Obama Holding Live Gun Control Town Hall On CNN This Week

[Ubiquitous]

On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
CNN with Anderson Cooper.

The town hall will take place three days after Obama meets with
Attorney General Loretta Lynch to finalize executive gun controls which
are expected to be announced in the coming days.

According to CNN, the Obama town hall will feature gun control
commentary from President Obama as well as “questions from the audience
on the issue” of gun control. The town hall comes one day before “the
fifth anniversary…of the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
(D-Arizona),” who was shot by Jared Loughner after Loughner passed a
background check for his gun, then used that gun to kill six and wound
13 others.

Obama’s pending executive gun controls are expected to expand
background checks to cover private gun sellers and to place more
reporting requirements on federally licensed gun dealers. Neither of
these actions would have prevented Giffords’ attacker from acquiring
his gun or carrying out his attack.

[CNN is Obama's Pravda]

--
Cosby's problem is that he doesn't have a Hillary to cover for him and
discredit all those women.

[BTR1701]

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on

Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while surrounded
by men with guns to keep him safe.

[FPP]

Just like many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many others
before him.

So, yeah... business as usual.
--
"Listen, I'm a politician... which means that I'm a cheat and a liar,
and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops." -Hunt
for Red October

[Peter Franks]

On 1/5/2016 2:02 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
> CNN with Anderson Cooper.
>
> The town hall will take place three days after Obama meets with
> Attorney General Loretta Lynch to finalize executive gun controls which
> are expected to be announced in the coming days.
>
> According to CNN, the Obama town hall will feature gun control
> commentary from President Obama as well as “questions from the audience
> on the issue” of gun control. The town hall comes one day before “the
> fifth anniversary…of the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
> (D-Arizona),” who was shot by Jared Loughner after Loughner passed a
> background check for his gun, then used that gun to kill six and wound
> 13 others.
>
> Obama’s pending executive gun controls are expected to expand
> background checks to cover private gun sellers and to place more
> reporting requirements on federally licensed gun dealers. Neither of
> these actions would have prevented Giffords’ attacker from acquiring
> his gun or carrying out his attack.

So then what is the point?

Oh, right -- there is no point. Just more hot air from our
constitutional scholar first black president that was to be the great
uniter.

He isn't black.

He isn't a constitutional scholar.

He didn't unite anything.

He is a disgrace and an abysmal failure. Problem is that he is just
another fool in what appears to be a permanent trend.

Limiting guns to the law abiding citizen does what? It infringes or
eliminates the RIGHTS of the LAW ABIDING.

What does it do for the law breaker? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. So,
effectually these laws are prejudicial toward the law abiding and
ineffectual against the law breaker. What is Nobama trying to foster
here? Elimination of the law abiding? Judging from his home town, I'd
say yes.

Instead of infringing on the rights of the law abiding, why doesn't he
affect the forfeiture of the rights of the law breaker? Someone that
breaks the law, willfully and forcefully violating the rights of another
person, forfeits his own rights. We, as a civil society, temper that
forfeiture for the benefit of the law breaker and because of compassion.
Let's instead diminish the compassion and become harsher in the
forfeiture -- let's say, for starters, that anyone properly convicted of
first degree murder is summarily executed, including all those that have
been previously convicted. It would clean up the prisons, rid society
of the scum of the earth, and send a message: violate the rights of
another, one-way-ticket to the chair.

That is what a real president would advocate for in our society where
lawlessness runs rampant and violence is perpetrated daily against the
law abiding.

It is time to terminate the rights of the law breaker, and strengthen
the rights of the law abiding.

So, ask yourself this: where do you stand - do you seek to infringe the
rights of the law abiding for the benefit of the law breaker? Or do you
seek to strengthen the rights of the law abiding and do away with the
law breaker?

I stand firmly with the latter.

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:25:55 -0600, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

+1 ya beat me to it.

[FPP]

Do you just string words together?

How does requiring somebody selling guns to have a license infringe on
my owning one?

How does having a background check to eliminate those legally unable to
purchase a gun infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to buy
one?

> Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the
> University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a
> constitutional law professor,"
>
> From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama
> served as a professor in the Law School.

How the fuck does that not make him a Constitutional scholar?

You're very outraged... but you're not very bright, are you?

What law abiding citizen will be deprived of the right to own a firearm?

Love to hear your answer...

[FPP]

This is something brand new only if you were born yesterday.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6hjug$v7s$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-01-05 15:25:55 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
> > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
> >
> > Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
> > surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
>
> Just like many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many others
> before him.

Except they were not all trying to limit everyone else's gun rights.

And the ones who were... were equally hypocritical.

[FPP]

If you think he's trying to limit everybody's gun rights, you didn't
listen to what he said.

All he seems to have done is enforce the laws that are already on the books.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6i50v$cmm$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-01-05 21:46:47 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n6hjug$v7s$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-01-05 15:25:55 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
> >>
> >>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
> >>>
> >>> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
> >>> surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
> >>
> >> Just like many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many others
> >> before him.
> >
> > Except they were not all trying to limit everyone else's gun rights.
> >
> > And the ones who were... were equally hypocritical.
>
> If you think he's trying to limit everybody's gun rights, you didn't
> listen to what he said.
>
> All he seems to have done is enforce the laws that are already on the
> books.

Which makes one wonder why he bothered with the whole song and dance in
the first place, especially considering every time he does this sort of
thing the only measurable result is that gun sales across the nation
skyrocket.

If one didn't know better, one might suspect he was actually working
*for* the gun manufacturers.

[FPP]

It sure wasn't politics. Hillary wants to let sleeping dogs lie.

I just think the whole lame duck charge sticks in his craw, and it's
moved him to do more than he might have, otherwise.
--
"Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil." - Roosevelt

[PaxPerPoten]

Could it be that he, Soros and Ayres want a civil war in America?


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[FPP]

Could be you're an idiot...

No... you're definitely an idiot.
--
I was going to buy a copy of The Power Of Positive Thinking, and then I
thought: "What the hell good would that do?"

[trotsky]

And your criticism is what, exactly?

[Unknown]

BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:eoWdnaIInLVOuxHL...@giganews.com:

One of the first things noticed in his gun control is that NONE of it
applies to the military, law enforcement or armed groups like the Secret
Service who will have the job of protecting his ass for life.

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

"Inside every old person is a young person
wondering what the hell happened!"

Terry Pratchett in The Times/UK

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6i50v$cmm$2...@dont-email.me:

> On 2016-01-05 21:46:47 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> In article <n6hjug$v7s$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-01-05 15:25:55 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town
>>>>> hall on
>>>>
>>>> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
>>>> surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
>>>
>>> Just like many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many
>>> others before him.
>>
>> Except they were not all trying to limit everyone else's gun rights.
>>
>> And the ones who were... were equally hypocritical.
>
> If you think he's trying to limit everybody's gun rights, you didn't
> listen to what he said.
>
> All he seems to have done is enforce the laws that are already on the
> books.

The definition of a dealer is not on the books other than a vague "in the
business". I believe it should have been.

Expanded background checks are not on the books. They won't work without
registration ..... which is not on the books.

Expansion on mental health is an issue that should been looked at very
closely a long time ago.

Enhancement of data entry into NICS should have been done a long time
ago.

Other things that should have been looked into a long time are:

Education

Job opportunity

Gang culture

Drug culture

You know the king of things that fester under liberal leadership. How
long has Chicago been a Democrat stronghold? Or Baltimore or Detroit,
New Jersey, New York, LA, Miami, etc...

[Unknown]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
news:atropos-BB0E02...@news.giganews.com:

Yep, because he ends up scaring common citizens.

> If one didn't know better, one might suspect he was actually working
> *for* the gun manufacturers.

One would think he might pay more attention to ISIS or gangs.

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6ht3d$qtk$1...@dont-email.me:

Under today's methodology, it doesn't. However, a universal background
check does. It is purely on the honor system unless he also gets
registration.

>> Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the
>> University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a
>> constitutional law professor,"
>>
>> From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama
>> served as a professor in the Law School.
>
> How the fuck does that not make him a Constitutional scholar?
>
> You're very outraged... but you're not very bright, are you?
>
> What law abiding citizen will be deprived of the right to own a
firearm?
>
> Love to hear your answer...

If they institute the "no fly" list as one of the criteria, there is no
due process or, in some cases, sanity applied to it. How did Ted Kennedy
get on it? Bureaucratic error. Ergo, due to a check mark in the wrong
place and no one thinking about it, Kennedy lost his right to own a
firearm.

The government has a very pisspoor record when doing stuff like that.
For example from 2006 - 2010 there were 34,303,069 appplications for the
purchase of a firearm. Of these:

470,483 were denied
75,083 were appealed
24,970 were reversed

377,283 were referred to ATF operations under Brady
15,757 were overturned
818 were referred for federal prosecution
296 of those were declined by US Attorney's office

Result

209 Guilty pleas or verdicts.

Kinda gives one an idea of the accuracy of the list. ;)

209 guilty out of 470 thousand denials and over 34 million applications
over a 5 year time span. Imagine if that number also included those on
the "no fly" list or all purchasers of firearms were universally checked.
Why it might even rise to 225. ;)

[Barb May]

RD Sandman wrote:
> One of the first things noticed in his gun control is that NONE of it
> applies to the military, law enforcement or armed groups like the
> Secret Service who will have the job of protecting his ass for life.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."
? Martin Luther King Jr.

--
Barb

[Peter Franks]

Do I not have the right to sell guns? Why license? Dealers are already
licensed.

> How does having a background check to eliminate those legally unable to
> purchase a gun infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to buy one?

Background checks cost $$. That infringes on my capabilities to
purchase, it most definitely infringes my right.

Make background checks free, and let's talk. Since you can't make it
free, make the anti-gun crowd pay for them.

>> Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the
>> University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a
>> constitutional law professor,"
>>
>> From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama
>> served as a professor in the Law School.
>
> How the fuck does that not make him a Constitutional scholar?

Please clean up your language when addressing me, I do not appreciate
vulgarity.

He does not follow the Constitution. He is either ignorant of the
Constitution, or he deliberately doesn't practice it -- either way
disqualifies him from being a scholar.

> You're very outraged... but you're not very bright, are you?
>
> What law abiding citizen will be deprived of the right to own a firearm?
>
> Love to hear your answer...

From his January 2013 Gun Proposal: Bans military-style assault
weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.

That is an outright deprivation of the right to own.

[FPP]

You really haven't been paying attention for the last 7 years, have you?

Job opportunity? Checked the unemployment rate lately?

Education? Checked the proposals to make college tuition more
affordable lately?

--
"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience." -Twain

[FPP]

On 2016-01-06 12:01:59 -0500, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> said:

> BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:eoWdnaIInLVOuxHL...@giganews.com:
>
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall
>>> on
>>
>> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
>> surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
>>
>
> One of the first things noticed in his gun control is that NONE of it
> applies to the military, law enforcement or armed groups like the Secret
> Service who will have the job of protecting his ass for life.

I'm pretty sure they do background checks on the SS already... and I
don't think they need to buy their guns off the internet, or at gun
shows.

But if any of those groups you mentioned want to purchase a gun for
their personal use - they, yeah, they DO apply to them. What would
make you think they woudn't?

You almost sound like you WANT there to be a big outrage here... and
are a bit sad that one isn't there for you to get outraged over.
--
"The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get
worse every time Congress meets." - Will Rogers

[Support Your Local P.C. Police]

EXACTLY!!!!

[FPP]

Which the Supreme Court has seen fit to allow. SCOTUS doesn't agree
that you should be able to own everything and anything you want just
because you want it.

> On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion
> Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured
> by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep
> and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
> whatever purpose.”
>
> “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
> prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
> ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
> such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
> and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Like I said... you are very outraged, but not very bright.

Whether you judge Obama ignorant, or intolerant of the Constitution
does not change the fact that he is a Constitutional Scholar, and
teaches Constitutional Law. That is borne out by the facts... why is
why I say you're not very bright.

Civil enough for you?
--

[Support Your Local P.C. Police]

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 2:18:39 AM UTC-8, Ubiquitous wrote:
> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
> CNN with Anderson Cooper.
>
> The town hall will take place three days after Obama meets with
> Attorney General Loretta Lynch to finalize executive gun controls which
> are expected to be announced in the coming days.
>
> According to CNN, the Obama town hall will feature gun control
> commentary from President Obama as well as "questions from the audience
> on the issue" of gun control. The town hall comes one day before "the

> fifth anniversary...of the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

> (D-Arizona)," who was shot by Jared Loughner after Loughner passed a
> background check for his gun, then used that gun to kill six and wound
> 13 others.
>
> Obama's pending executive gun controls are expected to expand
> background checks to cover private gun sellers and to place more
> reporting requirements on federally licensed gun dealers. Neither of
> these actions would have prevented Giffords' attacker from acquiring
> his gun or carrying out his attack.
>
> [CNN is Obama's Pravda]
>
> --
> Cosby's problem is that he doesn't have a Hillary to cover for him and
> discredit all those women.

Barb May types ...Welcomed! NRA members like myself ...NOT Welcomed!

[BTR1701]

In article <n6k1f7$tpo$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

> On 1/5/2016 6:13 PM, FPP wrote:

> > How does having a background check to eliminate those legally unable to
> > purchase a gun infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to buy one?
>
> Background checks cost $$. That infringes on my capabilities to
> purchase, it most definitely infringes my right.

Yep, we're told that requiring someone to pay even a minimal fee to get
a state ID to vote is an unconscionable imposition on their fundamental
rights because that discriminates against the poor. Yet the Supreme
Court has ruled the 2A a fundamental right also, and these same folks
have no problem requiring a license that costs a couple hundred bucks.
And Hillz is on record saying she'd like to make the license cost $2500
smackers.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6k65a$fhp$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-01-06 12:01:59 -0500, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> said:
>
> > BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> > news:eoWdnaIInLVOuxHL...@giganews.com:
> >
> >> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall
> >>> on
> >>
> >> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
> >> surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.

> > One of the first things noticed in his gun control is that NONE of it
> > applies to the military, law enforcement or armed groups like the Secret
> > Service who will have the job of protecting his ass for life.
>
> I'm pretty sure they do background checks on the SS already... and I
> don't think they need to buy their guns off the internet, or at gun
> shows.
>
> But if any of those groups you mentioned want to purchase a gun for
> their personal use - they, yeah, they DO apply to them. What would
> make you think they woudn't?

Umm... the fact that (as you yourself pointed out) they've all *already*
undergone a background check that makes the one Joe Citizen takes to buy
a gun seem trivial in comparison. If, for example, an FBI agent shows
his credentials to a FFL, that should be prima facie evidence that she's
passed all the required screening and is more than qualified to purchase
a firearm without having to do it all (and pay for it all) again.

[Adam H. Kerman]

A poll tax is unconstitutional per the 24th Amendment (and a Supreme
Court decision which incorporated it against state and local elections).
If fees for voter IDs are ruled poll taxes, then yeah, they would be in
violation of fundamental rights.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6kng1$hel$1...@news.albasani.net>,

That's why all states have provisions that allow for the provision of
state ID cards at no cost for those who can't afford them.

[FPP]

Exercising your right to vote costs money, too.

Who do you think picks up the tab for an election?
--
As a child my family's menu consisted of two choices: take it or leave
it. -Hackett

[FPP]

And I'm sure that nothing ever happens that would affect that in
between the time the credential was given, and the gun was purchased.
Because all life just freezes when you receive a credential.

My wife teaches... and even she has to go through a BCI check periodically.
--
It's 99% of politicians that give the rest a bad name.

[FPP]

> On 2016-01-06 22:10:28 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> In article <n6k1f7$tpo$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/5/2016 6:13 PM, FPP wrote:
>>
>>>> How does having a background check to eliminate those legally unable to
>>>> purchase a gun infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to buy one?
>>>
>>> Background checks cost $$. That infringes on my capabilities to
>>> purchase, it most definitely infringes my right.
>>
>> Yep, we're told that requiring someone to pay even a minimal fee to get
>> a state ID to vote is an unconscionable imposition on their fundamental
>> rights because that discriminates against the poor. Yet the Supreme
>> Court has ruled the 2A a fundamental right also, and these same folks
>> have no problem requiring a license that costs a couple hundred bucks.
>> And Hillz is on record saying she'd like to make the license cost $2500
>> smackers.
>

Oh... and the Constitution mandates it. Paying to vote might be
considered a form of poll tax - and the 24th Amendment makes any such
fee illegal.

> The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States
> Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning
> the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or
> other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the
> states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January
> 23, 1964.
--
"Two people can see the same thing, disagree, and yet both be right.
It's not logical; it's psychological." - Stephen R. Covey

[trotsky]

Where can that record be found?

[BTR1701]

In article <n6ko1d$3m3$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

You don't think FBI and Secret Service, etc. undergo periodic
re-investigation for just that reason? How naive are you?

[BTR1701]

In article <n6koi7$4ti$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > On 2016-01-06 22:10:28 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >
> >> In article <n6k1f7$tpo$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 1/5/2016 6:13 PM, FPP wrote:
> >>
> >>>> How does having a background check to eliminate those legally unable to
> >>>> purchase a gun infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to buy
> >>>> one?
> >>>
> >>> Background checks cost $$. That infringes on my capabilities to
> >>> purchase, it most definitely infringes my right.
> >>
> >> Yep, we're told that requiring someone to pay even a minimal fee to get
> >> a state ID to vote is an unconscionable imposition on their fundamental
> >> rights because that discriminates against the poor. Yet the Supreme
> >> Court has ruled the 2A a fundamental right also, and these same folks
> >> have no problem requiring a license that costs a couple hundred bucks.
> >> And Hillz is on record saying she'd like to make the license cost $2500
> >> smackers.

> Oh... and the Constitution mandates it. Paying to vote might be
> considered a form of poll tax - and the 24th Amendment makes any such
> fee illegal.

Which is why all states have provisions that allow for the provision of
state ID cards at no cost for those who can't afford them-- kinda cuts
that legs right out from under that whine.

[Jim Elwell]

Aren't NICS background checks free for FFLs?

Your state or local laws may require fees for checking additional local
databases and your vendor may charge you for doing paperwork (often
outrageously for transfers), but the federally-mandated background check
is free.

[Barb May]

No one has a fundamental right to be a gun dealer
--
Barb

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6k5q8$e9d$1...@dont-email.me:

Why limit it to 7 years? Chicago has been a Democrat stronghold for
decades.

> Job opportunity? Checked the unemployment rate lately?

That's the point. We need to create more jobs.

> Education? Checked the proposals to make college tuition more
> affordable lately?

Hasn't happened has it.. Besides there are lots of jobs out there that
do not require a degree. In fact many of them cannot be exported and
will produce a six figure income.

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6k65a$fhp$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2016-01-06 12:01:59 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> said:
>
>> BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> news:eoWdnaIInLVOuxHL...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall
>>>> on
>>>
>>> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
>>> surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
>>>
>>
>> One of the first things noticed in his gun control is that NONE of it
>> applies to the military, law enforcement or armed groups like the
>> Secret Service who will have the job of protecting his ass for life.
>
> I'm pretty sure they do background checks on the SS already... and I
> don't think they need to buy their guns off the internet, or at gun
> shows.

You addressed one thing. There were several up there.

> But if any of those groups you mentioned want to purchase a gun for
> their personal use - they, yeah, they DO apply to them.

No, they do not. A background check is often not needed to purchase from
a dealer if you are military or in law enforcement. Or if you have a CCW
or an FOID, or a permit to purchase.

What would
> make you think they woudn't?
>
> You almost sound like you WANT there to be a big outrage here... and
> are a bit sad that one isn't there for you to get outraged over.

If you read my post, you would have noticed that I agreed with most of
what he was trying to do.

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6ko1d$3m3$1...@dont-email.me:

OUt of all the stuff I agreed with you decided to pick one (and you are
wrong on it) and act as if that was the only one I responded to.

[Bill Steele]

Which is a demonstration of the need. If we didn't have guns everywhere
the guys surrounding him could all just be kung fu experts.

In Britain they have a social contract: The cops don't carry guns, so
the crooks don't. If a crook shows up with a gun, they call special
gun-carrying cops, and those guys are so good the crooks don't buck the
system. It's like TV where the bad guy fires 2000 rounds from an assault
rifle and can't hit anything, and the hero takes him out with one shot
from a 45. I guess the theory is that crooks are too lazy to practice.

[Bill Steele]

On 1/6/16 6:09 PM, Support Your Local P.C. Police wrote:
> Barb May types ...Welcomed! NRA members like myself ...NOT Welcomed!

You are cordially welcomed here to discuss television programming. Are
you perhaps a fan of the duck-hunting shows?

[RichA]

I suppose the Dems and left-lib media think if they show images of blubbering Obama it'll sway voters? Only the people who think daytime TV is the height of culture.

[FPP]

Why not go back to 1776, then?
I limited it to 7 years because Obama was the subject of the rant.
He's been in office for 7 years.

Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.

Education is more than a college degree. Lots of vocational schools
would benefit, as well, since they're SCHOOLS.

Even jobs that don't require a degree do require a certain kind of
certification - and that means a school, or training facility.
--
Liberals are concerned about economic inequality.
Conservatives are confident that one day they'll be rich.

[FPP]

Prove it.
--
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen
with the intent to reply" - Stephen R. Covey

[FPP]

So? Am I somehow required to address everything, now?

When did that law pass?
--
"Listen, I'm a politician... which means that I'm a cheat and a liar,
and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops." -Hunt
for Red October

[FPP]

Nope. Not when those states make the requirements to get that ID onerous.

If a Birth Certificate is required, and that mandates a cross country
trip, then it's a form of poll tax.

Giving out free ID's is fine... so long as you don't make the
requirements nearly impossible to meet.

My father's birth records burned in a Town Hall fire... he couldn't get
a copy of his Birth Certificate if his life depended on it.

I have an uncle that was born in Alaska... good luck getting that
document, too.
--
Atheism is a non prophet organization.

[max headroom]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6mscn$8lp$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2016-01-07 08:10:57 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> In article <n6koi7$4ti$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>>> Oh... and the Constitution mandates it. Paying to vote might be
>>> considered a form of poll tax - and the 24th Amendment makes any such
>>> fee illegal.

>> Which is why all states have provisions that allow for the provision of
>> state ID cards at no cost for those who can't afford them-- kinda cuts
>> that legs right out from under that whine.

> Nope. Not when those states make the requirements to get that ID onerous.

> If a Birth Certificate is required, and that mandates a cross country
> trip, then it's a form of poll tax.

> Giving out free ID's is fine... so long as you don't make the
> requirements nearly impossible to meet.

Goodness gracious, how did those poor people ever register to vote in the first place?

[max headroom]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6ms06$3rn$1...@dont-email.me:

> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.

OMG

> Education is more than a college degree. Lots of vocational schools
> would benefit, as well, since they're SCHOOLS.

But they're.. they're... FOR PROFIT schools!!! Those are evil!!!

[Just Wondering]

On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
>
> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
>

Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
govern the educational system.

[FPP]

Ask somebody who lived through the Jim Crow South...
--
Liberals believe in some elements of socialism.
Conservatives hate socialism and they only believe in some elements of it.

[FPP]

Why? So you can ask me to quote the part of the Constitution that
governs roads? And then the part of the Constitution that governs
what forms the IRS sends out.

That's a fool's errand... and it looks like you're more than suited to
the task all by your lonesome.

[FPP]

> On 2016-01-07 19:49:56 -0500, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>
>>> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
>>> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
>>>
>> Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
>> govern the educational system.

> Most federal education legislation is therefore enacted under the
> "spending clause" of the Constitution, which gives Congress the
> authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Since federal
> grants to the states may be conditioned upon the state's adoption of
> certain legal and regulatory structures, the federal government has
> been able to exercise substantial authority over K–12 education policy.
--
"How many times you have to be hit on the head before you figure out
who's hitting you?" -Harry S. Truman

[FPP]

On 2016-01-07 19:17:49 -0500, "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> said:

You see... the old laws that worked for decades, apparently, allowed
too many eligible people to vote against the Republicans.

So, naturally, instead of appealing to more voters, they decided it was
much easier to limit those voting against them.

Or do you just think it's one big happy coincidence that the majority
of voters that will be disenfranchised by the new laws just happen to
be Democratic voters? Fat chance.

A number of actual Republican lawmakers have already gone on record
saying that this was the plan all along. They're not even smart enough
to shut their mouths...
--
All generalizations are false. -Twain

[max headroom]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6nar0$sgk$1...@dont-email.me:

A simple "I don't know how they registered" would have sufficed.

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n6nafn$n6c$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 2016-01-07 19:49:56 -0500, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>
>>> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
>>> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
>>>
>> Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
>> govern the educational system.
>
> Why? So you can ask me to quote the part of the Constitution that governs
> roads?

Article 1, Section 8, cl 7

> And then the part of the Constitution that governs what forms the IRS
> sends out.

Article I, Section 8, cl 1

> That's a fool's errand... and it looks like you're more than suited to the
> task all by your lonesome.

It's only a fool's errand if there is no enumerated power to reference. If
that is the case, then I refer you to the 10th Amendment.

[BTR1701]

In article <-sOdnTN5v7AXIhPL...@earthlink.com>,

Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:

> On 1/6/16 6:08 PM, Support Your Local P.C. Police wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 12:25:59 PM UTC-8, BTR1701 wrote:
> >> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
> >>
> >> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while surrounded
> >> by men with guns to keep him safe.
> >
> > EXACTLY!!!!
> >
>
> Which is a demonstration of the need. If we didn't have guns everywhere
> the guys surrounding him could all just be kung fu experts.
>
> In Britain they have a social contract: The cops don't carry guns, so
> the crooks don't.

Believe me, the SAS operators who protect the British Prime Minister and
the Royal Family all have guns, just like the American Secret Service.

[FPP]

But I do know how they registered... the same way they registered for decades.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6nbcd$4s7$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > On 2016-01-07 19:49:56 -0500, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
> >
> >> On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
> >>> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
> >>>
> >> Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
> >> govern the educational system.
>
> > Most federal education legislation is therefore enacted under the
> > "spending clause" of the Constitution, which gives Congress the
> > authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Since federal
> > grants to the states may be conditioned upon the state's adoption of
> > certain legal and regulatory structures, the federal government has
> > been able to exercise substantial authority over K­12 education policy.

The "general welfare" clause has been long held to *only* apply to
direct taxation and the levying of tariffs. Otherwise, it would negate
the general intent of the Constitution itself, as well as specifically
render the 10th Amendment meaningless, if not all but repeal it entirely.

Using the "general welfare" clause to directly regulate education, which
is a power not granted to the federal government in Article I, Section
8, is disingenuous attempt top end-run the limitation on federal power
and usurp the legitimate authority and jurisdiction granted to the
states under the 10th Amendment.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6m3ar$onh$1...@news.albasani.net>,

But citizens *do* have a fundamental right to purchase and own guns, and
if the government makes selling them a practical impossibility through
onerous taxation and fees, its regulations would then have a disparate
and direct impact on the rights of all those citizens.

[FPP]

On 2016-01-08 01:16:47 -0500, "Scout"

> Organization of U.S. Education:
> The Federal Role
>
> The U.S. federal government does not have any direct authority over
> education in the United States. There is no national ministry of
> education and no education framework law or laws in the United States.
>
> The role of the U.S. federal government is limited to the following:
>
> Exercising leadership in promoting educational policies and reform
> efforts of national scope;
> Administering federal assistance programs authorized and appropriated
> by Congress;
> Enforcing federal civil rights laws as they pertain to education;
> Providing information and statistics about education at the national
> and international levels; and
> Providing technical expertise to the U.S. Department of State, U.S.
> Department of Homeland Security, other federal agencies and Executive
> Office of the President in conducting the foreign affairs of the United
> States as these pertain to education and within the limited scope of
> federal power in this area.
>
> The federal government does not:
>
> Own, control or oversee U.S. schools or postsecondary institutions*;
> Inspect, accredit, or license schools, postsecondary institutions, or
> other educational providers;
> Set curricula or content standards for academic or professional subjects;
> Hire or license faculty or other educational professionals;
> Set educational standards for the admission, enrollment, progress, or
> graduation of students at any level;
> Set standards, license, or regulate professional occupations or
> practicing professionals (other than federal civilian and military
> personnel); or
> Determine or allocate educational budgets for states, localities, or
> institutions.
--
"Primitive life is very common, and intelligent life is fairly rare.
Some would say it has yet to occur on Earth." -Hawking

[BTR1701]

In article <n6ms2a$3sc$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

https://www2.fbi.gov/facts_and_figures/working.htm

[BTR1701]

In article <n6nl53$nfv$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > The role of the U.S. federal government is limited to the following:
> >
> > Exercising leadership in promoting educational policies and reform
> > efforts of national scope;
> > Administering federal assistance programs authorized and appropriated
> > by Congress;
> > Enforcing federal civil rights laws as they pertain to education;
> > Providing information and statistics about education at the national
> > and international levels; and
> > Providing technical expertise to the U.S. Department of State, U.S.
> > Department of Homeland Security, other federal agencies and Executive
> > Office of the President in conducting the foreign affairs of the United
> > States as these pertain to education and within the limited scope of
> > federal power in this area.

You forgot:

Blackmailing the states with the loss of federal funding for everything
from welfare to road repairs if they don't bow down to and obey the
demands of the bureaucrats in Washington.

[Just Wondering]

On 1/7/2016 8:32 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 2016-01-07 19:49:56 -0500, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>
>>> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
>>> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
>>>
>> Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
>> govern the educational system.
>
> Why?
>

Because Congress needs constitutional authority to legislate. Where's
Congress's constitutional authority to legislate education reform?

[FPP]

And as long as that's just your opinion... I'm fine with that.
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice there is. -Yogi Berra

[FPP]

Well, my fine legal scholar... blackmail is a criminal offense, isn't it?

Care to give me a legal breakdown of the case for blackmail?
--
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

[FPP]

If by "a practical impossibility" you mean upholding existing law - then sure!

For Christ sakes, you don't even see widespread condemnation from the
gun nuts, much less the rest of the people.

Just because some loopholes close that shouldn't have been open in the
first place, it isn't the end of the world like you're trying to make
it.
--
"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the
newspaper, you're mis-informed." -Twain

[trotsky]

On 1/7/16 7:10 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <n6koi7$4ti$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
>>> On 2016-01-06 22:10:28 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <n6k1f7$tpo$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/5/2016 6:13 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> How does having a background check to eliminate those legally unable to
>>>>>> purchase a gun infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to buy
>>>>>> one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Background checks cost $$. That infringes on my capabilities to
>>>>> purchase, it most definitely infringes my right.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, we're told that requiring someone to pay even a minimal fee to get
>>>> a state ID to vote is an unconscionable imposition on their fundamental
>>>> rights because that discriminates against the poor. Yet the Supreme
>>>> Court has ruled the 2A a fundamental right also, and these same folks
>>>> have no problem requiring a license that costs a couple hundred bucks.
>>>> And Hillz is on record saying she'd like to make the license cost $2500
>>>> smackers.
>

>> Oh... and the Constitution mandates it. Paying to vote might be
>> considered a form of poll tax - and the 24th Amendment makes any such
>> fee illegal.
>
> Which is why all states have provisions that allow for the provision of
> state ID cards at no cost for those who can't afford them-- kinda cuts
> that legs right out from under that whine.

Cite?

[trotsky]

On 1/7/16 1:42 PM, Bill Steele wrote:
> On 1/6/16 6:08 PM, Support Your Local P.C. Police wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 12:25:59 PM UTC-8, BTR1701 wrote:

>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
>>>
>>> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
>>> surrounded
>>> by men with guns to keep him safe.
>>

>> EXACTLY!!!!
>>
>
> Which is a demonstration of the need. If we didn't have guns everywhere
> the guys surrounding him could all just be kung fu experts.

What TV show was this on?

[Bob]

An opinion if not followed will end the great American experiment.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6nv4g$fou$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-01-08 06:53:24 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n6nl53$nfv$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> The role of the U.S. federal government is limited to the following:
> >>>
> >>> Exercising leadership in promoting educational policies and reform
> >>> efforts of national scope;
> >>> Administering federal assistance programs authorized and appropriated
> >>> by Congress;
> >>> Enforcing federal civil rights laws as they pertain to education;
> >>> Providing information and statistics about education at the national
> >>> and international levels; and
> >>> Providing technical expertise to the U.S. Department of State, U.S.
> >>> Department of Homeland Security, other federal agencies and Executive
> >>> Office of the President in conducting the foreign affairs of the United
> >>> States as these pertain to education and within the limited scope of
> >>> federal power in this area.
> >
> > You forgot:
> >
> > Blackmailing the states with the loss of federal funding for everything
> > from welfare to road repairs if they don't bow down to and obey the
> > demands of the bureaucrats in Washington.
>
> Well, my fine legal scholar... blackmail is a criminal offense, isn't it?

As is the case with many things, not when the government does it.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6nvcr$mce$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Or passing new ones.

(Glad we agree.)

[BTR1701]

In article <n6nv1h$foj$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-01-08 06:30:17 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n6nbcd$4s7$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> On 2016-01-07 19:49:56 -0500, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
> >>>>> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
> >>>> govern the educational system.
> >>
> >>> Most federal education legislation is therefore enacted under the
> >>> "spending clause" of the Constitution, which gives Congress the
> >>> authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Since federal
> >>> grants to the states may be conditioned upon the state's adoption of
> >>> certain legal and regulatory structures, the federal government has

> >>> been able to exercise substantial authority over K�education policy.

> >
> > The "general welfare" clause has been long held to *only* apply to
> > direct taxation and the levying of tariffs. Otherwise, it would negate
> > the general intent of the Constitution itself, as well as specifically
> > render the 10th Amendment meaningless, if not all but repeal it entirely.
> >
> > Using the "general welfare" clause to directly regulate education, which
> > is a power not granted to the federal government in Article I, Section

> > 8, is disingenuous attempt to end-run the limitation on federal power

> > and usurp the legitimate authority and jurisdiction granted to the
> > states under the 10th Amendment.
>
> And as long as that's just your opinion... I'm fine with that.

Not just my opinion. It's the opinion of many legal scholars far and
wide, some of them even (gasp!) liberal.

It's a fact, not an opinion, that the "general welfare" clause has been
held by the Supreme Court to have the limited effect I described. Given
that, and the fact that education is not an enumerated power of the
federal government, what is *your* opinion on how the Department of
Education can be legally and constitutionally justified?

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6ms06$3rn$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2016-01-07 13:21:23 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> said:
>
>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6k5q8$e9d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 2016-01-06 12:07:59 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6i50v$cmm$2...@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2016-01-05 21:46:47 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <n6hjug$v7s$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016-01-05 15:25:55 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>

>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town
>>>>>>>>> hall on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd
>>>>>>>> while surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Just like many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many
>>>>>>> others before him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except they were not all trying to limit everyone else's gun
>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the ones who were... were equally hypocritical.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think he's trying to limit everybody's gun rights, you
>>>>> didn't listen to what he said.
>>>>>
>>>>> All he seems to have done is enforce the laws that are already on
>>>>> the books.
>>>>
>>>> The definition of a dealer is not on the books other than a vague
>>>> "in the business". I believe it should have been.
>>>>
>>>> Expanded background checks are not on the books. They won't work
>>>> without registration ..... which is not on the books.
>>>>
>>>> Expansion on mental health is an issue that should been looked at
>>>> very closely a long time ago.
>>>>
>>>> Enhancement of data entry into NICS should have been done a long
>>>> time ago.
>>>>
>>>> Other things that should have been looked into a long time are:
>>>>
>>>> Education
>>>>
>>>> Job opportunity
>>>>
>>>> Gang culture
>>>>
>>>> Drug culture
>>>>
>>>> You know the king of things that fester under liberal leadership.
>>>> How long has Chicago been a Democrat stronghold? Or Baltimore or
>>>> Detroit, New Jersey, New York, LA, Miami, etc...
>>>
>>> You really haven't been paying attention for the last 7 years, have
>>> you?
>>
>> Why limit it to 7 years? Chicago has been a Democrat stronghold for
>> decades.
>>
>>> Job opportunity? Checked the unemployment rate lately?
>>
>> That's the point. We need to create more jobs.
>>
>>> Education? Checked the proposals to make college tuition more
>>> affordable lately?
>>
>> Hasn't happened has it.. Besides there are lots of jobs out there
>> that do not require a degree. In fact many of them cannot be
>> exported and will produce a six figure income.
>
> Why not go back to 1776, then?
> I limited it to 7 years because Obama was the subject of the rant.

Not of the part you responded to which was my post. You overreacted.



--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

"Inside every old person is a young person
wondering what the hell happened!"

Terry Pratchett in The Times/UK

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Bill Steele]

On 1/8/16 6:08 AM, trotsky wrote:
> What TV show was this on?

It was on the news, and on page 35 of the Troll Manual it says that
anything shown or mentioned on TV can be discussed in r.a.tv.

So, anyone have any opinions on the best treatment for diabetic nerve pain?


Actually that raises an important topic. Most of the ads on the news are
for prescription drugs, which suggests that the surveys show that only
old people watch the news. Which may explain why things are such a mess.

How do we package then news so that younger people will pay attention?
Maybe have it read by naked women? I think somebody in Europe tried that.

[Barb May]

If, if, if -- aka "the old slippery slope"

$35 - the average cost to have a licensed dealer conduct a gun transfer
is not onerous if one has the money to buy the gun in the first place.
If/when it ever gets as bad as 'marijuana tax stamps' then you might
have a point.

--
Barb

[Barb May]

Bill Steele wrote:
> On 1/8/16 6:08 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> What TV show was this on?
>
> It was on the news, and on page 35 of the Troll Manual it says that
> anything shown or mentioned on TV can be discussed in r.a.tv.
>
> So, anyone have any opinions on the best treatment for diabetic nerve
> pain?
>
> Actually that raises an important topic. Most of the ads on the news
> are for prescription drugs, which suggests that the surveys show that
> only old people watch the news. Which may explain why things are such
> a
> mess.
> How do we package then news so that younger people will pay attention?

The Daily Show

> Maybe have it read by naked women? I think somebody in Europe tried
> that.

--
Barb

[BTR1701]

Or, as adults call it, and as it is found in any number of appellate court
opinions: legal analysis.

[Barb May]

Nope. That may well be the most dishonest thing you've said...today!

[Michael Black]

In the seventies, the CBC here in Canada had a weekly news show for kids.
I"m not sure what the intended age group was, but it aired on a weekday,
about 4pm. Amd they had puppets to act out some of the news stories, they
even had one of Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

I can't remember how long it lasted, I thought a decent number of seasons.

There was also, in about the same time slot, but years later, a weekly
science news show, again aimed at kids. But that was about recent
science, though it might have tossed in an experiment or two.

Then about 1990, there was a weekly consumer type show for teenagers, that
lasted at least ten years. It wsa better in the early years, about
spending money and saving money, while towards the end it just seemed to
be about "which Walkman should I buy" sort of thing.

But now the CBC has no shows for that age group. THere's nothing on when
they come home from school that's aimed at them, the CBC doesn't even open
the vaults and air episode of classic children's shows at that time
period.

There is still programming for pre-school, every weekday morning, and I
guess there's some old programming on Saturday mornings, but there really
isn't much for young teens on tv anymore.

There was a program, I think on CBS, on Sunday mornings, set at the Henry
FOrd Museum, running little pieces about new inventions, often created by
young people.

Michael

[max headroom]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6nkog$fnd$1...@dont-email.me:

Then why didn't you say so?

Is getting a free ID more onerous than registering to vote?

[max headroom]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6nl53$nfv$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2016-01-08 01:16:47 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:

>> It's only a fool's errand if there is no enumerated power to reference.
>> If that is the case, then I refer you to the 10th Amendment.

>> Organization of U.S. Education:
>> The Federal Role

>> The U.S. federal government does not have any direct authority over
>> education in the United States. There is no national ministry of

>> education and no education framework law or laws in the United States....

Anyone who believes that probably also believed, "If you like your health plan, you can keep your
health plan."

[FPP]

On 2016-01-09 01:25:12 +0000, "Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the
Libs" <nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> said:

> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6nar0$sgk$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>> Or do you just think it's one big happy coincidence that the majority
>> of voters that will be disenfranchised by the new laws just happen to
>> be Democratic voters? Fat chance.
>

> Yep.

>
>> A number of actual Republican lawmakers have already gone on record
>> saying that this was the plan all along. They're not even smart enough
>> to shut their mouths...
>

> CITE!!!!!

Wow! All caps... AND 5, count, 'em - ***FIVE*** exclamation points!!!!!!
So... am I to take it that you don't think I have those citations?

Think again...
-----

> Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai told a gathering of
> Republicans that their voter identification law would “allow Governor
> Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”

-----

> Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer told The Palm Beach Post that the
> explicit goal of the state’s voter-ID law was Democratic suppression.
> “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly
> believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,”
> Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only ...
> ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good
> for us,’”

-----

> “The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is
> particularly important because early voting plays a major role in
> Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many
> days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted,
> shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a
> solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’
> - longtime conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly

-----

> New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie spoke at a US Chamber of Commerce
> gathering in Washington, DC. In his comments, The Record reports that
> Christie “pushed further into the contentious debate over voting rights
> than ever before, saying Tuesday that Republicans need to win
> gubernatorial races this year so that they’re the ones controlling
> ‘voting mechanisms’ going into the next presidential election.”

-----

> Georgia state Senator Fran Millar (R-Dunwoody) wrote an angry op-ed
> following the news that DeKalb County, part of which he represents,
> will permit early voting on the last Sunday in October.
>
> “[T]his location is dominated by African-American shoppers and it is
> near several large African-American mega churches such as New Birth
> Missionary Baptist… Is it possible church buses will be used to
> transport people directly to the mall since the poll will open when the
> mall opens?
>
> Millar, who is senior deputy whip for the Georgia Senate Republicans,
> promised to put an end to Sunday balloting in DeKalb County when state
> lawmakers assemble in the Capitol in January.

-----

> In 2012, Republican officials in Ohio were limiting early voting hours
> in Democratic-majority counties, while expanding them on nights and
> weekends in Republican counties.
>
> Here’s what the Franklin Party (Columbus) Ohio GOP chair, Doug Preis,
> and close adviser to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, said about limiting early
> voting. “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting
> process to accommodate the urban — read African-American —
> voter-turnout machine.” (And yes, he actually said “read
> African-American,” that wasn’t inserted.)

-----

> Don Yelton, a GOP precinct chair in Buncombe County, North Carolina,
> defended the state’s new voter ID law, saying so many offensive things,
> he was asked to resign the day after it aired. Yelton admits at the
> start of the segment that the number of Buncombe County residents who
> commit voter fraud is one or two out of 60,000 a year.
>
> The interview correspondent, Aasif Mandvi, replies that those numbers
> show “there’s enough voter fraud to sway zero elections,” and then
> Yelton replies, “Mmmm…that’s not the point.” He goes on to say that “if
> it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them
> everything, so be it.” and then adds, “The law is going to kick the
> Democrats in the butt.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html

http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/24/voter-discrimination/






--


The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6nar0$sgk$1...@dont-email.me:

> Or do you just think it's one big happy coincidence that the majority
> of voters that will be disenfranchised by the new laws just happen to
> be Democratic voters? Fat chance.

Yep.

> A number of actual Republican lawmakers have already gone on record
> saying that this was the plan all along. They're not even smart enough
> to shut their mouths...

CITE!!!!!

--
Notice: This poster is politically incorrect. I say 'Merry Christmas,' 'God
bless America.' I salute our flag and give thanks to our troops, police
officers and firefighters. If this offends you, you are welcome to leave.
In God we trust. All others, fuck off.

[Wayne]

"FPP" wrote in message news:n6posb$er6$1...@dont-email.me...

On 2016-01-09 01:25:12 +0000, "Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the
Libs" <nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> said:

> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6nar0$sgk$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Or do you just think it's one big happy coincidence that the majority
>> of voters that will be disenfranchised by the new laws just happen to
>> be Democratic voters? Fat chance.
>
> Yep.
>
>> A number of actual Republican lawmakers have already gone on record
>> saying that this was the plan all along. They're not even smart enough
>> to shut their mouths...
>
> CITE!!!!!

# Wow! All caps... AND 5, count, 'em - ***FIVE*** exclamation points!!!!!!
# So... am I to take it that you don't think I have those citations?

Let me try instead of FPP

cite

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6posb$er6$1...@dont-email.me:

Well of course we want to suppress Democrats. The seems a particularly
stupid bunch.

[Jake Dennisson]

On 08/01/2016 3:26 PM, Barb May wrote:
> Bill Steele wrote:
>> On 1/8/16 6:08 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> What TV show was this on?
>>
>> It was on the news, and on page 35 of the Troll Manual it says that
>> anything shown or mentioned on TV can be discussed in r.a.tv.
>>
>> So, anyone have any opinions on the best treatment for diabetic nerve
>> pain?
>>
>> Actually that raises an important topic. Most of the ads on the news
>> are for prescription drugs, which suggests that the surveys show that
>> only old people watch the news. Which may explain why things are such
>> a
>> mess.
>> How do we package then news so that younger people will pay attention?
>
> The Daily Show

Actually, the news for younger audiences shows up as a) comedy (Colbert
Report and its ilk) and b) Internet sites.

[Bill Steele]

On 1/8/16 6:29 PM, Michael Black wrote:
> But now the CBC has no shows for that age group. THere's nothing on
> when they come home from school that's aimed at them, the CBC doesn't
> even open the vaults and air episode of classic children's shows at that
> time period.

I guess the asssumption is that when those kids get home they go
straight to their computers, and won't be watching TV. That's the little
kids. Teenagers aren't even home yet.