• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Don last won the day on February 9

Don had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Don

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday January 26

Recent Profile Visitors

5,778 profile views
  1. CNN: Sanders pledges raise for teachers LIVE UPDATES He pitches his 'day one' plan to Nevada voters at a town hall and says he will invest in education During a town hall hosted by CNN for Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigeig and Amy Klobuchar, I noticed 'crazy Bernie' is beginning to sound a lot like former president Obama. Promising to give people things and enact policy that by law, is out of his authority to accomplish if elected President of the United States in 2020... another one of those 'say anything promise them everything' tactics Democrats seem to be famous for apparently. First it was a promise to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour, something that Congress is usually in charge of and now saying he will increase the pay for teachers, something I don't believe even Congress has the authority to do, set the pay scales for public workers. Well, it is what it is... This election it appears the front running Democrat candidates are the ones who can claim to provide the most free stuff and financial increase to voters - even if they haven't quite figured out how to finance all of their promised freebies and increases.
  2. Kansan, nothing new here... I still remember (and posted about) when former president Obama took credit for withdrawing troops from Iraq when his predecessor (Bush II) already had the withdrawal timetable scheduled before he left office. Now the same president wants to try to take full credit for an economic and employment turnaround... Personally I'm willing to agree that some of what Obama did when he was in office did start to improve things for the nation, but then just like programs and policies that Obama expanded on before he was sworn in - like provisions of the Patriot Act, and authorizing the building of "cages" for immigrant children for example - president Trump also has had a hand in the improving employment and economic status of our nation building on some of those things Obama started and by repealing some of those things also initiated by the Obama administration. Just who's policies have had the greater effect? That may be the subject of some debate but as far as I'm concerned neither president can claim sole ownership of these improvements but varying opinions abound and here's one of those opinions - Washington Examiner: No, Obama doesn't deserve credit for Trump's economy It's the latest fad: Say that President Trump's economic record is actually less impressive than President Barack Obama's. Say that Trump is only benefiting from the policies that Obama spent eight years constructing. Unfortunately, for its proponents, the fad is false. Trump's economic record is manifestly superior to Obama's, and it's not even close. True, this doesn't seem so obvious at first glance. As an array of media outlets and pundits are pointing out, the last three years of Obama's presidency saw more new jobs created than the first three years of Trump's presidency. Trump's critics say that this is proof of Obama's superior economic stewardship. But not so fast. There are three major problems with this thesis. First off, as any serious economist will point out, it is far harder to create jobs in an economy with ever reducing slack. This is to say, an economy in which means of human and capital production are more fully engaged. It's one thing to create jobs right after a recession, but it's a very different thing to keep creating jobs when the economy is doing well.... Read the full article here:
  3. For some it is an uncomfortable reality that some find hard to deal with that First Amendment rights apply to everyone, even if you don't agree with their message and personally find it offensive... Saturday a group of about 100 white nationalist dressed in blue jackets with khaki hats, pants and white fact masks marched through Washington's National Mall without incidents of violence or arrests... Presumably since there were no incidents of violence, arrests or crowds of counter protesters most news media sources have largely given little attention to the march. As I've stated many times previously, I suspect if those who are doing no more than exercising their First Amendment rights aren't met with opposing counter protests that often seem to lead to violent confrontations and criminal activity (in essence if most people try to ignore them), these kinds of events will probably peacefully pass with little notice. Since there was no reported incidents of violence, no arrests made and most significantly no massive counter protest, again I find myself wondering if the despised factions like white nationalist, neo-Nazis, etal are really to blame for the instances of violence and destruction we sometimes see associated with those groups - or if it it the groups opposing them that act as a catalyst or even instigator for the violence and destruction associated with rallies like this? I am in no way attempting to defend the views, opinions or acts of aggression of repugnant racist groups on the alt-right, but I do recognize they have just as much right to "peaceably assemble" as any other group in this nation and unless and until that belief is recognized, even by those who oppose those group and their ideology there will continue to be the very real likelihood of violence, property damage and even injury and death when opposing groups clash. Just a few personal observations and commentary: They should not have been allowed to march "masked", but as there doesn't appear to be any DC law against protesters wearing masks, they didn't break any laws. If they did not have a permit to march, the DC police may have been able to declare the march an "illegal assembly". However since all they did was walk down the streets, by all reports not disrupting traffic, not blocking the doors to businesses, not destroying public or private property and not harassing anyone, I can see them making a charge of being denied their Constitutional rights if the police did try to disband or arrest them. Absent an opposing counter protest, there were no reported incidence of violence or arrests... and the march ended peacefully without incident. Reuters: Masked white nationalists march in Washington with police escort Police escorted masked members of a white nationalist group on a march through Washington’s National Mall on Saturday that Metropolitan Police said occurred without incident or arrests. More than 100 members of the Patriot Front, dressed in khaki pants and caps, blue jackets and white face masks, shouted “Reclaim America!” and “Life, liberty, victory!” video of the march showed. Video of Saturday’s march in Washington posted on the News2Share Facebook page showed occasional hecklers, but there appeared to be no organized counter-protest movement waiting for the Patriot Front as the group marched from the Lincoln Memorial to the U.S. Capitol grounds and later a nearby Wal-Mart parking garage. They were accompanied by dozens of police, some on bicycles, but it was unclear whether the group had obtained a permit for the march. A spokeswoman for District of Columbia Metropolitan Police said it had no record of a permit for the march. Capitol Police and the National Park Service could not immediately be reached for comment. The Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said that the “First Amendment demonstration was peaceful with no incidents or arrests.”
  4. The Democrats of the House knew even before they started their impeachment probe they would likely fail to remove the president from office without significant proof of "treason, bribery high crimes or misdemeanors" if they turned articles of impeachment over to the Senate. Yet despite failing to come up with any evidence of a qualifying criminal offense required by the Constitution the House Democrats none the less voted to impeach president Trump and forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate... Honestly what did they think would happen? Did they believe the Senate would attempt to continue the House investigation? - That's not the way it is supposed to work, the House is supposed to do the investigating and when/if they come up with an impeachable offense (again - "treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors") they call a vote of the House floor to impeach the president based on the crime(s) committed and THEN forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Not forward articles of impeachment to the Senate and expect them to continue the investigation in an attempt to gather more information or perhaps misconstrue the evidence they have with the questionable testimony of more "witnesses" It's my opinion this has been a dog and pony show from the beginning with the sole purpose of attempting to remove Donald Trump from the White House, by any means possible. Pelosi publicly accused president Trump of "extortion" and "bribery" when there was no actual evidence of his committing either and in fact he was never charged with either crime at the conclusion of the House's impeachment investigation. Schiff stood on the floor of the House and fabricated a conversation between president Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky later claiming it was just a "parody", but he attempted to use that parody to accuse the president of wrong doing, because in reality there was nothing in the April 21st phone call that even remotely resembled any kind of crime... but the House Democrats decided to pursue their attempt to impeach president Trump, even without any evidence of an actual impeachable crime and as a result it seems like they've actually improved the public's opinion of president Trump and diminished their own standing among some in the American public. In short they knew better, they knew they had no impeachable crime(s), they knew as it was presented it would likely fail in the Senate - but they did it anyway - and now appear to want to blame others, for once again failing. With apologies to our neighbors to the South...
  5. -snip- And of course those notables that she handily disposed of Agreed... If it was just about Trump, his policies, proposals and opinions, let her rip it up... But during the SOTU the president also recognized several people who gave their lives for our nation and our public safety along with other notable and honorable people, their names and histories were also on those paged Pelosi so callously and some say childishly tore up. Seems to me evidence of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has risen to new heights prompting those who without question do know better, should be able to contain their public displays of temperament and are looked to as representatives of their political faction now display their public dissatisfaction in questionable ways... The Democrats have already announced their so far failed attempts to impeach president Trump - will be an ongoing process. After numerous failed attempts already, years of focusing on trying to impeach president Trump while the nation and the people are in serious need of the kinds of legislative actions they were voted into office for, and unknown millions of taxpayer dollars spent on those failed attempts to delegitimize the 2016 presidential election... The Democrats have said they are going to give the nation and its people more of the same - or what will likely turn out to be more of the same.
  6. I think the problem the Democrats are having is their lack of cohesion when it comes to the party platform. Most of the people interviewed during the Iowa caucus said getting rid of Trump was their #1 priority... how does this best serve the nation or the people? What about DACA (DREAMERs) - Immigration - Health Care - Environmental Issues - Employment - the Economy - Housing - National Security - International Issues - Homelessness - Etc.? Most if not all of these issues seem to take a 'back seat' to the left's attempt to get rid of president Trump... NBC News: Iowa entrance poll: Most Dems care more about beating Trump than issues About two-thirds of voters participating in the caucuses said they would rather see the Democratic Party nominate a candidate who "can beat Donald Trump." And now with the Democrat's darlin', Joe Biden, having such a poor showing in Iowa (the rumor is the delay in releasing caucus results was to make sure Biden got at least 15% to remain viable in the 2020 presidential election) and Buttigieg appearing to get such a surprising, vote of support it seems just about everyone in the Democrat presidential race may be considering revising their own campaign tactics. Me, I think most people on the left don't trust Joe Biden... I mean really don't trust Biden on a level equal to or even surpassing president Trump. I also believe people are tired of the same ol' - same ol', seemingly ineffective "politics as usual" from Washington and are are looking for real "change". The kind of change that former president Obama promised - but wasn't quite able to deliver on a large scale for issues that effected most citizens, the kinds of change the president Trump seems to have had more success delivering for a majority of Americans, and Buttigieg just might be the third candidate who isn't a Washington insider, career politician and member of the good ol' Washington 'business as usual' gang who doesn't appear to be afraid of shaking up the Washington political status-quo. If Trump is defeated in the 2020 presidential elections, Pete Buttigieg just might be our next president. People should educate themselves on his published platform to try to determine what kind of national leader he might turn out to be if elected.
  7. ABC News: Iowa Democratic Party releases majority of caucus results Pete Buttigieg had 27% of the vote with 62% of precincts reporting.
  8. First of all to you comment about settling your sister's estate, it sounds as though condolences are in order and I offer them without sincerely and without hesitation or reservation. A few of us know the difficulties of dealing with a relative's passing - hang tough. But as to the topic... Oh, did you mean like the black man depicted in the photo from my post on January 25th? Yes there were masked people (of all races and gender) during the Virginia Gun rally and as far as I know no one there attempted to drag out the race or gender card to try to make a point, but then I suppose it was inevitable someone, someone like you, would try at some point. As I even mentioned there were arrests for people refusing to drop their masks when asked to do so by the Richmond PD, but I have also seen people wearing coats, hats, hoodies, gloves and other cold weather gear so I suspect it was a little cold there and after reading a couple of local news accounts about the woman who ran afoul of the police at the Richmond rally and was arrested for wearing a mask, it appears as though there was a little more to the story than the one account I read from CNN.
  9. Without trying to be confrontational let me just say there is no infringement restricting the kinds of firearms a person is allowed to buy or possess. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Heller -vs- the District of Columbia saying the Second Amendment "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited" and "does not protect dangerous and unusual weapons”. As to what constitutes "dangerous and unusual weapons" that has been argued and decided by the courts and legislative bodies for years. Syllabus: Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56 And it may not be worth mentioning but personally I'm not in favor of providing firearms to Criminals who have already proved they are a danger to themselves or others Children Persons adjudicated by the courts to be mentally incompetent People convicted of domestic abuse (see #1) "Owned Slaves"... that's not even a thing in regards to owning or purchasing a firearm is it? and last but not least, "didn't have a background check"... Just how is anyone supposed to know if someone is in violation of 1 thru 4, without a background check? As I already mentioned the challenge has come up before the Supreme Court and they have ruled: I don't know where you got your meme, but aside from being a just a tad misleading, it also contains false information... but then I suppose most of us are used to these kinds of memes on occasion.
  10. I guess it would have been more correct to state I believe we need what I consider to be "common sense" gun laws... But then I remember when something labeled "common sense", defined by "relating to a given majority; good sense and sound judgment in practical matters" didn't used to require a qualifier, it was either common sense - or it wasn't. It just might be me but I consider it a matter of common sense to eliminate the "loophole" the Saudi pilot used to purchase the weapon he used to murder people at the Pensacola base so something like this doesn't happen again... the topic of this thread by the way. There are some measures included in the New Jersey gun bills we discussed that I personally would consider common sense: Tougher background check requirements. Being limited to the purchase of one handgun a month, Making the sale and purchase of "smart guns" easier, Making it a second-degree crime in the state to act as a straw purchaser and a third-degree crime to transport, sell or possess a firearm without a federally licensed serial number, Add convictions of crimes such as carjacking or making terroristic threats to the list of crimes that ban people from buying firearms in the state, required purchasers of handgun ammunition to make sure people are 21 years old, which is the legal age for buying a handgun, The implementation of a Red Flag Law where a person deemed by the courts to be a danger to themselves or others can temporally have their firearms seized by law enforcement, Can anyone rationally make an argument as to why any of these measures shouldn't be considered "common sense"? Of course there are also some I consider lacking in common sense: SB35, for one which would allow organizer of local public events to ban guns from those events... Because in my opinion it only makes for a hodge-podge of confusion for a legal firearms owner who in all likelihood would not know if their firearms were allowed at an event until they arrived, making instances of some people having to inadequately storing their firearms in their unattended vehicles.
  11. The "number" of "right wing terrorist" arrested was THREE and the "quite a few gun carrying felons" arrested was again THREE, the same people. Misinformation much? Although I haven't read anything about the three men arrested being felons (where did you get your information?) but the three now face felony charges including illegal alteration of a firearm and providing firearms to a foreign national in the country illegally - one of the three arrested being the foreign national. Less credible, less than honest sources are quick to sling the term "right wing", the three are reported to be affiliated with a group called "the BASE", an anti-semitic, anti-government neo-Nazi group considered to be white nationalists, they have no known or published political affiliation "right", "left" or otherwise with members opposed to anyone of any political persuasion who they consider "Jew" or "non-white". There is a lot of information about the group online from the ADL. Like other accelerationists, The Base encourages the polarization of political parties with the end goal of exacerbating tensions, which in turn will hasten societal collapse. To that end, Spear noted, “In our case, we want to survive, but we hope to also influence the political landscape and be able to use any power vacuum that does emerge to our advantage politically, by trying to assume control over that territory.” It looks like the attempted polarization of political parties, ie: espousing hate and vitriol against opposing political parties and members of opposed political parties is exactly the type of strategy "accelerationists" like the BASE approve of and use regularly... sound familiar? CNN: FBI arrests 3 alleged white supremacists. They planned to attend Virginia pro-gun rally, official says The men, who the Justice Department says are members of the international white supremacist group known as The Base, were believed to be planning to attend a pro-gun rally in Virginia's capital of Richmond on Monday that is expected to draw a significant crowd of extremists, according to a law enforcement official. They're charged with multiple firearms and immigration-related offenses and at court appearances Thursday afternoon, a federal judge ordered that the men remain in custody ahead of a detention hearing next week. NBC: Days before Virginia gun rally, FBI arrests 3 alleged white supremacists The three suspects have been under FBI surveillance for months, officials said, and agents made their move ahead of a gun rights rally in Virginia next week. Two of the suspects — Brian Lemley, Jr., 33, of Elkton, Maryland, and Newark, Delaware; and William Bilbrough IV, 19, of Denton, Maryland — were charged with transporting and harboring aliens and conspiring to do so, according to the complaint. In addition, Lemley was charged with transporting a machine gun and disposing of a firearm and ammunition to an alien unlawfully present in the United States. That person was identified as Canadian national Patrik Mathews, 27, allegedly a main recruiter for The Base. He was charged with being an alien in possession of a firearm and ammunition. With more than 20,000 people of all ages, sexes, races and political walks attending the Richmond rally saying that mass violence at the rally was averted by the arrest of three people seems to be a bit of a stretch... It may be accurate, but no more or less accurate a supposition than my guess that violence was probably averted by the absence of hundreds or thousands of "left wing" reactionary groups like Antifa, Communist and Socialist and Anarchist factions. You'd lose that bet since I even mentioned the three specific parts of the new Virginia laws that people were protesting and posted links to the three specific legislative measures... The Daily Wire: NARRATIVE FAIL: Minorities, LGBT Community, Women Show Up In Force At Pro-Gun Rally {and none of the predicted "violence" from the pro-gun demonstrators}
  12. If as you clearly posted the only outside sources referenced was FOX news you might have a claim to posting accurate information, however since there have been articles and videos posted from many sources including sources thought to have a left leaning bias like Democracy Now along with other sources CNN NBC ABC CBS BBC NPR The Atlantic U.S. Senate Library U.S. Library of Congress U.S. House Oversight Committee U.S. Senate Records Office GALLUP polls Foundation, Legal Information Institute Council of Foreign Relations NY Times New York Post Congressional Research Service Gateway Pundit C-Span Reuters Polotico Fortune Washington Free Becon Zero Hedge USA Today Washington Examiner Washington Journal Open Secrets Democracy Now Wikipedia The Scoop SAGE Journals And Yes FOX news along with other sources... Your suggestion that only biased or Right leaning biased sources were referenced is not only misleading, but totally inaccurate, but then that's something we've come to expect. As for the forum being "no value to locals anymore" - The Politics section is just one part of the forum, anyone who wants to avoid discussions with a political flavor can click on the Calendar, General Discussion, Local Events or any other section? When was the last time you posted an other than derogatory topic in any section - more than a year ago? When was the last time you posted other than a derogatory remark about another forum member? No slam -
  13. Red Flag laws are relatively new, but it has always been within the purview of law enforcement to take weapons away from individuals who are in possession of a weapon if they are determined to be a danger to themselves or others. What the Red Flag laws do is temporarily remove firearms from the individual's household (not in the individual's immediate possession) if the courts rule it is in the best interest of public safety... As such I sorta' doubt there is a lot of data available one way or the other. After all if an individual is brandishing a firearm and threatening to shoot people, it makes no sense to remove the firearm they currently have in their possession and leave an arsenal of other firearms that the individual could easily gain access to in the person's home. One thing that seems to be standard, despite the demographics, is only if the courts have determined someone to be a threat may the firearms be kept from the individual... If however the individual can prove to the courts they are not a threat to themselves or others then the firearms must be returned, whether or not this coincides with law enforcement wishes. My thoughts, if an armed person acts crazy and dangerous - presume they are for the sake of public safety - until it can be proved they aren't. Some people arrested for DUI are required to take "driving courses" before they can drive again - some people who have displayed threatening behavior and violence in public are required to take "anger management" classes as a condition of their continued probationary freedom - why not require a person who has brandished a firearm and threatened to use it, to appear before a judge and probably take a psych evaluation to determine if they actually are a threat to public safety? Just my thoughts on the matter ~