St Stephen

Grand Rapids, MI

#43 Jan 22, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/opinion/kozachi...

The republicans lose another centrist.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#44 Jan 22, 2013
free thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize, don't you, that at the the first amendment was added to the constitution,'speech' was limited to the written word on paper, speaking to other people or perhaps shouting at a town meeting. The founding fathers never imagined land lines, telephones, cell phones, Cable TV, Movies, internet, Twitter, Facebook, etc...so when you submit your idea on paper written with a quill and ink or go shout it in the town square, we'll consider your silly illogical idea.
That is completely a non sequitur. Speech in it's self no matter the speed or place of origin at which it is expressed kills people.

Quit trying to make an irrational notion seem rational.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#45 Jan 22, 2013
St Stephen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/ opinion/kozachik-gun-buyback/i ndex.html?hpt=hp_t3
The republicans lose another centrist.
Too bad Arizona is such a beautiful state as it is rapidly becoming politically irrelevant. You'd think there wouldn't be such a visceral reaction over what was obviously a voluntary action. Nobody was being forced by law to surrender their guns. Just goes to show what some think of freedom of choice when it wouldn't be their choice.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#46 Jan 22, 2013
free thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
Right...and when you intend to suicide after killing however many people you can or you go into it fully expecting the cops to kill you, those consequences don't mean much. Also, it seems that the consequences didn't stop the Colorado shooter as well...or the Virginia Tech shooter...or the Columbine shooters...or the Fort Hood Shooter...or thy guy who shot Gabby Giffords.... Come to think of it, I don't beleive I've ever seen a report that states someone DIDN'T commit a mass shooting crime because they were afraid of the consequences. Got a link to one?
The only people that laws inpact are those that care about laws (ie law abiding citizens), not criminals.
Contextually that is a completely ludicrous argument.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#47 Jan 22, 2013
St Stephen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/ opinion/kozachik-gun-buyback/i ndex.html?hpt=hp_t3
The republicans lose another centrist.
Today there was another tragic shooting...at a Texas College....I realize our desire to defend all of our freedoms, including to have weapons and firearms and all.....but, something needs to change....maybe we need to question the validity, of following in lockstep with guidelines designed almost 237 years ago and patterned when this country was a completely different social environment?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#48 Jan 22, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Today there was another tragic shooting...at a Texas College....I realize our desire to defend all of our freedoms, including to have weapons and firearms and all.....but, something needs to change....maybe we need to question the validity, of following in lockstep with guidelines designed almost 237 years ago and patterned when this country was a completely different social environment?
I agree.

Though I do not agree the dissolution of the 2nd Amendment is the answer. A not so broad application of it may well be part of the answer though. For the reason I've given earlier the Founding Fathers could not have imagined the degree of advancement to the weaponry we have today.

In my opinion the tenor of divisive rancor we are experiencing in this country is a strong contributing factor. It permeates our entire society and only serves to make those who are already feeling insecure about their future unstable and looking for a punitive outlet. In my opinion.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#49 Jan 22, 2013
We just have to try harder, to set aside all the political bullsh*t and find some comman ground solutions to this dilemma.....it's too important, isn't it?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#50 Jan 22, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
We just have to try harder, to set aside all the political bullsh*t and find some comman ground solutions to this dilemma.....it's too important, isn't it?
AGREED!!!
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#51 Jan 22, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
We just have to try harder, to set aside all the political bullsh*t and find some comman ground solutions to this dilemma.....it's too important, isn't it?
And IMO it starts at the White House. President Obama could set a different tone, but that would mean admitting that he could compromise. He's not willing to do that and you and I both know it.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#52 Jan 22, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>And IMO it starts at the White House. President Obama could set a different tone, but that would mean admitting that he could compromise. He's not willing to do that and you and I both know it.
Just how has he not been willing to "compromise"? He has said quite clearly he has no intention on taking away the People's right to keep and bear arms. He HAS called for keeping these types of weapons out of the public hands. And reducing the size of magazines that are allowed. Is that not compromise to you? What is your idea of the compromise necessary?

Be as specific as you can because you have offered nothing that a compromise is.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#53 Jan 23, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how has he not been willing to "compromise"? He has said quite clearly he has no intention on taking away the People's right to keep and bear arms. He HAS called for keeping these types of weapons out of the public hands. And reducing the size of magazines that are allowed. Is that not compromise to you? What is your idea of the compromise necessary?
Be as specific as you can because you have offered nothing that a compromise is.
A compromise is NOT rolling over and letting one party or the other have everything they demand. You want an example? He has already announced no compromise on the Debt Ceiling issue. His example of compromise? My way or the highway. Compromise involves the House generating a bill, that bill going to the Senate for their version AND then compromising so the bill contains what both sides wanted. THAT is compromise, something Mr. Obama doesn't understand. That's no surprise, though, since in 2 years as a Senator he introduced ZERO legislation and only voted "present" or didn't vote at all. He has zero clue what true compromise is. However, to be fair, he's not alone. And the American people have allowed this by re-electing these clowns, and yes that comment includes Obama/Biden.

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

#54 Jan 23, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Just how has he not been willing to "compromise"? He has said quite clearly he has no intention on taking away the People's right to keep and bear arms. He HAS called for keeping these types of weapons out of the public hands. And reducing the size of magazines that are allowed. Is that not compromise to you? What is your idea of the compromise necessary?
Be as specific as you can because you have offered nothing that a compromise is.
"He has said quite clearly" There is nothing clear about this guy. You can believe what he says and keep your head in the sand, he wants to register tax and finally take away, of course me writing that seems so ridiculous, BHO is a man who is not above any other man he himself has no power over anything but he sure wants it as he stands with his smug look like Mussolini with his I dare you to challenge me face. You must not pay much attention to what he says and how he says it always calculated to make you think he knows better than us average nobodies. People who one day are just people living there lives will soon be considered criminals kind of like what Hitler did to the Jews, and be scorned and mistrusted because why? They own a gun.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#55 Jan 23, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Today there was another tragic shooting...at a Texas College....I realize our desire to defend all of our freedoms, including to have weapons and firearms and all.....but, something needs to change....maybe we need to question the validity, of following in lockstep with guidelines designed almost 237 years ago and patterned when this country was a completely different social environment?
Don't forget about the family that was murdered by the 15 year old in New Mexico last weekend either. A household with a maladjusted child who could get his hands on his father's weapons.....

The longer we all try to ignore the problem, the higher the body count!
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#56 Jan 23, 2013
Shoeless Eluder wrote:
<quoted text>"He has said quite clearly" There is nothing clear about this guy. You can believe what he says and keep your head in the sand, he wants to register tax and finally take away, of course me writing that seems so ridiculous, BHO is a man who is not above any other man he himself has no power over anything but he sure wants it as he stands with his smug look like Mussolini with his I dare you to challenge me face. You must not pay much attention to what he says and how he says it always calculated to make you think he knows better than us average nobodies. People who one day are just people living there lives will soon be considered criminals kind of like what Hitler did to the Jews, and be scorned and mistrusted because why? They own a gun.
I'm sure you could offer some proof to what you're saying, but I'm sure you are just too busy trying to find hiding spots for all your guns.

Thank you for a well reasoned addition to the discussion!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#57 Jan 23, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>And IMO it starts at the White House. President Obama could set a different tone, but that would mean admitting that he could compromise. He's not willing to do that and you and I both know it.
No sane american, could have watched the last three years of the House republicans, obstructing every bill, designed to aid our economic recovery, then say something as idiotic as.....President Obama has been the obstacle to comprimise....save those lies for your fellow astute observers.....
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#58 Jan 23, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>A compromise is NOT rolling over and letting one party or the other have everything they demand. You want an example? He has already announced no compromise on the Debt Ceiling issue. His example of compromise? My way or the highway. Compromise involves the House generating a bill, that bill going to the Senate for their version AND then compromising so the bill contains what both sides wanted. THAT is compromise, something Mr. Obama doesn't understand. That's no surprise, though, since in 2 years as a Senator he introduced ZERO legislation and only voted "present" or didn't vote at all. He has zero clue what true compromise is. However, to be fair, he's not alone. And the American people have allowed this by re-electing these clowns, and yes that comment includes Obama/Biden.
In the presidential oath of office Obama affirmed to defend and protect the Constitution. In it it says, basically, the debts of the United States shall be paid. Which means if there is a way for those debts to be paid they must be paid. So you would ask the Constitution be compromised?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Brighton, MI

#59 Jan 23, 2013
Has he spoken the truth ever.
Troll Hunter

Greenville, MI

#60 Jan 23, 2013
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...

Poor little wingnuts. They try so hard, bless their little hearts.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#61 Jan 23, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
Has he spoken the truth ever.
How would you know what the truth was? Watching Faux News? Glenn Beck. Rush Limpjaw. Hannety?
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#62 Jan 23, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
In the presidential oath of office Obama affirmed to defend and protect the Constitution. In it it says, basically, the debts of the United States shall be paid. Which means if there is a way for those debts to be paid they must be paid. So you would ask the Constitution be compromised?
No, I would prefer he be honest. In 2006 he said that raising the debt ceiling under GW was a "lack of leadership". How about some honesty and admit that raising it now is a lack of leadership on his part? Of course, in 2006 he was only a Senator, now he's the head honcho. As for your snide comment about the constitution, I would only ask this...so now you would ask that the Constitution be adhered to as written and not as interpreted by you?

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.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Does anybody miss the Nancy boy pipedream from ... 29 min Phil 1
New chiropractic tool treats back pain without ... (Apr '08) 1 hr Chiropractor From... 225
Local News Women (Apr '09) 8 hr Casual Observer 2,314
Back in Iraq. WMD's? oil? 17 hr No_More_Dems 106
WLLA channel 64 - off the air? (Feb '12) 19 hr glassy girl 8
Obama and cocaine addicts Wed Leroy 11
go blue goes black Tue Idea Maker 68
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match

Grand Rapids Jobs

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]