jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (68 posts)

What the Presidents Press Conference Left Out

  1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago

    The president listed 23 items he said he could address by executive order.  He didn't mention the culture of violence.  Now I am about to step on some toes, but this needs to be addressed.  Quintin Tarantino is known for what kind of movies?   They are box office hits right?  Pulp Fiction?  Reservoir Dogs got him into the mainstream.  Gratuitous violence is different from the violence of Saving Private Ryan.  Private Ryan was historical fact.  What does anyone remember about Tarantino's movies. 
    How interesting,when the topic is politically correct (smoking tobacco) it effects children, but when it is entrainment the topic doesn't effect children. Interesting don't you think?

    1. Ericdierker profile image78
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds like you are saying we as a government should dictate what people's children watch in order to prevent gun violence.
      I think hippie communes without any news would be a reasonable requirement for all children 6-12, at least following your issue I do.

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Those are all available world wide. Still doesn't explain why there is more gun violence in the US.

      1. Ericdierker profile image78
        Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What? really? More than Syria? More than Egypt of Columbia or China or India? Could you even be so naive as to think more than Serbia and Russia and North Korea. How about Sudan or Ethiopia. Mexico of course you forgot and Manila should not be considered? Uninvited, that is astonishing that ignorance whoops common sense in your reply. Restudy, Reresearch and Rethink.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I was talking about the Western World.

          1. Ericdierker profile image78
            Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Good Idea. Germany? Sweden? Italy? Seems you have a strange source for gun violence. I think now France is leading the western" world.

      2. Patty Inglish, MS profile image88
        Patty Inglish, MSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That reminds me of the quote from the lady of the house in TV's "Downton Abbey", set just after WWI:
        "Dont worry about me, I'm an American: Have gun, will travel."

        Handguns, shotguns, blunderbusses, and rifles were a large part of the settling of America and perhaps we have that tradition embedded in culture still, bolstered by our 1000s of gangs with guns - my Midwestern city has over 150 such gangs. I am also reminded of many Olympiads in which the Americans appear in cowboy hats (without guns), although some Canadian teams have also worn them. Cowboys appear in Western Canada, but I think that gun violence is not so big in Canada as the USA. Fewer gangs in Canada I think.

        1. Ericdierker profile image78
          Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Careful with cowboys. I think you are thinking of cowboy westerns. Range cowboys carry protection. Rodeo cowboys do not. Just after WWII my country was just barely a state in the union. Certainly times have changed. White Stetsons make a statement of independence not aggression.

          1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image88
            Patty Inglish, MSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Not entirely correct and nothing to do with westerns --

            Ranch-based and rodeo-based cowboy training classes and certificate programs in USA often both include firearms training (I have sent job-seeking clients to them successfully). Consistently, rodeo cowboys that come to my city 2-3 times a year with different rodeos and circuses do carry firearms and I have seen many of these in and out of the ring. While some guns are for target shooting rodeo events, many rodeo cowboys that come here carry firearms for protection. I have met some of these men and women in the local gun stores as well as they purchased arms.   

            Regardless, I think gangs' illegal ownership of guns is a problem, at least in my city.

      3. tirelesstraveler profile image87
        tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Is there really more gun violence or is there more coverage of gun violence in the US.  I have been listening to reports of the flu. They have 16,000 cases of flu.  16,000 sounds like a lot isolated. Until you realize there are 8 or 10 million people in NYC.    Put into a ratio with millions of people and that isn't even one percent.  The Boston flu report was out of whack in the same way.  If I look at everyone I know who has had or has the flu in my household and town I would say there is a big outbreak of flu, but California is one of the three state along with Oklahoma and Hawaii reported not to have a rash of flu.
        If they blow the flu out of proportion is there any possibility gun violence may be as well?

      4. profile image61
        whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        More gun violence than where?

    3. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not addressing the problem is what this presidency is becoming famous for. Along with exploiting kids to push his anti second amendment agenda.
      http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1005/the-experts-agree-gun-control-hitler-castro-qaddafi-stalin-i-political-poster-1275189575.jpg

      1. davidlaw2 profile image61
        davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The reason we can't address the culture of violence is demonstrated Onusonus's post. His statement is sick and illogical and cruel. A real point  is that the UK has completely band all guns without doing what the people he used as examples did. Many other countries have total gun bans without the problem he uses in his argument. Children requesting to have something done to protect themselves is not exploiting them and  to claim so is wrong to the point of being dangerously sick. Leaving guns easily available to criminals and nuts so they can kill children is wrong. People that say the president is exploiting children by sharing the letters of the sisters an brothers of the children killed are evil and dangerous. They should not have guns. They are the people who will use the guns to kill. This man's statements demonstrates the reason we can't address the culture of violence. There are too many sick cruel people. People who want to own assault weapons designed to kill and only to kill large numbers of people quickly and have no other use are planning to be able to use them for what they were made for. They use lie and illogical statements like the one listed by Onusonus to support the fact that they are preparing to be able to kill Americans. They are prepairng to fight the US governemnt.  Many of them are neo-Nazis, skin heads, and survivalists. Survivalists want assault weapons so, in case of a notional disaster, they can use them to rob and kill the other victims of the disaster to save themselves. Watch out Americans your life is in danger.

        1. profile image61
          whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Then why doesn't the President address gun violence in Chicago? The kids in  Newtown Connecticut are more important? Kids are killed everyday in Chicago, how come no attention is payed to them?

          1. davidlaw2 profile image61
            davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Every democratic president has made attempts to deal with gun violence in every part of America over and over again but any and all efforts have been blocked or undone by republican politicians. Obama's  current effort  to help with the problem in every part of America is being fought by republicans. They would rather have little children massacred than to make any effort to reduce the problem.  They use hundreds of irrational, illogical statements and lies to as arguments to support their position.  Since 1960 over 100,000 Americans have been killed by guns in America. Republicans have made every effort not to allow any law that would help stop this.

        2. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What sickens me is the fact that you ignore the culture of violence liberals have created in movies and video games. (Not to mention the fact that violence is the historic mantra of liberalism.)
          We are expected to listen to a little commercial from Hollywood elites about stopping the violence, the exact same group people who have made millions of dollars pumping movies into our culture all day long that are replete with excessive violence, gun play, blood and guts. The hypocrisy is astounding.

          The same president who helped cover up one of the worst gun walking operations in history, that killed hundreds of Mexican citizens and a US border patrol agent, has the audacity to tell the rest of the nation that he and he alone, knows what is best for the safety of Americans.

          And as usual the race baiting that you have applied is all but a baseless liberal smokescreen to polarize and throw people, who wish nothing more than to uphold the United States constitution, into the pile with a very small group of extremists when the real extremists are the ones living in the white house.

          1. davidlaw2 profile image61
            davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            your message: Kill the little children if you must but don't take my assault weapons.

            1. Onusonus profile image85
              Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/23762_313353665451935_1469100458_n.jpg
              This is exactly the way a dictator speaks.

              If he made a rule that there will be a nationwide curfew on all Americans from 10pm to 6am, you could say that one life might be saved....

              So are we now going to be ruled by fear and just throw freedom in the trash? If they banned cars, many lives would be saved....so where does his logic end? He sure doesn't seem to care about the thousands of lives that are murdered daily by abortion and he doesn't care at all about our soldiers that are still dying in war. He didn't even seem to care much about the people killed in Benghazi. But now, all of a sudden, he cares about saving one human life? Isn't it odd that he doesn't care about human lives except in situations where he can gain more control and more power?

              I still don't understand how it is that you can't use Obama's daughters to make a political point, but Obama can use OUR daughters and sons for a political point. Hiding behind little girls is not the technique of a leader. I think his children and our children should not be used.

              1. davidlaw2 profile image61
                davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Another stupid illogical statement that has nothing to do with regulating who can get guns and to limit assault weapons. Yes kill my young children with guns but don't take my assault weapons is what you say and support.

                1. Onusonus profile image85
                  Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  As it has been pointed out to you several times over, you don't care about the lives of children, you only care about taking away guns from law abiding citizens.
                  http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/31919079.jpg

                  1. davidlaw2 profile image61
                    davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    This is another illogical non sequitur statement that only proves that some people should lose their guns. They are not mentally able to own them safely. Owning guns has nothing to do with regulations controlling drugs. Guns have no relationship to drugs except that druggies use them to kill. Drugs have other uses other than killing a lot of people quickly.  The reason to enact laws to limit the...  I have realized that it is useless to point out facts to a liar, a person who does not have the ability to use or understand logic and someone who wants to own guns that are only designed to kill large numbers of people quickly. The only reason people want to own assault weapons is so they can kill a lot of people Their is no other use for those weapons and someone who wants or owns one only owns them so they can kill people. Assault weapons have no other use. Your statements prove that you are a potential murder and need to be checked put by law enforcement.

          2. davidlaw2 profile image61
            davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What sickens me is  the conservatives have blocked any effort to reduce gun violence. They use illogical arguments and lies to do that. A good example of a lie is:  The same president who helped cover up one of the worst gun walking operations in history, that killed hundreds of Mexican citizens and a US border patrol agent, has the audacity to tell the rest of the nation that he and he alone, knows what is best for the safety of Americans.
            The president had nothing to do with any cover up. Due to an ongoing investigation, the information to be released was limited.

            The smoke screen is coming from you. 1) kids were massacred. 2) Over 10,000 Americans are killed by gun assaults every year. 3) The republicans have blocked every effort to reduce the gun violence.  4) the second amendment does not say we must allow any nut or criminal to own guns and kill our children and to make no effort to reduce this problem.

    4. NotPC profile image60
      NotPCposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In 2011, 323 murders were committed with rifles. 496 were committed with hammers and clubs. We cannot afford to wait any longer! Hammers are too dangerous for Americans and they must all be confiscated!

      1. davidlaw2 profile image61
        davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In 2011 over 10,000 people were killed by gun violence in the United States. Over 400 in NY city alone. In the last month 800 people were killed with gun alone in the US. It may be true that 496 were killed with rifles. Most that were killed were killed by hand guns.

        Your statement is another twisting of the facts. Twisting facts is a way of telling a lie. None of what you say justifies killing small children and not doing anything to prevent it. And lies prove that something is wrong with the people who support doing nothing. Yes, you say, "Kill the little kids but don't take away my assault weapons. I have a right to be ready to kill people."  Stop telling lies. They prove that gun ownership must be carefully controlled. Things like you lies are why guns were band on the UK. If pro gun people keep using illogical statements and lies to protect owning assault weapons they may lose their right to own any guns. Use your heads. If you don't you may lose more than you expected.

  2. Superkev profile image87
    Superkevposted 4 years ago

    Just FYI but the SPR movie was pure fiction, although the battle scenes were very realistic.

    The fact is that a majority of gun crime in the country is black on black crime usually involving gangs, drugs or a combination of the two, that's just a fact. For Obama to omit any mention of the rap music and movies which glorify violence and anti-social behavior, makes them cool, shows his agenda.

    He is not going to alienate the entertainment industry, those $30,000 a plate fundraisers aren't going to pay for themselves now are they?

    All of his proposals today were simply hollow words, he knows that a gun ban will never pass the house.

    1. NotPC profile image60
      NotPCposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed, Americans will never allow their guns to be taken away. I don't even understand why it is helpful to make it harder to buy weapons; Any motivated psycho can steal a gun.

      1. davidlaw2 profile image61
        davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is because too many gun owners are too irresponsible to lock up their guns. I new a man who burglarized houses and stole guns because they were easiest thing to steal  and easiest thing  to sell. Guess what, 100,000 Americans have been killed in this country by guns since 1961. That is more than all Americans killed in Vietnam and all other  wars the we have been involved in.

        1. Superkev profile image87
          Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not too well read are you?

          We lost 416,800 Men and Women officially in WWII.

          Do you often just make things up or is this something new?  Did you hear that sound? That was your credibility crashing to the ground.

          1. davidlaw2 profile image61
            davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Okay anther lie to justify doing nothing. WWII started in 1941 and ended in 1945.  I said 1961. You so called conservatives will tell any lie and distort any statement. I guess I should go easy on you. Many conservatives, obviously you,  don't seem to have any knowledge of history or have the ability to be honest. Your statement proves that many people like you are too mentally lacking to be trusted with gun ownership.

    2. davidlaw2 profile image61
      davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That is a big lie. Besides were the 20 children massacred black or the killer black You statement is just another WASP bigot insult. You are saying that killing children is okay because most killings are black.

      1. Superkev profile image87
        Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There we go, the last refuge of the liberal LOL. Can't debunk a valid point? Scream racism.

        If you doubt me you need simply step outside of your liberal journalistic ideological bubble and check the FBI uniform crime statistics.

        But then again, don't let the facts get in the way of your left-wing knee-jerk reaction.

        Big lie, I better stop or he will tell me my pants are on fire next.

        Liberalism really is a mental disease.

        1. davidlaw2 profile image61
          davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I was only responding to an earlier post that claimed that nothing should be done because most gun killings are blacks killing blacks. I am not screaming racism. Blacks killing blacks was used to justify not doing anything to prevent the killing of over 10,000 Americans every year. The fact is we need to do something to reduce the killing of innocent people and the justifying of doing nothing using illogical, non sequitur arguments and flat out lies.

          1. Superkev profile image87
            Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Murder is already illegal. Doesn't seem to stop those who are intent on doing it. Columbine happened at the height of the Clinton AWB. How'd that work out? The suspects reloaded their 10 round clips nine times, that's how.

            You do need to quit making up stats, last year there were a little over 8,300 homicides in America, there were approx. 11,000 gun deaths and that includes accidents and suicides.

            If you want to keep something like Sandy Hook from ever happening again there is a way....figure out how to keep anyone, anyplace, from going crazy ever again.

            Figure out how to do that and you've got it made, but that is the only way it is going to happen.

            1. davidlaw2 profile image61
              davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So your illogical answer is to do nothing to prevent the killing of innocent people including children. Part of your illogical argument is:  because the killers re loaded don't do anything to reduce the problem. Just let them have 30 and 100 round magazines so they don't have to re load. Also you say people are being killed already so why try to do anything to prevent it.

              My stats were based on stats published by the FBI. You are saying that we should do nothing because only 8,300 were killed instead of 10,000. The average is actually 16,000. Stop trying to support the killing of innocent people with lies. By the way, I got my figure from an interview on to with a NRA official. I did research my figure on the FBI reports. Is all you conserves is defend the killing of Americans with lies.

              1. Superkev profile image87
                Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What I am saying is that every time I read one of your hysterical diatribes it's the same liberal crap with ever changing numbers LOL.

                In other words, your credibility is nil as it is quite obvious you simply pull some arbitrary numbers from your arse to try to bolster your already weak argument.

                You hysterically claimed that we had lost 100,000 people to guns since 1960, then in another post it was 1961 --Those keys aren't even close to each other LOL

                Then you said this was more than all US wars combined, which any idiot knows is patently false on it's face. But you claim it as fact, some "journalist" you are. (We lost 416,800 Americans in WWII information easily obtainable via a simple Google search, but that didn't jibe with your agenda)

                Conclusion: You are just making shit up to fit your agenda and hoping no one will notice.

                There is lots we can do, problem is nothing you or Obama is suggesting are going to help. Limiting the amount of rounds in a gun or banning "mean" looking rifles is not the solution.

                1. davidlaw2 profile image61
                  davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What I said is true. Your lied when you stated that I included WWII in my statement totally destroys any creditability you could have had. Either 1960 or 1961 is just the same. The figure only changes by a percentage. Here is one of your lies: "Then you said this was more than all US wars combined, which any idiot knows is patently false on it's face. But you claim it as fact, some "journalist" you are. (We lost 416,800 Americans in WWII information easily obtainable via a simple Google search, but that didn't jibe with your agenda) "  I said all wars since 1960 combined including Vietnam. That was clear.

                  I never said anything about WWII casualties. you even confirmed that earlier in your post.

                  I may have hit the wrong key and typed a 0 when I intended to type a 1. But before I typed the second post I went back to see if I said 1960 or 1961. I am not going back to check it out. You have proven that you lie and prove yourself that you are a liar in your own post.

                  Not banning assault weapons has been the republican platform for a long time. How many people have been killed by them in just the last year? In they had not been made available again by republicans they would not have killed the innocent children.

                  Also, you are too stupid too check out the facts yourself. The FBI reports everything I have quoted from their reports. 

                  Look everyone at how stupid the statement he made is to counter the FBI information: "You hysterically claimed that we had lost 100,000 people to guns since 1960, then in another post it was 1961 --Those keys aren't even close to each other LOL" 

                  Check my statements out. Go to FBI reports or almost and stats reported. You can use a little addition and see the actual number is 100,000 since 1961.

                  1. Superkev profile image87
                    Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry buckaroo, you FAIL again LOL

                    " Guess what, 100,000 Americans have been killed in this country by guns since 1961. That is more than all Americans killed in Vietnam and all other  wars the we have been involved in."

                    And ALL other wars we (meaning the US) have been involved in.

                    You said nothing about since 1960. Are you so ignorant to think I can't scroll up and see what you wrote and quote you verbatim?? LOL

                    Journalism school? Really? LOL

                    This is too easy smile

        2. Ericdierker profile image78
          Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Guns are not a liberal versus conservative issue. Guns are not black and white. Since the revolutionary war guns have been a symbol of our freedom and they must remain that.
          But stupid ass guns are in the hands of stupid assholes. We all have got to step up and care.
          What the Socialistic leaning POTUS left out was that the Gov. is powerless unless good citizens step up.

          1. davidlaw2 profile image61
            davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The governments primary responsible is to protect the lives of all citizens. Any law that seem to prevent or blocks the government from doing that  must be reviewed. I was pro guns until I see that people are interpreting the second amendment as blocking the government from making laws to protect the lives Americans. And the amendment protects some right to own an assault weapon that is only designed to kill large numbers of people quickly and has no other use.

            1. Superkev profile image87
              Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Or slowly depending on where you shoot them.

              And AR-15 has tons of other uses, I know many ranchers who use one as a fine varmint rifle.

              Sorry, blew another hole in your story didn't I? I hate it when I do that.

              1. davidlaw2 profile image61
                davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I am sure they used an AR-15  with 30 round magazines too. A 30/30 would have killed varmints just fine. My family used them for years and they didn't need 30 rounds to kill a what ever you consider a varmint that can be legally shot.  That is no justification for them. Here is your logic:  A few ranchers use them instead of a hunting rifle to kill varmints so the millions of city dwellers should have them available too. Because a few ranchers don't use what is necessary they should remain available to every nut how wants to kill a lot of people quickly. Great thinking. Rancher kills varmints = everyone should have one too so nuts can get their hands on them and kill lots of people quickly. I repeat great thinking.

                1. Superkev profile image87
                  Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Here is my justification:

                  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

                  What part of SHALL NOT be infringed is giving you trouble?

                  1. davidlaw2 profile image61
                    davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What part of the second amendment says that the government can not make any laws to protect citizens from being killed by nuts with guns or take action to reduce the availability of weapons designed only to kill large numbers of people quickly. Oh I forgot they can also be use to kill rabbits. What part of the amendment says that we can't ban assault weapons. We already have band assault weapons, BARs, machine guns and sawed off shot guns. The bans on assault weapons and the other weapons were not overturned by the Supreme court. The ban on assault weapons only expired. If the second amendment prevents the government from making laws to protect citizens we need to change it. Of course superheroes can save us so we don't need laws that protect us. .

                2. davidlaw2 profile image61
                  davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow here is another opportunity for you to show your great mind. I typed a word backwards and didn't edit my post before I posted it. You can be a hero again and save the world. Just point out the word and make the world safe for ranchers who need AR-15s to kill varmints. Are the varmints dangerous  rabbits attacking in large numbers or a bunch of elephants that take a lot of fire power to take down? You did such a good job of blowing a hole in my story as you say you did I am impressed.  The whole world will be awestruck.

                3. Superkev profile image87
                  Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7587081_f248.jpg

                  1. davidlaw2 profile image61
                    davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Look how misleading this man is. (note.
                    there are a lot of type o's and miss spelled words in the copied posts. He can jump right on them.)  He is using something that leaves out almost all of the real information, the truth. The semi-automatic is an AR-15 lookalike. The assault weapons have nothing to do with this rifle except to maybe limit it to 9 rounds

                    Here are some statements from a posts made on AR-15 blogs that talk about the guns that are in the possible ban. Note super hero. Lots of errors for you to jump on.

                    I am new to this site and AR's so new info would be great. I am looking to buy an AR in the near future and am not really sure what caliber I should buy it in. I mainly want the gun for a combination of shooting around for fun, target practice, self defense, not really for home but just in case things pop off in our country and I need it to protect my family. And I might just maybe hunt dear and elk but probably not. I have heard a few bad things about the 5.56mm and am kinda thinking about the 7.62/.308 for the gun instead. They both have very cheap ammo in bulk. Im just not sure if the 5.56 will be enough stopping power if I need to use it. I dont want to waste my money on the 6.5 or the 6.8. I dont really care about shooting past 300 yds with this gun because I plan on getting a rifle especially made for that purpose. Thats why I am thinking about getting the 7.62 because of its knock down power and decent accuracy. Let me know what you guys think.
                    5.56 is the way to go.

                    Plenty of "stopping power".

                    Light recoil, very fast shot-to-shot times.

                    Ammo is cheap, great variety, readily available all over the place.

                    Ammo is small and light, enabling you to carry more, should you need to.

                    I can see having an AR in a "non-standard" caliber, for special purposes, ONLY if you already have at least one in 5.56.

                    perhaps the most accessorized gun on the planet, up through today’s AR-15 look-alikes, these guns have found a welcome place in the cabinets of varmint shooters, beginning marksmen, and of course those who like to shoot all day with inexpensive, readily available ammunition. And with a generous amount of features previously unseen on .22 Long Rifle semi-automatics, this new class of rifles is well-deserving of a closer look.

  3. Deltachord profile image80
    Deltachordposted 4 years ago

    Has anyone noticed that the president has gone executive order crazy?

    1. davidlaw2 profile image61
      davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The president made no orders that were not with in his power to make. Any statement that does not acknowledge that is based on ignorance of what a president can do. Please check out the president's executive order powers. There are a number of good articles both in print and online. The first statement that showed total ignorance came from the Tea Party. Your statement is just a lack of knowledge. Their statement was a bold faced lie. Or we really do have people representing us that don't have the basic knowledge of how our government works and who can do and does what. Ryan made the statement that the Senate had not passed a budget in three yours. The House of Representatives is totally responsibility for any budget matters. As a representative he should have known that. Please read Section 7 of the Constitution and then the rest of the Constitutions. The House is totally responsible for all money raised and borrowed by the US government. When they blame the president they are lying.

      1. Superkev profile image87
        Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So why, by law, is the Senate required to pass a budget LOL. God, you really haven't a clue do you? Budget goes from the House to the Senate for approval and amendment Mr. Expert.

        "The United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget then draft a budget resolution. Following the traditional calendar, both committees finalize their draft resolution by early April and submit it to their respective floors for consideration and adoption."

        Who is lacking knowledge again. Jesus, just stop already LOL, this getting painful to watch even for me. smile

        PS- Why did Obama's budget fail to get even one vote in a Democrat dominated Senate? Or, I forgot, they have nothing to do with the process, right?

        Do you just talk to hear you brains rattle or what?

        1. davidlaw2 profile image61
          davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Here is what I said:  Candidate Ryan, also a member of the House, said that the Senate had not passed a budget. Obama's budget was not presented to the floor of the House because Boehner would not scheduled it for a vote therefore the existing budget was extended. That is why there was no vote on Obama's budget. You have made another stupid statement. I am sick of playing with you. You have no idea of what you are saying. Mr. super hero I am done letting you make a fool of yourself. From now on you will have to do it yourself. Of course you are good at that. Go kill some rabbits with an AR-15. You could hit one with 10 rounds.  Note: I said Ryan said that the Senate had not passed a budget. You did some nice copy and paste though. However what you pasted had no connection to what I said. Hero shot down again without an AR-15. LOl

          1. Superkev profile image87
            Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Here is what you said numbnuts LOL

            " The House of Representatives is totally responsibility for any budget matters."

            Please scroll up for confirmation. You really do just twist yourself into a pretzel trying to deny things you ignorantly say when called out on them don't you?

            1. Superkev profile image87
              Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And I didn't say House now did I? Nice try at distraction though.

              Obama's budget WAS sent to the SENATE floor where it got exactly ZERO votes. LOL

              Try a little reading comprehension Mr. journalism major, or where you absent that day?

            2. davidlaw2 profile image61
              davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I realize that you are totally unable to think and again you prove it with your comment.  The senate can not take any votes on budgets before it presented and dealt with by the House.. It must go through the House before the Senate has anything to do with it at all. A republican tried to get a Senate vote on what the Constitution requires the House to do and prevents the Senate from dealing with. Read  Section 7 Of the Constitution. No democrat voted because to vote is unconstitutional and out of order for them to do so because it is the responsibility of the House.  VP candidate Ryan did not know that either. I won't be answering your egotistical, ignorant statements any more. Our country is in great danger created by ignorance and belligerence from ignorant people like you.  What a hero you are. You even posted what the law requires in another post. There is a process specified by law that Congress must follow.

            3. davidlaw2 profile image61
              davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Everyone, he is making a statement than countering his own statement. Than he is switching back and fourth again. I have no response to you. Intelligent people can see your lack of knowledge is only exceeded by your mouth.

    2. davidlaw2 profile image61
      davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Okay how many is executive order crazy? GW Bush held the record for a while.

  4. Deltachord profile image80
    Deltachordposted 4 years ago

    My statement is not a lack of knowledge. I did not say a president couldn't use the power of executive order.

    1. davidlaw2 profile image61
      davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What you say is true. I didn't intend to say you lack knowledge. I am sorry it sounds that way. I am more referring to a general lack of knowledge of the public. The Tea Party made a statement that the president was usurping going around Congress and making laws like a king. They got thousands of likes on Facebook. Now either the Tea Party is ignorant or they lied to influence people. This posted and spread statement was what I was actually responding to. I saw your statement as supporting the Tea Party lie. It was posted a short time ago. Here is a realistic explanation of executive order: 
      United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law,[1] since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution.
      Stating that there is and excess of Executive orders sounds like supporting the Tea Party lie. There intent was to influence ignorant people with a lie which have been their way. .

  5. Onusonus profile image85
    Onusonusposted 4 years ago

    NBC admitted that the AR-15 wasn't even used at the Sandy Hook massacre, just four hand guns with ten round clips. Nice to see the liberal media covering up that part of the story until after Obama went for the power play.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGn4o1Lb6L0

    1. davidlaw2 profile image61
      davidlaw2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That information was not a covered up anywhere by anyone. It was not even the issue regarding Sandy Hook. The fact was being pointed out by NBC but only part if the story was posted on yourtube. How nice for you. By twisting facts Rush Limbaugh style  you believe you have a way to justify doing nothing to prevent the killing of thousands of people every year including children.

      1. Onusonus profile image85
        Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I already gave you a solution that would save the lives of at least one million children in America every year. As I said before you don't care about them so lets not pretend that you do. And I'm pretty sure that I've heard Pierce Morgan endlessly touting against the AR-15 for the last two weeks straight on the Communist News Network, amid a slew of other hypocritical gun toting celebrities and politicians.
        http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrlsxuWaGYAJNo2qS4iGlsbNgqLvkl2NuOWlwat2JJ5XNskXlt&t=1

 
working