Have They Forgotten There's A Senate?

[candycorn]

What happened in Paris?

Nov. 2015, look it up.

Terror attacks mean a nation isn’t free?

No it means the police or military can't protect the people all of the time.
It's an individual persons natural right to be able to defend themselves.
Government control of it does not work.

We don’t have control and we have 100x more massacres. Churches, synagogues, private homes, military bases, shooting ranges etc...

Yet Dems refuse the solutions proposed.

Ok, lets set aside that for a moment.

The argument you were making was that Europe isn’t free because of a november 15 terror attack.
I pointed out we have had 100x terror attacks here so we’re not free either if that is the barometer that we’re using—your barometer.

Explain.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Well, I'm not subscribing to Wall Street Journal, sorry, I don't care about it that much. Post a different link.

This is no better than the idiots who complain that they won't accept an article from the NYT.

It's not about accepting an article.
It's about paying for a link from here to read.
I won't do it either.

You don't have to buy a subscription if you don't want to. But that doesn't justify demanding alternate sources.

So what is so wrong with being able to prove your position through more than one source? The ability to have more than one link that is actually able to provide different pieces of evidence that leads to the same conclusion, would only add to credibility of the original source. Common sense, or do you simply believe everything you read at face value without conducting your own research?

Being able? If you want to post multiple links then knock yourself out. But if you're just rejecting a link to a reputable news source because you don't like that particular news source, then you're being a hack. It's not uncommon for stories to be based on exclusive information that isn't available to all outlets. After all, these are competing businesses. This story in the WSJ is based on exclusive information that other sources won't have, and therefore cannot provide first hand reporting.

 

[candycorn]

What happened in Paris?

Nov. 2015, look it up.

Terror attacks mean a nation isn’t free?

No it means the police or military can't protect the people all of the time.
It's an individual persons natural right to be able to defend themselves.
Government control of it does not work.

We don’t have control and we have 100x more massacres. Churches, synagogues, private homes, military bases, shooting ranges etc...

So what do you think happens when the media supports categorizing all law enforcement as a bad apple, and choose to place them over the criminal in the spotlight?

pfft..

Linkt to example of any reputable media calling “all law enforcement” bad apple please. You won’t find any.

Would you say that encourages law enforcement to get more ... or less involved ... quit ... or pursue a thankless career where everyone sees YOU as the only problem?

I know if it was me, I’d be less motivated.

I also know it didn’t happen.

It’s the rhetoric tone in the media that is feeding the fire, with a prior president who only makes things worse with comments like - “he acted stupidly” before that beer summit political stunt show.

We were talking about his allegation that Europe isn’t free because of a terror attack. Not sure what Obama’s words from 8 years ago have to do with Europe.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Well, I'm not subscribing to Wall Street Journal, sorry, I don't care about it that much. Post a different link.

This is no better than the idiots who complain that they won't accept an article from the NYT.

It's not about accepting an article.
It's about paying for a link from here to read.
I won't do it either.

You don't have to buy a subscription if you don't want to. But that doesn't justify demanding alternate sources.

So what is so wrong with being able to prove your position through more than one source? The ability to have more than one link that is actually able to provide different pieces of evidence that leads to the same conclusion, would only add to credibility of the original source. Common sense, or do you simply believe everything you read at face value without conducting your own research?

Being able? If you want to post multiple links then knock yourself out. But if you're just rejecting a link to a reputable news source because you don't like that particular news source, then you're being a hack. It's not uncommon for stories to be based on exclusive information that isn't available to all outlets. After all, these are competing businesses. This story in the WSJ is based on exclusive information that other sources won't have, and therefore cannot provide first hand reporting.

If you happen to support those claims the article suggests, why would you ask someone who questions the accuracy of the source to do the research and provide the link FOR you? So you are otherwise stating you are incapable of performing the research. Someone who can’t provide another source, but instead critiques that person for inquiring, I find rather interesting. Perhaps you’re just seeking the easy way out that requires the least amount of effort?

 

[JWBooth]

Things are gonna get real silly.

Democrats Plan to Pursue Most Aggressive Gun-Control Legislation in Decades

/——/ They need red meat to throw at their base.

tofu and zucchini, doubtful any of them still eat red meat