying people can't have the opinion that he is disingenuous?

What was that quote about Liberals, that's so apropos? Something about forcing everyone to have to buy into their view, otherwise they are intolerant and racist and xenophobes and homophobes and islamaphobes and...and...

#Tolerance

 

[Vader]

54% of the 30,000 are from suicide and numerous studies have shown that the presence or absence of a firearm does not change the overall suicide rate. Japan has no private ownership of guns yet has twice the suicide rate of the U.S. I've seen that 30K stat and it's just an outright lie. My guess is that it includes good and bad police shootings, defensive shootings and the handful of accidental shootings that happen every year. Fact is that gun ownership has gone up while gun deaths have gone down. This is just another liberals attempt to take everyone's guns because that's what liberals do. They are nothing but undercover communist who don't like capitalism nor the constitution. Which is why Billary wants the Australian model of gun confiscation.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

54% of the 30,000 are from suicide and numerous studies have shown that the presence or absence of a firearm does not change the overall suicide rate. Japan has no private ownership of guns yet has twice the suicide rate of the U.S. I've seen that 30K stat and it's just an outright lie. My guess is that it includes good and bad police shootings, defensive shootings and the handful of accidental shootings that happen every year. Fact is that gun ownership has gone up while gun deaths have gone down. This is just another liberals attempt to take everyone's guns because that's what liberals do. They are nothing but undercover communist who don't like capitalism nor the constitution. Which is why Billary wants the Australian model of gun confiscation.

The 30K stat that is so loosely thrown around involves EVERY death from firearm in the country. Suicide to cop killings to accidental hunting deaths to self defense, etc.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

**** that.
you do realize that this will prevent the very people Bomma wants to remove guns from - the mentally ill or in need - will stop seeking treatment or even not go for fear of their physician(s) violating HIPAA and the government then being able to remove their weapons and ability to defend themselves. an example would be a solider returning from war with PTSD, refusing to go to a mental health physician for help with his PTSD out of fear (imagined or real) of losing his weapons and ability to defend himself.

"Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent." -- Quinn's First Law

 

[Vader]

BHO is a huge liar and most liberals cloak their true beliefs until it's time to act. Don't listen to their words... watch what they do.

 

[Tibs]

I assume the big uproar is over Obama using the executive order, thus circumventing Congress and the will of the people. In turn, he's blatantly and aggressively pursuing a liberal agenda through a clear abuse of his powers as President. I think I got it now.

I do what I wanna do, **** it.

...Bomma's executive orders and bureaucratic overreaches.

How about we just follow the limits put out there by the constitution?

But he was still able to sign enough executive orders...

That ************!

He does what he wants and dares anyone to challenge him.

Nobody dares challenge the First Black President. NOBODY.

Obummer didn't study Constitutional law to uphold the Constitution, he studied it to figure out ways to circumvent it.

Liberals are all fascists at heart...all their ideas come down to FORCING the majority to do whatever they deem proper.

SSShhhhhh, he's a Liberal. It is a part of the party platform to work towards the destruction of the Constitution.

 

[Vader]

You don't get it do you? It isn't the number of EO it's what they do. If he is subverting congress and using the EOs to get done what he can't get through congress then it's wrong. The president doesn't have the power to use EOs to create laws. Which is exactly what he is doing. Which is why the federal counts have knocked his *** down many times over this.

Also Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders. So either you didn't know this or you're being disingenuous.

 

[ark steel]

You don't get it do you? It isn't the number of EO it's what they do. If he is subverting congress and using the EOs to get done what he can't get through congress then it's wrong. The president doesn't have the power to use EOs to create laws. Which is exactly what he is doing. Which is why the federal counts have knocked his *** down many times over this.

Also Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders. So either you didn't know this or you're being disingenuous.

For the last few presidents, it is my understanding that a majority of EO's deal with menial stuff like recognizing people, naming monuments, bridges, etc. Do pardons go under EO's? Mostly, stuff that doesn't, really, matter. So, as you say, the number is irrelevant and the difference is lost on liberals

I can't remember how many times Tibs or one of his lib buddies has trotted out that ****** tell-you-nothing chart. Like when Will Twitlow kept trotting out his IQ vs. who voted for who by state charts. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Vader]

For the last few presidents, it is my understanding that a majority of EO's deal with menial stuff like recognizing people, naming monuments, bridges, etc. Do pardons go under EO's? Mostly, stuff that doesn't, really, matter. So, as you say, the number is irrelevant and the difference is lost on liberals

I can't remember how many times Tibs or one of his lib buddies has trotted out that ****** tell-you-nothing chart. Like when Will Twitlow kept trotting out his IQ vs. who voted for who by state charts. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Exactly right. BHO has avoided the EOs by using the lesser known memorandum. He used the memorandum when he did his immigration action. People like Tibs probably never heard of the EMs and so he is ignorant when it comes to this discussion. Which is why he uses that daft chart with only EOs on it. It's just pure ignorance and politics.