Jump to content

Random Political/Social Posting


Eric
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • pipedreams

    47618

  • ChuteTheMall

    19565

  • Swampfox762

    10052

  • Schmidt Meister

    9511

10 hours ago, pipedreams said:

image.png.2456d80d25775abee94b589b60559ece.png

How can anyone be so stupid to think the government will take care of them.  Ask the American Indian how well the government takes care of them!

When you are afraid of making your own life decisions the fault lies within you, It's not anyone else's "job" to make your decisions for you.  That's called a Dictatorship.

If that is what you are willing to accept, then you have serious personal mental issues but again, it's something only you can deal with.  Other's are worrying about themselves, they haven't the time to worry about you!

If you discount the value of family, you have thrown away the only individuals in your life that might have cared for you.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pipedreams said:

image.png.29a63c64ac01b71691145dd4db7ad073.png

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”

“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”

“With fools forbear to argue–better strive to wake the dead.”

Sometimes arguing with an idiot is more trouble than it is worth.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pipedreams said:

image.png.4e745dc741564baad65c64a40b07bfe5.png

these are the people that claim to represent you.  They don't even care enough for their constituents opinions to stay awake and listen to them.  These are "public servants" that have no interest in what the public wants!~

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Dric902 said:

 

Reagan has been asking for a “line item veto” for his whole admin

In United States government, the line-item veto, or partial veto, is the power of an executive authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package. The line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of legislative override as are traditional vetoes.
Presidents of the United States have repeatedly asked the Congress to give them line-item veto power.
[11] According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cut, I'll take the heat." Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995.[12] Congress attempted to grant this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York. The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. 
 

Presidents aren’t kings, they can sign or veto. That’s it.

in order to get the rest of the provisions, ammo records, travel, he had to take what he could get or leave it. Getting rid of large parts of the ‘68 law was worth it. 
.

See that is where you are confusing stuff. He can say **** you I will not sign this until XYZ is removed, if they do not remove then the guy you quoted (see below) should have vetoed it and had it fixed. Instead he magically found the "if any" leeway to ban something. By signing it he himself is responsible for the contents.

Quote

In his Guns & Ammo column, Reagan left little doubt about his stance on the Second Amendment, writing: “In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea.”

Saying the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” he added that “the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive

 

You say it was worth it to give away what others have so you get what you want, that is the dictionary definition of a Fudd.

Obviously you are not going to see that banning stuff is a bad thing so I give up, feel free to worship the "conservative" that screwed gun owners for multiple generations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...