100 Glocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then I was correct, I have been friends with him longer than you have been alive. We both turn 54 in a few months. Having dinner with him tomorrow night!

Gay people were not as open when I was a kid. And having a gay friend for over 30 years still says something to any rational person that has called me a homophobe

Obama is not doing better in the middle east, you need to read the news. Iraq is being taken over by a terrorist group that the Obama administration listed as a terrorist group.
It's all going to shit over there.

But you don't care, according to you, I'm a bigot, a racist, a drunk. When you haven't a clue about me. You never will with that kind of an attitude because I don't congregate with people that judge like that. You are a very narrow minded person, you should work on that!

Your problem is your hatred of Obama clouds your judgement on any issue. According to you, no matter what, Obama and his administration is wrong - no exceptions. And this is wrong. The only conclusion you come to is that "Obama is bad / Obama did wrong" no matter what the truth is.

Case in point is Bergdahl. You are former military - You know we do not leave our men behind, ever, period, no exceptions. Even in the middle of a firefight, we will pull out our wounded and dead. In the battlefield, we will go back into combat to recover wounded and dead - we always have, always will. It's called "leave no man behind".

All of the other stuff is childish - Obamacare, the IRS, Benghazi... My favorite is the economy - the Republicans finally figured out the economy has gotten better.

I laugh at the ignorance displayed in this type of biased reporting and consumption of media. Basically everything related to guns is down in Australia. Use of firearms has halved since the early 90's, the murder rate is down etc. You are far less likely to be shot here now than before the ban. You are less likely to be murdered now by ANY means than before the ban.

You can't take a relative and subjective statement (gun crime is out of control) when it flies in the face of the statistics. By it's very definition gun crime is always going to be out of control, any crime is when it happens because if it was controlled by police it wouldn't happen. The police can say that if there is one firearm murder all year. It's the media beating up an issue.
The interpretation of that article is also hilarious. Australians were never big gun owners in the first place. The idea that you have a gun at home to protect against intruders is literally a foreign concept. We never "lost" our ability to protect ourselves with guns because we never protected ourselves from criminals with guns in the first place as a generality. In the towns and cities very, very few people owned guns, outside of my own family who had lived rurally and therefore owned rifles and shotguns I had NEVER seen a gun, ever. I heard later that one family friend had a handgun and if we'd known about it it would have been a major spectacle we would have oooh'd and ahhh'd over like it was a movie prop but wisely it was never displayed. They were rare and as invisible as hen's teeth. They never deterred ANY criminals from doing anything. We would have been considered unarmed in the first place (except on farms).

It's basically trying to project ignorant American perspectives on the Australian experience. Very silly. It's like Australians saying "god the yanks are stupid, why don't they just ban guns? So many school shootings - It's so easy to ban them!". A clueless Australian sentiment borne out of ignorance for the American culture. An American thinks that Australians protected themselves with guns against criminals because that's what they do in America. (yeah there would have been a tiny percent of Aussies, I know of ONE person who used to dig for gems in the remote outback who carried a gun because he was 5 hours from the nearest police station with thousands of $ worth of gems and because he was in remote rural areas people actually had rifles etc and were therefore likely to have access to firearms.)

We had 33 firearm homicides on the latest figures. America had 11,078. That's 24 times our firearm homicide rate. We have a completely different culture that is less murderous especially with guns. When the ban came in we had about 80 firearm homicides so it's come down massively and it's not like knife murders are taking up the slack as overall homicides are down 30%.

We do however have a lot of assaults which Americans sometimes point to as though guns would solve that. When you think of assaults in Australia though, picture drunks in Boston fighting on the street because one of them whistled at the other's girlfriend. We have more of a drunk guys fist-fighting on the street as they come out of bars problem than a criminals-with-guns problem and giving the drunk guys fighting on the street guns isn't going to help that at all!

Why are you debating with me if you have me on ignore?

Simple about Bergdahl, he stopped being a soldier once he deserted.

You still think Palin said she can see Russia from her house

I showed you that Congress came to the conclusion that it was the gas the FBI used that killed those people in Waco and you still don't think that.

I correct you and like a little pussy, you put me on ignore and still reply to what I say.

If the IRS is not a problem, why did Lois Lerner take the fifth, quit her job at the IRS, then later the IRS lost all her emails when by law they are all suppose to backed up?

Benghazi was just about the lie that was told to make it look like Obama had put an end to Terrorism. I hold our president to the truth, why don't you?

And the economy is better, better than what I'm not sure. But people are earning less and paying more, how is that a good thing? Food stamp usage is way up, why in a good economy as you call it is that happening?

And we just sent dangerous terrorist back home, one vowing to go back at it against the US!

You seem to be the only idiot on this forum that thinks I'm alone in this thinking
You are wrong!
http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/...-approval-low/

Except that he didn't desert. You claimed he was "declared" a deserter, but it isn't true. No one declared him a deserter.

But she did :




Correlation does not equal proof.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/...179930058.jpeg

Food stamps are good for the economy.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/food-stamps-01.jpg

http://www.motherjones.com/files/food-stamps-03.jpg

http://www.motherjones.com/files/food-stamps-05.jpg

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...nomic-benefits

Your facts are wrong on many things Vendzilla. Either your hatred for the president is causing you to believe things that is not true, or, what you believe is created a hatred for the man that is unfounded. Regardless, my advice (from and outsider to your country with no dog in this fight either way) is you re examine your beliefs and sources of information.

Mark, you're still trolling right?

You can't honestly think that having so many people being on food stamps is a GOOD thing?

As for "jobs"....yes, the housing market tanked in 2008 and the banks nearly collapsed which led to massive unemployment in 2009.

But the years before that? They were VERY good. And our "recovery" is nowhere NEAR the days of the hated Bush regime:

http://blog.milesfranklin.com/wp-con...-2000-2013.jpg

The way you are presenting your "facts" is very misleading. And is what a site like motherjones (completely in the back pocket of the Democrat party) wants you to believe.

That's why I keep trying to tell you....don't fall for the bullshit of the 2 party system in the USA.

Both the Dems and the Repubicans are totally and completely liars and full of shit.

Bush inherited a great economy from Clinton...who got it from the internet boom years in the 1990's.

The whole thing tumbled down because of the housing market collapse which was caused by...you guessed it: politicians and lifetime bureaucrats from BOTH parties in Congress and the Senate.

Pres. Obama never really focused on fixing that. He and Bush gave trillions to banks to bail them out while normal people went broke and lost everything.

They COULD have used those trillions to pay off people's mortgages. That would have saved the banks AND the citizens. But they BOTH chose to line the pockets of the bankers instead.

Stop believing propaganda from either side.

They are all crooks, and all to blame.

Personally, I don't think so :)

Food Stamps and Tax Credits in the UK are a subsidy to business that can't pay minimum wage without losing their profits.

You are dead right that the 2 party system is a con. Its just Pepsi or Coke but no real choice.

Well, I guess the democrats are your friends if you work online. Call your GOP congressman tell them to vote for it.
http://www.ibtimes.com/democratic-le...-lanes-1603622

my children will rule the world if mark and company are any indication of the intelligence level of the competition.

Not true we all have noticed your slanted view. No matter how many facts people post etc, you just keep ranting. I assumed you were a gowg, nice to have it confirmed.

very reasonable statement - i am sure it will go completely ignored :upsidedow

My point was that food stamps help alot of people who need it, and that food stamps do not cost as much as people think, and that food stamps can be good for an economy.


Actually, this highlights another problem. You choose not to believe a news source because you say it is democratic leaning. I too could say that I disbelieve a news source because it is republican-leaning. If you believe one news source and I believe the other, how do we determine which news source is actually telling the truth? Honest question...

Both have lied and got into all kinds of trouble and done shitty things, yes. I never really say "dems are perfect". I just point out the goofiness of the GOP and ask why people vote for them.

Agreed.

Partially true, but there were other factors : Bush lowered taxes, alot, AND started 2 very expensive wars. No president has ever started a war and lowered taxes at the same time. Wars are expensive and need to be paid for, so taxes are usually raised in times of war, not lowered.

It's hard to say what would have happened had he not bailed the banks out. The bail out most probably avoided a big recession, possible worldwide. The bail out also saved millions of jobs. Don't forget that Romney said "Let Detroit go bankrupt".

No this would not have worked. There is a very good article about why this is, at http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...not-homeowners

Ditto?

peace.

Mark, you are lost man. You really, really are so out of it that I can't find the words to express it.

You posted a graph that showed new jobs created from the year that the economy collapsed until now in a silly attempt to make it look like everything has been great for the last few years.

That is misleading and only half-truth and you know it.

As for you article on why the govt. just couldn't help the citizens but COULD give trillions to banks? That's laughable, and I'm surprised that you would go along with that kind of thinking.

The govt. could have simply told them to use that 2 trillion dollars to pay off all the homeowner mortgages that were now underwater.
That's what caused the economic collapse to begin with.

The auto bailout has turned out to be a bust as well...thanks to GM's unsafe vehicles.

I can't believe that you are all pro-big govt/pro-big banks and corporations.

Unreal...

As for food stamps? No way that people being on food stamps is a good thing. No way in hell.

Those people need JOBS. And the govt. needs to create an environment that brings jobs back.

What exactly is a GOWG? I mean I looked it up and I figure this must either just be in your head or from a Dr Suess Book?

I post facts, I put up links and yes I have opinions, you don't like them, then Go Fuck Your Self.

Well that was a left turn, what does this have to do with the thread subject may I ask?