Topics created by Frederick

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9959

If you wanna see.

@Eridanos:

It's obvious Bill is a tool for Hillary's never ending search for power.

Here in Mexico, we never knew of the other sexual scandals of Clinton, we only knew the Lewinsly affair. But still, after that, we thought Hillary would divorce Bill, specially when she started going by Hillary Rodham.

But then she went by Hillary Rodham-Clinton and now she's just Hillary Clinton again.  I feel she just wants Bill's family money and connections to suit her own interests.

Are the Rodhams an affluent family in the USA, both politically and financially?

No, and the Rodhams are dead.  Hillary doesn't even live in the same house as Bill, she lives in the house next door to him.  Bill has been her lifelong stepping stone.  It's funny that Hillary has not accomplished anything other than disasters in her entire life.  There is very strong evidence that her daughter Chelsea is not the daughter of Bill, but rather of very wealthy Webb Hubbell.    Sure doesn't look a bit like Billy!

http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-this-chelsea-clintons-real-father-1780376180

A prominent TV host nearly got arrested just for offering to pay for a strand of Chelsea Clinton's hair for DNA testing.

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@raphjd:

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.

When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them.  
Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?"

Frederick, I'm very sorry those situations happened to you. You're absolutely right, in those instances a gun would have escalated the situation and it's better to let authorities handle it. However, what if someone breaks into your home while you're in your kitchen cooking and they start shooting at you? Wouldn't you rather have a gun to shoot them with before they killed you? How else are you going to protect yourself? I could understand not wanting to escalate a situation, but what if it is already on that level and they've shot at you or have even shot you?

That's an EXCELLENT scenario you pointed out.  Obviously the person who broke in has the upper hand in that they have the weapon and are quite prepared to use it..  What am I supposed to do?  Tell the person "Oh, would you be a doll and wait here while I go get my gun from the other room, make sure it is loaded, take the safety off, and come back to shoot you?"    I've heard of people that keep a loaded gun with the safety off in every drawer in the house.   Even in that case, is the person who broke in going to allow you to open a drawer and pull out a gun?   Far more likely is for a kid to find the gun and go out playing with it, and shoot themselves with it or cause some other mischief.. or a burglar come in without a gun.. open a drawer and find your gun.. and if you interrupted him he would use your gun to shoot YOU!   I really can't think of a scenario where a gun would be an effective DEFENSE.   I would suggest someone get a dog, or a recording of a dog, or an alarm system instead of a gun.  Again, I can't come up with a good reason to have a gun, I can come up with a LOT of bad reasons to have a gun.

By the way, very few people know this.. but of all the police that get shot.. 25% of them get shot with their OWN weapon!   They are supposed to be highly trained and experts, etc.  Those are not very good odds!   Police are quite a bit like Barney Fife.

Youtube Video

Good point. I believe the laws in place can stop a ton of gun violence if they were actually enforced. The loopholes can be closed by Republicans passing careful legislation, so careful that Democrats can't exploit it. Other than that, I don't think much can be done without addressing the gun lobbyists and other special interests on both sides. Would it be right to do a buyback program to take legal, sane gun owners' guns?

Also, you're absolutely right about the cops. There are many cop stories where they accidentally shot themselves and gave the description of black men who did it ;D

In regards to cop shootings.. often not only are cops shot with their OWN weapons, but the cops get injured from the bullets fired by OTHER cops.  There have been recent cases where one cop shoots at a suspect through a window.. only to find out the suspect they just killed was another cop.

Obama had 8 years to do something, anything about cops.. but did absolutely NOTHING!   No excuse for that.

@Oscarbingham:

My exact feelings.

It's sickening that when ISIS commits a horrific act of terrorism, the media report it far and wide - giving ISIS the attention they were seeking.. yet when Trump (and Putin) dismantle and crush ISIS, the media barely even mention it!

@raphjd:

Every day, Hillary's list of those who caused her to lose gets bigger.

Sadly, the crazy bitch hasn't realized that she is main cause.   Hell, she believes she's the victim in all this and that she is totally innocent.

OI, BITCH.   GET DOWN OFF THE CROSS, WINTER IS COMING AND I NEED THE FIRE WOOD.

You nailed that one EXACTLY.. Hillary is making a martyr of herself.  She should win an academy award for being a drama queen.

@aadam101:

Sick people are less likely to have the ability to pay.  Let's say little Charlie Gard was an American and he survived.  He will be sick his entire life and need lots of medical care.  Assuming ObamaCare is repealed the moment he turns 18 he will need to find his own insurance.  How will he afford it?  The poor kid will have spent 18 years fighting for his life only to die at age 18 because he doesn't have the ability to pay? That's silly…..

Those are outlier cases, Aadam. I believe such people can be taken care of through Medicare/Medicaid, no? (You work in healthcare, so I'm asking.)

Here in Japan, we all get a physical once a year – mandatory no matter your field. There's a fun word METABO which is a corruption of metabolism. If your waist is, gosh, I think it's 98cm or more you're considered overweight (aka METABO) and your company must pay more for that employee's health care. This is supposed to incentivize employers to make sure their employees take care of themselves. #TheMoreYouKnow

Being that so much of the US is overweight it's not a bad idea to make people who don't meet certain criteria to pay more, kind of a alternative sugar-tax.

@royalcrown89:

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

It's impossible to focus on getting rid of military grade assault weapons because the NRA controls Republicans and Democrats are split between wanting to ban all guns and wanting to create registries as if we're in a socialist country or something;

maybe it truly is the cost of freedom.

Making new laws is somewhat pointless because the laws on the books are not being properly enforced already.

Seems to me the solution is to get the lobbyists out of Washington and do away with that ruling from the Supreme Court that Corporations are People. These would be longterm goals and I don't think American people have the attention span to carry them through, so you might be right: Having guns readily available might be the cost of this version of freedom (there's more than one).

The odd thing to me about present-day America is that there are more restrictions in getting a gym membership and buying medicine in bulk than voting and purchasing a gun. How did that happen?

We got here by years and years of both sides not wanting to deal with the problem or finding a way together to make it worse. Neither side seems to want to get rid of lobbyists and other special interests, and that ruling by the Supreme Court is heavily supported by the Republican party who could easily pass legislation to say corporations are not people but refuse to at this time. Remember, it was a 5-4 decision of the more right-leaning justices against the more left-leaning justices that decided corporations are people so in that light one side was the problem. However, overall, we got here because of both sides.

Uh.. that is the definition of a corporation. 
Having a corporation limits the liability of specific people - and allows a company to continue after the executives die, retire, resign, etc. 
There is a downside also.. in that the executives in charge get taxed as a corporation, and again as individuals.  If the business was not a corporation - they would only get hit with with a corporate tax.

Also, you mentioned that the Supreme Court is packed with republicans.  Well, whose fault is that?  In the past 24 years.. we had 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama.  It's going to get much more republican because the moonbats were so sure that Hillary was going to win, that the senile moonbats such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not retire during Obama so they could find another moonbat to replace them.  There are 3 moonbat justices that are so old and senile that they won't last the 4 or 8 years of Trump.

@cteavin:

@aadam101:

I don't see what the big deal is.  I was a Boy Scout.  Our Troop leader had 2 sons and 2 daughters.  While the daughters weren't official members or anything they spent a lot of time with us.  Nobody ever gave it a second thought.  Scouting is a family venture.  Always has been.

I thought the issue was that the Girl's Scouts didn't have to integrate boys but the Boy Scout's did. If the GS want to create a space for girls then so too should the boys be allowed one.

The organizations are completely separate.  They have nothing to do with another.  The Girl Scouts will likely follow suit in a year or two.  They probably want to see how this plays out for the Boy Scouts first. It was only a few years ago when the Boy Scouts were at the Supreme Court.  The Girl Scouts likely don't want that kind of attention.

This is me not caring about the alleged sexism but being very happy that he's getting kicked out of Hollywood after ruining so many movies. #WhateverItTakes #SaveOurMovies #TheseWomenCouldHaveSaidNo

:cheers:

@Frederick:

@flozen:

She's 19, for heaven's sake, and heading to Harvard, and you're calling her a "dumb b."

If you want to troll on Weinstein, surely there are better and fairer targets than Malia.

You enjoy clothing reviews?  Get a hosting gig on E! network's Fashion Police.   :twg:

At 19, I was a junior (3rd year) in Engineering at my University. 
I think it's time for Malia to get out of her diapers and pop the pacifier out of her mouth.

Seems that Malia is plenty old enough to be a boozer and stoner.

Women dress like that all the time. Oi, you should see Japanese women in the snow here – and kids! It'll be zero and they have to wear short pants because that's the uniform.

As to whether a topic is good enough for P&D's D is debate, if someone is going to challenge something, then that topic is fair game. The picture is funny. Obama's child is now an adult. Chelsa and Melania, like it or not, are public figures and now fair game. If you wanna broaden the topic, is there anything/anyone that we, in a free Western country can't mock, joke about, or turn into satire? Ask Danielle Tosh about rape jokes…

@Frederick:

I expected the divisive attacks to END once the election was over, but if anything, they INTENSIFIED!

Then let it go.

Just because someone speaks to you in a way you don't like doesn't mean you have to respond in turn. You're a grown man. If you feel someone has disrespected you call them out respectfully – remind them that there is an actual flesh and blood human being on the other end of the screen -- or ignore the comment and be the better person.