why not? YOu have people who are obsessed with guns, and people whose response to gun violence is "give more guns to more people" and "thoughts and prayers out to victims." Almost nothing is being done to fight gun violence while everything is done to try and make it worse. While the country is at a low level of violence, there's still enough gun violence that is uncomfortable. We're on the same page though, the violence should be lower, much lower. Stopping it completely is impossible, but it should be far much lower.
I dont understand what you want done, Ill just use the same example that is always fitting, theres regulation against drunk driving, but yet nothing is done. Everyday there is a drunk driving accident, even people who are charged for it are put back on the road and drive again. Unless you ban alcohol then drunk driving wont stop, the last time the country banned alcohol, you saw what happened. The same will happen with guns. All we can do is send thoughts and prayers to the victims and maybe give some money and be a helping hand in their time of need. Since a car cant be drunk then it is once again the person behind the wheel who went bananas and had too many to drink and no friend to stop them from driving. Similarly gun violence is only caused by people who had gone bananas and had no social support network to help them realized they are going bananas and to stop them from going bananas. A gun doesnt kill people, people do. The gun is not to blame. Treating people is where our focus should be not on the guns.
You mean reducing ability to get guns legally? Because all that would unfortunately do is put more guns in the hands of dubious people via illegal means. This is a pretty difficult issue to tackle, because people will remain deluded that guns aren't the problem or that guns are for recreational use.
TrusTED is BusTED hopefully this results in failing poll numbers for him.
The ad’s claim? That Marco supported sanctuary cities. In reality, he plans to cut off their federal funding as President.
The extreme dishonesty is of a part with the Cruz campaign’s tactics recently: They’ve lied about Marco’s pro-life record, drawing condemnation from top pro-life conservatives, lied about his record on marriage, misrepresented Cruz’s own record on judicial nominations, and resorted to dirty campaigning tricks like false robo-calls and push polls.
I dont understand what you want done, Ill just use the same example that is always fitting, theres regulation against drunk driving, but yet nothing is done. Everyday there is a drunk driving accident, even people who are charged for it are put back on the road and drive again. Unless you ban alcohol then drunk driving wont stop, the last time the country banned alcohol, you saw what happened. The same will happen with guns. All we can do is send thoughts and prayers to the victims and maybe give some money and be a helping hand in their time of need. Since a car cant be drunk then it is once again the person behind the wheel who went bananas and had too many to drink and no friend to stop them from driving. Similarly gun violence is only caused by people who had gone bananas and had no social support network to help them realized they are going bananas and to stop them from going bananas. A gun doesnt kill people, people do. The gun is not to blame. Treating people is where our focus should be not on the guns.
Drunk driving and shooting people are different things. Drunk drivers get in trouble, but the problem is they're put back in the streets and can drive again when they should be banned from either driving or drinking.
THoughts and prayers do jackshit, and it's a shitty way to even go about anything. Politicians pretend to give a shit and don't want to look bad, so they say "thoughts and prayers go out to the victims' family" while they happily do nothing about it. Guns make it easier to shoot people and are designed to end lives, cars aren't. People don't need to be crazy to shoot others, that's a lie made up by gun defenders.
Guns kill people, and they're to blame. It's common sense. How many people can you kill with a knife or cleaver? It's harder than killing multiple people with guns. Clearly guns are the issue here because of how easy it is. Point and shoot, point and shoot, point and shoot. Or with machine guns, just point and shoot, and sweep if need be. There'd be far less death if people used knives as weapons than if they used guns.
THe logic that no social support or insanity causes death is pretty dumb, and it won't really solve anything. Stricter gun control and better background checks help because they can prevent guns from getting into the hands of bad people who make bad lifestyle decisions. I'm not sure why gun defenders like comparing guns to drunk driving because they're both completely different.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Oh, and to back up why guns are no-no
NYC has seen tons of knife attacks over the last few months, however none of the victims were killed (as far as I recall). If a gun was used, we'd have at least one death, and it's possible there could have been multiple victims per attack. And before you say it, knives are used to cut objects like food and rope, while the main purpose of gun is to kill.
Guns help the economy. Today candidate Bush was gifted a gun with his name on it from a gun manufacturing plant that, guess what, employees hundreds of people helping them to put food on the table, pay for their health insurance, and to have financial stability. To put restrictions on guns will results in an entire industry going the way of the dinosaur and putting hardworking Americans out of yet another job. Gun opponents actions will result in more people going hungry, healthcareless, and homeless.
Guns take away lives too, but I guess murdering isn't immoral as long as it's not fetuses. Pro-life my ass. if people were truly pro-life, they wouldn't be shooting up Planned Parenthood, killing abortion doctors, or be against refugee children coming into the country for a safer life. Ridiculous double standards. Don't lie, you don't care about other people having food on their table or having financial stability, you've made it quite clear you don't care about others. Hardworking Americans have been losing jobs since the Industrial Revolution, when advancement in technology has rendered more and more people obsolete. Should we get rid of these technologies too?
Funny how republican candidates like Rubio claim to uphold the Constitution and other documents of America, but they're doing the opposite of that by resisting any decision from Obama to appoint a new justice. I guarantee you they would have had no problem if a republican was doing the same - in fact they'd be arguing that it's too long a wait for the next president.
Another thing I find funny and hypocritical - people, republicans mainly, keep crying about how Obama hurt America's image in the eyes of other countries... however, these people are doing exactly the things that are hurting the country's image while Obama or many of his policies are praised. America is criticized for being too lax with guns, being overly religious, and other things, yet America seems to not care/defend the criticized views/actions while they blame Obama for bad image. I can guarantee that Bernie would have a better image than any other candidate, especially republican candidates. Trump is already criticized in nearly every country while people think Carson is a smart idiot, Cruz is too religious and a liar, and Jeb is related to George Sr. and Jr. and thus, unfit. They either don't care about Rubio or think he's the least fucked up republican candidate but nonetheless. Actually, I'm not totally sure on the Jeb part, but I'm sure George Jr doesn't hold much respect with people from other countries.
I think Trump may have redeemed himself just a tad bit when he was the voice of reason the last GOP Debate.
Most candidates are so pathetic with their whole "let's wait until the new president comes in before we appoint a new justice!" Shame a lot of people don't realize they're going against the Constitution when they suggest that, but then the republicans are usually selective about what's constitutional.
Most candidates are so pathetic with their whole "let's wait until the new president comes in before we appoint a new justice!" Shame a lot of people don't realize they're going against the Constitution when they suggest that, but then the republicans are usually selective about what's constitutional.
Why? Its not like the democrats havent done it before when they had the chance. Even if Obama suggests someone its not like they will be instantly put onto the supreme court.
if the Republican majority was to unanimously vote to reject any Obama nominee simply on the basis that the nominator was President Obama and that the Republican senators wanted to wait for a Republican president to be in office, they would not be violating any specific constitutional language. It could also lead to situations in which vacancies might remain vacant for a very long time.
Regardless, for a party that claims to be about the Constitution, they sure don't mind going against the Constitution. It's annoying and just adds to another reason as to why the current republican candidates, and party for that matter, are bad.
Regardless, for a party that claims to be about the Constitution, they sure don't mind going against the Constitution. It's annoying and just adds to another reason as to why the current republican candidates, and party for that matter, are bad.
I dont understand why anyone would want to do this. People who came here illegally ought to not be considered instate and ought to pay the full amount for college. Its only fair to actual citizens and legal immigrants. Giving these illegal people benefits is very wrong and very bad business. In an age of fiscal responsibility, these people could be helping the bottom line by paying the full cost.
But the republicans harp on about the Constitution, which they're not following themselves. There is no excuse here, it's like the same democrats saying Obama should choose the new justice being against the republican president choosing the new justice. So, not only do republicans lie and mislead public, but they also contradict themselves when it's best for them. Can't forget the amount of infighting on.
You should use your gun to shoot illegal immigrants! After all, what are guns for if not for ending lives? And surely they deserve to be killed for wanting benefits! But no, paying full cost when they can't afford it doesn't help the bottom line at all. That's a dumb view.
As far as I can tell the justice situation has been completely exaggerated. Obama in fact does have a right to nominate someone for the position. The republican party absolutely can legitimately simply deny the nomination. The claim that late term nominations are not usually done or all relating arguments to that are factually incorrect and democrats have done the exact same thing republicans are doing right now in the past. Politifacts did a good job with this one as far as I can tell. I guess the question is whether, as some suggest, obama can put the senate republicans in a tough spot by placing a nomination that would be awkward to say no to and whether it could influence the election.
But the republicans harp on about the Constitution, which they're not following themselves. There is no excuse here, it's like the same democrats saying Obama should choose the new justice being against the republican president choosing the new justice. So, not only do republicans lie and mislead public, but they also contradict themselves when it's best for them. Can't forget the amount of infighting on.
You should use your gun to shoot illegal immigrants! After all, what are guns for if not for ending lives? And surely they deserve to be killed for wanting benefits! But no, paying full cost when they can't afford it doesn't help the bottom line at all. That's a dumb view.
Why would an illegal immigrant go to college? They couldn't win awards, they cant get financial aid for not being a citizen, they cant get any job afterward graduating as well anyway. An illegal immigrant ought to be focused on trying to become legalized first.
And they are illegal, if youre doing something illegal you should be penalized not given benefits. Why do people want to devalue American citizenship by just giving everything away to illegals?
As far as I can tell the justice situation has been completely exaggerated. Obama in fact does have a right to nominate someone for the position. The republican party absolutely can legitimately simply deny the nomination. The claim that late term nominations are not usually done or all relating arguments to that are factually incorrect and democrats have done the exact same thing republicans are doing right now in the past. Politifacts did a good job with this one as far as I can tell. I guess the question is whether, as some suggest, obama can put the senate republicans in a tough spot by placing a nomination that would be awkward to say no to and whether it could influence the election.
Why would an illegal immigrant go to college? They couldn't win awards, they cant get financial aid for not being a citizen, they cant get any job afterward graduating as well anyway. An illegal immigrant ought to be focused on trying to become legalized first.
And they are illegal, if youre doing something illegal you should be penalized not given benefits. Why do people want to devalue American citizenship by just giving everything away to illegals?
Hence why you should shoot the illegal immigrants who want to go to college for free or with aid. Teach them a lesson! After all, guns are for hurting or taking away lives, so why not use it?
But it's common sense that making people who can't afford to pay full tuition won't help the bottom line at all. You do realize due to student loan debts accrued by legal citizens, they have less money to spend on other things?
But it's common sense that making people who can't afford to pay full tuition won't help the bottom line at all. You do realize due to student loan debts accrued by legal citizens, they have less money to spend on other things?
Jobs and the government have loan repayment programs and people getting jobs in actually relevant fields end up making more than enough to quickly pay off loans. A college actually relevant degree in a relevant and important field often results in higher lifetime earnings so a temporary time with loans has a very high payoff at the end of the day.
Scary thing is, we could get a conservative justice again who would continue to hold the country back and prevent it from progressing.
Hence why you should shoot the illegal immigrants who want to go to college for free or with aid. Teach them a lesson! After all, guns are for hurting or taking away lives, so why not use it?
But it's common sense that making people who can't afford to pay full tuition won't help the bottom line at all. You do realize due to student loan debts accrued by legal citizens, they have less money to spend on other things?
Well, it would be just one justice... It would depend a lot on the case. In any case I do get the impression this is being made into a way bigger issue than what it is. I am very surprised how this seems to work though. You get justices interpreting the constitution... however the interpretation itself is fairly... liberal. I can't fathom any of the people who wrote the constitution not viewing each and every civil rights related issue since then as objectively abhorrent (from slavery to gay marriage). If anything it would have been weird that any of these things would even register.
Based on? Any proof or evidence of this? What job has a loan repayment program? And how many people get jobs in relevant fields? From what I know based on the people I've talked with, that claim is BS, and that it's very hard to find jobs in their field and pay back loans.
Well, it would be just one justice... It would depend a lot on the case. In any case I do get the impression this is being made into a way bigger issue than what it is. I am very surprised how this seems to work though. You get justices interpreting the constitution... however the interpretation itself is fairly... liberal. I can't fathom any of the people who wrote the constitution not viewing each and every civil rights related issue since then as objectively abhorrent (from slavery to gay marriage). If anything it would have been weird that any of these things would even register.
One justice can still influence a lot of things, which is why a lot of women and homosexuals were happy Scalia died. He stood in the way of their rights and freedom and played a part in keeping America in the early 20th century.
Based on? Any proof or evidence of this? What job has a loan repayment program? And how many people get jobs in relevant fields? From what I know based on the people I've talked with, that claim is BS, and that it's very hard to find jobs in their field and pay back loans.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
One justice can still influence a lot of things, which is why a lot of women and homosexuals were happy Scalia died. He stood in the way of their rights and freedom and played a part in keeping America in the early 20th century.
There's tons of jobs available for people in fields like science technology and mathematics and engineering. Are you talking to people studying stone bench making, womens studies, ancient roman art or other irrelevant fields?
One justice can still influence a lot of things, which is why a lot of women and homosexuals were happy Scalia died. He stood in the way of their rights and freedom and played a part in keeping America in the early 20th century.
Within what either side of the debate cares for, whether the new justice is liberal or conservative, the situation is not terrible. For one thing, conservatives are fighting a loosing battle. The court already has a liberal leaning so to speak. With scalia gone there are two possibilities. Either they pic a conservative or a liberal. If they pick a conservative then the court would stay more or less as it is. Otherwise it becomes more liberal. So... the best case scenario for conservatives at the moment is for things to remain as they are, in which case they are still fighting a loosing battle. In context it is very unlikely the country is going to regress regardless of who the pick is. It might not advance as fast regarding some issues which is not ideal but overall they will be still be able to advance.
