Rod, there are no cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. There was no blaming the mentally ill, simply pointing out that has been a root cause of the mass killings. It is true we haven’t done enough to address this. I can’t think of anything Obama or Trump has done to prioritize this. I was hoping for a more reasoned and thoughtful response rather than your usual rant.
GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
- Status
And I expected more than just a “word for word” recitation of the gun lobby’s position, which essentially compares various types of gun deaths (mass shootings, homicides and suicides) as well as abortion in order to set off a smoke screen and put the public into a vegetative state until the next mass murder.
No Medicare or Medicaid cuts YET. If you didn’t know, then I apologize for not explaining. The actual Republican playbook is/was to cut taxes for the rich donor class and corporations in 2017 and then in 2018, Paul Ryan and the Republicans want to cut welfare, Medicaid and Medicare.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nges-to-welfare-medicare-and-social-security/
If it were up to Obama and Democrats, then we would have some sort of legislation helping the mentally ill. But the Republicans have been trying to repeal Obamacare for 8 years and instead we’re adding $1.5 Trillion to the national debt to finance tax cuts for the rich donor class.
The mass killings of children and adults takes place in our country far more often than other developed counties and the root cause and only difference between our country and other countries is the easy access to guns and assault weaponry. All countries have mentally ill, but AFAIK, only the US for instance allows teenagers to buy assault weapons.
I too was hoping for a more reasoned and thoughtful response from you. Not more NRA “Jedi Mind Tricks.” Simply tired of the same arguments being forwarded every time we have a mass killing.
As for our illegitimate president, well, I’m on record agreeing with Rex Tillerson’s assessment of the “man.”
BTW, I’m totally fine with you reading my words and calling them a “rant.” But I read your post and think “manifesto.”
Finally, I find your reference to a 2004 Federal study a bit strange/ironic, since our government does not deem gun violence to be a public health concern worth researching. There’s essentially been a Federal ban on gun violence research for the last 22 years. The NRA won’t allow it.
CDC Scientists Plea to Congress: Let Us Research Gun Violence - Union of Concerned Scientists
Lift the federal ban on gun violence research. | New Republic
Let’s not forget, or lose sight, another day and another guilty plea of a Dutch lawyer married to a Russian billionaire.
Dutch lawyer pleads guilty to lying about interaction with Rick Gates - CNNPolitics
Just another step towards the impeachment or resignation of the guy who likes taking cheeseburgers to bed. :toilet:
Dutch lawyer pleads guilty to lying about interaction with Rick Gates - CNNPolitics
Just another step towards the impeachment or resignation of the guy who likes taking cheeseburgers to bed. :toilet:
Pat
Supporter
Rod, perhaps you would enjoy reading the research of the National Academies of Science (NAS). I've also provide some research from the CDC which seem to fly in the face of your assertion that gun violence research is "banned". It somehow escaped the "Federal Ban" to which you refer. (I wonder when the Trump Administration is going to round up the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research who are openly conducting "banned research".)
But if your assertion was correct, why did the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled super majority in congress ban it as well?
If in fact the "ban" to which you refer is the "Dickey Amendment" of your New Republic article; it actually does not ban research but the requires the CDC not become an advocacy or lobbying group. It was signed into law by (gasp!) Bill Clinton...
You see the lobbying activities of federal agencies are governed by the Anti-Lobbying Act (18 USC Section 1913, originally enacted in 1919). The purpose of the Act is to prevent agencies, acting through their employees or SGEs, from using appropriated funds, or resources secured with appropriated funds, to lobby any federal, state, or local government official with respect to any pending or proposed legislation, resolution, appropriation, or measure.
But I digress... for your reading pleasure here's some (according to you) "banned" research on the subject from the CDC.
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press
http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf
Firearm-Related Violence
As for "why does it matter" in response to my observation that you were never in the military, given some of your postings, I'm not sure you could get your hear around the answer.
Sadly, it looks to me that the paddock has become political theater more than anything else so perhaps it really doesn't matter. While the hysteria continues, at least the name calling has somewhat subsided since Randy and Keith's intervention.
Last edited:
Just another nail in the coffin of Trump the Coward, Rod.
In the end, the buck stops at the desk of the POTUS, so he has to assume responsibility (not that he ever will, he only wants to accept comments that glorify himself).
I am SO PROUD of those kids for not just accepting the inadequate action by our POTUS. They know that there is room for dissent and are voicing their disappointment with the actions of our government, and specifically with the INaction of our POTUS. He's giving lip service to the issue now, but IMHO it's too little, too late, and it's obvious that I'm not the only one who believes that.
Change will come, it's inevitable...just as change was inevitable during the 60's and 70's when the anti-war protesters were active. If that change must come through impeachment, so be it.
Doug
In the end, the buck stops at the desk of the POTUS, so he has to assume responsibility (not that he ever will, he only wants to accept comments that glorify himself).
I am SO PROUD of those kids for not just accepting the inadequate action by our POTUS. They know that there is room for dissent and are voicing their disappointment with the actions of our government, and specifically with the INaction of our POTUS. He's giving lip service to the issue now, but IMHO it's too little, too late, and it's obvious that I'm not the only one who believes that.
Change will come, it's inevitable...just as change was inevitable during the 60's and 70's when the anti-war protesters were active. If that change must come through impeachment, so be it.
Doug
Doug, I get that you don't like Trump, the name calling does seem a bit adolescent though. As for not doing anything about the "issue", Obama did nothing about the "issue" for 8 years and gave never ending "lip service" to it. When Clinton was going through his troubles, I hoped for it to end because it was bad for the country. While I don't see anything happening to Trump in the long run, I don't think getting a BJ in the oval office was a brilliant thing to do either. There is a minimum of 3 years left for Trump, impeachment that you hope for, to the determent of this country is not going to happen. All this "coward" and "moron" stuff is childish and getting old. If you don't respect Trump, at least respect the office.
I love your last two paragraphs.
On the one hand, you state I "can't get my head around the answer," which I qand most people would perceive an insult, and then you applaud the fact that the name calling has subsided. Nice juxtaposition!
You're trying to define me by asking me if I served in the military. And I suppose only men and women who serve in the military can get their "head around the answer," to which I call BS.
BTW, our illegitimate president didn't serve in the military and now he's calling for a ban of bump stocks and universal background checks. For the moment, he's gotten "his head around the answer" and he conveniently got/had bone spurs to avoid serving in the military.
As for the Dickey Amendment, regardless of who signed the bill, we have the "law of intended consequences."
According to a recent Politico article: Dickey, who died last year, had expressed regret for the amendment and said in a 2016 open letter that “funding for research into gun-violence prevention should be dramatically increased.”
Rubio calls for firearm task force
Are you saying Obama didn't want more gun regulation? I find that laughable. :laugh:
You can't have a serious gun regulation discussion here, because the gun lobby's "Jedi Mind Tricks" and manifesto gets put forth as a defense.
Personally, I'd rather talk about our illegitimate president who will not respond to a Russian attack on our elections and will not impose the sanctions overwhelmingly approved by Congress.
Time for impeachment!
Doug, the name calling is OK with me.
His own Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson called our illegitimate president a "moron" and/or a "F'ing Moron." It's right there in the news.
And from the
According to the Wolff book, our illegitimate president was called as follows:
“For Steve Mnuchin and Reince Priebus, he was an ‘idiot.’
For Gary Cohn, he was ‘dumb as $hit.’
For H.R. McMaster he was a ‘dope.’ The list went on.”
Trump Team's Many Insults for the President Included 'Dumb' and a 'Dope,' Claims New Book
So, really Doug is just using various alternative words for names that his own advisors call him.
His own Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson called our illegitimate president a "moron" and/or a "F'ing Moron." It's right there in the news.
And from the
According to the Wolff book, our illegitimate president was called as follows:
“For Steve Mnuchin and Reince Priebus, he was an ‘idiot.’
For Gary Cohn, he was ‘dumb as $hit.’
For H.R. McMaster he was a ‘dope.’ The list went on.”
Trump Team's Many Insults for the President Included 'Dumb' and a 'Dope,' Claims New Book
So, really Doug is just using various alternative words for names that his own advisors call him.
Does it bother you when Trump calls others names, Al?
Just a couple of examples:
“Little Marco”
“Crooked Hillary”
It should if my use of derogatory language disturbs you.
Trump IS a coward, IMO. I have never known of any other POTUS who so actively evades the legitimate questions asked of him...and his usual “Thank you very much. Thank you very much.” reply cannot be interpreted as anything other than evasive. Shame on him.
If it bothers you, I can quit, but I refuse to do so unless you acknowledge the cowardly manner in which Trump evades questions if the answer will not glorify himself. Take your pick, Al.
None of this will change the fact that he is the absolute worst president our country has ever had. You have asked in the past if I want him to fail and my answer has always been that I do not; however, I must admit that as his transgressions increase it causes me to reconsider.
As for impeachment, Clinton and M.L. engaged in a consensual act. It was, undoubtedly, a bad choice to do so in the oval office, but THAT was not illegal. Lying to congress was and they tried to impeach him for that act.
How many truly illegal or prohibited acts has Trump committed, though?
Nepotism.
Allowing individuals without the REQUIRED security clearances access to classified information.
Collusion with the Russians? We’ll know about that one soon enough, that is unless Trump commits yet another cowardly act and dismisses/fires Mueller.
The list goes on and on, but why belabor the point?
He’s gotta go, Al...it IS what is best for our country...IMHO, of course.
Let me know here on this thread, please, what your decision is regarding the issue of my use of the language you think is adolescent.
Thanks, Al!
Cheers!
Doug
Last edited:
Well. Hilary was and is crooked, and "Little Marco" was used to throw Rubio off his game, which worked. Referring to Rubio's shortish stature while I don't find it appropriate is not the same as coward or moron, that I find below you, and adolescent. He's not going anywhere, give me your thoughts in 3 years. What would you think of your daughter at 21, kneeling in front of of a 48 year old President, giving him a blowjob in the Oval Office? Would you think it was consensual, or would you be totally enraged and feel that she was taken advantage of? Truthfully!
You know what, Al? I raised holy hell with RodKnock when he asked when your daughter would be available for Trump to "...grab 'em by the p***y". And now you have the gall to ask me a question like the one above. I won't dignify it with a response, it is a truly reprehensible question.
Shame on you, Al...your double standard has started to reveal the truly depraved nature of your psyche.
Since you won't acknowledge what I asked you to do, your choice is evident. I'll continue to call our POTUS "Trump the Coward" and you can think of me as adolescent all you want.
Doug
Doug, I am all for a debate on these important issues but please desist the inflammatory language. You should not expect a reasonable response if you continue to deploy that kind of rhetoric. My advice: If you think you have a good point, claim the moral high ground. You get my drift?
Keith, you know me well enough to know that I try to address everyone respectfully, often when they will not extend the same courtesy to me. I looked at the post you copied into your message, and other than calling Trump a coward, I fail to see where I have insulted any one.
Perhaps you chose the wrong post? I had a rather disappointing exchange with Al, but in none of my posts have I called one of our forum members any names. I respect my friends here on the forum and try to address them with respect.
With the thought that the Paddock is designed for this type of discussion, and even warns individuals to don their fire-suits due to the nature of our discussions, I respectfully ask you to be more specific about the issues you'd like for me to curtail.
Al's comment was as out of line as the one I referenced in my response and I take full responsibility for my response. In the absence of any further guidance, I'd expect that in the interest of fairness you'd administer the same admonishment to Al.
Thanks, Keith! You've always done the right thing and I really respect you for that. Good to see you posting again.
Doug
OK Doug. I couldn't wade through everything but I zero'd in on your T the C comment. It may be true it may be false but no-one will get past that in a sentence to anything significant you might want to say and that goes for anyone. You above all should know that as a teacher right?
That's childish playground stuff and we're all adults here, yes?
That's childish playground stuff and we're all adults here, yes?
I wasn't talking about "your" daughter, but your reaction says it all. I'm sorry if I offended you. My intent wasn't to hurt you but to get a response.
The only reason I said that was to bring home the fact that nearly every Lib thought it was consensual, but if it was their daughter it becomes disgusting and wrong. Sorry again, I was just proving a point.
I did acknowledge
"I don't find it appropriate it is not the same as coward or moron, that I find below you, and adolescent."
Your point is well taken, Keith!
Thank you for your diplomatic nature, it is greatly appreciated :thumbsup:
Cheers!
Doug
Pat
Supporter
Rod, when post comments like “I’d be in favor of raising the age to drink, smoke, vape, for gun ownership, military, etc. With the advent of drones and pilotless planes, “boots on the ground” isn’t as crucial as it used to be. Kids are too young and immature” it's pretty clear you're not exactly Sun Tzu.
Look at this video.
8 round fire mission - YouTube
Try to get your head around the fact it is one section, of one battery of battalion of one division (my old unit by the way). They can be called on to do this over and over and on call 24 hours a day. How many 30-40 year olds can do this? I had gun chiefs (the fellows in charge of the gun crew) that were 21-23 years old. The rest of the crews were much younger. Your answer is that they are "too young and immature" to be there.
Perhaps you're missing something.
How many drones would it take to do what they do in an hour? You can bomb all you want but who occupies the ground is the one that own it. That takes boots on the ground.
As for Mr. Trump, how's ISIS, (the Obama JAYVEE, team) doing since he changed the rules of engagement? Is IRAQ better off today than in 2015 when ISIS captured Ramadi and began the slaughter of it's civilian population. Seriously, can you get your head around that?
You're right, I'm not exactly Sun Tzu, but who is? Certainly no one here in this forum. However, I'm happy you're reading ancient Chinese philosophers. Good stuff.
I'll stick to my guns, 18-year olds are immature and maybe we should raise the age to join the military as well as the age for gun ownership.
And bottom line, the number of people in the military has been getting smaller for years because of technology. And I NEVER said we don't need ANY "boots on the ground." Just fewer.
How many 30-40 years old can load a shell into a Howitzer or whatever that thing is, turn a wheel (aim) and pull a trigger and the rest of boys and girls stand around and watch? :lol: You must be kidding right? The better question is how many 70+ year olds? IMO, your question is like asking how people does it take to screw in a light bulb. One!
I don't know what the heck you guys do each day, maybe sit on your butts, eat cheeseburgers and Doritos and down Coke's and Pepsi's, but some of us actually do REAL INTENSE exercise for 1-2 hours a day that would make most of you puke or die from a stroke or heart attack. In fact, at least some of military has recently begun following the same type of training that I've been doing for many years. I actually know of a lot of 30-70 year olds who could do the lightweight nonsense in that video.
- Status
