First, they launch a massive terrorist attack against us that succeeds because the people in charge (Republicans) are asleep at the switch prompting Republicans to overreact and invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack and/or AQ which drags out for 8 years and bleeds our treasury and military and then Republicans use the resulting deficits to attack and drag down the US economy and middle-class and the Presidency of Barack Obama.
that the President of the United States of America needs lots of protection- him and his family need WAY more protection than the average citizen. Anybody whom seriously believes that they need an equivalent level of protection needs to seriously re-evaluate their associations, lifestyles, surroundings, etc. The teabaggers posting this sort of c**p also fail to note the irony that the more hate and venom that they spew against him and his family the more protection they'll need.
We have literally reached the point where a MINORITY of 41 Senators can control the chamber, which was never intended to happen. It should not be allowed to prevent a bill from reaching the floor where it can be debated. If people want to fight a bill, they need to be up speaking out about it and telling the rest of us why it's a good/bad bill. Otherwise, the majority should be able to bring a bill to the floor for a vote and let the chips fall where they may. Bills should fail (or succeed) on their merits, not on procedural technicalities IMHO.
but now it is THEIR turn to take some steps towards him and the Democrats!
will (some) people realize that nobody is coming to their home to grab their guns? Back in the 1990's, the NRA told us repeatedly that it was just a matter of time before President Clinton, Janet Reno, and the "jack-booted thugs" at the ATF- in conjunction with the UN, of course- would be kicking down every law-abiding gun owner's doors and confiscating their weapons and re-locating them to a FEMA concentration camp yet nothing even remotely of the sort happened for the 8 years of Clinton's Presidency.
I believe that they were mostly silent during the Bush years (they seem to only believe that Democrats can be tyrants? ) despite his (mis-)administration taking real liberties with our liberties- the sort of things that the NRA and wingnuts would howl about during a Democratic Presidency.
Since President Obama was first elected in 2008, they went right back to insisting that it was only a matter of time before President Obama would grab their guns and gun and ammo sales have shot through the roof these past four years despite the absence of any legislation and/or administration policies curtailing gun rights (he has, however, signed laws EXPANDING gun rights, as have many states). Now that he has been re-elected, they are still proclaiming the end of individual gun ownership as we know it. During this past election, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA was arguing that if President Obama wins a second term that he would have a free hand to do what he wants with guns. Other conspiracy theorists have turned their attention to this UN International Arms Treaty that's going to strip them of their gun rights- if approved. I have FB acquaintance who happens to be a real wingnut (didn't know this when I friended him) pointing to a March UN conference where this treaty is set to be discussed as being the next "doomsday" target for gun owners.
My question is, what is it going to take to get people like him to calm down and stop freaking out about something that is never going to happen- or at least is so improbable it might as well never happen? Or IS there anything that we CAN do? People like this guy keep darkly hinting at things like a "Second Civil War" if the government tries to take their guns away (though just about any discussion of gun control- not total bans- invariably sets them off). However, I can't help sometimes but think that they are not so much concerned about the possibility of not ever being able to get a gun (with so many ways to get one, presently) but rather that they seem to be looking for an excuse and/or "justification" to use them against "the government" or people they find threatening or simply don't like. I mean, what's the point of people stockpiling massive amounts of guns and ammo if they don't plan to use them eventually for..........something? How are people even affording to spend all this money on guns and ammo and to what end, really? They can't sit there and make me seriously believe that they need a huge stockpile of weapons to protect themselves and their family. Protect them from what? Who? This isn't some lawless anarchic state where a person's daily survival actually literally depends on having weapons on them at all times yet in some states the list of places where guns cannot be taken seems to be growing shorter and shorter despite the absence of some growing threat of lawlessness and/or actual danger.
What gives? I just don't get it.
Friended him awhile back on FB not knowing he was such a wingnut. I was arguing with him last night over a post he made about the President being hypocritical about him saying that guns make us less safe while pointing out that he has armed protection at all times and I pointed out that, of course, he's President and needs more protection than the average person and then he replied that as a former Marine he's under constant threat (paranoid?) as well and that Obama has tried to ban guns 4 times during his Presidency so far and that he's going to try again in March by taking advantage of Newtown. Apparently, doom is perpetually around the corner for these people. This, despite the fact that we actually had a ban on assault weapons for 10 years without losing our democracy and other countries have stricter laws and are still democracies. The bigger problem for all of these people furiously buying guns IMHO is them not knowing what to do with all of them when nobody actually shows up to take their guns and kick-start that second Civil War against the gub'mint that some of them seem to be pining for.
Let's just hope that he NEVER gets nominated to head the US Bureau of Indian Affairs..........
especially if BOTH parties actually, you know, work together on things. I'm not worried about President Obama and Democrats' concern about this issue but if I were interested in pushing for immigration reform, I'd start lobbying the Republicans about it. This is Marco Rubio's big chance to "lead" on the issue since he claims to be concerned about the issue and other members of the party claim to be trying to change their image.
The big problem for the GOP as I see it is that they've not only invited the extremists into the tent, they've basically put them in charge and pander to them and, in the process, become part of the fringe themselves. Unfortunately, as long as they do this, nothing substantive will get done and we'll be forced to deal with a succession of engineered "crises" to deflect attention from serious issues that Congress will spend a whole lot of time fighting about and ultimately resolving with crappy deals like the Budget Control Act that eventually cause new problems like this so-called "Fiscal Cliff" that we're now (not) dealing with and, of course, now the Republicans are hinting at more showdowns over the debt ceiling. They need to disavow the extremists and put them back outside the tent so everybody can get back to business. If they don't, they're doomed...........and I won't shed a single, solitary tear for them.
Also, don't you think that that's a bit much given that school shootings like the one in Connecticut, though horrific, are generally pretty rare? Even with what happened at Columbine and in Newtown, I don't feel that it's very likely (or probable) that it's going to happen to any of my kids or to the vast majority of kids out there, at least not to the point that we need to have police in every school. I imagine that most of them would end up sitting on their hands just waiting for something horrific to happen- that is more than likely NOT going to happen.
President Obama is jonesing to cut Social Security, Medicare, etc. His overriding ambition is to cut both programs because he's just a no-good lying DINO or an "R" in disguise. See how crazy that sounds?
President Obama is gambling with all this stuff knowing that no matter what he puts on the table, the Republicans will say no and he'll come across as being willing to compromise and they'll look crazy (crazier, anyway) and unreasonable. At which point, nothing happens. No deal. None of the stuff that he put on the table matters because nobody on the Democratic side is going to pass any of these things into law unless we were to get something significant in return and even then most of the ideas that have been floated might not get passed either, so nothing's been lost. No deals, no laws, no loss.........
President Obama is willing to do something unpleasant- but as least unpleasant possible- in order to get a good deal with the Republicans on stimulus, or something worth the trade-off. He knows that he has to still deal with the Republicans controlling the House for another 2 years (at least), so, although the Democrats hold the WH and Senate, there will have to be SOME compromise with the House GOP. As far as I can tell, agreeing to a Chained CPI (with some protections) is probably the least odious thing to agree to- if the trade-off appears to be worth it.
You can take your pick about what you believe his motivations/strategy are
Profile InformationName: Mara Alis Butler
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,302
About Mad_Machine76Transgender Woman /Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.
- 2024 (2)
- January (2)
- 2023 (42)
- 2022 (84)
- 2021 (111)
- 2020 (95)
- 2019 (141)
- 2018 (176)
- 2017 (254)
- 2016 (163)
- 2015 (267)
- 2014 (447)
- 2013 (374)
- 2012 (755)
- 2011 (36)
- December (36)