'There are a few things that were disconcerting: the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.'Mr Romney went on to say of the British public: 'Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? 'That's something which we only find out once the Games actually begin.' MITT ROMNEY in LONDON 26/07/2012.
Errrrrrr.....Who is this Clown? Seriously I thought we were allies, why did America let this guy leave the country and come to Britain? He is an embarrassment, I suppose they assumed as a Mormon he was coming here to preach at us door to door. I know we are pretty forgiving in the UK, we accept just about everyone, but given how Atlanta screwed the pooch with athletes missing events stuck in snarled up traffic it's pretty rich Criticism.
The worst bit is that I love Boston MA, how the f*&^ was ever voted in as their Governor Governor I will never know. Massachusetts has given us some amazing Politicians like the Kennedy Clan, and is associated strongly with the Founding Fathers and the Revolution (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and other Delegates for Massachusetts). Obama came here months ago and managed to dazzle everyone with his poise, his authority, his intellect and his character. Mitt Romney has been here 5mins and the Prime Minister is giving a statement to countermand the insults that this "Chimp" is saying.
Seriously, is this even a contest in America? Mr "Superstar" Obama vs Mr "Chimp" Romney
Mitt Romney is an American of Mexican descent who is running in a historic election to become our first Mexican-American president. He is famed for having a lot of money which we tend to assume automatically comes with great management skills, and for being the first governor to implement a comprehensive health reform law. He also is a Mormon, which I believe would make him the first Mormon president if he won. Mormonism is a religion which many [weasel words] consider to be unusual, so some people are fascinated with that as well. He enjoys holding money, and riding totally sweet water jet-skis, while also looking unfathomably sad for reasons no one but Mitt Romney can ever, ever know.
Pictured: Mitt Romney
So far as your last question, as to whether or not it's a contest, yes, it is. Both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama are virtually tied at this moment, which has as of late had them alternating between going up and down a few points over the other depending on what happened. It's too close to really call who will win despite many people making arguments for why it's a clear victory for... whoever.
Obama's 2009 gift, an iPod loaded with photographs of the queen's 2007 visit to the United States, was panned by critics, as was a gift of DVDs he had given then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
On this more formal state visit, Obama also gave Prince Philip a custom-made set of Fell Pony bits and shanks, as well as original horseshoes worn by recently retired champion carriage horse Jamaica.
For Prince Charles, the president offered a special selection of plants, seedlings and seeds from the gardens of Mount Vernon, home of George Washington; Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson; and the South Lawn of the White House, as well as jars of honey from the White House beehive.
The queen gave the Obamas a collection of correspondence between various presidents and Queen Victoria, including one in response to the death of Abraham Lincoln. The first lady was also given an antique broach.
A spokesman for the queen said she has been intimately involved in planning the details of the state visit, and spoke of a sincere fondness between the two heads of state.
"Very warm words have been spoken between the royal family and the Obamas," the spokesman said. "There is a genuine, genuine -- and I really mean this -- a genuine warmth between the two families."
Manchu wrote:Our president also gave your royals some DVDs. Not exactly dazzling poise, that.
Depends what the DVD's are.... However I have to say the first visit did smack of Airport Giftshop panic present buying. To be fair he did learn his lesson at the second visit!
I doubt our Older Royals have a DVD player, they've probably tried to play it in a CD-Player and then threw it in the Bin when it didn't work.
@Ouze I just don't get it, he has no Charisma at all. He could be Commander in Chief in November? It simply astounds me that in a partisan system, people are so dead set against Obama or against the "Democrats" that they simple vote for "The Other Guy" rather than actually consider what they are doing? It drives me mad in Britain, when people say "We are a Labour Household, my Father and Grandfather always voted Labour so Will I" these people are bloody mad, do they not understand Democracy means it doesn't have to be Hereditary, you have your own voice.
I thought "Matt Santos" was going to be the first Mexican/American president?
EDIT - Nice to see Mitt Romney has sucked back his comments outside 10 Downing Street, looked a bit silly trying to weasel his way out of his stupid comments. The man may have the codes to the Nuclear Arsenal soon.........and I thought that George W Bush would be the one off, bad President during my lifetime, I may yet be proved wrong.
Although no Romney supporter myself, I think we're past the point where Republicans will vote for anyone other than Obama. There are, in their eyes, real issues at stake.
Actually Mitt is tryng to ignore the fact his wife just said "Hey Hun Check out what I can do" or "Check this out Hun" which has a tendency to be something...slightly insane
Agree with OP. Don't preface a visit to our country with insults. Only we're allowed to make fun of our London 2012 cock ups
Joking aside, it looks like it's going to be a great sporting event for people who like this kind of thing (which I do), so Romney can sod off back to Salt Lake City (or wherever he's from).
Mitt Romney’s London visit is not going well. After insulting the Olympics (a grave crime apparently) and forgetting Miliband’s name, Guido learns that tonight’s fundraiser is struggling to get the numbers.
The Republican candidate has been forced to cut prices from $25,000:
“From: XXXX
Subject: romney dinner…..reduced price for last minute guests has been negotiated
Good news: The Romney dinner in London on Thursday, July 26th is reaching an all time record for a one event fundraiser. In order to get us over the top, we have been allowed to invite a few last minute guests at 10,000 per ticket vs 25,000 per ticket.”
goes on to say that the current ticket price is a "mere" $1k a ticket now.
... Despite Diamond Bob walking the plank it doesn't look like this LIBOR thing is going to go away any time soon, he's gotta tread carefully here one would suggest.
mwnciboo wrote:@Ouze I just don't get it, he has no Charisma at all. He could be Commander in Chief in November? It simply astounds me that in a partisan system, people are so dead set against Obama or against the "Democrats" that they simple vote for "The Other Guy" rather than actually consider what they are doing?
While "anyone but Obama" is certainly a very real segment of the voting population, there are still many slices of the populace that are less-then-enthused for other reasons as well.
At this point in our electoral process, it's no longer possible just to excite your hardcore enthusiasts and win an election. We have a very large population of independent voters who go either way. The election is going to turn on being able not only to get your base voters to come out and vote, but to convert over a majority of these independent voters.
I don't know what international coverage of Obama is like, so I don't know how you guys see him. From your tone, I'm going to assume it's mostly positive, and that you either don't know or are discounting some of the very real issues with Obama's re-election. Here are some issues that I, as an independent voter who votes both democrats and republicans in, depending, see as non-partisan legitimate concerns:
Major expansion of the federal government via healthcare. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see an even bigger one; I'd like an NHS. But nonetheless many people do not and are concerned with this. Conversely, he buckled and gave away the public option. This will hurt him with his base.
A perception of a large spending increase under his watch. Whether this or true or not depends on who you believe as far as numbers, but perception is reality.
He's not left-wing enough: Despite the fact he is a Democrat, he hasn't pushed as far to the left as his base would like. Significant issues here include his waffling on marriage equality until it became politically expedient to do so, his continuing of grey-area-legal-stuff like targetted assassinations of US citizens in some situations, the fact he hasn't yet ended the was in Afghanistan, and so on.
The most utterly important factor, however, is almost surely the unemployment rate. Early on in his administration, he pushed for a stimulus that was considered too large and not large enough, depending on who you ask. Unemployent still remains fairly high. I don't know the exact number but it's around 8.5% right now, give or take. This is a very, very high number going into an election. The ones who say it was too big say it was a waste and didn't fix the problem, the ones who think it was too small.. well, you know. This is probably the biggest barrier to his re-election.
In my opinion, I think Obama, all things being considered, will be re-elected despite these factors because I think Mitt Romney is a very weak candidate. Because Mr. Romney pushed for healthcare in his own state, he can't use that angle. Because he has a religion many Americans consider "weird", he can't use the "Obama is black and hence somehow foreign" angle (which, might i add, didn't work in 2008). He can't use foreign policy experience because he has none. He can't use national security policy for the same reason. The Republican Party die-hards are not very enthusiastic about Mr. Romney since he's perceived as being flip-floppy on his stances. While "anyone but Obama" is a factor, it's still going to be difficult to get the base out there to vote at all. Of course, Mr. Obama has the same problem. Unfortunately for the Republican party, the reality is that it's very difficult to nominate what independents would consider a "reasonable" person such as, say, Jon Huntsman. The hardcore won't go for it. They want someone extreme like, say, Newt Gingrich. The powers that be in the GOP know someone like Newt can't win a general election. The result of this is a process that generates someone like Mr. Romney, who is willing to take both sides of any issue depending when you ask him. This is what it takes to get nominated, but it's probably not going to win an election against a well-organized opponent unless he steps in it somehow.
There is still a long time to go - 3 months. That's a lifetime. Employment could get a lot better. It could get worse. Then there are the "unknown unknowns" - the Hurricane Katrina type events that either make the President look awful... or great. It simply cannot be called yet, not by anyone reasonable. That's my 2 cents.
So, we have a great and special relationship that Obama just doesn't get and that Mittens does, deeply understand.
Then he insults 'the strongest ally of the United States' whilst visiting it during it's moment of supposed glory.
Mitt Romney's Olympics blunder stuns No 10 and hands gift to Obama
US presidential hopeful backtracks on warning of 'disconcerting' signs for Games after light-hearted rebuke by David Cameron
Romney handed Barack Obama a priceless gift for the US presidential election campaign when the presumptive Republican nominee blundered on his first diplomatic outing by questioning whether London was capable of staging a successful Olympic Games.
In a move that astonished Downing Street, hours before it laid on a special reception for Romney at No 10 he told NBC there were "disconcerting" signs about the preparations for the Games.
One senior Whitehall source said: "What a total shocker. We are speechless."
David Cameron wasted no time in slapping down Romney hours after his remarks were broadcast. On a visit to the Olympic Park, the prime minister said: "We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course it's easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere."
Cameron's remarks were intended to be a light-hearted rebuke to Romney, who used his famous management skills honed at Bain Capital to rescue the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002.
Romney frantically rowed back later after a 45-minute meeting in Downing Street where the prime minister expressed his unease about his remarks. "I am very delighted with the prospects of a highly successful Olympic Games. What I have seen shows imagination and forethought and a lot of organisation and [I] expect the Games to be highly successful," he said.
When asked about the preparations for the Olympics earlier in the day by the NBC anchor Brian Williams, Romney said: "You know, it's hard to know just how well it will turn out. There are a few things that were disconcerting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging. Because there are three parts that makes Games successful.
"Number one, of course, are the athletes. That's what overwhelmingly the Games are about. Number two are the volunteers. And they'll have great volunteers here. But number three are the people of the country. Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? And that's something which we only find out once the Games actually begin."
Boris Johnson also waded in to reject Romney's claim. "London is as ready as any city has ever been in the history of the Olympic Games," the London mayor said.
Romney's remarks are likely to be used by the Obama campaign to highlight his lack of sensitivity and his inexperience on the world stage. There was irritation in No 10 because Cameron had gone out of his way to make Romney as welcome as possible without breaching strict protocol rules.
Romney was given an important photo opportunity by being allowed to walk through the famous No 10 front door, though he had to do this on his own because he is not a head of government or state. Once inside the prime minister laid out the diplomatic red carpet. There was a warm handshake for the cameras before they held talks for 45 minutes about the Olympics, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Earlier, Romney appeared to forget Ed Miliband's name when they met at Westminster. "Like you, Mr Leader, I look forward to our conversations this morning," Romney said to Miliband as they shook hands.
Labour sources were relaxed about the "Mr Leader" reference, which revived memories of Neil Kinnock's notorious visit to the White House when Ronald Reagan referred to Denis Healey as Mr Ambassador. A Miliband aide said US politicians always referred to fellow politicians by their job title.
On his first official diplomatic trip since he became the presumptive Republican candidate, Romney held a series of "grip and grin" meetings with political leaders. He started the day meeting Tony Blair – the most recognisable political figure in the US – to brief him before Romney's visit to Israel.
He also met Nick Clegg, William Hague and George Osborne. One meeting was held way from the cameras when Romney was briefed by Sir John Sawers, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6. This prompted Romney's third blunder of the day when Romney announced in Downing Street that he had met Sawers. Visiting dignitaries tend not to announce when they meet the head of MI6.
Soooo... revealing classified intelligence and security information when told not to... excellent presidential material...
Do love abit of Guido, it's the idea of unfettered accountability that scares many of the upper echelons. The sheer number of times he has been on the cutting edge of sensitive information, he was well ahead on Phone hacking etc. I do not want to see him silenced.
Yeah Mitt Romney's not welcome this side of the pond, you can keep him....
EDIT - @OUZE
One of the things we like about Obama, is that he is very European in his outlook (which is kind of strange because he's not really a Euro-phile or Anglo-Phile) It just seems to many of us Libertarian (not to say Left wing) Democracies he fits our political models and ideas. I mean NHS or Government Healthcare is very popular in Europe, Gun laws and controls are tight, liberalism (Homosexuality, Abortion, etc) are not major issues to us but I know in American these things ignite major problems.
In a move that astonished Downing Street, hours before it laid on a special reception for Romney at No 10 he told NBC there were "disconcerting" signs about the preparations for the Games.
What did he say? Either I'm not seeing that article on CNN and Fox or it just haven't hit the US news service yet
Is he referring to the Anti Air units atop of apartments? The helicopter carrier in the Thames River (somewhere close by not sure on that)? Actually how many military units are in London?
There was 2K active duty troops that volunteered drawn from all branches at the Atlanta Olympics to assist in security without personnel weapons but no serious hardware. (no I have not forgotten the bomb there either and the crucifying of Jewels by the news service)
In a move that astonished Downing Street, hours before it laid on a special reception for Romney at No 10 he told NBC there were "disconcerting" signs about the preparations for the Games.
What did he say? Either I'm not seeing that article on CNN and Fox or it just haven't hit the US news service yet
No, it's hit the wires. It would seem you have to be careful with the word disconcerting, which I think was a fair assessment considering the news coming out of the UK about the situation. I imagine it will all be ready in time for the games, but I wouldn't call it a smooth process. Being so upset about it makes me think it just touched a nerve more than being false.
Manchu wrote:Our president also gave your royals some DVDs. Not exactly dazzling poise, that.
He also replaced the queen's iPod. But that was on request.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Although no Romney supporter myself, I think we're past the point where Republicans will vote for anyone other than Obama. There are, in their eyes, real issues at stake.
Right, for example, they think that Obama will not support Israel enough to bring forth the apocalypse and therefor the Rapture.
In a move that astonished Downing Street, hours before it laid on a special reception for Romney at No 10 he told NBC there were "disconcerting" signs about the preparations for the Games.
What did he say? Either I'm not seeing that article on CNN and Fox or it just haven't hit the US news service yet
No, it's hit the wires. It would seem you have to be careful with the word disconcerting, which I think was a fair assessment considering the news coming out of the UK about the situation. I imagine it will all be ready in time for the games, but I wouldn't call it a smooth process. Being so upset about it makes me think it just touched a nerve more than being false.
No, it's damn bad manners to go to someones homeland and the first thing you do is insult them on public Television, there is such a thing as being gracious (also called diplomacy). The threatened strike was just Opportunism from the Unions, the G4S screw up was exactly that. Luckily we have a good military.
I would never go to the US and say "Hey this is the home of the Gun totting, Rude, Fat people" , you never, ever insult a country you are visiting. It's bad form and bad diplomacy, and a good way to sour relations, luckily we are resilient enough to shrug it off, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tell him we think he's an idiot. He's a Presidential Candidate with no manners, etiquette and a bit of a fast mouth backed up by a poor sized brain not a great combination for the leader of the free world. If this is how he performs on the World stage, maybe you should confiscate his passport.
Anyway Boris nails him with a side swipe. Watch the Video 0:40 onwards.
mwnciboo wrote:No, it's damn bad manners to go to someones homeland and the first thing you do is insult them on public Television
1) It wasn't the first thing he did.
2) It wasn't an unsolicited quote that he just decided to throw out there. He was asked about the situation. If you've been paying attention to the news you would see a lot of negative stories surrounding the run up to the start of the games.
3) Using the word 'disconcerting' is being diplomatic. If he was being rude he would have said that it was a mess and that it didn't seem like you had your gak together.
Ahtman wrote: It would seem you have to be careful with the word disconcerting, which I think was a fair assessment considering the news coming out of the UK about the situation.
That is a good point. Remember the tone in Parliament just last week?
"The current White House doesn't understand or appreciate America's special Anglo-Saxon relationship with the UK! Oh, BTW, way to feth up the Olympics, you limeys! Oh, also BTW, I'm hosting a big fundraiser here. Give me money!"
Does that about sum it up?
Waitaminit, he's holding a fundraiser in London? Does this mean wealthy Europeans and European corporations will be contributing to his election fund? LOLwut
In a move that astonished Downing Street, hours before it laid on a special reception for Romney at No 10 he told NBC there were "disconcerting" signs about the preparations for the Games.
What did he say? Either I'm not seeing that article on CNN and Fox or it just haven't hit the US news service yet
No, it's hit the wires. It would seem you have to be careful with the word disconcerting, which I think was a fair assessment considering the news coming out of the UK about the situation. I imagine it will all be ready in time for the games, but I wouldn't call it a smooth process. Being so upset about it makes me think it just touched a nerve more than being false.
Basically, this. I see nothing wrong with what he said. Was it naive and a little bit stupid, particularly when he's been going all-out to emphasise his commitment to the (ugh) 'Special Relationship? Undoubtedly. Was it a grave insult? No, absolutely not, don't be so silly. I think the OP is displaying a disconcerting lack of stiff upper lip.
Romney had a point, to be fair to him. It is absolutely disgusting that union gangsters would choose an occasion when the eyes of the world are on our nation, and our services likely to be stretched, to agitate for better pay and conditions. Just goes to show that they don't give a gak about the country, only themselves. The heads of these unions earn a fortune for basically holding the country to ransom - Bob Crow earns more than the PM, and I'd be surprised if Mark Serwotka was far behind.
And yes, the G4S thing was a fiasco. Happily, we probably have better stewards now than we would have had otherwise. I have it on good info that at least 200 Royal Marines have been put on Olympic duty. Yep, just think about that for a sec. 200 Matty's. If you're a terrorist in London, you'd probably wanna take a few weeks off, go on a nice holiday somewhere far from the UK...
And he's right to question our interest in the games. I personally couldn't give a gak about them. The same is true of most people I know.
Romney's name now drawing boos from the Olympic crowds in London...
And Bush jnr had to become president and start wars before he could accomplish that... Excellent start to your tour of the 'most important allies', oh seeker of high office!
I'd just like to point out the Romney is the better man for maintaining the special relationship. I mean sure, Romney just questioned the project planning ability of the very special ally, but as Romney's aide pointed out the other day, Obama is black. Who could better maintain that relationship, the guy who thinks you're a bunch of incompetent idiots, or the guy who's black?
Anyhow, this is why I think Obama should be a lot more than the warm favourite to win the presidential race - Romney is not a great campaigner, and over the course of this election that's going to show more and more.
See thats getting me. Whywas not the advisor name though. Like the advisor that got named on Romney being a possible...committing a possible felony charge
Waitaminit, he's holding a fundraiser in London? Does this mean wealthy Europeans and European corporations will be contributing to his election fund? LOLwut
No.
Or at least in theory.
Only US citizens can contribute.. at least directly anyway, I'm sure there's ways and means around this of course, impossible to stop entirely.
IIRC it's something like 4 out of every 10 $s he hopes/plans to get from overseas donors.
I don't really think the comments were all that rude -- could have been much (c)ruder of course.. and it's not really a surprise that, in an election year, a USA presidential candidate basically tries to talk up how much better the event in the USA -- which he helped run remember voters -- was is it ?
I think the way he did it didn't really help him out especially. He never really looks all that comfortable and relaxed, he always seems somewhat stiff, comes across a bit like Kerry did to be honest.
He hasn't gone down well with the UK press
The British media were quick to launch into Mitt Romney in the wake of his less-than-complimentary views on London's Olympics.
The Daily Telegraph's Lucy Jones branded him a 'wazzock' after the U.S. presidential hopeful questioned Britain's desire to host the Games. She said: 'Who does Mitt Romney think he is? I feel a glimmer of protectiveness and pride.... there's one thing Romney could learn while he's in Britain this week: some manners.'
Nicholas Watt, from The Guardian, tweeted of his U-turn: 'Mitt Romney rowing back like mad on Olympics: now says outside No 10 games to be a great success'. Meanwhile, Paul Harris said: 'Good old Mitt. His charm offensive in the UK failed to be charming, but he really pulled off the offensive bit #gop #romney.'
James Kirkup, also from The Daily Telegraph, drew attention to Prime Minister David Cameron's response to Romney's comments.
'Mr Romney made his name salvaging the Salt Lake City winter games in 2002 (above), an achievement he may think qualifies him to comment on preparations for London 2012,' he said.
'In the context of Mr Romney's glittering resumé, one of Mr Cameron's (faintly defensive) comments bears particular attention: "We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world.
"Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic games in the middle of nowhere."
'Some cynics thought that the "middle of nowhere" comment could just be a swipe at Salt Lake City, which is quite near the middle of, er, Utah. Terrible people, cynics.'
and that's from the rightwing press who would generally be expected to be more supportive of him than Obama.
..course none of us get to vote anyway so it's not really a catastrophe as such.
There were some jokes that he forgot MIlliband's name it seems.... pffft... so what ? We struggle to remember which brother that is, struggle not to ask him where Gromit is, and he covered well enough.
Given jetlag, the sheer number of people he will have met/has to meet it's understandable IMO. And it's not like Milliband will ever be PM anyway so...
Plus names and memories don't appear to be a strong point of his anyway, he can’t remember the name of the governor who introduced the healthcare mandate to Massachusetts, said he was more pro gay rights than Kennedy or the CEO of Bain capital between 1999 and 2002 either.
I was more interested in the body language in the various photos released :
"Please listen ! Look I'm with an 'merican person. I do matter ! "
... which one here is the actual leader of a world superpower /
" We own you all".
or " Finally, a British MP the people back home will actually recognise"
Look if Boris Johnson is putting the Boot in, getting laughs and scoring points off you, it's time to hang up yours spurs and call it a day.
I always find it amusing that Britain Hedges it's bets with Presidential Nominee's just in case, last time was more fun because it was definitely going to be a new president. This time, well many have said this is going to be a close one, but I don't really want to see "Mitt the Twit" in charge of the nuclear codes, he might say something and then try to retract it. That's not really possible with an ICBM is it?
Albatross wrote:It is absolutely disgusting that union gangsters would choose an occasion when the eyes of the world are on our nation, and our services likely to be stretched, to agitate for better pay and conditions.
And how is that disgusting? I think that's the IDEAL time to ask, myself, but then again, I don't consider unionists to be gangsters. Half the time, in the US anyway, they can't even do anything anyway leaving the corrupt corporate executives to cut pay and jobs so that they can get more massive bonuses.
Unionists are blood suckers, in the UK today we have good employment law. My Grandfather worked down a Coal mine, in terrible conditions and I lost several great-uncles, his strikes were to get rid of unscrupulous working practices and bad safety by mine owners. The gradual introduction of Legislation, minimum wage, industrial tribunals & Arbitration and the "Health & Safety Executive" means that Unions are almost redundant.
Many of the top union officials are poorly educated buffoon's, they get to cream off the top of workers and have hyper inflated pay, conditions and expense accounts they constantly try to politicize disputes and try to win public opinion by lying or using dubious case studies. At least a CEO works for his money. The Unionists have to justify their existence by doing something, so often their strikes are completely unscrupulous to keep themselves in existence and show they are still relevant.
A good example was this years Tanker Strikes because Tanker Drivers don't get paid enough (average tanker driver gets £45k PA), but they tried to change it to a row about Health and Safety Concerns, but this is nonsense because the HSE are responsible for safety issues, so if the Tankers have a safety concern you don't highlight it by striking you report it to the HSE. Like a Crime, you don't strike about it, you report it to the Police.
In the UK many Labour Unions have been destroyed by the lack/ draw-down of Heavy Industry (like Mining or Steel working) so now most of Unions are Public Servant bodies (like Teachers, Civil Servants and Nurses and Doctors). This is annoying because Civil Servants are wrapped in cotton wool and are paid on 15% more than their private equivalent and get better work and conditions.
In business, profitability is everything, they aren't in business to provide jobs, that's a benefit but not the driver. CEO's have to make Hard decisions because we (the general public) want a product at a certain price and so have to have it manufactured abroad as labour is cheaper. It's not ideal, but don't delude yourself that Socialistic models are better, if they were Corporations would already be using them.
Albatross wrote:It is absolutely disgusting that union gangsters would choose an occasion when the eyes of the world are on our nation, and our services likely to be stretched, to agitate for better pay and conditions.
And how is that disgusting? I think that's the IDEAL time to ask, myself, but then again, I don't consider unionists to be gangsters.
Really? An organisation that threatens to disrupt vital services unless you pay them is a protection racket, effectively. That's exactly what tube drivers have done - they demanded a bonus to work during the olympics. London tube drivers are ridiculously well-paid, considering what their job actually entails. They earn around 50k. That's more than the average university lecturer, who typically has both a degree and post-grad qualification. They are gangsters.
Albatross wrote:It is absolutely disgusting that union gangsters would choose an occasion when the eyes of the world are on our nation, and our services likely to be stretched, to agitate for better pay and conditions.
And how is that disgusting? I think that's the IDEAL time to ask, myself, but then again, I don't consider unionists to be gangsters.
Really? An organisation that threatens to disrupt vital services unless you pay them is a protection racket, effectively. That's exactly what tube drivers have done - they demanded a bonus to work during the olympics. London tube drivers are ridiculously well-paid, considering what their job actually entails. They earn around 50k. That's more than the average university lecturer, who typically has both a degree and post-grad qualification. They are gangsters.
Yeah, I've always been fairly ambivalent about unions. Coming back from the war to work at the steel mill and them wanting to pay you ten percent of what you made before is a legit reason to unionize and strike. Them not giving you Bastille day off or at least double pay is a bit much. This seems more like the latter.
Albatross wrote:Really? An organisation that threatens to disrupt vital services unless you pay them is a protection racket
By that definition, unless the "vital services" are given free of charge, everyone providing them is a gangster.
That's just argumentative nonsense, Melissia. If you genuinely can't see the difference between an organisation providing a vital service in return for a fee, and an entity threatening to disrupt that service in return for what is essentially a bribe, then I guess I'm stumped.
Of course, you can tell the difference, you're just being your usual misanthropic self. It's an attractive trait.
Oblahblah is the current Failure in Office. Everything he's touched has turned to mud. We cant wait to run him out of office. Unfortunately, the liberal/progressive/socialist (the stupid people) left that is the Democratic party will vote in droves. They will also call upon the dead and the illegals to vote (it's de rigueur for them), thus ensuring four more years of failure, mediocrity, and out of control spending. Ah well, the OWS crowd has to suck up money from somewhere, wish they stuck with sucking it off mom n' dad instead of through my taxes!
I just wish Obummers supporters were smart enough to realise that The One has no good will for this country. Guess checking your cranial matter at the door is a requirement to ride the donkey.
Melissia wrote:Short-term profitability at the expense of long-term viability is not a good sacrifice to make.
Have you done an MBA at the Fisher-Price School of Economics or was it HASBRO Business school? Because that statement is a child-like Marxist epithet, long on sentiment and idealism but short on realism and ground truth.
Lack of short term profitability, means a significantly reduced chance that the Company will exist in the long term. So lets talk Viability of the businesses, you can have a viable business like say APPLE inc, who has a popular product like an iPAD, but they cannot afford to have it made in the USA because the costs would hike the cost upto $800 per unit. If they did this, the market uptake of their product would reduce, the economy of scale would reverse, due to the now limited production run which would drive your TCO right up. The cost of product would go up, they cannot impose a price hike on $800 as they will exacerbate the problem of poor sails, so they lose money on their product despite the fact it sells (much like the SONY PLAYSTATION 3 including a BLUE RAY PLAYER).
If however the CEO 18months before moved production or outsourced it to say (Taiwan, Korea or China) the unit cost is reduced, oh to $400 a unit, and the item takes the world by storm. The company makes a nice profit and achieves market dominance through a significant market share. Then throw in some closed architecture to lock your customer base in and then build up your brand to be the dominant brand.
The West want's products at a Price we can afford. That's why we bitch about GW, because if it was all done in China it would be much cheaper (although the price would probably remain the same and they would pocket the increased profit margin). It's easy to criticism Corporations as manifestly evil, but actually stop and think what it must be like to have a work force in the 100,000's, that every decision you make could potentially doom or save them all. That's a lot of stress.
mwnciboo wrote:Because that statement is a child-like Marxist epithet
And then I stopped reading your post, because it was evident that you had nothing of value to say-- instead you were accusing me of being a communist because I advocated looking at the long view instead of blindly looking only at the next quarter.
Apparently, advocating capitalism is the same as advocating communism.
mwnciboo wrote:Because that statement is a child-like Marxist epithet
And then I stopped reading your post, because it was evident that you had nothing of value to say-- instead you were accusing me of being a communist because I advocated looking at the long view instead of blindly looking only at the next quarter.
Apparently, advocating capitalism is the same as advocating communism.
Obozo's only looking at the next quarter, if ONLY he looked at the long view (if he cared) and saw the path of destruction his administration is leaving behind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:I just wish Obummers supporters were smart enough to realise that The One has no good will for this country.
Of course not, Neo is beyond any national boundries.
I just wished he stayed outside our national borders. And NOT traffic illegal arms to our neighbors in the south.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Love political trash talk, but Ive got work to do.
Spacemanvic wrote:Oblahblah is the current Failure in Office. Everything he's touched has turned to mud. We cant wait to run him out of office. Unfortunately, the liberal/progressive/socialist (the stupid people) left that is the Democratic party will vote in droves. They will also call upon the dead and the illegals to vote (it's de rigueur for them), thus ensuring four more years of failure, mediocrity, and out of control spending. Ah well, the OWS crowd has to suck up money from somewhere, wish they stuck with sucking it off mom n' dad instead of through my taxes!
I just wish Obummers supporters were smart enough to realise that The One has no good will for this country. Guess checking your cranial matter at the door is a requirement to ride the donkey.
What exactly were you trying to accomplish with that post, who were you trying to convince, If you talk like that then you just confirm everything the left says about republicans, and you make your fellow conservatives look bad. It's really annoying when you want to support a conservative viewpoint and you constituents talk like this.
Spacemanvic wrote:Oblahblah is the current Failure in Office. Everything he's touched has turned to mud. We cant wait to run him out of office. Unfortunately, the liberal/progressive/socialist (the stupid people) left that is the Democratic party will vote in droves. They will also call upon the dead and the illegals to vote (it's de rigueur for them), thus ensuring four more years of failure, mediocrity, and out of control spending. Ah well, the OWS crowd has to suck up money from somewhere, wish they stuck with sucking it off mom n' dad instead of through my taxes!
I just wish Obummers supporters were smart enough to realise that The One has no good will for this country. Guess checking your cranial matter at the door is a requirement to ride the donkey.
This is so much a parody of right wing thinking I have to admit, I don't even know if you're serious or not. So, well done.
Personally, I think Romney comes off as a smart man who's also a bit of a dim bulb, if that makes any sense. As reds8n said, there's a certain awkwardness about him.
Everyone talks about the Kerry similarities, and I have too. But now that I think about it, there's some Al Gore in Romney too.
I always find it amusing that Britain Hedges it's bets with Presidential Nominee's just in case, last time was more fun because it was definitely going to be a new president. This time, well many have said this is going to be a close one, but I don't really want to see "Mitt the Twit" in charge of the nuclear codes, he might say something and then try to retract it. That's not really possible with an ICBM is it?
Reagan Quote
"My fellow Americans. I'm pleased to announce that I've signed legislation outlawing the Soviet Union. We begin bombing in five minutes." -joking during a mike check before his Saturday radio broadcast
was good. Reagan called Gorbachev afterwards explaining it was a joke.
He kind of has a point concerning the G4S thing and the fact that the Olympic committee have pissed away far too much money to make any meaningful profit. Now I know the Olympics aren't about money, but when you start getting big business to support it you kind of loose that argument.
Spacemanvic wrote:Should I also let him in on the fact that Im part Latino, and Independent?
I don't see how it matters. You're already a 42-year-old who thinks "Oblahblah" is a clever play on the president's name to suggest that he's a failure. I think Albatross's irony meter is pretty well broken at this point. Maybe the fact you consider yourself to be "independent" would push it but the Latino thing, meh.
Spacemanvic wrote:Should I also let him in on the fact that Im part Latino, and Independent?
I don't see how it matters. You're already a 42-year-old who thinks "Oblahblah" is a clever play on the president's name to suggest that he's a failure. I think Albatross's irony meter is pretty well broken at this point. Maybe the fact you consider yourself to be "independent" would push it but the Latino thing, meh.
Plays on the white liberal belief that all minorities are behind the Occupier in Chief. We're not, especially those of us who got here legally and worked our butts off.
And Im not suggesting he's a failure. Im pointing out the painful truth that he IS a failure. A bigger failure than either Bush or Carter. His failure is epic.
Spacemanvic wrote:Im a liberal/progressives worst nightmare: An armed Hispanic American in the Tea Party with a college degree.
So you describe people who are liberal/progressive/socialist as 'stupid people' but then align with a bunch of nutters who beat their drum about opposing abortion, gay marriage and scientific education in issues such as evolution and climate change?
No wonder you see reds under the bed, everyone must seem like a communist/socialist with your skewed view of the world. That's the problem with US politics, a reasonable argument from the right is choked by the crazies.
Spacemanvic wrote:Im a liberal/progressives worst nightmare: An armed Hispanic American in the Tea Party with a college degree.
So you describe people who are liberal/progressive/socialist as 'stupid people' but then align with a bunch of nutters who beat their drum about opposing abortion, gay marriage and scientific education in issues such as evolution and climate change?
No wonder you see reds under the bed, everyone must seem like a communist/socialist with your skewed view of the world. That's the problem with US politics, a reasonable argument from the right is choked by the crazies.
Good thing your in the UK then, huh?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:a reasonable argument from the right is choked by the crazies.
That's a good summary of our president dealing with our Congress over the past four years, actually.
Congress has been the only thing keeping the crazies from the left from shoving all their stupidity down our throats.
Dude -- just look at the current news. A guy just burst into a theater and shot babies with an assault rifle and neither Romney nor Obama said anything meaningful about gun control. The Wacky Right has totally demolished the Loonie Left.
Manchu wrote:Dude -- just look at the current news. A guy just burst into a theater and shot babies with an assault rifle and neither Romney nor Obama said anything meaningful about gun control. The Wacky Right has totally demolished the Loonie Left.
You sure about that? Its not what this bunch says, it's what they do. Fast and Furious proved that.
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill
Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
The proposed amendment would only affect sales and transfers after the law took effect.
Schumer defended the Brady law and assault weapons ban on the floor Thursday evening, perhaps in preparation for the coming fight with Republicans and gun rights activists.
Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.
“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.
He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.
“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”
Schumer also pointed out that it would be reasonable for the right to recognize that background checks on those buying guns is necessary — as called for in the Brady law. He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.
“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”
Next week the Senate is expected to debate and vote on proposed amendments to the cybersecurity bill.
SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself,
Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ,
Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER,
and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the
security and resiliency of the cyber and
communications infrastructure of the
United States; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following
SEC. ll. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION
OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION
FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) DEFINITION.—Section 921(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting
after paragraph (29) the following:
‘‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition
feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed
strip, or similar device that has a capacity
of, or that can be readily restored or converted
to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
but
‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular
device designed to accept, and capable of operating
only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’.
(b) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of such title
is amended by inserting after subsection (u)
the following:
‘‘(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause
(ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to
transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition
feeding device.
‘‘(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession
of a large capacity ammunition feeding
device otherwise lawfully possessed within
the United States on or before the date of
the enactment of this subsection.
‘‘(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to
import or bring into the United States a
large capacity ammunition feeding device.
‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
‘‘(A) a manufacture for, transfer to, or possession
by the United States or a department
or agency of the United States or a State or
a department, agency, or political subdivision
of a State, or a transfer to or possession
by a law enforcement officer employed by
such an entity for purposes of law enforcement
(whether on or off duty);
‘‘(B) a transfer to a licensee under title I of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes
of establishing and maintaining an on-site
physical protection system and security organization
required by Federal law, or possession
by an employee or contractor of such
a licensee on-site for such purposes or offsite
for purposes of licensee-authorized
training or transportation of nuclear materials;
‘‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is
retired from service with a law enforcement
agency and is not otherwise prohibited from
receiving ammunition, of a large capacity
ammunition feeding device transferred to
the individual by the agency upon that retirement;
or
‘‘(D) a manufacture, transfer, or possession
of a large capacity ammunition feeding device
by a licensed manufacturer or licensed
importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation
authorized by the Attorney
General.’’.
(c) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates section
922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.’’.
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS.—Section
923(i) of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following: ‘‘A large capacity ammunition
feeding device manufactured after
the date of the enactment of this sentence
shall be identified by a serial number that
clearly shows that the device was manufactured
after such date of enactment, and such
other identification as the Attorney General
may by regulation prescribe.’’.
“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”
I'm much for a deeper back ground check. Owning a weapon is a huge responsibility. Some individuals should not be allowed to purchase fire arms. But thats on the legal side.
Manchu wrote:A guy just burst into a theater and shot babies with an assault rifle and neither Romney nor Obama said anything meaningful about gun control. The Wacky Right has totally demolished the Loonie Left.
“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”
When was the last time the antis "gave" anything in their compromises? They never have. People have awoken to that, eplains the massive gun sales since O took office and in light of Colorado. How about they offer shall issue conceal carry in all 50 states? Then maybe we'll talk.
gorgon wrote:Personally, I think Romney comes off as a smart man who's also a bit of a dim bulb, if that makes any sense. As reds8n said, there's a certain awkwardness about him.
Everyone talks about the Kerry similarities, and I have too. But now that I think about it, there's some Al Gore in Romney too.
I agree. Even if he might have thought those things about the UK, games security or whatever, he should have kept it under wraps - that combined with the comment about meeting MI6 also makes me think he hasn't got the mental wherewithal of Obama; the latter, I think regardless of what you think of his policies or what he has done since he has been in power, definitely comes across as being pretty sharp (in a similar to vein to Clinton perhaps).
“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”
I'm much for a deeper back ground check. Owning a weapon is a huge responsibility. Some individuals should not be allowed to purchase fire arms. But thats on the legal side.
If only the mother did her part and took her son to a doctor for evaluation. He would have been restricted from ever owning a firearm.
“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”
When was the last time the antis "gave" anything in their compromises? They never have. People have awoken to that, eplains the massive gun sales since O took office and in light of Colorado. How about they offer shall issue conceal carry in all 50 states? Then maybe we'll talk.
He hasn't done anything on fun control, he hasn't talked about gun control, he hasn't fething looked at gun control. The people who decided ti stockpile weapons were idiots. Also how does the president have tthe authority to chage state laws, which govern CCW.
He hasn't done anything on fun control, he hasn't talked about gun control, he hasn't fething looked at gun control. The people who decided ti stockpile weapons were idiots. Also how does the president have tthe authority to chage state laws, which govern CCW.
But he is a muslim111
Oh wait, wrong thread, i got my ranting points mixed up...
“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”
When was the last time the antis "gave" anything in their compromises? They never have. People have awoken to that, eplains the massive gun sales since O took office and in light of Colorado. How about they offer shall issue conceal carry in all 50 states? Then maybe we'll talk.
He hasn't done anything on fun control, he hasn't talked about gun control, he hasn't fething looked at gun control. The people who decided ti stockpile weapons were idiots. Also how does the president have tthe authority to chage state laws, which govern CCW.
You havent been keeping up with current events? Cats out of the bag on Obumbo and gun control.
Fast and furious death count of 300+ isnt enough?
770,000 M1 Garands are going to be destroyed rather than being imported back to the US due to accepting 10 round magazines
Current rider to the cyber security bill banning magazines.
His double speak on the 2nd Amendment?
He fooled enough hunters last time. Many have awoken to the fact Oh has nothing good in store for gun owners. We can thank alternative media for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
youbedead wrote:
He hasn't done anything on fun control, he hasn't talked about gun control, he hasn't fething looked at gun control. The people who decided ti stockpile weapons were idiots. Also how does the president have tthe authority to chage state laws, which govern CCW.
But he is a muslim111
Oh wait, wrong thread, i got my ranting points mixed up...
Nah, your parroting the MSM line pretty well. Here's a cracker!
Spacemanvic wrote:He fooled enough hunters last time.
Lol, yeah, it's the hunters who are concerned.
Well, yesterdays speech he said the 2nd Amendment was for hunters, and that only soldiers and criminals needed AK47s. No longer in uniform, so I guess Im a criminal.
He's a gaff a minute. He also let slip that business owners didnt build their own business'. Now people who own AK47's are criminals.
Well thanks for proving that you only hear what you want to. The president's actual words:
I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.
But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals –– that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense.
Spacemanvic wrote:Fast and furious death count of 300+ isnt enough?
Started under a different administration.
Spacemanvic wrote:770,000 M1 Garands are going to be destroyed rather than being imported back to the US due to accepting 10 round magazines
So? They aren't owned by any American and the government isn't rounding up Garands in the US; this has nothing to do with removing anyone's Second Amendment rights. The second Amendment doesn't guarantee that every firearm produced anywhere in the world will never be destroyed. If you actually read the story, the problem was that a sudden influx of almost a million firearms into the US from South Korea had to much potential for them to end up in the wrong hands as well as suddenly flooding the market. Of course the only story I could find on the subject was Fox New story from 2 years ago.
Spacemanvic wrote:Current rider to the cyber security bill banning magazines.
Forgetting the ridiculousness of the claim, this isn't Obama, but Congress.
Spacemanvic wrote:His double speak on the 2nd Amendment?
You mean how President Obama never said anything until a gunman shot a bunch of people? If you read the statement as given, and not a lobbying group trying to get your money (NRA) presents it to you, you would see all he said was that we can do better to make sure the mentally ill and felons don't get firearms. He also said gun ownership in America is a tradition and that the individual right to own a firearms in Constitutionally guaranteed.
Spacemanvic wrote:He fooled enough hunters last time.
If by he you mean the President of the NRA, I agree.
Spacemanvic wrote:Many have awoken to the fact Oh has nothing good in store for gun owners.
The President has done nothing to affect gun owners. His presence has been a boon to gun manufacturers because of the increase in sales of both ammo and firearms from all the frantic worrying about legislation that never happened. Odd that the same baseless accusations are popping up again during an election year. Without lifting a finger Obama has been better for the Firearm industry and gun stores than most Republican presidents ever have been.
Spacemanvic wrote:Fast and furious death count of 300+ isnt enough?
Started under a different administration.
Spacemanvic wrote:770,000 M1 Garands are going to be destroyed rather than being imported back to the US due to accepting 10 round magazines
So? No one owns them and their destruction, under laws written before Obama took office, has nothing to do with removing anyone's Second Amendment rights. The second Amendment doesn't guarantee that every firearm produced anywhere in the world will never be destroyed. If you actually read the story, the problem was that a sudden influx of almost a million firearms into the US from South Korea had to much potential for them to end up in the wrong hands as well as suddenly flooding the market. Of course the only story I could find on the subject was Fox New story from 2 years ago.
Spacemanvic wrote:Current rider to the cyber security bill banning magazines.
Forgetting the ridiculousness of the claim, this isn't Obama, but Congress.
Spacemanvic wrote:His double speak on the 2nd Amendment?
You mean how President Obama never said anything until a gunman shot a bunch of people? If you read the statement as given, and not a lobbying group trying to get your money (NRA) presents it to you, you would see all he said was that we can do better to make sure the mentally ill and felons don't get firearms. He also said gun ownership in America is a tradition and that the individual right to own a firearms in Constitutionally guaranteed.
Spacemanvic wrote:He fooled enough hunters last time.
If by he you mean the President of the NRA, I agree.
Spacemanvic wrote:Many have awoken to the fact Oh has nothing good in store for gun owners.
The President has done nothing to affect gun owners. His presence has been a boon to gun manufacturers because of the increase in sales of both ammo and firearms from all the frantic worrying about legislation that never happened. Odd that the same baseless accusations are popping up again during an election year. Without lifting a finger Obama has been better for the Firearm industry and gun stores than most Republican presidents ever have been.
Wow. Every one of your statements is so full of fail, not sure where to start. Im betting youre a visual learner.
Manchu wrote:Well thanks for proving that you only hear what you want to. The president's actual words:
I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.
But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals –– that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense.
So he has been consistently supportive of the status quo regarding gun ownership for everyone but felons? Great. Sound like Wayne LaPierre should love him.
If only the mother did her part and took her son to a doctor for evaluation. He would have been restricted from ever owning a firearm.
If he was seen. Then some parents do ignore the "signs" that their kids have some issue.
@Ahtman
Started under a different administration.
Project Gunrunner was under Bush. Fast and Furious went operational under Holder watch under the administration of Obama
So both Admins are at fault.
I own a M1 carbine. I own it mostly due to the history of it (a refurb from the Korean War) and its a fun little weapon to shoot. I do agree with you Ahtman that many historical weapon incoming on the US market in one shot would creat a lot of problems. 30 cal rounds are expensive enough is one
I wasn't trying to pin it on one, just trying to point out that putting it entirely on Obama is a bit silly. I should have been more clear on that. It was a failure on many levels over multiple administrations.
Those videos suck so hard. And that's not even getting in to the content of what is said...
youbedead wrote:He hasn't done anything on fun control, he hasn't talked about gun control, he hasn't fething looked at gun control. The people who decided ti stockpile weapons were idiots.
This, a thousand times this.
Bunch of ignoramuses.
Ahtman wrote:You mean how President Obama never said anything until a gunman shot a bunch of people? If you read the statement as given, and not a lobbying group trying to get your money (NRA) presents it to you, you would see all he said was that we can do better to make sure the mentally ill and felons don't get firearms. He also said gun ownership in America is a tradition and that the individual right to own a firearms in Constitutionally guaranteed.
Hell, Obama didn't even say that non-criminals shouldn't have an AK47, if you read his statement carefully.
Yes, well, I deal with people vomiting out the nonsense he's parroting far too often IRL to want to deal with it on the forum. But it's so hard to ignore...
Well, yesterdays speech he said the 2nd Amendment was for hunters, and that only soldiers and criminals needed AK47s. No longer in uniform, so I guess Im a criminal.
Obama: Soldiers should have AK-47s; criminals shouldn't have AK-47s.
Spacemanvic: Obama says only soldiers and criminals should have AK-47s.
I might come of as a bit harsh here Spacemanvic, but your reading comprehension really is awful. I'm 19 years old and English isn't even my native language and I still understood what Obama actually said. Either you didn't understand it or you're just trying to fling mud at Obama, Hanlon's Razor says it's the former, my gut instinct says it's the latter.
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Eeryone taxes are used to build and maintain the roads and bridges
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive
Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet
That was the "glue" for the rest to be tied into the government column
Read it as the whole and not in parts
woops third part
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Albatross wrote:
Really? An organisation that threatens to disrupt vital services unless you pay them is a protection racket, effectively. That's exactly what tube drivers have done - they demanded a bonus to work during the olympics.
Protection generally functions on the idea that, if you don't pay, we'll steal from you or vandalize your property. This isn't the same thing as striking (or threatening to quit), which simply involves not working.
Truthfully, even without the protection of a union, the Olympics would give individual tube drivers leverage due to the time required to train a replacement, and the problems inherent in being undermanned during the Olympics.
Spacemanvic wrote:
Fast and furious death count of 300+ isnt enough?
Enough for what? Fast and Furious was a poorly conceived program designed to track weapons being funneled to cartels from American gun dealers. It has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
You might claim that the failure of the program is being used as leverage to push for tighter gun control, but that's a separate issue (and a stretch).
Spacemanvic wrote:
770,000 M1 Garands are going to be destroyed rather than being imported back to the US due to accepting 10 round magazines
Garands only hold 8 rounds, and the magazine is internal. They accept stripper clips, not magazines.
Really, this a good time to point out that I'm always worried when supposed gun enthusiasts know less about firearms than I do.
Spacemanvic wrote:
Current rider to the cyber security bill banning magazines.
I'm confused as to how an amendment proposed by a Senator is somehow the result of Obama's will.
Spacemanvic wrote:
His double speak on the 2nd Amendment?
What double speak?
Spacemanvic wrote:
He fooled enough hunters last time. Many have awoken to the fact Oh has nothing good in store for gun owners.
Probably not, but he doesn't have anything bad in store either.
Spacemanvic wrote:Im a liberal/progressives worst nightmare: An armed Hispanic American in the Tea Party with a college degree.
So you describe people who are liberal/progressive/socialist as 'stupid people' but then align with a bunch of nutters who beat their drum about opposing abortion, gay marriage and scientific education in issues such as evolution and climate change?
No wonder you see reds under the bed, everyone must seem like a communist/socialist with your skewed view of the world. That's the problem with US politics, a reasonable argument from the right is choked by the crazies.
Good thing your in the UK then, huh?
It often seems like a trait among some americans not to take interest in affairs beyond their own shores. However I and many others don't share that attitude, particularly when it concerns one of the most powerful nations on the planet. What happens in America can be very far reaching, especially their foreign policy, we're all interested in you even if you aren't in us. The fact that I don't live in your country doesn't mean I can't have a valid opinion. If someone like Sarah Palin became president, not impossible if John McCain had been elected and died, then we'd all be in the gak.
However I have to say the first visit did smack of Airport Giftshop panic present buying. To be fair he did learn his lesson at the second visit!
