Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,209 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Billy Bob

Fayetteville, AR

#20046 Dec 30, 2012
guest 2 wrote:
Guess what folks we are going over the cliff. Thank your mighty fine president for this he doesn't want to cut spending he wants us to go over the cliff then he gets what he wants. Get ready those paychecks in January are going to be a lot smaller. When he's out of office in four years our debt will be 24 trillion, Obama wouldn't know how to cut spending if it bit him on the butt after all he loves spending your money, it sure ain't coming out of his pocket. So how do you like that 5 million dollar Hawaiian vacation(paid by tax payers) for him and his family for Christmas. Must be nice I've never been able to afford a vacation at Christmas what about any of you?
Last I herd it was Obama that won the election not John Boehner. And yet John Boehner has done nothing but dictate the lower house of congress not to cooperate. It is so obvious that he is protecting his rich buddy's and not thinking about the country. The Republicans can not get over the fact that they lost the election and there ego has been bruised now instead of working together for the grater good of the country they try to block everything. We will not get "tax hikes" the tax will just go back to when Clinton was President and the last time I checked the USA was doing pretty good under his economics. Now before you fools start throwing the word "liberal" around it should be known that I do not like Obama and I didn't like Romney ether I liked Bill Clinton didn't like G.W.Bush liked John McCain didn't like Serra Palin. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican I'm independent. As I'm not blinded by one side or the other I can see the best and worst from both sides. And for the record get ready as when Obama goes out next election Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President as I can not see anyone in the Republican party that is worthy of doing the job. And as for "vacation's" I get to go on one every year with my family. ITS CALLED BUDGETING. Try it.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20047 Dec 30, 2012
shut up please wrote:
<quoted text>
I really wish I wouldn't have said that. I was in a bad mood and I apologize.
No need to worry yourself, this is really just a gathering place for a few old vagrant cowpokes formerly employed by the infamous "Circle J Ranch and House of Prostitution"....plus a few strays.
Reaity Check

Little Rock, AR

#20048 Dec 30, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Your spin;
"American's doing just fine
Redds Quote;
"that so many seem to be doing quite well"
Seems to me your translation lost all scope of of Redds original meaning'
Something you can tell me Mr. Business, if you took every dollar the socialist government pumps into this capitalistic economy VIA social and welfare programs today, how many of you would be in business tomorrow?
Now how many times does that dollar change hand in the community?
Seems to me that "socialist government" is propping you up Mr. Capitalist.
You pointed out one of the major flaws in the liberal line of thinking. That is making decisions based on perception. Agreed, I should have taken Redd's statement at face value but instead I gave him the credit for being decisive and firm in his beliefs. Guilty as charged. Liberals say "this group of people seem to be wealthy so lets levy them with X% increase in income taxes and give it to this group who seems to be not doing so well". The reality is that the wealthy group isn't doing near as well as liberals might think and those who are not doing so good are doing far better than liberals might think. Now how can I say that? Because I am one of the ones the liberals think is doing so well and I am not doing near as well as the liberals think. I wish I was. The less fortunate I see are doing far better than many I know that are keeping a 40+hr per week job. They have nicer phones, clothes, cars, and in some case houses and many of them don't even work. One of my tenants is in one of my most expensive houses ($600 per mo.) and she doesn't work at all. Her entire income comes from the government. She drives a solid running car, has a flatscreen tv, comes in and tells me she is buying new things like furniture, she dresses nice, and she also never fails to mention that she has to do this or that to keep her benefits so she doesn't have to go to work. So I am not talking from perception of a government that needs votes and money, I am speaking from what I see and hear from the people living in their very real situations. As for if the government took away the money from the social welfare programs, that depends. If the government gave it back to the working people in the form of lower taxes, I would be doing great, just like I was back pre-Obama. Best years my company ever had were in 2007 and 2008 despite all of the rhetoric about us being in a recession. What about now when government is pumping far more into the social welfare programs? My business is down to 2005 levels by the numbers. If you take the value of the dollar then vs the value of the dollar now, I am probably doing the worst since the company was founded but I have no way to quantify that. The one bright spot is that Obama's capitalist destroying economy has cause me to take a very hard look at the flow of money in and out of my business and as a result we are actually making decent profits but it's at the expense of offering my customers less of the things they need when they come in my store. In other words my business has slowed it's growth to a crawl. My wife and I are not extravagant spenders and we have taken a $15,000 cut in income and with it the ability to have a savings account in order to make sure our business stays strong. So we are living in excess according to the government but reality is far different. We have a good strong business but not near as good and strong as the liberal socialistic government we are living under "percieves" us to have, yet we are paying taxes on that "perception" and it's going to people who don't work like the tenant I described who don't contribute at all to society.
Billy Bob

Fayetteville, AR

#20049 Dec 30, 2012
5 kids, 1 adult die when SUV goes off road into creek. This is sad BUT does this mean we have to ban all SUV's? http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/29/16...

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#20050 Dec 30, 2012
Reaity Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You pointed out one of the major flaws in the liberal line of thinking. The reality is that the wealthy group isn't doing near as well as liberals might think and those who are not doing so good are doing far better than liberals might think. Now how can I say that? Because I am one of the ones the liberals think is doing so well and I am not doing near as well as the liberals think. I wish I was. The less fortunate I see are doing far better than many I know that are keeping a 40+hr per week job. They have nicer phones, clothes, cars, and in some case houses and many of them don't even work. One of my tenants is in one of my most expensive houses ($600 per mo.) and she doesn't work at all. Her entire income comes from the government. She drives a solid running car, has a flatscreen tv, comes in and tells me she is buying new things like furniture, she dresses nice, and she also never fails to mention that she has to do this or that to keep her benefits so she doesn't have to go to work. So I am not talking from perception of a government that needs votes and money, I am speaking from what I see and hear from the people living in their very real situations. As for if the government took away the money from the social welfare programs, that depends. If the government gave it back to the working people in the form of lower taxes, I would be doing great, just like I was back pre-Obama. Best years my company ever had were in 2007 and 2008 despite all of the rhetoric about us being in a recession. What about now when government is pumping far more into the social welfare programs? My business is down to 2005 levels by the numbers. If you take the value of the dollar then vs the value of the dollar now, I am probably doing the worst since the company was founded but I have no way to quantify that. The one bright spot is that Obama's capitalist destroying economy has cause me to take a very hard look at the flow of money in and out of my business and as a result we are actually making decent profits but it's at the expense of offering my customers less of the things they need when they come in my store. In other words my business has slowed it's growth to a crawl. My wife and I are not extravagant spenders and we have taken a $15,000 cut in income and with it the ability to have a savings account in order to make sure our business stays strong. So we are living in excess according to the government but reality is far different. We have a good strong business but not near as good and strong as the liberal socialistic government we are living under "percieves" us to have, yet we are paying taxes on that "perception" and it's going to people who don't work like the tenant I described who don't contribute at all to society.
Tell me something, which is the worst?

1.someone who "who don't contribute at all to society", but still pays you an income of $600.00 a month.

2. You losing $600.00 in rental income a month.

Being you are renting to that person makes the question a rhetorical one.

BTW- the unemployment rate in April of 2008 starting shooting up fast till it peaked at around 10%. Millions of jobs were lost, this all happening on the watch of one lowest rated Presidents in US history, a self proclaimed Passionate Conservative.


Now just think about that for a minute, why would your business had not done better, before the economy had to be rebuilt.

It took Bush eight years to tear it down, and the socialist Blackman is being hanged because he has not got back to where we were the last time we had a Democrat in the White House


Bottom line, your business is feeling the pain we all felt, and it did not come from a Democrat administration.

Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20051 Dec 30, 2012
Reaity Check wrote:
<quoted text>

You pointed out one of the major flaws in the liberal line of thinking. That is making decisions based on perception. Agreed, I should have taken Redd's statement at face value but instead I gave him the credit for being decisive and firm in his beliefs. Guilty as charged.
Yeah!! I get it now, you seem to think that by my not feeling your pain due to a increasing tax burden, which BTW only restores it to 2004 levels, makes me indecisive and lacking perception.

That's fine.
Guess Who

Ash Flat, AR

#20052 Dec 30, 2012
Reaity Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You pointed out one of the major flaws in the liberal line of thinking. That is making decisions based on perception. Agreed, I should have taken Redd's statement at face value but instead I gave him the credit for being decisive and firm in his beliefs. Guilty as charged. Liberals say "this group of people seem to be wealthy so lets levy them with X% increase in income taxes and give it to this group who seems to be not doing so well". The reality is that the wealthy group isn't doing near as well as liberals might think and those who are not doing so good are doing far better than liberals might think. Now how can I say that? Because I am one of the ones the liberals think is doing so well and I am not doing near as well as the liberals think. I wish I was. The less fortunate I see are doing far better than many I know that are keeping a 40+hr per week job. They have nicer phones, clothes, cars, and in some case houses and many of them don't even work. One of my tenants is in one of my most expensive houses ($600 per mo.) and she doesn't work at all. Her entire income comes from the government. She drives a solid running car, has a flatscreen tv, comes in and tells me she is buying new things like furniture, she dresses nice, and she also never fails to mention that she has to do this or that to keep her benefits so she doesn't have to go to work. So I am not talking from perception of a government that needs votes and money, I am speaking from what I see and hear from the people living in their very real situations. As for if the government took away the money from the social welfare programs, that depends. If the government gave it back to the working people in the form of lower taxes, I would be doing great, just like I was back pre-Obama. Best years my company ever had were in 2007 and 2008 despite all of the rhetoric about us being in a recession. What about now when government is pumping far more into the social welfare programs? My business is down to 2005 levels by the numbers. If you take the value of the dollar then vs the value of the dollar now, I am probably doing the worst since the company was founded but I have no way to quantify that. The one bright spot is that Obama's capitalist destroying economy has cause me to take a very hard look at the flow of money in and out of my business and as a result we are actually making decent profits but it's at the expense of offering my customers less of the things they need when they come in my store. In other words my business has slowed it's growth to a crawl. My wife and I are not extravagant spenders and we have taken a $15,000 cut in income and with it the ability to have a savings account in order to make sure our business stays strong. So we are living in excess according to the government but reality is far different. We have a good strong business but not near as good and strong as the liberal socialistic government we are living under "percieves" us to have, yet we are paying taxes on that "perception" and it's going to people who don't work like the tenant I described who don't contribute at all to society.
On paper im worth a half mil. However that wealth isnt generating much revenue. My mini storage made a profit. My farming was a big loss. and my equiptment sales lot swapped nickles. However the sale of obselete &junk already depreciated out equiptment & vehicles was tremendious. So I simply tooksome of the profit from the mini storage and scrap sales and bought inventory for the sales lot. Ill not pay income tax this year. I will simply sell the inventory after the first of the year at a marginal profit and recoup my money. I hate paying taxes the goverment isnt fiscally responsible they dont need or deserve my money.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20053 Dec 30, 2012
National Firearms Act 1934

Acknowledging the rise of gangster machine-gun violence during Prohibition, which lasted from 1920 until 1933, the federal government sought to regulate sawed-off shotguns and machine guns. The law levied heavy taxes on the manufacturing and transfer of those weapons. During his congressional testimony on the legislation, NRA President Karl Frederick had the following exchange with Rep. Clement Dickinson, D-Mo.

Dickinson: "I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?"

Frederick: "I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought."

Later, Frederick added: "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one.... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20054 Dec 30, 2012
Gun Control Act 1968

After the assassination of Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, President Johnson pushed through a broad-ranging federal law to severely restrict the interstate trafficking of firearms. The bill sought to curb the acquisitions of guns like the one Lee Harvey Oswald had used in 1963 to assassinate President John F. Kennedy, which had been purchased through the mail.

When he testified before Congress on the legislation, NRA President Harold W. Glassen said that "200 million guns did not strike down Senator Kennedy; only one did." Ultimately, the NRA did endorse the law.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20055 Dec 30, 2012
The Firearm Owner's Protection Act 1986

The NRA revealed its grassroots strength as it pushed for this act, despite tepid support for it from the federal government. The bill arose in response to a bipartisan 1982 congressional subcommittee report finding that many of the government's gun regulations were unconstitutional. The act sought to reopen the interstate sales of certain guns, legalize the shipments of ammunition through the U.S. Postal Service, and protect the transport of firearms through states in which possession of those firearms were illegal. Additionally, the federal government would only be allowed to inspect firearm manufacturers and sellers once a year to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

The bill's chances were strengthened by a flood of constituent outreach to representatives after the NRA sent a letter to its members with the following message: "If your congressman doesn't sign the discharge petition on the Firearms Owners Protection Act, he's not working for gun and hunting rights in America. It's that plain and simple.... This is the litmus test on whether your congressman stands on gun and hunting rights — either he is for us or against us."
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20056 Dec 30, 2012
The Brady Handgun Violence Act 1994

An amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act, this bill established the electronic or phone-based background check for individuals wishing to purchase firearms. Eventually, this became the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which the FBI launched on Nov. 30, 1998.

But during congressional deliberation, the NRA showed its legal prowess. The group's legislative counsel, Richard Gardiner, argued before Congress on Sept. 30, 1993, that the bill was a federal overreach.

He stated: "The 10th Amendment forbids the federal government from compelling the states — and thus local law enforcement — to undertake any kind of action, including conducting background checks on handgun purchasers. As the Supreme Court concluded in New York v. United States,'even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.'"

The bill passed, but the NRA continued to fight it in court, funding a number of legal challenges in several states throughout the country. In 1997, the Supreme Court took the case Printz v. United States, and sided with the NRA. States did not have to conduct federally mandated background checks, the decision stated. Regardless, most states complied with federal regulations when the background check system went live in 1998.

The NRA was now completely subserviant to the Arms industry
Reaity Check

Little Rock, AR

#20057 Dec 30, 2012
Redd wrote:
The Brady Handgun Violence Act 1994
An amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act, this bill established the electronic or phone-based background check for individuals wishing to purchase firearms. Eventually, this became the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which the FBI launched on Nov. 30, 1998.
But during congressional deliberation, the NRA showed its legal prowess. The group's legislative counsel, Richard Gardiner, argued before Congress on Sept. 30, 1993, that the bill was a federal overreach.
He stated: "The 10th Amendment forbids the federal government from compelling the states — and thus local law enforcement — to undertake any kind of action, including conducting background checks on handgun purchasers. As the Supreme Court concluded in New York v. United States,'even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.'"
The bill passed, but the NRA continued to fight it in court, funding a number of legal challenges in several states throughout the country. In 1997, the Supreme Court took the case Printz v. United States, and sided with the NRA. States did not have to conduct federally mandated background checks, the decision stated. Regardless, most states complied with federal regulations when the background check system went live in 1998.
The NRA was now completely subserviant to the Arms industry
1968: More strict gun control laws
1986: Less strict gun control laws
1994: More strict gun control laws since most states complied
Result: 2-1 in favor of more strict gun control laws and
gun violence in America is at an all time high.
Do you not see that the guns are not the problem? If you eliminate guns the mass shootings won't stop. Besides, planes and bombs kill many more people than mass shootings ie Oklahoma City and 911. The states with the least strict gun laws have the lowest gun crime rates in the country. I sure hope you see this but I doubt you will
Obama

Ballwin, MO

#20058 Dec 30, 2012
I'm coming for your guns on 2/12/13 and I have satellites in the sky watching you so don't try to hide them!

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#20059 Dec 30, 2012
Reaity Check wrote:
<quoted text>
1968: More strict gun control laws
1986: Less strict gun control laws
1994: More strict gun control laws since most states complied
Result: 2-1 in favor of more strict gun control laws and
gun violence in America is at an all time high.
Do you not see that the guns are not the problem? If you eliminate guns the mass shootings won't stop. Besides, planes and bombs kill many more people than mass shootings ie Oklahoma City and 911. The states with the least strict gun laws have the lowest gun crime rates in the country. I sure hope you see this but I doubt you will
"You pointed out one of the major flaws in the liberal line of thinking. That is making decisions based on perception"

Looks like Liberals do not have a monopoly on making "decisions based on perception", do they?


The United States has the loosest gun control laws of all developed countries. In the US, there are virtually as many guns as there are people. According to FBI crime statistics, 8,775 of the 12,996 murders that occurred in the U.S. in 2010 were caused by firearms.

With a gun being the weapon of choice in so many of the homicides in the United States, consider other countries, with stricter gun control laws, and how murders involving firearms there are much lower.

Japan - In Japan, most kinds of guns are illegal, and almost no one owns a gun. Japan is known as one of the strictest gun controlling nation in the world, with only 0.6 firearms per every 100 people. In 2006, there were only two homicides caused by guns in Japan. In 2008 there were 11. The country has nearly eliminated murder by firearms.

United Kingdom – The rate of private gun ownership in the United Kingdom is 6.72 firearms per 100 people. In 2009, only 18 people were murdered with a firearm. Within the last 14 years, the year with the highest number of gun caused homicides was 2004, with 52 people killed.

Australia – Ranked at No. 25 in comparison of number of privately owned guns in 178 other countries, about 15 out of every 100 Australians owns a firearm. Annual homicide rates involving firearms in the country is relatively low, at 0.1% per every 10,000 in 2009.

Germany – Ranked No. 4, in a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 other countries, approx. 30 out of every 100 people in Germany own a firearm. Germany experiences far fewer gun related homicides annually than the United States. In 2010, there was a total of 158 homicides committed with a firearm.

United States – The United States is ranked at No. 1 for civilian gun ownership in comparison with all other industrialized countries. There are approximately 88.8 firearms for every 100 people in the U.S. In the past 14 years, the year with the greatest number of homicides caused by a firearm occurred in 2006, when 10,225 people were killed by the use of a gun. Annual firearm suicides within the United States are high as well. In 2005, 17,002 suicides were committed using a firearm.

The United States far surpasses other countries in terms of gun related violence and death. The numbers above tend to indicate that fewer gun-related homicides is a direct result of stricter gun control laws.

A particular quote by Benjamin Franklin says,“Anyone who will trade freedom for security deserves neither.”

Although the freedoms enjoyed in this country must be protected and upheld, statistics show that personal security within the United States is greatly hampered by lenient gun control laws.



swxxxt

Pittsburgh, PA

#20060 Dec 30, 2012
youtube.com/watch...
I voted on Dinner?
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20061 Dec 30, 2012
Reaity Check wrote:
<quoted text>
1968: More strict gun control laws
1986: Less strict gun control laws
1994: More strict gun control laws since most states complied
Result: 2-1 in favor of more strict gun control laws and
gun violence in America is at an all time high.
Do you not see that the guns are not the problem? If you eliminate guns the mass shootings won't stop. Besides, planes and bombs kill many more people than mass shootings ie Oklahoma City and 911. The states with the least strict gun laws have the lowest gun crime rates in the country. I sure hope you see this but I doubt you will
It would take a blind man not to see that the current discussion on gun control only questions certain military type weapons, those capable of inflicting 200+ shots in the span of two minutes...or have I taken your statement at face value instead of giving you credit for being a responsible and thoughtful human being rather than just another whacked out Right-Winger firm in his misbegotten beliefs.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#20062 Dec 30, 2012
-- When our father, Michael Grant Cahill, was murdered in the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting on November 5, 2009, we were barraged with the question, "What can we do?" People wanted to help, get milk, make us casserole and assist relatives with travel. Support was everywhere.
That support remains. In the wake of shootings in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek, and too many more places, people are asking again, "What can we do?"
First, we must stop asking "why?" and start asking "why not?" In other words, what are we doing to prevent these tragic shootings?
Opinion: Patterns and warning signs

These events are caused by a perfect storm of issues. These include the proliferation of assault rifles and clips of 30 to 100 rounds, access to mental health support or lack of it, and, most important, falling short in our efforts of prevention. It is a sinking ship, and we must start filling the holes.
Holes made by guns that shoot 45 rounds in 1 minute, like the semi-automatic rifle used in Newtown. Holes inspired by the glorification of the shooters in previous shootings. Their life-size faces on the cover of Time magazine, bought by you, and dominating the Internet sites you browse, while the fallen are left in the photo albums of their families. Holes made by the lack of help and understanding in our country's mental health. Holes made by the fact that the Newtown children are not the only children we have lost to mass shootings. They are the unfortunate 20 who made us realize the water is up to our throats.
Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.
The water is rising. What hole can you fill?
Can you think about prevention rather than reaction by supporting programs in our schools that encourage our children to look out for one another? Can you be honest about what it would take to defend yourself against an assault rifle? Can you pay attention to important legislation and contact your congressman and senators to show support or share your thoughts? Can you stop saying, "Glad it wasn't me" and start saying "What if it was me?"
We cannot continue accepting that "these things happen" and "you will never stop evil." Those statements ensure that more innocents will die.
'Enough': Celebs' PSA against shootings
Cop: Gunman set up to shoot firefighters
LaPierre's response 'irresponsible'
Our father charged a gun outfitted with 30-round extended clips and was shot six times. Dad never let evil get the last word. He never looked at a problem and thought it was hopeless. We must do the same, and we must be honest: sacrificing our pride and admitting that we, as a nation, have a problem.
We need training for our teachers and police officers. Training that doesn't just focus on how to react to shootings but knows the community and makes relationships that lead to safer communities.
Opinion: Freedom Group, a gunmaker ripe for an ethical takeover
Programs such as Rachel's Challenge started after the Columbine shooting by the parents of the first student killed, Rachel Joy Scott. The Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, started after the Oklahoma City Bombing, which trains police officers not just to recognize danger but how to create communities that are more aware. "Random actor" trainings, by Dan Korem, teaching educators how to identify possible mass shooters, focus on at-risk kids and help those students.
Gun sales are rising, but is the support for the families affected by some of those guns and commitment to prevention rising with it?
Here is the question we are haunted by: "What is wrong with us that it takes 20 children dying in one shooting to make us change?" And some of us still won't. We have to address the answers, and we have to have the conversation. Let's start fixing the problem instead of treating the symptoms.
Guess Who

Ash Flat, AR

#20063 Dec 30, 2012
Redd wrote:
--
That support remains. In the wake of shootings in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek, and too many more places, people are asking again, "What can we do?"
First, we must stop asking "why?" and start asking "why not?" In other words, what are we doing to prevent these tragic shootings?
Opinion: Patterns and warning signs
These events are caused by a perfect storm of issues. These include the proliferation of assault rifles and clips of 30 to 100 rounds, access to mental health support or lack of it, and, most important, falling short in our efforts of prevention. It is a sinking ship, and we must start filling the holes.
Holes made by the lack of help and understanding in our country's mental health. Holes made by the fact that the Newtown children are not the only children we have lost to mass shootings. They are the unfortunate 20 who made us realize the water is up to our throats.
Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.
The water is rising. What hole can you fill?
Can you think about prevention rather than reaction by supporting programs in our schools that encourage our children to look out for one another? Can you be honest about what it would take to defend yourself against an assault rifle? Can you pay attention to important legislation and contact your congressman and senators to show support or share your thoughts? Can you stop saying, "Glad it wasn't me" and start saying "What if it was me?"
We cannot continue accepting that "these things happen" and "you will never stop evil." Those statements ensure that more innocents will die.

Gun sales are rising, but is the support for the families affected by some of those guns and commitment to prevention rising with it?
Here is the question we are haunted by: "What is wrong with us that it takes 20 children dying in one shooting to make us change?" And some of us still won't. We have to address the answers, and we have to have the conversation. Let's start fixing the problem instead of treating the symptoms.
the conneticuit shooter had access to mental health. His monther had plenty of money. She bought rounds of drinks at a local bar. loaned people money ect. This whole terrible disaster was the mothers fault. She knew he was mentally disturbed and yet she gave him access to guns, She waited until he was 20 before trying to get him commited to the looney bin. He killed for revenge. He was mad at the school officials that he shot because they where helping his mother petition the court so she could put him away. he killed the children because his mother vollentiered with that class. and he was jealious of them. Stop blaming the gun,s and blame the mother who was the responsible adult.

“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

#20064 Dec 30, 2012
guest 2 wrote:
Guess what folks we are going over the cliff. Thank your mighty fine president for this he doesn't want to cut spending he wants us to go over the cliff then he gets what he wants. Get ready those paychecks in january are going to be alot smaller. When he's out of office in four years our debt will be 24 trillion, Obama wouldn't know how to cut spending if it bit him on the butt after all he loves spending your money, it sure ain't coming out of his pocket. So how do you like that 5 million dollar hawaiian vacation(paid by tax payers) for him and his family for christmas. Must be nice i've never been able to afford a vacation at christmas what about any of you?
Don't you have any credit cards? That's how everyone else buys stuff they don't have money for.

“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

#20065 Dec 30, 2012
Billy Bob wrote:
<quoted text> Last I herd it was Obama that won the election not John Boehner. And yet John Boehner has done nothing but dictate the lower house of congress not to cooperate. It is so obvious that he is protecting his rich buddy's and not thinking about the country. The Republicans can not get over the fact that they lost the election and there ego has been bruised now instead of working together for the grater good of the country they try to block everything. We will not get "tax hikes" the tax will just go back to when Clinton was President and the last time I checked the USA was doing pretty good under his economics. Now before you fools start throwing the word "liberal" around it should be known that I do not like Obama and I didn't like Romney ether I liked Bill Clinton didn't like G.W.Bush liked John McCain didn't like Serra Palin. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican I'm independent. As I'm not blinded by one side or the other I can see the best and worst from both sides. And for the record get ready as when Obama goes out next election Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President as I can not see anyone in the Republican party that is worthy of doing the job. And as for "vacation's" I get to go on one every year with my family. ITS CALLED BUDGETING. Try it.
"Now before you fools start throwing the word "liberal" around it should be known that I do not like Obama and I didn't like Romney ether I liked Bill Clinton didn't like G.W.Bush liked John McCain didn't like Serra Palin. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican I'm independent."
This paragraph has LIBERAL written all over it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

El Dorado Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Tiffany Duncan (Nov '13) 1 hr ninjadanny87 35
Fitness center 1 hr actually 8
Who is this woman 2 hr Duck lover 5
Non Custodial Parents 9 hr EldoMasterBlaster 2
Garbage 9 hr EldoMasterBlaster 4
Poll greg anders - do you hate me (May '10) 14 hr Local 43
Prince Albert!? Who has one!? 15 hr JusSayn 7

Flood Warning for Union County was issued at April 01 at 9:51AM CDT

El Dorado Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

El Dorado People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]