Curious

LOL I seldom support Stef but how can you even hint she doesn't care? Or call it trolling?

She seems to care a lot, to be deeply interested even if a bit misguided.

Yea, pretty much. I detested left wing commies then, detest them now.

Tax raising, gun grabbing, abortion pushing, prayer banning, spaghetti spined, nation destroying......oh, pardon me a moment, the lead is hot and ready to pour.

__________________
~Only the rocks live forever~

Perhaps, and I don't deny that some have said some really ignorant racist remarks. I do believe they are a very small minority though.

Daddy Bush lost me w/ his 'new world order' speech. Told me everything I needed to know about their politics.

And it also is why some people support him without question.

Remember, 95% of blacks voted for him, and only 45% of white. How can it be that the 45% could be racist, but the 95% are not?

As for being a war monger, Obama has them both beats all hollow. Not only did he continue and expand the manpower and $$$$ expenditures in two wars, but he also bombed Libya, Egypt. Syria, Lebanon . . . basically, if there's been an uprising in the Middle East in the past four years, Obama, and the CIC of the Armed Forces, has bombed there.

I agree with you about name calling, though, and I now refrain from even doing something as mild as calling either Bush41 or Bush 43 'shrub,' and I refer to Obama as Obama or, occasionally, POTUS. Give that BO has, until the start of this presidency, meant 'body odor', I don't use it. This is not because I respect any of them, it is because when a person wants to make a point about the bad actions of a POTUS, whichever POTUS they are referring to, the point gets lost when the poster calls him names.

Oh, I just realized that, if you have enough imagination, you might not know what POTUS is. POTUS is President of the United States.

Why are people who oppose a new assault weapons ban crazy? I was very much opposed to the 1994 assault weapons ban. I am even more against a new one. Why? Because one thing we learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban is that it didn't work. Gun violence went up while the 1994 assault weapons ban was in place. Gun violence went down after the 1994 assault weapons ban expired. Firearms ownership (especially those supposedly evil assault weapons) is now at an all time high but yet the rate of gun violence is at an all time low.

When you look at the facts logically and not emotionally it's hard to understand how anyone is crazy to think that a new assault weapons ban would not work.

That has been the case over and over but the gun grabbers ignore the facts. When DC enacted its gun ban, gun murders increased every year. When the courts threw it out, gun murders have declined every year since. Florida now has the highest number of CC permits in the country but gun crimes are at an all time low.

__________________
Some people just need a high five.....right up side their heads.

As for if there were people who objected as much back then -- yes, there were, but you didn't hear nearly as much about them because other than Rush and Fox news, there really wasn't a voice for the opposition; most media outlets were in the position to ignore those that didn't agree with them, and they did.

If you recall, two years later, the whole Monica Lewinsky thing blew up. But how is the really interesting thing. If you recall, Newsweek had the story, and nailed everything down and knew it was good, and chose not to run it. They refrained from publishing it for four weeks -- more than four of thier news cycles -- before the author got the idea that it wasn't refrain, it was refuse, and where did the author take the story?

To Matt Drudge, that's where, and that's also why the Drudge Report became successful. Huge story, Presidential scandal, major cover-up by national media outlet, right off the bat . . . How could he lose?

And it's still happening, even today. The whole John Edwards thing was left to the National Enquirer to follow and break. I mean, seriously, the National Enquirer scooped all the big papers because they just wouldn't follow up on not just rumors, but on JE's travel movements that they, themselves, had seen. I mean, they got scooped by the National Enquirer, people! How low do you have to sink to let the National Enquirer take a solid story away from you!

Oh my goodness, Benghazi! Most of the updates on Benghazi have been through on-line media, not national papers or broadcast media, because people know that if it looks bad for the current Admin, the MSM won't do anything.

Jared Loughner in Tuscon, Az, is another example of this. Remember how he was a right-wing nutcase that was spurned to violence by right-wing talk radio? Except, of course, that he wasn't, he was a registered (D) before he changed it to (I), and he actually worked on GG's campaign, and he supported legalization of marijuana (not a traditionally (R) stance,) and that he told people and wrote in his journal that he was increasingly unhappy about how far right she was, (not left,) and oh yeah, BTW, he was used just about every drug I've ever heard of, and many that I haven't, and he was, just coincidentally, also bat ---- crazy with how many restraining orders against him? And yet you still hear about how the Right needs to be more civil, and that JL was their fault . . . .

And how many would-be mass shooters have been stopped in the days leading up to and following Sandy Hook? Two that I know of, one here in Oregon, one in San Antonio, both stopped by armed good guys, but you only heard about them because there are people on here who keep bringing them up because, after all, they are relevant to the discussion about gun control.

So yes, there were people who felt this strongly, but it was much, much easier to either shut them up or ignore them.

Have you seen her second amendment was to support slavery nonsense? It's more than just suspect.

__________________
it's not a sport unless the animal can kill you back

be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet

I'll stir the pot here but the background check legislation was enacted under Clinton's administration. That was protested quite a bit but IMO was a good idea.

If we had had the money back then we probably would have bought some soon-to-be-banned firearms just to have them.
For the record, I opposed the "assault weapon ban" then, and I oppose it now. Has nothing to do with the color of the president's skin.

Yes, the communists/socialist/marxist/fascist/lefties were all just as crazy with their rantings about gun control. Fortunately, the sane/rational folks made the ban temporary, for ten years, AND after such time it was blatantly obvious it was a failed policy, so it expired and was not even close to being renewed.

This time, it is different in the details, but still the same nonsensical ideas of the left being pushed through, yet again....only this time, the doors are being opened to tracking which leads historically to confiscation, and more horrid leftist controls. Will we see a rational temporary term to this one, and the protection of personal records as guaranteed by constitution, or is it truly the beginning of marxist/socialist/etc. horrid takeover, through personal tracking info being permanently kept, along with other leftist wet dreams.... Only time will tell.

Sorry, my post is on the computer in Al Gore's basement.

So since we don't agree with his anti American policies, we are now racists..

Sorry any credibility you might have had is gone.. I don't tolerate racists or those who play the race card when someone disagrees with their views..

__________________
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1 Section 21 "The Right of the Citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned"
www.pafoa.org
http://www.45thpacok.com

Misguided?

Yea right, that is why she posted a re writing of history by a professor Bogus..

Trolling!

Or wants to know if we ranted and raved and where we posted those rant and raves in 1994, while she refuses to show where she posted. She is the one who said she posted the same thing in other places, yet when asked where she refuses to give that info.. Had she not brought it up, no one would have asked, but she gave the info freely till questioned about it..

Trolling!

Now supporting these weapons bans, truly shows me she doesn't care, because we all know they don't work.. a criminal isn't going to stop just because it's against the law..

Those that push that garbage don't really care about the deaths, they only care about using those deaths to push a political agenda..


So yes I can say she doesn't care and is trolling...

__________________
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1 Section 21 "The Right of the Citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned"
www.pafoa.org
http://www.45thpacok.com

I would suggest you look up the word care.

__________________
My book is out! Go 'like' it on FB:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Goo...83553391747680

However I'm gonna disagreee w/the snot...was much worse. Many 'kill Bush' & 'how to kill Bush' publications.

__________________
My book is out! Go 'like' it on FB:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Goo...83553391747680

Not to mention that many of the so-called 'racist' remarks are stuff that was said about Bush/es. But cannot say the same things about this idiotincharge b/c THAT'S racist. Tell me how that works.
One example-came from black people-was that the "Rs" are using the phrase: "Take our country back". They said that was racist. Funny that the Clinton's had the same phrase. Why racist now?
The Hitler reference...racist now but not then? Why?

__________________
My book is out! Go 'like' it on FB:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Goo...83553391747680

No problem..

Guess what!

Those who do things detrimental to the safety of others wasn't listed as a definition of the word "care"

Making laws that only affect the law abiding citizens, and disarms them also wasn't under the word "care"

But was under the words "control" and "dictator"

I would suggest you look up the word truth
Also I would suggest you do research on American History.

__________________
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1 Section 21 "The Right of the Citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned"
www.pafoa.org
http://www.45thpacok.com

I wonder how many of our white presidents have been called "thugs?"

__________________
Whatever floats your goat!

Kitten season is here. Please spay and neuter. You'll save lives.

Yes, as a matter of fact.
Sorry, no links, didn't even know about the internet back then. I didn't get to the 21st century as fast as everyone else, lol.
But, there are a few congressmen still in office that got some personal attention, one at a town hall type meeting he had regularly scheduled.
I didn't realize all the veterans in the room until I was done telling him exactly my views on the 2nd amendment and how things were going to go for him, his colleagues and Slick Willy.
Before the applause ended, all he had to say was, "I'm with you 1OO%"...*gulp*