More stalling....unsatisfactory

[halfway]

The White House has informed House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that it will miss the legal deadline for sending a budget to Congress.

Acting Budget Director Jeff Zients told Ryan (R-Wis.) late Friday that the budget will not be delivered by Feb. 4, as required by law, a House aide said.



This a pattern with this administration and is not helping our attempts at "looking out for the little guy. Still can't believe I voted for him twice!











Disclaimer: Due to recent attacks by friendly members of this forum, this disclaimer is needed. The above statement was made by me and cannot be verified as true with wiki link, video, scientific study, personal verification, multiple witnesses or actual verbal communication. It is in fact an observation or an experienced opinion gathered over time and presented as a point of discussion.

In light of that, treat the statement as completely false, full of hidden political overtones, stabs at sexism, racism, bigotry, religious fanaticism, conservatism, marxism, nazisim, liberalism, fascism, utopianism, pantysinabindism, gonnatakealeakism, and general don'tknowwhatthehellI'mtalkingabou

[Ahso!]

It's only been 2 months since your last Obama vote. What's happened in the past 2 months to turn you so sour?

[halfway]

Ahso!;1416628 wrote: It's only been 2 months since your last Obama vote. What's happened in the past 2 months to turn you so sour?


I believe it was very clear in the context that I wrote it. Of the whole OP, you chose to ask me why I am sour?

Be clear. I owe you nothing. Keep your ignorant ramblings and questions for the rest of the posters on this forum. I have no time for assho's.













































Disclaimer: Due to recent attacks by friendly members of this forum, this disclaimer is needed. The above statement was made by me and cannot be verified as true with wiki link, video, scientific study, personal verification, multiple witnesses or actual verbal communication. It is in fact an observation or an experienced opinion gathered over time and presented as a point of discussion.

In light of that, treat the statement as completely false, full of hidden political overtones, stabs at sexism, racism, bigotry, religious fanaticism, conservatism, marxism, nazisim, liberalism, fascism, utopianism, pantysinabindism, gonnatakealeakism, and general don'tknowwhatthehellI'mtalkingabou

[Ahso!]

halfway;1416632 wrote: I believe it was very clear in the context that I wrote it. Of the whole OP, you chose to ask me why I am sour?But you didn't write it, you copied it and then pasted it.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ub ... 8&oe=utf-8

Also, I'm pretty sure this is not the first time the president's budget has gone past the deadline. Why is this particular one more of a problem for you?

[Ahso!]

halfway;1416634 wrote: I wrote an opinion to what I posted. What is the problem with that? Don't believe it? Need a reference? Need a link.....I am sure you will never be satisfied...you are a twit.

Not sure how much I can elaborate on the statement I wrote "This a pattern with this administration and is not helping our attempts at "looking out for the little guy. Still can't believe I voted for him twice"

What more do you want? What can I do for you? What is enough for assho? Why does assho deserve to get a response to anyone he is so unpleasant to?

You are loved my friend.

Ah, Love - shmove! Not important right now.

You said you could not believe you voted for O twice and based your most recent disappointment and reasoning on the fact that his most recent budget will be late in coming. I pointed out that we've gone through this before and you still voted for O. My question is what has happened that is new that has you so riled up?

[Ahso!]

Too late, HW, I quoted you. You're a pretty emotional guy, aren't you?

[halfway]

You are not worth my time. I deleted it. Goodbye my friend. May your pleasantness abound in all aspects of your life.



















































































Disclaimer: Due to recent attacks by friendly members of this forum, this disclaimer is needed. The above statement was made by me and cannot be verified as true with wiki link, video, scientific study, personal verification, multiple witnesses or actual verbal communication. It is in fact an observation or an experienced opinion gathered over time and presented as a point of discussion.

In light of that, treat the statement as completely false, full of hidden political overtones, stabs at sexism, racism, bigotry, religious fanaticism, conservatism, marxism, nazisim, liberalism, fascism, utopianism, pantysinabindism, gonnatakealeakism, and general don'tknowwhatthehellI'mtalkingaboutism.

[Ahso!]

Trying to engage you in conversation is a problem for you? Come on, lighten up!

[halfway]

I really wish he would show some leadership and get things done. Not posture. Not blame. Not political rhetoric that goes no where.

But real leadership that unites and gets things done.

[Accountable]

That's not on his agenda. I'm not really sure what his agenda is anymore. It seems to be to throw Washington into as much chaos as possible before he leaves. His supporters call him a long-range planner. Maybe he thinks he's setting up something for his successors.

eta: HW, you said you want him to get things done. Things like what?

[halfway]

Accountable;1416760 wrote: That's not on his agenda. I'm not really sure what his agenda is anymore. It seems to be to throw Washington into as much chaos as possible before he leaves. His supporters call him a long-range planner. Maybe he thinks he's setting up something for his successors.

eta: HW, you said you want him to get things done. Things like what?


Just the simple act of putting his money where his mouth was. "Unite". He didn't run on creating racial strife, financial pandemonium, continuous grid lock, and international weakness. His actions prompted the voters to react in 2010. The national news media could not effect every race at the District level, so they lost their primary power. Once the voters spoke, the president became defensive and pouted like a child. He should have united on strengths, not divided on weaknesses. Those Representatives were voted by PEOPLE. He and the media act like they are some anomaly. Foolish.

[halfway]

I guess I believed it when the president once said:



The quote is: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. Senator Barack Obama 2006, ABC News.





He was a senator at the time. It sounded good and I thought he meant it.

[Ahso!]

halfway;1416819 wrote: I guess I believed it when the president once said:



The quote is: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. Senator Barack Obama 2006, ABC News.





He was a senator at the time. It sounded good and I thought he meant it.

It still doesn't explain your most recent Obama vote (you said you voted for him twice). What he is saying this year is exactely what he said for the two years prior. So why did you vote for him the second time?

[Ahso!]

halfway;1416763 wrote: Just the simple act of putting his money where his mouth was. "Unite". He didn't run on creating racial strife, financial pandemonium, continuous grid lock, and international weakness. His actions prompted the voters to react in 2010. The national news media could not effect every race at the District level, so they lost their primary power. Once the voters spoke, the president became defensive and pouted like a child. He should have united on strengths, not divided on weaknesses. Those Representatives were voted by PEOPLE. He and the media act like they are some anomaly. Foolish.I'm no Obama fan but this is purely right wing talking point gibberish.

[halfway]

Massive overreach of executive order. I am very disappointed that this gets priority over submitting a budget on time or the many other pressing issues of the day (you'll have to decide for yourself what these are, there are so many issues). This is a very sad day for America. This is not change. This is abuse of power.



"President Obama will unveil a sweeping set of gun-control proposals at midday Wednesday, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and limits on the number of bullets that ammunition clips can hold, according to sources familiar with the plans. The announcement, which press secretary Jay Carney said is scheduled for about 11:45 a.m. at the White House, is also expected to include a slate of up to 19 executive actions that the Obama administration can take on its own to attempt to limit gun violence." --Washington Post









































































































Disclaimer: Due to recent attacks by friendly members of this forum, this disclaimer is needed. The above statement was made by me and cannot be verified as true with wiki link, video, scientific study, personal verification, multiple witnesses or actual verbal communication. It is in fact an observation or an experienced opinion gathered over time and presented as a point of discussion.

In light of that, treat the statement as completely false, full of hidden political overtones, stabs at sexism, racism, bigotry, religious fanaticism, conservatism, marxism, nazisim, liberalism, fascism, utopianism, pantysinabindism, gonnatakealeakism, and general don'tknowwhatthehellI'mtalkingaboutism.

[halfway]

Unemployment over 8%, Benghazi issues not addressed, fast and furious being hidden, sour GDP, fiscal cliff looming, payroll taxes taking a bite out of everyone's check, obamacare showing it's effects with many treatment and plans........



and the focus is a knee-jerk reaction to a hand gun massacre by a looney? Why was this not on the platform? I guess that is a rhetorical question.

Boy am I beating my head against the wall. I voted for the promises and "fairness" he proclaimed....not the assault on the Constitution or Individual Liberty.

-frustrated.

[Accountable]

He's pushing for the "progressive" definition of fairness. I don't know why you're surprised. Equal opportunity, liberty, and reaping what you sow take a back seat to equality of outcome.

[halfway]

Accountable;1416946 wrote: He's pushing for the "progressive" definition of fairness. I don't know why you're surprised. Equal opportunity, liberty, and reaping what you sow take a back seat to equality of outcome.


Equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity. It has served us so very well in so many areas.

LAUGH OUT LOUD.

My surprise is questionable.

[Bryn Mawr]

halfway;1416892 wrote: Massive overreach of executive order. I am very disappointed that this gets priority over submitting a budget on time or the many other pressing issues of the day (you'll have to decide for yourself what these are, there are so many issues). This is a very sad day for America. This is not change. This is abuse of power.



"President Obama will unveil a sweeping set of gun-control proposals at midday Wednesday, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and limits on the number of bullets that ammunition clips can hold, according to sources familiar with the plans. The announcement, which press secretary Jay Carney said is scheduled for about 11:45 a.m. at the White House, is also expected to include a slate of up to 19 executive actions that the Obama administration can take on its own to attempt to limit gun violence." --Washington Post




There were three aspects of the proposals that shocked me :-

That approximately 40% of all gun sales involve no background checks on the purchasers - in other words anyone who wants a gun can get one

That a prominent federal agency is currently prevented by law from researching gun violence

That it requires a change in the law to allow law enforcement agencies to run a full background check before returning a seized weapon

[Wandrin]

Bryn Mawr;1416975 wrote: There were three aspects of the proposals that shocked me :-

That approximately 40% of all gun sales involve no background checks on the purchasers - in other words anyone who wants a gun can get one

That a prominent federal agency is currently prevented by law from researching gun violence

That it requires a change in the law to allow law enforcement agencies to run a full background check before returning a seized weapon


I was surprised by these revelations as well.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1416975 wrote: That it requires a change in the law to allow law enforcement agencies to run a full background check before returning a seized weaponI think this is a good illustration of a gov't that grants rights to its subjects as it wills, vs a gov't established by the people to serve the citizens. Rather than having to prove worthiness of having something returned, reason must be established to prevent returning it.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1417007 wrote: I think this is a good illustration of a gov't that grants rights to its subjects as it wills, vs a gov't established by the people to serve the citizens. Rather than having to prove worthiness of having something returned, reason must be established to prevent returning it.


If they have shown sufficient cause to have removed it in the first place then that reason has already been established (unless you are suggesting that they seized the weapons without due cause in which case that is where the offence lies). Having established due cause to seize it then they are duty bound to establish whether it is safe to return it.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1417032 wrote: If they have shown sufficient cause to have removed it in the first place then that reason has already been established (unless you are suggesting that they seized the weapons without due cause in which case that is where the offence lies). Having established due cause to seize it then they are duty bound to establish whether it is safe to return it.
If it is stolen, shouldn't it be returned to the rightful owner without checking to see if they deserve to have it back?

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1417048 wrote: If it is stolen, shouldn't it be returned to the rightful owner without checking to see if they deserve to have it back?


I don't believe that is the issue in this case. Where a gun has been legally seized from its owner, the police should have the right to do a full background check before returning it.

It would appear that they do not have that right at the moment.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1417096 wrote: I don't believe that is the issue in this case. Where a gun has been legally seized from its owner, the police should have the right to do a full background check before returning it.

It would appear that they do not have that right at the moment."the police should have the right to do a full background check before returning it" on what grounds?

The issue is whether to return seized property before doing a background check, regardless of the reason of the seizure. If the weapon were seized as part of a crime, then no further background check is needed to justify keeping it. If not, then there is no reason for it;there is no just cause.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1417119 wrote: "the police should have the right to do a full background check before returning it" on what grounds?

The issue is whether to return seized property before doing a background check, regardless of the reason of the seizure. If the weapon were seized as part of a crime, then no further background check is needed to justify keeping it. If not, then there is no reason for it;there is no just cause.


On whatever grounds were considered sufficient to seize the weapon in the first place.

Either those grounds were sufficient and the seizure was legal, or they weren't in which case complain about the seizure, but for the law not to allow full background checks even in the instance where there were good and sufficient reasons to seize the weapon is bizarre.

It is not the point that there are conditions when such checks would not be appropriate, it's the point that they are not allowed even when it would be appropriate.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1417124 wrote: On whatever grounds were considered sufficient to seize the weapon in the first place.

Either those grounds were sufficient and the seizure was legal, or they weren't in which case complain about the seizure, but for the law not to allow full background checks even in the instance where there were good and sufficient reasons to seize the weapon is bizarre.

It is not the point that there are conditions when such checks would not be appropriate, it's the point that they are not allowed even when it would be appropriate.
If the weapon was seized legally from the owner, then obviously there was reason established for the seizure. That in and of itself indicates that some sort of investigation was done. What would further separate background checks accomplish? What would be the purpose?

If the weapon was stolen, what would be the purpose of doing a background check on the legal owner?

It seems to me we're getting dangerously close to that "if you haven't done anything wrong then you shouldn't mind" line.

It is not the point that there are conditions when such checks would not be appropriate, it's the point that they are not allowed even when it would be appropriate.I believe checks are done when appropriate, and authorities are looking to do blanket checks in all cases, a la TSA fondlings before boarding a plane.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1417137 wrote: If the weapon was seized legally from the owner, then obviously there was reason established for the seizure. That in and of itself indicates that some sort of investigation was done. What would further separate background checks accomplish? What would be the purpose?

If the weapon was stolen, what would be the purpose of doing a background check on the legal owner?

It seems to me we're getting dangerously close to that "if you haven't done anything wrong then you shouldn't mind" line.

I believe checks are done when appropriate, and authorities are looking to do blanket checks in all cases, a la TSA fondlings before boarding a plane.


5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."



Certainly appears to imply that law enforcement does not have the ability to run full background check under any circumstances.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1417142 wrote: 5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."



Certainly appears to imply that law enforcement does not have the ability to run full background check under any circumstances.


Yes, it does seem to do that. It also appears not to make any stipulations that you've assumed. I'll keep the power myself, thankyouverymuch.

[halfway]

Accountable;1417180 wrote: Yes, it does seem to do that. It also appears not to make any stipulations that you've assumed. I'll keep the power myself, thankyouverymuch.


I am not the only one feeling let down. The continuous vacations, the constant golf weekends, the use of children as political toys....it is becoming disgusting because he is not getting things done without his executive orders. This is not leadership...but I think he is a great guy.

These feelings are not mine alone, but very prevalent in liberal circles.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1417180 wrote: Yes, it does seem to do that. It also appears not to make any stipulations that you've assumed. I'll keep the power myself, thankyouverymuch.


What stipulations have I assumed?

All that I have assumed is that the law enforcement agencies do not have the right to run a full background check before returning the gun. Any "stipulations" are me drawing attention to circumstances where such a lack would be dangerous to the public.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1417317 wrote: What stipulations have I assumed?

All that I have assumed is that the law enforcement agencies do not have the right to run a full background check before returning the gun. Any "stipulations" are me drawing attention to circumstances where such a lack would be dangerous to the public.I tried to find it but couldn't, which means I read into something. Sorry.

It does appear to imply that law enforcement does not have the ability to run full background check under any circumstances, but such an idea is ludicrous because any time a person is arrested, stopped for possible traffic violations, or anything of the sort, they run the name through the system to see if the person has a warrant out for anything else. Is this not a background check? I think so, so I'll go on. Since they can do background checks in situations involving suspected criminals, the only conclusion I can come up with is that they want to run full background checks on people not suspected of anything. This is clearly overreach of authority in a society that presumes innocence and values privacy.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1417362 wrote: I tried to find it but couldn't, which means I read into something. Sorry.

It does appear to imply that law enforcement does not have the ability to run full background check under any circumstances, but such an idea is ludicrous because any time a person is arrested, stopped for possible traffic violations, or anything of the sort, they run the name through the system to see if the person has a warrant out for anything else. Is this not a background check? I think so, so I'll go on. Since they can do background checks in situations involving suspected criminals, the only conclusion I can come up with is that they want to run full background checks on people not suspected of anything. This is clearly overreach of authority in a society that presumes innocence and values privacy.


It is "a background check" but it is not "full background checks" - I presume that there are some checks that it is not legal for them to run.

[halfway]

Accountable;1417362 wrote: I tried to find it but couldn't, which means I read into something. Sorry.

It does appear to imply that law enforcement does not have the ability to run full background check under any circumstances, but such an idea is ludicrous because any time a person is arrested, stopped for possible traffic violations, or anything of the sort, they run the name through the system to see if the person has a warrant out for anything else. Is this not a background check? I think so, so I'll go on. Since they can do background checks in situations involving suspected criminals, the only conclusion I can come up with is that they want to run full background checks on people not suspected of anything. This is clearly overreach of authority in a society that presumes innocence and values privacy.
The issue is state versus federal.

In the last 5 states I have lived, mandatory fbi checks are made with the purchase of ALL firearms. A 15 minute phone call and the approval or disapproval. Some states have waiting periods.

The issue is handing this power over the fed....another affront to "enumerated powers".

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1417366 wrote: It is "a background check" but it is not "full background checks" - I presume that there are some checks that it is not legal for them to run.Anything they can justify can be approved by a judge. I smell a rat.