patrick.net

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

Obama has been trying to get laws changed, were suspected terrorists can't legally buy guns. He had just spoken about this the other day.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/video-of-obama-venting-about-terrorist-sympathizers-still-being-able-to-get-guns-resurfaces/

Of course, they could still get them from friends, or through any of a number of current loop holes. No law will stop a determined terrorist from getting guns on its own obviously, but that isn't an excuse not to pass a few reasonable standards now.

I don't think preventing this Omar bastard from buying guns would have prevented an attack. However, I agree preventing suspected sympathizers of ISIS or American haters from buying guns would make it much more difficult for them to carry out their virgin seeking deeds.

NuttBoxer says

Strategist says

They don't. We never target civilians.

Then drones are either highly ineffective, or the MIC is targeting them, and you're wrong/in denial/ignorant:

I repeat....WE NEVER TARGET CIVILIANS. Collateral damage is acceptable.

Strategist says

I repeat....WE NEVER TARGET CIVILIANS. Collateral damage is acceptable.

So let's follow that statement to it's logical conclusion. If civilians are never targeted, drones are highly ineffective(see above smidgen of links). Once it's known that drones are highly ineffective, but they continue being used, what is MIC now saying... That they support targeting civilians.

You see, before I knew how easily drones killed innocent people, not on my target list, I had an excuse. Now that I know, and continue aiming at "terrorists", for example in the middle of a Yemenese wedding(oh wait, there weren't any terrorists there), I can pretend like you and say "I'm not targeting civilians", but the reality is I know when I pull that trigger, those innocent people ARE going to die, and it will be MY fault.

Remind me to never go hunting with you Cheney Jr, Don't want to be caught in your "acceptable collateral damage" radius.

NuttBoxer says

I can pretend like you and say "I'm not targeting civilians", but the reality is I know when I pull that trigger, those innocent people ARE going to die, and it will be MY fault.

Of course. It is the same with all weapons. The USG knew that civilians would be killed in the invasion of Iraq. In fact, a study in Lancet estimated that 100,000 mostly women, children and elderly civilians were killed in the lead up bombing to the invasion. And if folks knowingly invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and knew civilians would be killed, and laughed bout it - what would you call that?

Blurtman says

Of course. It is the same with all weapons. The USG knew that civilians would be killed in the invasion of Iraq. In fact, a study in Lancet estimated that 100,000 mostly women, children and elderly civilians were killed in the lead up bombing to the invasion. And if folks knowingly invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and knew civilians would be killed, and laughed bout it - what would you call that?

I only support one war in our nations history, the first one. Now yes, civilians probably died during the Revolution, but that's not the same thing. If I use a pistol to target an enemy combatant, and the bullet ricochets, killing a civilian, that's not the same as using a missile to shoot at someone on a grainy as shit screen, in a place I've never been, and saying "whoops" when civilians are also killed.

dublin hillz says

China and communist thug regimes want to limit access to competing ideas proactively because they are insecure about their worldview and know that it's corrupt.

Why do you vote for people who want to send as much High Tech subcontracting China's way?

FortWayne says: " Dumb ass president."

Which dumb ass president said, DOH! Iraq has WMD
killing ~ 4500 servicemen based on a LIE.
If one sits on their dumb ass on 9/11, are they complicit
with the death & destruction.

Idiot brainwashed Republicans can't escape the facts.

Mateen dined in Saudi Arabia, stayed at luxurious accomodations.

Not bad on a security guard's salary.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/14/mateens-twin-trips-to-saudi-arabia-raise-suspicions.html

thunderlips11 says

Mateen dined in Saudi Arabia, stayed at luxurious accomodations.

Not bad on a security guard's salary.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/14/mateens-twin-trips-to-saudi-arabia-raise-suspicions.html

His dad the Taliban supporter sells life insurance door to door. I can't help suspecting somebody may have bought multiple policies for the maximum benefits. (Although Islam prohibits insurance and lending at interest, the Saudis have proven notably flexible in some instances, while incredibly strict in others, depending on whatever suits their omnipotent ego extension, aka themselves.) If somebody bought policies, then I wonder who paid the premiums and who the beneficiaries are.

NuttBoxer says

Strategist says

I repeat....WE NEVER TARGET CIVILIANS. Collateral damage is acceptable.

So let's follow that statement to it's logical conclusion. If civilians are never targeted, drones are highly ineffective(see above smidgen of links). Once it's known that drones are highly ineffective, but they continue being used, what is MIC now saying... That they support targeting civilians.

Lets follow the facts. Drones are highly effective in taking out terrorists. Otherwise we would not do it. It is impossible to always expect no collateral damage.

NuttBoxer says

Remind me to never go hunting with you Cheney Jr, Don't want to be caught in your "acceptable collateral damage" radius.

Make sure you never dial 911 for an ambulance. Collateral damage is common while answering 911 calls.

By the way, if Mateen and his wife cased Disney, that shows his primary motive was Jihad, not Anti-gay.

A religious self-hating gay is the fault of the religious upbringing, not the Gay.

curious2 says

Although Islam prohibits insurance

Maybe these idiots think life insurance will prevent their targets from dying.

thunderlips11 says

By the way, if Mateen and his wife cased Disney, that shows his primary motive was Jihad, not Anti-gay.

Excellent analysis. Thanks. :)

thunderlips11 says

By the way, if Mateen and his wife cased Disney, that shows his primary motive was Jihad, not Anti-gay.

A religious self-hating gay is the fault of the religious upbringing, not the Gay.

She has got to do time, unless the caught in a quandary liberal hypocrites regard her as a defenseless weaker sex.

thunderlips11 says

Mateen and his wife cased Disney,

"Investigators believe the Orlando nightclub gunman made surveillance trips to the club and a Disney shopping complex earlier this month -- the same week Disney and other sites were hosting Gay Days 2016."

thunderlips11 says

A religious self-hating gay is the fault of the religious upbringing, not the Gay.

True always, and especially where the dad supports the Taliban.

Ironman says

First and foremost, kids are a victim in the environment they grow up in and....

[many]

Ironman says

will follow the teaching/enabling of the parents...

except for some who commit suicide or otherwise escape. At least the New Testament does not command believers to kill apostates, in fact it prohbits that by reiterating "thou shalt do no murder." In contrast, Islam commands it.

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

FortWayne says

Obligatory:

just because you are a dumbass, doesn't mean you are a dumbass.

Strategist says

Lets follow the facts. Drones are highly effective in taking out terrorists. Otherwise we would not do it. It is impossible to always expect no collateral damage.

So far, I'm the only one who's provided any, showing overwhelmingly that drones don't work. I think what you meant to say is "Let redefine reality to match my bullshit, genocidal viewpoint". By your logic, nuclear bombs are highly effective at taking out terrorists. If you accept collateral damage of hundreds of civilian deaths, why not millions!?

Hey Chairman Mao agrees with you. The Great Leap was super successful, because "collateral damage" is just the way life goes.

NuttBoxer says

Strategist says

Lets follow the facts. Drones are highly effective in taking out terrorists. Otherwise we would not do it. It is impossible to always expect no collateral damage.

So far, I'm the only one who's provided any, showing overwhelmingly that drones don't work. I think what you meant to say is "Let redefine reality to match my bullshit, genocidal viewpoint". By your logic, nuclear bombs are highly effective at taking out terrorists. If you accept collateral damage of hundreds of civilian deaths, why not millions!?

I accept collateral damage as long as it's minimized. Never heard of a war where innocent people don't die.

Strategist says

I accept collateral damage as long as it's minimized. Never heard of a war where innocent people don't die.

Now that's a somewhat less homicidal statement. You might want to re-evaluate drones based on above sentiment. Also the definition of war, especially in relation to eternal war as illustrated by Orwell. I doubt the innocent people who have been killed and driven from their homes would define the US campaign as war...