How Did ‘Millions’ of High Capacity Magazines Disappear in Connecticut?

[GandD 5,966]

These guys give Obama way too much credit. Completely ineffectual president yet completely effectual "destroyer of everything America is and was"

[Teddy B 17,252]

These guys give Obama way too much credit. Completely ineffectual president yet completely effectual "destroyer of everything America is and was"

It's all part of the master plan!

[JohnR! 5,495]

It's all part of the master plan!

It is called the vast, huge, incommensurable and Brobdingnagian left-wing conspiracy, if you must!!!

[Darnell 8,479]

I have no interest in state of the union speeches, biggest waste of time ever. Just an fyi, asking if you think he personally hired or approved the hiring of all govmint employees does not having anything to do with a belief system, it's just a simple question.

OK, now it's shifting a bit.

First you were asking about my belief system,

now you want to know what I'm thinking.

No. Sorry.

Mostly I just spew an opinion. I'll give you an opinion about increasing the min wage for fed workers, though.

When wages increase across the board, everywhere, then that was supposed to be indicative of a currency devaluation and possible inflation.

When wages increase solely on geographic location, well, that's cost of living increase, as supposedly the cost of living varies across the CONUS.

When a certain class of federal worker gets an increase, that no one else gets, IMO it's poorly planned, as it hurts those other federal workers in some fashion.

When the min wage is increased by fiat to cover federal workers only, IMO that's only indicative of a piece-of-####### human that cannot get anything (yes, I mean anything) passed through both Houses of Congress.

IMO, that's a weak president, to chase after a minimum wage in that fashion. He blathered on for 2 years about increasing the minimum wage and was unable to get a coalition of Congressman to vote AYE on it. 2 years. IMO, he got fed up and finagled his way into yet another Presidential Decree.

as to your question about hiring - no, he not personally approve everyone. the ones he is required to approve via his signature on a piece of paper DO NOT make minimum wage, thusly are not affected by this new decree. Sure, there's a food chain of reporting responsibility, but to your exact question, no.

In closing, I'll ask that you revamp yer interest in state of the union speeches, as with this President, attempts to 'do what he said' occur after each speech. If you not watch the speech, then you not understand, mostly, the action after.

These guys give Obama way too much credit. Completely ineffectual president yet completely effectual "destroyer of everything America is and was"

now there's a TagLine with some Teeth ! I Likes It !

Edited January 29, 2014 by Darnell

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

The ACA was named Obamacare by the motley crew. It would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Actually, Jeanne Schulte Scott named it that. Motley Crue is a band,

[Peikko 1,575]

Obamacare as it was called until it collapsed coming out of the chute. Now he is trying his best to divert attention away from it, at least until he finally has any numbers that can resemble even a partial chance the healthcare system he dreams of will last after he leaves office. Socialized healthcare and total government control over every aspect of Americans is his goal, so he can claim he fundementally changed America and hundred of years of traditions and customs.

Affordable health care was not Obama's idea but sure, he definitely wanted it. So what? The way you are going on you'd think health care was a bad thing. Is that your position? Allowing people to access healthcare is a bad thing? You went off the rails after that bit, I am not sure how the affordable health care act qualifies as socialised health care, it's not even close and the hyperbolic "wants to control every aspect of Americans" is just nutty and has no basis in fact.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Motley Crue is a band,

[Peikko 1,575]

OK, now it's shifting a bit.

First you were asking about my belief system,

now you want to know what I'm thinking.

No. Sorry.

Mostly I just spew an opinion. I'll give you an opinion about increasing the min wage for fed workers, though.

When wages increase across the board, everywhere, then that was supposed to be indicative of a currency devaluation and possible inflation.

When wages increase solely on geographic location, well, that's cost of living increase, as supposedly the cost of living varies across the CONUS.

When a certain class of federal worker gets an increase, that no one else gets, IMO it's poorly planned, as it hurts those other federal workers in some fashion.

When the min wage is increased by fiat to cover federal workers only, IMO that's only indicative of a piece-of-####### human that cannot get anything (yes, I mean anything) passed through both Houses of Congress.

IMO, that's a weak president, to chase after a minimum wage in that fashion. He blathered on for 2 years about increasing the minimum wage and was unable to get a coalition of Congressman to vote AYE on it. 2 years. IMO, he got fed up and finagled his way into yet another Presidential Decree.

as to your question about hiring - no, he not personally approve everyone. the ones he is required to approve via his signature on a piece of paper DO NOT make minimum wage, thusly are not affected by this new decree. Sure, there's a food chain of reporting responsibility, but to your exact question, no.

In closing, I'll ask that you revamp yer interest in state of the union speeches, as with this President, attempts to 'do what he said' occur after each speech. If you not watch the speech, then you not understand, mostly, the action after.

now there's a TagLine with some Teeth ! I Likes It !

I can read. All I need to do is read up on proposed legislation, no boring speech listening required and I will have access to facts not emotional nonsense.

I did not ask about your belief system, If you want to think I did, go for it.

[Darnell 8,479]

uh. 'what do you believe...' and

'what do you think...'

apologies..

[Peikko 1,575]

uh. 'what do you believe...' and

'what do you think...'

apologies..

[Darnell 8,479]

oh I'm a thinking spankings for fun and profit.

Still, was a nice engagement, so thanks for that !

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Good job, Teddy B.

Since your previous post was incorrect in its intent, I just assumed you mis-spelled part of it, too.

[slim 1,533]

35,000 people killed every year by guns. (Killed by inanimate objects?) Over half are suicides. (I know, they wouldnt kill themselves if they didnt have guns.) About 2/3 of the remaining homicides (accidents are actually a very small portion) are committed by people engaged in felonious activity already.

So, my question to all the "new and broader common sense gun law" folks is, if we cant stop appx. 75% of gun-related fatalities with new laws, why are you so insistent on pressing for them? Isnt there a better way to save a couple thousand people? Something like, say, banning water? How about getting rid of steps and stairs. I know, lets ban bathtubs!

You crusaders kill me with your empathy for the "millions of people killed by guns." Yet I see so few of you ready to take the necessary actions to curb gun violence. Things like hugging a kid in the hood.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

35,000 people killed every year by guns. (Killed by inanimate objects?) Over half are suicides. (I know, they wouldnt kill themselves if they didnt have guns.) About 2/3 of the remaining homicides (accidents are actually a very small portion) are committed by people engaged in felonious activity already.

So, my question to all the "new and broader common sense gun law" folks is, if we cant stop appx. 75% of gun-related fatalities with new laws, why are you so insistent on pressing for them? Isnt there a better way to save a couple thousand people? Something like, say, banning water? How about getting rid of steps and stairs. I know, lets ban bathtubs!

You crusaders kill me with your empathy for the "millions of people killed by guns." Yet I see so few of you ready to take the necessary actions to curb gun violence. Things like hugging a kid in the hood.

I've hugged plenty of people in the hood, and I don't have an arsenal in my vehicle when I go there. Can you say the same thing?

[Teddy B 17,252]

35,000 people killed every year by guns. (Killed by inanimate objects?) Over half are suicides. (I know, they wouldnt kill themselves if they didnt have guns.) About 2/3 of the remaining homicides (accidents are actually a very small portion) are committed by people engaged in felonious activity already.

So, my question to all the "new and broader common sense gun law" folks is, if we cant stop appx. 75% of gun-related fatalities with new laws, why are you so insistent on pressing for them? Isnt there a better way to save a couple thousand people? Something like, say, banning water? How about getting rid of steps and stairs. I know, lets ban bathtubs!

You crusaders kill me with your empathy for the "millions of people killed by guns." Yet I see so few of you ready to take the necessary actions to curb gun violence. Things like hugging a kid in the hood.

See the bolded sentence? Anything after that ridiculousness is nothing but blah blah blah.