Englebert

So you think guns should be less available. My question is who should be denied the right to defend themselves, family and property based on an arbitrary set of rules that have no measurable set of statistical results. That is, how the hell do you think you, or anyone else, can determine who should be denied the right of self protection. Please enlightened us on this set of criteria that you would implement that would determine who is competent versus who is incompetent to own a means of self protection. Keep in mind, when you list these qualifications, use the simple test of "would Stephen King be disqualified" with your qualification test. I've asked this question on this site at multiple times, and not one single person can come up with a comprehensive, or even partial set of qualifications that indicate the slightest evidence of future violence. To be fair, no one on this Earth has done any better. Forgive me, but I've just heard a few incompetent Liberal nut-cases spouting off about more gun control, and I apologize for attacking your post. Yours was the first I saw on this topic, and I would have started my own topic if I couldn't find a thread to attack. Having said that, let me restate my question. What laws would you enact to disqualify someone from self-protection? (This is not directed specifically at Fee Dee, but an open question for everyone on this board.)

So you conveniently forgot that Obama went after FoxNews and AP reporters, but somehow concocted out of thin air that Trump wants to do away with the media. I hope you didn't include yourself when you said "smart people".

You've never been accused of being racist because you don't go along with the majority. That is just absolutely ridiculous, and a loud and overused cry of victimhood. You get on here and deride practically every member, and now want to cry that nonsense of an excuse of not going along with the majority. Shovel that line of victimhood BS somewhere else...we've heard it too many times, and I am frankly sick of it.

It's hilarious that your only defense is to try to label me. Spoken like a true Liberal. If you would spend more time analyzing the biased media's descriptions of Trump rather than trying to pigeon-hole me you might come to the realization that you are being played like the good little sheeple that you are. To spout that Trump is ignorant just shows your ignorance. To focus on Trump's non-PC mannerisms and his past dalliances instead of his policies, and the effects of those policies just shows you are gullible and prime fodder for Liberal picking. It's easy to pick out a Liberal, just look at their point of focus. Liberals always choose personal attacks over policy debates. Do you hear that bell ringing in your ear?

I've asked him that many, many times, but he refuses to answer. I'm fairly certain the answer lies strictly with party affiliation (as you, I, and everyone on this board already knows), though he won't admit it. But let's give it another try. new tobie, can you answer stevenash's question? This is probably the 20th or 50th time you've been asked. Why do you run from such a simple question?

That might be the irony to top all ironies.

I don't know. Why didn't he include Saudi Arabia? Why did he choose the same exact countries Obama selected in his Terrorist Travel Prevention Act?

Again, so much wrong. You have some very selective criteria for who gets classified as immoral, unscrupulous, or evil...which seems to be based entirely on political affiliation. That's just sad. And Trump said he wants a temporary ban on immigration from countries where many of the population have outspokenly said they want to kill us. This temporary ban is until we can fix our vetting procedures. That's his approach, but somehow your Liberal leaders have burned it into your brain that this makes him evil, and a sign of a blatant disregard for human life. How any sane person can come to that conclusion is just baffling. Your assertion that Trump is dismissing them like dogs comes straight from the looney Liberal talking points, and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Your assertion that anyone restricting access to this country is somehow incompassionate is another fable straight from the Liberal talking points. Setting up safe zones for refugees in their own country would be an unacceptable solution for your line of thinking...no, we must bring them here while disregarding our own safety. That's what happens when you worship at the feet of Liberal ideology. Your third paragraph is just an indecipherable rant. You need to work on your analytical skills. Your judgement is clouded to the point of ridiculousness from basking in the filth that is Liberal logic. Deny all you want, but the obvious is just that...obvious.

Wow, that is just down right laughable. For the last 8 years we've had a Napoleon wannabe...spying on journalists and their families, especially ones he didn't like, spying on presidential campaigns, spying on every American in general, directing the I.R.S. to target certain people/groups, attempting to control every American's healthcare, ignoring foreign countries hacking into American public and private sectors, including every military branch, disparaging our policemen, providing a slush fund for Democrat causes by weaponizing the EPA, filling our courts with unbelievably biased and partisan judges, ignoring Federal laws, especially ones regarding illegal immigration, circumventing Congress' authority through executive actions, closing Federal parks in a hissie fit because he was denied running the country into even deeper debt, invoking executive privileged over documents that could show wrongdoing in the death of an American enforcement officer...there is so much more material, but I'm strained to the point of breaking just thinking about that wannabe dictator. And you have the nerve to call Trump a dictator after watching Obama's antics. That's just pathetic.

Would you care to discuss in detail any of the links you posted? Or did you just try to employ the "jab and run" tactic? It's obvious the only "debating" you will engage in is unfounded personal attacks. I'm starting to get the impression, based on your unabashed obsession with Trump, that you have is poster tacked on your ceiling right between Hannity and Rush.

This one is hilarious. Short on facts, long on entertainment.

The first 3 "lies" they listed were lies by the author. I couldn't continue reading. Where do you find this stuff? Better yet, do you actually think these are worthy of a link in your post? What does this say about you?

Really? Politifact? That's not even trying.

Another epic fail, but keep trying.

At least you tried. Failed miserably, but at least you tried.

Third graders everywhere have been missing your classic posts. They were saddened by the fact that you stopped posting your childish and hateful rants for a while, but you redeemed yourself with this one. The third graders appreciate the fact that they can now laugh again. Long live the king.

Why do you call him a dictator? Please explain yourself. We can only hope, but history has shown you will again run and hide, only to spout your unsubstantiated and hateful rhetoric at a later date. And the laughter continues. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I'll give him one thing...he sure has the uncanny ability to allow Liberals to show their true colors as the party of hate.

And again you are so wrong. Hate comes from the fact that you attack Trump as immoral, unscrupulous, and evil without any facts. There is a huge difference between us. You can try the old "tried and true" Liberal tactic of personal attacks, but I can respond in kind. The overused Liberal tactic of trying to attach a generalized label on someone with no basis is just childish. But you keep trying, the more you open your mouth the better understanding we have of your hateful underpinnings. So let's discuss the "illegal" term that you left off and flippantly disregarded . If I go into your house uninvited, according to your definition that is perfectly acceptable. According to the law that is illegal. There is a huge difference between guest and intruder. Would you call the police or would you let me just make myself at home and raid your refrigerator? And how would you feel if you called the police, and their response was "If he hasn't committed any other crime, then we are not interested in pursuing this matter." Now if you called the police, does that mean I can call you a bigot, or a racist, or a deplorable, or evil? Attacking someone as evil for attempting to enforce the laws already on the books, then trying to pin an unjustifiable negative pejorative on that person, is a sure sign of hate. Would you care to respond?

Wow, so much hate with little to no evidence to support that hate. Why did you conveniently forget to include the word "illegal" when you stated "his insistence that immigrants be locked out and deported"? Is it because it just blows your whole narrative sky high? I would ask you to comment on various other parts of this rant, but let's just stick to this one first.

Florida punches the last College World Series ticket...3-0 win in Game 3 over Wake Forest.

I read the first two paragraphs, but couldn't finish due to my uncontrollable laughter. Do you really read this stuff? Did you read anything but the headline? And if you did read it, would you like to discuss any or all parts of this propagandized article? Even Politifact would have to rate this a "pants on fire" article and they're on the same side.

Wake Forest with a walk-off homer in the 11th, win 8-6 to tie series at 1 game apiece. The If game to follow.

We all know the Russians only meddle in elections in which Republicans win. And as far as counting the success rate, I think Putin is kicking Obama's butt. Obama meddled in the Israeli elections and lost. He also meddled in the Brexit vote and lost. I really don't know of any election he meddled in that went his way. I know he meddled in the French elections, but I didn't pay enough attention to which way that one went.

Are you assuming a British persona now? Obama might have won, but the country lost. (Although I don't think McCain or Romney would have made a good president, either would have been much better than what we got.)

I'm curious as to how you think your interpretation skills are so in tune with Trump. Past history has shown this to be completely false, but you still won't deviate from your fantasyland. And the most hilarious part is you are obsessed about this, but give Bill Clinton a complete pass for doing much worse. I guess in your family morals are defined by political affiliation.