US school shooting revives gun debate

[barefoot2626]

sociopathic Liberals wrote:

<quoted text>
Look you little childish dumbphuq POS!
I have two computers that have to have different monikers!

At least..

[barefoot2626]

sociopathic Liberals wrote:

Now for those like you who are not smart enough to figure out something as simple as that?

Funny how I was able to point it out to you.

[barefoot2626]

Respect71 wrote:

<quoted text>
Even great people make mistakes.

Crappy presidents make lots of them.

Reagan made more mistakes than most.

[barefoot2626]

sociopathic Liberals wrote:

Chicago is the gun control capital of the United States.

In a sea of hundreds of millions of guns.

How like a gun gnutter who cannot see how it would be worse without gun control laws.

It is illegal (more or less, putting aside extensive federal control) to own machine guns in the USA.

How many people died last year in the USA by machine gun?

[Cathouse Mouse]

The Infantile left Winged wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you really that phuqing stupid??? You liberals have NO brains!!! You cannot see the obvious, and common sense is not a part of your lives!
The reason Chicago and DC are the "least safe cities"???
Because guns for the law abiding citizens are not allowed to have and or carry!!!
That answers all of your stupid questions?
If not? You truly are that stupid!!!

We are discussing gun control, you can't even control your emotions. Just look at all those exclaimation marks.

It's my belief that anyone incapable of discussing the gun safety issue who can't control themselves from calling people names and slamming their keyboards are more of the subject variety rather than the particiapant of this discussion.

Have a Snickers bar.

[Cathouse Mouse]

David Wheeler, and his wife, lost thier 6 year old son in Sandy Hook.

Show enough respect to hear his 5 minute address to the Connecticut Congressional Committee yesterday;

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-t...

It doesn't get any more simple than that.

[Brad]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
In a sea of hundreds of millions of guns.
How like a gun gnutter who cannot see how it would be worse without gun control laws.
It is illegal (more or less, putting aside extensive federal control) to own machine guns in the USA.
How many people died last year in the USA by machine gun?

How many died in Waco by the hand of the Government using tanks and flame throwers?
And how many times does it have to happen?

By all means,feel free to use pop guns and sling shots to battle those imaginary black hellycopters you blather on about ad nauseum.

I'll hang onto my AR,spank you very much.

[ron takes it in the rear]

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>
I am a gay discussing gun control, I can't even control my bowel movements. Just look at all those skid marks on my under wear.
It's my belief that anyone incapable of of controlling their rectum can't control themselves from calling people names and slamming their keyboards are more of the subject variety rather than the particiapant of this discussion.
I Have a Snickers bar now stuck up my anus

so says Springdale Arkansas best known gaY troll

[barefoot2626]

sociopathic Liberals wrote:

What does it take for you liberals to figure it out that your stupid idea of taking guns from the law abiding citizens doesn't work???

How many thousands of women have to die for your fat tea baggers to figure out they do?

If Adam Lanza's mother collected china instead of assault weapons, those 20 kids would be alive today.

[U R fn super troll]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
In a sea of hundreds of millions of guns.
How like a gun gnutter who cannot see how it would be worse without gun control laws.
It is illegal (more or less, putting aside extensive federal control) to own machine guns in the USA.
How many people died last year in the USA by machine gun?

Looks like you should be barefoot and are getting rode backback by all those gay liberal faggot friends.
You don't have a life do you ?
averaging just under 70 posts a day ,its clear that you are not Gainfully employed, so the name barefoot fits you nicely , and another topics super troll that doesn't have much to say , maybe try to STFU

[U R fn super troll]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
How many thousands of women have to die for your fat tea baggers to figure out they do?
If Adam Lanza's mother collected china instead of assault weapons, those 20 kids would be alive today.

What a dirt bag sh!t head you are , thousands of women dying? from what ?
Show us where you get your information , so you are allowed to use a computer while incarcerated as criminally insane.
Those kids weren't shot with an assault rifle, but don't let any FACTS GET IN YOUR WAY.

[Respect71]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Crappy presidents make lots of them.
Reagan made more mistakes than most.

LOL... He was one of the greatest presidents we have had. I guess you hated him because he stood for American values, individual liberties, and personal responsibility with less government involvement… But socialists in general hate American values.

[Respect71]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
How many thousands of women have to die for your fat tea baggers to figure out they do?
If Adam Lanza's mother collected china instead of assault weapons, those 20 kids would be alive today.

Or they would be cut to slices with china shards... You're really not a very thoughtful person are you?

[sociopathic Liberals]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny how I was able to point it out to you.

The only point that you've got? Is the one one your empty and lying head!

[sociopathic Liberals]

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>
We are discussing gun control, you can't even control your emotions. Just look at all those exclaimation marks.
It's my belief that anyone incapable of discussing the gun safety issue who can't control themselves from calling people names and slamming their keyboards are more of the subject variety rather than the particiapant of this discussion.
Have a Snickers bar.

Good try, but your spin? it does not work! And neither do your alinksy style #5 attacks. Subtle as they may be? They are still the stupid liberal tactic when losing the debate!

[sociopathic Liberals]

Respect71 wrote:

<quoted text>
Or they would be cut to slices with china shards... You're really not a very thoughtful person are you?

Liberals do not think... they react! 99.999% of the time 'stupidly' too!

[Respect71]

sociopathic Liberals wrote:

<quoted text>
Liberals do not think... they react! 99.999% of the time 'stupidly' too!

Agreed… It’s because they are motivated by emotions and it prevents them from thinking rationally.

[Cathouse Mouse]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
How many thousands of women have to die for your fat tea baggers to figure out they do?
If Adam Lanza's mother collected china instead of assault weapons, those 20 kids would be alive today.

I have found a pattern used by these "cold dead hands" people ... when it comes down to a face off, they usually lay down their gun as soon as they release the child they're using for shielding.

[Cathouse Mouse]

Respect71 wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL... He was one of the greatest presidents we have had. I guess you hated him because he stood for American values, individual liberties, and personal responsibility with less government involvement… But socialists in general hate American values.

American values? Ronald Reagan was supporting Osama bin Laden with funds and weapons funneled to Al Queda thru Pakistan to fight the Russians.

Less government? Government grew by 300,000 people during his Presidency and he raised taxes 11 times.

hahahahahahaha

[Respect71]

Cathouse Mouse wrote:

<quoted text>

Let’s begin with the (modest) successes of this era. In 1981, the president signed into law significant cuts in government spending and tax rates. Reagan’s “historic” turnaround cut the projected spending of the federal government by 4.7 percent for the next fiscal year. Taking inflation into account, the Reagan cuts amounted to 5 percent of the total cost of government. Overall, discretionary domestic spending dropped about 14.2 percent during Reagan’s first year. Several Great Society programs were sharply cut. The Community Development Block Grant program, for example, lost two-thirds of its funding. Reagan also won a 32 percent cut in mass transit spending.

Sen. Pete V. Domenici was correct to call the 1981 budget “the most dramatic reduction in the ongoing programs in the history of the country”— but mostly because federal spending had risen relentlessly for three decades both absolutely and relative to the nation’s wealth. Had that trend continued, the federal government would have grown relative to national income by about 25 percent (from one-fifth of GDP to one-fourth). Instead of increasing, the relative size of government stayed roughly the same as it had been in the 1970s. Reagan thus shrank the size of government compared to what it would have been if past trends had continued.

Reagan also reduced tax rates. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was expected to return $749 billion to taxpayers over the next five years. Two-thirds of both chambers of Congress voted for it, and Gallup found that the public approved the tax cut by two to one. Here again Reagan succeeded relative to a worse outcome. The last Carter budget foresaw steady increases in revenue, culminating in taxes taking 24 percent of GNP in 1986. The average federal tax burden from 1961 to 1980 was about 19 percent of GNP. In 1981, the Reagan administration predicted federal taxes would take just over 19 percent of GDP by 1984. In that sense, Reagan’s tax cuts returned the nation to normal. Without the cuts, however, we would have paid unprecedented taxes.

The tax reform of 1986 stands as the major, and perhaps only, achievement in limiting government in Reagan’s second term. That law lowered rates and eliminated many tax preferences or “loopholes.” Congress often says to a taxpayer: if you do something we want you to do (say, invest in “green technology”), we will grant you a partial dispensation from taxation. Such tax preferences represent a kind of political control through offers rather than threats. True, such tax breaks might seem like a tax cut, at least to those who receive them. But tax preferences do not reduce the power of government in general. Others must pay higher taxes unless spending elsewhere is cut just as much as the tax preference, and tax preferences have no relation to spending cuts. Hence, the amount of coercion remains the same.