Live Stream of Obamas Announcement

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: reldra

The SB terrorists weren't on the "no-fly" list.

I didn't say they were. The wife had some sort of extended Visa though.

Anybody remember this? This was way back when. Either just before or right after Obama was elected in 08. Coincidence? Sounds either prophetic or planned. You decide.




They were saying Obama wasn't coming for your guns back then too. The difference was that a lot of people believed it because they couldn't imagine a situation in which the majority of people would buy into it. How convenient for them that they seem to have gotten what they wanted, huh?

a reply to: reldra

She came in on a K1. That is the one he referred to tightening control on. I think that should be extened to H1Bs too. For a number of reasons.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

A compromise means working out a system that is acceptable to all. But that means you might have to give a little from both sides. Digging your heels in and plugging your ears and humming the same old tunes is nothing but, again, childish and useless.

People seem to love the complain about what's wrong but not want to work toward solutions we all can live with. What's the point in that?

The no fly list is not an acceptable compromise for restricting gun ownership because, as I already said, there is no explanation and no recourse once they put you on it. Restricting people with prior convictions means that they had due process and were found guilty. I'm all for keepings guns away from felons and people with mental illness. I am NOT for creating an arbitrary list without any kind of oversight or guidelines that infringes on any constitutional right.

Aside from that there is also the fact that all these proposed compromises would have done absolutely nothing to prevent these tragedies. Come up with compromises that actually work and I'll be on board.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: intrptr


Sounds like I'm glad I missed it.

I was mistaken, no Syrian ground and pound, just more gun control.

No ground. Special forces. And plenty of continued pound. Did you even listen?

No, I read this thread. ATS interpretations are good enough for me. If I listened to politicians I'd think like you.

By the way, 'ground and pound' is an MMA expression, it means pounding with blows on a downed opponent. In war its ground operations. "Special forces, advisors, expeditionary units", these are all a ruse for invasion in the early stages. I remember Vietnam. Same game, different era. You can rest assured numbers of troops in Syria will grow over time…

So he did mention it. I was right then, mostly…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1) Create ISIS
2) Create civil discord in this country between the various groups
3) Create , by inaction , various allegiances in the world that should not have happened
4) Watch as chaos ensues in both the US and the world
5) Take control of guns , etc. by Executive action
6) ? Aint gonna be good

He wasnt kidding when he stated Alinsky was one of his idols. He definitely uses all 12 of Alinsky's rules

This is our current President.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: intrptr


Sounds like I'm glad I missed it.

I was mistaken, no Syrian ground and pound, just more gun control.

No ground. Special forces. And plenty of continued pound. Did you even listen?

No, I read this thread. ATS interpretations are good enough for me. If I listened to politicians I'd think like you.

By the way, 'ground and pound' is an MMA expression, it means pounding with blows on a downed opponent. In war its ground operations. "Special forces, advisors, expeditionary units", these are all a ruse for invasion in the early stages. I remember Vietnam. Same game, different era. You can rest assured numbers of troops in Syria will grow over time…

So he did mention it. I was right then, mostly…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I thought this was a thread about the speech, not a thread about other threads.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

The no fly list is not an acceptable compromise for restricting gun ownership because, as I already said, there is no explanation and no recourse once they put you on it. Restricting people with prior convictions means that they had due process and were found guilty. I'm all for keepings guns away from felons and people with mental illness.

Mental illness is not an acceptable excuse either because it's extremely vague and covers a broad swath of people who are not the slightest bit dangerous. Basically, if you're not in a padded cell and you have no history of violence they have no excuse for denying you any of your rights on a "mental illness" excuse.

Next is the fact that they can fabricate new mental illnesses as fast as their "researchers" can write. They can make up a new mental illness tomorrow called "Political Intoxication" (Or some such crap) and put you on a list because you have it. And they will have no shortage of "mental health professionals" who are willing to help them do it because such people tend to be liberal minded in the first place.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: reldra

The SB terrorists weren't on the "no-fly" list.

I didn't say they were. The wife had some sort of extended Visa though.

He was American.
She came over on a fiance visa. Then they got married.... voila, she is granted citizenship.

a reply to: reldra

I thought this was a thread about the speech, not a thread about other threads

This thread has gone supernova. Or has been sucked into a Black Hole. I can't decide.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I see you edited your reply. So now responding to the edit:

Why would terrorist compromise FFS? They're terrorists. Radicalized extremists. Are you for real?

You called for the compromise on the part of gun owners, not terrs.

You want to keep giving them fuel for their fire. How's that working out for you so far?

As near as I can tell you want to disarm americans to protect them more?

If thats what you meant by compromise on the part of American gun owners. There is no need for more gun laws. Most Americans have owned firearms all their lives and never shot anyone. They aren't going to compromise their right to self defense against said threats to their lives. I mean, if the threat is that great and all.

Law abiding citizens aren't the problem that needs addressing

.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: intrptr


Sounds like I'm glad I missed it.

I was mistaken, no Syrian ground and pound, just more gun control.

No ground. Special forces. And plenty of continued pound. Did you even listen?

No, I read this thread. ATS interpretations are good enough for me. If I listened to politicians I'd think like you.

By the way, 'ground and pound' is an MMA expression, it means pounding with blows on a downed opponent. In war its ground operations. "Special forces, advisors, expeditionary units", these are all a ruse for invasion in the early stages. I remember Vietnam. Same game, different era. You can rest assured numbers of troops in Syria will grow over time…

So he did mention it. I was right then, mostly…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I thought this was a thread about the speech, not a thread about other threads.

One thread, members guessing what he'd talk about.

a reply to: intrptr

Most Americans have owned firearms all their lives and never shot anyone.

Gasp! That's why it's about suspected terrorists ONLY.

*grumbles and goes to watch a movie*

IS appreciates the radical right's assistance in radicalizing moderate Muslims

Keep that hate going. And keep refusing to come up with actual solutions as you criticize those who are without sacrificing a thing.

Because that's your right.

a reply to: reldra

The SB shooters were not on a 'no-fly list'.

So how would that have prevented the SB shooting?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Gasp! That's why it's about suspected terrorists ONLY.

Trust me, when politicians start talking about gun control, they mean the public at large. The excuse (crime) doesn't apply to them or criminals. Politicians have the most armed security and criminals don't care.

What movie are you going to watch?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

A compromise means working out a system that is acceptable to all. But that means you might have to give a little from both sides. Digging your heels in and plugging your ears and humming the same old tunes is nothing but, again, childish and useless.

People seem to love the complain about what's wrong but not want to work toward solutions we all can live with. What's the point in that?

The no fly list is not an acceptable compromise for restricting gun ownership because, as I already said, there is no explanation and no recourse once they put you on it. Restricting people with prior convictions means that they had due process and were found guilty. I'm all for keepings guns away from felons and people with mental illness. I am NOT for creating an arbitrary list without any kind of oversight or guidelines that infringes on any constitutional right.

Aside from that there is also the fact that all these proposed compromises would have done absolutely nothing to prevent these tragedies. Come up with compromises that actually work and I'll be on board.

So make part of the compromise to clean that list up. And as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread a lot of that data is based on old news. It's been cleaned up and is being cleaned up more as we speak.

I'm on the extended no-fly list for two extended-family reasons. So what? They explained it and we cleared it up. And I still get pulled to the side half the time, but I understand why.

But instead you're saying you want to dig your heels in, cower in your fear of Muslims and of government and of a police state, and shake your fist and get irate and refuse to even discuss the subject with any viable alternatives without a single sacrifice. I get it. Again that's your right. But it's ignorant.

Compromise is the adult thing to do.

Compromise is things like putting a time limit on it and seeing how it goes. If your fears are unfounded good. If there are issues, fix them.

Compromise is as I mentioned above fixing the list if the list has issues.

Compromise is saying yeah okay maybe we can limit the sale of X and Y but not Z.

It's a fluid thing, not a static we can never go back from it situation. Not if it's done right.

And your ideas for a solution?

On the one hand we have the issue of potential terrorists in our country. On the other hand we have a whole band of people willing to allow them access to weapons because they're not willing to give an inch. Lose-lose.

What's your win-win?

Too bad a society is made up of more than just people who think exactly like we do, eh? Maybe we should just all go live in the desert or the hills. Away from all this. With our guns. Because we don't appear to trust anybody or anything or be able to have an adult conversation on this or pretty much any other issue.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

The radicalization is caused by military might waging unjust aggressive foreign war against hapless nations.

What cracks me up is the people calling for more homeland security and more military mayhem abroad.

I especially liked the part where Obama stated 'we have been at war with global terrorism since 9/11'.

Even though, he ended the global war of terrorism in 2013.

Link: www.usnews.com...

a reply to: intrptr

Oh geebus.

Compromise among non-terrorist Americans, okay? Do you really need things spelled out to you at that level of detail?

They're not talking about disarming. Get a grip.

And you know what? Even if they were, did you read what I wrote above about how compromise could be enacted to prevent that? No. Of course you didn't.

At least some people are trying to start a dialog about real solutions. Clearly there aren't a lot of those here.