Yeah, using those executive orders to try and fix the mess GW created does not seem like a bad idea...
Or did you just want to keep going the direction we are in?
Or did you just want to keep going the direction we are in?
Still think he was the right choice??
- Thread starter Leslie
- Start date
D
D Chapman
Guest
Mike_Rupp said:
:rofl:
were you wearing your foil hat when you typed that Rupp?
i hear MLB is out to get us too...
montanablur said:
GW doesn't/didn't control the economy, he's not personally responsible for the failure of idiots buying houses they couldn't afford, which led to this collapse. Sure, things aren't going great, but, I don't see how having Gore or Kerry over the past eight years would have been better.
Remember the old campaign slogan "Are you better off than you were..." Well, to be honest, I did worse under Clinton, and better under Bush. Right now, the money I have going into 401k's has tanked, but, I'm nowhere close to retirement yet, I'm leaving it in and letting it ride (unless they decide to confiscate it, then I'll take the hit, pull it out, and stick it elsewhere).
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy At the moment, this page is taken down. However, if you google it then hit the cached copy, you can read this:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
Let's be clear: police can already get any gun trace information, the Tiahrt Amendment prevented frivolous lawsuits against ammunition companies. Guns should not be 'childproofed', children should be 'gunproofed', taught how to safely deal w/ a firearm. The AWB was cosmetic in nature (bayonet lugs and pistol grips).
This is exactly why I voted against Obama, and will continue to rail against his leadership.
If that is true, it should take less than a year to fix the country, a term or so to fix the world.
There is absolutely no science to show that fetal stem cells have done any good -- several people have died horribly from the few studies that were done before the ban -- but there are many adult stem cell operations and experiments going well all around the globe. The main reason for the ignoring of science is to make abortion ligit. Pro abortion supporters have only one weak argument so far -- choice. (Which is actually a pretty good argument for murder too.) And they are afraid that people will actually start seeing it for what it is... a second choice... the first being the choice to get pregnant in the first place.
The drilling, that too ignores the current situation. We rely on something like 30% foreign oil, probably more -- so what is so wrong about upholding the oath of office and making sure the interests of the country are best served? I don't seem to remember any oath that compels the president to protect the environment. Is Barack already putting a few weak environmental concerns in front of the economy and the security of the nation? Common sense takes care of the environment, it is not a mandate or a job of the president.
There is absolutely no science to show that fetal stem cells have done any good -- several people have died horribly from the few studies that were done before the ban -- but there are many adult stem cell operations and experiments going well all around the globe. The main reason for the ignoring of science is to make abortion ligit. Pro abortion supporters have only one weak argument so far -- choice. (Which is actually a pretty good argument for murder too.) And they are afraid that people will actually start seeing it for what it is... a second choice... the first being the choice to get pregnant in the first place.
The drilling, that too ignores the current situation. We rely on something like 30% foreign oil, probably more -- so what is so wrong about upholding the oath of office and making sure the interests of the country are best served? I don't seem to remember any oath that compels the president to protect the environment. Is Barack already putting a few weak environmental concerns in front of the economy and the security of the nation? Common sense takes care of the environment, it is not a mandate or a job of the president.
By the way the 401k plan by the Dems is real -- no tinfoil hat. The only question is will they allow people to cash out their 401k's before the government takes it and forces it into a fixed 3% growth rate, or will they simply force any pre-existing 401k's into their master plan?
sounds a bit like fear mongering to me Ben, but then again, you wouldn't know anything about that now, would you...lol
Reversing the stem cell funding is a grand, but now mostly empty gesture. Since Bush put a hold on that, many things have been discovered and developed in stem cell research, so, (a) there won't be too many attempts to harvest embryonic stem cells, and (b) there won't be money to fund it, anyway.
RBBailey said:
Your argument is akin to buying stock in Smith Corona for $15 because everyone in 1986 used typewriters instead of a little company called Microsoft for $30.
Could you imagine if we had stuck with typewriters?
I suppose my carrier pigeon with this message would be just over the Santa Monica Mountains in an hour...
The future is ET, that's Energy Technology for you less than ... If the United States misses the boat on that industry there will be a whole lot more problems than what kind of guns you can buy.
Please cite your sourcesRBBailey said:
Please cite your sources
Yeah, damn loose women choosing to get raped. Slutty girls choosing to be raped by their fathers.
Last edited:
WNYDiscoIIErik said:
I'll deal with it and give your choice of president the same respect you all gave mine.
D
D Chapman
Guest
J. Toronado said:
Not child locks. It's child safety devices. Meaning, certain measures would have to be taken so a child could not fire the weapon alone.
But child deaths with guns is something like .007%. A child simply cannot pull the trigger on a gun that is not cocked. Yet, the dipships who do not understand guns, or who are unfamiliar with guns, cannot grasp this concept and think additional safety measures need to be mandatory. I don't think you'll find a single gun owner out there that is not for "safe guns", but there comes a point when these mechanisms are a little over the top.
The child safety locks sold with every hand gun are a good thing to have. I have several, although I've never used them. But if I had children, or room-mate(s) I could not trust, I would probably break them out.
D Chapman said:
Exactly. I have guns, quite a few in my house, but my children have been taught properly about guns, gun safety, just as I was. I do not have a gun safe. My pistols are safely out of the reach of my children and my rifles in a cabinet. My children go with me to the gun range and my son has his own .22 rifle. Education to me far outweighs any "lock". Telling a child - or at least an intelligent child just don't touch it ,it's bad, just makes them more curious. My children being around guns at the gun range, going hunting, etc.. shows them what guns do and along with education they understand the reason not to touch them.
cool thanks for the info. my kids are a bit too small and all my guns are out of the way but the local cops here are giving away child locks so i thought i might take them up on it. a locking gun safe seems more in my future though.
D Chapman said:
In my case I keep my weapons in a safe and keep my home protection handgun locked and loaded in a biometric safe. If you have small children in the house then I highly recommend a biometric safe.
D
D Chapman
Guest
J. Toronado said:
I say, wow, what a way to twist something that I said.
A responsible firearm owner wouldn't leave them lying around, and locked in a safe if not being used is a good thing.
But a much safer thing, is to teach children to be safe: not mess w/ em, leave them alone, and then a child lock is a moot point.
If a manufacturer wants to provide a safety device (for example, my 590 came w/ a cable that slides in through the chamber and out the magazine well, into a lock, that prevents chambering a shell), that's fine. The problem is, the locks Biden is pushing are things like, fingerprint pads built into the grips of the gun so only the owner can shoot it.... stuff like out of a Judge Dredd comic book... they're trying to legislate this stuff, w/o there being technology available, so that it would 'effectively' end manufacture of a handgun.
So, no, if it was that clamp-on trigger lock was included with the purchase of a firearm, I could have cared less, but yes, when their intent is much larger, yes, I voted against him for it. Amongst many other things.
SO..... if *you* want, feel free to ignore my politics, and we'll only talk Rovers.... ok?
J. Toronado said:
A gunlock that's a separate item, that's fine. A safe, that's better. I'm great w/ those!
But it's their deeper agenda I oppose....