The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[verbster]

Again, so far what I have seen on cbs and espn?
They have yet to mention this guy is a democrat and supports the democrat party.
Like I said, they may run with this story, but will not mention his party affiliation (for comrade buck ofama has said, never mention me or the party in bad light).

iowadawg wins the first I-should-only-post-about-the-weather-and-what-I-had-for-dinner award.

 

[verbster]

Sarah Palin strikes again with this quote from her speech at the
NRA Stand and Fight rally just held on 4/26/14:

"If I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists."

 

[GILSAN]

Sarah Palin strikes again with this quote from her speech at the
NRA Stand and Fight rally just held on 4/26/14:

"If I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists."

Great Quote!!! :tu: :kickass: This lady has got a good pair, when compared to some pussies in the Democratic Party

 

[JB Lions]

Great Quote!!! :tu: :kickass: This lady has got a good pair, when compared to some pussies in the Democratic Party

Uh, actually she has no pair. She quit in the middle of her job in Alaska, because she couldn't take the heat. During the Campaign, she had to have the negative press hidden from her, because she couldn't handle it, on the verge of an emotional breakdown. If she had a pair, she wouldn't have dodged the reporters like she did, after the first disastrous ones. I think the last one I saw, she had to have McCain with her, holding her hand. If she had a pair, she would have stepped up and ran for the Presidency herself, but she knew her fellow Republicans would eat her up and she wouldn't even get the Republican nod.

But standing on the sidelines throwing one-liners every now then means you have a pair?

 

[verbster]

Great Quote!!! :tu: :kickass: This lady has got a good pair, when compared to some pussies in the Democratic Party

Glad to see you admiring Sarah's big balls. The image didn't quite work for me, but happy to see you taking a walk on the wild side.

 

[GILSAN]

Glad to see you admiring Sarah's big balls. The image didn't quite work for me, but happy to see you taking a walk on the wild side.

Thanks.... BTW "Take a walk on the wild side" is one of my favorite songs :tu:

 

[JB Lions]

Speaking of big balls

[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3tqIukBKg"]Michelle [/ame]

 

[verbster]

Thanks.... BTW "Take a walk on the wild side" is one of my favorite songs :tu:

doot de doot . . .

 

[verbster]

What's wrong with selling "smart guns"? And why would some gun owner extremists make death threats against dealers who want to sell them?

2nd amendment enthusiasts believe it's their God-given and constitutionally backed right to buy, own and sell any guns they want, yet it appears they are trying to stop the selling of "smart guns" by dealers. The irony (or perhaps hypocrisy) seems to escape the anti-smart gunners that they are subverting other gun owners' rights to own a smart gun by not allowing them to be sold in the first place. They are now using the same argument and tactics to prevent selling and buying of smart guns that they fought and defeated when it came to legislation stopping the sale of firearms labeled "assault weapons."

So what's wrong with selling and owning a smart gun? Nothing. But some owners and manufacturers are pushing the "what if" scenario to prevent dealers from selling them. The smart guns in question are pistols that require the owners to wear a wristwatch type of device that communicates with the pistol and allows it to fire. The "what-if" fear is: What If the government forces all guns to be "smart"? The belief is there would then be some sort of back-door, forced registration process that would be used later to track and confiscate those registered weapons. This is the same fear-the-future fear-mongering that is employed whenever there is no basis in reality for real concern. Never mind that there is no federal gun registration law at all beyond the (1934) National Firearms Act that is specific to owning and selling machine guns, short-barreled ("sawed-off") rifles/shotguns and silencers (suppressors). The federal government has no way to track the millions of annual private sales of firearms, let alone even try to collect the 100 million to 300 million (depending on who you believe) handguns owned by civilians in the USA, registered or not. That number grows by millions each year. They are here to stay. Nothing shows otherwise. But that doesn't seem to get in the way of scare tactics to convince gun owners their rights are going to be taken away.

If anything, gun advocates should embrace smart gun technology. It's a whole new market of neat guns to own. A wide open market for new designs. But gun-makers are doing okay anyway, so they have no incentive, and gun owners have a "registration" paranoia that overrides everything else.

http://smartgunlaws.org/registration-of-firearms-policy-summary/

 

[johname]

Memo to Republican decision makers, better run Sara or some other female to neutralize Hilary's gender or its another loss.

 

[JB Lions]

I've seen funnier but Joel McHale at the Correspondent's Association Gala. Brutal for Chris Christie who was there:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idrrdgjETxY"]Michelle [/ame]

 

[verbster]

Memo to Republican decision makers, better run Sara or some other female to neutralize Hilary's gender or its another loss.

I would enjoy watching a non-scripted debate between Ms. Clinton and Ms. Palin. I'm sure it would be very educational.

 

[GILSAN]

I would enjoy watching a non-scripted debate between Ms. Clinton and Ms. Palin. I'm sure it would be very educational.

As long as the debate was not held by any of the US media, otherwise it would be totally biased against Palin... naturally,

Can't trust the Obama Kiss Ass US Media anymore than I can trust the Zimbabwe media.

Send them both to Portugal. Our media would give them both hell, without any fear.

 

[JB Lions]

Palin would never do it, she knows Hillary would eat her up. She couldn't even handle Katie Couric.

 

[johname]

If she hasn't improved immensely since the Katie interview she needs to retire from public life. Doesn't have to be Palin though.

 

[GILSAN]

At least she can see Russia from Alaska... which is true, and she believed Putin was not to be trusted... which is true, but Obama thinks there are 57 States in the US. :red: (He must be a fan of Heinz Varieties) Even I, GILSAN, living in a little Island that only a handful of Americans have ever heard of :wave: (all of them at NamePros), know better. :gl:

 

[verbster]

As long as the debate was not held by any of the US media, otherwise it would be totally biased against Palin... naturally,

Can't trust the Obama Kiss Ass US Media anymore than I can trust the Zimbabwe media.

Send them both to Portugal. Our media would give them both hell, without any fear.

Based on her previous performances, I don't think Palin will agree to any more debates without getting the questions first, no matter what media. She simply doesn't have the capacity to ad hoc debate.

 

[GILSAN]

Based on her previous performances, I don't think Palin will agree to any more debates without getting the questions first, no matter what media. She simply doesn't have the capacity to ad hoc debate.

Isn't that what Obama does all the time? Only agrees to interviews as long as he sees the questions first.

I don't understand why you keep picking on Palin when others do the same or even worse. Instead of being obsessed with Palin you should be questioning the Liberal pussy reporters who do an excellent job when questioning Republicans and the Catholic Church (and rightfully so) but then go and ask Obama if his Golf Swing is improving or how Michelle's White House Vegetable Garden is coming along and other softball questions.

You should be ashamed of these idiots, not Palin

Now lets see if these idiot Liberal reporters are gonna do anything about what's been going on in the depraved and sickly world of the Hollywood scene for so long:

Hollywood's Sexual Predator Problem Explodes

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michel...n-hollywoods-sexual-predator-problem-explodes

If it was the Catholic Church they would show no mercy, but it's Hollywood and it involves famous actors, producers and lots of Gays, so lets see if they do their job now, or would it be Politically Incorrect to question high and mighty Hollywood?

 

[JB Lions]

Isn't that what Obama does all the time? Only agrees to interviews as long as he sees the questions first.

Um, Obama's actually been on Bill O'Reilly, twice now I believe. You must have missed them if you thought he got questions beforehand. Can you imagine Palin going on somebody like Rachel Maddow's show? No, it would take some guts to do that.

 

[GILSAN]

Rachell MadCow is totally biased. She hates anything or anyone that doesn't think like her. She's like a female Hitler, while Bill O'Reilly from what I can remember, gave Obama a mildly tough but respectful interview a few months ago.... the way an interview should be