An Elementary School?

[FirefightnRick]

What happens when you don't read the bill first?

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116

..."NEW YORK (WABC) -- It appears someone forgot to exempt police officers from the ban of ammunition clips with more than 7 bullets in New York State's new gun control law.

It's a big oversight that apparently happened in the haste by the Cuomo Administration to get a tough package of gun-control measures signed into law.

On Tuesday, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the sweeping gun measure, the nation's toughest. It includes a ban on the possession of high-capacity magazines..."

Way to go Andy!

Rick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

..

Obama 's debt??? ...... look what it was after first 42 presidents as Cinton left. --- ie. 2001 ... then look at 2009 when the next guy left.

With the Norquest pledge by the GOP congressmen nothing has changed ...it is still climbing..

From US Treasury site: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Date Dollar Amount

09/30/2012 -- 16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 -- 14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 -- 13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 -- 11,909,829,003,511.75 -- Bush leaves.

09/30/2008 -- 10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007 -- 9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 -- 8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 -- 7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 -- 7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 -- 6,783,231,062,743.62

09/30/2002 -- 6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 -- 5,807,463,412,200.06 -- this is the total of all Presidents until 2001 ( 42 of them)

09/30/2000 -- 5,674,178,209,886.86

Date Dollar Amount

09/30/1999 -- 5,656,270,901,615.43 ---

09/30/1998 -- 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 -- 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 -- 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 -- 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 -- 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 -- 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 -- 4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 -- 3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 -- 3,233,313,451,777.25 ..

What do you think of this Rick....??? ... Dare you to comment on this..... You won't..... It is the truth not Fox-facts.

This is a government site.... not what Fox reports ....or some other political site..... So was he a financial conservative???

Edited January 18, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GreenBat]

..

Obama 's debt??? ...... look what it was after first 42 presidents as Cinton left. --- ie. 2001 ... then look at 2009 when the next guy left.

With the Norquest pledge by the GOP congressmen nothing has changed ...it is still climbing..

From US Treasury site: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Date Dollar Amount

09/30/2012 -- 16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 -- 14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 -- 13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 -- 11,909,829,003,511.75 -- Bush leaves.

09/30/2008 -- 10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007 -- 9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 -- 8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 -- 7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 -- 7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 -- 6,783,231,062,743.62

09/30/2002 -- 6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 -- 5,807,463,412,200.06 -- this is the total of all Presidents until 2001 ( 42 of them)

09/30/2000 -- 5,674,178,209,886.86

Date Dollar Amount

09/30/1999 -- 5,656,270,901,615.43 ---

09/30/1998 -- 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 -- 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 -- 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 -- 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 -- 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 -- 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 -- 4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 -- 3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 -- 3,233,313,451,777.25 ..

What do you think of this Rick....??? ... Dare you to comment on this..... You won't..... It is the truth not Fox-facts.

This is a government site.... not what Fox reports ....or some other political site..... So was he a financial conservative???

You gave him a minus 1 for presenting Facts. You guys, especially you Rick are a JOKE!

[Mean Green 93-98]

..

Obama 's debt??? ...... look what it was after first 42 presidents as Cinton left. --- ie. 2001 ... then look at 2009 when the next guy left.

With the Norquest pledge by the GOP congressmen nothing has changed ...it is still climbing..

From US Treasury site: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Date Dollar Amount

09/30/2012 -- 16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 -- 14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 -- 13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 -- 11,909,829,003,511.75 -- Bush leaves.

09/30/2008 -- 10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007 -- 9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 -- 8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 -- 7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 -- 7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 -- 6,783,231,062,743.62

09/30/2002 -- 6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 -- 5,807,463,412,200.06 -- this is the total of all Presidents until 2001 ( 42 of them)

09/30/2000 -- 5,674,178,209,886.86

Date Dollar Amount

09/30/1999 -- 5,656,270,901,615.43 ---

09/30/1998 -- 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 -- 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 -- 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 -- 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 -- 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 -- 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 -- 4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 -- 3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 -- 3,233,313,451,777.25 ..

What do you think of this Rick....??? ... Dare you to comment on this..... You won't..... It is the truth not Fox-facts.

This is a government site.... not what Fox reports ....or some other political site..... So was he a financial conservative???

What's your point? Government spending was way too high under Bush, and it's been considerably worse under Obama. So again, what's your point?

[UNTLifer]

..

Obama 's debt??? ...... look what it was after first 42 presidents as Cinton left. --- ie. 2001 ... then look at 2009 when the next guy left.

With the Norquest pledge by the GOP congressmen nothing has changed ...it is still climbing..

From US Treasury site: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Date Dollar Amount

09/30/2012 -- 16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 -- 14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 -- 13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 -- 11,909,829,003,511.75 -- Bush leaves.

09/30/2008 -- 10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007 -- 9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 -- 8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 -- 7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 -- 7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 -- 6,783,231,062,743.62

09/30/2002 -- 6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 -- 5,807,463,412,200.06 -- this is the total of all Presidents until 2001 ( 42 of them)

09/30/2000 -- 5,674,178,209,886.86

Date Dollar Amount

09/30/1999 -- 5,656,270,901,615.43 ---

09/30/1998 -- 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 -- 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 -- 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 -- 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 -- 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 -- 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 -- 4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 -- 3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 -- 3,233,313,451,777.25 ..

What do you think of this Rick....??? ... Dare you to comment on this..... You won't..... It is the truth not Fox-facts.

This is a government site.... not what Fox reports ....or some other political site..... So was he a financial conservative???

So, if I read this correctly, the debt total of all presidents (42) up to 2001 was almost equal to what Obama has rung up in three years, $5,807,463,412,200.06 to $4,156,412,403,827.14? Plus, Obama refuses to discuss spending cuts while asking for an increased debt limit, new taxes on EVERYONE and refuses to be transparent in his dealings although he promised to run the most transparent office ever.

Sure, Bush ran up a deficit, but we were also attacked by terrorists on our soil and he responded. Was it the correct response? History will tell.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

What's your point? Government spending was way too high under Bush, and it's been considerably worse under Obama. So again, what's your point?

..

---I absolutely admit it is STILL terrible...even said so.... but the debt climb started under the last administration... and the debt grew about 2-3% per year when Clinton was there (not even 2% near the end..less than interest owed)... and there was talk of what to do with the surplus that was then occurring... presidents don't change laws ..congress does... Presidents just sign or veto. We now have as Congress that will do nothing because of the two houses being from two parties sand the GOP one has signed a pledge to Norquest that is ripping things apart.... Do you rally think those making millions every year [ unless you happen to be one ] should still be paying 15% in income tax on capital gains (they still are) that is outside of the $400,000 limit. with is likely a lot less than you are paying...

WAKE UP ... you are being screwed and they ( the super-wealthy ) are getting insanely rich... Not picking on Romney but just using him as an example... he paid less percent-wise than I do... and I sure don't make millions ( or even the $400,000 ) per year... You have been brainwashed into think they deserve it...really.... WAKE UP.... meanwhile the debt just goes crazy and has after the 2001 tax cuts in which they got more than 90% of the tax-cuts (amount-wise ). Even heard last week a credible source report the richest 1% of Americans (combined) are now worth more the the total of the lowest 90% (combined) .... and you think that is great and they don't deserve to be taxed as the rest of us.... WEIRD... WAKE-UP. You are being screwed as the debt goes nuts and Congress does nothing... the President (even Bush) doesn't pass spending bills or set taxes but can urge things to be passes and sign or veto. Where do you think the money is coming from that supports Norquest etc. and into campaigns that don't support it.???

Yeah I noticed someone gave (-1 ) to my post early on.... That is really odd ... I expressed no opinions..... it was all about a true statement from the US Treasury.... Guess they just can't accept the truth if it isn't what they want the truth to be....... Remember in the 42 President total... that included the expense of WWII, Viet-Nam, Gulf War, and a lot of years... in fact over 200 years..

Edited January 18, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

So, if I read this correctly, the debt total of all presidents (42) up to 2001 was almost equal to what Obama has rung up in three years, $5,807,463,412,200.06 to $4,156,412,403,827.14? Plus, Obama refuses to discuss spending cuts while asking for an increased debt limit, new taxes on EVERYONE and refuses to be transparent in his dealings although he promised to run the most transparent office ever.

Sure, Bush ran up a deficit, but we were also attacked by terrorists on our soil and he responded. Was it the correct response? History will tell.

-

---So you are saying that our war on terror was more expensive that all of the Wars before combined...WOW. Just maybe we should have revoked the tax-cut of 2001 for a while ....but we couldn't.... the Norquest pledge guys.... so they let the debt get out of control ...and it still is.

---On the personal level people who let their credit card go crazy really have a tough time getting their finances back into control... a lot easier to just control it as they go ... and not wait. Your comment is similiar to tearing up a house and then blaming the next owner for how bad it looks..... and even worse refusing to help any when asked (aka Norquest pledge guys).

---Do you understand what the debt limit is...??.. there is no money to pay the already existing bills... It is not about increasing spending. It is permission to obtain (borrow ) more money.... to pay what is already there.... We don't collect a lot of money that we once collected (mostly from the super-wealthy) and now we owe a huge amt of interest besides.....because what was done earlier.... If not increased there will be no money to pay government workers, the military, unemployment, and maybe not social security payments or even mailmen....

..

Edited January 18, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

You gave him a minus 1 for presenting Facts. You guys, especially you Rick are a JOKE!

No no no! I'm just now checking back in...and on the mobile version wih an iPhone. I didn't give anyone a minus one.

But Its like reading a combination of Andrew and CheckFacts. And because Flyer and yyz28 has debunked 66's info so many times now over the past 4 years I just don't bother with reading anything he posts any more. I still like him though and appreciate the fact that I got to meet him one time.

Rick

Edited January 18, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[UNTFan23]

How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown? 926

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

This is such an empty stat. We have no idea what the circumstances were when these people were killed by a gun (or what kind of gun).

• Was the gun registered or was it acquired illegally?
• Was the gun something like a hand gun or was it one of the "assault weapons" that some people so desperately want to ban?
• Was the killing in self defense, accidental discharge, or was it something else?
• Did the person have a magazine that can hold more than 7 or 10 rounds?
• Did the person who had the gun and killed have an existing criminal record?

So many questions but sadly no real answers.

Edited January 18, 2013 by UNTFan23

[FirefightnRick]

How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown? 926

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

Click on GreenBat's link above and the first paragraph reads:...

..."The answer to the simple question in that headline is surprisingly hard to come by. So Slate and the Twitter feed @GunDeaths are collecting data for our crowdsourced interactive. This data is necessarily incomplete. But the more people who are paying attention, the better the data will be...."

Yeah, sure it will. I doubt very few people in that "crowd" is paying attention to anything, actually.

What is silly is the knee jerking going on by the Obama Administration and the media about AR's and other so called military Assault Weapons, which are rifles, even though HAND GUNS acount for the majority of mechanism of gun related deaths.

How about using something reputable like what the CDC uses...the NVDRS,or "National Violent Death Resporting System"..........http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/nvdrs/nvdrsDisplay.jsp

In that link it gives you the information for violent deaths from 2009 tabulated through 16 states. You can read more about the system here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6106a1.htm?s_cid=ss6106a1_w

The 16 states are: Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Main, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin

In those states for 2009, and considering all intents, all mechanisms, all races and ages and both sexes there were 16,418 fatalities.

..............of which 8,012 were committed by individuals using a gun as the mechanism of injury.

..............of those 8,012 gun deaths......5,157 were SELF INFLICTED/SUICIDE.

Of those 8,012 gun related deaths, only 726 were committed using rifles....or about 9 percent.

So why consider rifles....or guns at all, when they account for such a small number of mechanism related fatalities? Control and less Freedom for the U.S. citizen is all I can come up with because common sense and facts don't seem to be a part of the equation here.

Interestingly, 499 of those deaths were cause by mechanism by blunt object, hands and feet.

So going by the percentages here in the NVDRS, we can guestimate the numbers from GreenBat's site above. It claims the have toe-to-finger counted 1,013 deaths by guns. That means 648, or over half, were self inflicted, and only about 91 were by rifles as the mechanism of injury.

Rick

Edited January 18, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

No no no! I'm just now checking back in...and on the mobile version wih an iPhone. I didn't give anyone a minus one.

But Its like reading a combination of Andrew and CheckFacts. And because Flyer and yyz28 has debunked 66's info so many times now over the past 4 years I just don't bother with reading anything he posts any more. I still like him though and appreciate the fact that I got to meet him one time.

Rick

..

Read the Damn site if you doubt me (or dare) ..... It is a US government site ( US Treasury) ... not some some political site. It is the truth .. not some harebrained political propaganda. You can with this link look all the way back to 1790..

Apparently some people just can't handle the truth....... when it isn't what they want it to be......

Are you afraid you will find, from an official sourse, that the truth isn't what some tell you.... One thing that UNT taught me was consider the course... and why they might say that... The US Treasury has to be as neutral as it gets... it is the official accounting record.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Edited January 18, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Rick at least you realized the gun article is not a great sourse... It an anti-gun one and not neutral... but then again... you likely rejected it because it didn't agree with you.... Me.. I am far from anti-gun... own them... own rural land as well... but no fan of assault weapons which can kill a dozen people in less than a minute... That is their only purpose... they are not sport guns and very rarely needed for defense by common people..

--I work in education (still.. college now) I can't imagine when I was in public school trying to break-up a fight with a gun in my pocket.... that is asking for trouble... plus I know people who aren't that great with guns that have had them go off.... one lady I KNEW dropped hers and it killed her. I have NO problem with a teacher having one in a locked car or a security person in the building with one.....But not individual teachers carrying one.... More people will die by accidents than are saved plus there is the danger of having a kid get access to one (taken or grabbed if put down (don't think it won't happen from some woman's purse). I have had students in class (police officers) with guns on them... no problem.... but I don't want some hung-over/mad/druggie kid in class with one either. Most urban types I have dwelt with who aren't police are dangerous with one... they really don't have to clue about them [even with the so-called gun training class ].

--Interesting I have had several policemen (in uniform) that removed their guns before coming into class even though it was perfectly legal to have them ... and they knew it.

Edited January 18, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Monkeypox]

---Rick at least you realized the gun article is not a great sourse... It an anti-gun one and not neutral... but then again... you likely rejected it because it didn't agree with you.... Me.. I am far from anti-gun... own them... own rural land as well... but no fan of assault weapons which can kill a dozen people in less than a minute... That is their only purpose... they are not sport guns and very rarely needed for defense by common people..

What's an assault weapon?

[GreenBat]

What's an assault weapon?

assault rifle or assault weapon — n

chiefly ( US ) a semiautomatic firearm with additional features such as a large magazine, a bayonet fitting, etc

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault+weapon?s=t

[Monkeypox]

assault rifle or assault weapon — n

chiefly ( US ) a semiautomatic firearm with additional features such as a large magazine, a bayonet fitting, etc

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault+weapon?s=t

Good to know that somebody who wants policy changes has no idea what they are.

That isn't correct. Large magazine does not make something an assault weapon. It never did. Not even in the AWB that attempted to make up a definition for the word.

Now name some and what makes them any better at killing people, than, say, a 9mm handgun with a 10-round magazine.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Monkeypox

[GreenBat]

MonkeyPox,I gave you the definition of an assault weapon. I'm sorry if this FACT does not meet your satistifaction. But I'm not surprised as you are hell bent on making sure more people lose their lives from semi-automatic weapons that fire more than 10 bullets. And I'm not a gun person, even though I have shot them, So I'll have to take your word for it that a 9mm handgun with a 10-round magazine can do as much damage as an AR-15.

[UNT90]

..

---I absolutely admit it is STILL terrible...even said so.... but the debt climb started under the last administration... and the debt grew about 2-3% per year when Clinton was there (not even 2% near the end..less than interest owed)... and there was talk of what to do with the surplus that was then occurring... presidents don't change laws ..congress does... Presidents just sign or veto. We now have as Congress that will do nothing because of the two houses being from two parties sand the GOP one has signed a pledge to Norquest that is ripping things apart.... Do you rally think those making millions every year [ unless you happen to be one ] should still be paying 15% in income tax on capital gains (they still are) that is outside of the $400,000 limit. with is likely a lot less than you are paying...

WAKE UP ... you are being screwed and they ( the super-wealthy ) are getting insanely rich... Not picking on Romney but just using him as an example... he paid less percent-wise than I do... and I sure don't make millions ( or even the $400,000 ) per year... You have been brainwashed into think they deserve it...really.... WAKE UP.... meanwhile the debt just goes crazy and has after the 2001 tax cuts in which they got more than 90% of the tax-cuts (amount-wise ). Even heard last week a credible source report the richest 1% of Americans (combined) are now worth more the the total of the lowest 90% (combined) .... and you think that is great and they don't deserve to be taxed as the rest of us.... WEIRD... WAKE-UP. You are being screwed as the debt goes nuts and Congress does nothing... the President (even Bush) doesn't pass spending bills or set taxes but can urge things to be passes and sign or veto. Where do you think the money is coming from that supports Norquest etc. and into campaigns that don't support it.???

Yeah I noticed someone gave (-1 ) to my post early on.... That is really odd ... I expressed no opinions..... it was all about a true statement from the US Treasury.... Guess they just can't accept the truth if it isn't what they want the truth to be....... Remember in the 42 President total... that included the expense of WWII, Viet-Nam, Gulf War, and a lot of years... in fact over 200 years..

Dude, you need to stop buying everything the democrat party sells you.

They REFUSE TO CUT SPENDING. Do you get this? Do you understand? Their response to owing more money is to take more money from citizens, not decrease the money they spend. Do you understand this? It's pretty freaking basic.

Hate the rich all you want, but it won't solve the problem, even if you tax them at JImmy Carter like-70% range. It's like giving a crack addict more crack. I don't know why it is so hard for you poltical cheerleaders to get this. It's basic human nature.

And again with the "Bush did it, so it's OK if our guy does it even worse." argument. This is a really unintelligent argument, but it's what you have been conditioned to throw out there, so I get it. Bush spending WAY too much money doesn't give Obama the right to spend even more. So freaking stupid.

Edited January 19, 2013 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

Dude, you need to stop buying everything the democrat party sells you.

They REFUSE TO CUT SPENDING. Do you get this? Do you understand? Their response to owing more money is to take more money from citizens, not decrease the money they spend. Do you understand this? It's pretty freaking basic.

Hate the rich all you want, but it won't solve the problem, even if you tax them at JImmy Carter like-70% range. It's like giving a crack addict more crack. I don't know why it is so hard for you poltical cheerleaders to get this. It's basic human nature.

And again with the "Bush did it, so it's OK if our guy does it even worse." argument. This is a really unintelligent argument, but it's what you have been conditioned to throw out there, so I get it. Bush spending WAY too much money doesn't give Obama the right to spend even more. So freaking stupid.

I know, it's SixtyAndriveFacts-like.

And as probably the only one here this morning who actually worked one of the three GSW's in our city last night, ours did not involve a rifle btw,..no shock there,....allow me to link to a separate but local story that involved yet another Assault Weapon that I am personally and best trained at...

"Pick ax murder in Springtown"

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/17/4554739/man-soaked-in-blood-arrested-in.html

Rick

Rick

[UNT90]

I know, it's SixtyAndriveFacts-like.

And as probably the only one here this morning who actually worked one of the three GSW's in our city last night, ours did not involve a rifle btw,..no shock there,....allow me to link to a separate but local story that involved yet another Assault Weapon that I am personally and best trained at...

"Pick ax murder in Springtown"

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01/17/4554739/man-soaked-in-blood-arrested-in.html

Rick

Rick

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/187239.pdf

Yep, and according to this research, we should all be up in arms to outlaw hands and feet:

"Most homicides of young chidren are committed by family members through beatings and suffocations."

And if you think things have changed dramatically since 1996:

http://www.a-better-child.org/page/787931

Where is the outrage for this abuse by the administration? Nowhere. Why? They know there is little to nothing that the federal government can do about it. They want you to focus on 27 children who lost their lives in a mass shooting instead of the thousands that lose their life every year from abuse. Why?

Politics. And it's disgusting of them. But many of you fall for it hook, line, and sinker because it tugs on your heart strings and you feel instead of think.

How does it feel to be completely manipulated?

Edited January 19, 2013 by UNT90

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Dude, you need to stop buying everything the democrat party sells you.

They REFUSE TO CUT SPENDING. Do you get this? Do you understand? Their response to owing more money is to take more money from citizens, not decrease the money they spend. Do you understand this? It's pretty freaking basic.

Hate the rich all you want, but it won't solve the problem, even if you tax them at JImmy Carter like-70% range. It's like giving a crack addict more crack. I don't know why it is so hard for you poltical cheerleaders to get this. It's basic human nature.

And again with the "Bush did it, so it's OK if our guy does it even worse." argument. This is a really unintelligent argument, but it's what you have been conditioned to throw out there, so I get it. Bush spending WAY too much money doesn't give Obama the right to spend even more. So freaking stupid.

.

The US Treasury is not the Democratic Party...

---Spending has been cut and I and agree not enough.... but on the GOP side (not all of them) would not agree to even $1 increase in taxes.... mostly because of their Norquest pledge .....They won't because they know how much much money would oppose them in a primary election. Apparently you think compromise is one side give in and the other gives in none... That is what has happened mostly.. now the other side is also stubborn and refuses to give in any more because they realize both cuts and restored taxes are needed. Another issue is what some what to cut.... some of the proposed cuts are insane.

---Both needs to be done... cut spending and raise some of the taxes to try to get things under control as they were prior to 2001...

---Search around you can find quotes from Goldwater (dead), Bush Sr., and even Dole that are/were totally disgusted with the GOP (NOW) and those that signed that pledge. The GOP of today is not what it once.... was a national article lately in the local Midland paper (high conservative, once home of both Bushes, Craddick etc.) even stated they doubted Reagan and Bush Sr. could get nominated today because of how it changed... I agree... I voted for them but not these guys.. And you think I am a left wing socialist.... really.. I opposed the last Bush administration mostly because of the excessive spending... ie. I am rather conservative. But I far from gullible ..and I don't believe everything some radical radio guy or Fox claims... that makes a fortune by doing so. .

..

Edited January 19, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

.

The US Treasury is not the Democratic Party...

---Spending has been cut and I and agree not enough.... but on the GOP side (not all of them) would not agree to even $1 increase in taxes.... mostly because of their Norquest pledge .....They won't because they know how much much money would oppose them in a primary election. Apparently you think compromise is one side give in and the other gives in none... That is what has happened mostly.. now the other side is also stubborn and refuses to give in any more because they realize both cuts and restored taxes are needed. Another issue is what some what to cut.... some of the proposed cuts are insane.

---Both needs to be done... cut spending and raise some of the taxes to try to get things under control as they were prior to 2001...

---Search around you can find quotes from Goldwater (dead), Bush Sr., and even Dole that are/were totally disgusted with the GOP (NOW) and those that signed that pledge. The GOP of today is not what it once.... was a national article lately in the local Midland paper (high conservative, once home of both Bushes, Craddick etc.) even stated they doubted Reagan and Bush Sr. could get nominated today because of how it changed... I agree... I voted for them but not these guys.. And you think I am a left wing socialist.... really.. I opposed the last Bush administration mostly because of the excessive spending... ie. I am rather conservative. But I far from gullible ..and I don't believe everything some radical radio guy or Fox claims... that makes a fortune by doing so. .

..

Well, considering Republicans already caved on taxes and nary a spending cut one came from it, and definitely not one in any entitlement program, I would say you are wrong, my friend. Not to mention, we don't even know what the spending totals will be with the BRAND NEW ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM with health care, but you just keep drinking that blue kool aid. Dems will NEVER cut entitlements, and republicans will NEVER make them.

Again, you can yell your political "take the rich's money" all you want, but all your doing is feeding a habit.

And we will be insolvent inside of 10 years.

Edited January 20, 2013 by UNT90

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

How long has it been since they did finally "cave in" some... two weeks...?? And that has been the only time in ten years since 2001... have some patience.

Guns--- Are you really sure you want teachers with guns in schools.... I have seen too many careless people and personally knew a lady that dropped hers and shot herself (fatal)... this happened todays at a North Carolina gun show.. with people who supposedly understand guns well. I am fairly certain more people will be killed accidentally that saved by classroom teachers carrying them. That isn't being anti-gun... just anti-gun in classroom. Three people shot with a shotgun... including a former deputy sherriff who was about to inspect it before letting it in.. (fortunately not fatally)

http://news.yahoo.com/three-hurt-firearm-accident-north-carolina-gun-show-234451916.html

Edited January 20, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

Guns--- Are you really sure you want teachers with guns in schools.... I have seen too many careless people and personally knew a lady that dropped hers and shot herself (fatal)... this happened todays at a North Carolina gun show.. with people who supposedly understand guns well. I am fairly certain more people will be killed accidentally that saved by classroom teachers carrying them. That isn't being anti-gun... just anti-gun in classroom. Three people shot with a shotgun... including a former deputy sherriff who was about to inspect it before letting it in.. (fortunately not fatally)

http://news.yahoo.com/three-hurt-firearm-accident-north-carolina-gun-show-234451916.html

Guns-....I dug mud out of the mouth of a dude so he could breath last night because he plowed a 100 foot long furrow with his face from thinking it would be cool to attempt to take the 25 mph chicane around the courthouse at around 120 on his crotch rocket. 24 hours later, somewhere in the U.S., 728 other souls probably joined him due to similar traffic fatalities, many if not most, due to driver error.

So lets ban cars and trucks and motorcycles because people are careless.

Rick

[UNT90]

Guns-....I dug mud out of the mouth of a dude so he could breath last night because he plowed a 100 foot long furrow with his face from thinking it would be cool to attempt to take the 25 mph chicane around the courthouse at around 120 on his crotch rocket. 24 hours later, somewhere in the U.S., 728 other souls probably joined him due to similar traffic fatalities, many if not most, due to driver error.

So lets ban cars and trucks and motorcycles because people are careless.

Rick

Just give up, Rick.

The indoctrination is so deep, any kind of sensical point of view will be ignored.

They have been told over and over again by media, politicians, and a party that has their soul that guns are bad.

So, they believe guns are bad.