Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 100

Thread: Barrack Obama = Jimmy Carter 2.0

  1. #61
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,620
    No they don't.
    (I'm only going to reply to your nonsense with these 3 words until you provide a credible source to back up your claims)

  2. #62
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    chillin in the sun
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    No they don't.
    (I'm only going to reply to your nonsense with these 3 words until you provide a credible source to back up your claims)
    This matter came up in the Hillary vs. Bernie debates. Hillary's statement effectively made it impossible for gun manufacturers to sell their product without being sued, which would be a backdoor method to basically outlaw guns. The MSM pushed the narrative that Hillary somehow "won" the debate, and that her disgusting tactic to smear Bernie on the matter was a good move (it sure as hell wasn't). Both are in favor of gun control and banning semiautomatic weapons. I could see tighter restrictions on what is sold, but that isn't what is really being discussed and it's a waste of time to pretend otherwise. The only move that would be of any interest to gun control people is full confiscation, otherwise federal and state law already allows for as much control as is needed. That clearly is not enough, and a great deal of effort is made from Bloomberg and friends to manufacture consent for laws that go beyond mere restrictions and waiting periods.

    Aside from that, there isn't a totalitarian measure Obama sees that he doesn't like, so this would be the only thing that follows. Of course he's going to deny what he's doing in the face of intense opposition, after he got burned for showing his smugness in '08.

  3. #63
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,620
    No they don't.

  4. #64
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ocala, FL, USA
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Bishop View Post
    Worst argument ever. Outlawing guns works in every other country.
    That's not an argument, that's a statement of a fact.
    Long live Mehul!

  5. #65
    Scribe
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,505
    no one wants to or could for that matter confiscate guns. whatever you have been reading, put it down and check the facts.
    not one politician, not even one like clinton, or maybe especially not one like clinton would shoot their own foot by attempting to shut down a multimillion dollar industry. and anyone that believes that underestimates the greed involved.

  6. #66
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    chillin in the sun
    Posts
    2,948
    an immediate confiscation is merely expensive. what you'd see - and what you have seen in places like NY state - are laws and policies that give police authority and ability to search and seize for any number of imagined offenses, and if a gun happens to appear, they are liable for all manner of penalties (whether the gun was legally possessed or not). this would be coupled with effectively a ban on the sale of any new legitimate arms (in force in NY). eventually enough of the populace is disarmed that violent force can be escalated further without fear of reprisal against the police.

    i believe the greed for power and abusing random people outweighs greed for money the arms industry isn't sending to HRC of all people. conservative and some democrat greed maybe, but the super establishment have way more money coming from people who want this, the Bloombergs and their ilk, who have a vested interest in a controllable population.

    as bishop said, outlawing guns works in every other country. there is no reason to assume it can't happen here, implemented in a similar manner. the laws as they are currently written allow for way more control than most people think, if states are pressured into accepting it. seeking ways to use lawsuits to effectively ban guns, or overriding state laws, is the kind of move Obama and HRC want, since state-level bans don't stop interstate arms travel. that is the definition of "taking away your guns" for all intents and purposes - it is the only meaningful gun control that Obama could aim for, anything less would be superficial - and Obama sure as hell wouldn't spend the political capital on such a project, considering that this one issue brings Republican votes by the droves (again, even though Republican elites don't really care and happily vote for new restrictions so long as they're on some Other group. the NRA doesn't help by being complicit in race-baiting cowardice and supporting every invasion of privacy they can think of to tighten the noose of a police state).

    as you can probably tell though, enacting gun control to a sufficient degree isn't necessarily the only goal - all that is needed is to move the political debate into narrow terms that allow for an Othered group to be scapegoated, so that enough ordinary people participate and encourage the scapegoating, so that class warfare is directed between the lower orders. it is of vital importance that guns aren't pointed towards police or agents of the state, and especially that those arms are not backed by civil society questioning the actions of elites. arms reduction however is useful to maintain the absolute advantage of police power over civil society.

  7. #67
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,620
    No they don't

  8. #68
    Scribe
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,505
    you missed the part where clinton takes campaign contributions from gun lobbyists. they are not doing that out of the goodness of their hearts.

    when obama was campaigning he was all about bringing every american soldier home soon. one of his very first things in office was to send more troops overseas. when asked, he explained "there is a difference between campaigning and governing"

    currently she is campaigning

  9. #69
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ocala, FL, USA
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    No they don't
    Lol. This is cracking me up
    Long live Mehul!

  10. #70
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Ocala, FL, USA
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by noobium View Post
    an immediate confiscation is merely expensive. What you'd see - and what you have seen in places like ny state - are laws and policies that give police authority and ability to search and seize for any number of imagined offenses, and if a gun happens to appear, they are liable for all manner of penalties (whether the gun was legally possessed or not). This would be coupled with effectively a ban on the sale of any new legitimate arms (in force in ny). Eventually enough of the populace is disarmed that violent force can be escalated further without fear of reprisal against the police.

    I believe the greed for power and abusing random people outweighs greed for money the arms industry isn't sending to hrc of all people. Conservative and some democrat greed maybe, but the super establishment have way more money coming from people who want this, the bloombergs and their ilk, who have a vested interest in a controllable population.

    As bishop said, outlawing guns works in every other country. There is no reason to assume it can't happen here, implemented in a similar manner. The laws as they are currently written allow for way more control than most people think, if states are pressured into accepting it. Seeking ways to use lawsuits to effectively ban guns, or overriding state laws, is the kind of move obama and hrc want, since state-level bans don't stop interstate arms travel. That is the definition of "taking away your guns" for all intents and purposes - it is the only meaningful gun control that obama could aim for, anything less would be superficial - and obama sure as hell wouldn't spend the political capital on such a project, considering that this one issue brings republican votes by the droves (again, even though republican elites don't really care and happily vote for new restrictions so long as they're on some other group. The nra doesn't help by being complicit in race-baiting cowardice and supporting every invasion of privacy they can think of to tighten the noose of a police state).

    As you can probably tell though, enacting gun control to a sufficient degree isn't necessarily the only goal - all that is needed is to move the political debate into narrow terms that allow for an othered group to be scapegoated, so that enough ordinary people participate and encourage the scapegoating, so that class warfare is directed between the lower orders. It is of vital importance that guns aren't pointed towards police or agents of the state, and especially that those arms are not backed by civil society questioning the actions of elites. Arms reduction however is useful to maintain the absolute advantage of police power over civil society.
    tldr
    Long live Mehul!

  11. #71
    Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    94
    Nothing the republicans said about Obama ever came true. That man has withstood outright hatred and feet stamping from the right for 8 years. Everything that man tried to accomplish was shutdown from day 1 by the republicans. Republicans on the floor shouting "he's not my president!", "he's not a American!", "He's a Muslim!", "Our job is to make him a 1 term president!", etc etc etc. Not much the man could do when republicans shouted "No!" and demonized him from day 1 and at every step.
    Let's ignore the fact he was left a brutal mess that was left behind by the last republican administration.
    Let me ask you all something? Do you know who is in control of congress and what congresses approval rating is? It's because the republican led congress has been sitting on their asses with more than 1 attempt to shut government down. And here we gave them a thumbs up for their obstructionist government.
    If Carter survived for a 2nd term we might not even be in the middle east fighting over oil.
    Regan ****ed this country for decades with trickle down economics and continued reliance on fossil fuels.
    Last edited by Swirvin'Birds; 06-12-2016 at 06:50.

  12. #72
    Post Demon Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Swirvin'Birds View Post
    Regan ****ed this country for decades with trickle down economics and continued reliance on fossil fuels.
    And now ****face von Clownstick is gonna do the same on steroids because it "worked" so well the last time.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  13. #73
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Swirvin'Birds View Post
    Nothing the republicans said about Obama ever came true. That man has withstood outright hatred and feet stamping from the right for 8 years. Everything that man tried to accomplish was shutdown from day 1 by the republicans. Republicans on the floor shouting "he's not my president!", "he's not a American!", "He's a Muslim!", "Our job is to make him a 1 term president!", etc etc etc. Not much the man could do when republicans shouted "No!" and demonized him from day 1 and at every step.
    Let's ignore the fact he was left a brutal mess that was left behind by the last republican administration.
    Let me ask you all something? Do you know who is in control of congress and what congresses approval rating is? It's because the republican led congress has been sitting on their asses with more than 1 attempt to shut government down. And here we gave them a thumbs up for their obstructionist government.
    If Carter survived for a 2nd term we might not even be in the middle east fighting over oil.
    Regan ****ed this country for decades with trickle down economics and continued reliance on fossil fuels.
    You must be confused Obama first term Democrats owned the Senate and the House. How they where able to bail out the banks and pass Obama care. Both completely terrible things for the country. Also senate Democrats did what's called the nuclear option. Which took away alot of the minority powers away from blocking presidential appointment. Obama failed at being a president plan and simple. The excuse of Republicans blocking him is non sense in his first term.

  14. #74
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,620
    No they don't

  15. #75
    Post Fiend brandonc204's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Swirvin'Birds View Post
    Not much the man could do when republicans shouted "No!" and demonized him from day 1 and at every step.
    Let's ignore the fact he was left a brutal mess that was left behind by the last republican administration.
    Let me ask you all something? Do you know who is in control of congress and what congresses approval rating is? It's because the republican led congress has been sitting on their asses with more than 1 attempt to shut government down.
    After G.W.Bush, the democrats won a super majority in Obamas first term. They used it to piss off middle class america with policies middle class america didn't want (like obamacare). right or wrong doesn't matter in this case. People voted out the democrats because they disagreed with them.

    It takes a great amount of patriotism to just say "no" against something you completely stand against. This is politics at its finest and its worst. If one president tries to pass policy saying the sky is orange, while the other side wholeheartedly believe the sky is red, then the two sides will disagree no matter what the truth is.

    Why does everyone assume we need to fix everything by passing more laws. It would be far better to leave the average man well and good enough alone. We need to get back to making money, not passing more laws to restrict commerce.

    If Trump starts to do stupid things with his newfound power, I fully expect the democrats to just say no to all of his policies and win more of a majority. We need to give him a chance.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •