Front Office Football Central
Page 455 of 527 « First < 355405445446447448449450451452453454 455 456457458459460461462463464465505 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

Edward64 04-10-2014 08:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 2918486)
This shocks me:

Kathleen Sebelius is resigning

I mean the administration is claiming the ACA sign-ups to be a massive success. So why leave now?

I actually think its smart. With election season, its better to leave now on the (perceived) top. Regardless of how successful it is, there's plenty of fodder for criticism.

Edward64 04-10-2014 08:47 PM
Wonder what her beef is. Regardless, have to believe its uncalled for and hope the shoe thrower pays for it.

Shoe thrown at Hillary Clinton during Vegas speech | MSNBC
Quote:
A woman was arrested after throwing objects, including a shoe, at Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state was giving a speech in Las Vegas, and according to the AP, she “ducked but did not appear to be hit by the object.”

The Las Vegas Review Journal said the woman threw what appeared to be a strappy shoe and a bunch of papers at Clinton during her speech at a meeting of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries at the Mandalay Bay hotel-casino. The paper reported that Clinton had several comebacks, including “Is that somebody throwing something at me?” and “Is that part of Cirque de Soleil?” and “My goodness, I didn’t know that solid waste management was so controversial.”

NobodyHere 04-10-2014 09:18 PM
Nobody ducks a shoe like George W.

EagleFan 04-10-2014 09:50 PM
Damn that woman, she needed better aim.

bhlloy 04-10-2014 10:45 PM
Who throws a fricking shoe?

NobodyHere 04-10-2014 10:50 PM
Pretty soon only outlaws will have shoes.

Mizzou B-ball fan 04-11-2014 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2918507)
I actually think its smart. With election season, its better to leave now on the (perceived) top. Regardless of how successful it is, there's plenty of fodder for criticism.

If this is the (perceived) top, we're in deep shit.

ISiddiqui 04-11-2014 10:58 AM
This Vox article (Ezra Klein's new site) explains it well, I think:

Kathleen Sebelius is resigning because Obamacare has won - Vox
Quote:
As National Journal's Major Garrett reported, Obama believes that "scaring people with a ceremonial firing deepens fear, turns allies against one another, makes them risk-averse, and saps productivity." Moreover, there was too much to be done to fire one of the few people who knew how to finish the job. Sebelius would stay. The White House wouldn't panic in ways that made it harder to save the law.

The evidence has piled up in recent weeks that the strategy worked. Obamacare's first year, despite a truly horrific start, was a success. More than 7 million people look to have signed up for health insurance through the exchanges. Millions more have signed up through Medicaid. And millions beyond that have signed up for insurance through their employers.

And Obama is probably true about what happens in the aftermath of a cursory firing.

Edward64 04-12-2014 06:41 AM
Some additional insight.

Log In - The New York Times
Quote:
But three things put off Ms. Sebelius’s departure: Mr. Obama’s fear that letting people go in the middle of a crisis would delay fixing the website; his belief that ceremonial firings are public concessions to his enemies; and the admiration and personal loyalty that Mr. Obama still felt for Ms. Sebelius and her advocacy for his chief domestic legacy.

Over the next four months, Ms. Sebelius engaged in a kind of slow-motion resignation, largely staying out of the national limelight but crisscrossing the country in a furious effort to enroll people in health insurance and taking comfort from strangers who recognized — and offered thanks — for her efforts.

As the website improved and enrollment numbers neared the administration’s goal of seven million people, she began plotting her exit.

“My balance has always been, When? How do you make that decision? I have had conversations off and on with the president about that very thing,” Ms. Sebelius said in an interview on Thursday. “It became more definite in early March, when I felt confident that we were well on our way to a robust enrollment.”

Ronnie Dobbs3 04-17-2014 10:14 AM
Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine

ISiddiqui 04-17-2014 02:41 PM
It appears there is more to that story:

Relax, Ukraine is Not Ordering Its Jews to Register | New Republic
Quote:
So, in conclusion: the Jews of Donetsk and eastern Ukraine may have been asked by a leaflet to register, but it has not been enforced nor are any Ukrainian Jews registering themselves. If that changes, I'll be all over it, but so far, you can breathe easy. No Holocaust 2.0 just yet.

Basically a bunch of anti-Semites are handing this out, but it has nothing to do with the governments in these cities.

NobodyHere 04-17-2014 02:44 PM
My guess is Russia is trying to push it's "Ukraine has been taken over by neo-Nazis" meme

Edward64 04-17-2014 08:51 PM
Good news for Obama.

Obama hails 8 million enrollees for insurance under federal health-care law - The Washington Post
Quote:
President Obama announced Thursday that 8 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, calling the feat a success story that Democrats should “forcefully defend and be proud of” in the face of Republican election-year attacks on the law.
:
:
The final figure of how many Americans will gain health coverage under the law remains unclear for several reasons. Some portion of those who have signed up on the state and federal health insurance exchanges won’t follow through and pay their premiums, so their insurance will not begin. And not everyone who is signing up for coverage is getting it for the first time, because some are shifting from previous health plans, which failed to meet the law’s essential benefits requirements.

On the other hand, the 8 million figure does not include everyone who is newly insured, because more than 1 million consumers — and possibly many more — have bought plans directly through insurance companies. And 3 million Americans have been determined newly eligible for Medicaid as a result of the program’s expansion in 26 states and the District, according to administration figures.
:
:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement Thursday that Obama had glossed over the fact that many Americans had been unable to keep their previous plans and may now be getting inferior coverage.

“Noticeably absent from the President’s remarks today was any mention of the millions of Americans who were deceived about what Obamacare would mean for them and their families,” McConnell said. “Countless Americans have unexpectedly been forced out of the plans they had and liked, are now shouldering dramatically higher premiums, and can no longer use the doctors and hospitals they choose. It’s long past time for Washington Democrats to work with us to remedy the mess they created — and that means repealing this law and replacing it with real reforms that actually lower costs.”
:
:
But that figure includes children, and the key demographic that many policy experts had been focused on — those 18 to 34 — accounted for just 28 percent of enrollees, according to the White House. Health experts who support the law had hoped that young people would account for 40 percent of those in the overall risk pool, on the grounds that they were more likely to be healthy and, therefore, could keep premium in*creases in check.

The president said that Republicans had “gone through the stages of grief” but that he held out hope they would “make the transition” to improving the law. “Anger and denial and all that stuff, and we’re not at acceptance yet, but at some point my assumption is that there will be an interest to figure out how do we make this work in the best way possible,” he said.

There was little sign of that Thursday. Sen. John Thune (S.D.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said in a statement that the president’s “latest ObamaCare ‘victory’ lap is an insult to the millions of Americans” who lost their existing plans and face higher costs and fewer options for doctors. House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) said Obama was “right” when he said the GOP refuses to accept the Affordable Care Act “as settled law.”

“Republicans cannot and will not accept this law,” McCarthy said in a statement.

Edward64 04-19-2014 12:18 PM
Syria has been out of the news a little while.

I've always wondered why we couldn't develop some sort of planned obsolescence in weapons we supply to presumably friendly rebels. Good to see there's a way now.

US sends small number of advanced weapons to Syrian rebels | Fox News
Quote:
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have supplied Syrian rebel groups with a small number of advanced American antitank missiles for the first time in a pilot program that could lead to larger flows of sophisticated weaponry, people briefed on the effort said.

The new willingness to arm these rebels comes after the failure of U.S.-backed peace talks in January and recent regime gains on the battlefield. It also follows a reorganization of Western-backed fighters aimed at creating a more effective military force and increasing protection for Christian and other religious minorities—something of particular importance to Washington.

This shift is seen as a test of whether the U.S. can find a trustworthy rebel partner able to keep sophisticated weapons out of the hands of extremists, Saudi and Syrian opposition figures said. The U.S. has long feared that if it does supply advanced arms, the weapons will wind up with radical groups—some tied to al Qaeda—which have set up bases in opposition-held territory.
:
:
Some of the TOWs provided to rebels since March are equipped with a complex, fingerprint-keyed security device that controls who can fire it, said Mustafa Alani, a senior security analyst at the Geneva-based Gulf Research Center who is regularly briefed by Saudi officials on security matters

Edward64 04-20-2014 09:15 AM
Dawn of another Cold War. Hope it doesn't get as bad as the first ...

Log In - The New York Times
Quote:
WASHINGTON — Even as the crisis in Ukraine continues to defy easy resolution, President Obama and his national security team are looking beyond the immediate conflict to forge a new long-term approach to Russia that applies an updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment.

Just as the United States resolved in the aftermath of World War II to counter the Soviet Union and its global ambitions, Mr. Obama is focused on isolating President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the outside world, limiting its expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood and effectively making it a pariah state.

Mr. Obama has concluded that even if there is a resolution to the current standoff over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, he will never have a constructive relationship with Mr. Putin, aides said. As a result, Mr. Obama will spend his final two and a half years in office trying to minimize the disruption Mr. Putin can cause, preserve whatever marginal cooperation can be saved and otherwise ignore the master of the Kremlin in favor of other foreign policy areas where progress remains possible.

Solecismic 04-20-2014 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2920045)


Edward64 04-21-2014 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic (Post 2920510)

Legislation wise, yup, I think its pretty much done deal. I guess its possible that GOP will win Senate in 2014 and win the Presidency in 2016. But even then, it won't be a complete repeal.

JonInMiddleGA 04-22-2014 03:00 PM
4 Army units heading to Eastern Europe | Army Times | armytimes.com

A little provocation hoping to wag-the-dog? Smells more & more that way to me.

Marc Vaughan 04-22-2014 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 2920295)
I've always wondered why we couldn't develop some sort of planned obsolescence in weapons we supply to presumably friendly rebels. Good to see there's a way now.

Mean time to that 'protective device' being hacked and removed around 5 minutes I expect ....

DaddyTorgo 04-23-2014 03:29 PM
What could possibly go wrong here... Nathan Deal signs broad gun rights expansion | Political Insider blog

Wednesday afternoon, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed a new gun law that, among other things, will allow Georgians to legally carry firearms into churches, schools, airport common areas, bars, courtrooms, and government buildings.

The Safe Carry Protection Act will prevent the state from keeping a database of licensed gun owners and eliminate the fingerprint requirement for renewing weapons carry licenses.

According to a state analysis obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the new law could also allow felons to use the state's "Stand Your Ground" defense to shoot someone to death.

Under the law, which goes into effect July 1, gun owners in Georgia will be allowed to bring their firearms into a bar unless the owner asks them to leave; previously, the owners had to give permission before the gun owner entered the bar. Licensed gun holders will be able to carry their firearms into churches, if the church leaders agree; before the law, bringing firearms in houses of worship was illegal. And gun owners will be able to carry their weapons into government buildings and courtrooms, including those where there is no security.

Local school boards will be allowed to vote to let school faculty bring guns into the school.

And if killing animals with a gun in the state of Georgia was just too loud for you, good news: Under the new law, you'll be able to use silencers while hunting.

DaddyTorgo 04-23-2014 03:31 PM
Countdown to the first "Stand Your Ground" bar-fatality starts...NOW.

Blackadar 04-23-2014 03:43 PM
If a doctor in GA starts shooting anti-abortion protesters because he felt threatened, the law will be rescinded in about 5 seconds.

DaddyTorgo 04-23-2014 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2921300)
If a doctor in GA starts shooting anti-abortion protesters because he felt threatened, the law will be rescinded in about 5 seconds.

:D

Hell - could also just be a pregnant woman.

I'll want to research this law more thoroughly and then I might be honestly willing to start a charity to buy handguns for pregnant women considering abortions in GA.

JPhillips 04-24-2014 07:47 AM
Cliven Bundy, principled conservative:

Quote:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Blackadar 04-24-2014 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2921434)
I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro...

Any time you start of a sentence like that, it's not going to end well.

flere-imsaho 04-24-2014 08:04 AM
Is that the guy who's been grazing his cattle on public lands for 20 years now without paying any fees? He belongs in jail, as a living and breathing example of this: Free rider problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lungs 04-24-2014 08:39 AM
That Bundy douche bag gives us farmers all a bad name. Then again, a good chunk of us are cheering him on. Yet the only justification I see is the whole "Federal government shouldn't own land" argument.

Then Scott Walker runs an ad in Wisconsin with a farmer talking about how people should be less reliant on government, blah blah blah. He doesn't talk about the $1 million in subsidies he's received. But it's those damn people on welfare that are causing all the problems!

Izulde 04-24-2014 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2921434)
North Las Vegas

Yeah, because using the worst area of Vegas is a clear support for his claims.

Blackadar 04-24-2014 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2921452)
That Bundy douche bag gives us farmers all a bad name. Then again, a good chunk of us are cheering him on. Yet the only justification I see is the whole "Federal government shouldn't own land" argument.

Then Scott Walker runs an ad in Wisconsin with a farmer talking about how people should be less reliant on government, blah blah blah. He doesn't talk about the $1 million in subsidies he's received. But it's those damn people on welfare that are causing all the problems!

Whoever is cheering him on either doesn't understand the facts or is an anarchist. After all, this guy doesn't want to recognize the USA. As Jon Stewart pointed out, George Washington dealt with this kind of shit with the Whiskey Rebellion. So this isn't a "new big gubbermint, thanks Obama" scenario. This is an asshole who thinks he's above the law.

I think they should send the DEA to seize the herd for back taxes and fees owed. If they shoot at the agents, the agents should shoot back. Given the past history, recent actions and the continuing threats made by this douche, his family and his ignorant pals, this is about as clear-cut a case where use of force is appropriate as there ever has been.

DaddyTorgo 04-24-2014 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2921456)
Whoever is cheering him on either doesn't understand the facts or is an anarchist. After all, this guy doesn't want to recognize the USA. As Jon Stewart pointed out, George Washington dealt with this kind of shit with the Whiskey Rebellion. So this isn't a "new big gubbermint, thanks Obama" scenario. This is an asshole who thinks he's above the law.

I think they should send the DEA to seize the herd for back taxes and fees owed. If they shoot at the agents, the agents should shoot back. Given the past history, recent actions and the continuing threats made by this douche, his family and his ignorant pals, this is about as clear-cut a case where use of force is appropriate as there ever has been.

I 100% agree.

Wouldn't it be the IRS they send in though? And make no mistake about it - the IRS does have an armed enforcement division.

panerd 04-24-2014 10:40 AM
Don't get me wrong here I am for about the smallest federal level government you can have but definitely not anti-government so I don't side with this guy at all. That said Blackadar's idea is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Most of you guys on here claim all the time how Libertarians may have ideas but lack any pragmatism whatsoever...

Your solution is to start a mini gun battle in Nevada with enough nuts just waiting all around the country for the first shoe to drop? Great plan! Explain to me again who lacks any sort of real world outlook after possibly starting the second civil war.

DaddyTorgo 04-24-2014 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2921476)
Don't get me wrong here I am for about the smallest federal level government you can have but definitely not anti-government so I don't side with this guy at all. That said Blackadar's idea is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Most of you guys on here claim all the time how Libertarians may have ideas but lack any pragmatism whatsoever...

Your solution is to start a mini gun battle in Nevada with enough nuts just waiting all around the country for the first shoe to drop? Great plan! Explain to me again who lacks any sort of real world outlook after possibly starting the second civil war.

My solution is to enforce existing federal laws and not set a dangerous precedent that federal laws don't cease applying just because some kook with a gun doesn't believe in them.

Blackadar 04-24-2014 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2921476)
Don't get me wrong here I am for about the smallest federal level government you can have but definitely not anti-government so I don't side with this guy at all. That said Blackadar's idea is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Most of you guys on here claim all the time how Libertarians may have ideas but lack any pragmatism whatsoever...

Your solution is to start a mini gun battle in Nevada with enough nuts just waiting all around the country for the first shoe to drop? Great plan! Explain to me again who lacks any sort of real world outlook after possibly starting the second civil war.

So your plan is to let armed insurrectionists (domestic terrorists would fit as well) dictate which laws will be enforced and when at the barrel of their gun?

Yeah, like that wouldn't encourage more of these narrow-minded hicks to perform similar actions...

panerd 04-24-2014 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2921478)
My solution is to enforce existing federal laws and not set a dangerous precedent that federal laws don't cease applying just because some kook with a gun doesn't believe in them.

And thank God the Obama administration has more sense than you and realizes there is a way to go about settling a land/tax issue with nobody in eminent danger without a gun battle. You would have made a good member of the Reno ATF. Of course some of them ended up dying, a bunch of innocent children and women died, and then a building blew up in OKC but hey at least they showed who was in control right?

panerd 04-24-2014 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2921481)
So your plan is to let armed insurrectionists (domestic terrorists would fit as well) dictate which laws will be enforced and when at the barrel of their gun?

Yeah, like that wouldn't encourage more of these narrow-minded hicks to perform similar actions...

No you are right the solution is a gun battle. You of course miss the irony that what you are claiming is the narrow-minded "domestic terrorist" mindset is exactly what you are advocating over a tax/land issue. Especially when you are well aware of what the result will be.

mckerney 04-24-2014 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2921452)
Then Scott Walker runs an ad in Wisconsin with a farmer talking about how people should be less reliant on government, blah blah blah. He doesn't talk about the $1 million in subsidies he's received. But it's those damn people on welfare that are causing all the problems!

He's also sticking by his 250,000 jobs claim and touting a surplus when the state is running a deficit, so that seems par for the course for Walker.

Blackadar 04-24-2014 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2921482)
And thank God the Obama administration has more sense than you and realizes there is a way to go about settling a land/tax issue with nobody in eminent danger without a gun battle. You would have made a good member of the Reno ATF. Of course some of them ended up dying, a bunch of innocent children and women died, and then a building blew up in OKC but hey at least they showed who was in control right?

This isn't a land/tax issue anymore. This is an issue of a bunch of dumb hicks who refuse to acknowledge the USA and who pulled guns on federal agents. That's assault with a deadly weapon on a federal agent. We're waaaaaaaaaaaaay past this being classified as a simple land/tax issue.

If a cop stops me for jaywalking and I shoot him dead, would you consider my offense still to be jaywalking?

By the way, it was Waco, not Reno.

I thought the policy of appeasement went out in the 30s. When did that come back into vogue?

panerd 04-24-2014 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2921490)
This isn't a land/tax issue anymore. This is an issue of a bunch of dumb hicks who refuse to acknowledge the USA and who pulled guns on federal agents. That's assault with a deadly weapon on a federal agent. We're waaaaaaaaaaaaay past this being classified as a simple land/tax issue.

If a cop stops me for jaywalking and I shoot him dead, would you consider my offense still to be jaywalking?

By the way, it was Waco, not Reno.

I thought the policy of appeasement went out in the 30s. When did that come back into vogue?

Somebody was shot? Again your solution has known consequences that exceed the original issue the fed's are well aware of this it's too bad you don't realize "your side" isn't even on your side.

Yes it was Janet Reno's ATF correct? (Too bad you didn't win that internet argument!)

DaddyTorgo 04-24-2014 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2921482)
You would have made a good member of the Reno ATF. Of course some of them ended up dying, a bunch of innocent children and women died, and then a building blew up in OKC but hey at least they showed who was in control right?

There's no need for that.

Fuck you.

Honestly - you're an ass. You consistently make shit personal and disparage people in the middle of civil discussions.

I've defended you in the past, and I've enjoyed some of our conversations, but I'm fucking tired of it. Welcome to my ignore list with the likes of SFL Cat, TCY Junkie, Raiders Army, Jon & CU Tiger (both of whom I often actually click to read). Hope you like the company.

panerd 04-24-2014 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2921497)
There's no need for that.

Fuck you.

Honestly - you're an ass. You consistently make shit personal and disparage people in the middle of civil discussions.

I've defended you in the past, and I've enjoyed some of our conversations, but I'm fucking tired of it.

That was the result of raiding the compound in Waco. You are the one making it personal by jumping on Blackadar's crotch about taking the guys out with deadly force and acting offended when I tell you why they didn't do it. There is a reason they didn't do it this time and it was the fact that they didn't want a civil war. What's personal here? You had a bunch of people with the similar liberal mindset all agreeing (and making fun of the sitaution) and the first time someone disagrees and points out the real life reasons why they didn't fly in the blackhawk helicopters and turn Nevada into a war zone you get your panties in wad.

Blackadar 04-24-2014 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2921492)
Somebody was shot? Again your solution has known consequences that exceed the original issue the fed's are well aware of this it's too bad you don't realize "your side" isn't even on your side.

Yes it was Janet Reno's ATF correct? (Too bad you didn't win that internet argument!)

Assault with a deadly weapon doesn't require someone to discharge the firearm. That's attempted murder.

So what's your solution? Let these guys continue to violate the law for another 20 years? They've already said they're going to shoot at federal agents who try to seize their cattle. Do you think you're going to get this guy to "go quietly" by arresting him in the local Walmart (he probably never leaves the ranch)? And while you bide your time, how much encouragement does this give other like-minded anti-gubbermint hicks?

Yes, it was the ATF under the direction of Janet Reno. Therefore, it would be Reno's ATF, not the Reno ATF (which indicates there's an ATF in Reno, NV). There's no doubt they made massive mistakes in Waco, but the raid itself was justified.

panerd 04-24-2014 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2921499)
Assault with a deadly weapon doesn't require someone to discharge the firearm. That's attempted murder.

So what's your solution? Let these guys continue to violate the law for another 20 years? They've already said they're going to shoot at federal agents who try to seize their cattle. Do you think you're going to get this guy to "go quietly" by arresting him in the local Walmart (he probably never leaves the ranch)? And while you bide your time, how much encouragement does this give other like-minded anti-gubbermint hicks?

Yes, it was the ATF under the direction of Janet Reno. Therefore, it would be Reno's ATF, not the Reno ATF (which indicates there's an ATF in Reno, NV).

If it's so black and white and simple then why exactly aren't they doing it? Shit I've been accused a million times on here for seeing the world as black and white and the one time I try and explain why the Obama administration is being pragmatic the world all of a sudden becomes black and white?

The Reno ATF thing is just stupid so I don't care.

JonInMiddleGA 04-24-2014 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadar (Post 2921490)
This is an issue of a bunch of dumb hicks who refuse to acknowledge the USA and who pulled guns on federal agents.

I don't know if these are so much "dumb hicks" as cheap bastards, just to be honest about it.

DaddyTorgo 04-24-2014 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2921502)
I don't know if these are so much "dumb hicks" as cheap bastards, just to be honest about it.

True enough.

molson 04-24-2014 11:33 AM
It kind of warms my heart that everybody has a thing they're a little hawkish about. Sometimes its waco-types, sometimes it's "wall street" criminals, but I think everybody has something for which they'd send in the troops or federal agents, guns blazing. We all just have different priorities and things that set us off.

JonInMiddleGA 04-24-2014 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2921505)
It kind of warms my heart that everybody has a thing they're a little hawkish about. Sometimes its waco-types, sometimes it's "wall street" criminals, but I think everybody has something for which they'd send in the troops or federal agents, guns blazing. We all just have different priorities and things that set us off.

Never a dull moment ;)

And then there's the paradoxes -- I'm among the most fervent anti(current) administration people here and yet I'm at least fairly sure of the real truth behind this particular case (cheap bastard trying to get something for nothing) & have no problem with him having a very large hammer land on his head.

DaddyTorgo 04-24-2014 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2921507)
Never a dull moment ;)

And then there's the paradoxes -- I'm among the most fervent anti(current) administration people here and yet I'm at least fairly sure of the real truth behind this particular case (cheap bastard trying to get something for nothing) & have no problem with him having a very large hammer land on his head.

And you know that something has broad support when Jon and I agree on it. ;)

Blackadar 04-24-2014 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2921508)
And you know that something has broad support when Jon and I agree on it. ;)

Hell, there's probably nobody on this board who is more anti-police militarization than me, but I'm all for launching a full-scale assault against this guy.

larrymcg421 04-24-2014 12:14 PM
I think Obama probably made the right call to stand down for now (a Waco situation would've been disastrous in a number of ways), but something has to be done at some point. I mean, we wouldn't tolerate someone defending their residence with guns against a sheriff enforcing an eviction notice.

JPhillips 04-24-2014 12:32 PM
The decision to not push a confrontation was right, especially with all the right-wing media almost begging for a small scale rebellion. A lot of people would have been injured or killed if the BLM had escalated things. At the end of the day a million dollars in fees and fines isn't worth any lost life.

But I also agree something has to be done to make sure this isn't a recipe for de facto secession. I just don't know what that something is.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.
Page 455 of 527 « First < 355405445446447448449450451452453454 455 456457458459460461462463464465505 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.