dayman

Like I said in the post....w/ their own internal polls

Of course you have to poll as a campaign it's all you have to go on. I just don't think they're very accurate and in the context of the media citing this poll and that poll it's meaningless. If I were to really get a feel for the campaign I would look at money (which I know comes from the campaign poll anyway). If Obama is dumping money into Ohio it means it's close and he needs it. If no money is going into Alabama it means it's in the bag for Romney. Etc. Obviously swing states get money either way and other states don't so it's not exactly a science but all in all there just is no way to really know with any meaningful certainty. The best way for the common man to get a feel for things is to look at what is on TV...and all that will tell you is the swing states are close and the rest is not.

The polls are pretty retarded IMO. Whether they favor Romney or Obama they mean nothing.

It will come down to the debates and even more likely it will come down to what a few million people in swing states decide to do a few days before they go punch their ballot. I still think that toss up favors Obama but that's pure opinion. Romney could surprise me in the debates. And the independents voting the incumbent out IMO is nothing to rely on for Romney this go around but once again that is just my opinion historical analysis would disagree w/ me. All in all at this moment in time I would put it at 51% Obama, 49% Romney. And that's come straight out of my ass into your eyes and brain.

Fine by me. It still wouldn't prevent SuperPACs but I guess they would be less "powerful" and necessary. In any event, disclosure if the only remedy the constitution will allow w/ out an amendment. The democrats should have worked with McCain on teh Disclose Act and got the thing passed.

Ya Citizens United was 2010. The legislature actually and finally tried to reform some of the finance laws and failed in court. Hence, more attention. Not to mention more money than ever on both sides. Regardless of who is president in the future they now have to campaign and raise a billion dollars taking time away....and whoever is challenging has to do that same so it's bad for them (although they don't have to balance it with being President). I costs too much money to run for office these days. That's a problem. Mo money, nothing can be done about it = media attention.

You heard peeps from liberals and conservatives alike both before and after that ruling. Money in politics is a new thing people don't like? That's a ridiculous thing to say.

What's funny is the grey beard was doing the interviewing...and the guy being interviewed was talking about the industry changing itself anyway...something that is happening regardless of the ACA the ACA provisions just get Medicare in the game. So if by dorky commies w/ grey beards you mean dorky capitalists w/ clean shaves I guess you are right.

LOL. Stop going on retarded rants. Patrol cops in most jurisdictions don't carry them. That's just a fact. Obviously the department has them, and issues them to certain officers for use in certain situations. I'm glad you think of yourself as a semi-auto owning man under attack just trying to out arm the criminal syndicate who get limitless weapons direct from Russia (and there's nothing we can do about it lol). And I'm glad you would get into a knife fight with a retarded bum for $8. Congrats on your manhood. We'll just have disagree that there's nothing America can do to keep unreasonably deadly weapons off the streets. It's pretty obvious to me that we don't need ridiculous guns for sale at your neighborhood yahoo factory. I suppose I can understand why you feel the way you do...if I look at it from the premise that you think there are mobs of criminals ready to attack your home with automatic weapons...I don't think there are for me...and everyone I know that carries a gun isn't walking around with a semi-auto ready to get in an arms race with the Russians anyway so it won't help anyone in public. Either way I could care less about your opinion so stop posting like such a maniac. I get it. You want everyone to have the most firepower possible. It's a retarded position. But you can take it if you want.

Depending on the state you live in the law will vary but a whole different aspect of some of our inefficiencies are nursing laws. I only bring it up b/c it is tangentially related to the supply demand argument in some states. In a lot of states the nurses are allowed to do so little that PCPs cannot allocate very much of their time practicing at the "top of their license" which would help address some of these concerns.

I'm a free man it's my right. Actually it may be my states right IDK but either way go **** yourself crying lib

I see the flaw. The coolest part about being libertarian now is the world is my oyster. It's like a giant debate club w/ unknowable facts that nobody can agree on and people with different priorities and life experiences/outlooks but I have this magic formula I can just apply to anything. I really don't need to do much thinking to get in the game about how I see any situation, I don't have to think about conflicting facts and I don't even have to be perceived as taking a mainstream candidate's side who will inevitably disappoint me. Just take in whatever is being said in real time, process the formula, and come out right every single damn time. It's awesome.

As a libertarian I think sound monetary policy would enable us all to buy our own gas masks b/c we'll all be rich. Gas away mad man. I laughing my ass off. It is more difficult to drink beer now but soon the market will allocate resources to this problem and I'll be drunk and safe as money can buy

Oh wait I think I just clicked back. My reign as libertarian on weapons is over it's probably not a good idea to have chemical weapons. I think they can kill too many people too easily and create mass murder every few years at least. Not just murder but ya know, like mass murder. There is the second amendment though. So I guess it's reasonable to just see it as a line drawing problem. But in any event firing off 100+ rounds a minute is clearly on the good side of that line. I would put the line at 1000 bullets a minute. Or maybe all bullets are fine and just explosions. IDK it's heady stuff. Is the question what do I need to protect myself or what do I need to overthrow my government? I may need Doctor Evil powers to make the US government kneel ... so I may actually need nukes. Oh **** I'm back to libertarian. God it feel good to understand freedom. Although I must admit, I feel like a prisoner in my own country now. Sucks. Wish I was stupid again, I could just embrace the tender hold of Obama keeping me from my nuclear arms. I'll have to settle for heavy armor and an AR-15 and a few of my most rowdy buddies I guess. Live free or die.

You guys have a child daycare bullying epidemic?

We should legalize all weapons. It's the responsibility of the owner to make sure their chemical weapon is for recreational gassing only. People kill people. I think I get it now. Freedom is amazing.

About time some people are with me. I mean wake up for God's sake! I mean have you seen Huma? At least Grover Norquist was fairly well hidden but now it's like they don't even try. I'll be damned if these Muslims infiltrate our government Bachmann is all we have between us a nuclear Holocaust. At least I can sleep a little tighter knowing I have someone like Bachmann looking out for me, and America...they're ever where. We need to bring this to the light. It's time to shake down this nation and root out these Muslim extremists. Hollywood. Congress. In the ear of Hillary for God's sake! Something has to be done and it will take a strong person with a sharp mind and a little something our society used to call "will power" to do this. Thank you Ms. Bachmann. I feel a little safer in this crazy world knowing this epidemic is not going unnoticed and a good patriotic Christian woman such as yourself is looking out for me.

Whatever the law would define it as. You can debate what's fair and not I don't care. Just look up the old law for one although IMO could easily go tougher.

I have to accept that evil exists? Ok. Fine. No arguments there. LOL. Stop assuming I justify every behavior just b/c you think that's what anyone that isn't voting Romney does. What I don't have to accept is that deranged people can easily get weapons that shoot 100 rounds a minute. POLICE don't use these weapons b/c they're too dangerous. We don't need people buying military grade weapons. Gun purchases have dropped, so the industry needs to sell more guns and more expensive guns and expand the market to more heavy guns to a smaller group of people. I don't care about hand guns. I care about mass killing machines that can turn evil into "super-evil" very easily. I don't think we're going to stop super evil either...but we can make semi-automatic weapons and large capacity ammo mags a bad thing and that will help. And as I've said earlier...if you have a gun and a concealed permit for protection you still aren't going to be equal to crazy people with that kind of heat. It's called common sense. It has nothing to do with "gun rights." It's not "naive" to say "these guns are bad and used for 1 thing only." It's logic. And btw I have been mugged. When I was 20 some Chicago bum pulled a knife on me and wanted my cash. Since he clearly picked the wrong guy to mug, he got the $8 I had on me w/ out a fight. That has nothing to do with guns. But since you asked. I guess I looked "evil" in the face outside the red line downtown and paid it $8 to go away. lol There's no reason people need to able to legally buy guns that can easily shoot a ton of people in minutes. It's just common sense. Sensible gun regulation is not bad. Get with the program.

Jboys I here they stab people for that kind of talk in NC I would be careful.

You two will never agree. But could you agree on some policy that would address part of both your concerns? Federal trafficking law preventing straw purchasers from buying insane guns and selling them to Mexican mafia nuts allowing our agencies to actually do something? Mandatory background checks every time a gun is sold? Nothing a cop won't carry? Keep the guns for safety and sport, cut down on the ability of people to be lethal on a massive level, and stop people buying and selling guns like they are a used television? Would that be something both of you would oppose right now, today, as progress?

Damn Joe type much? A little advice, you aren't going to change the mind of posters on an anonymous message board. We're all experts here and we all have the answers. We don't need to be told about opposing views to issues that experts debate and disagree over such as reforming healthcare, guns, the economy, war/foreign policy, climate change, regulation of wall street and the environment. We're all right here. And don't make the mistake of trying to convince anyone otherwise. And also, don't make the mistake of thinking you are discussing anything with anybody. We're all correct, there's nothing to discuss. We're just here to bash people who are wrong.

It's not really about a federal policy taking away gun though. That will never happen. It's about saying there's always a background check, there's always procedures, and no you cannot have military style assault weapons. Isn't that really the discussion? Every times guns come up it gets warped away from gun regulation. Every time gun regulation happens the lobby makes it about a slippery slope to taking the people's constitutional rights away. What we can ask for, not a knee-jerk reaction...as a policy a lot of people have felt all along that comes to the front of the conversation when these frequent mass murders happen...is that we get background checks on all sales and only guns that reasonably are used for hunting and protection are sold. And we can debate what is protection...to me I don't see why we need guns superior to what patrol cops use being sold in stores but I'm no expert...but the issue isn't guns. It's gun control. Nobody with a pistol in their belt was going to be equal to this guy anyway. Their argument should be to bring that guy down to their level if they really want to be able to protect themselves. We're not going to all carry AR-15 and thousands of rounds.

On certain weapons the solution just seems obvious. I wouldn't call it a knee jerk reaction though. I've felt this way ... basically for 10 years. The fact that a shooting happening brings it to the forefront doesn't make a reaction it just brings it up...again. And again. These aren't shocking. Nobody in their right mind can with a straight face say they are "shcoked" this happens. It happens every 2ish years. It isn't surprising that "something like happens" IMO. And usually when the body count and wounded count is real high...they're using a gun that is straight up retarded and should be banned. If it's enough for a cop, it's enough for the Constitution IMO. I don't really know guns but I know the ease of reloading is something that a lot of laws in different states use to classify. The rounds it can hold and how quickly you can reload. This guy wasn't using something that was a huge hassle to reload that would be my guess.

Assuming that is true, make him work for it then. Make him go to the black market. Make it tougher. If someone was armed in the theater they were certainly not going to be equal to this guy. This guy bought 4 guns fairly recently if reports can be trusted including an assault rifle. The argument is not that we can remove all mass murder w/ guns, or that there aren't a million ways to murder a lot of people w/ out guns...it's simply that one clear thing that we can do is make it more difficult to buy large quantities of extremely dangerous guns (potentially w/ out background checks...for what they're worth) that nobody "packing" is carrying around w/ a concealed license anyway. As I think about it I can't help but come back and say "If it's too heavy for police policy to have a street cop carry it, then why do we need them sold in a gun show w/ no background check or even in a store w/ a check?" I just don't understand why the Constitution is used to justify some of the weapons used in these mass murders. These things aren't for protection. They aren't for hunting. They are for shooting other people. Am I wrong?