Ponderable

espola said:
By "enablers" do you mean those who make guns so easy to obtain?
Click to expand...
No.
Buying a gun legally is many things, easy really doesn't come to mind. Who exactly makes "guns easy to obtain"?
Or do you mean gun give aways like 'Fast and Furious'? - http://nypost.com/2013/12/01/book-excerpt-how-america-gave-guns-to-mexican-drug-cartels/
I'm talking about the politician who year after year, decade after decade promise folks that if elected, they address poverty and unemployment and poor schooling.
Democrats have been politically in charge of Chicago for decades, very little if anything has changed. Perhaps it's never been worse....they look the other way until election time.
 
Anybody surprised? Anybody?

You think that you're such a smart girl
And I'll believe what you say
But who do you think you are, girl?
To lead me on this way, hey

Lies, lies, yeah baby
I can't believe a word you say
Lies, lies, are gonna make you sad someday..... The Knickerbockers



FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe
The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.

Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton’s work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among “tens of thousands” of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.

The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton’s lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.

Read more:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...n-email-probe/ar-BBvUo17?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
 
Lion Eyes said:
The NRA speaks for the millions and millions of gun owners who have never and will never use their guns in an unlawful manner.
Are they at times unreasonable? Sure. Look at the hysterical bull that come from those that would confiscate all guns, as if this will cure the reasons people in Chicago slaughter their neighbors.
There are many people who believe individuals should be held accountable for their actions.
Alcohol does not make people drink and drive, short dresses do not make rapists and the 2nd amendment doesn't make people murderers.
Click to expand...

22aa0129183bd0d60416c5fe3abc5e78.jpg
 
Wez said:
They'll figure it out, I'm not shedding a single tear for the healthcare industry.
Click to expand...



When do you suppose "they'll" figure this out?


One-third of US won't have choice between Obamacare plans in 2017
It's looking like a lot of people are going to have little Obamacare choice next year.
One-third of the United States may have just a single insurer to pick from on Obamacare marketplaces in 2017, an analysis released Friday suggests.

Seven entire states are projected to have just one carrier in 2017: Alaska, Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming, according to research by the Avalere consultancy.

And more than half of the country, 55 percent, may end up having two or fewer insurers to choose from on those government-run exchanges, Avalere said.
"And there may be some sub-region counties where no plans are available," a report by Avalere on its analysis found.

The findings reflect the effect of announcements this summer that three major insurers — Aetna (AET), UnitedHealth (UNH), and Humana (HUM) — will sharply reduce the number of areas where they will sell individual health plans in 2017 due to financial losses on those plans, as well as the failures of most Obamacare co-op insurance plans.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/heal...plans-in-2017/ar-BBvPqWr?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp
 
Wez said:
22aa0129183bd0d60416c5fe3abc5e78.jpg
Click to expand...

Pffffttt........
There isn't even a partial ban on alcohol.
Tougher DUI laws was the answer.
Outlawing beer, wine and hard liquor was not the answer.
It's a foreign concept to some, but how 'bout holding those who break the law responsible?
You don't roust innocent patrons in a café or bar because some guy gets drunk and start swinging or leaves the bar drunk and hits a parked car.
You arrest the perpetrator.
When exactly did we find a "solution" to drunk driving?
 
Last edited:
Lion Eyes said:
Pffffttt........
There isn't even a partial ban on alcohol.
Tougher DUI laws was the answer.
Outlawing beer, wine and hard liquor was not the answer.
It's a foreign concept to some, but how 'bout holding those who break the law responsible?
You don't roust innocent patrons in a café or bar because some guy gets drunk and start swinging or leaves the bar drunk and hits a parked car.
You arrest the perpetrator.
When exactly did we find a "solution" to drunk driving?
Click to expand...
Have you seen my wife?
Banning alcohol would be inhumane. (to me as well as her)
Mrs. Sanders looks like a million bucks with the proper beer goggles tuned in.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Pffffttt........
There isn't even a partial ban on alcohol.
Tougher DUI laws was the answer.
Outlawing beer, wine and hard liquor was not the answer.
It's a foreign concept to some, but how 'bout holding those who break the law responsible?
You don't roust innocent patrons in a café or bar because some guy gets drunk and start swinging or leaves the bar drunk and hits a parked car.
You arrest the perpetrator.
When exactly did we find a "solution" to drunk driving?
Click to expand...

You can't make laws against shooting people tougher Lion, with guns, the goal should be a reduction in the population over time. Less guns, less gun deaths, accidents, etc.
 
Wez said:
You can't make laws against shooting people tougher Lion, with guns, the goal should be a reduction in the population over time. Less guns, less gun deaths, accidents, etc.
Click to expand...
Sure you can.
Use a gun and go to prison for life.
Less bad guys on the street, less crime, less gun play.
Violent crimes were much higher in the 80's & 90's
They started locking up the most violent & amazingly violent crime dropped.
Probably no correlation between the two, but interesting none the less.

Of course if you have a lawyer like HRC you would probably skate and due time served.
 
Hmmmm........

AP August 24, 2016
U.S. paid $1.3 billion to Iran two days after cash delivery

The Obama administration said Wednesday it paid $1.3 billion in interest to Iran in January to resolve a decades-old dispute over an undelivered military sale, two days after allowing $400 million in cash to fly to Tehran.

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau says the U.S. couldn’t say more about the Jan. 19 payments because of diplomatic sensitivities. They involved 13 separate payments of $99,999,999.99 and final payment of about $10 million. There was no explanation for the Treasury Department keeping the individual transactions under $100 million.

Read more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-paid-1-3-billion-to-iran-two-days-after-cash-delivery/


Insanity....

State Department officials can't release more information on payments made to Iran this year because they have to respect the privacy of foreign governments, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.
"We do make a practice of not commenting publicly on transactions, including settlement payments, due to the confidential nature of those payments and to respect the privacy of our international partners," State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters.
Trudeau made the comment while deflecting questions about the payments, including attempts to learn why the Treasury Department transferred the money destined for Iran to the State Department in $99,999,999.99 increments........

More:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...acy-of-govt.s-on-iran-payment/article/2600125
 
Not everything the Gov. does is according to a conspiratorial plot. I can think of a dozen reasons they don't want to be more transparent with dealings with countries like Iran. There are elements in the populations of both countries that despise dealings with the "devil" and will criticize anything done....hence your post....
 
Wez said:
Not everything the Gov. does is according to a conspiratorial plot. I can think of a dozen reasons they don't want to be more transparent with dealings with countries like Iran. There are elements in the populations of both countries that despise dealings with the "devil" and will criticize anything done....hence your post....
Click to expand...

The $400 million came from money Iran paid in advance for US weapons, things like F-14s and spare parts back when the Shah was a friend of ours and had lots of money to burn. When Iran went Islamo-looney, US government forbade weapons shipments to them, so Iran asked for the money back. We have been sitting on it for 30-plus years or so.

A parable - I owe you $100, and have been slow paying it back. One day you grab my car keys and ask me to come even. If I pay you the $100 to get my car keys back, is it "ransom"?
 
Wez said:
Not everything the Gov. does is according to a conspiratorial plot. I can think of a dozen reasons they don't want to be more transparent with dealings with countries like Iran. There are elements in the populations of both countries that despise dealings with the "devil" and will criticize anything done....hence your post....
Click to expand...

Care to list those dozens reasons?
 
Lion Eyes said:
Care to list those dozens reasons?
Click to expand...

Well not being a seasoned foreign affairs expert, my reasons would be rather elementary compared to what I suspect is going on, and as espola says above, it may not be complicated, it could just be standard policy to stay tight lipped about dealings with foreign nations.

If we were trying to work with elements within Iran that are more friendly to us than others, that would be one such reason to stay quiet...
 
Wez said:
Well not being a seasoned foreign affairs expert, my reasons would be rather elementary compared to what I suspect is going on, and as espola says above, it may not be complicated, it could just be standard policy to stay tight lipped about dealings with foreign nations.

If we were trying to work with elements within Iran that are more friendly to us than others, that would be one such reason to stay quiet...
Click to expand...

It would have been politically easier for Obama to wait until after the elections, but then those Americans would have been sitting in Iran that much longer.
 
espola said:
The $400 million came from money Iran paid in advance for US weapons, things like F-14s and spare parts back when the Shah was a friend of ours and had lots of money to burn. When Iran went Islamo-looney, US government forbade weapons shipments to them, so Iran asked for the money back. We have been sitting on it for 30-plus years or so.

A parable - I owe you $100, and have been slow paying it back. One day you grab my car keys and ask me to come even. If I pay you the $100 to get my car keys back, is it "ransom"?
Click to expand...
Ransom? More like black mail....

Say in the 1970's you kidnap friends and associates of mine & you pay groups that attack other friends and associates
All while calling for the destruction of me, my friends and associates.
While this is going on we "freeze" some of you assets.

Mean while 40 years flies by & we agree to a treaty and give 1.4 billion dollars to you to show how serious we are about being friendly.
Somewhere during the talks about all we have in common, we forgot to talk about and demand the release of the four friends and associates that you had once again kidnapped. You mention the frozen assets, the ones that your uncivilized actions had caused 40 years before.
We believing you had negotiated in good faith say sure to the money, but say what about our friends and associates coming home?
The next thing we know, you receive 400 million in unmarked currency and the four are freed...
Is it ransom?
 
Wez said:
Well not being a seasoned foreign affairs expert, my reasons would be rather elementary compared to what I suspect is going on, and as espola says above, it may not be complicated, it could just be standard policy to stay tight lipped about dealings with foreign nations.

If we were trying to work with elements within Iran that are more friendly to us than others, that would be one such reason to stay quiet...
Click to expand...
Alright fine. Just list 8 legitimate reasons...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top