Link?Originally Posted by 57Brave
Link?
Probably that Trump is a racist.
I agree with you here in principle. The problem with that attitude in this particular case is that lots of people are praising the federal response to a horrific disaster. Most news networks are choosing instead to air a couple of crazy people shouting "Genocide!" instead.
If you are doing a good job there is no need to tell people you are doing a good job.
"know them by their deeds"
Matthew 7:16
If it bleeds it reads..
The trick is to limit the bleeding
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
You seem to always believe what you hope would be true. Are you not watching The Vietnam War documentary?
I think they would fight against any invader, especially against a more powerful invader. I think their military is small, but committed.
FFF - BB, BB, 2B, HR, 2B, HR, 1B, BB, BB, 1B, BB, BB, HR
To Your Health
Trump budget seeks huge cuts to science and medical research, disease prevention
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.bee3c6501db7
/////////////////////////////////////////
Breast Cancer Awareness Month
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Nothing will get the north Koreans to turn on Kim like all those happy bombs we drop on them. There probably is a point they turn on him but it won't be quick. No matter what way you shake it we will be invading other people's homeland. When it comes to defending against invaders it doesn't really matter who is right. You just see foreign invaders blowing **** up and killing people.
I think the best way to go about it might be going after their food supplies. They can have all the guns and ammo in the world but if they don't have food they will either starve or give up. Their supplied are already limited and I can't fathom NK being able to keep their troops fed even if we did nothing.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
China
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Yep. Anything we try to do beyond a surgical assault or a brief air attack is going to be countermanded quickly by China. You never, EVER, get involved in a land war in Asia.
Tony PosnanskiVerified account @tonyposnanski Oct 1
Who should I believe...
The people in Puerto Rico and the reporters in Puerto Rico...
Or the man who golfed all day
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Jaw (10-02-2017)
LOL. Oh my gosh. If only someone had taken the time to literally post dozens of links showing the people and reporters in Puerto Rico praising the federal response and saying the same things as the man who played golf all day.
US factory activity index hits 13 year high
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1C71RJ
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...gative-n806681
President Donald Trump frequently complains about media coverage of his administration, and a study released Monday confirms his suspicion: Most of it has been negative.
The Pew Research Center, in a content analysis of the early days of the Trump presidency, found that 62 percent of the coverage was negative and only 5 percent was positive.
In contrast, President Barack Obama's coverage in early 2009 was 42 percent positive and 20 percent negative, the study said. President George W. Bush's coverage in early 2001 was 22 percent positive and 28 percent negative.
Only President Bill Clinton had a higher negative than positive score in his first two months in 1993, with 27 percent positive coverage and 28 percent negative.
Coverage of Trump was primarily focused on “character and leadership” versus policy, according to the Pew Center, a nonprofit based in Washington. The study also showed that only 2 percent of stories from outlets with a right-leaning audience refuted statements made by Trump or his administration, while 15 percent of stories carried by left-leaning outlets questioned the administration.
“It certainly shows that where people turn for news has implications for what they’re hearing about President Trump,” said Amy Mitchell, Pew’s director of journalism research.
Its so easy to see how Liberal economic policy is terrible.
Natural Immunity Croc
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tr...rticle/2636355
Trump ahead of Reagan's record in cutting regulations
President Trump is keeping his promise to cut regulations and is on a course to top former President Reagan's record of slashing the mountain of red tape created by Jimmy Carter, according to two independent reports.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute said that Trump has issued 58 percent fewer major and costly regulations than former President Obama and slashed the Federal Register, the government's rule book, by 32 percent.
And American Action Forum said that the Trump administration has saved $560 million by cutting regulations and meeting its promise to eliminate two old rules for every new one.
....
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...e-house-243389
Hundreds of White House emails sent to third Kushner family account
White House officials have begun examining emails associated with a third and previously unreported email account on Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s private domain, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Hundreds of emails have been sent since January from White House addresses to accounts on the Kushner family domain, these people said. Many of those emails went not to Kushner’s or Ivanka Trump’s personal addresses but to an account they both had access to and shared with their personal household staff for family scheduling.
The emails — which include nonpublic travel documents, internal schedules and some official White House materials —were in many cases sent from Ivanka Trump, her assistant Bridges Lamar and others who work with the couple in the White House. The emails to the third account were largely sent from White House accounts but occasionally came from other private accounts, one of these people said.
I mean, you literally built your campaign around your opponent doing this very thing.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/1...e-order-243376
Trump administration officials are mulling an executive order that would instruct federal agencies to review low-income assistance programs, part of a coming effort to make sweeping changes to the country’s welfare system.
The White House began circulating a draft order to federal agencies for comment last week, according to two administration officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the internal deliberations.
One of the officials said the draft order calls on agencies to review existing regulations and propose new rules that conform to a set of broad welfare principles, including tighter work requirements that encourage recipients to shift back into the labor force.
The order also calls for streamlining or eliminating duplicative services and establishing metrics for holding agencies accountable for program performance. It also encourages greater cooperation with state and local governments.
....
Trump mentioned the issue in both his January inaugural address and his February speech to a joint session of Congress. “Millions lifted from welfare to work is not too much to expect,” Trump said in his February remarks.
The president’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposal called for massive cuts to the social safety net, including food stamps, Social Security disability insurance benefits and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
“If you’re on food stamps and able-bodied, we need you to go to work,” White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters earlier this year.
Not really sure where this should go, but it is significant:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1500994681
So if Heller I dictates a certain treatment of “total bans” on Second Amendment rights, that treatment must apply to total bans on carrying (or possession) by ordinarily situated individuals covered by the Amendment.
This point brings into focus the legally decisive fact: the good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs, where these residents are no more dangerous with a gun than the next law-abiding citizen.
We say “necessarily” because the law destroys the ordinarily situated citizen’s right to bear arms not as a side effect of applying other, reasonable regulations (like those upheld in Heller II and Heller III), but by design: it looks precisely for needs “distinguishable” from those of the community.
So we needn’t pause to apply tiers of scrutiny, as if strong enough showings of public benefits could save this destruction of so many commonly situated D.C. residents’ constitutional right to bear common arms for self-defense in any fashion at all.
Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test that was appropriately written and applied, so we strike down the District’s law here apart from any particular balancing test.
…
We are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows—but no more. Just so, our opinion does little more than trace the boundaries laid in 1791 and flagged in Heller I. And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good-reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.65f42403884e
Four appeals courts, in cases arising in Maryland, New Jersey, New York and California, have upheld laws similar to the District’s. If D.C. officials decide to try to save the city’s law by appealing to the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling could set up the kind of split among circuits that the high court looks for before agreeing to hear cases.
“The court will have to step in now to provide uniformity in how we understand the Second Amendment,” said Adam Winkler, law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.
Last edited by Jaw; 10-03-2017 at 11:31 AM.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...tm_medium=push
Trump says discussion of gun laws to come after Las Vegas massacre
President Trump said Tuesday that his administration will weigh new gun laws in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, as he praised police for the “miracle” of their quick response to the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
“We have a tragedy,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House. “We’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes by.”
Asked about legislation on gun silencers, Mr. Trump replied, “We’ll talk about that later.”
Mr. Trump has consistently spoken out for Second Amendment rights as a candidate.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote