Magox

With what?

I don't see much of a difference. One is self-inflicted and the other is tool that can be used for malicious intent. Death is death, and if you are going to restrict any tool that causes death or a means to it, than for the sake of consistency you would have to include, cholesterol, sugar, smoking, drinking, etc. etc.

what about smoking? or cholesterol? sugar?

Oh yeah? Please explain.

Next time you see Big Brother, let him know I said Hi.

Why is it important for you to know who has a legal right to carry a gun? Specially considering that those who are legally able to carry a gun are much more apt to not commit a crime than those who aren't. That's a fact. If anything, all this did other than needlessly agitate people was make homeowners who are not on the list more of a target than those listed.

Probably? ughh Down the slippery slope we go

I'm no gun fan, but this is your response from the actions of the newspaper? Really??

All of them. To go back to the topic of the nearly impossible task Boehner had, earlier in the year, Pelosi backed taxing millionaires. http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/12/hoyer-pelosi-engaged-in-political-ploy-152289.html Then earlier in the year, Shumer backed a millionaire's tax, remember, the Buffett Rule. The fact that Boehner accepted raising rates is a huge compromise. The original deal had 800B in tax increases, his new proposal had 1.2 Trillion. Very unpopular bill with R's. So rather than trying to make this work, Pelosi who earlier backed this plan, whipped up the votes so that it wouldn't go through. R's could of had have more than half of their caucus support this unpopular bill, but there was no support from any D's. If the D's would of supported it, the president would of basically had the Buffett rule pass, which is something that D's advocated. As I said, they keep moving the goal posts.

The concept of raising taxes on the rich has always been a popular concept. What's funny to me is that while the Election was going, the only thing that left-leaning folks could talk about was "Mitt Romney doesn't care about the poor", "Mitt Romney is heartless and is a vulture capitalist", "Mitt Romney evades taxes", "Mitt Romney doesn't stand up to the extremist voices of the R Party". That's all they talked about, now that the election is over, they believe that Obama has a mandate on his economic policies. Nice

He did win the election. But let's be real here, the election wasn't about the opposing visions, polls even the one's I thought were skewed consistently showed that people preferred Mitt Romney on the Economy over Obama. The election was about how Mitt Romney didn't care about the poor (some self-inflicted wounds, but mostly hundreds of millions of dollars worth of personal attack ads), how he evaded taxes, how he shuttered factories, his stance on immigration and the perceived view that the R party is anti woman. The only real mandate of this past election is immigration reform. Other than that, there is no mandate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578193770576333616.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories Now you tell me, Who keeps moving the goal posts?

Nevermind trendlines, they don't matter. Merry Christmas to you too

This doesn't surprise me one bit, everything I've read about him from real personal accounts from friends, coworkers and parishioners has said that he was always an unusually selfless person.

1) Rebrand the party for the 21st century 2) Take on Immigration Reform and become much more inclusive to the Latino population. I wrote about this many times on this board well before the elections and received a lot of resistance from my conservative friends. 3) Stop nominating loons as Senate Candidates Oh and I was one of the people on this board that thought that the polling numbers skewed heavily towards Democrats. Well I was off by a mile

Yeah, unfortunately I am. Well, from my perspective I feel like most things are overpriced. That the markets are/were too confident that something would get resolved. But with the power of printing presses it seems to distort everything. So I'm not really sure. But if we happen to be correct and we fall into a technical recession than you would think that the market would drop. Typically as a rule of thumb, recessions = 20% drops from highs. I don't know

Gas prices are near records for this time of the year, food prices set to soar, tuitions continuing to rise at ridiculous levels, health insurance premiums still rising rapidly.. But The CPI says there is nothing to worry about. So, just forget about what it is that you actually spend some of your money on and go by the CPI

Joe Scarborough is a conservative. He just happens to work on MSNBC and he has to appeal to his audience.

Boehner had a nearly impossible task.. He's got a house that is dominated by a number of fiscal hawks and a W.H that predominantly fears its base. We're probably at the very least heading into a mild recession. Maybe I will be wrong, won't be the first or last time.

Typical... Most people entrenched in their partisan views..... The reality is there is no silver bullet solution or for that matter, multipile solutions that will eliminate the risk of psychos offing innocent people.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74163.html#ixzz2Fz5IQFTG

I think what matters most is if people get the sense that we are moving in the right direction. There is alot of anxiety out there, and going into that jobs report, the ones who usually decide the outcome the swing voters were on the mend. If the economy shows similar results to what we've been seeing over the past month, than Romney most likely wins. Florida and NC now show Romney in the lead according to RCP and Ohio according to Rasmussen is showing Romneys first lead there since last year. Even Colorado, Iowa and Nevada according to NBC's latest polls which have shown a heavier democratic sampling than other polls show a virtual tie here. All the polls have shown a dramatic tightening over the past two months. It appears to me that the economy is gonna be weak over the next few months, and that only Reinforces Romneys argument, which is that "Obama is not up to the task, I am, I'm the fixit guy". Remember, Romney needs Indiana which he'll get, North Carolina which looks likely, Florida where ROmney now has the lead, and then Ohio, Virginia and one other state, that could either be Iowa, NH, Colorado, Wisconsin, PA or Nevada. I would say, that when the polls come out about a week from now, you will see Romney with evens stronger poll numbers.

Lets leave motives aside. If someone needs an ID to buy cigarrette and alcohol, then I believe it is completely legitimate to require ID to help decide the course of direction of the city/state/country. This is long past due, it's time to make the sensible decision.

What I can't understand is how hasn't this been a law to begin with? Yes I know, it was "Civils rights" sort of deal back in the 50/60's, but that was then, this is now. Lets just get it right, it will have to be done some time, and no better time than now. And in regards to your claim that it isn't a problem, how do you know? That's like saying a teacher only caught 2 students all year cheating on their tests in class, so since there were only two people caught, it's not a problem. Well, that just doesn't fly in the face of reason, what about all the kids that did cheat who didn't get caught? I can assure you, there are a whole lot more people getting away with **** than those who get caught. So, I reject the premise of the case that you are making. And I also reject that you believe that all the motives from these people is to suppress turnout. Are there some people who's main objective is to suppress turnout? For sure. Are there people who have an honest desire to ensure that they limit voter fraud? Without a doubt. This is a common sense solution, and there is no rational basis to object to it, other than questioning peoples motives, which as I said is disprovable. I support this idea, does that mean that I want to suppress voter turnout?

I've seen signs of a possible slow down over the past few months, and it seems as if it is pretty much confirmed, the question is how long will it last? From my estimations, the slow down here domestically speaking began almost two to three months ago. ISM, Factory orders, Chicago PMI, consumer confidence, weekly jobless claims, the unemployment report and a whole host of other reports suggest that we will continue to cool down. What was especially bad about those jobs numbers wasn't even so much the lousy numbers for May, but the dramatic revisions for the month prior. JA brought up a point the other day that he believed the lowering of Oil prices would be a good thing for the president, and it is to a degree, but I argued that if the price of oil went down to $85 a barrel that it would indicate possible fractures in the economy, and that if oil came down, then so would stocks, and that is precisely what happened. With China continuing to slow down and utter chaos and uncertainty in Europe, the external forces that were helping grow our exporting manufacturing base (primarily coming from China,India) now seems that it won't be an engine of growth for our exporters. Again, how long will China, India and Brazil continue to cool down? To be honest, I really don't know, but I would guess at least for a few more months, until China's stimulus kicks in, which they have shown that they are quite efficient when implementing these measures. Europe is a disaster, there is no good outcome over there. The only outcomes are either really bad or catastrophic and anything in between. So the uncertainty and depressed growth rates over there will serve as a negative for what happens over here. Then there is the "fiscal cliff", since it appears that neither the president or the house republicans have any desire in compromising on this serious issue, it looks like the best possible scenario we could possibly see is that at some point, months from now, we get an extension of current policies until a president is decided after the elections. In the meantime, this will be yet another layer of uncertainty that will cloud over US corporations and small businesses which of course will create another obstacle for Job hiring. So what are the possible implications for the presidency? I would of said going into the May Jobs report, that Romney stood a 50/50 chance, I would say that his odds of winning have gone up. I may be wrong, but I believe we are going to have really weak economic numbers for at least the next three months. Now of course, these ultra low interest rates could spur more lending (doubtful but possible), these low oil prices could help consumers who don't have 401ks and stocks have more disposable income, which in turn creates more demand for certain goods and services and then of course the Federal Reserve could come in with another round of QE (Which I believe is highly likely) and that could jump start the stock market again, helping create another manufactured wealth effect, that could in turn increase consumer confidence. Of course another round of QE would most likely increase oil and gasoline prices, so that is a double edged sword. If what I believe will happen, which is stagnant growth, and subpar employment numbers, then that will increase Romney's chances of winning this fall. He has already dramatically made headway over the past two months, my guess is that the polling numbers will continue to go his way.