^^ it's still a good bet at this point. I am getting more than 6 to 1 against. 4% is not much. But Trump missed a big opportunity in the last debate.
Printable View
^^ it's still a good bet at this point. I am getting more than 6 to 1 against. 4% is not much. But Trump missed a big opportunity in the last debate.
^^^ BTW I just read the link about the source of the birther movement or whatever, it's hard to believe that linda starr would spread these rumors without permission from the Clinton camp.
If this were initiated by the Clinton Camp it would have been spread while she was still running. That rumour however became widespread when she was already out. So who could profit from it?
^ didn't they send out the Obama in a turban pic? Revenge?
I would have thought that republicans would love Bernie Sanders.
He has voted for every attack by America on foreign countries, including funding them, as well as being a virulent advocate of israeli attacks on the civilian population of Gaza. He's no different from sHillary and trump.... apart from his hairstyle.
Really? How about you provide a source?Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
To quote him from 2002:
Quote:
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.
One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first.
Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?
Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''
Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation ofIraq could be extremely expensive.
Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.
Still waiting for pseudopuss to name his source.....
*chirp* *chirp*
Yup - my mistake - He voted nay in H.J.Res.114 knowing it would go through, and then voted for every single extension and funding of said war.
Source please?Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Shape of things to come? No, hell no. Fight for your freedomsQuote:
Originally Posted by misskit
Well, it's a start and I give her credit for putting it on the table as a Presidential candidate (almost).
Unfortunately, in this country it's the ingredients for a good conspiracy, whipped up as a radical, one-world communist, fascist, pacifist conspiracy aimed at selling your daughters to wandering Muslim merchants. About 70% of the American public support some of these measures, and I believe about 60% of National Rifle Assoc. members support background checks at least, but all the bills will be voted down by our wise leaders because "stuff happens...what can you do?"
Clinton unveils gun-control planQuote:
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton announced new gun-control measures on Monday in the wake of the mass shooting at a community college in Oregon.
Clinton's gun-control proposal, announced in New Hampshire, calls for closing the so-called gun show loophole on private gun sales, potentially through executive action, and allow victims of gun violence to sue weapon manufacturers by proposing a repeal of legislation.
During a pair of town halls in New Hampshire, Clinton also called for eliminating the "Charleston loophole," a reference to the June shooting at a church in Charleston, S.C., by barring those with felony records from buying guns if results of a federal background check aren't returned within three days.
"I really do want to push hard to get more sensible restraints on gun ownership in the wrong hands, and then to try and keep track of people who shouldn’t have guns," Clinton said during the first event aired on NBC's "Today Show."
"I want to work with the Congress – we got very close. There was a bipartisan bill, it didn’t go all the way, but I will also look for ways as president to tighten some of these checks, to get more of the background checks done on more of the sales at gun shows and online than we currently have," she added.
The measures Clinton announced Monday build on other measures she has already called for, including universal background checks, withholding guns from domestic abusers and renewing an assault weapons ban.
Don't pick Bush....pls
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
All make sense measures but unless several GOP members of Congress are willing to support her, not going to happen. Allowing folks to sue manufacturers is key. NRA will suffer due to loss of revenue from gun manufacturers leaving the NRA less money to lobby. Inability to sue them is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
Agreed on all bar one - suing the weapons manufacturers. may sound odd, but I disagree with that.
Why sue the weapons manufacturers? They are doing nothing illegal and have no control over who buys the guns in the end, i.e. the 'consumer'.
The companies/shops who sell guns to the user should be liable, if anything, because they have direct contact with the purchaser and certainly in the case of parental negligence like the 11-year old killing the eight year old the parents should be charged and sued
Agree. Sue the lot of them. Tabacco and auto companies get sued frequently. Auto companies usually for defects and tabacco for addicting folks on a substance killing millions.Quote:
Originally Posted by panama hat
Legislation prohibiting suits against any product or retailer are simply a result of special interest lobbying groups. No need for such legislation. Let the courts sort it. Mind the courts are sure to be overwhelmed.
I agree . . . lobbyists are the bane of US politicsQuote:
Originally Posted by Norton
True. For tobacco . . . I still cannot understand why it is legal - I smoked for 20 years - as it is irrefutable that it kills. Quite simple, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
Car manufacturers get sued for defects - quite rightly so, but if a car is misused then they can't be. A car is made for transportation, not killing - unlike weapons which are made for nothing else.
Ah, the litigious country . . . :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
I agree, on what grounds would they be sued? Because their products work too well?Quote:
Originally Posted by panama hat
I don't see this either. Sounds like someone's taken "Runaway Jury" a bit too seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by slackula
Gun owners should have to carry liability insurance for claims against death, injury and property damage and it should be very, very expensiveQuote:
Originally Posted by panama hat
That's actually a very, very good idea.
It wouldn't be a total solution but a damn good start.
Perhaps. Some of my comments a bit tongue in cheek. Understand the gun manufacturers are selling legal weapons but my god laws need to change. It's out of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by slackula
Should this be legally available to anyone with $1500?
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
AKX-9 P Pistol
Good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
Agree. Although it doesn't necessarily have to be "expensive" - it would take the vetting process out of the hands of law enforcement (far too many problems in the US because of lawsuits based on prejudice, real or perceived - just who could law enforcement deny gun ownership to?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
The insurance companies, would have significant monies at risk. So, they would be most critical concerning who they would insure and for what purpose.
Perfect solution - hardly. But, then again, there is NO perfect solution.
I believe taxes and insurance policies on gun should be regressive. Regressive taxes drove the use of tobacco down. Regressive medical insurance premiums on tobacco users also drove tobacco use down. The aim should be to drive gun ownership down.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowie
Hey, you're not as dumb as slackula looks . . . :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Humbert
Yes, excellent idea
Too true, Norton. Too trueQuote:
Originally Posted by Norton