text:
Obama Seeks Sweeping New Gun Laws
President Obama said the laws, including universal background checks and a renewed ban on assault rifles, would lead to "fewer atrocities like the one that happened in Newtown."
Alongside Vice President Joe Biden and a group of children who had written in support, President Barack Obama signed a proposal to Congress Wednesday to strengthen United States gun laws, including universal background checks, limiting the number of bullets in a clip, and renewing a ban on military-grade assault rifles.
"If America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown," Obama said.
Check out these related stories
- Let Teachers Carry Guns, Say 2 Pa. Lawmakers
- Mom Who Shot Burglar is New Face of Gun Rights
- Gun Appreciation Day Planned for Jan. 19
He listed some specific measures, including a 10-round limit on magazines for firearms, and asked congress to confirm Todd Jones to fill the long-dormant role of chief for the Bureau of Alchol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) — and briefly mentioned other measures, including helping schools hire more resource offices and making sure mental health professionals have the tools they need. He suggested Congress should fund research into the link between gun violence and violent video games.
The group Sandy Hook Promise applauds Obama's proposal. Do you agree? Tell us in the comments section below.
Assault rifle bans and universal background checks made up the core of his proposal.
"The type of assault rifle used in [the movie theater shooting in Aurora] has one purpose ... to pump out as many rounds as possible," he said. "Weapons designed for the theatre of war have no place in a movie theater."
The law already requires gun owners to run background checks, but federal authorities have struggled to enforce that law.
Obama said he believes Americans are ready, and that he has majority support — including 70% of the National Rifle Association, according to one poll — but that lobbyists and pundits have held laws back.
"There will be lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty," he said. "Not because that's true, but because they want to generate fear, revenues or higher ratings for themselves. The only way we'll be able to change is if their audience, their constituents, their membership says this time must be different."
Last month Obama asked Biden to come up with "concrete steps" to prevent mass shootings and the broader epidemic of gun violence. Biden's task force met with some Sandy Hook parents, including those of 7-year-old Grace McDonnell, who was one of 20 students and six educators killed at the elementary school in the Dec. 14 shooting.
Other parents of children lost in the shooting have actively petitioned the White House to act.
"We recognize that no single law or reform will prevent targeted school shootings," said the parents of 6-year-old Noah Pozner in a letter provided to the Hartford Courant. "However, by enacting a wide range of reforms, federal, state and local governments can make our children much safer in schools."
Newtown Police Chief Michael Kehoe, one of the first on the scene of the shooting, also asked the President to consider new legislation -- specifically, limiting access to the kind of heavy weaponry used by the shooter.
"We never like to think we're outgunned in any situation we're dealing with," he said in an interview with NBC News.
Sandy Hook parents and other Newtown community members have asked for changes in attitudes at the community level across the United States. The advocacy group Sandy Hook Promise launched a nationwide campaign Monday to enact "positive change" to prevent future shootings. While they have taken no official position on gun control — and Sandy Hook Promise representatives were not immediately available for comment on Obama's speech — members have listed policy change as one possible avenue.
"There are steps government can take. There are laws Congress can make," said co-founder Tom Bittman Monday. "But we have to fundamentally change our approach."
Ronnie DelBacco
8:18 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
What should bother every American is the fact that any president, democrat or republican, has the gall to sidestep the constitutional process by abuse of the 'executive order'.
This fact, regardless of the subject matter, should have every American up in arms. (pun intended)
Jonathan Gerard
6:17 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
It is your call to take arms (your "intended" pun) against a president--who uses his executive power to try to save lives--that is troublesome. Gunning for a president violates the constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and also the Ten Commandments. (Note: it is YOU who asked to be taken literally.)
Sometimes we have to decide between two competing goods. In this case, it's the Second Amendment vs. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our nation, in the midst of an epidemic of homicide by guns, has to prioritize between these two values. I choose life (Deut. 30:19).
9:35 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
true. but it seems that every single thing this President does...the republicans are ALL up in arms. screaming and ranting about things that the very last President from long long long time ago of about 5 years did Executive Orders as well. What is it about this President that is soooo different? Obama signed into law pretty much what Reagan wanted to be signed into law and he did worst as Governor on gun control. Christie wanted the same gun control tactics as well. The answer to this....who knows?
6:59 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
@Joe Sommers and those others reading
Sorry.....Obama is clearly not a socialist. He is a president of a political party I infer that you oppose. President Obama has acted fully in the power of president. He does not hat our Constitution and Bill of Rights, you merely disagree with him. I am proud to be a "scary liberal" but Obama is a Democrat not a liberal. What do you mean by entitlement takers? - people who need help because their salaries are not enough to support them, or people out of work - they do not take from us and our taxes. They are helped by our government out of good will and if you were in their situation, I bet you would want some help as well. Obama is a POTUS who has been handed a bad economy and is trying to help it get back on its feet. And for guns - He is on the right track. Congress would do nothing hence the EO. Why would you need military-style weapons? Its absolutely illogical to allow assault weapons in our country. We are not trying to remove the 2nd amendment but to keep our citizens as safe as we can. I think that most people should have the desire to do anything humanly possible to help our country.
11:17 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Joe ...please show me the difference in views from Reagan to Obama on gun control since you say they are soooooo different. Also please compare Reagan's tax rates to today's tax rates since Reagan's were sooooo different and lower??...Also, please show ALL of us how Reagan made so many cuts to the deficit (which he didn't he tripled it) and so many tax breaks ( which he didn't he raised them) that he is some much far right than Obama. Please enlighten us with any information that is contrary.(which you would have to make up the numbers since these numbers don't lie)
9:36 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
list of all executive orders from past presidents
Hugh Gallagher
9:48 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I'm a Democrat and I disagree with many of his policies/actions. It;s a good thing we have some balance/opposition in Congress. I'm disappointed that he responded to the question about armed protection for his children by namecalling instead of a legitimate answer.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
7:27 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
I watched an HBO show called Newsroom...In one episode, it labeled the tea party segment of the House as the "American Taliban"...I won't elaborate on the reasons why this was...Watch it if like (Episode 10)...Checks and balances are good if not abused as much that no sensible sausage gets made.
9:55 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
the reason he probably responded that way...again....every nitwit knows that President's and their family need special protection because of well....they are the President of the United States. Anyone not understanding that (NRA), are complete idiots. Why wasn't the NRA up in arms and generating commercials when Reagan was being anit gun or when he banned guns all together when Governor of California?
From a long long time ago in another galaxy
Amend Wun
9:56 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
There is no comparison between the personal risk that the president and his family take in his carrying out that role, and the risk the average citizen is exposed to. The president and his family are a constant target. There is no debating that.
Hugh Gallagher
10:56 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Amend you embellished it to "the president and his family" They only questioned the childrens protection. They didn't question the protection for the president. But if we are being inclusive, what about members of congress and staff? IS any/all of this "open to debate"?
Hugh Gallagher
10:44 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
well then, if that is so (and I believe it myself) he could have just stated that RATHER THAN RESORTED TO NAMECALLING. I expect namecalling here (like nitwit) but I expect better than that from our leader.
Hugh Gallagher
10:45 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Ammend, although you say it not debatable, some feel ANYTHING IS DEBATABLE
Amend Wun
11:32 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
@Hugh- I can't speak to the President's response to the ad, as I haven't heard him say anything specifically about. Can you elaborate? Regarding the protection of the first family, are you implying that the President's family, including his children, is unwarranted considering the nature of his position? If that's the case, I can't get behind that thinking. It's clear that there are those who would seek to do them harm simply because they are members of his immediate family. I would think that most politicians increase their exposure to risk in the performance of their role, be it members of congress, the senate, house of representatives, even mayors and city council members, but none are the focus of international threats to the level of the president as none of them represent what that role represents. That's just is, that's why it isn't debatable.
Hugh Gallagher
12:59 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
You couldn't have misconstrued what I said + what I meant any worse. I won't even bother to go through each part of what you said about it. You said you couldn't speak for the president BUT both you and Tony had an answer to the question. I thought your answers were credible. It makes no diffence whether or not I agree, they were genuine answers. The president did not answer. He instead called the NRA names. This who;e discussion was due to happened to those school children. The level of protection for leaders is different , as is the people who want to harm them. Their motives + methods are different. The number of targets they are seeking is different. The approach to protecting the presidents children is different than what was provided for the children who were attacked. Again I say that all of this is indeed debatable and deserves thought + discussion without namecalling/
1:25 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
its the same rude chaotic outbursts others have done as our leaders and the highest authority deserves the highest respect.
'You Lie'
or this video here: just imagine obama said this about biggest attack ever. where were the outrages from the republicans then? what about the republican leadership on speaking like that to a President?
Hugh Gallagher
1:44 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
So you're saying it's OK because someone else did it? You answered the question FOR him but he didn't? I was expecting an answer from the president.
1:52 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
no i am not saying that. I am saying let's make sure we are calling out the same exact actions or worst. The same outrage for yelling You Lie or any other insane outbreaks should be addressed with same stance rather than nitpicking every little thing this President does and I mean every little thing. It's getting ridiculous and the American people are getting fed up...could also be why huge landslide loss to Mitt.
2:00 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I can' believe you used the example"I lied" ... time proved that HE DID LIE! Obama is a mudslinging arrogant bully! Do as say or I will tear you down...agree with me or shut up. I have never felt that he is my president because he continues to alienate me by demeaning my beliefs. He tears me down as a Catholic, as a gun owner, as a republican....where is his outrage for all the black children killed every day due to gang violence? Take one look at Chicago. I get sick watching the 11 o'clock news and hearing about the 2 yr. old in Philly that was shot in the head during a drive by. Ok, 20 white children were killed at school and it is horrible, but any more horrible than the angels killed on our city streets every day. Obama hasn't even touched that topic. His so called fixes won't fix anything! It's just one more power grab. Also, no one was saying Obama's girls didn't need protection. The point was...don't our children deserve it TOO? You say our kids aren't under the same threat...I would venture to say that the parents in Ct. would beg to differ...I guess they needed it after all.
2:11 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
sue...please explain to me this video....i can find many many many more where President Bush's answers are so deceiving, more than any President of our time....Please decipher Bush's answer
And the fixes he put into place, most of which Reagan agreed with, might fix things, we don't know yet, we have to give it time. Power grabs....wow...The Patriot Act is by far the biggest power grab of our time. Where is the outrage? How is he tearing you down as a Catholic? Please explain.
11:22 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Joe...would be what we call a hypocrite. Wants to cut deficit but only by raising taxes on the middle class and giving free welfare to corporations. Joe would like to increase military spending for absolutely no reason what so ever, but in same sentence wants to cut social security and medicare. He wants to keep rebuilding other countries and degrade America. This of course, is pretty much the Republican platform. Let's not forget the rest of the Republican platform: redefining what is rape, who should marry, do away with math and science, and much much more in the land of lala land republicans. I can't make this up. These are the facts unfortunately.
Hugh Gallagher
2:03 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I am an American people and a Democrat. Presidents get asked tough questions. Do you think he should have answered or called names? You amy think winning the election meant he should insult 49% of the country I say he should be trying to unite the country and address the problem of gun violence.
2:06 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Btw...he apologized for his outburst! I have yet to hear Obama apologize for anything!
2:13 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
please explain things Obama has done that deserves apologies, then I will find things that past presidents have done...and then you can find for us where they have apologized as well.
4:43 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
No he didn't apologize....but he did a world tour apologizing for being an American to several other countries/nations.... (yes, I'm paraphrasing), something which I find highly offensive.
2:34 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
He called republicans "the enemy"! I saw it with my own eyes! I was appalled and insulted as I watched him. He lied about the cost of my healthcare going up...I can't keep my dentist as he promised because my health coverage had to change with the new year...he lied that, as a Catholic, my religious liberties wouldn't be trampled on, I am insulted when he claims people like me are racists when I don't agree with him on policy issues or that I want old people and children to suffer and starve because I think changes need to be made in some programs.....I could go on I'm sure! I despise this man. Obama is a truth spinner and out right LIAR! Also, I agree with Kirsten Powers, he acts like a petulant child. Tony, try something I taught my four children....don't excuse bad behavior with other people's bad behavior!!!
2:56 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I am not Sue. Have you checked to see if there is mental health coverage still under the plan? From 2002 to 2009 my health premiums at a large financial company, tripled. Bush did nothing but add more cost to Medicare. Nobody did nothing and the rates were out of control. Obama passed an absolutely pure 100% republican idea for healthcare. Romney loved it and said it was great (that was until he ran for president). I can provide video of that. I need to see video of Obama saying republicans are enemies. Republicans did say their main goal was not the American people, not America, not helping the troops, but to make sure Obama was a 1 term president and that he would fail, even before he did anything or proposed anything....hmmmmm why would that be? Turn off Fox News...their viewers are the least informed....Hannity lost about 40% of his viewers in the last 2 months....maybe you should do the same
3:40 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Oh Tony, I am an Italian /Irish/Jersey girl...boy could I answer you in SOOO many ways, but I will just bid you adieu!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
7:29 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
What's not to like in the proposals...Nothing in there that said about confiscating your guns...You can keep 'em except for the assault weapons.
Hugh Gallagher
9:50 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
"what's not to like" Hopefully, you aren't suggesting that we all "like or dislike" evrything the way you see it?
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
11:53 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
So what don't you like in the proposals?
Rosemary B
3:03 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
The 23 executive orders were a big dud. Nothing important or even helpful. Maybe some of the things about mental health might help someone somewhere. Just an opportunity for a photo op with children for our campaigner in chief!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
4:38 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Dud?..Jumping the gun again...Reasonable children have more sense than many of these posters here whose numbers are shrinking every single minute.
Rosemary B
9:35 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Nothing in his Excecutive orders would have saved one life in Newtown or Columbine. Except maybe armed security in the schools. But I think Columbine had armed security! Just an excuse to appear as if he had done something "for the children"! A great big farce!
Rosemary B
9:41 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Nazaretti, we already have 300 gun control laws on the books. I think that is enough. The so called "assault weapons" ban is a joke. Did no good last time that is one of the reasons it was allowed it to expire. And limiting the bullets in magazines is also a joke. Bad guys will just carry more magazines ! It will only hurt law abiding citizens who will now be out gunned by people meaning to do them harm who won't abide by any new laws anyway.
Rosemary B
9:44 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Wilfredo, you seem to be a man who will blindly follow Obama anywhere. Like so many of his supporters. He is lucky to have so many like you who are so easily to convinced that the government always has good intentions. I am not quite so naive. I know my history.
Rosemary B
9:47 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Nazaretti, what I would have liked to see in there is something more promoting gun education and gun safety. And more on helping the mentally ill. Not just encouraging doctors to report them to the government, but finding ways to get them real, affordable long term help.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
11:35 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Once again, you take your Republican leaders and I take Obama anytime...Better him than the obstructionist party...Hey, they even obstruct their own programs just because Obama agrees with them...Party first before country...BIZARRE!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
11:47 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
History, Rosemary B?..George W. Bush not long ago got us into the abyss...Obama is getting us out of it as I write.
Rosemary B
3:47 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
George W Bush has nothing to do with this issue. And I am not the one who would blindly follow any President over a cliff like the followers of Obama seem so willing to do. And when I say history I mean prior to George W Bush and I am referring to World History.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
5:22 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Now you just placed a good slap on Dubya's face as if he is not part of history...Bush is the worst president, a Republican, our country has ever had...Carter was bad but no Iraqi shoes came flying his way.
Rosemary B
9:45 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Reading into my words and twisting them, as you usually do. YAWN.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:42 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
If there is anyone who twists words, it's you...You cannot even come up with the meaning of your characterization weak-mind...I interpret every word you say literally...You totally deny George W. Bush's accomplishments as our POTUS (He is not part of your history...Insulting remark)...What's twisted about that?..He is not the issue?..Heck, you were just vilifying our beliefs in Obama as blind followers...Obama, for your information, is doing a great job in spite of your party's scorched-earth obstructionism (make him a one term president, remember?), and he got re-elected and will take his oath today!..If you are a good citizen, you should be part of good government...These gun proposals are noteworthy and we should support them for our children's sake and our national security.
careless fills
2:27 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Considering the source, the Iraqi shoe was a badge of honour for GWB.
Ed B
3:21 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
"If America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people..."
There's the problem right there. Blame the object, when the fault is with said "dangerous people"....why not keep them off the streets in the first place? Oh, wait, it's about "criminal justice", and not justice for the victims. Talk about reactionist policy...
Hugh Gallagher
3:47 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
So an emotional mom has her child write a letter to a trusted politician??. . The conversation about this tragedy has been taken over by well-intentioned (but ignorant) people who never fired a gun and have never even seen an assualt rifle. Although there are experts, law enforcement, and yes, even the NRA who certainly know something about this, they are being ignored and ridiculed. This is not a thoughtful process to address a serious problem It is more like a recipe for disaster.
Rich Cranium
5:14 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
To be fair though I have only ever seen one actual assault rifle, an M-16 A1, but I never got to fire it. However I do own an AR-15 and a WASR which are both what politicians like to call "assault weapons."
I like how the NRA proposed police in every school and it was a crazy idea, but then Obama says that we need more "resource officers" (aka police offices) in schools... WOW WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!!! How did he ever think of that?!? Obama is the only one who has the guts to propose such a bold idea.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
4:41 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
"Guns are abominable" - Nixon
"Assault weapons don't belong in the streets"- Reagan
"Take my name off your NRA membership"- Daddy Bush
Hugh Gallagher
5:23 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Wilfredo, so you would ask "what's not to like"? Then someone answers what they don't like and you tell them why they are supposed to like what you like. Have you ever been accused of being the "voice of reason"?
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:15 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
I am sorry I can't answer this query for the simple reason that there has been no alternative proposal presented (unless I missed it) ...Well then, be reasonable and suggest better solutions to this problem than we already have...I do not have anything to add.
Hugh Gallagher
2:24 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
The simply stated goal at the beginning of this article is to "keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people". Probably 80% of Americans would agree with this goal. You can guess that a large portion of the 20% would be the people that this goal is aimed st, including the many crazies and convicted felons who are forbidden by law to not own a weapon BUT STILL DO.. A well-thought out program/policy will have some effect on this goal. HOWEVER , a poorly thought out program will have the opposite effect. If a year from now, the 20% of people who are already ignoring the law still have their guns but the majority of the responsible gun owners don't have them, the 80% will be WORSE OFF then they are presently. Even those who don't like/want guns will now find their safety compromised when the bad guys have them and the good guys don't. A huge OOPS. If you do a poor job trying fix this, you will make it worse. So if you have no interest in owning a gun and you think some poorly thought out program is gonna "fix things" THINK A LITTLE HARDER. The 20% may be quietly laughing with no intentions of disarming. Be careful what you wish for. Do you trust politicians, emotional Moms and children who write letters to decide these things?. It certainly would be a good start to better enforce the current laws. The laws could be made stronger. But only with thought + consideration by knowledeable , thoughtful (not knee jerk) people
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:15 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Hugh..This used to be in the past...This time, law enforcement is not your grandfather's cops and robbers debacle any more...The government has realized its enforcement has been utterly lax...I hope this is not just lip service on their part, otherwise, the same shit will prevail...Everyone is being asked to join the campaign and maintain peace and order instead of sabotaging the proposals even before they have been in place...Wouldn't that be nirvana?..Let's make it work...We are all in this together
Hugh Gallagher
7:39 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Are you saying that law enforcement is the problem? I'd like to hear their side of that. In fact, I'd like to hear more from them than from Moms, kids, politicians and people who just hate guns. I'd like to hear from sociologists and psychologists. It is understood that the NRA is agenda driven, just like politicians, but they certainly know something about guns. As R-C pointed out, their idea about armed security in schools sounds like the presidents "new idea" about resource officers (uniformed police). Why the battle/insults between them when they BOTH PROPOSED THE SAME THING? There is a need for more leadership +compromise between them . This is a complex , difficult task. Done poorly, it will actually make things worse. A month never goes by without reading of a felon, rearrested for something, who also has a gun even though it is against the law for him to have it. If they could just put an end to felons carrying guns, that would be a huge step forward to end gun violence. Do you think those felons are just going to listen to a new law and turn them in?
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
8:30 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
No I don't expect the law to accept failure, just like a kid admitting he/she took the last cookie from the jar...Somebody else has to do it, like a whistleblower or something...Your example of felons getting away with crime appears to be a confession that law enforcement is lax...If it isn't, then felons would be spending some time in jail...This time around, no more Mr. Nice Guy (I hope).
Hugh Gallagher
9:12 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
I'm not "confessing" for anyone. But it would be great for law enforcement to explain their view on why this happens. There may be another part of the system that allows this to happen continuously. I would guess that the everyday patrol guy is tired of having to deal with armed convicted felons on a regular basis. It decreases his safety (and ours)
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
11:32 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Did you know that this is similar to the NRA's agenda to strictly enforce gun control laws?
Rosemary B
9:27 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
From the wisest man around. Wish we were wise enough to elect him president
"New York's Assembly just rushed through some of the strictest gun control laws in history. But will they make any difference? The background checks and restrictions on sales of guns and ammo wouldn't have deterred the Sandy Hook shooter, who simply stole his weapons. The law requires therapists whose patients make threats to report them to the state. Expect that to be challenged in court. Guns with even one cosmetic feature of a military rifle are now illegal assault weapons. Opponents say that will turn thousands of law-abiding gun owners into criminals overnight. The increased sentences for gun crimes might deter some criminals, but mass shooters tend to commit suicide anyway. And it reduces the maximum number of bullets in a magazine to 7, which one gun owner said means that homeowners will now have 7 shots while criminals will have 30. There's no question the anti-gun laws will make New York safer. The question is, safer for whom: citizens or criminals?"
For more of the Huckabee Report, visit MikeHuckabee.com.
4:45 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Again, what specific steps do you recommend to reduce gun violence?
Rosemary B
9:43 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Enforce the 300 plus laws already on the books. Improve and make mental health care more available and affordable. Implement more wide spread gun safety education. Since most gun violence takes place in the inner cities, do what it takes to improve conditions there. School choice would help in that area to improve education which leads to more economic opportunity.
Hugh Gallagher
2:14 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Rosemary, from your post,I can't tell whether you are a Republican or Democrat. And no namexalling or accusations. My compliments.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:23 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
You have not read all her posts...She is a rabid Republican (tea partyer?) and labeled those who voted for Obama weak-minded/blind.
Rosemary B
11:00 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Thank you for the compliment, Hugh, Please pay no mind to Wilfredo. He does not know me at all. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans in my lifetime. I look at both sides of an issue and I try to see what the consequences of policy would be. And I do feel that the Obama supporters are people who are easily influenced by a media who has an agenda. I call that weak minded.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
12:59 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
And listeners to Rush Limbaugh and fans of Faux Fox News are smarter people?..Surveys say otherwise...Go to Fact Checker...Me, too, have voted for Republicans...Does that make me strong minded?..I never characterize people who don't disagree with me, but you and your side are full of them.
La Pierre scared the bejesus out of the citizens when he declared "JACK-BOOTED THUGS ARE AFTER YOUR GUNS"...Instill fear/paranoia to all!...You know what, Daddy Bush (who is still alive anyway) immediately withdrew his membership to the NRA!
Rosemary B
7:35 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
There you go bringing the Bushes into the argument again. I make up my own mind on things, I do my own research and do not follow any politician or President blindly.
7:48 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Many of your recommendations are included in the White House gun plan.
Rosemary B
10:56 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
I know. I have read them. And what does that say about this presidents Executive orders ? When a Homemaker in Nazareth can come up with something just as good as him! I think it is a DUD because they are all things we are or should be doing already.Really quite sad that he made such a big deal about what amounts to next to nothing that will do any real good. And exploiting the kids for his big executive orders press conference. Just does not seem right to me.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
12:42 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
And Obama's kids are fair game for the NRA?..Chris Christie called it reprehensible!
Rosemary B
7:37 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
And other people's children are apparently fair game for Obama to exploit in his press conference and on the White House.gov website.
Hugh Gallagher
8:02 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Wrong again , as usual. I read all of the posts here. You've done far more name-calling and made more accusations than anyone on this discussion. Add to that the out-of-context dubious "quotes" by dead presidents. A lot of the names you.ve called others would better apply to you. Hopefully, you won't grow up to be a politician. Go find a corner and talk to yourself. I won't even respond to your drivel anymore.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
9:31 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Name one, Hugh...I don't recall calling anyone weak-minded, azzhole or some other epithet unless in response to what I'd been called...I sent these back at them...Hey, it goes both ways, you see.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
10:59 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
This was that post I tried to direct you to...You characterized my comments as drivel and not to bother wit them anymore...You also mocked my quotes of dead presidents (By the way, Daddy Bush IS still alive) as dubious...Please don't expose your ignorance of history.
9:44 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Can we please get this point straight...not ONE of the proposals would have had an effect on the Newtown shooting. Also, the problem wasn't that this young man didn't have access to mental health care. He chose not to get help. He was an ADULT! His mother was trying to get him committed. Her fault was giving him access to her guns when she knew he had issues! There is a fine line here. We can't step on someone's liberty by forcing care on someone even if everyone around him knew had issues. Foot Hood could have been prevented if the psycho's superiors weren't handcuffed by political correctness. Let's not insult the Muslim. Wilfredo, you are a fool plain and simple. Go put your head back in the pitcher of kool aide! Criminals will always have access to guns! These fixes only effect the law abiding citizen. Why don't you discuss what the Democratic Party has done to the black community. There is a big part of the gun violence problem! Will any of these proposals keep guns out of those hands?
9:52 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Also Wilfredo, is every republican a tea bagger? I am smart enough to distinguish between a democrat and a left wing wacko such as yourself! Btw, I am not a member of the tea party, but what is your issue? They are a group of Americans from all 3 parties calling for upholding the constitution and being fiscally responsible....wow...that's horrible! So unlike those occupy people destroying property and raping women!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
12:37 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Here comes the name-calling once again, and I am getting accused of doing it...You guys must feel good by doing what you are doing, because all in all you are not saying something important, just insulting people...Did I ever guess that you are a tea partyer?..Wherever did you get that idea except in your fantasy of making people inferior to you (I doubt it)...I don't really care what party you belong to you conservative obstructionist neanderthal...Ther...We are even now...You call me names, I'll sling it back at you...Fair enough?
As far as your concern about law enforcement, it will be different this time...No more Mr. Nice Guy as it used to be...Criminals will do a double take next time around...In fact, this is what the NRA likes, too...Strict law enforcement...You and your koolaide...It sounds good but it's hot air.
10:21 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
"We can't step on someone's liberty by forcing care on someone even if everyone around him knew had issues."
This is wrong. All or most states have laws and procedures for involuntary commitment of mentally ill people.
Rosemary B
10:48 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
And his mother was attempting to do that and that is what might have put him over the edge.
10:35 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Kim A,
"Can we please get this point straight...not ONE of the proposals would have had an effect on the Newtown shooting."
The White House plan addresses gun locks and improved gun safety technology. If these are implemented now, the probability of Newtown-type incidents in the future will be reduced. For example, personalized guns that can be used only by authorized individuals.
10:55 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
And what about the mother or son who is home during a home invasion when the father is out...they can't protect themselves. The incident that just occurred with the mother who shot the intruder 5 times to protect her 2 children would have ended differently. She shot him 5 times and he still walked away. Lucky he didn't have a partner. There was also a recent story of the 14 year old boy who shot an intruder. He protected his younger siblings. As I stated...the law abiding citizen is effected...not the criminal. Don't you realize the Newtown nutcase could have just as easily set explosives off if he was that intent on killing a lot of people. You people chase your tails with no real solution. Some knucklehead just committed suicide by hitting himself in the head with a hammer...yes a hammer! Also, why do you need to take my point and dissect it...you CAN NOT force someone to take their meds! As I stated, the mother was in the process of having him committed. Did I make myself more clear. That doesn't change the fact that he didn't seek treatment for himself!!! The option WAS available!
11:27 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
You may be surprised to learn that many mentally ill people either do not know or refuse to admit that they have a problem.
11:14 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
I fail to understand political agendas of many elected official. The U.S. Constitution clearly provides rights via the Bill of Rights to those of us who aren't socialists. However, Mr. Obama continues to erode this right! Hopefully all of you Liberals can understand that the power of your speech (Freedom of Press) that all of you hide behind will be next after the right to bear arms. Think about other countries throughout the world that have taken away guns. Then look at how many of these countries have had an increase in violence and rulers who kill the masses. More later. @Tony you might want to reconsider your approach with other and try a nicer approach...just a thought.
11:35 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
The Constitution does not provide us with rights, rather it prevents the federal government from depriving us of our GOD-GIVEN rights without due process.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
1:07 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
My problem with Freedom of the Press/Speech is that may posters here don't have any qualms of throwing slurs to those whom they disagree with, and I get sucked in it (which I hate).
11:33 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
"Can we please get this point straight...not ONE of the proposals would have had an effect on the Newtown shooting."
Pediatricians advise parents on maintaining a safe environment for their children. If Nancy Lanza had received such advice, she might not have been so cavalier about encouraging her troubled son to use guns.
The White House plan includes actions to make sure pediatricians can continue to provide such counseling, in spite of attempts by the NRA and others to restrict this form of preventive medicine.
12:01 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Nazaretti, you are a typical lefty! You easily get off on some nonsense tangent point! Your point has nothing to do with the proposals set forth. I will not entertain you by getting into specifics about mental health problems. Just because there are crazies out there doesn't mean my rights need to be stomped on. Because there are ***holes that drive drunk doesn't mean my right to have a drink or two should be taken from me. I am responsible! You people will just keep dancing around the issues without giving any credible solutions!
1:03 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
This is the plan's proposal to which I refer , quoted directly from the White House plan:
"Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety:
Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their
patients' homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of
certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home.
Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from
asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against
state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will
issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate
communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms."
1:05 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Please share your own "credible solutions" with us!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
1:21 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Teenager in New Mexico shot 5 people including 3 children in a house...Guns were found in the house.
1:56 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Sometimes there is NOTHING you can do to prevent other people from being stupid or evil. This is one of those cases....many are! I just went through a 2 month dance to get a valid passport. Of course the legal responsible person like me gets put through the wringer. The criminal has his ways of getting documents illegally. It's all a joke making you liberals FEEL safe! It makes us no more safe! If anything it makes us more unsafe because we can't protect ourselves. I couldn't help but notice that you didn't address the gun problem in our cities. The criminals will always have access to guns! The real problem starts at home. We can't force people to bring up children in loving and caring families. You can't force morality. Our liberal society excuses bad behavior.
2:20 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Here's another point...I would love to see these liberals who are so ready to restrict guns to come out with any kind of restriction on abortion....oh no...we can't touch that! You bleeding heart hypocrites!
2:30 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
um Kim they have put restrictions on abortion. It's the republicans, big government republicans that want to define rape. That is fact. I can provide video footage from their own mouths. and if liberals were the only ones restricting guns, then you obviously are stating that Ronald Reagan was a liberal as well. So is Chris Christie. Who do you have in mind is not a liberal from the Republican party and I will provide examples of how they are big government. (Ron Paul and Gary Johnson can't be used since they are pretty much ready to denounce their membership to the Republican party) please name some.
2:37 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Wilfredo, I am sorry I offended you by calling you a left wing wacko. Clearly I touched a nerve.
2:47 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
I agree that sometimes there is nothing that can be done to prevent a multiple murder. However, I also think that sometimes there IS. Just because we cannot be perfect is no excuse not to try to be better.
Once again, what are your "credible solutions"? Or have you given up?
3:26 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Can you read.....I said there is nothing that can prevent these tragedies. We have enough laws in place. THERE IS NO MAGIC SOLUTION! Get it Nazaretti...nothing...nada...zilch? Your solution....talk talk talk.......stop wasting our time with worthless dribble. I almost got a tear in my eye when you pleaded that we at least try....can't you see how bleeding heart you are? It's the whole "everybody gets a trophy" mentality.....at least you tried your best Billy! Give me a break! Stop stepping on my rights to make yourself and your kind feel good about at least trying!
2:47 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
ronald reagan's greatest hits
Reagan on taxes ...he was by todays definition and Joe's definition a "Liberal"
Reagan on social security....HUGE LIBERAL REAGAN from Joe's definition and tea party
2:48 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Ronald Reagan's greatest hits on his LIBERAL views on Guns
"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."
--Ronald Reagan, in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.
"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."
--Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989.
2:48 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
more of Reagan's greatest hits on Liberal gun control....dude was a huge liberal unless proven other wise
"Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited."
--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.
"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases."
--Ronald Reagan, speech at George Washington University in a on March 29, 1991.
"Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped."
--Ronald Reagan, in a March 29, 1991 New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill.
"I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken."
--Ronald Reagan, in a press conference in Toronto on June 21, 1988, suggesting that prospective gun owners should have to receive training before purchasing a firearm.
"Well, I think there has to be some (gun) control."
--Ronald Reagan, during a question-and-answer session with high-school students on November 14, 1988.
3:40 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Tony and gang, we are discussing Obama's plan which you are in support of. Why do you and your people continue to bring up Bush 1, Bush 2, Reagan, Chris Christie etc...we are debating Obama's sad excuse for a solution. I know this is hard for you, but can you stay on point!
3:57 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
because KimA, you guys bring up Obama is a liberal, while Republicans are as well. Key so called republicans. So if you are republican, calling Obama a liberal, isn't that hypocrisy? Obama's "sad excuse" is the same as Christie and Reagan, so who then do you have in mind? Big government anti-gun Mitt?lol
3:55 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Tony when you say "they" have put restrictions on abortion I am assuming you mean those crazy republicans. I can be certain that I have NEVER heard a lib talk about restrictions. As senator Obama didn't even want to allow doctors the right to treat babies that somehow lived through the abortion process. He felt that it interfered with the right of the mother.
4:21 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Tony you are thick. You don't see the difference. You are comparing liberal vs republican. You act as though republican has one meaning. We are saying Obama is a liberal democrat. There are plenty of democrats that aren't in step with him. Just because some prominent republicans say something doesn't mean the whole Republican Party feels that way.
4:52 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
republican does have a meaning= hypocrite. granted the liberal holds no fact for what they stand for. the republican though...as the American people seen this past election again, is by far the biggest government control party and makes themselves look idiotic when preaching one thing and does another. This is why pretty much every poll shows the Congress GOP is useless. Even the polls taken by Republicans only show that like 64% of Republican voters think the current republicans are out of touch with the american people. When you have Paul Ryan signing off on a bill that allows the rapist to sue the victim to prevent an abortion....yes that is out of touch and thank god that guy is not our VP.
5:13 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Yes, I thank The Lord every night we have good ole Joe as our VP! Lol I can see why the fools follow that idiot! In regard to gridlock, everyone knows it's up to the president to lead and bring the two parties together. Other presidents have succeeded, but poor poor Obama, it's not his fault. Those nasty republicans are just standing in his way. Of course, it's not because they disagree with his policies, but because they just don't like him! lol Everyone just wants poor Obama to fail. :(
Rosemary B
7:46 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
My main objection to Obama has always been that he has poor leadership skills. He does not know how to bring people together.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:51 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
Poor leadership indeed...How can he lead when he was threatened with a one-term presidency by your party...In the process, everything he proposed was obstructed no end (even when proposals are Republican Party programs)...He must not succeed at all cost...Well, he succeeded and now on his way to his next term...I talked about this in previous posts.
7:57 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
I agree completely! I feel as though he is always on attack! It's a real shame. The divisiveness rubs off on all of us. Look how nasty we can be with each other. He is our leader....president to all Americans. I know I don't matter to him at all. It's so frustrating. I know that I have been guilty of my ugly side coming out...:(
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
7:04 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
I must remind the other side of this debate that Obama was re-elected because of the lousy agenda Mitt Romney had advanced on the campaign..."Let Detroit go bankrupt, Who cares about the 47% freeloaders", and other pathetic Republican foreign policy ideologies, like bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!..Detroit has recovered and the 47% persevere...No we are not going to bomb Iran...This should give us goosebumps listening to them...This is not blind support to Obama's programs...This is common sense choice.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:02 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
Yes I am and you are such an ignorant loser...Review the electoral process and there you will learn what really happened to Mitt Romney and your fast disappearing, good-for-nothing obstructionist party...Have you ever heard of demographic sea change?..I suggest you do your homework, idiot...Watching the inaugural celebration today and am so proud to have Obama instead of Romney as the president.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:45 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Entitlements have worked since they were established...In fact, they worked so well there are more people benefiting from them and have helped the economy in the process because people receiving the goodies spend their rewards (Please be aware that these "goodies" are paybacks from what these recipients have put in).
AS for your wealth producers, they get produced from the backs of the "takers"...Remember, they lay off workers when the bottom line don't look so good (in spite of galloping profits).
12:24 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Joe ....you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Obama didn't win because of entitlements. Many business owners I know even voted Obama. It was Mitt's flip flops and snakey "i must win no matter what" attitude that cost the election. Glad to see Joe is not patriotic either. Those entitlements he speak of go to our war veterans as well as seniors. Keep watching Fox joe....man the ignorance is unreal.
Hugh Gallagher
7:43 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
Both the media and the politicians put effort into keeping Americans both divided and ignorant. Looking at this discussion, it is evident they've had some success.
6:30 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
Willy, I can almost guarantee that you are part of that 47%! The reason Mitt lost was because white America sat this one out! I watched footage from today and thought Michele should look in the mirror when she talks to others about obesity. I also couldn't help but notice how arrogant and divisive Obama's was. So sad! I wish they would both start walking the walk!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:29 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Good morning, Ann...I am proud to say that, yes, I am one of the 47 per centers and proud of it...I rather rub elbows with this group than kowtow to the filthy rich 1 per centers...This latter group gets richer on our expense...As usual, as one of the Obama haters, you saw only the "ugly" part of the celebration (but I don't see what you are referring to: Michele obese?..I thought she looked chiseled!)...Anyway there's no stopping you guys from this disgusting characterization of the hated Obamas...I sense a sour grapes here.
Jonathan Gerard
6:34 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
It is clearly true, as the above thread illustrates, that there are Americans who hate President Obama. But it is also true that a large majority of Americans, after seeing him in office for four years, voted to reelect him. Obama's opponents must agree that, having won a second term, he has the right, in fact the duty, to work for the agenda he ran on. To deny that is to deny the very foundation of our American democracy. We elected him. He must defend the Constitution, protect us, and work for the agenda we voted for.
6:53 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
He ran on raising taxes and cutting spending. He got his tax increase. unfortunately we are all feeling that, except people who don't pay taxes at all. He has yet to talk about cutting anything. He claims that he ALREADY made cuts...cuts that include cost savings from NOT being at war! Funny math all around. I do despise this man and everything he stands for!
1:28 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
partly true...Obama ran on increasing the taxes on ONLY the top 2% of Americans. Everyone else received a tax hike in the payroll tax cut due to the Republicans not wanting to renew that tax cut, hence the GOP handing a bill to Obama before the deadline without the payroll tax cut in it. The Republicans from day 1, never liked the payroll tax cut. You can surely google it or do your own research and see how the republicans did NOT want the payroll tax cut and wanted it to expire back in 2011. The reason I bring that up is that is why everyone's paycheck got a slight increase in taxes. Thank the GOP where the thanks is needed (tax on everyone) and thank Obama for only endorsing his part of the tax increase to the top 2%. You can surely do your own research and check out Boehner's Plan B, which called for tax increases for EVERYONE and we are not talking a slight increase with the Republican's Plan B. It was a HUGE increase for everyone, except the rich of course. The American people are not stupid and hence the only like 15% approval rate for Congress (GOP) and 51%+ for Obama.:) enjoy
7:30 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
He has done NOTHING to change the sad state of the black community. They are worse off with him as president. The ignorance on the left is astounding...they continue to say we are "getting better....moving in the right direction". Really? The Democratic Party keeps people dependent on the government to retain their power. The Democratic Party is made up of ignorant people too stupid to realize it!
12:27 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Ann if your hypothesis is true, then Bush certainly wanted to keep "...people dependent on the government to retain their power...." right? you wouldn't be calling yourself a hypocrite...would you? Meaning under the Bush administration we had the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression. Using your own words, Bush and the republicans maybe creating the disaster to keep the "people dependent on the government to retain their power." in order to have unemployment skyrocket, which it did. increase the debt, which he did, and then bolted like a bat out of hell and will not show his face anywhere. Why wasn't he at the RNC convention if republicans think he did soooooo good?
3:02 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Yes Willy, we are living the good life! 7.8 is great! The number of people on food stamps...no problem...let the good times roll! As for Tony (***hole)' the mental health joke never gets old! Lol loser!
3:19 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
no problem Ann:) your welcome. I'm just here to fact check your false posts and try to help bring you back to reality. At this point, your future travel bookings to LaLa Land looks booked. :)
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
3:31 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I'd take 7.8 than 7.9 anytime...People on food stamps were placed there during the last recession from lousy Republican economic policies under Bush...Many more people need jobs and Obama is trying to get them some.
Your despicable narrative on Michelle Obama appears delusional/deranged...You have just been added to the long list of deranged extreme right wingers.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
3:35 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Yet another typical shooting day at the office in Texas...Good commercial for gun manufacturers...This should up more gun sales as it always does after gun violence...Arm the good guys to shoot the bad guys, is that it?
3:45 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Should we start posting every time a life is saved by a gun! Loser!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:48 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
You may not be aware of this but for every person save by self defense, there are about a thousand more dead by homicide/suicide/accidents...This is a statistical fact!..Maybe we should be reading more on life saved by gun, but unfortunately, it appears to be a rare event because now and then gun violence grace pages of our daily newspapers and TV broadcast.
3:43 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Willy, you are a total loser....ooh I will take 7.8 over 7.9. I guess it is better than 8.0! How about we aim for the 6s, but you go ahead and think big! Also, I don't know where you get your facts, but the number of people on food stamps EXPLODED under Obama! Tony, I guess I will meet you in la la land a**hole!
4:24 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
typical vulgar republican=ann, again...here to fact check on food stamps you mentioned. The food stamp program in question was amended by.....drum rolll please.....you guessed it...the Bush administration....then during the Bush administration we had the largest financial collapse since Great Depression which carried over and will probably take decades to get rid of. Even if a Republican happens to win in 2016, the repercussions from the Bush years will still be present. Even if Chris Christie runs, who by the way seems too liberal and big government for today's crazy republican voters, he will see the improvements made by Obama and the repercussions still from Bush.
4:46 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Tony, really.....***hole is vulgar? Thought a GUY named TONY could handle it especially when he tells a young lady she belongs in a mental institution. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. Try growing a pair! ( whoops, that's vulgar!)
4:56 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Willy, I just had the pleasure of reading your response admitting your were part of the 47%. Here's my shocked face. :0 lol! Don't you mean the rich get richer by MY expense since YOU are a DRAIN on society! Filthy rich...wow...how about classifying them as working people? I was right when I called you ignorant.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:27 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The 47% folks are not the drain on the economy...That's just how your hero Mitt Romney blatantly characterized almost 50% of the U.S population as takers...Many of these folks don't have enough income to pay taxes but they still pay some form or other of taxes...So who is the ignoramus now.
Yes, your colleagues, the filthy rich folks are sucking up on us poor folks because we are covering your asses by subsidizing your share of taxes...Some wise man from Omaha said so when he confessed his minions pay more in tax rates than he does...Good for Obama he saw this bad inequality he did something about it...Now fork over some dough and pay your fair share...Besides, as I mentioned to your acolyte above, these "working people" are actually slave drivers who barely get paid decent salaries, and when profits are down, the first ones to go are the employees who of course do not have parachutes as the CEOs...We have seen charts illustrating this unfair advantage these companies have over labor...One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see what has been happening to wages compared to profits, smarty pants.
Hugh Gallagher
6:23 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
As a Democrat, I urge to anyone who admits to being part of the 47% and then be proud of it to stop.. You'll wreck it for all of us. Especially those in genuine need. Muzzle it you fool.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:38 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I really don't care about your political persuasion, but the point that these poor folks are destroying the country is not even close to the truth...Majority of us don't have enough income to qualify for income tax returns but there are still other forms of taxes we have to pay...You obviously don't have the grasp of economics to understand the plight of many of us 47 per centers....There is nothing to be ashamed of by being in this group...Mitt Romney and your ilk are such blowhards.
And this is not drivel, as you might put it.
Hugh Gallagher
7:25 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Your remarks about the 47% are making Romney look like he knew what he was talking about. There are plenty of people in the 47% who are unfortunate and deserving of help. 40 years ago, I was one of them. But I "unstuck myself" with a good attitude and hard work. Plenty of people are copying your "quotes" and sending them to politicains and legislators as an example of what you think of their generosity + programs to help. You are HURTING the 47%, but you'll be famous.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:31 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The point is, Mitt vilified this group of people utterly unfairly while this filthy rich man avoid paying gobs of federal income taxes by hiding his fortune in money havens around the world...This man does not have a clue of what he was talking about...He just wanted to get into the good graces of his audience (the other rich folks) at the time he gave the speech...When caught, he frantically tried to flip-flop (his style during the whole campaign) again...He and his believers should be vilified instead....Well, in fact, voters saw through him and did not make him president.
Obama is putting economic policies for all citizens to be able to "unstuck" themselves and be part of income tax-paying per centers....I have been retired for years now and living off the entitlements provided for by programs established by FDR and subsequent Democratic presidents...And before you go gaga about freebie stuffs, these "entitlements" have been paid for through the so-called payroll taxes (unless you did not know) during my years of employment.
Drivel, drivel, drivel so help me god.
8:01 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Willies no fool...Maybe he will get discovered and start a reality show. called "Willy on Welfare " The life and times. Thanks Willie for validating what we all assumed by now know. You took the bait , hook line and sinker. Thank You!! Fox news will have a party with your documentary.
Hugh Gallagher
7:26 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
When I was a child, my mother taught me some quaint fairy tales that I carried through life. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. The goose that laid the golden egg. I've remembered those when I was on both the receiving and the giving end. Noboby believes that "poor people are destroying the country". There are enough ignorant, useless, fools who will do that for us. I promise you I won't go "gaga about" SS + Medicare (that I am on) I am thankful for those programs, realize they are UNSUSTAINABLE as they are now configured, and hope that they can find a solution . Both Democrats and Republicans with have to compromise to find one. Drivel is in the eye of the beholder.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
12:52 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
We learned a lot of lessons from our elders and up to this day I don't recall vilifying those unfortunate lots, the 47% takers (they are a DRAIN in the society, as Michelle- hater above came up with above)...Like many other less fortunate individuals, I, too, got myself by the bootstrap and joined the community as a responsible citizen.
Entitlements are bad entities for the Republicans they had been doing their best to gut them to no avail: Privatize Social Security, voucherize Medicare, god knows what else they can come up with...I agree these programs are getting expensive (what isn't?) and the government should find a better ways to preserve them.
Drivel?..That was your characterization of my posts that you promised not to bother with any more...What changed your mind?
Hugh Gallagher
11:15 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
You suggested that I might not know where the SS money comes from. You forgot to mention (or didn't know) that the company you worked for also paid and equal amount , dollar for dollar with your hourly payment. I am still working for myself and pay both ends (double) ss but I accept it as part of the system we have. I'm certainly nor whining, complaining or crying about it. Or suggesting that somebody else pay more so I can pay less.
12:59 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I got a W2 form in the mail today, from a part-time job. I had no Federal income Tax withheld, but I did have Social Security tax and Medicare tax withheld. Does this mean I have to turn in my "47 Percenter" card? What a conundrum!
Hugh Gallagher
1:20 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Wilfredo I just couldn't stand it anymore. I had to disagree I tried to be nice and call it drivel. I could have called it other things. And there is Soooo much of it. I am afraid it may never stop.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
3:37 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
What are you so sore about?..You started this drivel thing all along, even accusing me of name-calling which you can't even prove (I am directing you to your post as of Jan. 20 around 8 a.m...Please look at it again)...You can call my post any way you want...I don't really much care...What I know is I am stating economic facts, not drivels...By the way, what is a 47% card?..Another of your put down comments?
Hugh Gallagher
1:21 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Nazaretti, perhaps Wilfredo will come along and help. He has both a 47% card AND a degree in (lala)-economics
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
3:41 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Nazaretti is a smart, capable guy who doesn't need anyone's advice or insults.
1:49 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I think it's soooo funny that Obama's followers will soon realize just how many of us are "rich"! We are all paying more people.....wake up!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
3:11 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Wayne LaPierre went on a rampage again invoking more fear among its acolytes about Obama's gun control proposals.
3:42 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Willy, why haven't we heard much bout the shooting in Texas? Shhhhh...black kids! Guess they don't matter!
3:18 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
But Jill, I'm so confused! I pay Medicare and Social Security tax but not Federal income tax. Am I a wealth creator or a parasite on society? A maker or a taker? Please explain it all to me, Jill.
3:52 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I have given it some thought since you asked...I would say you are a taker and most likely a HUGE parasite on society!
4:19 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Thanks for clearing that up, I will tape my "47 Percenter" card back together and carry it proudly!
Hugh Gallagher
7:03 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Wilfredo I didn't invent the 47% card. Nazaretti did in his post JAN 23 12.59PM People question your credibility when you accuse somebody of something they didn't do? Even worse than drivel Can you say "oops" or "I'll be more careful"?
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
3:03 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
I didn't say you did...It was a rhetorical question since you are coming up with bizarre phrases...You accused me of name calling yet you can't come up with solid proof...Talk about credibility and yes, be extra careful with your comments...You might put your foot in your mouth.
7:17 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Thank you for your kind comments. Please keep your posts coming, and don't let the haters drag you down!
Hugh Gallagher
7:49 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Nazaretti let Wilfredo know that you invented the 47% card (which doesn't really exist) He probably won't believe me.
11:42 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
How do you know it doesn't exist? Have you been violating parole and picking pockets again?
Hugh Gallagher
12:16 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Just let your buddy Wilfredo know that you made it up. He accused me of doing it. He is offended. Own up to it instead of insinuating that I "violated parole" and am "picking pockets again". You make me ashamed to be a Democrat.
2:17 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Join the crowd and change your affiliation to Independent! You can always change back to Democrat if you want to vote in the 2016 primary.
2:46 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Nazaretti, you sound like an angry girl! Why the huge chip on your shoulder?
Hugh Gallagher
3:01 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Angry or not, he should own up to his "invention" of the imaginary 47% card. Nazaretti, are you saying that you're not a Democrat but an independent?
4:27 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
I am registered Independent. I switched to Democrat in 2008 so I could vote against Hillary Clinton in the primary, then switched back to Independent.
Hugh Gallagher
3:22 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Wilfredo. Ok as long as you understand that Nazaretti made up the imaginary card. Why would you ask me about it when you know it is imaginary and I've never seen one. Ask the "guy who knows"
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:33 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
You still haven't proven to me that I call people names...Talk about credibility...You have none.
4:47 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Nazeretti, I am sorry. I thought you were a woman. :) Whoops! Willy and Nazzy need to man up! Rip up those "cards" and join the fulltime workforce!
Hugh Gallagher
4:53 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
They only have 1 pair of "imaginary scissors" between them
6:35 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
To get back to the original title of this thread, Sen. Feinstein has now introduced a bill to ban assault weapons. The Washington Post provides an analysis of her bill in their "Wonkblog" column:
I do not think this bill has much chance of passing Congress. There seem to be better prospects for a greatly beefed up background check system for prospective gun buyers. Even the NRA agrees that "bad guys" shouldn't have guns, and the background check system is designed to make it harder for "bad guys" to get guns.
6:53 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Can we all just agree that bad guys will always be able to get their hands on guns?News flash to Feinstein...banning guns in this country doesn't ban them in other countries. The gun will still exist and criminals will have NO problem getting their hands on them. Please wake up people! It's all a dog and pony show.
8:58 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
I don't understand your rationale. For example, bad guys (and gals) will always kill other people, does that mean we should not have laws against murder? Is the entire criminal justice system a dog and pony show?
Hugh Gallagher
7:38 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
It would be great if we could have a "posturing day". On that day, Feinstein, the NRA, Obama, angry mothers, letter-writing kids and all of us with wonderful opinions could spout off (but for 1 day only) The next day, they could begin the inevitable COMPROMISE which will eventually happen. Hopefully it is a wise one that will make things better and not worse.
Hugh Gallagher
11:13 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Wilfredo I didn't have to look far to find examples of your name-calling. "michelle-hater" 1-23 "filthy rich" 1-23 "blowhard" 1-22 There are plenty more
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
1:20 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Michelle hater, a disgusting woman who couldn't control herself by calling the first lady UGLY...Yes, Hugh, you are a blowhard after calling me fool!..Plenty more?..I doubt it.
12:03 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Nazaretti, I am really try to refrain from calling you a name! You are foolish shall we say. My point, which I am certain you will screw up again, is that making stricter laws and adding gun restrictions for law abiding gun owners isn't solving ANY problem. I am not sure if I am not getting your sense of humor or if you really are that ignorant. I went through and read some of your posts. I think the latter might be true!
2:06 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
The "stricter laws and gun restrictions" apply to all gun owners, law abiding or not. Just like speed limits apply to all drivers, and only those who flout them are penalized.
1:33 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Willy, it is obvious you are quite smitten with our First Lady, but please get a hold of yourself. You are over the top. You call a woman whom you don't even know disgusting because she called Michele Obama unattractive. Obviously, not everyone agrees with your accessment of her "beauty". I, for one, don't find her attractive. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Why do you take it so personal?
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:23 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Well then, join the disgusting group of people...Our elders advised us not to say anything unpleasant if all you have to say is utter disgust...Michelle Obama is fat and ugly?..So spiteful.
2:23 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Nazaretti, stop before you look even more foolish. Here's a phrase for you to learn....black market! Criminals DO NOT go through the legal process. Can you really be that naive?
2:56 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
You seem to think that all gun violence is committed by people with prior criminal records - "criminals". This is not the case. There are previously law abiding citizens who, for whatever reason, snap. If they have ready access to weapons of mass destruction, they can kill many people in a short time. Think of Adam Lanza, among many, many others.
The restrictions being proposed will take time to work, but the sooner we start, the sooner our society will become safer.
3:41 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Lanza the lunatic used his mother's guns. Get it! She checked out fine. She was an idiot though to give access to her guns to her son whom she KNEW had mental problems! You can't regulate stupidity! One last try.....people who want guns will get them! They will find a way to get whatever gun they want. Can you get that through your head. I never said anything about prior criminal activity. I said criminal, MEANING....someone with criminal (bad) intent. Also, are you going to outlaw cars since one day someone might drink and drive and kill someone. Your reasoning is bazaar. Also, I never said all gun violence is committed by people with prior criminal records. Are you psycho? Where did you get that from?
4:45 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Are you now proposing to jail people for criminal intent, even if they do not act on it? How will you identify these people? Seems to me that this would be a much greater infringement of our freedoms than anything the White House has proposed with respect to gun violence.
I agree that there will always be stupid people, and I have little sympathy for people who harm themselves though their own stupidity. However, I do believe we can take steps to reduce the impact of a person's stupidity on others.
For example, you have to pass tests to get a driver's license. If you are too stupid to pass the tests, then you cannot get a license and expose others to likely harm due to your driving stupidly.
Andrew Wilt
3:23 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Nazaretti - If someone has "snapped" and firearms are not available, they will simply use whatever they can, a hammer, a propane tank, a vehicle, whatever. If someone "snaps", they could just as easily strangle someone to death.
It is not possible to eliminate all the possible ways in which people can become hurt or killed. Despite all of the safety improvements for automobiles, people are still killed every day on the road. After a while, and we are well past that point, the personal freedoms of the many are greatly infringed upon for the benefit of a few. Sometimes, as the bumper stickers say, S**T HAPPENS.
4:33 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
I agree that it is not possible to eliminate all the ways people can kill other people. There will always be murders. But I do not see Adam Lanza strangling 27 (was that the number?) other people and himself. It is NOT "just as easy" as mowing them down with a Bushmaster.
The personal freedom to own weapons of mass destruction is not worth anything, in my view. I would have no problem with eliminating that particular personal freedom. I accept that others will disagree with me on this point.
5:09 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Nazeretti, you really can't be that stupid. I will not pay your game any longer.
7:28 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Willy, you went on a whole rant on how you are not a name caller, then you immediately call me disgusting because I dare to agree with whoever found Michele Obama unattractive. You need to check yourself. Obviously you have a bazaar infatuation with her! Relax, I'm sure she isn't reading Patch!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:27 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
If you read my past commentaries, you must have read the ones that I justify my "name calling"...In those posts, I humbly said that I do it only in retaliation to what were hurled in my direction or in defense of those vilified, like the First Lady....One particular confused poster called me a FOOL...Well, I did not let that pass so I called him a BLOWHARD in return...That did not go well with him, of course, like only he and others can name call!..No ms...I don't initiate these disgusting epithets...You and your ilk are good at this...SHAMEFUL!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
9:39 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Here's something you flamethrowers must ponder on...Roger Ailse, the big honcho on Fox News called cutie pie Sarah Palin STUPID and was kicked out of the Faux News network...Better stupid and UGLY I suppose...You disgusting name callers not only shame your enemies...You also badmouth your friends.
Hugh Gallagher
5:15 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Nazaretti you distorted Wilts post and only used strangling as an option for Lanza. No one believes he would have strangled 27 kids. But there are other options used by evil + determined people. Just one example would be the serin attacks in the Japanese subway years ago. They killed more people in that attack without any firearms at all. There is a huge difference between passing a law against assualt weapons and actually eliminating them. If it is done poorly, understand that we could all be worse off than we are now. You cannot trust politicians, letter writing kids and people who just 'hate guns' (or the NRA for that matter) to make a thoughtful decision that may backfire. I would suspect as a registered Independent, your trust in politicians is not that great.
8:11 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Yes I distrust politicians, but I also recognize that government is, for this time and place, our way of taking communal action. People are social animals, and communal action is an essential part of being human.
Restrictions on weapons and ammo are only part of the White House plan for addressing gun violence - you can find the plan on the whitehouse.gov web site. I would like to see action by many people and groups on multiple fronts - mental health, media content, fewer weapons of war in civilian hands, etc.
The Feinstein bill explicitly does NOT repossess assault weapons, but does restrict transfer from one person to another - background checks, for example. Even the NRA seems to agree that background checks are an acceptable way to make it harder for convicted criminals and the dangerously mentally ill to get their hands on weapons of war.
No one has claimed that they can totally prevent mass murders, but I think we can reduce their frequency and deadliness. A proposed action can be worthwhile, even if it is imperfect.
Hugh Gallagher
8:34 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
"worthwhile" is only YOUR personal estimate. But it's not hard to imagine that millions law abiding gun owners will abide by any new laws while the most dangerous will laugh at those laws. If that happens, we are now in more danger than we peviously were. Many of us see that as a genuine possibility. A well intentioned but poorly thought out program can have that effect. They certainly failed with the last attempt, didn't they? I think there should be changes. The right changes. Not ones that will make things worse. Thoughtful - not emotional.
8:12 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Look up the definitions of "bazaar" and "bizarre" - we want to keep our Patch discussions literate!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
11:20 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Touche', Nazaretti...This lady inadvertently revealed her ignorance (she called me the ignorant one).
Hugh Gallagher
9:51 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Wilfredo in my post JAN 23 I did not call YOU a fool. I said there were "enough fools to do that for us" There is an expression we've all heard. "if the shoe fits , wear it" Apparently, you chose to put that shoe on? Good thinking!!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
11:02 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Obviously you looked into the wrong date...Try Jan. 20.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
11:13 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
On Jan 22 around 6.23 PM you said "Muzzle it you fool."...I recented it so I called you BLOWHARD...See, call me FOOL, I call you BLOWHARD...No hard feelings, Mr.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
11:25 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
On Jan. 22 around 6.23 PM you said "Muzzle it you fool"...I resented that so I had to call you BLOWHARD back...Fair enough?
Hugh Gallagher
11:41 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Regardless of what you said, I was wrong to call you a fool. I don't think name-calling or accusations are appropriate. I can do better than that.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
3:18 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
I try to be careful with words because the can be extremely hurtful to people who value their credibility...I am glad you saw the light of civility...So let's go about our discussions in a calm and meaningful ways...Bear in mind that I retaliate similarly if I feel abused...I never initiate ugly exchanges.
1:11 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Willy, you don't HAVE to call any one names. You CHOOSE to! Don't excuse your bad behavior by pointing to someone else's bad behavior. Your mother should have taught you that lesson. So you can call Sara Palin stupid and ugly? Can you say hypocrite? Nazeretti, you show your ignorance by not realizing that iPads automatically fill in words sometimes. Every time I write your name, Nazareth comes up. The mistake wasn't noticed. Thank you for proving your pettiness and ignorance by your inability to let it slide. Guess it made you feel like a big intelligent man! Lol!
2:14 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Speaking of iPads, I'm considering buying AAPL if it goes down to $410. What do you think?
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
3:11 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Now it is I who is behaving badly and a hypocrite...Did I ever call Michelle fat and ugly...It was your lady friend who said it and you seconded the motion by calling the First Lady unattractive...Yeah, didn't your mother tell you that if you have nothing good to say, just shut the heck up?..Your Fox News Roger Aisle god let Palin have it in no uncertain term (I did not say it...I love the beautiful woman...She is so photogenic).
Once again, let me tell you that I only call people names when I am called one...Call me hypocrite then I call you ignorant...What you type wrongly in iPAD can be corrected with ease if you are smart enough.
2:32 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Whoops, meant AAPL - Apple. I made a mistake (note the active voice, as opposed to "The mistake wasn't noticed" passive voice).
3:46 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
I am going out on a limb and guessing that neither Willy nor Nazaretti graduated high school! Btw....M. O. Looks like an angry gorilla!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
3:53 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
More unending insults...It looks like this woman has so much chips on her shoulder she can't stop her stupid rants...I dread to guess which kindergarten she went to because her comments are way too bizarre (bazaar?).
4:23 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Just thought I would have some fun playing your game! :)
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:31 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Saving children from guns is no fun and games...Be serious for once.
4:26 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
While I do enjoy reading these immature insults let me go back on topic. Banning so called assault rifles will not save any lives some one can kill just as many people with a semi automatic hand gun just as fast. A ban might make people falsely feel safe warm and fuzzy inside but it wont save any lives.
5:04 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
An on-topic post - how refreshing!
If you are right, there is no reason not to go ahead with the ban. It won't hurt anything and won't help anything, so why not?
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:18 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
It's worth a try...Citizens of other countries have better life span....As it is, we are the laughing stock the World as far as gun violence is involved...USA should be the role model of Nations in all endeavors...It is a darn shame we have to look at America as the world capital of gun deaths and near the bottom of the trash heap in math, science, literature (Education).We can do this if we all put our resolve in it.
5:07 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Ron, I agree! Someone intent on killing a mass number of people could also use explosives. The schools are limiting access, but whose to say someone couldn't set up right outside the school and hit a crowd as they leave. There are so many scary options. We just can't prevent all these scenarios. Everyone seems to be running on a hamster wheel. A lot of spinning, but no real solution. All these proposals help the naive feel better because "at least we're doing something". It doesn't matter that they won't change a thing except for taking our liberties away!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:28 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
A typical kindergartner line of thought...Sorry Newtown kids...I didn't mean to take you down with these "leave it be, nothing good will come out of these liberal whack job folks"... Remember, A WINNER NEVER QUITS, A QUITTER NEVER WINS.
5:27 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
This entire thread is disgusting. If you are all adults you should be ashamed of yourselves. Would you talk to people to their face as you talk to them hiding behind your computers? To think you are all members of the same community. do you all teach your children to behave this way when faced with differing points of view? You should all be embarrassed.
careless fills
6:30 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats are poised to frustrate his efforts to enact the most sweeping limits on weapons in decades...As the Senate prepares to begin debating new gun control measures."
Based on their previous voting records, some of the more than dozen Senator include: Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, not to mention Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who will be chairning the hearings and Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada himself.
see: http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-may-stand-obamas-way-gun-measures-134432125--politics.html
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:38 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Gun control rally in D.C!..Many more NRA members join the protest!...Bunch of legislators are waking up to their senses!
Rosemary B
10:46 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
You do realize it was attended by only 6,000 people. On a Saturday. The Right to Life March was held on a Friday and 500,000 people attended. Just saying...
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:47 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Gun control advocates are still paranoic about the big, bad NRA...Even their Congressmen have their tails between their legs....They won't dare stand up this powerful gun lobby...It can make or break you...But we are supporting Obama's gun policies, though incognito.
Rosemary B
8:04 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
LOL! In other words, you are cowards? I'm thinking it is just not as important to the average citizen as gun control advocates want you to think.
And what exactly will the big bad NRA do to average folks who march for gun control that they are so afraid of that they won't show up on a SATURDAY! Ridicules...
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
11:45 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Believe it or not, one of the posters here already wished me and my family with bodily harm because of my political persuasion...This is the kind of culture the NRA has instilled in minds of many members....And if you keep ignoring the fact that many of our Congressmen are so afraid of the big bad wolf, I guess you go back to your history book (you claim to be a historian after all) and see the voting records of these lackies on gun control...I am not afraid of any of you...Logistics prevent me from attending these protests...I can join them in so many ways.
Rosemary B
8:03 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
The fact that an individual threatened you because of your political views is certainly not the NRA's fault! That is a real stretch. And don't you think it is possible that they know what I know. Gun control does not have the sweeping support that gun control advocates would have you believe. Perhaps they are just listening to their constituents who believe that 300 plus laws already on the books is more than enough.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:23 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Rosemay B...Let me remind you of those characters whose rants on TV scared the bejesus of many threatening all their demise through rapid firing machine guns...They are NRA followers and they get ideas from their master....Destroy the government who is taking away our guns (No such thing)...Hence, the threat on me and family because I like gun control...This is so sick!
6:38 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
"A lot of spinning but no real solution."
What "real solutions" would you propose?
6:43 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Sen. Feinstein's bill applies to a number of pistols:
6:55 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
I agree - stronger penalties, no more "slaps on the wrist".
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:39 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Yeah, no more Mr. Nice Guy...This is not our gramps cops and robbers games anymore...The NRA wants it this way, too.
6:58 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
One item in the White House plan: "Create serious penalties for gun trafficking."
Ed B
6:52 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Wonderful idea, if a bit too lat for the F&F scandal. Holder and his ilk will get a free pass on that one.
Hugh Gallagher
3:27 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
A few of the proposals, such as stiffer penalties for trafficking, would be supported by more than 80% of Americans. They would be politcally correct to the point where legislators would be able to support them without wasting time on Feisteins bill (even she doubts that it would be acceptable in it's proposed form). It is important (in their own eyes) to look good. They could do this in steps. Take the obvious winners/no brainers that most people would agree with, write a proposal for those , vote on it. That should do 2 things. Make things safer. And make it look like they actually did something. Then wrangle away at the other ideas that are more controversial and probably need more thought
6:09 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Sounds like a good approach, I hope Congress follows it.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:35 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
We are all in this together...Let us make it work for everyone's sake, especially our most precious possessions CHILDREN!!!
careless fills
8:38 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Not gonna happen. Cory Booker is another running with his tail between his legs!
8:57 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
That article says Booker supports universal background checks, improving data sharing on people with mental health issues and criminal backgrounds, and a tightening of anti-trafficking laws. Sounds like a very good start!
Hugh Gallagher
2:29 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Wilfredo, you used the rationale that it is OK to namecall + make accusations if someone does it to you. But you are doing both to the NRA. The NRA didn't call you any names or make any accusations about you. They aren't even here to defend themsleves. Is there a new rule that we didn't know about? I'm neither an NRA member or fan. You agreed to stop name calling but now it's behind the back to people who aren't here to defend themselves
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:38 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Sir, please stop nitpicking...I thought we are done with this nonsense...I believe it is OK to characterize an entity as being out of touch...I am too insignificant to the NRA to bother with but many of you enjoy calling people nasty names if they disagree with their opinions...Insulting individuals is so ignorant...Hey, one poster here even wished bodily harm on me and my family because I like gun control..."Michelle Obama is fat and ugly and unattractive"...What in heaven's name does this have to do with our debate on gun violence...Mercy!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
9:41 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
I also feel sorry for Michelle who can't come on the Patch to tell those unsophisticated ladies that they are wrong calling her fat and ugly, that she is far from fat...She is not here to defend herself...Just like the poor NRA couldn't come down to tell me off...Don't worry, sir, there are a bunch of you who can do a much better put downs than the NRA.
Hugh Gallagher
7:02 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Wilfredo once upon a time, I got a nasty email from a space alien who threatened my family with a ray gun. He was probably just a windbag and I didn't hold it against the other space aliens. . I ignored it and never even mentioned it to anyone ( til I read your post). We are all in grave danger!! Mercy indeed!!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
9:57 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
The reason I put the threat up for all to see was a lady poster thought it was cowardice not to join the pro-gun control rally in D.C...This was to let her know that some windbag (your word) space alien actually came out to wish me ill-health...Freedom of speech?..For you information, there are limitations to this Freedom, just as there are limitations to the right to bear arms...No, I am not trying to feel sorry for myself because I am not afraid (a coward) of anybody...It is such weak-mindedness to portray my behavior in this manner, because I have other ways to join the protest..."Man does not live by bread alone".
Hugh Gallagher
10:05 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
The same alien is after both of us? He must be a Republican.
Thomas A Ceney
10:30 pm on Friday, March 29, 2013
You Know woudn't be nice enstead of using the sad newtown thing as a sidestep, smoke and mirrors, throw things to the side,...agenda promoting, song and dance maneuver to deflect attention away from the BUDGET and the DEFICIT and things that really matter to the producers of America, (NOT his voter bace.)...... sorry I got to stop...I have to take an antacid tums.... nobody listens at all and it does me no good to try... best luck to all in coming days


text:
Loading streams...
Ongoing Coverage:
Now Playing
Connect with Us
Podcasts & RSS Feeds
All Content |
View all podcasts & RSS feeds |
Most Active Stories
KRWG.ORG-The Region's Home Page
Director of Content
Assistant News Director
Anchor, KRWG-FM's Morning Edition and KRWG-TV's Fronteras-A Changing America
Reporter, KRWG-FM and Anchor, KRWG-TV's Fronteras-A Changing America
Operations Manager And Anchor, KRWG-FM's All Things Considered and KRWG-TV's Fronteras-A Changing America
Host, KRWG-FM's Intermezzo
Host, KRWG-FM's Fiesta!
Host, KRWG-FM Jazz and Friday Night Blues
Host, KRWG-FM's Burnsland
Jazz Host
Morning Edition
Morning Edition
Morning Edition
Host/Special Correspondent
All Things Considered
All Things Considered
All Things Considered
Weekend Edition Saturday
Weekend Edition Sunday
Host, Fresh Air
Host, TED Radio Hour
Host, World Cafe
Nightly Business Report
Nightly Business Report
Moyers & Company
PBS NewsHour
PBS NewsHour
PBS NewsHour; Washington Week
PBS NewsHour
PBS NewsHour
PBS NewsHour
PBS NewsHour
3:59 pm
Tue July 3, 2012
Did The Chief Justice 'Evolve' On Health Care?
By editor
Originally published on Tue July 3, 2012 4:57 pm
Chief Justice John Roberts has been called to task by conservatives for siding with the more liberal justices to uphold President Obama's health care law. This week a CBS reporter said Roberts switched his views after at first siding with conservatives. Justices sometimes change their minds after the initial conference on a case as they circulate draft opinions, consult with colleagues and think about the issues. What's unusual was the leak which was an apparent attempt to undermine the chief justice. Nina Totenberg talks to Robert Siegel.

subset: commoncrawl