Who else is looking forward to the next President Clinton?

What you fail to grasp is that no law abiding gun owner wants to shoot anyone, but we are prepared to do just that in defense of our homes and families.

Yes, I have a hard time grasping that because frankly, after reading a bunch of you guys fantasizing about shooting people, or cheering for some asshole who plugs an unarmed black person, I really do think a lot of you have murder in your heart.

Bullshit! Let's talk, just for shits and giggles the Liberal Mecca of Chicago. In Chicago, an estimated 80% of homicides are gang-related.

"gang-related" are one of those phrases that law enforcement likes to throw around, but it's kind of meaningless. Trust me, if 80% of the homicides were gangbangers shooting gangbangers, we'd be out of them by now.
One would think you would be out of them, but there does seem to be only 456 less at the end of 2014.
Chicago 2014 shootings:

Final 2014 Totals
Shot & Killed: 388
Shot & Wounded: 2231
Total Shot: 2619
Total Homicides: 456
 
I hope it's a return to the liberal 90s, for her second term at least. The first four years will probably be spent finishing Mr. Obama's work fixing the disaster of the Bush regime.

I cannot see it happening. I do not believe Obama will leave office.
 
Hillary will never be president of the US,she missed her best shot,Dems tossed her aside for the golden one,they will do it again.
 
What you fail to grasp is that no law abiding gun owner wants to shoot anyone, but we are prepared to do just that in defense of our homes and families.

Yes, I have a hard time grasping that because frankly, after reading a bunch of you guys fantasizing about shooting people, or cheering for some asshole who plugs an unarmed black person, I really do think a lot of you have murder in your heart.

Bullshit! Let's talk, just for shits and giggles the Liberal Mecca of Chicago. In Chicago, an estimated 80% of homicides are gang-related.

"gang-related" are one of those phrases that law enforcement likes to throw around, but it's kind of meaningless. Trust me, if 80% of the homicides were gangbangers shooting gangbangers, we'd be out of them by now.

What's wrong with each locale having it's own gun laws rather than having the feds decide? I've lived in a rural part of California where everyone had guns but there was very little crime. The poor areas of big cities, big crime. I think that's the reality of this country and the Feds shouldn't dictate gun laws.
 
Who else is looking forward to the next President Clinton?

All the brain-washed Kool-Aid drinking libbies do, that's who. :cuckoo:
 
%231HillaryInsaneToVoteForHer1794541_641548392547054_493319928_n.jpg
 
Still supporting the concept of electing a vagina because of the vagina, I see.

No, I support electing someone who looks out for the working man instead of the rich.

You can say she's looking out for the working man when she funds what she thinks needs to be funded with her own money.

The only working man she is looking out for is someone making more than she thinks they should make so she can take it from them and hand it to someone else that may or may not be working but can't support themselves.
 
You can say she's looking out for the working man when she funds what she thinks needs to be funded with her own money.

The only working man she is looking out for is someone making more than she thinks they should make so she can take it from them and hand it to someone else that may or may not be working but can't support themselves.

You know what, guy. You don't want the government deciding what is fair, we can always do what they do in Germany.

Every company has workers' councils, and they have as much say as to what goes on as the owners of the companies.
 
You can say she's looking out for the working man when she funds what she thinks needs to be funded with her own money.

The only working man she is looking out for is someone making more than she thinks they should make so she can take it from them and hand it to someone else that may or may not be working but can't support themselves.

You know what, guy. You don't want the government deciding what is fair, we can always do what they do in Germany.

Every company has workers' councils, and they have as much say as to what goes on as the owners of the companies.

It's not the government's job to decide fairness. Fairness can't be reached because making something fair for one inevitably makes it unfair for another. To give someone low income person food stamps involves taking earned money from someone else. That's not fair to one who earned it.

When a workers invests the money the owner does in the company, the worker can have a say.
 
It's not the government's job to decide fairness. Fairness can't be reached because making something fair for one inevitably makes it unfair for another. To give someone low income person food stamps involves taking earned money from someone else. That's not fair to one who earned it.

When a workers invests the money the owner does in the company, the worker can have a say.

If "unfairness" by you means a rich person can't buy another dressage Horse because he has to pay the people who did the work a fair wage... I'm totally good with that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top