More Muslim Violence

[madhatter]

Reagan was calling for a ban on assault rifles even after he left office in 89 after the school yard massacre in California.

I bring Reagan up as he is championed as a conservative hero, yet if he said half the things he said back then, all of your heads would explode and you'd be calling him a liberal.

He may be held up as the champion of conservatism but Ronald Reagan could not get nominated in today's Republican Party.

we don't know what his platform in 2016 would be vs what it was in 1979-1980...he definitely addressed conservative concerns of the time, though as with most who hold office much of his "legacy" was determined after he left office...much of his adoration comes from the overall effect of his tenure and all that was attributed to it, accurately or not......at the time there was a lot of opposition to him and the dems hoped to run against " the easy to defeat buffoon"...jeb, rubio and a number of others couldn't get nominated by today's republican party either, so what...conservatives and republicans are not one and the same...I certainly don't want or need any adherence to the "strawman" republican party the left imagines it to be....I'm more looking to what tomorrow's republican party will be...

[madhatter]

THIS pretty much sums up the problem many have with obama ( and the left in general):

http://www.investors.com/politics/edito ... cal-islam/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

THIS pretty much sums up the problem many have with obama ( and the left in general):

http://www.investors.com/politics/edito ... cal-islam/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

add in this:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/13/what-we-re ... ia-phobia/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and you can see why trump has the appeal he does...MOST of us see what PC is and what it does, but those that benefit from it are reluctant to give up the "trump" card ( kind of ironic ) but the knuckelball beats em all days of PC appear to be unraveling....better for all of us in the long run...

[freeski]

The last sentence is correct. Although the first reason is just an unintended consequence of the later. The mayor is hiding his real agenda. http://www.iwf.org/blog/2800532/London% ... Clad-Women" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-1 ... e-conflict" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where did Omar Mateen learn to hate not just homosexuality but the homosexuals themselves? Where did he come to believe that they deserved to die and he had a right to kill them?

Where might he have gotten such ideas? Who teaches this?

Well, not only do the Taliban and ISIS hurl homosexuals off buildings and stone them to death but 10 nations — Mauritania, Niger, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Yemen and Pakistan — impose the death penalty for homosexual acts.

for humanitarian reasons alone all of these nations should be on the state dept travel list and immigration should be restricted...but there's NO WAY the US can have a policy like that with these 3 "Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE," and if ya can;t do that why bother addressing the rest of em? only gonna bring bad press on you for not addressing the rest...so what next?

[Mister Moose]

Reagan was calling for a ban on assault rifles even after he left office in 89 after the school yard massacre in California.

I bring Reagan up as he is championed as a conservative hero, yet if he said half the things he said back then, all of your heads would explode and you'd be calling him a liberal.

He may be held up as the champion of conservatism but Ronald Reagan could not get nominated in today's Republican Party.

"An assault rifle is a select-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4][5] Assault rifles were first used during World War II. Though Western nations were slow to accept the assault rifle concept after World War II, by the end of the 20th century they had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing battle rifles and sub-machine guns. Examples include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle."

Reagan did sign an automatic weapons ban while still in office, this does not apply to the semi automatic weapon (NOT an assault rifle) used in the latest incident, and Reagan would be very electable today in my view.

You have a basic conflict of interest with semi automatic firearms. On one side, to have the ability to defend yourself against an attacker or attackers that possess deadly force, you need to be able to dependably fire multiple rounds in a short period of time accounting for misses, non lethal shots, and the difficulty to be accurate under stress. On the other side, this capability allows for the ability to take that weapon into a crowded, unarmed public gathering and do a lot of damage in a short period of time.

[deadheadskier]

A lot of opposition to Reagan? He won 44 states and 489 electoral votes in 1980. He won 49 states and 525 electoral votes in 1984.

Totally different situation than Trump. Whoever wins between Clinton or Trump will be one of the least favorably viewed President elects in history when they take office.

[madhatter]

A lot of opposition to Reagan? He won 44 states and 489 electoral votes in 1980. He won 49 states and 525 electoral votes in 1984.

Totally different situation than Trump. Whoever wins between Clinton or Trump will be one of the least favorably viewed President elects in history when they take office.

there was alot of opposition to reagan in thepress and in the primary...

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... he-primary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

White House political strategists have concluded—regretfully—that Ronald Reagan is fading and will have little chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. Why the regrets? Because Carter's aides are convinced that the conservative, 68-year-old former California governor is an easy target. (April 2, 1979)

it was widely held that reagan would be a soft target and that carter himself was hoping to run vs reagan deeming him an easy target over which to prevail...

[steamboat1]

He may be held up as the champion of conservatism but Ronald Reagan could not get nominated in today's Republican Party.

Bet you said the same thing about Trump less than a year ago. Worthless opinion.

[Bubba]

He may be held up as the champion of conservatism but Ronald Reagan could not get nominated in today's Republican Party.

Bet you said the same thing about Trump less than a year ago. Worthless opinion.

No, the scary thing is that Trump could get nominated. Reagan was far too nice, far too civil, to be nominated in today's anger-filled environment.

[madhatter]

He may be held up as the champion of conservatism but Ronald Reagan could not get nominated in today's Republican Party.

Bet you said the same thing about Trump less than a year ago. Worthless opinion.

No, the scary thing is that Trump could get nominated. Reagan was far too nice, far too civil, to be nominated in today's anger-filled environment.

scary..woooh... what's scary? in some sort of real world fact based terms...cuz some people think spiders are scary... I have a hard time imagining you are even remotely "scared"...

[Mister Moose]

He may be held up as the champion of conservatism but Ronald Reagan could not get nominated in today's Republican Party.

Bet you said the same thing about Trump less than a year ago. Worthless opinion.

No, the scary thing is that Trump could get nominated. Reagan was far too nice, far too civil, to be nominated in today's anger-filled environment.

Disagree, disagree, disagree.

Reagan won the nation with concise observations that had instant clarity.

"I will not use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him"

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."


Has Obama uttered anything close to that last one about withdrawing from Iraq and bringing about the rise of ISIS? About the horrible real unemployment rate or GDP? About the need to identify and defeat extremist Islam? About the "Like your doctor, keep your doctor" bungle?

In my view Reagan was great because 1) he was usually right, 2) he could distill a concept to its core and express it in a way that was readily understood, 3) he inderstood peace through strength, and 4) he brought humor and honor to the political stage.

Reagan didn't descend to name calling or other uncivil behavior because he didn't need to. He was far more effective than that. And the time for that has not passed.

Trump is half a Reagan. Trumps calling Bush "Low Energy" was not name calling, it was concisely throwing a light on what everyone had already seen and not yet recognized. Jeb flamed out shortly afterwards, in spite of over $100 million in campaign funds. That is the essence of Reagan. (Little Marco and Lyin Ted OTOH was mostly name calling) Trump has identified several issues that the majority of the nation has already seen, but not previously recognized; immigration, trade, jobs.

So far I'll take half a Reagan over a whole Clinton.

[freeski]

Reagan was also a great politician. If he wanted 50 ICBMs he'd ask for 100. Then he would fight like hell for 100. At the end he'd compromise with 50. - Go get the wife, perp walk her into court in handcuffs and shackles. Send a message a message, we will not tolerate this Listened to the Orlando imam last night on "On the Greta with Greta Von Greta". Man those muslims are messed up. Never heard such f'd up reasoning. This guy was wrong about everything.

[Atomic1]

2014.03.06 USA Port Bolivar, TX A Muslim man shoots his lesbian daughter and her lover to death and leaves a copy of the Quran open to a page condemning homosexuality.
2014.04.27 USA Skyway, WA A 30-year-old man is murdered by a Muslim fanatic.
2014.06.01 USA Seattle, WA Two homosexuals are murdered by an Islamic extremist.
2014.06.25 USA West Orange, NJ A 19-year-old college student is shot to death 'in revenge' for Muslim deaths overseas.
2014.09.25 USA Moore, OK A Sharia advocate beheads a woman after calling for Islamic terror and posting an Islamist beheading photo.
2014.12.18 USA Morganton, NC A 74-year-old man is shot several times in the head by a 'radicalized' ISIS supporter.
2015.07.16 USA Chattanooga, TN A 'devout Muslim' stages a suicide attack on a recruiting center at a strip mall and a naval center which leaves five dead.
2015.12.02 USA San Bernardino, CA A 'very religious' Muslim shoots up a Christmas party with his wife, leaving fourteen dead.
2016.06.13 USA Orlando, FL An Islamic extremist massacres forty-nine people at a gay nightclub.

These are only recent attacks in which fatalities occurred. Is this a gun problem or ISLAMIC TERRORIST problem ?

[steamboat1]

It wasn't guns that killed nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. Nor was it guns that killed over 220 people at the U.S embassies in Tanzania & Nigeria in 1998. And it wasn't guns that killed 307 U.S. soldiers at an Army barracks in Lebanon in 1983. Many more terrorist attacks not using guns but I just highlighted those with the greatest loss of life.