Here Comes the Executive Order on Background Checks

[Super Bee]

We get it. Indoctrinating other people's children against their parents' wishes and buttf*cking are more important to you than actual constitutional rights and the freedom envisioned by our founders.

And Diet Pepsi just went all over the laptop. Rep on its way to you sir.

 

[jamil]

The issues that I denoted as important to me (same-sex marriage, science in education, reducing foreign entanglements) have nothing to do with giving out freebies. Swing and a miss, champ.

The post I was responding to specifically accused me of spending other people's money to assuage my conscience. So unless you've got a dollar amount to go with your reply, it's not even remotely relevant.

I have to apologize for the tone. I've been trying to work on that lately, but I was in a bad mood this morning anyway and a rant seemed like the thing to do. I made that post harsher than it needed to be and for that I'm sorry.

The point is that you made it about conscience. Your party is all about spending other people's money and then pretending that not spending other people's money would be morally wrong. I stand by the statement that liberals have their moral standards pretty screwed up. A vote for Hillary is a vote for spending more of other people's money.

The next POTUS will have the opportunity to appoint at least one SCOTUS justice, and possibly up to 3. Gun owners have been winning in the SCOTUS lately, but often narrowly. With that lying, corrupt, skanky ass ***** promising Australian style gun control, I guess to appease your conscience, you're willing to trade in 2A freedoms. Really, which do you think are more in danger? Worst case, you really think a President Cruz is going to stop schools from teaching evolution or get the gay marriage ruling overturned? Do you honestly think Hillary can't get gun control done through the courts after she appoints at least one more progressive justice? Do you honestly think Hillary won't meddle in the affairs of other nations?

 

[printcraft]

Who pays for the 1/2 trillion dollar climate change agreement the pres. signed in Paris last week?

MAGIC ****ING ELVES. Merry Christmas.

 

[Lowe0]

I have to apologize for the tone. I've been trying to work on that lately, but I was in a bad mood this morning anyway and a rant seemed like the thing to do. I made that post harsher than it needed to be and for that I'm sorry.

The point is that you made it about conscience. Your party is all about spending other people's money and then pretending that not spending other people's money would be morally wrong. I stand by the statement that liberals have their moral standards pretty screwed up. A vote for Hillary is a vote for spending more of other people's money.

The next POTUS will have the opportunity to appoint at least one SCOTUS justice, and possibly up to 3. Gun owners have been winning in the SCOTUS lately, but often narrowly. With that lying, corrupt, skanky ass ***** promising Australian style gun control, I guess to appease your conscience, you're willing to trade in 2A freedoms. Really, which do you think are more in danger? Worst case, you really think a President Cruz is going to stop schools from teaching evolution or get the gay marriage ruling overturned? Do you honestly think Hillary can't get gun control done through the courts after she appoints at least one more progressive justice? Do you honestly think Hillary won't meddle in the affairs of other nations?

Already answered that. To reiterate, while I think that America will survive either one, yes, I truly believe that President Cruz is a greater threat to liberty than President Clinton.

 

[printcraft]

Good Lord.

 

[jamil]

Who pays for the 1/2 trillion dollar climate change agreement the pres. signed in Paris last week?

MAGIC ****ING ELVES. Merry Christmas.

Wait. You do realize Obama just saved the world. Are you really putting a price on that? How Republican of you.

 

[Lowe0]

Wait. You do realize Obama just saved the world. Are you really putting a price on that? How Republican of you.

Nope. Saving the world is a job for scientists and engineers researching our problems and developing solutions, and we're not going to have a lot of good ones if we can't teach them something because it doesn't comport with a religion, or if we're going to have Representatives going on a witch hunt because they didn't like the data produced.

 

[printcraft]

Nope. Saving the world is a job for scientists and engineers ......

Good Lord x 2

Nope. Saving the world is a job for scientists and engineers researching our problems and developing solutions, and we're not going to have a lot of good ones if we can't teach them something because it doesn't comport with a religion, or if we're going to have Representatives going on a witch hunt because they didn't like the data manipulated.

FTFY


Also, on the hitlary train.......... selling presidential influence for cash..... Have any problems with that or?

 

[jamil]

Nope. Saving the world is a job for scientists and engineers researching our problems and developing solutions, and we're not going to have a lot of good ones if we can't teach them something because it doesn't comport with a religion, or if we're going to have Representatives going on a witch hunt because they didn't like the data produced.

What difference does it make if we don't have a lot of good scientists because we teach them something that doesn't comport with religion OR ideology. People, even scientists, don't act like they're hiding something when they're not hiding something. Maybe there is AGW. Maybe green industry needs paid.

 

[Birds Away]

Good lord, what a nightmare.

 

[churchmouse]

Good lord, what a nightmare.

Good Lord what have I started.

This is pretty standard when it comes to "THE MINDSET" we are all trying to rationalize with.

You just can not present enough fact/figure/rational ideas to alter it. As proven in the thread......just is not going to happen. The has been consumed and the damage done.

 

[Birds Away]

Logic won't change feelings.

 

[chipbennett]

 

[dieselrealtor]

Liberalism is a religion

 

[dirtybird]

I truly believe that President Cruz is a greater threat to liberty than President Clinton.

I only know of 1 beach in Indiana. Somehow you managed to find it and bury your head in it without being noticed until now.

 

[jamil]

Already answered that. To reiterate, while I think that America will survive either one, yes, I truly believe that President Cruz is a greater threat to liberty than President Clinton.

I am astonished. The 2A is much less likely to survive one of those. Guess which one?

 

[PaulKersey]

Cruz is awesome. Probably too awesome to get nominated and elected by the current American electorate.

 

[Birds Away]

I am astonished. The 2A is much less likely to survive one of those. Guess which one?

Only gun owners are concerned about preserving the 2A.

 

[Lowe0]

I am astonished. The 2A is much less likely to survive one of those. Guess which one?

I'm far from convinced. If Hillary attempts gun control, I expect that she'll fail (how the hell would one confiscate that many guns?). Cruz, on the other hand? He thinks people like me are out to persecute Christians like him. That's like voting myself into the tiger pit. I was hoping that the GOP would nominate someone saner, but it'll be all over by the time Indiana's primary rolls around.

 

[dirtybird]

That's like voting myself into the tiger pit.

And voting for Hillary wouldn't be?

She's openly stated she would consider an Australian style ban. So it's no longer if, but how.