Here go the Democrats trying to spin the Arizona shootings into gun control! - Auto-Trend Repairs and Service Information Forums

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Here go the Democrats trying to spin the Arizona shootings into gun control!

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I actually agree with you Rex, and so do MOST Democrats. There is a wing of my party that is anti gun, and surely they will use this to try and advance their position. They will draft some legislation and call a big press conference about it to raise the debate among the American people. They are fully aware that the legislation they draft will be killed immediately in a committee hearing by a joint effort between Republicans and Democrats, and never be allowed to actually come to a vote in either house of congress. And even if somehow it did come to a floor vote, it would fail, and if by some miracle it passed one house of congress, it wouldn't pass both... And even if it did, Obama would veto it.

I wouldn't worry about it Rex. There are all kinds of bad bills written by members of both parties that will never even come up for a vote, this is one such example.

It's just too bad Gabby Giffords is currently unable to defend your gun rights like she always has in the past.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Monday 10th of January 2011 10:12:10 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I fear you are taking this too lightly PowerStroker!

These people aren't going to quit pushing this issue. The fact they are going to push this agenda in the name of a gun rights activist is appalling. Do these Democrats not have any respect for their own?

It just reminds me of another Democrat who said "We should never let a crissis go to waste". I may be slightly off on that quote, but you know to whom I am speaking of.

This is NOT the kind of leadership out country needs! They should all be focused on punishing the INDIVIDUAL, and not the entire nation. They should be figuring out how to protect all of our other members of congress and public office holders in a economical, efficient and successful manner.

An extended bullet magazine is no more dangerous than a standard 6 or 7 round magazine. In fact had this nut case been a better shot he could have killed just as many with 7 rounds, as he did unloading 30! I can think of times when ordinary personwould NEED an extended clip, instances such as target shooting at a gun range, protection out in the wild, protection against large groups of hostel people, riots, and hell you never freaking know!

Taking away extended magazeens is just their first step. If they succede in this endevor they will be back for the ammo, and then the guns. They will not stop.

Even if they took away all the guns in the USA people would be getting killed in much more brutal ways such as hand to hand combat, knife wounds or pretty much anything within arm's reach when the proverbial "Shit" goes down.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I agree with your view on gun rights, and so did Gabby Giffords and most Democrats. I don't know if Congresswoman Giffords still feels that way, but it's too bad she's not able to continue fighting for our point of view on this issue at present.

I disagree with your assertion that the Democratic party is going to use this to force tighter gun laws down your throat. The Dems who already hated guns will surely try to make the most of this issue, but they are not a majority of the party. Take me for example... I'm a rank and file Democrat, and I'm not interested in any more gun laws. As far as I'm concerned the laws on the books are sufficient. They keep grenade launchers out of the hands of 4 year olds, yet allow me to purchase more firepower than I need so long as I don't get a criminal record. I think the current state of gun laws is fine. Realize there has been an enormous effort to get people like you to believe that people like me want to take your guns away, but it's based more in political posturing than reality. Besides, Boner runs the House of Reps now, so even if you don't believe me, you have to believe he won't allow a vote on any new gun laws anyway, so you can relax buddy.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Yeah b...b...b..but that's not what Rachel Maddow says!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=41009651&#41011447

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Here is the Woman that want's to take our "Clips" away!

She claims her "Leader" is Nancy Pelosi, and we all know how much she likes to ram things down peoples throats!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=41009651&#41012423

The video makes me sick. They claim Walmart and Glock should be brought into this and prosecuted.

Let us all not forget the simple fact that Walmart joined with homeland security to become a place for people to report their neighbors and friends as terrorist. Guess they really dropped the ball on this one! I mean c'mon! Our supermarkets are to buy food, ammo, beer and cheap China made goods! Not an outpost for Homeland security.

I have quit buying groceries at Walmart every since I learned of the facts above. I used to spend $20-$40 there every other week, only buying food items and only buying items on sale. Now they get NOTHING from me, and I spend my money at Meijer, where the customer service has been better than the rest.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I love Rachel and Nancy, even though they are in the minority part of the Democratic party that wants tighter gun laws.

You're getting all worked up over nothing Rex. They hated guns before this incident, and they will continue to do so, but nothing is actually going to happen from it in terms of gun laws.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

That's the problem with democrats, they consider government running our lives "not a big deal". It's a pretty big deal to me and any other self respecting citizen.

Guess that's why it's not much of a "big deal" to you.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

No, it's not much of a big deal to me because I know better than to think anything is actually going to happen that would infringe upon my 2nd Amendment rights. It seems you just like an excuse to get riled up even if it has no real basis.

Were you this uptight when Ronald Reagan signed a bunch of gun regulations in to law?

Let's see here, Reagan signed legislation to ban all plastic firearms that were undetectable by metal detectors. Does that somehow infringe on your right to have a gun?

Regan signed legislation to ban "cop killer" bullets that could easily pierce body armor. Does that somehow infringe on your right to have a gun?

Reagan signed legislation banning civilians from being able to acquire surface to air missiles. Does that somehow infringe on your right to have a gun?

If the Dem's try anything, it will be to reinstate the limit on the amount of ammo a single handgun magazine can carry. You know, the limit that was also signed in to law by Ronald Reagan but expired under George Jr's watch, so the shooter could only kill 15 people instead of 30 before needing to reload... Did you feel 6 years ago like your freedoms were being infringed upon? Another thing the Dems might try is passing legislation to have bullets marked with a microscopic code that can help the police solve gun crimes by being able to at least figure out which manufacturer made the bullet, it's date of manufacture, and region of sale. This should only matter to you if you plan to commit a gun crime.

My suggestion for you, would be to stop listening blindly to the NRA, and do some of your own homework. Oh yeah, and stop being such a tool if at all possible. I should warn you though, if you try to do your own homework on the Internet with regards to this issue, you will find a lot of misinformation from people typing in all caps and saying things like "pry it from my cold dead hands." Actual non biased information isn't exactly low hanging fruit on this issue.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Wednesday 12th of January 2011 06:33:31 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

As I have said before, the extended clip magazine is just the first step.

As for Reagan, well I was a kid when he was President and I am not surprised that he put bans on plastic guns and large clip magazines because someone tried taking him out.

Putting a ban on large capacity magazines is bullshit, there are so many out there that it's not like someone hell bent on killing someone could not get ahold of one. Then there is the fact that millions of people already have them, and thus would be grandfathered.

Bottom line here is this, if someone wants to go on a shooting rampage their is little anyone can do about it. While the shooter was able to buy his gun legally, and then buy his ammo at a walmart it's a rare exception to the rule. Had not a Federal Judge and a congress woman not been shot NO ONE would have give a rats ass about the shooting, and the media would not have poured over it. Just goes to show that people in government are treated better than their constituents that put them there. Amazing they could save the Democratic congress woman who was SHOT IN THE HEAD, yet that poor little 9 year old girl could not be saved.

How about that new law they whipped up in Arizona about picketing funerals? Amazing they passed a law in ONE DAY, actually I think it took all of 90 minutes, yet when it comes to other things just as important to Americans they milk it to the max. While I don't think it's right to picket a funeral, and I do not disagree with the law, I find the speed in which it was passed and then put into effect somewhat bothersome.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

When something has overwhelming bipartisan agreement, it can be enacted very quickly.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Yeah... And that's what is scary!

I think they call that tyranny, yet in this case most people will agree picketing a persons last send off (funeral) is bad taste and unacceptable. But what happens when they come together to do things that are NOT in good taste? Like the new healthcare law? Or a more aggressive form of the Patriot act because now the government is starting to fear the people, rather than the people fearing the government? As more and more people are pushed out into the streets the pressure on these people responsible for doing nothing, or letting it happen will increase.

We have a two party system for a reason. How much longer before they get smart and start playing us (the people) like fools? Oh wait, that may have already been going on for a very long time. Do you think people in public office really care about partisanship when it comes across the grapevine that Americans are fed up with the bullshit? You don't think these public servants will band together to make us the servants? This kind of tyranny is well documented and explained in the second amendment. Care to recite it for us PowerStroker?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

I don't think the second Ammendment was talking about "tyrany" from freely elected representitaves of the people. It was written when were still doing battle with tyrany frim England.

If you don't like your representitave, vote against them, but if you lose in a fair election, suck it up. Don't undermine the will of a majority of free people with a gun.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Okay pussy... You missed your chance, so I'll post a portion of the 2nd amendment since you lack the scrot,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_1.html

Funny how trying to find an exact re-print of the constitution of the United States on the internet is all but impossible anymore.

Keep it up the good work PowerStroker!

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

SELLC wrote:

Okay pussy... You missed your chance, so I'll post a portion of the 2nd amendment since you lack the scrot,

maybe I'm tired of doing your homework for you.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Keep it up the good work PowerStroker!
Do you think that "well regulated" part means that the Constitution says it's ok for some common sense gun laws to be imposed?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

You do realize that the constitution has been re-written several times don't you?

I'll ask you one more time PowerStroker, can you post up the ORIGINAL 2nd amendment as per the constitution? You know, the one that hasn't been altered.

And who is to say that the militia is regulated by the government? Perhaps the regulation comes from within the militia.

Seems like I am the one always doing your homework.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

The version you posted IS the original. The Constitution has changed through the generations through the use of additional Ammendments. Ammendments don't change the original text of the body of the Constitution, they are additions to the document that come at the end. The well regulated militia is in the original 2nd ammendment text and always will be, even if someday the 2nd ammendment is repealed by a later ammendment.

That is why when the Republicans took the House of Reps, and decided that the first order of business would be to read the Constitution on the floor, they skipped the parts that didn't sound politically correct like the ammendment that enacted prohibition... Though they did read the ammendment which repealed it. Oh yeah, they also left out the 3/5 vote for blacks, and the part that says only men can vote, and the part that allows for ownership of slaves. At least they read the ammendments that repealed those travesties though.

A majority of GUN OWNERS believe there should be come common sense gun regulations Rex, myself included. The Second Ammendment gives lawful people of age the right to own firearms... It also allows We The People through our government, to regulate those firearms through democratically imposed laws.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Saturday 15th of January 2011 11:57:36 AM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.^[69]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,^[70] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.^[71] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.^[72]

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August of 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.^[73]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."^[74] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.^[75]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.^[76] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.^[77]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Sorry PowerStroker, but once again you have just been proven WRONG.

I was almost positive you would try and play the race card, along with the "Bad Republican" card in an effort to shift the focus. You are so predictable.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Are you a fucking idiot Rex? You just proved my point that what you originally quoted was always what the 2nd Ammendment said.

Your history lesson is very accurate, and shows the WORK PRODUCT that lead up to the final version of what became the 2nd ammendment. It does not show that the Second Ammendment at one time read anything else, because when it was in the work product stage, it was not yet an ammendment to the Constitution, it was merely legislative language being debated as a potential ammendment, just like EVERYTHING else that goes through congress, it doesn't become law (or an ammendment) untill identical language is voted on in both houses, and signed by the President.

You can't make a Constitutional argument based on the spirit of work product language from one house of congress prior to it being finalized and agreed to by both houses and the President. Even the most right wing judges would slap you in the penis for that one lol.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Saturday 15th of January 2011 02:30:28 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Hey dip shit... What year was the constitution signed?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

While you are at it, why don't you tell us the date the 1st 10 amendments (Bill of rights) were adopted.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

The US Constitution was ratified June 21 1788

The Bill of Rights (first 10 ammendments) was ratified in 1791

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Correct.

While I will admit that my thoughts of "changes" differed from yours in terms of the changes that took place in the House, it could be said that it has been changed. The bill of rights was in essence a "Change" in the constitution, and the additional 27 additions to the bill of rights are technically a "Change" as well (As you have stated earlier in this thread too).

However, I also feel that the interpretation of the bill of rights allows it to be changed. While the text may have stayed the same since ratification, someone (the courts) looking at it differently definitely constitutes a "Change". Do you agree?

This is where the idea of "A well regulated militia" can come into question. Well regulated by who? By the government or the majority of the people?

It's all got to do with perception by the majority. Something your friend Loughner the liberal LWNJ loner was spouting off about in his college classes.

-- Edited by SELLC on Sunday 16th of January 2011 01:10:24 AM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

The Bill of Rights was indeed a change to the Constitution. It did not change the original body of text, it only supplimented it, as did all additional ammendments thereafter. During the point in time prior to the Bill of Rights being ratified... The time when Madison's language was being debated and changed in the House of Representitaves you had NO Constitutional right to bear arms. Not that most people didn't bear arms, it's just that the right to do so wasn't guaranteed untill the Bill of rights was actually ratified.

The term "militia" was used before we actually had our own organized military as we know it today. Around the time the Constitution was drafted we had "minute men" which were just regular citizens who came together with their weapons to drive the british away. Once the US constitution was ratified, we were finally a country instead of just a collection of colonies, and at that point the process of building a SOCIALIZED national military began.

To your question about whether it is the government or the people who regulate such things, the answer is YES. "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Yes PowerStroker, however it could also be said that if our government was sacked by way of election the same would hold true, only this time it would not be the British that we had to drive out.

Since you have so eloquently stated that our Military is Socialized, it stands to reason that should the government turn the military against the people, the perception of that 2nd amendment would be "perceived" differently.

For example if a radical Muslim wolf in sheep's cloths was able to get the financial and media backing needed to infiltrate our government at the highest level (presidency) and then after being elected figured out a way to assist in infiltrating several other high levels of government to where our own government was being compromised and then turned our government and it's military agenst us in an effort to take over. Could'nt that be perceived as a time when a modern day militia would be needed to drive out the offenders, much like we had to drive out the British? Figuratively speaking of course. wink

-- Edited by SELLC on Sunday 16th of January 2011 02:51:31 AM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

SELLC wrote:

Yes PowerStroker, however it could also be said that if our government was sacked by way of election the same would hold true, only this time it would not be the British that we had to drive out.

I don't see how the electorate can "sack" itself, just so long as the election process isn't fixed. Before you start making accusations about such things, I suggest you do some homework.

Since you have so eloquently stated that our Military is Socialized, it stands to reason that should the government turn the military against the people, the perception of that 2nd amendment would be "perceived" differently.

Socialized just means we all pay for it through our taxes. Much like public schools, the postal service, public libraries, Police service, Fire service, our criminal justice system, center for disease control, food and drug administration, Veterans affairs administration, State department, FBI, NSA, NASA, Department of Education, Department of Natural Resources, Enviornmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Alcohol / tobacco / firearms / explosives, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Agriculture, Department of the treasury, Department of Transportation, Department of the Interior, the Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive branches of our Federal Government.

Allof those wasteful things you wouldn't have to pay for if you moved to Somalia like I suggested

For example if a radical Muslim wolf in sheep's cloths was able to get the financial and media backing needed to infiltrate our government at the highest level (presidency) and then after being elected figured out a way to assist in infiltrating several other high levels of government to where our own government was being compromised and then turned our government and it's military agenst us in an effort to take over. Could'nt that be perceived as a time when a modern day militia would be needed to drive out the offenders, much like we had to drive out the British? Figuratively speaking of course.

Well Rex, If a US President of ANY religion turned the military against the citizens of the United States, that would be an impeachable offense. I'd use the Constitutionally prescribed remedy of impeachment before I ever thought of organizing a rogue militia against any government official.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Sunday 16th of January 2011 03:11:42 AM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:

I don't see how the electorate can "sack" itself, just so long as the election process isn't fixed. Before you start making accusations about such things, I suggest you do some homework.

Oh... So the election has to be fixed? Things like lies and deception don't count? You know I have reason to beleive that Obama is in control of launch codes for weapons of mass destruction.

Socialized just means we all pay for it through our taxes. Much like public schools, the postal service, public libraries, Police service, Fire service, our criminal justice system, center for disease control, food and drug administration, Veterans affairs administration, State department, FBI, NSA, NASA, Department of Education, Department of Natural Resources, Enviornmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Alcohol / tobacco / firearms / explosives, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Agriculture, Department of the treasury, Department of Transportation, Department of the Interior, the Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive branches of our Federal Government.

Allof those wasteful things you wouldn't have to pay for if you moved to Somalia like I suggested

Ill wait until 2012 before I make my mind up on that trip to Somalia. Last week I was a Leo, and this week I am a Cancer, so there is no telling what kind of state the US could be in by 2012. LOL

Well Rex, If a US President of ANY religion turned the military against the citizens of the United States, that would be an impeachable offense. I'd use the Constitutionally prescribed remedy of impeachment before I ever thought of organizing a rogue militia against any government official.

Really? The impeachment process worked so well for Clinton didn't it? Maybe the Democrats were just practicing. So care to tell me who is going to enforce that impeachment process should our government get sacked at the highest level and in the senate?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

For a President to be removed from office, both houses of congress must impeach, not just the House. That's why Clinton stayed President.

By the way Rex, regardless of what the zodiac is doing, you've always been a Cancer.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:

For a President to be removed from office, both houses of congress must impeach, not just the House. That's why Clinton stayed President.

And it goes to show all you Democrats are liable for corruption. Here we had a man who cheated on his wife while actually IN public office and then he LIED about it.

Your party is built on lies and deception. You should be proud.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Unlike using the US military against US citizens, blow jobs are not an impeachable offense. That's why the Senate didn't go along with it.

I'd rather have blow jobs than no jobs.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Sunday 16th of January 2011 04:37:48 PM

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

You should know that Adultery is illegal.

In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In those states where adultery is still on the statute book (although rarely prosecuted), penalties vary from life sentence (Michigan),^[64] to a fine of $10 (Maryland), to a Class I felony (Wisconsin).^[65] In the U.S. Military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense.^[16] The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States is unclear following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults.^[66] However, occasional prosecutions do occur.^[67]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery}

And while things might work differently there in DC, there is still the fact that lying under oath, as Clinton did, IS illegal in DC. So clearly the entire Democratic Senate that failed to hold a lying President responsible for perjury should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and thus the lying & cheating Democrats should forever be permitted from holding public office.

I am sure Hillary does not mind being a rug for Clinton to walk all over. She set's a good example to ALL women that their place in life should be a pin cusion for their cheating husbands. (Sarcasm if you are Republican). Now's she's damaged goods, a scorned woman who should never be entrusted with our nations welfare. Clearly if she let her husband walk all over her, she would have no problems letting the rest of the world walk all over US. But hey, she did lose the Democratic primary to a empty suit black man.

Yeah... He needs to go back to work LYING to the American people! LOL!

-- Edited by SELLC on Sunday 16th of January 2011 05:15:09 PM

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Still not an IMPEACHABLE offense Rex. The worst that should have happened in Clinton's case is a concurent resolution of censure.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Oh it's an impeachable offence PowerStroker, but not if the Senate is full of crooked, lying, cheating Democrats.

You see if things like honesty, fidelity and honor were demanded by the American people we might not be in this mess. Then again the Democratic party would have ceased to exist too.

No wonder the Democratic mascot is a jackass. Everyone knew the Democrats would try to use the Arizona shootings to push their agenda, from gun control, to Obama's basketball court campaign speech... er.. I mean eulogy.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Which offense is impeachable in your reality Rex, the blow job, or lying about it?

Didn't George Bush ever lie to congress?

Perhaps you should actually read what the Constitution says about impeachment, because if you do, you may find actual impeachable offences by some right wing supreme court justices and members of congress on both sides.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:

Which offense is impeachable in your reality Rex, the blow job, or lying about it?

Didn't George Bush ever lie to congress?

There is something wrong with you PowerStroker. It's people like you who got this nation all screwed up. Both the cheating of Bill Clinton while on the job AND his subsquent lying about it is enough to merit impeachment. If he cheats on his wife it's safe to say he lacks the moral character to perform as our nations leader. His lying to us ALL about it just shows he can not be trusted.

George Bush never lied like Clinton. His statements about Iraq and Saddam were based on intelligence reports. Bill Clinton's cheating and lying are solely his own.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

But those intelligence reports were cherry picked by his political staff in order to come up with the conclusion that Bush and Cheeney wanted. They had to ignore an overwhelming majority of reports that stated Iraq wasn't a threat in order to accomplish this - But that wasn't a lie eh?

What was that you were saying about morality again? How many coalition forces and innocent Iraqi's were killed? Oh thats right, the Pentagon doesn't count Iraqi deaths. Morality my ass.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Are you from Iraq PowerStroker? See it's just like I said before, all you Democrats care about are other nations. Do-Do-Do for them, but meanwhile we get shit on. Many of these people would rather kill you rather than look at you.

With regards to "Cherry" picking, that's got to be a joke right? Even your Democratic pal's were calling for Saddam's leadership to be toppled. The only difference is that the Republicans were actually able to get the job done. Clinton's faceless black-ops wasn't getting the job done.

I am also curious how else one is supposed to go about picking Cherry's, are you implying that you are supposed to cut down the whole tree in an effort to get the fruit? Wouldn't that theory be a lot like turning Iraq into glass rather than catching Saddam and handing him over to their people? You know the ones he committed acts of genocide against with weapons of mass destruction? PowerStroker, you need to quit huffing them diesel fumes for awhile buddy.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

You should google "yellowcake uranium" and "Valerie Plame" for an example of cherrypicked intelligence.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

Oh yeah, and you should see the documentary Fair Game, actually you should buy it when it comes out on DVD.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Obama still want's your guns... It's just now he can't do $hit about it!

His little "act" in Oregon went over like a lead zeppelin.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

SELLC wrote:

Let us all not forget the simple fact that Walmart joined with homeland security to become a place for people to report their neighbors and friends as terrorist. Guess they really dropped the ball on this one! I mean c'mon! Our supermarkets are to buy food, ammo, beer and cheap China made goods! Not an outpost for Homeland security.

I have quit buying groceries at Walmart every since I learned of the facts above. I used to spend $20-$40 there every other week, only buying food items and only buying items on sale. Now they get NOTHING from me, and I spend my money at Meijer, where the customer service has been better than the rest.

So there you have it... The security cameras at Walmart have been piped into Homeland Security since 2015!

Yet google has scrubbed all articles about this! Try searching for yourself!

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

SELLC wrote:
SELLC wrote:

Let us all not forget the simple fact that Walmart joined with homeland security to become a place for people to report their neighbors and friends as terrorist. Guess they really dropped the ball on this one! I mean c'mon! Our supermarkets are to buy food, ammo, beer and cheap China made goods! Not an outpost for Homeland security.

I have quit buying groceries at Walmart every since I learned of the facts above. I used to spend $20-$40 there every other week, only buying food items and only buying items on sale. Now they get NOTHING from me, and I spend my money at Meijer, where the customer service has been better than the rest.

So there you have it... The security cameras at Walmart have been piped into Homeland Security since 2015!
Yet google has scrubbed all articles about this! Try searching for yourself!

Now who would have done that ?....Mr.Trumpdt maybe ?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

You are aware, Rastus, that Trump did not enter office until 2016, right?

I am still trying to find the original thread where it covered the Homeland / Walmart video feed uplink but this thread clearly indicates that we discussed the topic previously.

I bumped the thread because this situation also called for sweeping gun control after a tragedy. I'll keep looking for the original thread but I can assure you cameras at Walmart are piped into Federal servers.

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

SELLC wrote:
You are aware, Rastus, that Trump did not enter office until 2016, right?
I am still trying to find the original thread where it covered the Homeland / Walmart video feed uplink but this thread clearly indicates that we discussed the topic previously.
I bumped the thread because this situation also called for sweeping gun control after a tragedy. I'll keep looking for the original thread but I can assure you cameras at Walmart are piped into Federal servers.

SELLC, I completely agree with you ! No argument from me.

(My concerns are that one of Mr.Trumpdt's closest aids attended the Bilderberg meeting 8-weeks ago. Why would he involve himself in such illegal activity) ?

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

A true classic thread! Isn't it nice when they aren't all cluttered up with memes?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

PowerStroker wrote:
A true classic thread! Isn't it nice when they aren't all cluttered up with memes?

You know, I have noticed that too... It's rather concerning..

I like a good meme from time to time as well, but it's starting to get where we have more and more meme threads outside of the DH section and sometimes they show up in such numbers that actual discussions here in the MBTP are being diminished by rapid fired memes.

I personally am not going to do anything about it until after a certain someone crest the 10k mark, but after that there really is no excuse... If it continues past the 10k mark I am afraid we might have to whack a certain meme thread that would cause certain members to lose an awful lot of post. That sound fair to you PowerStroker? How about everyone else?

I have always tried to ensure a quality over quantity approach to the way I post, and traditionally I have expected this from everyone else too.. Stoma also ran into such issues, but rather than using memes he would just type out the words "fuck you" on anything and everything. I created the DH section to extend to friends from another forum, a place to carry themselves any way they pleased, but now it seems to be lurking into our discussions here and I am concerned. While I agree with many of these memes, I don't think its fair for the people who want important historical events to be preserved. Many of the links to memes often times end up becoming dead-links after awhile too.

I am glad you mentioned this PowerStroker, I have always enjoyed our swashbuckling on current events and politics - and that goes for everyone that participates in these threads here in the MBTP.

It is important that we preserve these threads because Google sure as hell isn't! I also wonder where in the world anyone could find so many memes!?

We shall see, I don't imagine I'll always be the top poster on this forum - and it's not something that I feel is important to me. Sure I was excited to crest the 10k mark myself, but in the lead up I was bumping a lot of old threads in the deep end of the pool in excitement... but I feel they were all quality and well thought out reminders of past events. We all have our own ways to shine, but really after 10k post there is nothing more that we can offer in terms of catchy icons and classification names - one of which was deemed to be offensive by the very person you speak of, so in good faith we fixed it. Does not really matter the quantity of post, what maters is the quality.

I can't deny that someone racking up 10k post in a little over a year isn't impressive - heck it's a level of dedication that I admire myself! But you're absolutely right.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Having said that, I have never been one to prune a thread... People do as they do because they feel as they feel at the moment.

Same can be said about deleting a thread.

Hope that is enough said.

Nuffan · No longer a user - left on their own accord.

PowerStroker wrote:
SELLC wrote:

Okay pussy... You missed your chance, so I'll post a portion of the 2nd amendment since you lack the scrot,

maybe I'm tired of doing your homework for you.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Keep it up the good work PowerStroker!
Do you think that "well regulated" part means that the Constitution says it's ok for some common sense gun laws to be imposed?

to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:

to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:

to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:

to put in good order:

FOUR DEFINITIONS TO THE WORD REGULATED

Which one do you think the founding fathers who just fought England meant?

Well regulated certainly does not mean laws that infringe your right....

-- Edited by Nuffan on Tuesday 6th of August 2019 06:23:07 AM

Rastus · UNSTOPPABLE!

Memes..."A picture says a thousand words"...And yes, we've been bombarded with them...And though funny at times, they also reveal / release a lot of anxt from within the general populace, ( or at least the "artists" want us to think that)...

I wonder how powerful a tool they are in subliminally implanting messages ? I'd say they're quite powerful myself, & affect all who see them in some way, & force a person to take a side, rather than find a solution to the issue that the meme's all about...

I say to let them stay, if only to remind us of how we're partially controlled in our free thoughts, & then divided without discussion on what they represent.

As long as wee see them as tools that divide, & create hate, we're safe, & can laugh-out loudly !!!

My $00:02 lol !

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I dont think anyone is saying memes arent welcome, or aren't funny... I think what PowerStroker was saying is that rapid-firing off five or six consecutively in the middle of a thread in this forum (MBTP) shouldnt be the norm. There was a guy on another forum named Big Randy who was famous for posting massive high def photos of buses to stretch the pages for the sole purpose of making threads hard to follow, in fact Nuffan post the way he does to ensure that such a tactic cannot affect his message. I just dont want to see a similar method become the norm here in this part of the site because were serious about our crazy in here. lol

Im not saying anyone shouldnt post a meme here, just that rapid-firing off five at a time is best for the meme thread.