Pure awesome

Got my weapon today. Talking to a guy at the register as we were going thru background check (< 15 min BTW). He bought same model as me. He said "the candle has been lit" and I agree. Something like below will happen.

Obama's push on gun violence begins to take shape - First Read

Obama is person of the year.

TIME Person of the Year is President Obama - TODAY Celebrates

It'll also light a candle for sales, the manufacturers are almost certain to see a big boost in sales just like they did when BO was first elected.

I suspect we'll get a lot of hoopla and a gun control bill that has so many exceptions it doesn't restrict anything. But both sides will be excited about how they supported their base.

SI

Yep. I don't consider myself too passionate about this issue on either side but when I read the proposals I thought to myself this is nothing. Obviously the gun side is going to say this is the beginning of the end and the gun control side is going to claim a major victory "For Newton". Politics as usual.

But maybe it will set the gun control side up for the next high profile shooting, where they might have the political will to take another step. I think deep down the sides know that these steps now are meaningless on their own, it's all about momentum and what direction we're going in.

But I think the reality is, violent crime will continue to decrease regardless of the presence or absence or retraction of gun control legislation, just like it has since 1991 or so, even through the implementation and then expiration of the assault weapon ban. Culture and the local communities will drive our fate here, not politicians and lobbyists spending billions for tiny meaningless changes back and forth in the battle for that momentum. For them it's just a part of the game of power and campaign contributions.

That's a bold prediction there.

LOL - that's the reality of the sad state of journalism today.

Sad work.

Was pretty amused by some of the characterizations in that article. Pretty clear which side of the fence that magazine sits.

I agree with this. Some of the most effective ways of measurably reducing violence has been in local communities reaching out gangs and for police to offer amnesty and guns for cash. They also organize Stop the Violence campaigns and raise their profile in schools, news and gatherings. None of this can come federal legislation and their lobbyists so quit looking towards Washington and your state capital for solutions when better solutions are right in your communities.

I guess it was also pretty clear when W won twice, Gingrich won, Bush Sr won, Reagan won twice, etc.?

Since the inception of the award, every single two term president has won the award twice (even Nixon, who is the only back to back winner), no matter what party they belong to.

Vigilance is critical too. I read two stories yesterday about students who were detained (one arrested, one committed to a mental facility), for making threats and generally scaring everyone. Maybe they wouldn't have been so vigilant last week. There's a risk of going overboard, sure, but identifying the risks and actively dealing it with is at that level is so much more effective than making sure lightly-enforced federal law doesn't allow certain types of weapons, but broadly permits others.

STOP USING FACTS TO COMBAT IDIOTS!!!

Or, use responsive facts at least. I didn't read the article but Mizzou B-ball fan's post clearly said "characterizations in that article", not their decision who to give the award to. I know the combination of "liberal media" and "Mizzou B-ball fan" makes you guys dizzy and angry, but c'mon. Just from the blurb posted here though, I had the same thought about them saying Obama was the symbol of a "a new cultural America" and that he "ignored partisanship to do his job."

Edit: Also, I wish we could retire the schtick of yelling at nobody in particular in all caps, but if we can't, I'm going to try it.

EVERY NEWS SOURCE IS EITHER EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE OR EVL RIGHTIES LIKE FOXNEWS!!

Actually, that was kind of fun.

There is some evidence that reducing lead levels in the air and lead abatement have made in difference in violent behavior.

Yes, they picked someone as person of the year and wrote a glowing article on him. Because that person is a Democrat does not make them liberally biased. I see the characterizations in the article as directly tied to the person being chosen.

I appreciate that someone was paying attention to the content of my response rather than posting a knee-jerk reactionary response.

The other one that I noticed that you didn't list was the comment that 'Obama won support from a group of core voters who don't actually care about politics'. I find that to be a strange and misguided characterization of those voters and voters in general. It's not that they don't care about politics. It's that they don't care for the partisan antics that currently characterize the political forum. There's far too many disinterested voters who are voting for what they believe is the lesser of two evils in our presidential elections. There's a reason they don't 'care', but it has little to do with them not being interested in politics or what happens in our government.

I think the quote is accurate, if you add a single word: 'Obama won support from a group of core voters who don't actually care about HIS politics'. Like you say, to my eyes, the great majority of folks voted for the party they support and the generic values those parties are supposed to represent, without all that much consideration for either of the actual candidates or their records, simply because the candidates themselves both represented their core pretty poorly.

I like how it's the GOP that is committed to risking the credit of the USA. Increasing debt (and debt ceiling) without a real plan to pay for it-and start paying it down-is risking credit. The left seems to forget this fact.

That's a battle for budget negotiations. Deciding not to pay the bills the government has committed to is reckless and only one party is willing to do that.

Hold on, so passing legislation you have no idea how to pay for, is perfectly fine, because that's for the budget battle.

BUT, refusing to fund that legislation is reckless...

Gotcha...

Both parties are guilty of this.

Both parties are guilty of this. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

No. The Democrats have voted against a debt limit increase in the past, but have always provided enough votes to make sure it passed. The GOP has and is threatening to deliberately refuse to pay the bills those same congressmen authorized earlier.

If the budget has passed, refusing to pay the bill is indeed reckless. Would you say that running up a bill on the credit card, but refusing to pay it off isn't reckless?

??? So they voted just enough to make a point, but not enough to actually do anything?

"Just enough to make a point, but not enough to actually do anything" - I think they actually put that on a T-shirt they hand out at conventions.

FWIW, every Dem Senator (including Obama) voted against raising the debt limit during the Iraq War, as did a few Republicans.

Neither side has a plan to pay for it. And both sides want to increase debt. I mean Romney's plan was to cut taxes 20% and increase the defense budget.

A post for the ages......

That's been the bipartisan plan since Reagan, and you can criticize that all you want, but that's a far cry from actually refusing to pay the bills for the things you voted to buy.

So you agree that the government should agree to buy things and then refuse to pay the bills?

Nobody's refused to pay any bills though. Just threats and votes from both parties, over the years. (Edit: And Obama has changed his mind on this since 2006, he says he regrets his vote and it was way too risky to go all-in on voting to refuse to raise the debt ceiling without knowing for sure how many Republicans would go along with it.)

This GOP is the first party to ever threaten to stop paying the bills. That decision played a major role in lowering the nation's credit rating.

Heads have rolled ... but at the assistant level.

3 State Dept. Officials Resign Following Benghazi Report - NYTimes.com

Ever?

At least since the debt limit was imposed in 1917.

And the game of chicken continue. I have a feeling if we go over the cliff the next 4 years will be the most partisan we've seen yet.

Boehner defies White House, says chamber will pass 'Plan B' to avert tax hikes | Fox News

So proposing a permanent tax relief for most Americans is considered partisan war painting but opposing such is not?

In Washington D.C.? Yes.

If this had been proposed by democrats, it would be the next best thing to sliced bread. Just like had Romneycare had been passed by the republicans, it would have been the next best thing since free beer at ball games.

I'm not enough of a legislative branch historian to know if its just always been like this but that kind of rhetoric Boehner uses there is what sickens me about Congress and politics. Boehner's making his offer, and now he's calling on Obama to just "get the Democrats to go along with it." Votes for national legislative office are meaningless. It's just two dudes, one of whom isn't even in the legislature, who have to agree to a way to go forward, and then when those two agree we'll have a deal. Maybe if we had more diverse views in congress, a third party, independents, there would be more legislative support based on crazy old ideas like that they think particular legislation is good or something.

If they go off the fiscal cliff my one-person meaningless protest will be to never vote for a big-2 party member for national legislature ever again (or until my change my mind, I did mention it would be a meaningless protest).

Clintonesque speak. If this is true for the $1M and up, doesn't this mean the same thing for $400K and up ... not really a tax increase for them?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8BI19220121219

Boehner must have some unbelievable pressure right now from left and right but I feel little sympathy. IMO the majority of Americans have spoken clearly on this tax issue and he should concede. I don't know if he is one of the worst, most ineffective House Speakers but he personifies the party of "no".

Time Magazine Names Mitt Romney Man of the Year 1912 : The New Yorker

The New Yorker should leave satire to the onion, that doesn't even make sense. I don't they even had an income tax in 1912. And saying Romney has 1912 views on women's rights is kind of like calling Obama a socialist. If you exaggerate the views of the left, its mean-spirited, if you exaggerate the views of the right, its hilarious satire (or worse, it's just taken as fact, like the "Republicans believe all Hispanics are illegals and moochers" poster. )

The makeup of the House of Representatives begs to differ.

So how well Republicans were able to gerrymander ous what best represents there will of the people?

It represents what those people were elected to do.

And, to be honest, by any means necessary as far as I'm concerned at this point.

As much as a few percentages of popular vote represent a "landslide" and a "mandate" (for ANY election).