TakeYouToTasker Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Maybe we could try to figure out the causes of people killing people, guns aside. And work to prevent it.I don't know that preventing human nature is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I don't know that preventing human nature is possible. Clearly you have never been to Room #101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I don't know that preventing human nature is possible. Personally, I think there are warning signs for some of these killers with mental issues. I suppose a lot of them are more readily apparent in hindsight. I'm definitely still in favor of being able to prevent it on sight with a citizen carrying a weapon of their own, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 In what world do you think gun control WILL stop gun violence? Well consider that in his world Khameini is a true leader and Jerry Sandusky is the victim of money hungry children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Personally, I think there are warning signs for some of these killers with mental issues. I suppose a lot of them are more readily apparent in hindsight. I'm definitely still in favor of being able to prevent it on sight with a citizen carrying a weapon of their own, though. Funny that the right wing nit wits who claim gun control advocates offer no practical solution, instead advocate incarcerating individuals with early warning signs. Like what people would that be ? What screening process takes place? How about obtaining a warrant? Any idea the infrastructure involved with this? When do they get out? If all the people who fit the profile of the killers since columbine were targeted how many would that be? Who gets to decide who's incarcerated? For example I'm very concerned a nitwit like tasker who supports vague theories, which he bends based based on his biases, is paranoid of the government, thinks police are murderous tools of the state, is easily frustrated, and has a gun fetish...has access to guns. Is that enough to arrest him? Should it be? Edited September 19, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Clearly you have never been to Room #101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Funny that the right wing nit wits who claim gun control advocates offer no practical solution, instead advocate incarcerating individuals with early warning signs. Like what people would that be ? What screening process takes place? How about obtaining a warrant? Any idea the infrastructure involved with this? When do they get out? If all the people who fit the profile of the killers since columbine were targeted how many would that be? Who gets to decide who's incarcerated? For example I'm very concerned a nitwit like tasker who supports vague theories, which he bends based based on his biases, is paranoid of the government, thinks police are murderous tools of the state, is easily frustrated, and has a gun fetish...has access to guns. Is that enough to arrest him? Should it be? You argue against what you previously argued for? You are not only an idiot but a disingenuous idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) You argue against what you previously argued for? You are not only an idiot but a disingenuous idiot. I'm getting rid of guns across the board. They're arguing for the selective and pre-emptive ridding of people who can have guns. So what's your specific plan for achieving the latter? Edited September 19, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 here's my take, other than Trump or Paul I'd throw the rest of them out. Rubio is totally FOS and just says stuff matter-of-factly that are completely false like gun control won't stop gun violence, or cutting carbon ommisions won't stop global warming. Fiorina talks up stuff like rebuilding the military (as it if needs it since we still spend more than the rest of the world combined). And she offers no plan for how a country that's almost $20 trillion in debt can afford it. Cruz is just scary ... paranoid, militant, creepy, uninformed, incompetent Jeb, Hucklebee, and the rest are pretty much old white dudes trying to hang on to an audience they decreasingly connect with. You can tell their stale jokes about their wives may work at the country club, which isnt where most voters hang out. Trump I like that he's a successful businessman and delegater. His style will be most close to Reagan's. He's a lot more fair, practical and informed than most up there, and certainly more than he credits for. But it's revealed in sublter ways many won't pick up on like saying he will make friends with Putin and work things out, while the rest are too busy totally demonizing him. He also said the Kurds are getting a raw deal, and they most certainly are .... gassed by Saddam when US was his buddy, attacked by ISIS, and then Turkey too after they had success repelling ISIS. How many others up there have enough humanity to even consider the plight of the Kurds? Paul's overall philosiphy of non-intervention and individual freedom has the most appeal. And on the constitution he's the most informed. Just don't think there's much chance he makes it thru the primaries with all war mongering big money donors supporting that party. How about describing a plausible scenario where one of these supposed carbon reduction plans makes a significant impact? I've been asking that question on this board from years and all I get are crickets (actually, I think Lybob once at least tried to answer the question in a non-retarded fashion once, but that's it). If it's so obvious how about giving a brief explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I'm getting rid of guns across the board. They're arguing for the selective and pre-emptive ridding of people who can have guns. So what's your specific plan for achieving the latter? Hell with his plan. I want to hear yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Hell with his plan. I want to hear yours. I suspect his plan is similar to most gun control freaks: Phase I: Pass a Gun Control bill (details are irrelevant) Phase II: Phase III: Peace In Our Time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 I suspect his plan is similar to most gun control freaks: Phase I: Pass a Gun Control bill (details are irrelevant) Phase II: Phase III: Peace In Our Time I'm guessing Joe's plan is a bit more murdery. Probably something along the lines criminalize all ownership, suspend habeas corpus, and do door to door searches of all private property in the country, killing anyone who resists seizing all of their property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 19, 2015 Author Share Posted September 19, 2015 I'm guessing Joe's plan is a bit more murdery. Probably something along the lines criminalize all ownership, suspend habeas corpus, and do door to door searches of all private property in the country, killing anyone who resists seizing all of their property. Simple. He'll just omit them. You know, like carbon can be omitted. We're carbon based life forms after all. So I guess it could make sense.… if you're a !@#$ing knit wit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Seven Storylines to Watch at Tonight’s GOP Debate Fourteen candidates will gather at the University of Colorado in Boulder tonight for the third pair of Republican presidential debates, with fewer than 100 days remaining until the Iowa caucuses. The candidates once again will be divided into heats by polling average, with four participating in CNBC’s undercard contest at 6 p.m. and the remaining ten taking the stage for the prime-time event at 8 p.m. Here are seven storylines to watch:Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426155/gop-presidential-debate-cnbc-preview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Seven Storylines to Watch at Tonight’s GOP Debate Fourteen candidates will gather at the University of Colorado in Boulder tonight for the third pair of Republican presidential debates, with fewer than 100 days remaining until the Iowa caucuses. The candidates once again will be divided into heats by polling average, with four participating in CNBC’s undercard contest at 6 p.m. and the remaining ten taking the stage for the prime-time event at 8 p.m. Here are seven storylines to watch: Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426155/gop-presidential-debate-cnbc-preview So far, the only coverage I've seen or heard of tonight's debates is about Hillary's role in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 CNBC’S JOHN HARWOOD HAS NO BUSINESS MODERATING A GOP PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, Mollie Hemingway writes at the Federalist: Harwood works for both CNBC and The New York Times. You can get something of a feel for his predictable but conventional liberal takes from the headlines of just his most recent pieces: On the Economy, Republicans Have a Data Problem Tax Plans of G.O.P. Favor the Rich Despite Populist Talk Timing Gives Sanders a Lift in His Quest Republicans Vow to Erase Obama’s Record, but Such Promises Are Rarely Kept Outsiders Stir Politics, but Often Fail to Win or Govern Well Angry Bent of Party Let Trump Rise Bernie Sanders: A Revolution With an Eye on the Hungry Children There’s little doubt he’s a hard left Democrat operative with a byline, and in theory at least, this is supposed to be a debate aimed at Republican primary voters. But it will certainly be good practice for the GOP candidates — whoever goes on to win the nomination will very likely find his or her debates against Hillary moderated by nothing but the likes of Harwood, Gwen Ifill, and the successor to Candy Crowley. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/217464/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 Will Jindal, Pataki, Graham, and Sanctimonious please just go away? Ugh! They don't have a prayer of breaking through. I'd like to see at least a 5% point poll average to qualify for the next debate - whenever that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 CNBC’S JOHN HARWOOD HAS NO BUSINESS MODERATING A GOP PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, Mollie Hemingway writes at the Federalist: Harwood works for both CNBC and The New York Times. You can get something of a feel for his predictable but conventional liberal takes from the headlines of just his most recent pieces: On the Economy, Republicans Have a Data Problem Tax Plans of G.O.P. Favor the Rich Despite Populist Talk Timing Gives Sanders a Lift in His Quest Republicans Vow to Erase Obama’s Record, but Such Promises Are Rarely Kept Outsiders Stir Politics, but Often Fail to Win or Govern Well Angry Bent of Party Let Trump Rise Bernie Sanders: A Revolution With an Eye on the Hungry Children There’s little doubt he’s a hard left Democrat operative with a byline, and in theory at least, this is supposed to be a debate aimed at Republican primary voters. But it will certainly be good practice for the GOP candidates — whoever goes on to win the nomination will very likely find his or her debates against Hillary moderated by nothing but the likes of Harwood, Gwen Ifill, and the successor to Candy Crowley. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/217464/ That's OK. It gives the candidates a chance to address the failings of liberalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) What a shame.......................this is not a candidate debate..... It is a moderator vs. Candidate debate. Constant interrupting ( and correction) by the neutral moderators That first question set the tone. Would they ask Hillary to criticize herself and point out her weaknesses? Nope. Why would a candidate want to do that? Christie turned it around on them. Good for him. Time to switch to Royals/Mets . Edited October 29, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Cheap shot question on Rubio. Would love to see liberals questioned by moderators with the same level of vigor Some of these moderator questions are ridiculous. Hack jobs At least trump just called out the stupid questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts