I'm hearing a lot of "mosts" and "somes" there.

Yeah it's easy for the mouthbreathers to whine and bitch about gov't who hasn't? Even when they do their jobs well, people still bitch. Even if the IRS did their job perfectly and completely fairly, people will still whine. Even if the supporters of flat tax got their way. people whine. When you have that sort of phenomenon, ultimately that means you need to tune some of that bitching out and learn to discern the valid complaints from the bullshit ones.

So whining about politicians are what people do in the cheap seats. The armchair wannabes. They're currently known as Libertarians.

If you actually give a damn about how things actually work and actually give a damn about making things better. That requires actual critical thinking. That actually requires picking a side and doing what you can and actually get involved. Something the wannabes and pundits won't actually do, because you know, that actually requires effort. Can't have that now can we.

You have two organizations and they claim their goals are to represent people in gov't. Now hey, I agree, I have long argued that parties should be abolished. I'm an independent. I owe no allegiance to either party. I think parties are....bad.

That said, I definitely lean toward one more than the other. since government is made up of....people. Parties are also made up of....people. Regardless of how you feel, there is going to be one group of...people you find at least the slightest less detestable than the other group.

To argue that they are completely the same is what we call a fallacy. And since it's the Libertarians that typically make that cop out, err I mean claim, then it's on them to prove it and going a little bit further than anecdotal evidence is required.

The Z is free! Congratulations to George Zimmerman, this is twice he's had to defend his life. I hope we never see another show trial driven by race baiting politicians and pundits again. Now he should go sue the heck out of NBC.

To be fair, SOME people do work hard honestly to become rich. SOME people are merely lucky, right place right time. But as more and more people simply inherit their wealth, or get their wealth through dishonest means, it stacks the deck against the honest and the lucky to the point where hard work is the exception, not the rule. Which is where we're at now.

I also got a kick out of the difference in monopoly money, where the "rich" player got 2K and the "poor" person only got 1K. If you want to make that more realistic, the "rich" player should have received something like 50K or 100K.

If rich people merely had double what the average person had..and SOME perks, I doubt that people would be complaining as much. I think most people accept that there is always someone more well off. so the issue isn't envy as some of the pundits like to point out. The issue is not that they have more, but that they have EXPONENTIALLY more, and on top of that, they appear to be exempt from certain rules the rest of us have to follow. Justice seems to be in favor of a rich person and their expensive lawyers vs the poor person and their public defender.

We don't have lower/middle/upper class anymore, it's more like lower/middle/upper/very upper/extremely upper/obscenely upper where even the well off are paupers by comparison.

I don't disagree about the snooping since 2001. As far as the koch brothers and the Tea Party, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

They just want the Constitution follow or at least print current laws back towards it.

Instead of watching biased Democratic sucking media, go to an actual event .

They are not raciest, or the desire to go back to slavery as the media puts forth. . That's Bullshit. B.W.Y. the slavery shit and the KKK was the Democrat south doing its thing, not Republicans. MLK was Republican.


Today the Republican party is nothing more than a cheap intimation of the Democrat party. They will never win fighting that way. The Tea Party is they way to go.


FYI a little history ... Since you had a public education and hence only learned skewed left leaning revised history...


http://www.humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

"
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act... And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican.

The Democrats were loosing the slavery battle and civil rights were breaking through and JFK/Johnson the

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans."


Democrats are still in the slavery business. They just use the welfare system to keep the poor poor and use the shallow promise of If you vote Democrat we will keep giving you a little cheese.

The Democrat party has been the most destructive political party to date.

well first off, I think to answer your first point. As with most things, there's a grain of truth to most scandals, but it's distorted, exaggerated and sensationalized.

But here's the thing, I freely acknowledge that I make no claim to understanding the whole topic and I call BS on most people who do. Because of the sorry state of our 4th estate. I assume there is some bias one way or the other in just about everything they report, especially when it's political. You don't trust gov't? I don't trust media. With gov't even people who are just ultimately seeking power, they're typically seeking power because they think they can wield it for good. even if they ultimately do bad things with it. No one wakes up and says "you know what? I'm going to totally use my power to fuck over some people, woo hoo!" Even the most crazed elected official deep down thinks they're trying to help out. or they honestly believe their ideas will ultimately benefit everyone.

meanwhile, with the media, it's just pure profit motive there. give me ratings, give me money.

as for your remaining arguments. I think the whole privacy issue is a bit hypocritical. Whenever you buy something with a credit card, that's a fingerprint that gets left behind that can track you. Whenever you use your smartphone GPS, that's something that can track you. Whenever you use the internet, there are a myriad of technologies all designed around tracking you. all for the sake of selling you something, to extract more money out of you.

..and we accept that, hell we demand it.

But when gov't does it, suddenly it's bad. But they're supposedly using that tracking to catch terrorists. So let's see, catching people who mean to do us harm, or ads and methods to extract money from you. I know which one I'd rather have. Sure, both types of surveillance could be abused, but one we tolerate, the other is not. I think that's rather hypocritical. either it's all bad, or it's not.

I also just tend to think our sense of privacy is exaggerated. (and no I felt this way even when Bush was in power). While I don't agree with the Patriot Act, I do think our fears of surveillance and are outdated and as I explained above, hypocritical. Just like virtually every tool, there are good positive uses for surveillance data, and the tool can be abused as well. That doesn't stop us from using it, we just try to put safeguards in place to try and reduce the incentive to use it for harm.

I think our sense of privacy comes from two things. Either we're doing something we shouldn't be doing..ie illegal or unethical, in that case tough shit. Or we're doing something that we consider embarrassing. In that case you're just being human and really shouldn't be embarrassed about it at all.

lets take two cases. First one: homosexuality. Lets say it was the 80s when most people were still quite firmly in the closet. and bam. because of no more privacy, everyone was instantly outed. no more hiding. Everyone knows. People would be forced to accept it. Even though they would be in the minority, there would be just too many people out to dismiss it anymore. You couldn't lock them up or ostracize them without committing holocaust-level atrocities.

Same thing with my 2nd case, marijuana. If it were suddenly possible to know each and every person who ever smoked. It would force the issue out in the open. You couldn't lock them all up as there would be too many. Even if you could, it would be a huge hit to our workforce and our families. We'd be forced to re-evaluate it and legalize it.

it would be impossible to commit physical abuse if there was no privacy.

In many ways, our views on sexuality and privacy are SO puritanical. In the long run things would be so better if we could just get it out there in the open and thus solve problems and help.

I get what you're saying about corruption and power. but historically speaking, ANY time there has been widespread corruption and abuse of power, it's always been stamped out in some way. It has to be. corruption and abuse of power are ultimately unsustainable and it eventually falls apart and gives way to something better that is sustainable. otherwise we wouldn't have survived this long.

If enough people are wronged, they WILL do something about it. If things were REALLY that bad here in America. There wouldn't be pundits talking about revolution and tyranny. There WOULD be revolution and tyranny.

Talk. is. cheap.

All fence-riding does is offer your ass more splinters-I'm all for grass-roots disobedience-Imagine the power people would realize they wield with the simple experiment of an entire town, city, or state spending an entire day sitting in their lawn chairs using no gas, electricity, or monopoly money?
The real power lies with the individual's ability to short-circuit their robotic impulses to bend over and take it up the ass

America could be transformed overnight if ineffectual peeps put the slightest amount of foot-to-ass -Otherwise, we get the brown-shirts again and unfortunately, that scenario appears inevitable. Media and her pundits are a poisonous elixir of henbane and dogshit and to continue to derive your world view from the available sources is simply retarded.

The empire has no clothes and holds very few cards, simply stop listening to their bullshit and watch them scatter like cockroaches....

It certainly looks like the IRS is guilty of some excesses.

The problem is, it's hard for your average person to separate a legitimate complaint such as that vs the standard rabblerabblerabble whining about having to pay taxes in the first place.

One of the late night pundits nailed it. The IRS can't win. Even if they do their job perfectly, people still hate them because their job is to collect taxes. People want gov't services but they will do anything to avoid paying the bill. It's fucking stupid.

Tax evasion is a crime, bitches.

As for Mr. Issa's argument. He said these groups were being disenfranchised. Weren't all the petitions for the exemption status granted? Maybe you can make the argument that they had unfair scrutiny, but where is the crime if the exemption was granted anyway.

If anything, it seems to me that the exemption status is being abused horribly. It's one thing to be non-profit and seeking exemption. But if you're a political organization (left or right) with the ability to lobby, then you need to be taxed motherfucker. Or at the very least, someone needs to give me a good reason why a political organization shouldn't be taxed.

No taxation? Then no representation!

I don't care if you think we've got a spending problem or a revenue problem, the bottom line is that we have a budget problem and it's irresponsibility at it's highest to only focus on one side of that budget. You HAVE to look at spending AND revenue. We've been through this before, taxes do not kill private spending, at least not as a whole they don't.

The IRS excesses are definite issues that need to be dealt with, but the rest looks like another case of mock outrage.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

-Always trips me out that there hasn't ever been more users using both up-and-down votes with equal frequency, especially with spam-like political-pundit offerings or a "year of 10 Rachael Maddow segments on every page."
-Who the fuck needs cable TV when there's devoted lackeys dutifully uploading every fucking newscast onto you tube?? YOU TUBE, where it belongs!! Why the fuck should we suffer infotainmentindoctrination here, I often ask myself....Then downvote , the same sensibilities guiding my hand.

I always wonder at the "eloquence" on the part of some of these pundits. It is clear that some of the stuff they say is prepared ahead of time. But all of it?

Was she that ignorant, or did she plan her remarks for whatever weird reason Conservatives say the weird, non-evidence based stuff that they do?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/krugman-the-ignorance-caucus.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130211&_r=0

I'm glad that they went through 40 hours of training, now as long as they have followup training and regular practice I've got no problem with this. But something tells me that isn't what's going to happen. The guns will probably sit there, unused for years, until something DOES happen, and they'll have forgotten their training or haven't practiced in months and someone will do something stupid or just get more people killed.

The pundits were talking about arming teachers and that's fucking nuts. hire and arm trained professionals which is fine.

Once again, gotta dispel the strawman that likes to get perpetuated by the right wing loonies. No one wants to take away your guns. We just want some increased safety and training for those who do buy guns. Prove you can use it safely and can use it competently and can keep it secure and most people will not have a problem with this.

"don't lump me in with Alex Jones"

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHA!

So if our government magically becomes tyrannical, they would obviously remove the 2nd amendment correct?

So if there is no second amendment and guns have been confiscated does this magically stop you from stealing/hiding/stockpiling guns and revolting anyway? Or do you just sit on your thumbs and accept the tyranny cursing "damnit! they revoked the 2nd amendment, we were so close to revolting too!"

And if our gov't becomes tyrannical in the right wing fanatic's fantasy world, how does your AR-15 plan on dealing with Apache helicopters? and F-22s? and laser guided munitions, and bunker busters...or SEAL teams?.

When has the lack of a 2nd amendment stopped anyone from revolting against an oppressive gov't?

If you're going to successfully revolt against a tyrannical 21st century America, you;re going to need at the very least"

1) popular support: in other words, if the guy you voted for doesn't win the election, that's not tyranny. Call me when we stop having elections, then you might have a stronger case for tyrannical govt. paying higher taxes isn't tyranny. Sorry.

2) military support: sorry, your cache of small arms, shotguns, and rifles (assault or otherwise) aren't going to cut it. you're going to need many military units to defect and oppose the government. And guess what, the commander of these units that defect will in all likelihood be leading said revolt, not the right wing pundits and chicken hawks (they'll be too busy cowering in the bomb shelters) and it won't be your "patriotic" militia wannabe survival nut.

3) lots of computer nerds and cyber warfare. Sorry son, the era of the jock is over. The world is digital now bitches. bits can be more powerful than bullets in today's world.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. the 2nd Amendment is largely symbolic and nothing more. It basically says that yes, the populace has the right to be armed (something both sides agree with, the degree of which is debatable but I'll get to that in a moment) and that *IF* the government gets tyrannical you aught to revolt

As for what kind of weapons should be allowed. If you acknowledge that its reasonable to keep nuclear arms, and military vehicles and planes and other heavy weapons and firearms out of civilian hands, then you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendments DOES have it's limits. When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment. Muskets were the pinnacle of weapons technology. Everyone was allowed to have them. So if you acknowledge that in TODAY'S world, that there are certain firearms that civvies shouldn't have, then you acknowledge that the founding fathers didn't think of everything and times do, in fact, change

This is a liberal site.. Everything to them is raciest. They promote everything conservatives do as raciest.

Awhile back some news pundit indicated that Obama should be a golfer since that all he does as a President. The left jumped all over this as a raciest statement.

Nope. I think all forms of regulation will have little to no effect given how widespread guns are. As I said, there will be no improvement in this lifetime for the US and people need to accept it.

Even in the impossible scenario that guns were largely banned nationwide and a generous guns for cash scheme was put in place, which is what has happened in some other countries, it would take decades for any meaningful effect to be felt.

Which is why my original post said that if you are genuinely concerned about this, there is no alternative to emigrating.

The issue is not Newtown, Virginia Tech, Collumbine or any freak killsprees of any of the deranged people you mentioned. The issue is the steady but reliably high murder rate enabled by the high supply of guns in the market.

These public incidents have done little to nothing more than giving pundits and casual observers an excuse to get high on their own cathartic tear gushing.

I'm not abusing the term, I'm challenging you to think outside of the box. You use the term as cable news pundits have taught you to use it, as an epithet.

Your fragility when it comes to discussing feminism and gender issues reveals an incredible amount of bias on your part, to the point that it takes from the credibility of your arguments.

Is this fair? Is this productive? Should this invalidate or reduce the value of your opinions? Do you like being on the receiving end of this kind of argument that you so passionately defend?

If you don't think language plays a major role in how you think, then I encourage you to read up on the subject.