I'm 61. I grew up long ago.
Stop being emotional and think.
If you are going to claim to be a grown up then act like one. I am the one that is point to facts and specifics. You are the one trying to blame mass murders and all things bad on the Clintons and left wing ideology. That’s all emotion no logic. You can’t back it up so you keep diverting. All I ask is for you to step it up and engage in a higher level of discussion. These absolutist wingnut viewpoints do zero service to our country
Actually I have presented facts.
You just can't see the big picture.
I know in a rational world this stuff sounds crazy, but I have seen it at work firsthand, not watched it on TV. I saw Bill Clinton, with the help of UN General Secretary Butros Butros Gahli, using 160th Nighthawk airwing MH-6 and Cobra Gunships to butcher dozens of Somali tribal leaders in cold blood in the Summer of 93'.
What Black Hawk Down leaves out
We went from being a rescue mission to an armed expeditionary force.
We requested APCs because all we had was softshell Hummers and were rejected. We were the only country with no armored vehicles.
I’m not claiming that the Clintons shit gold. I’m sure they are responsible for plenty of negative outcomes on many different levels as are leaders from all parties. The immature and disingenuous part of your argument is that you are trying to push all responsibility for negative outcomes to one side. You tried to blame them for the Florida shootings which is just silly. You callenge me to show a worse outcome in a red state and I easily point to one and then the pivots come. Life is much easier when you can just be honest and objective instead of in a constant state of spin.
I challenged you to prove your point that TX was the same shit sandwich that Broward County FL has become and you couldn't. I told you that the only reason the shooter in question got a gun in your example is because the Air Force screwed up. Not the local authorities in TX. You see, details matter.
Of course details matter and every situation isn’t unique but you changed the conversation. I never made the point that Texas was a bigger shit sandwich than Broward County has become. That’s what you’re trying to change the narrative of our conversation to. It’s not honest.
You stated that dem leadership fosters these shootings and challenged me to show a Texas shooting that had worse results as the Recent one. I easily pointed to the church shooting. End of story
Not end of the story.
It doesn't matter what laws you have in place if people don't follow them in Washington and criminals won't follow them.
Why have a system in place if you don't use it....or if you intentionally go around it?
I tried to point out to you that Democrats like Bill & Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have a habit of not obeying our laws. They felt that they were privileged and didn't have to follow the same laws you and I have to follow.
They also had a tendency of setting up the conditions that would allow some crazy shooter to take advantage of the weaknesses they created in the system.
This is not by accident. This is by design.
Why did Obama go around the country releasing thousands of prison inmates without notifying local authorities?
What do you think will happen if you remove all of the safeguards that local officials put in place and at the same time refuse to enforce laws you don't like?
Well, as you have seen in the last year, bad things happen.
Here's the point I was making about the Clintons; A president and First Lady who in the past has actually murdered Tribal Leaders in Somali by the hundreds, has actually murdered Christians in Waco because they had guns, and may have murdered people to keep their secrets, it's not much of a stretch to think that they may be setting the stage for possible attacks all over the US just to push politicians to do something about private gun ownership. We are so close to getting them taken away and it's all with the help of a few nutcases who were for some strange reason allowed to buy guns or have access to guns, and the media pushes it to the hilt whenever a school gets shot up. Notice the fact that a ball field full of Republicans being shot up isn't the right incentive. But a grade school or a H.S. full of defenseless children......now that's a travesty worth taking everyone's guns over.
End of story.
Add on top of all of this we have some transplant from Chicago working in Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's district setting up the same disaster that is currently ongoing in Chicago.....this all stinks to high heaven. It's too crazy to believe. But then again both Hillary and Obama are from Chicago where Saul Alinsky, a community activist leading organized chaos with his Rules For Radicals movement, both Hillary and Obama being believers in this....Hillary even wrote her thesis on it at Wellesley......all one has to do is connect the dots.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...and-lucifer-explained/?utm_term=.307ed3e65cb4
Now, one of the things that I have learned about Hillary Clinton is that one of her heroes, her mentors was Saul Alinsky. And her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky. This was someone that she greatly admired and that affected all of her philosophies subsequently.
Now, interestingly enough, let me tell you something about Saul Alinsky. He wrote a book called, "Rules for Radicals." On the dedication page it acknowledges Lucifer, the original radical who gained his own kingdom. ...
If this all sounds familiar, it's because four years ago, it was the other recent Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, who was getting this treatment. Newt Gingrich during his 2012 campaign was fond of referring to Obama as a "Saul Alinsky radical." (Click that link if you still don't know who Alinsky is.) Back in 2008, Rudy Giuliani did it too.
Tying Clinton to Alinsky is pretty easy; she wrote her undergraduate thesis at Wellesley College about him and even interviewed him.
As the New York Times's Mark Leibovich explained after reviewing the thesis in 2007:
Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky’s central critique of government antipoverty programs — that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals.
But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to ‘rub raw the sores of discontent’ and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system.
Carson describes Alinsky as one of Clinton's "heroes" and "mentors." Those terms are highly debatable, but Clinton was close enough to Alinsky that, in her 2003 book, "Living History," she mentioned turning down the offer to work with him after college.
"I agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas, particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn't. Later, he offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within."
