YES Network.com

MLB NBA
MLB NBA
 
Network Forums Sport of Politics I Wanna Know What This Lib Was Thinking! Any...
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 3 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
I Wanna Know What This Lib Was Thinking! Any Guesses?
1 year ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:29PM #21
luvdayanks
Posts: 9,739

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:15PM, MADMAX wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:12PM, luvdayanks wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 2:36PM, MADMAX wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:49PM, craner7 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:47PM, JoeGNJ wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:42PM, craner7 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:13PM, Yankee1954 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 9:14PM, craner7 wrote:

The Lib interviewing Nugent.




It must make all you Righties proud to have a crude, over the hill rocker called the POTUS names like this. but if a pundit says something about Ann Romney, and tells the truth, its just awful. HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Geez he irritates you libs doesnt he




Thats becuase he's on target and they dont have the brains to offer a comeback. Theres too much shyt in thier skull to do any thinking!




   Yep...he just says it like it is and like it or leave it.





He wasn't provoked. If he's as smart as he think he is he can make his point without being over the top disrespectful. You can't with a straight face knock those who did it to Bush and not knock those who do the same when it comes to President Obama.  Also. When did President Obama threaten to take away the right to bear arms?










He believes (as do I) that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms. But, he supports reasonable regulations on those rights. So where does reasonable regulation end and infringement on an individual's rights begin?



Obama is actually straddling the issue somewhat like the Bush Administration did when it filed a brief in the [D.C. gun] case last month. He does support individual rights, but says—and this is the qualifier--the government can impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. And he then suggests that pretty much any existing laws are reasonable.



Here's Obama's position and the video of his remarks. Shorter version: He straddles.


More...







He declined, just as the Bush Administration did, to take a position on whether the DC gun ban violates the 2nd Amendment. He said instead that states and cities should have broad latitude to regulate guns—even if the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own them.


“The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC,” Obama said. “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution.”



So Obama is in the same place as Bush on the D.C. Gun case.



Instead of embracing the categorical approach of D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman, who said a ban on handguns was a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment, the Bush Administration’s brief argued for a balancing test. It refused to take a position on the DC gun ban, and instead urged the Court to send the case back to the lower courts to apply the different, less strict standard.


...And if it’s constitutional to ban all guns in a city, as DC basically does, what’s the point of the 2nd Amendment? If that’s not unconstitutional, conservatives ask, what is? Nothing, they say.


Obama’s position on the 2nd Amendment may make that point for them. As he said today: “I think there's a lot of room before you (start) bumping against a constitutional barrier for us to institute some of the common-sense gun laws that I just spoke about.”



55 Senators, including 8 Democrats, Russ Feingold among them, signed onto a brief in the D.C. gun case last week taking the position that the gun ban infringed on an individual's right to bear arms.


Barack Obama, who says he believes in an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, was not one of them.



Incidentally, Obama was not one of the 55 senators (including Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold and eight other Democrats) who signed a brief last week arguing the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. That brief, also signed by 250 members of the House and Vice President Cheney, urges the Court to strike down the gun ban—and adopt Silberman’s test. Obama wouldn’t go that far. Neither would the Bush Administration.



I've written a little about Obama's record on gun control before.


Chicago Defender December 13, 1999,



Obama unveils federal gun bill


Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.


He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms



Here's the Chicago Tribune, October 8, 2004:



In 2001, Obama was one of just nine senators to vote against a bill that toughened penalties for violent crimes committed during gang activity. Obama said the law did not clearly define a gang member and he questioned why lawmakers were targeting Hispanics and blacks for stiffer sentences.


Two years earlier, after the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado, Obama voted "present" on a bill requiring juveniles to be prosecuted as adults for firing a firearm on or near school property.


Obama also voted against a bill permitting gun owners to claim self-defense when using a gun in their homes if the local community bans the use of handguns. Obama said municipalities should control local gun regulations, not the state.


"That law eviscerated anti-handgun ordinances in some communities," Obama said. "The way I feel, Wilmette should not determine Mattoon's firearms ordinances and Mattoon should not determine Wilmette's."



Associated Press, Sept. 11, 2004:



-Voted 'No' on letting people claim a self-defense protection in court for using a gun in their homes despite local weapons bans. (SB2165, 2004)


-Voted 'Yes' on letting retired police and military police carry concealed weapons. (SB2188, 2004)



Chicago Tribune, August 20, 2004:



Last week, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. Union officials cited Obama's longtime support of gun-control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises on bills backed or opposed by the FOP.



(Articles available on Lexis. com.)


I can't figure out where he stands. He's all over the map. This happens on just too many issues with him.









Let me ask again.  When did President Obama threaten to take away the right to bear arms?




If it walks like a duck... ^^^^^^^^

1 year ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:31PM #22
luvdayanks
Posts: 9,739

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:15PM, MADMAX wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:12PM, luvdayanks wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 2:36PM, MADMAX wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:49PM, craner7 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:47PM, JoeGNJ wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:42PM, craner7 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:13PM, Yankee1954 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 9:14PM, craner7 wrote:

The Lib interviewing Nugent.




It must make all you Righties proud to have a crude, over the hill rocker called the POTUS names like this. but if a pundit says something about Ann Romney, and tells the truth, its just awful. HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Geez he irritates you libs doesnt he




Thats becuase he's on target and they dont have the brains to offer a comeback. Theres too much shyt in thier skull to do any thinking!




   Yep...he just says it like it is and like it or leave it.





He wasn't provoked. If he's as smart as he think he is he can make his point without being over the top disrespectful. You can't with a straight face knock those who did it to Bush and not knock those who do the same when it comes to President Obama.  Also. When did President Obama threaten to take away the right to bear arms?










He believes (as do I) that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms. But, he supports reasonable regulations on those rights. So where does reasonable regulation end and infringement on an individual's rights begin?



Obama is actually straddling the issue somewhat like the Bush Administration did when it filed a brief in the [D.C. gun] case last month. He does support individual rights, but says—and this is the qualifier--the government can impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. And he then suggests that pretty much any existing laws are reasonable.



Here's Obama's position and the video of his remarks. Shorter version: He straddles.


More...







He declined, just as the Bush Administration did, to take a position on whether the DC gun ban violates the 2nd Amendment. He said instead that states and cities should have broad latitude to regulate guns—even if the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own them.


“The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC,” Obama said. “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution.”



So Obama is in the same place as Bush on the D.C. Gun case.



Instead of embracing the categorical approach of D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman, who said a ban on handguns was a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment, the Bush Administration’s brief argued for a balancing test. It refused to take a position on the DC gun ban, and instead urged the Court to send the case back to the lower courts to apply the different, less strict standard.


...And if it’s constitutional to ban all guns in a city, as DC basically does, what’s the point of the 2nd Amendment? If that’s not unconstitutional, conservatives ask, what is? Nothing, they say.


Obama’s position on the 2nd Amendment may make that point for them. As he said today: “I think there's a lot of room before you (start) bumping against a constitutional barrier for us to institute some of the common-sense gun laws that I just spoke about.”



55 Senators, including 8 Democrats, Russ Feingold among them, signed onto a brief in the D.C. gun case last week taking the position that the gun ban infringed on an individual's right to bear arms.


Barack Obama, who says he believes in an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, was not one of them.



Incidentally, Obama was not one of the 55 senators (including Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold and eight other Democrats) who signed a brief last week arguing the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. That brief, also signed by 250 members of the House and Vice President Cheney, urges the Court to strike down the gun ban—and adopt Silberman’s test. Obama wouldn’t go that far. Neither would the Bush Administration.



I've written a little about Obama's record on gun control before.


Chicago Defender December 13, 1999,



Obama unveils federal gun bill


Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.


He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms



Here's the Chicago Tribune, October 8, 2004:



In 2001, Obama was one of just nine senators to vote against a bill that toughened penalties for violent crimes committed during gang activity. Obama said the law did not clearly define a gang member and he questioned why lawmakers were targeting Hispanics and blacks for stiffer sentences.


Two years earlier, after the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado, Obama voted "present" on a bill requiring juveniles to be prosecuted as adults for firing a firearm on or near school property.


Obama also voted against a bill permitting gun owners to claim self-defense when using a gun in their homes if the local community bans the use of handguns. Obama said municipalities should control local gun regulations, not the state.


"That law eviscerated anti-handgun ordinances in some communities," Obama said. "The way I feel, Wilmette should not determine Mattoon's firearms ordinances and Mattoon should not determine Wilmette's."



Associated Press, Sept. 11, 2004:



-Voted 'No' on letting people claim a self-defense protection in court for using a gun in their homes despite local weapons bans. (SB2165, 2004)


-Voted 'Yes' on letting retired police and military police carry concealed weapons. (SB2188, 2004)



Chicago Tribune, August 20, 2004:



Last week, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. Union officials cited Obama's longtime support of gun-control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises on bills backed or opposed by the FOP.



(Articles available on Lexis. com.)


I can't figure out where he stands. He's all over the map. This happens on just too many issues with him.









Let me ask again.  When did President Obama threaten to take away the right to bear arms?




If it walks like a duck... ^^^^^^^^

1 year ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:38PM #23
craner7
Posts: 12,782

Apr 18, 2012 -- 2:36PM, MADMAX wrote:








He wasn't provoked. If he's as smart as he think he is he can make his point without being over the top disrespectful. You can't with a straight face knock those who did it to Bush and not knock those who do the same when it comes to President Obama.  Also. When did President Obama threaten to take away the right to bear arms?




Yea he does go a tad over whats necessary....just a bit. But I totally understand his feelings because I swear to God above Obama gets me more riled up than anyone on planet Earth pal. So I get Nugent's passion. I cannot comprehend for one second how any logical thinking person like you supports him. Never ever ever ever.


Right to bear arms....see Luvda's post....and I dont trust him one bit, especially in a 2nd term with no fear of reelection. God help us. Ohhh...and someone named Eric Holder comes to mind here also.

1 year ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:41PM #24
craner7
Posts: 12,782

GREAT research Luvda!!!



This is really strange....I made this thread yesterday when I found Nugents video by accident looking on youtube for " Obama zombies " and his video was on the side.....now today all of a sudden Ted Nugent is in the headllines!

1 year ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:45PM #25
MADMAX
Posts: 5,835

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:31PM, luvdayanks wrote:




Let me ask again.  When did President Obama threaten to take away the right to bear arms?




If it walks like a duck... ^^^^^^^^





Not good enough Luv. The fact is that he hasn't tried to get any laws passed that would take away the 2nd amendment.

1 year ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:50PM #26
luvdayanks
Posts: 9,739

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:41PM, craner7 wrote:


GREAT research Luvda!!!



This is really strange....I made this thread yesterday when I found Nugents video by accident looking on youtube for " Obama zombies " and his video was on the side.....now today all of a sudden Ted Nugent is in the headllines!




Thanks Craner, he is a strange dude but says what he means and means what he says.

1 year ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:51PM #27
MADMAX
Posts: 5,835

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:41PM, craner7 wrote:


GREAT research Luvda!!!



This is really strange....I made this thread yesterday when I found Nugents video by accident looking on youtube for " Obama zombies " and his video was on the side.....now today all of a sudden Ted Nugent is in the headllines!





Come on pal. It was maybe 2 weeks ago when you said that you were waiting for some jerk to make fun of Cheney's heart transplant. Now, Ted says something that's worse than any Cheney heart transplant joke I've heard. But because it's about Obama you're not holding Ted to the same standards you hold people like Bill Mahr to.

1 year ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:53PM #28
JoeGNJ
Posts: 9,588

Apr 18, 2012 -- 2:36PM, MADMAX wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:49PM, craner7 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:47PM, JoeGNJ wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:42PM, craner7 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:13PM, Yankee1954 wrote:


Apr 17, 2012 -- 9:14PM, craner7 wrote:

The Lib interviewing Nugent.




It must make all you Righties proud to have a crude, over the hill rocker called the POTUS names like this. but if a pundit says something about Ann Romney, and tells the truth, its just awful. HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Geez he irritates you libs doesnt he




Thats becuase he's on target and they dont have the brains to offer a comeback. Theres too much shyt in thier skull to do any thinking!




   Yep...he just says it like it is and like it or leave it.





He wasn't provoked. If he's as smart as he think he is he can make his point without being over the top disrespectful. You can't with a straight face knock those who did it to Bush and not knock those who do the same when it comes to President Obama.  Also. When did President Obama threaten to take away the right to bear arms?




Its called "fast and Furious" Max!

JoeGNJ
1 year ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:54PM #29
craner7
Posts: 12,782

He loves the USA and frankly speaks for a lot of us sick to death of the political corectness nonsense and tearing our nation apart that seems to be the aim of this Admin.

1 year ago  ::  Apr 18, 2012 - 3:57PM #30
MADMAX
Posts: 5,835

Apr 18, 2012 -- 3:38PM, craner7 wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 2:36PM, MADMAX wrote:








He wasn't provoked. If he's as smart as he think he is he can make his point without being over the top disrespectful. You can't with a straight face knock those who did it to Bush and not knock those who do the same when it comes to President Obama.  Also. When did President Obama threaten to take away the right to bear arms?




Yea he does go a tad over whats necessary....just a bit. But I totally understand his feelings because I swear to God above Obama gets me more riled up than anyone on planet Earth pal. So I get Nugent's passion. I cannot comprehend for one second how any logical thinking person like you supports him. Never ever ever ever.



 




I support the President because the GOP base has been taken over by the far right. Your hero RR and Nixon would be considered moderates. Maybe if he's elected Romney will have the guts to stand up to them.

Page 3 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Jump Menu:
 
Network Forums Sport of Politics I Wanna Know What This Lib Was Thinking! Any...
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum