They should just ask him to recite the alphabet and see if he can even do that without stepping on his own dick and sounding like a moron. 2 to 1 the answer is no. Seriously, the guy is a moron, not very bright and full of anger towards what is our only ally in the area. He sees conspiracies involving Jews everywhere.

 

Plus he is being funded by Friends of Hamas!

Plus he is being funded by Friends of Hamas!

 

 

The green sarcasm did not come through. But i think that was your point. Do you really need to add that s*** in this thread. Post it in the Dem thread.

http://www.suntimes.com/18282748-761/chica...n-violence.html

 

And so it continues.

I don't know where else to put this, so I'll throw it here.

 

The Onion ‏@TheOnion

"Maintenance crews are working diligently to clear back alleyways so that Chicagoans can quickly resume murdering." http://onion.com/YhEaWi

Fun times in Illinois!

 

Madigan's been shot down again trying overturn the court's decision striking down the IL CCW law. So the 180 day clock is still ticking until that law is *POOF*. State legislature is also way too divided on the issue right now to get close to passing anything, so a replacement law seems unlikely without some big concessions from the anti-gunners (end to FOIDs, striking down Cook County/Chicago's AWB and registration laws).

 

Assuming no compromise happens this summer Illinois will go to full unrestricted carry. No permits, no classes, no licensing, no fees. You could open carry or concealed carry. The type of weapon wouldn't matter (under 10 round magazine in Cook County only), you could walk around with an AK-47 slung over your back and it'd be 100% legal. Where you're carrying wouldn't matter either, the only place off limits would be airports. All you'd need is a FOID and a gun.

 

I, for one, cant wait one way or the other. Gun laws in this state are about to get A LOT better no matter what. The liberal no gun dream and its repeated failures are finally coming to an end in this state.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,7138741.story

 

Something will get done, but pro-gun activists obviously have all the leverage.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,7138741.story

 

Something will get done, but pro-gun activists obviously have all the leverage.

He'll try and get language inserted that bans guns within 100 feet of schools, any government building, parks, etc., and by the time he is done, there might be 10% of the state left not covered by his 'exceptions'. Then he will get smacked down again as that type of restriction goes against the very nature of the ruling. Just like they will get smacked down if they try and require special insurance to carry, as that is the same thing in spirit as a poll tax, keeping poor people from exercising their rights. The problem is the emotional arguments that can only be backed up with emotion, and those people tend to view the 2A as an inferior amendment. But we got a whole bill of them, they all need to be respected, until changed thru the proper means, not by knee-jerk reactions to tragedies.

Prepare yourselves. Pestulance and famine and maybe even locusts will feast upon the U.S. today......Imagine what would happen if they actually cut spending?

Giant recession?

Increased unemployment?

Larger deficit?

Edited March 1, 201313 yr by StrangeSox

Maxine Waters says 170 million jobs could be lost.

I'm willing to roll the dice. This'll be a good opportunity to make the various government agencies more efficient. Cut the fat.

You don't make things more efficient with ham-handed "across the board" cuts, but you do throw your country back into a recession.

You don't make things more efficient with ham-handed "across the board" cuts, but you do throw your country back into a recession.

 

And both parties are to blame

Giant recession?

Increased unemployment?

Larger deficit?

 

Sold

Sold

Agreed. They are not cutting spending.

And both parties are to blame

Yes, both are equally stupidly focused on the deficit right now.

Agreed. They are not cutting spending.

 

Sure they are, but that's besides the point: these cuts will be a further drag on the economy in addition to the cuts they've already made, sending the economy into a recession, which means you're going to have more social safety spending and less revenues. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

We cant keep living in fear of recession every time the idea of the government spending a still-ludicrous-but-just-a-little-less money is brought up. That's how this monster keeps growing "were in a recession the government needs to spend more!", "cut government spending?! what do you want to do?! cause a recession?!". I dont know when its supposed to end, when are finally supposed to contract the federal government?

 

Seriously though, this is why I like Filibusters, hyperpartisanship, a spirit a hating the f*** out of each other... if these guys can barely agree to keep the government open eventually s*** starts dying off. Down with it goes the Apparatchik, although this is probably the least efficient way of curtailing our out of control federal government.

You don't do it in the middle of a very weak recovery when unemployment is still above 7% more than five years after the start of the crash. That will make unemployment worse, that will make the deficit larger, that will make lots of people suffer.

 

A dysfunctional government is not conducive to a stable economy.

Edited March 1, 201313 yr by StrangeSox

You don't do it in the middle of a very weak recovery when unemployment is still above 7% more than five years after the start of the crash. That will make unemployment worse, that will make the deficit larger, that will make lots of people suffer.

 

A dysfunctional government is not conducive to a stable economy.

Eh if all that's separating you from poverty is a few government cuts you need to get your s*** together. Let em suffer, toughen the welfare leeches up a little bit maybe they'll think twice next time they blindly join a union or rely on the government for anything.

 

And yea, I think our current administration is proof that a government that exists only to waste obscene amounts of money has (shock!) a negative impact on what is supposed to be a free economy.

Eh if all that's separating you from poverty is a few government cuts you need to get your s*** together. Let em suffer, toughen the welfare leeches up a little bit maybe they'll think twice next time they blindly join a union or rely on the government for anything.

 

Yeah, stupid children born into poverty. Get your s*** together. Maybe some malnutrition and lack of medical care will toughen you up and next year you'll be more self reliant.

When the economy goes into recession, lots of people lose their jobs and become dependent on assistance. This is why the deficit has widened since the collapse, this is basic "how social safety nets work." I hope you're just quasi-trolling here and not really that ignorant on HS-level civics and econ and as narcissistic as you're coming across.

Yeah, stupid children born into poverty. Get your s*** together. Maybe some malnutrition and lack of medical care will toughen you up and next year you'll be more self reliant.

 

It's not even his dumb "hurr durr welfare leeches and unions!" stuff. Unemployment rises during a recession, meaning millions will be losing their job through no fault of their own. You have to have a 5-year-old's understanding of the world not to realize this.

Yeah, stupid children born into poverty. Get your s*** together. Maybe some malnutrition and lack of medical care will toughen you up and next year you'll be more self reliant.

THINK OF THE CHILLENS doesn't work on me. I dont give a s*** about the kids, if they are really being neglected to the point its criminal the state can seize them and give them to a new family.

 

When the economy goes into recession, lots of people lose their jobs and become dependent on assistance. This is why the deficit has widened since the collapse, this is basic "how social safety nets work." I hope you're just quasi-trolling here and not really that ignorant on HS-level civics and econ and as narcissistic as you're coming across.

Well I advocate getting rid of the assistance programs. Kind of... its a complicated, I can explain it if you want.

Not really but as long as you recognize that millions of working people in addition to people already reliant on public assistance are going to be impacted by this, public and private.

THINK OF THE CHILLENS doesn't work on me. I dont give a s*** about the kids, if they are really being neglected to the point its criminal the state can seize them and give them to a new family.

 

Yeah, boatloads of kids filling up orphanages (which taxpayers will also be supporting) should be a big plus for society.

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?