Magox

They're attempting to engage in a substantive conversation, and you're responding with flippant non sequiturs. That's cool, but it certainly doesn't help whatever argument you are trying to make.

I may not completely agree with it, but I certainly believe it is a step in the right direction. I believe that welfare benefits should have strings attached to them, specially for habitual beneficiaries of these programs.

This op-ed from Campbell Brown partially echos my sentiment. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324020504578398713144082092.html

Tavon is no Roscoe. The level of productivity between the two in college isn't even close.

He won't be available in the third round. My guess is that he won't even be available by our second round pick. We'll see who's right

Would they have committed the crimes you ask? My guess is the combination of their mental illness with the spark created by these movies and games along with the access to guns is what contributed to the killings. Hold on a second, So you believe that him dressing as the joker during the a batman movie wasn't influenced by the movie? Or that Adam lanza, who had thousands of dollars of violent video games, playing these game hours upon hours, all holed up in his dark room, didn't play a role as a motivating force in these killings? Puhleasaase. Like I said, you are no different than the "righties", you just play for the other team.

I understand that, but in order to help solve the real root cause of the issues, you have to address them all. If you aren't willing to address all the issues, and you exclusively go after run rights advocates you have to understand that nothing will get done. First off, you aren't substantively helping solve the issue. The Colorado kid thought he was re enacting the batman film. So obviously that played a role, right? And the Connecticut kid though he was part of a video game, where killing people got him points. These are facts. These issues played a role in the mass killings, and the one common denominator between the two was that they were both mentally ill. So, it's not just a matter of trying to honestly solve the issue, by addressing a comprehensive package, but it's also a matter of smart politics. Don't get me wrong, the guy knows how to win elections, but he doesn't know how to build public support around his policies. Smart politics would include a strategy of gaining political capital and credibility. If he were to take on his base (Hollywood), with the same vigor he is taking on the NRA, he would gain political capital. There would be some conservative constituents and politicians that would say "you know what, this guy does want to solve this issue, so if he is gonna go against his base, then so will I" That's how you build capital and momentum to get things done. Now what is he about to accomplish GF? Is he gonna get a meaningful bill passed? Like I said, a missed opportunity. This president is great at getting elected, but is absolutely atrocious when it comes to garnering positive results for the economy.

And there is the rub. You are no different than the most partisan "righty". Hardcore gun advocates want no sort of restriction to their right to bear arms and hardcore lefties would rather ignore the root causes of these incidents and look to restrict gun owners rights to own guns. In regards to what should they have done? I don't know. But just because you don't see an immediate solution to it doesn't mean you don't look to help solve that issue. Again, if the president and liberals were serious about solving this issue, they would of looked for a comprehensive solution rather than taking on one of their favorite bogeymen, the NRA and gun owners.

To be honest with you, I'm not in favor of restricting much of anything. That's not to say that I'm opposed to some sort of Universal Background checks, just that the emphasis by liberal gun control advocates has been just about exclusively about guns, and very little to do with what I just brought up. If the president or liberals for that matter was truly serious about accomplishing anything worthwhile, then he and liberals would of taken on his base and spoke out forcefully about violence in the gaming and movie industries, while speaking about universal background checks. Now that he and liberals have taken the route of demagoguing gun owners, what they have done is two things. One, show that they aren't serious about helping solve this issue, or else they would of done what I just suggested. And two, accomplish jack ****. If he would of taken on his own base (Hollywood), he would of shown that he was serious about this issue, and it would of given him more capital to deal with the NRA. Now everyone has entrenched themselves to their old partisan habits. It was a complete missed opportunity by the president on this issue.

Considering that the Colorado Killer was partially influenced by the violence of the Batman movies and that the Connecticut kid thought he was in a virtual video game killing people, why don't liberal gun control advocates talk about the root causes of these two occurrences which was Mental health and violence in the Gaming and Movie industries?

'advocacy source' ?

I think I'll go with the idea that just about every reporter and journalist from these networks supported the bill and that they'd rather not report on the failings of the implementation of the ACA knowing that it would look bad upon the president.

Dude there is no bias.... It's all in your head

And I say this with all honesty Really?

I think what you meant to say is that Bob Woodward is a "great reporter", when he is criticizing conservatives.

Oh C'mon! He voted for Jon Huntsman!

He's right, I should of provided a link. In any case, it still applies. ZING!!!!!!!!

Zing!!

A very polished and skilled WR that has great hands with decent speed. My guess is that he will be a quality WR in the pros.

While I certainly believe as to what you alluded to, that they have so much vested in preserving Obama's legacy, this poll to me would indicate that once things begin to play out as we expect it to, which is an even worse and more expensive health care system, that even some of the Big O's supporters will turn on the ACA, in one form or another. Btw, even Mark Zandi from Moody's analytics, who is desperate to tout anything positive about the economy because of his support and endorsement of the Stimulus, today conceded the following: Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/march-2013-jobs-report-89668_Page2.html#ixzz2PbMM42VV

He's electrifying with the ball. The problem is, can he get himself open against top competition on a consistent basis to become an electrifying ball player?

Fantastic measurables!

S Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2PWtWhjMh It's pretty obvious to me, most people want to secure the border and offer a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But check the way Politico words this: "But only 61 percent of Hispanics feel the same" But only???? Large gap??? That is an overwhelming majority of Hispanics that support securing the border, and they say "but only" Douche media