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

[hamster]

What are your values that are so different than that?

I don't think our values differ about our citizens that are self sustaining, whether they be lib or con. Our values differ when it comes to those who do not "have the Protestant ethic', or no work ethic at all.
Therein lies the problem.

 

[hamster]

Viewing our problems as you do, that one side is good and the other bad, is much of WHY the problems themselves persist. You are being USED by the right. To attack your fellow American rather than to problem solve.
.

I voted for Kerry, because I thought Bush lied about Iraq.
I am in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

What were you saying?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

No, there should be rational discourse between both sides until a consenus is reached. That's how I'd prefer the government to work. Since that basically never happens, I understand that presidents pass executive orders on occasion. The irony of the backlash against Obama is obviously the total disfunction of the Republicans in the House and Senate that spent years opposing anything - and literally everything - brought up by the President or the Democrats. Look at the voting record over the past 6-7 years. The notion that Obama may look to move on issues that have been bottlenecked for years in Congress, yet arguably have merit and support across the nation, well, that doesn't shock or alarm me. Obama has represented - fairly openly, during his entire tenure - a progressive stance in politics. A large segment of the country elected him president - two times around. He surely has the right - and responsibility - to stand on the issues that got him elected.

No worries, Obama will be gone in a blink of an eye and we'll all have something else to talk - mope - about. Cheers!

But don't forget that when Harry Reid, D-Las Vegas, ran the Senate he sent very little to the President to be signed in order to provide cover to the President and Congressional Democrats.

 

[IndySteel]

Exhibit A of what a ****-sucking **** you truly are Indy. Every day is a sad day when you wake up. So much ****-sucking to do, so little time. Hang in there buddy...

That's a pretty weak effort even by your mediocre standards. The fact is I love my life and everyday is glorious. I got my **** sucked this morning before I left for a business trip. See, people on the right actually work and contribute to society, versus your kind who take from the achievers and drag the economy down. You must be so proud, whilst getting your vadge diddled by a homeless crackhead.

 

[hamster]

The fact is I love my life and everyday is glorious. I got my **** sucked this morning before I left for a business trip..

Homeless crackheads suck ****, too. Jus sayin.

 

[IndySteel]

Exhibit A of what a ****-sucking **** you truly are Indy. Every day is a sad day when you wake up. So much ****-sucking to do, so little time. Hang in there buddy...

Homeless crackheads suck ****, too. Jus sayin.

But ribs has a gash

 

[Steelin]

I was so brainwashed that I walked door to door for Kerry. Then I heard a commentator on the radio state that people in my tax bracket were paying thousands of dollars a year less in taxes under Bush than they had been under Clinton. I got to work, logged in to my adp account and sure enough Clinton had been killing us. He wouldnt do that to us right? We weren't making a lot and we were paying daycare etc. I became open minded and my mother's diehard lefty 70's influence faded.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I agree that some of LBJs policies have harmed the country. But so did Nixon's.

Well yeah, that opening up China thing did destroy a lot of American manufacturing and helped create Walmart.

 

[DBS1970]

There are alot of holes in this, but I want to focus on your targeting of "liberals".

I agree that the left's welfare state has done poor Americans a great disservice. But so too has the right's war on drugs.

I agree that some of LBJs policies have harmed the country. But so did Nixon's.

I agree that personal responsibility is a problem politically, but blanket deregulation has the same effect as welfare: it gives wrong doers impunity.

Viewing our problems as you do, that one side is good and the other bad, is much of WHY the problems themselves persist. You are being USED by the right. To attack your fellow American rather than to problem solve. We two major theories in politics today:

1) Pie in the sky liberalism. Everything can be had and had for free.

2) Easy Answer conservatism. Even the most complex issue can be boiled down to a three word slogan.

Neither side is productive or helpful to the overall success of our nation, which is largely coasting on it's previous successes having become the world's only super power. The politicians are universally emotionally uninvolved and profiteer from the conflict rather than seeking resolution. In places like Brazil or Sweden, people see their fellow citizens as "us". Americans see their fellow Americans as "them".

The problems we have are absolutely fixable. But people would rather get on a forum and call each other names than try to fix things. Bigots, feminists, hate mongers, socialist hippies, and other useless characters (or opportunists) gain center stage while responsible critical thinkers are shoved into the background. Thus the Faustian Bargain of Hillary/Trump is all that's in the offing. No REAL solution oriented choices are made available because any reasoned discussion is stifled by the **** hurling monkeys.

I agree with most of this. The part I disagree with is your three word slogan remark. The solutions really are simple they just require hard work and we have become a nation of slackers looking for the easy out. The GOP has the only candidate that has the right Ideas and would lead us down the direction of liberty and that's Rand Paul. But Senator Doctor Paul is only about 5'9" and his voice isn't a nice baritone. He is a smart guy with good ideas but the USA doesn't want that it wants a Gameshow host with charisma.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Responding (finally) to Tibs' posting the pictures of Presidents crying:

Those are PICTURES. We don't know the story behind them, nor did we see any actual speech to go along with them. I watched the part of Obama's speech where he cried, and those were fake *** tears. As fake as anything I have ever seen. (I work at a HS, and I see fake emotion all the time). So unless you have videos of those pictures in question so we can get the FULL story, which I highly doubt you do, please stop trying. It's desperate.

 

[Tibs]

Lyn, I think his tears were genuine, as he was lameting the loss of young school children gunned down at Sandy Hook, along with other victims of gun violence. His tears were genuine, his solidarity with the parents was also genuine, as was his anger and frustration with political gridlock and the gun lobby. All real, genuine, raw emotions. That's how I see it. Now what?

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Responding (finally) to Tibs' posting the pictures of Presidents crying:

Those are PICTURES. We don't know the story behind them, nor did we see any actual speech to go along with them. I watched the part of Obama's speech where he cried, and those were fake *** tears. As fake as anything I have ever seen. (I work at a HS, and I see fake emotion all the time). So unless you have videos of those pictures in question so we can get the FULL story, which I highly doubt you do, please stop trying. It's desperate.

This is what I was on about earlier when I discussed divisiveness. Just because you don't like Obama or his policies, that don't make him evil.

Chicago is his adopted town. He understands gun violence as well as anyone, on a personal level. This is an issue he cares deeply about, an small children being slaughtered is something I think we could all get a little misty about. Yes he's a politician, and yest they are opportunists. Political survival demands it. But believe it or not, Obama is a human being too. There are things that he cares about deeply. He could not be more wrong on the gun issue, but as a bleeding heart liberal he HONESTLY BELIEVES that guns are the problem. To him a gun is not a tool or a machine but the manifestation of human evil. That doesn't make him a *******, it just makes him wrong.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

This is what I was on about earlier when I discussed divisiveness. Just because you don't like Obama or his policies, that don't make him evil.

Chicago is his adopted town. He understands gun violence as well as anyone, on a personal level. This is an issue he cares deeply about, an small children being slaughtered is something I think we could all get a little misty about. Yes he's a politician, and yest they are opportunists. Political survival demands it. But believe it or not, Obama is a human being too. There are things that he cares about deeply. He could not be more wrong on the gun issue, but as a bleeding heart liberal he HONESTLY BELIEVES that guns are the problem. To him a gun is not a tool or a machine but the manifestation of human evil. That doesn't make him a *******, it just makes him wrong.

Ya just can't help pointing out "all the wrong" above. Wrong English, grammar, spelling. And then two uses of the word "wrong" - which leads me to believe you at least have a grasp of the definition of wrong? Or is it just situational?

LOL

 

[ark steel]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/gun-control-bullets/index.html

Article on making it harder to buy ammunition. Is the following statement true? I can't believe that it is.

But this is a fledgling idea in a landscape where 37 states don't require background checks to purchase a handgun -- let alone a box of ammo. "In most states, we're actually starting from even further behind," says Ari Freilich of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a think tank that worked with Newsom to formulate the policy ideas in the Safety for All Act. "Before they can impose ammunition background checks, they also have to talk about firearms background checks as well."

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Lyn, I think his tears were genuine, as he was lameting the loss of young school children gunned down at Sandy Hook, along with other victims of gun violence. His tears were genuine, his solidarity with the parents was also genuine, as was his anger and frustration with political gridlock and the gun lobby. All real, genuine, raw emotions. That's how I see it. Now what?

Here lies the problem. All of this is about opinion. It was obvious to me his "emotions" were concocted and he was on stage. There wasn't an ounce of "care" involved.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35238309 - President Obama's tears prove as controversial as gun policy

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/obama_lets_the_crocodile_tears_flow.html - Obama lets the crocodile tears flow

If President Obama is considering a second career in acting, he may want to get a day job. His performance during Tuesday’s press conference on executive action tyrannical order on gun control was weak. In fact, the entire high-drama presentation was a despicable display of a sick little man.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...amas-gun-plan-crocodile-tears-and-a/?page=all - Obama’s gun plan: Crocodile tears and a ‘crazy list’

This is my favorite:

When all the hectoring is finished, the professorial lecturing is done, all the political posturing is over, all that is left are tears. And crocodile tears at that.

Even for those of us long tired of the false hopes and outright lies from this White House, President Obama’s crude gunplay Tuesday was pretty shocking.

It was shocking for its hollowness. Shocking for its low-mindedness. Shocking for the complete disdain the man has for all the families of victims of gun violence that he trots out to carry his political water. And what for? To save a future life? Prevent a past death?

No. He even admitted on live national television that his raft of meaningless proposals will do nothing to prevent a single gun crime and nor would they have ever prevented one in the past.

“Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms, like background checks, might not have stopped the last massacre. Or the one before that. Or the one before that. So why bother? I reject that thinking.”

In other words, Mr. Obama is saying: “Let’s make up some meaningless new gun laws just ‘cuz.”

Or, as his former chief of staff might say, “Never let a tragedy go to waste. Not when you can hector, lecture and grandstand over it. Score some political points.”

 

[ark steel]

This is what I was on about earlier when I discussed divisiveness. Just because you don't like Obama or his policies, that don't make him evil.

Chicago is his adopted town. He understands gun violence as well as anyone, on a personal level. This is an issue he cares deeply about, an small children being slaughtered is something I think we could all get a little misty about. Yes he's a politician, and yest they are opportunists. Political survival demands it. But believe it or not, Obama is a human being too. There are things that he cares about deeply. He could not be more wrong on the gun issue, but as a bleeding heart liberal he HONESTLY BELIEVES that guns are the problem. To him a gun is not a tool or a machine but the manifestation of human evil. That doesn't make him a *******, it just makes him wrong.

Sorry, I don't believe The Big O "honestly believes" in anything other than big government control over everything. He may care about the pain the parents are going through, but his ultimate goal is CONTROL. He doesn't care what it takes to achieve that goal and he is, absolutely, an opportunist in doing so,

IMO, if he was really that broken up about it, it'd be a lot more than a choke up with a few tears. But, I can tell you this to: If it were me, there would have been a lot of tears AND, at every press conference before that, I would have been shedding those tears, too. Was The Big O? I don't think so.

 

[Tibs]

Here lies the problem. All of this is about opinion.

Exactly, and I stand firmly by mine.

 

[Tibs]

...at every press conference before that, I would have been shedding those tears, too. Was The Big O? I don't think so.

12/14/2012 <<<
President Obama on Friday choked up during a statement in which he deplored the “heinous crime” that left 27 dead in a shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

12/14/2012 <<<
President Obama on Friday choked up during a statement in which he deplored the “heinous crime” that left 27 dead in a shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

That is shedding a tear and choking up?

I've chopped onions and gotten more teary-eyed than that.

 

[Rod Farva]

I think the hard-core interpretation of the 2nd amendment is on the wrong side of history. Just like I think other right-wing issues like gay marriage and abortion are on the wrong side of history too.

How can someone opposing the killing of innocent babies be "on the wrong side of history"?

100 years from now, the idea a "well regulated militia" with arms shall be able to defend states against the federal government is ludicrous. I think it's ludicrous now.

Back in 1790, this was the foundation of a debate (at the time) between federalists and anti-federalists. But our country has continued to evolve ON EVERY OTHER ISSUE to be more federal and central government based. You call it evolution. I call it distracted / disinterested capitulation. Why can't we look debate the gun issue (amendment 2) in the same terms as other federal powers? Amendment 14 in 1866 (as part of reclamation) clearly changed our country in the wake of our Civil War to be more uniform and not just individual states doing what they want. In many ways Amendment 14 contradicts much of the original founding fathers envisioned about our country, but it was necessary as we evolved from and 18th century agriculture economy with 4 million residents to 30 million in 1860 to 150 million in 1950 to 300+ million now.
The 14th amendment had more to do with the now freed slaves.
We are not in an era of "States" being independent. There is too much trade, travel, communication, etc. to allow state powers nearly as much as what the founding fathers debated in 1790. It's just insane to think otherwise.

So you think the 10th amendment is on the "wrong side of history" too.

The whole debate about the right to bear arms and state militias in 1790 was about STATES vs. FEDERAL government, not citizens vs. government like the right-wing wants you to believe. That is completely a wrong interpretation of the debate at the time.

"The right of the people............."

I just don't get it. A revolution against a government will not happen like it did in the 18th century in America or France. It will not be based on firepower of the citizens (and lack of firepower central governments had). It will be based on who really controls the military and how it acts against it's own citizens. If you right-wing fanatics really think a war against our government is even feasible with any amount of assault weapons, you are crazy. The type of firepower and technology the government has could kill us all 10-times over. Revolution will have to come from much more peaceful means of protest. And why freedom of the press, assembly and speech are much more important weapons against the government than any firearm. That will only be more-so in the future.

The last paragraph is just your speculation. I don't believe I'm "crazy." And your next to last sentence......if we don't defend all of our rights, why would government "allow" us to retain the three you find "acceptable"?

. A large segment of the country elected him president - two times around. He surely has the right - and responsibility - to stand on the issues that got him elected.

!

But...what if he was lying about the "issues that got him elected"?

This is what I was on about earlier when I discussed divisiveness. Just because you don't like Obama or his policies, that don't make him evil.

Chicago is his adopted town. He understands gun violence as well as anyone, on a personal level. This is an issue he cares deeply about, an small children being slaughtered is something I think we could all get a little misty about. Yes he's a politician, and yest they are opportunists. Political survival demands it. But believe it or not, Obama is a human being too. There are things that he cares about deeply. He could not be more wrong on the gun issue, but as a bleeding heart liberal he HONESTLY BELIEVES that guns are the problem. To him a gun is not a tool or a machine but the manifestation of human evil. That doesn't make him a *******, it just makes him wrong.

You really believe he was a denizen of that part of Chicago? That he dealt with gun violence on any kind of personal level on a day to day? And I thought he was supposed to be so smart? Why would an intelligent person believe "guns are the problem"?
Make no mistake. He is a dyed in the wool Marxist, and will use every tool in the Alinsky box to make anyone he can believe that he is not. He in fact IS a tool of Soros and that, imo, does make him the manifestation of evil. Everything in his history reveals his contempt and dislike for America.

 

[ark steel]

But...what if he was lying about the "issues that got him elected"?

I'd be inclined to believe more in the scenario of "What if, within 2 years after he was elected, the opposing party took control of Congress. In successive elections, the opposing party has taken more and more control of Congress to the point that both the Senate and House have the opposition in the majority". Wouldn't that signify that the citizens were, specifically, sending people to oppose his objectives? That ain't much of a leap.

Especially, when were told that this was EXACTLY the reason the Dems finally took control of Congress when Bush was president and it took way more than 2 years for his side to lose control of congress.

On another note, I believe the only other President (at least modern day president) to lose control of Congress after his first two years was The Great Bill Clinton. The major issue at the time was Hillary Care and the GOP promise of a different direction. Sound familiar?

 

[Steel Vanguard]

I'd be inclined to believe more in the scenario of "What if, within 2 years after he was elected, the opposing party took control of Congress. In successive elections, the opposing party has taken more and more control of Congress to the point that both the Senate and House have the opposition in the majority". Wouldn't that signify that the citizens were, specifically, sending people to oppose his objectives? That ain't much of a leap.

Especially, when were told that this was EXACTLY the reason the Dems finally took control of Congress when Bush was president and it took way more than 2 years for his side to lose control of congress.

On another note, I believe the only other President (at least modern day president) to lose control of Congress after his first two years was The Great Bill Clinton. The major issue at the time was Hillary Care and the GOP promise of a different direction. Sound familiar?

I don't think Reagan ever had a Republican congress. But then, everything wasn't straight party line in those days. You still had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. The Clinton era was really the time where party ideologies solidified. I'm sure people will blame Bill for that too, but I think it had more to do with the advent of the 24 hour news cycle, the talk radio crazies and the internet wackos really polarizing Americans for profit.

 

[ark steel]

I don't think Reagan ever had a Republican congress. But then, everything wasn't straight party line in those days. You still had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. The Clinton era was really the time where party ideologies solidified. I'm sure people will blame Bill for that too, but I think it had more to do with the advent of the 24 hour news cycle, the talk radio crazies and the internet wackos really polarizing Americans for profit.

I think you missed the point. Regan didn't have a Republican congress, nor does my statement address that. My statement is, when a particular president took office and his party already had control of both parts of congress, only two presidents lost control of congress within the first two years in office (to my knowledge).

When Bush took office, I believe the GOP held congress, if only narrowly or took control soon thereafter. the GOP didn't lose control of congress until several years later (2006?). We were told "The Blue Wave" was because of America's opposition to Bush policies. Of course, it wasn't, directly, so, but no reason the truth should get in the way of a good story.

You didn't get the same story from the MSM when Obama lost control of Congress (House) after only two years and continued losing ground thereafter.

 

[Superman]

IMO, Bomma is a true politician. He says eloquently what you want to hear. All the way back to his quote about flat-screen TVs:

I don’t know of any economist . . . who would argue that we are more likely to get a bump in aggregate demand from $700 billion of borrowed money going to people like those of us around this table who, I suspect, if we want a flat screen TV can afford one right now and are going out and buying one.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2010/10/05/obama-thinks-flat-screen-tv-owners-rich/

that statement was made back when flat screen tvs had hit the market and were new and all the consumer buying rage. to be fair, some of those flat screen TVs were expensive...just as they are now.

Bomma routinely says what we want to hear. I dont think anyone ever wants to hear about a school being shot up and children murdered. Obama's speech writers are well-rehearsed and know this. So it is under this cloak that Bomma seeks to pass his "common sense" gun laws. Because it is common sense to the majority of the population that you don't kill people. but we have a "segment" (one of his favorite words) of society who don't really give a damn about morals and ethics. That "segment" should be dealt with harshly and immediately. Oh - no, not the NRA and it's supporters that Bomma and his lemmings so want you to believe, but the criminal element and their ilk. Bomma's broad measures and grandstand efforts just reek of over-bearing that if it weren't for the NRA and their supporters, the law-abiding citizens would be defenseless from the criminals.

Bomma's speeches are akin to a Southern Baptist preacher, seeking to elicit charge and emotion from his followers.
http://thefrontporch.org/2014/07/elements-of-styles-in-black-preaching/

Which is why, again, IMO, his followers are so deeply devoted to him, despite proclaiming themselves to be anti-religion.

His words hardly ever mesh with his actions. That was on display Monday.
http://letmereach.com/2013/10/29/when-a-narcissist-cries-2/

What we often do not see is that we are many times shamed by feelings we are not doing enough for them. All along it is easy to be manipulated as we respond from our hearts. The deception is that the narcissist can hide behind misfortune and victimization in order to shame you into feeling and believing that they suffer more than you do. They will say that you don’t care enough for them. They will make you feel that you have not done enough to help them. They want attention, control, gain, and power over others by positioning themselves as a “poor and helpless” victim. They do this; all the while soaking up the attention and control over others. In the eyes of an extreme narcissist, their situation is always right and totally justified. Instead of taking responsibility for self and consequences, the extreme narcissist tries to make others feel responsible for their plight. Because extreme narcissists are incredibly adept at the game of manipulation, they will always find a way to turn the tables on you. They will try to make you responsible and feel guilty for not helping them or taking their side.

I'm not going to say Bomma is a dumbass. He's not. He's likely very intelligent and a very quick learner. He's also coddled and surrounded by "yes" men/women. He's learned the game of politics well enough to shoot to the top of the political spectrum and show just how over his head he really is. But he's shown that he can adapt quickly and use issues to push the agenda of his devoted followers. The ones he tells just enough of a truth to in order to elicit an emotional reaction.

he's a goddamn weasel.

 

[21STEELERS21]

what is this number? 257,000