US school shooting revives gun debate

Dec 14, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Yahoo!

Relatives of those killed in past mass shootings reacted with outrage to Friday's news of another massacre at an elementary school in Connecticut.

Comments (Page 33)

Showing posts 641 - 660 of2,340
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#691
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

titonton divaunte pants wrote:
<quoted text> good for them. You must be a teabaggee. As for me I'm just a guy who's more worried about the rights of usa citizens. Fair enough.
Of course you are, as teabaggers supported and defended the patriot act.

The worst legislation ever passed to infringe on citizen's rights.

Poor teabagger.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#692
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Mitt Romney lost....and yes, he lied...Jeep was'nt planning any factory in China....
yeah notice how they had him word it wrong so the press can focus on that instead of the fact that gm used bailout money to open plants in china and brazil. Damn false paradigm. http://www.alipac.us/f19/gm-bailout-funds-use...
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#693
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you are, as teabaggers supported and defended the patriot act.
The worst legislation ever passed to infringe on citizen's rights.
Poor teabagger.
that's not really what this thread is about. That was like 12 years ago. But if we must bring it up, obama extended it. He took our right to protest. And the latest on this: http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/12/28/3807734...
Guess who's ready to sign the FISA extension?
Btw, what about all the democrats who voted for the patriot act? What are they potted plants? And all on the left who give obama the pass? Are they teabaggers too or is it different when obama does the same crap?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#694
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Yes they will wrote:
Yes Obama is hellping export both technology and American jobs to China . We need to have a fair trade that means a 25% tax on all chinese imports .. The results would be more money in the teasury and more jobs kept in the USA...
I disagree, an import duty on Chinese goods would increase prices hurting ALL consumers. It would also cause trade wars disrupting global trade. Trade wars often lead to real wars.

We don't have a tax problem; the government is spending every dollar it takes in taxes and borrowing 40˘ on top of that. The US has a spending problem; we're creating an enormous debt on our children.

If we hit the fiscal cliff; at least that will create real spending cuts. It would be better to manage those spending cuts but raising taxes isn't the answer.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#695
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

titonton divaunte pants wrote:
<quoted text> that's not really what this thread is about. That was like 12 years ago. But if we must bring it up, obama extended it. He took our right to protest. And the latest on this: http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/12/28/3807734...
Guess who's ready to sign the FISA extension?
Btw, what about all the democrats who voted for the patriot act? What are they potted plants? And all on the left who give obama the pass? Are they teabaggers too or is it different when obama does the same crap?
How is Obama creating the same crap?

The bill extends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008, which granted retroactive immunity for wiretaps and email monitoring under the BUSH Administration and created a framework for future warrant-free surveillance as long as one party is located outside the US and terrorism is suspected.

It's more teabagger whining about their rights being violated under Obama but when Bush signed these things into law.

Not a peep or it was to "keep us safe".

Why did the democrats vote for it?

Then it's why isn't Obama fixing the crap we voted for.

Took our right to protest?

H.R. 347 (also known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) into law on March 9th, amid numerous protests from the Occupy movement, as well as other agencies. HR 347 is a modification from Senate bill S. 1794, which restricted people from entering or blocking public areas that have been closed off by Secret Service while a person under their protection is passing through. The law also included major public events, such as the Inaguration and Presidential campaigns.

Representative Tom Rooney’s (R-Fla. and the man responsible for introducing the bill to the House) communication director dismissed concerns that the bill violates civil liberties by saying, that the protests against H.R. 347 are,“a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This (HR 347) doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time.

So you're blaming Obama for a bill introduced by a republican and passed a republican congress?

Brilliant.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#696
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No isaid he signed it. The "republican party"? If by that you mean the scapegoat wing of the crony-capitalist party of america, ok. We can't protest in front of federal buildings now. That's a big deal. Remember the protesters at bushes http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/01/wash-...
Inauguration? Well that's illegal now. Obama could've vetoed it no problem. He eagerly signed. See you can talk about bush and republicans all day, your still a hypocrite as you give obama a free pass on the same things. You treat anyone who points facts out to you as if they voted for bush twice. Do you really think that? You're wrong. Have fun the next 4 years and keep it up. Hypocrite.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#697
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

titonton divaunte pants wrote:
No isaid he signed it. The "republican party"? If by that you mean the scapegoat wing of the crony-capitalist party of america, ok. We can't protest in front of federal buildings now. That's a big deal. Remember the protesters at bushes http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/01/wash-...
Inauguration? Well that's illegal now. Obama could've vetoed it no problem. He eagerly signed. See you can talk about bush and republicans all day, your still a hypocrite as you give obama a free pass on the same things. You treat anyone who points facts out to you as if they voted for bush twice. Do you really think that? You're wrong. Have fun the next 4 years and keep it up. Hypocrite.
Must be that teabagger "selective" comprehension at work.

The law has NOTHING to do with protesting.

No matter how many times the teabagger media keeps reapeating it, it doesn't make it true.

The emails we have seen usually include a link to a video of a Fox News’ report criticizing the law as an unprecedented attack on free speech, and claiming that the law makes it a crime to protest and imposes stiff new penalties — including making it a felony for merely asking Obama a question he doesn’t like or protesting peacefully in his presence.

All those claims are bogus.

As we’ve seen, the law has been around since Richard Nixon’s time, and the changes Congress approved don’t impose new penalties or even address the issues of speech or protest.

HR 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” but many of the claims made in this email and elsewhere are simply untrue.

The law merely updates a measure that has been on the books since it was signed by then-President Richard Nixon in 1971, making it a federal crime to trespass on grounds secured by the Secret Service. No new penalties were added, and the bill was not signed “secretly” as some claim. The White House announced the signing publicly just as it does for other such routine measures.

It merely amended Title 18, Chapter 84, Section 1752 of the U.S. Code — just as then-President George W. Bush did in 2006 when he signed the Patriot Act.(Click on the link to the U.S. Code and you can see how it was amended in 1982, 1984, 1994 and 2006.)
The Infantile left Winged

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#698
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Mitt Romney lost....and yes, he lied...Jeep was'nt planning any factory in China....
But you still do not deny that you support the current pathetic liar SCOTUS???

And that Jeep story? Just another spun left winged media lie!
OH NO YOU Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#699
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dude wrote:
The second amendment or any other part of the constitution is not up for debate. The document is well written and easy to understand by all but the most Neanderthal types.
Well, there are the liberals out there that don't listen.
AmericanMan

Morgantown, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#700
Dec 31, 2012
 
dude wrote:
The second amendment or any other part of the constitution is not up for debate. The document is well written and easy to understand by all but the most Neanderthal types.
You do know what the word Amendment means????????
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#701
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Must be that teabagger "selective" comprehension at work.
The law has NOTHING to dpenalties — including making it a felony for merely asking Obama a question he doesn’t like or protesting peacefully in his presence.
All those claims are bogus.
As we’ve seen, the law has been around since Richard Nixon’s time, and the changes Congress approved don’t impose new penalties or even address the issues of speech or protest.
HR 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” but many of the claims made in this email and elsewhere are simply untrue.
The law merely updates a measure that has been on the books since it was signed by then-President Richard Nixon in 1971, making it a federal crime to trespass on grounds secured by the Secret Service. No new penalties were added, and the bill was not signed “secretly” as some claim. The White House announced the signing publicly just as it does for other such routine measures.
It merely amended Title 18, Chapter 84, Section 1752 of the U.S. Code — just as then-President George W. Bush did in 2006 when he signed the Patriot Act.(Click on the link to the U.S. Code and you can see how it was amended in 1982, 1984, 1994 and 2006.)
thank you for the history. So you supported the original bills? Or just a total hypocrite?
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#702
Dec 31, 2012
 
Btw wsg, this would be illegal under the new "old" law... http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/01/wash-...
OH NO YOU Did not

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#703
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

titonton divaunte pants wrote:
<quoted text> thank you for the history. So you supported the original bills? Or just a total hypocrite?
Hypocrite?
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#704
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

titonton divaunte pants wrote:
<quoted text> thank you for the history. So you supported the original bills? Or just a total hypocrite?
Sure, I don't have a problem with it, the law protects people's personal space and that should be respected.

Regardless of who they are or what they have done.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#705
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

titonton divaunte pants wrote:
Btw wsg, this would be illegal under the new "old" law... http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/01/wash-...
The day of the inauguration, the Washington Post reported that it had asked the Secret Service where a member of the general public who did not hold a ticket could stand to watch the parade.“I do not have an answer to that question,” a spokesman for the agency said. The Post went on to quote an FBI spokesman who said:“There are no places on the parade route that are not already assigned or ticketed seating.”

No, it wouldn't.

In addition to the police presence, the Bush administration’s inaugural committee took extraordinary steps to limit access to the route, not only for protesters, but for the general public as well. Most of Pennsylvania Avenue was occupied by bleachers reserved for Bush campaign donors, whose money bought them a seat. While ostensibly a public event, this year access to the inauguration was determined to an unprecedented degree on the basis of wealth and political connections.

Still not illegal.

Even among Bush’s Republican supporters, the stringent security arrangements provoked some grumbling. The Republican faithful were given color-coded tickets to the inauguration. Gold tickets—for obvious reasons—were the most prestigious, while green were apparently the most common.

Green ticket holders were massed at an entry point, unable to get through the security checkpoint until well after Bush had been sworn in and had given his speech. Mounted police were called in to control the crowd. Some of the green ticket-holders marched to a separate entrance reserved for those with higher-class tickets and demanded to be let in. When one man loudly insisted on talking with a supervisor, he was met by a police sergeant toting a submachine gun and turned back.

Should be, but isn't.

They had tickets,so much for the little guy.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#706
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Hypocrite?
This is one:

Even among Bush’s Republican supporters, the stringent security arrangements provoked some grumbling. The Republican faithful were given color-coded tickets to the inauguration. Gold tickets—for obvious reasons—were the most prestigious, while green were apparently the most common.

Green ticket holders were massed at an entry point, unable to get through the security checkpoint until well after Bush had been sworn in and had given his speech. Mounted police were called in to control the crowd. Some of the green ticket-holders marched to a separate entrance reserved for those with higher-class tickets and demanded to be let in. When one man loudly insisted on talking with a supervisor, he was met by a police sergeant toting a submachine gun and turned back.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#707
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

They didn't say how many gold ticket holders couldn't get through security.

I'm guessing ..........0

Level 7

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#708
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Infantile left Winged wrote:
<quoted text>
But you still do not deny that you support the current pathetic liar SCOTUS???
And that Jeep story? Just another spun left winged media lie!
Yes, i support the Supreme Court of the United States....Duh....
titonton divaunte pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#709
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
The day of the inauguration, the Washington Post reported that it had asked the Secret Service where a member of the general public who did not hold a ticket could stand to watch the parade.“I do not have an answer to that question,” a spokesman for the agency said. The Post went on to quote an FBI spokesman who said:“There are no places on the parade route that are not already assigned or ticketed seating.”
No, it wouldn't.
In addition to the police presence, the Bush administration’s inaugural committee took extraordinary steps to limit access to the route, not only for protesters, but for the general public as well. Most of Pennsylvania Avenue was occupied by bleachers reserved for Bush campaign donors, whose money bought them a seat. While ostensibly a public event, this year access to the inauguration was determined to an unprecedented degree on the basis of wealth and political connections.
Still not illegal.
Even among Bush’s Republican supporters, the stringent security arrangements provoked some grumbling. The Republican faithful were given color-coded tickets to the inauguration. Gold tickets—for obvious reasons—were the most prestigious, while green were apparently the most common.
Green ticket holders were massed at an entry point, unable to get through the security checkpoint until well after Bush had been sworn in and had given his speech. Mounted police were called in to control the crowd. Some of the green ticket-holders marched to a separate entrance reserved for those with higher-class tickets and demanded to be let in. When one man loudly insisted on talking with a supervisor, he was met by a police sergeant toting a submachine gun and turned back.
Should be, but isn't.
They had tickets,so much for the little guy.
you're either a flat out liar, or you're missing a huge detail in that article. Like the date. So you voted for bush and obama?no? Hmmmm. Interesting.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#710
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

titonton divaunte pants wrote:
<quoted text> you're either a flat out liar, or you're missing a huge detail in that article. Like the date. So you voted for bush and obama?no? Hmmmm. Interesting.
21 January 2005?

WTF?

No, I didn't vote for Bush either time, why would you assume I voted for both?

Missing a huge detail?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 641 - 660 of2,340
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

14 Users are viewing the Denver Forum right now

Search the Denver Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 48 min KarlVIIIII 12,069
Denver Zoning Against Tourism! (Oct '10) 10 hr Veronica 6
You rule the planet. How do you save the human... (Dec '12) 19 hr Kawalski 1,226
To Obama; Wanna burn one? Wed Riparian 4
Colorado's gay marriage fight echoes drama in 1975 Wed carey529 1
Obama 'The Bear' Lets Loose in Denver, Will Mee... Wed Commander Bunny 2
Denver h Wed Hook 7
•••
•••
•••
•••

Denver Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••