Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.

Ridiculous, guns operate as designed. None of these issues are in the control of gun manufacturers. You just want to put them out of business with liability since you can't do it legislatively. That will solve nothing as foreign gun makers will just take up the slack.

the idea you're experienced with guns is as ridiculous as that you actually know any gun owners. I know lots of them and they are normal people, unlike the fantasy in your liberal elitist city slicker head. Your country experience is based on a week you spent at a dude ranch

 

[kaz]

Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
Oh well.

WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
(Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'! No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)

And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!

Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.

Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing

I disagree.

Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.

Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.

I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.

But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.

Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous. Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.

And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?" Are you serious? He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt. He's W, Holmes. And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats? You need to take a closer look in the mirror

 

[frigidweirdo]

Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
Oh well.

WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
(Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'! No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)

And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!

Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.

Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing

I disagree.

Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.

Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.

I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.

But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.

Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous. Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.

And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?" Are you serious? He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt. He's W, Holmes. And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats? You need to take a closer look in the mirror

No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.

McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.

Do you understand these simple concepts?

Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.

Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.

This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.

Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.

 

[Kosh]

WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
(Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'! No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)

And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!

Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.

Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing

I disagree.

Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.

Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.

I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.

But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.

Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous. Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.

And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?" Are you serious? He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt. He's W, Holmes. And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats? You need to take a closer look in the mirror

No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.

McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.

Do you understand these simple concepts?

Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.

Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.

This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.

Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.

WOW these far left drones promote all kinds of propaganda in order to hide the fact that they support Obama's illegal wars. I mean they believe the Iraq war in 2003 was the cause for 9/11..

I mean come on, how can these far left drones function in society..

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing like using socialism to bailout wealthy capitalists,like usual

 

[kaz]

WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
(Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'! No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)

And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!

Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.

Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing

I disagree.

Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.

Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.

I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.

But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.

Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous. Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.

And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?" Are you serious? He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt. He's W, Holmes. And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats? You need to take a closer look in the mirror

No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.

McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.

Do you understand these simple concepts?

Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.

Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.

This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.

Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.

If you said the sky is blue and I said you said the sky is blue you'd say no it isn't.


Obama looked for a way out of nothing. He finished W's timeline in Iraq, he EXPANDED Afghanistan and he got us into Libya, Syria and Egypt. You're delusional that you think he's getting us out of anything. He's W

 

[Kosh]

Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.

Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing

I disagree.

Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.

Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.

I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.

But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.

Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous. Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.

And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?" Are you serious? He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt. He's W, Holmes. And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats? You need to take a closer look in the mirror

No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.

McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.

Do you understand these simple concepts?

Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.

Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.

This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.

Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.

If you said the sky is blue and I said you said the sky is blue you'd say no it isn't.


Obama looked for a way out of nothing. He finished W's timeline in Iraq, he EXPANDED Afghanistan and he got us into Libya, Syria and Egypt. You're delusional that you think he's getting us out of anything. He's W

And back into Iraq and he is worse than W..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.

Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing

I disagree.

Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.

Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.

I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.

But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.

Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous. Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.

And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?" Are you serious? He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt. He's W, Holmes. And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats? You need to take a closer look in the mirror

No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.

McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.

Do you understand these simple concepts?

Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.

Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.

This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.

Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.

If you said the sky is blue and I said you said the sky is blue you'd say no it isn't.


Obama looked for a way out of nothing. He finished W's timeline in Iraq, he EXPANDED Afghanistan and he got us into Libya, Syria and Egypt. You're delusional that you think he's getting us out of anything. He's W

Rubbish, don't give me that nonsense. It's no my fault you seem to be trying to simplify everything down to a level that's just too simple.

Obama didn't get anyone into Egypt. The US has stayed out of Egypt for the most part, interfering when it suits on a political level. Syria has been political too, with air bombing of ISIS. Both sides seem to think this is acceptable. However the right wanted troops on the ground. So.... I'd say this is being out. Obama stayed out of the Syrian civil war.

Afghanistan was going balls up under Bush. The first few years Bush had less violence because the Taliban were hit badly, but then they came back, the increase in popularity caused by Bush's warmongering helped their recruitment. But Bush had been steadily increasing troops in Afghanistan.

The problem was he didn't have enough there to stop the violence, to bring the stability that Afghanistan needed. The US was already in Afghanistan, Obama simply put in place a policy that was more likely to bring about a solution to the problem, without simply just leaving the Afghans to pick up the mess on their own.

Then again you can see the problem with this chart

As troop numbers dropped in Iraq, troop numbers in Afghanistan were increased. Basically the US can't fight on two fronts at the same time. Bush had decided to leave Iraq, and the withdrawal signed, so troops could go and try and stabilize Afghanistan.

But again, just because he put more troops in Afghanistan doesn't mean he escalated the war. The war was being escalated there by the resurgent Taliban, which was getting a massive recruitment drive from Bush's time in office.

Iraq had been the place to go fight the US, now it's Afghanistan where you can find more US troops.

 

[kaz]

Yes, he would have attacked anyway. And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him. McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama. Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing

I disagree.

Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.

Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.

I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.

But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.

Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous. Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.

And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?" Are you serious? He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt. He's W, Holmes. And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats? You need to take a closer look in the mirror

No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.

McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.

Do you understand these simple concepts?

Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.

Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.

This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.

Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.

If you said the sky is blue and I said you said the sky is blue you'd say no it isn't.


Obama looked for a way out of nothing. He finished W's timeline in Iraq, he EXPANDED Afghanistan and he got us into Libya, Syria and Egypt. You're delusional that you think he's getting us out of anything. He's W

Rubbish, don't give me that nonsense. It's no my fault you seem to be trying to simplify everything down to a level that's just too simple.

Obama didn't get anyone into Egypt. The US has stayed out of Egypt for the most part, interfering when it suits on a political level. Syria has been political too, with air bombing of ISIS. Both sides seem to think this is acceptable. However the right wanted troops on the ground. So.... I'd say this is being out. Obama stayed out of the Syrian civil war.

Afghanistan was going balls up under Bush. The first few years Bush had less violence because the Taliban were hit badly, but then they came back, the increase in popularity caused by Bush's warmongering helped their recruitment. But Bush had been steadily increasing troops in Afghanistan.

The problem was he didn't have enough there to stop the violence, to bring the stability that Afghanistan needed. The US was already in Afghanistan, Obama simply put in place a policy that was more likely to bring about a solution to the problem, without simply just leaving the Afghans to pick up the mess on their own.

Then again you can see the problem with this chart

As troop numbers dropped in Iraq, troop numbers in Afghanistan were increased. Basically the US can't fight on two fronts at the same time. Bush had decided to leave Iraq, and the withdrawal signed, so troops could go and try and stabilize Afghanistan.

But again, just because he put more troops in Afghanistan doesn't mean he escalated the war. The war was being escalated there by the resurgent Taliban, which was getting a massive recruitment drive from Bush's time in office.

Iraq had been the place to go fight the US, now it's Afghanistan where you can find more US troops.

Exactly, obama was in Egypt's shit politically. And your justification why you support Obama (yet again) on Afghanistan increasing troops and extending the timeline wasn't the point being discussed. The point you made and I challenged was Obama was trying to get us out of messes. You just gave zero examples of him getting out out of anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Exactly, obama was in Egypt's shit politically. And your justification why you support Obama (yet again) on Afghanistan increasing troops and extending the timeline wasn't the point being discussed. The point you made and I challenged was Obama was trying to get us out of messes. You just gave zero examples of him getting out out of anything.

The thing is the US is in politically in a lot of places. All presidents have done it, and people are getting increasingly annoyed. Latin America is a mess because the US messed around there for more than a hundred years, and made massive profits out of it.
Money comes first in most cases.

Obama has put US diplomacy forward more than Bush did, he's more liked than Bush abroad, except in Russia and China. Russia it's clear why, Putin feels more comfortable dealing with someone like Bush who just makes the Russian's lives easier by messing up a lot. Obama is also black, and the Russians aren't exactly known for being pro-black. China isn't about the US at all. It's about internal Chinese politics of using the US (and Japan) to enhance the popularity of the CCP at home.

The point wasn't Obama trying to get out of messes. The point was not getting in them in the first place. I said he was pulling back from being confrontational. You have interpreted this as meaning that as pulling out of Afghanistan, or lowering troops numbers, I don't.
What I'm saying is Obama pulled back. He stopped vilifying Muslims at every opportunity with simple phrases "al Qaeda" (for any Muslim group the US didn't like, but then many groups then wanted to be part of al Qaeda because it suddenly became cool because Bush spoke about it all the time), "War on Terror" and so on. He pulled back on Iran, the rhetoric on Iran was reduced, not stopped, and I believe the deal with Iran is designed to take away the possibility of the right, if they win the White House, of having an excuse to invade Iran.
What Obama did do, and it wasn't well thought out, was jump on the "Arab Spring" bandwagon. Libya was part of this, supporting getting rid of Mubarak in Egypt was another (even though he was a US ally), and supporting rebels in Syria and so on. I think this was a misguided policy. One of those things where the US jumps on the word "Democracy" rather than seeing the impact it would actually have on the region.

I'm not supporting Obama by any means. I think he went in with the right intentions, but didn't think about it properly. He had the same mindset that others have, that the US is there to fix problems, and to do it in the interests of the USA.

 

[kaz]

The point wasn't Obama trying to get out of messes. The point was not getting in hem in the first place.

Was it? This was what I challenged

This means Obama looked for a way out

You do that constantly, when I address a point you made, you say you didn't say that

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point wasn't Obama trying to get out of messes. The point was not getting in hem in the first place.

Was it? This was what I challenged

This means Obama looked for a way out

You do that constantly, when I address a point you made, you say you didn't say that

You challenged huh? What is this? I thought we were discussing a topic with different views. You on the other seem to think it's a challenge.

I made a point. You told me what the point was, but you got it wrong. So I came back at you and I've told you that what you've said IS WRONG. But you keep hammering away at it, as if somehow you think you're going to win a fucking prize out of it if you trip me up or something.

I know what I've said, and I've fucking just explained it. So you go use them there eyes on the front of your head and go READ WHAT IF FUCKING WROTE. Okay?

 

[2aguy]

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.

Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..

How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….

And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..

No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.

Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..

How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….

And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..

No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.

Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?

I mean, children still get molested. What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?

 

[regent]

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.

Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..

How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….

And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..

No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.

Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?

I mean, children still get molested. What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?

Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.

Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..

How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….

And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..

No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.

Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?

I mean, children still get molested. What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?

Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?

The conservatives do not want felons denied guns. Period.

They insist at this point that loopholes that allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons be kept open.

None of them can tell us why though. Why are the loopholes so important?

 

[regent]

So after 606 responses on how to keep guns from criminals, how many were NRA type arguments, arguing why it can't be done and how many plans were put forth that addressed the problem?

 

[2aguy]

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.

Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..

How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….

And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..

No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.

Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?

I mean, children still get molested. What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?

Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point. When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product. Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check. Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.

and when you sell your used car…should you be required to get a background check to make sure you aren't selling your car to a drunk driver?

Or your computer…..if you sell any of your electronic devices….should you be mandated to get a background check to make sure you are not selling it to a child porn felon or a computer hacker or criminal?

My idea by the way is still he best, most efficient way to do what you want…even though a straw buyer will still get around it….put a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons….those who can't own or carry guns…..at any private sale…simply look at the shoulder and you will know immediately if they can own the gun…that is what you want right…?

Or do you simply want to make it harder to sell used guns……?

 

[2aguy]

So after 606 responses on how to keep guns from criminals, how many were NRA type arguments, arguing why it can't be done and how many plans were put forth that addressed the problem?

Not one I posted is an NRA argument…..I post why licensing, gun registration and universal background checks won't work because they won't……

How many of the responses did you actually think about before you went to your automatic anti NRA brain freeze instead of analyzing why we tell you they won't actually work?