President Obama Is Pissed (Oregon Shooting Press Conference)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope. When his house burned down the firefighters had to evacuate because he had shitloads of ammunition in the house, along with firearms of a questionable legal status and a bunch of pot plants. He didn't get in trouble for any of it.

Some people just have that thing where nothing sticks to em.

being white?

Can you share?


it's something like 400 thousand dead due to guns versus 377 due to terrorism.
 
Obama already explained why he can't push through congress. Repubs are 99% no on gun control, and enough democrats are saying no. So the politics gotta change, which means that people gotta get way more active.
 
Kind of wish we had gotten a press conference, but he's still pissed.

x02W8mI.jpg
 
Obama is a broken record, getting pissed about shootings but lacking the balls to do anything.

Make statements, say words but never act on the words

How do you expect a person to do anything who has no legal ability to do so? All he can do is spout rhetoric because he isn't a King.
 
What exactly do you want him to do? Dissolve Congress and declare himself Emperor?
Hillary Clinton should have won the nomination in 2008, I firmly believe that her toughness on many issues would have gotten more things resolved than Obama wasting his majority in Congress blowing an opportunity of getting things done.

Then he got a Republican Congress and wasted his time "compromising" the rest of his first term and in the begining of his 2nd term.
 
Hillary Clinton should have won the nomination in 2008, I firmly believe that her toughness on many issues would have gotten more things resolved than Obama wasting his majority in Congress blowing an opportunity of getting things done.

Then he got a Republican Congress and wasted his time "compromising" the rest of his first term and in the begining of his 2nd term.

This is pure speculation and has no sound truth in reality. "What if" scenarios are fin but they don't really prove anything. Also wanting Hillary to when back in 2008 is really irrelevant to the situation at hand.
 
I want him to use the words 'domestic terrorist'. I want our news media to use the words. I want our politicians to use it. They won't though.
 
I want him to use the words 'domestic terrorist'. I want our news media to use the words. I want our politicians to use it. They won't though.

I agree with that. News media won't but I will be disappointed if Obama doesn't use that description once this guys motivations are confirmed.
 
I agree with that. News media won't but I will be disappointed if Obama doesn't use that description once this guys motivations are confirmed.

In my opinion the particular motivations of this person doesn't matter. Anyone that goes on these 'shooting sprees' is a text book terrorist. It's time to start calling it like it is. These people are terrorists and should be labeled as such.
 
What are you even talking about? What does the 2016 election have to do with the shooting we are talking about in this thread?

out of all Dem candidates, Clinton has the toughest stance on gun laws. Even more Liberal than farmer panderer Bernie Sanders (Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, citing hunters and farmers)
 
Obama is a broken record, getting pissed about shootings but lacking the balls to do anything.

Make statements, say words but never act on the words
Evidently you don't know how laws work, the president can't just say "I want this done" and it's done in the next hour or day. A tough president™ wouldn't be able to do anything either.
 
Obama is a broken record, getting pissed about shootings but lacking the balls to do anything.

Make statements, say words but never act on the words

I think Democrats attacking gun ownership in anyway right now is the quickest way to secure a Republican as president. Now is not a good time for new gun laws as messed up as it is. Hopefully the next Democratic president gets things going in a needed direction.
 
Why is this turning into a weekly debate?
No one cares about people Americans anyways. They don't give a rats ass about themselves or their fellow Americans.
 
out of all Dem candidates, Clinton has the toughest stance on gun laws. Even more Liberal than farmer panderer Bernie Sanders (Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, citing hunters and farmers)

Hillary Clinton should have won the nomination in 2008, I firmly believe that her toughness on many issues would have gotten more things resolved than Obama wasting his majority in Congress blowing an opportunity of getting things done.

Then he got a Republican Congress and wasted his time "compromising" the rest of his first term and in the begining of his 2nd term.

You need to stop having opinions until you figure out how America's political system actually works.
 
Hillary Clinton should have won the nomination in 2008, I firmly believe that her toughness on many issues would have gotten more things resolved than Obama wasting his majority in Congress blowing an opportunity of getting things done.
The 111th Congress, when Democrats controlled both houses and the Whitehouse, is considered one of the most productive Congresses in history with the number of legislation passed since The Great Society with Lyndon Johnson. This is just from the first 6 months:

  1. Increased statue of limitations on discriminatory pay
  2. Stimulus package after the Great Recession
  3. Expansion of land protection
  4. Americorps expansion
  5. Enhancement of federal fraud laws
  6. Reform of military spending to reduce waste
  7. Credit card reform
  8. Increased regulation of the tobacco industry
Could more have done? Of course. It was the best opportunity to pass a single payer healthcare system, but we got Obamacare instead. To act like they sat on their hands is not true.
 
out of all Dem candidates, Clinton has the toughest stance on gun laws. Even more Liberal than farmer panderer Bernie Sanders (Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, citing hunters and farmers)

That's the coolest of stories bro bit what does that have to do with what is happening in this thread and this shooting incident? Claiming that you KNOW Clinton would have been harsher on gun laws doesn't really show anything and it's not like the president can just round up ever gun in the US, it's a little more complicated than who is president at the time. Just because Hillary says she is tougher on guns than Obama doesn't mean she will do something about it once in office and even if she does it is still irrelevant to what's happening in this thread right now.

If you are mad about these gun laws being so lacks then be mad at the NRA, their lobbiest, and the congressmen they've bought. But whoever is president at the time (whether it's Obama or Hillary) doesn't really effect what is LAW.
 
You need to stop having opinions until you figure out how America's political system actually works.
I'm glad American political threads get to have and equal share of gutter trash as we do in the Canadian ones.

I'm for much stronger gun laws, but I also realize that the climate in the states is not one where you can just wave your wand.
 
The 111th Congress, when Democrats controlled both houses and the Whitehouse is considered one of the most productive Congresses in history with the number of legislation passed since The Great Society with Lyndon Johnson. This is just from the first 6 months:

  1. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
  2. Stimulus package after the Great Recession
  3. Expansion of land protection
  4. Americorps expansion
  5. Enhancement of Federal Fraud Laws
  6. Reform of military spending to reduce waste
  7. Credit card reform
  8. Increased regulation of the tobacco industry
Could more have done? Of course. It was the best opportunity to pass a single payer healthcare system, but we got Obamacare instead. To act like they sat on their hands is not true.

I think it's a fair criticism to say they totally ignored gun issues because of the political cost it would require. Not like what we're seeing now is new.

okay, all you guys are right, lets just do nothing and accept the status quo

No, It's all mental health issues. Just look at this list of legislation Republicans have introduced to stop the mentally ill from getting guns since that's the source of the problem.
 
I agree with that. News media won't but I will be disappointed if Obama doesn't use that description once this guys motivations are confirmed.

Everybody wants to play this game but nobody wants to follow up with actual media to test their intuition. The very first sentence of the deck for the top WaPo story right now uses the phrase "domestic terrorism".


Meanwhile we haven't established a motive yet so we can't even for sure call this terrorism. Or we can't say if it was terrorism targeting PP or targeting Police or what. I agree that that's probably where we'll get and its worth talking about that possibility now and media are talking about that possibility now.
 
okay, all you guys are right, lets just do nothing and accept the status quo
No one is saying that at all, we are saying that pointing a finger at Obama and being angry for not getting rid of guns over night is not how politics work in the US. I live in the state of Georgia and we past a law last year that let's you have a gun virtually anywhere you want. Am I going to get pissed at Obama because of this? No. Want to know why? Cause it was dumb as state that passed the law, Obama didn't have anything to do with it.

Also Obama can't just magically make it law over night that guns are illegal in the US. That requires congress to pass a amendment to the second amendment which with how poleorized we are as a nation right now would require a damn miracle to make happen. Point is if you want something to change go out and vote and hopefully we can get some gun control passed. But unless you want Obama to become a dictator over night we have to wait for now.
 
I think it's a fair criticism to say they totally ignored gun issues because of the political cost it would require. Not like what we're seeing now is new.
You could very well be right, but I was addressing this assertion that Obama squandered the time when Democrats controlled both Houses.

Honestly, I think Democrats are strangled by the gun lobby (NRA mostly) almost as much as Republicans.
 
okay, all you guys are right, lets just do nothing and accept the status quo

And what exactly are you doing? Wishing that Clinton was elected in 2008 and completely ignoring that many democrats from that congress came from conservative to moderate districts who were not in favor of gun control? Who's representatives were either not in favor of gun control and/or were not willing to vote for gun control because it went against the will of their constituency?

That isnt doing anything at all.

Realizing that passing gun control laws would have been as nearly impossible for Clinton as it has been for Obama isnt a sign of resignation to do nothing. It is just simply reality, and that gun control laws are going to need to happen at the local, state, and supreme court level. The federal level, if it does see any sort of gun control laws will be very very weak, like closing the gun show loophole, simply due to the nature of our political system and ideological composition of the nation. That will need to change first before anything happens at the federal level. But as you can see, there are avenues of reform and there are plenty of ways to advocate for gun control measures than by simply wishing that a president with strong gun control convictions gets elected and that he/she can simply wave his/her wand and solve all of our problems.

You could very well be right, but I was addressing this assertion that Obama squandered the time when Democrats controlled both Houses.

Honestly, I think Democrats are strangled by the gun lobby (NRA mostly) almost as much as Republicans.

If Democrats get a majority in the house and a super majority in the senate, it is pretty much assured that a significant number of those democrats will be very conscious of their NRA ratings because they will be coming from contested districts.
 
Meanwhile we haven't established a motive yet so we can't even for sure call this terrorism. Or we can't say if it was terrorism targeting PP or targeting Police or what. I agree that that's probably where we'll get and its worth talking about that possibility now and media are talking about that possibility now.

If bring a gun into a public space and start shooting people you are a terrorist regardless of your 'motive'.
 
Unfortunately thanks to gerrymandering and other factors it's very unlikely Democrats will control the House in the foreseeable future. Approval rating means diddlysquat with elections it seems.
 
okay, all you guys are right, lets just do nothing and accept the status quo

- List of things Obama has done gets posted

"Okay guys, let's do nothing!"


One of the biggest problems in american politics is single issue voters, and if you're going to fry one of the better U.S presidents over one issue you are missing the point completely.
 
Meanwhile we haven't established a motive yet so we can't even for sure call this terrorism. Or we can't say if it was terrorism targeting PP or targeting Police or what. I agree that that's probably where we'll get and its worth talking about that possibility now and media are talking about that possibility now.

Is this a joke? If you're a serial killer, almost by definition, you're a domestic terrorist. You don't need a motive or ideology. Not every terrorist is an Islamic extremist on a jihad like the media keeps pushing...
 
Been reading some comments on social media, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.

My conclusion is that a dozen of americans, especially religious nuts, conservatives and republicans are fucking idiots.

The lack of knowledge and rational thinking is below zero.

Bill Maher, George Carlin and many other people has always been right: America is a stupid country full of dumbnuts.

/rant
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom