Obama On San Bernardino Shooting: 'We Have A Pattern Now Of Mass Shootings'

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: neo96
Obama acts like Obama because as a general rule he doesn't even wait for facts. Same old. Same old from our 'fearless

Of course Obama acts like Obama, who is supposed to act like? Tom Cruise?

And if Obama had waited until the "bodies are cold", GOP and conservatives would call him callous, indifferent, uncaring, disrespectful, ect...

No matter what he does, his detractors will claim he should have done the opposite. Pretty transparent tactics if you ask me.

The point you might have missed is that Obama makes everything about him. Every tragedy is used to prop up his mindless and poorly crafted schemes at political gain, I am surprised if you can't see this, because he is on that cash cow whenever anyone expedient is available. He finds a way to link himself to anything with a few tin horn points available, like cheap power ups from an old video game.
He claimed he killed Bin Laden, but we all know he really didn't. But the political power ups from that one were like 10 Macy's new years' parades all rolled into one. As long as his followers believe it, then he feels glorified and will continue that same playbook over and over again before the bodies are cold. He can make the facts fit anything he wishes, and the state run media will bend over without any hesitation to make his intent appear acceptable and necessary, even when it violates the constitution, and bill of rights, and speak on his behalf, to make everyone believe that everyone is in support of it, and that it is perfectly legal and constitutional, especially when it is not legal or constitutional. Even corrupted federal Judges in his hip pocket will say apples are indeed oranges, if they are told to say it in judgement for the support of the greatest weasel in American history.

He bragged about killing hundreds of his enemies with drones, but did not mention they were women and children, and then in the same day faked a few false tears when children were allegedly murdered in a mass shooting, and immediately set in motion massive gun control, and to enforce it's effectiveness, used threats and threats of government reprisals against anyone who dared to question or deny what the state and federal police announced that had officially occuured that day. A classic from the playbooks of Mao, Stalin, and Marx. The greatest and most vile scumbags in the history of the planet, are all his greatest and most revered heroes.

Everyone suffers losses with a leader who thinks that liberty means unlimited governmental powers without oversight or budgetary constraints, while also fearing his own armed forces. It will always be a lose lose for any free society, with a mistake of humanity like that running the show.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Naaw not buying it, the GOP is constantly vilifying the man as weak on defense none stop to the point of claiming he is secretly supporting terrorist, and while he took that victory lap in the Ben laden killing show me where any other Pols would not have done the same.

Boy George after a successful sortie

President Boy George sayz duh winning!!!

I thought he was going to mention that they all looked choreographed with d-rate actors and there are like always like 1000 people on standby for these events.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: neo96
Obama acts like Obama because as a general rule he doesn't even wait for facts. Same old. Same old from our 'fearless

Of course Obama acts like Obama, who is supposed to act like? Tom Cruise?

And if Obama had waited until the "bodies are cold", GOP and conservatives would call him callous, indifferent, uncaring, disrespectful, ect...

No matter what he does, his detractors will claim he should have done the opposite. Pretty transparent tactics if you ask me.

The point you might have missed is that Obama makes everything about him. Every tragedy is used to prop up his mindless and poorly crafted schemes at political gain, I am surprised if you can't see this, because he is on that cash cow whenever anyone expedient is available. He finds a way to link himself to anything with a few tin horn points available, like cheap power ups from an old video game.
He claimed he killed Bin Laden, but we all know he really didn't. But the political power ups from that one were like 10 Macy's new years' parades all rolled into one. As long as his followers believe it, then he feels glorified and will continue that same playbook over and over again before the bodies are cold. He can make the facts fit anything he wishes, and the state run media will bend over without any hesitation to make his intent appear acceptable and necessary, even when it violates the constitution, and bill of rights, and speak on his behalf, to make everyone believe that everyone is in support of it, and that it is perfectly legal and constitutional, especially when it is not legal or constitutional. Even corrupted federal Judges in his hip pocket will say apples are indeed oranges, if they are told to say it in judgement for the support of the greatest weasel in American history.

He bragged about killing hundreds of his enemies with drones, but did not mention they were women and children, and then in the same day faked a few false tears when children were allegedly murdered in a mass shooting, and immediately set in motion massive gun control, and to enforce it's effectiveness, used threats and threats of government reprisals against anyone who dared to question or deny what the state and federal police announced that had officially occuured that day. A classic from the playbooks of Mao, Stalin, and Marx. The greatest and most vile scumbags in the history of the planet, are all his greatest and most revered heroes.

Everyone suffers losses with a leader who thinks that liberty means unlimited governmental powers without oversight or budgetary constraints, while also fearing his own armed forces. It will always be a lose lose for any free society, with a mistake of humanity like that running the show.

Okay, and how is that different than any other politician in the last 30 years? Why is Obama held to a different, nebulous and forever shifting standard?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Spider879

You know what??? I am say it...TAKE THE GAWDDAMED GUNS. screw your fantasies about storming the white house, we have a vote to do that less bloodily lets cherish and protect that, what a bunch o paranoid manics running with excuses for every mass killings, illegal guns flood the streets, legal means is already rendered useless with loopholes you could drive a tank through, in the parts of the old west you had to turn in your guns upon entering town and that's when we were considered less civilized.

You going to take them?

Who will you send? Men with guns?

Well I certainly would not want to start shoot outs, but any combination of means may show a decrease for example, buy back incentives, stop selling guns and bullets to the public at large, repeal ridiculous open carry laws, stop the importation of guns by criminal gangs, which is linked to the war on drugs, by making drugs legal as we did with prohibition, go after known domestic terrorist groups of what ever stripe and disarm them.
Ban the NRA from lobbying..yeah controversial I know, until they go back to the idea of responsible gun use..like I said before they and their bought politicians stopped a bill that would ban the sale of fire arms to terrorist even though they are on a terrorist watch and no fly list.

No.

You can TRY to change the Constitution, but you won't succeed.

I for one wouldn't mind a constitution amendment on this issue after all that is well within our right to do so, but yeah for now I don't see my side winning on this.

a reply to: reldra

Obama waits for facts gets them and they fall right out of the black hole between his ears!!! So regardless of what the facts are he makes them up as he goes along!! Pattern?? You don't get AK 47's at a gun show!! You do not leave IED's behind in a work related incident!! 3 people dressed in heavy tactical armor open fire on innocent civilians!

Yes, I see a pattern!! Between Paris and this incident!! Not saying this is or is not related to ISIS, but terrorist attack ABSOLUTELY!!

I guarantee the people in California, caught up in the hail of bullets, FELT EFFING TERROR!!! So you would rather be left defenseless in a situation like this??

If Obama gave a rip about you or I or any American he would do more than speak flowery words as part of his political agenda!! He would recommend that every adult 21 and older in the USA take mandatory safety tests regarding the right to own a gun! He would also offer and make it mandatory that you must have a clean background check and you undergo certain written psychological tests before being permitted to own a gun.. Throw in so many hours of target practice required...and then you may own 2 or three hand guns or shot guns...He could make it mandatory that every head of house own at least 1 gun if they meet the criteria!!

I wonder how many mass shootings you would see then?? People would be less likely to pull that BS knowing they might get several bullets staring right back at them!!

I also wonder if Obama is thinking "Global warming is the greatest threat we face as humanity" Remember he is doing this whole carbon tax to save your children and grand children!!!

So here's a FACT, MR. PRESIDENT, WE FACE A MUCH BIGGER THREAT TO HUMANITY, NOT IN THE FUTURE BUT IN THE HERE AND NOW!! Tell me what are you going to do to protect the American People Mr. PRESIDENT!!!!

Pax

I don't think he hasn't waited for the facts, the facts are clear, there was a mass-shooting and it is a pattern in the U.S. I don't see what facts he needs to wait for. Do you think it was a terrorist attack by Muslims?

a reply to: paxnatus

I also wonder if Obama is thinking "Global warming is the greatest threat we face as humanity" Remember he is doing this whole carbon tax to save your children and grand children!!!

The situation in Syria may very well be our first conflict related to climate change if you remember the protest turned open revolt and the massive crack down by the Assad regime was over a perlonged drought

Conflict History

In March 2011, “peaceful protests” in the rural town of Dara'a in Syria were violently repressed by the government of Bashar Al-Assad and evolved into an armed rebellion. The conflict has further intensified and as of today, reports estimate that approximately 220,000 people lost their lives in the conflict (Hadid, 2015). A number of scholars have sought to analyse the original causes of the Syrian conflict. Several studies have drawn a link between the protests of March 2011 and climate change. This case study will analyse this potential link.
library.ecc-platform.org...

Go here^
House votes to direct the Pentagon to disregard climate change assessments

This is a radical amendment. Currently, the climate change problem is studied and taken into consideration as a matter of course in national security planning. The Pentagon takes climate change and its impacts seriously and has included these issues in two Quadrennial Defense Reviews. The McKinley amendment apparently intends to have the DoD essentially stop considering climate change as a national security issue.
www.climatesciencewatch.org...

Now we are having to deal with the resulting mass migration of Syrian refugees,simply because no plan was put in place to deal with situations like this, and look for more terrorism, wars, and migrations when the water wars starts in places like Egypt,Sudan,Ethiopia,Kenya and Uganda, yeah planning for those eventualities is not only prudent but essential to our way of life and even survival.

a reply to: darkbake

Is this question addressed to me? I said nothing about Muslims nor did I imply that! This was a terrorist attack because it struck terror in the people that were involved! I don't care what there ideology is! This should not be about gun control because the guns used in this attack are not acquired in a gun shop or a show and they are illegal for U.S.residents to own!!

So no, Obama does not know what in the hell he is doing!!! The point I brought up about several tests including safety and written psychological tests need to be passed in order for someone to own a gun.....

If James Holmes would have had to undergo strict psychiatric evaluations the Colorado Shooting may not not have happened...
If that Lanza boy would have undergone the same type of testing the SH shooting may not have happened!!

Obama needs to address the mental health crisis in this country but he is never going to do that! Obama should be in the system as a malignant narcissist!!

Pax

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I don't even think the record is broken, Sublime..
it may have actually been imbedded in his failed
Marxist noggin with only one groove on it.

I guess it can save space for all the honey-do lists
from the handlers. I don't think with all this going
on now there are many of us who could keep up...

a reply to: Spider879

Since when does the USA have to rescue every damn country over every damn thing! The data has been fabricated so many times on Climate Change I even doubt that!!

If Obama had any cojones, at all he would not let people into this country illegally!! And you sure as hell do not open your borders to countries where jihadists are threatening the lives of American citizens in America..When we have no way of knowing who is a terrorist and who isn't we should not be accepting Syrian refugees.. I'm sorry, I am not heartless or evil, but I think there should be a safe haven set up for all the Syrian refugee's in the middle East!! Why isn't Saudi or Jordan doing everything they can to help!!

Again, we are the evil US and people think we are crap anyway, why do they want our help? What about our country and the millions living in poverty?? How about the hungry children and our homeless?? We can't do anything for our own yet we are expected to help every single country out no matter the reason?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

The 'right' is to carry a weapon.

Guns can be (and very often are) used for non-defensive purposes, too.

Yes they are.

I own a lot of guns. None of them have been used in offensive operations.

That is wonderful, but legislation is not specifically for you and only you. It has to cover all people. You can't just assume that they are all as responsible and careful as you.

originally posted by: paxnatus
a reply to: Spider879

Since when does the USA have to rescue every damn country over every damn thing! The data has been fabricated so many times on Climate Change I even doubt that!!

If Obama had any cojones, at all he would not let people into this country illegally!! And you sure as hell do not open your borders to countries where jihadists are threatening the lives of American citizens in America..When we have no way of knowing who is a terrorist and who isn't we should not be accepting Syrian refugees.. I'm sorry, I am not heartless or evil, but I think there should be a safe haven set up for all the Syrian refugee's in the middle East!! Why isn't Saudi or Jordan doing everything they can to help!!

Again, we are the evil US and people think we are crap anyway, why do they want our help? What about our country and the millions living in poverty?? How about the hungry children and our homeless?? We can't do anything for our own yet we are expected to help every single country out no matter the reason?

Here is what you are not getting, as instability occurs it affects those who are ours allies, if as I think we have a stake in fighting terrorism then we would be at a disadvantage with weakened or collapsed friends, and yes unless we totality isolate ourselves at home and not travel abroad cut all relationship with the rest of the world by shutting down every port of entry then we need to be smart about things and yes that includes climate change and no amount of denial is gonna change the situation for the better.

Took em that long to figure out?

Yeah it's been happening frequently since Columbine. What has anybody done to address it? Nothing.

The right says we need more guns, that there are too many restrictions. The left says guns and media violence are to blame and the only solution is gun control and censorship.

I don't know what the answer is but I'm damn tired of people shooting up places like this, getting all this media attention, which gives other mentally unstable people the incentive to do the same because they have been treated unfairly during their life. Guess what? Life isn't fair and we can't dwell on the bad things that happen to us or else it will drive us insane. We must accept our lot in life and look at the good and use all our energy to change the world for the better.

/End rant.

a reply to: asmall89

Guess what? Life isn't fair and we can't dwell on the bad things that happen to us or else it will drive us insane. We must accept our lot in life and look at the good and use all our energy to change the world for the better.

Respectfully disagree with some of the above, we must not accept our lot in life if we did, there wouldn't be a civil rights act, women would still be disenfranchised, we would work from dusk till dawn for bread and water and your 12yrsold would replace you on your shift in the mines or factory, we no longer do those things because we stood-up and demanded better.

originally posted by: theonenonlyone

originally posted by: Toseekthetruth
We need every ameican to be armed and able to defend themselves! How many people would have lost their lives if 28 of the 14 dead and 14 injured had been armed?! Seriously! It infuriates me that they think its a good idea to take away out right to defend ourselves. Guns will always be in the hands of those who wish to do harm. At lat let us have a fighting chance! a reply to: neo96

This is one of the most absurd replies ever, the answer to gun violence is more guns.

How that makes sense to you, is crazy. Would you throw more fire on a fire to put it out?

Umm yes you can use more fire to put out another fire.

they use this tactic all the time in fighting forest fires. The go in front of a fire and lay down a controlled burn to build a fire break to stop the uncontrolled fire.

You can also ramp up a fire to make it burn faster and burn itself out, Hear of this one but have never studied how it works.

Also as stated many time here and other places. Gun ownership has gone UP over the past 20 years while at the same time violent crime has gone down.

But I gues facts don't sound as good as rant about how guns kill. (Never yet have seen a gun load itself, aim itself and pull it's own trigger, but...)

This is, still, my response to the gun control issue.

Anyone looking at my ideology would likely find me to be liberal in the extreme. So liberal Obama isn't liberal enough for me. I didn't vote for him because I didn't consider him to be going far enough in rolling back Bush era (and prior, and no, it's not a party issue, Clinton laid the legal groundwork Bush exploited in this regard imho) civil liberty erosion, for instance.

I support marriage equality. I plan to vote for Bernie Sanders because he at least gets closest to what I'd like to see in a candidate. I support myriad drugs being legalized. I support women's right to choose. I support affirmative action. I support universal body cams for LEOs. I support social security, welfare (though I believe it needs to be dramatically overhauled,) disability, Head Start, Planned Parenthood, etc. etc. etc. And while I oppose Obamacare, it's only because 1) I don't feel it has enough of a safety net for the people whose rates increase dramatically, and 2) I wish it was a single payer system.

I oppose the wars we're engaged in and have been engaged in since Viet Nam... for the most part. Though, while it pains me to concede this and caused me quite the crisis of conscience until I decided what my feelings about it were, in the case of ISIS, if I was absolutely certain our motive was purely their defeat, which I'm not, I would support an all out, efficient, full spectrum use of armed force to defeat them, provided we also had a robust and workable plan for the aftermath. Because when negotiation is clearly impossible and a threat is clear, I do believe, while it represents what I consider a failure of humanity and should always be the last resort, the most compassionate course of action becomes the most expedient defeat of the aggressor with as little loss of life on all sides as possible, rather than the endless perpetuation of the situation causing death and suffering on all sides for lack of resolve and effectiveness.

Unfortunately, we're not doing that. Inefficient pin prick air strikes and advisors, so far, are not getting it done, and do not represent the kind of all out effort, despite the involvement of multiple nations, I'm talking about. So, until that changes, yes, I oppose our involvement. Especially since I feel our motives - like everyone else's - are not the simple defeat of ISIS, but have regional, long term, strategic implications which are about less than simple security.

So... where do I stand on guns? Personally, I can't stand guns. I dislike them. I don't own one and I don't want to own one. I don't want to handle one, I fired one once as a teenager in Texas, and I haven't ever touched one since. My best friend was killed by someone with a gun (note I say someone with a gun, not a gun,) and tragedies like these shootings just make me detest these destructive inventions ever more.

I say all of this to short circuit anyone trying to argue that my position is along any sort of party lines or black and white ideological affiliation.

BUT... all that having been said...

I support the second amendment. I believe citizens have, and should have, the right to keep and bear arms and while I am amenable to certain levels of regulation, that does not include the kinds of restrictions some advocate in response to tragedies like this one. I don't support the banning or restriction of so-called assault rifles, certain kinds of ammunition, etc. Yes, when taken to its logical extreme, of course I don't believe a citizen should be able to own an ICBM or some such. Obviously. But when it comes to firearms? I believe people do and should have the liberty to own as many as they want, and any kind of ammunition they want, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Nor do I believe people with mental problems - unless they have committed violent crimes, or overtly threatened to - should have their private medical records violated or their second amendment rights violated purely on the basis that they might someday do a thing.

My friend, who shares most of my ideological positions, has a family and children. He said it best in my opinion. "You should not get to decide what I need to protect my loved ones. Whatever and how much force I determine I need to defend my family from harm - that's how much I get to have. Period."

So my position is basically succinctly summed up (too late, I know) as follows:

Until and unless someone can come up with a way of keeping guns out of the hands of insane people without violating the 2nd, 4th, or HIPAA, then the risk of violence is the price of the freedom to own guns. And I support and advocate and defend that freedom, whether I personally like or own firearms or not. This is not a liberal versus conservative issue, or a Democrat versus Republican issue (for the record, I am neither.) It is a liberty versus safety issue. And when that is the choice at hand... well...

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

That's my opinion.

Peace.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: theonenonlyone

How do you determine if someone without criminal record is determined to go on a shooting spree? How do you stop a terrorist or criminal from obtaining firearms if France with thier strict guns laws cannot not prevent it? Do we not already have laws on the books that make it illegal for criminals and the metally ill to purchase them? What do you suggest we should do?

We don't have enough laws. Maybe that isn't right, as I have not counted the laws and compared them to each other for redundancy.

I do know that legal gun owners have guns stolen, sell without paperwork and loan or give to family members. A gun is as dangerous as a car, if not more so. We are missing some holes in the laws. Adam Lanza got his mother's guns. People who own guns need a good gunsafe. They need a receipt for it and it needs to be quality. They need to register every 2 years. They need to declare if they have given them to someone else.

And Yes. We need better psychological testing and longer waiting.

So we need more laws because there are people that are breaking the laws we already have?
IE Lanza KILLED him mom to get the guns; Right?

So what do we do when these people break the new laws in addition to the old laws?

Let me put it another way.

IF we pass these new laws no one will ever use a gun again to commit a mass murder because to use a gun would be breaking a law and they would not do that while breaking a law?


So bank robbers will no longer use a gun while robbing a bank because that would be breaking the law?

I have to stop because this line of thinking is making me dizzy.

originally posted by: theNLBS
But we do have a problem.. Challengers from the Sidelines
Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right

www.terrorismanalysts.com...

Here is a chart for you:

www.terrorismanalysts.com...


So this means right wing attacks total less the 25% of all attacks at the BEST and more like 15% of attacks.

So who is doing the rest?

I loved statistics class, you can make them look any way you want just my asking the right questions.

originally posted by: darkbake I don't see what facts he needs to wait for. Do you think it was a terrorist attack by Muslims?

"Is this a terrorist incident? We do not know," said David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI's Los Angeles field office. He later said that terrorism had not been ruled out as a motive.

Public records show that a Syed Farook was employed by the San Bernardino County Health Department as an environmental health specialist, but it was not clear whether that was the same person involved in the shooting. The party was a gathering of employees of the health department.

Farhan Khan, who was identified as Farook's brother-in-law, struggled to explain the tragic shooting during a news conference held by the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Anhaeim late Wednesday.

“I have no idea, why would he do that. Why would he do something like that?" Khan said. "I have no idea. I’m in shock myself.”

A third person was detained in the area where the pursuit ended, but authorities said they had not connected that person to the shooting. They raised the possibility that there could be at least one other person involved in the shooting and additional people involved in the planning.

A federal law enforcement source told The Times that the suspects hurled what were believed to be pipe bombs at police during the vehicle pursuit. Burguan said police recovered one device, but it turned out not to be an explosive.

Two mothers discuss the school lockdown and their children's safety during the shooting in San Bernardino on Wednesday.

Burguan said police also discovered a device at the scene of the shooting that might have been an explosive, and authorities were working late into the night to dispose of it. Several items of concern were also located inside the SUV involved in the pursuit, and investigators were trying to determine whether any of those items were explosive.

On Wednesday evening, police entered the Redlands home where the pursuit of the suspects had begun hours earlier to conduct a search.

Co-workers described Farook as quiet and polite, and said he had no obvious grudges with anyone in the office. The 28-year-old had recently traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned with a woman he met online.

The couple had a baby and appeared to be “living the American dream,” said Patrick Baccari, a fellow health inspector who shared a cubicle with Farook.

Baccari and Christian Nwadike said Farook, who worked with them for about three years, rarely started a conversation. But the tall, thin, young man with a full beard was well-liked and spent much of his time out in the field.
Link

Well liked polite quiet Muslim who recently came back from Saudi. Not a loner etc.

IDK sounds like and looks like a terrorist attack to me, its not like they can ask him now anyhow "were all you guys killing and terrorising people because of Islam?" or have a response of "well yeah, death to America".

I don`t know if your Gov would say it was a terrorist attack if they knew it was and could get away without saying so, given the refugee arguments.