birdog1960

if you like the new apple ad and play guitar or uke here's a little christmas gift to entertain you and yours. Merry Christmas everyone:

oh ,wow! far out, man! i'd almost forgot about commander tom.

you've never met many avid gun "sportsmen" have you?

wrapping presents while arguing politics and listening to good music. great way to spend Christmas eve before really celebrating at church. and i really like your quote at the bottom of your page. couple of posters come immediately to mind. the goal posts moved because of the election (which wasn't even close). progressives need the right to acknowledge this and they haven't sufficiently done that. unfortunately, i doubt they will.

not that it will ever matter, but out of curiosity, which of these do you disagree with? i could partly concede the first. the rest; not so much.

you don't say: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83429.html. 60%, roughly the same percentage that voted for him.

obama won the election and repeatedly stated his stance (in absolute juxtaposition to mitt's plans) on increasing taxes on those making over $250k. he has a mandate.

so what would you estimate the cost of the wars to be (excluding of course the lives ruined)? less than a trillion ?(for those who have trouble with huge numbers = 1000 billion and again boehner and obama and their factions are fighting and risking a recession over 500 billion or so).

that was my guess too. not holding you to anything, obviously. none of us know except maybe some of the most tied in pols.

agreed...welcome back magox. can we trade tasker for you? aren't you out of the investment biz now. what's your guess on what this does to the markets if were both right here?

it's money already spent. the true cost of the wars. i say that's relevant especially since we're likely to go over the fiscal cliff over several 100 billion dollars which is dwarfed by the 2 trillion or so already spent on the wars which bought us what exactly? my point on the uninsured is the obscenity of our national priorities not that we should have borrowed money for that in a vacuum....

$3.7 trillon. a reply with only one word and many numbers.

and are the armed school guards meant to be carrying rifles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest? cuz the future killers likely will. who is at more risk for their body armor to fail? the bad guys or the good guys?

so are you against the gov't monitoring for large, suspicious sales of fertilizer and other suspicious materials? or does that infringe too much on your personal rights? where is your balance point for the collective good outweighing the individuals rights?

are you blind or do you just not choose to see? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629. 3.7 trillion and that was last spring. could have paid for medical care for all of the uninsured for many years with the money going to businesses that produce something other than arms or mercenary armies. and i get the reference in the cartoon that by sticking to his guns (pun intended), obama is walking away from american families. nothing could be further from the truth.

small arms in the hands of either side in the syrian war are not going to decide who wins. the superpower leaders will decide if and when assad goes. and the guns won't bring back any of the dead in the bakery or soildiers forced at gunpoint to enlist in and later kia'ed killing their own kin in assads army. they're all pawns as are nongun dealer nra members and/or people that believe they can protect themselves from the perceived threat of the gov't by a guncase full of ar-15's. you're being played and you don't even know it.

at the risk of being labelled a ball washer, you got that right: https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/04/13-2

one of the killers at columbine was shot at by one of the good guys ( a sheriffs deputy) in a parking lot. did not work. he missed.

ya think maybe a few people on both sides carry guns in syria?

and why is that? does the military think it dangerous for folks well trained with firearms and gun safety to possess them unsupervised?

yup. that's what your argument is reduced to by logic.

so, few on a military base have personal or military supplied weapons available? i ask cuz i really don't know. lapierre made a fool of himself on meet the press. just saw it. he's just lost most of the rest of the american public's support for nra.

by your and lapierre's logic we should now make bombs legal since laws against them didn't work in this instance.

they didn't do it in colorado, did they. and i'm not at all surprised by your absolutist take...we can't stop all terrible events with this intervention (gun control) so it shouldn't be considered. but more guns? that wont prevent them all either but that's where we should go...

um....yes it is. especially if you are a parent of one of the children spared. 5-10 killed is better than 20.