Obama: Worst president in the last 100 years

[Perraine]

 

And now we have Biden talking about removing some of our second amendment rights. He wants to ban "assault rifles", high capacity magazines, and bring about 'universal background checks'. This is one of the main reasons I did not vote for him. He wants to implement a bunch of laws that will make zero difference. The folks selling guns to people that should not have them, are already aware they are breaking various laws, adding another isn't going to change a thing.

Ah yes, the classic "Laws don't ever stop criminals, so why bother" excuse that, curiously, never seems to stop conservatives when it comes to abortions, weed, or voting.

 

 

 

On one point at least we can agree. The vile, divisive and sometimes violent rhetoric of Democrats inevitably led to months upon months of riots and terrorism, and the latest farce with this impeachment scam will only serve to make matters worse.

 

I to fear that America is being forced by the Democrats and their cabal into heading down a very dark path, with only one resolution, and that is very sad. Pitting neighbour against neighbour or even family member against family member is truly evil.

Adding a bunch of faux-intellectual blather to it doesn't change the fact that you are just saying "Democrats keep saying things that make me mad, and that makes it their fault I will start killing Americans to shut them up"

 

You realize that you could end the division whenever you wanted by just moving over to the Democrats side, right? Oh, but you won't do that? Cause you think that the things you believe in are more important than unity? Well, how about that, huh?

 

Well, I'm not a fascist, racist, narcissistic white supremacist, so why would I join the Democrat party? The party founded, and sopported by such? The Democrat party hasn't done anything to help anyone but themselves for virtually their entire existence.

 

You could always disavow those things, and start believing in personal and individual freedom and responsibility and join the Republican party. That too would end the division, and at the same time make the world a better place for everyone.

 

 

Hey look, its an attempt by a conservative fascist to pretend the Southern Strategy never happened. Can you name a single thing after 1965 that the GOP has done for anyone but themselves, in their sociopathic single minded lust for power?

 

Ah, yes, another left wing attempt to perpetuate the myth that Republicans are the racist ones, by someone who has obviously never done any actual research and is only capable of repeating buzz words and phrases. Can you tell me, which presidential candidate uttered the assertion (paraphrasing) "If you don't vote for me, you ain't black"?

 

And unfortunately for you and your argument, the description "sociopathic lust for power" describes EVERY politician, regardless or party affiliation. However only the Republican party believes in equality of opportunity, individual rights, individual freedom, and individual responsibility.

[HackWithTHeJacket]

Like how they believe that Trump is responsible for inciting a riot? The GOP believes in blaming the victim, and never, under any circumstances, holding one of their own responsible for a single thing. They CLAIM that they are for personal responsibility, but they feel that it is something other people need to take, and Republicans need to blame everyone but themselves.

Oh and, here's Mr Trump saying that Jews who do not support him are "disloyal".

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-doubles-down-calling-jewish-democrats-disloyal-israel-n1044861

 

And you will,, dutifully, swallow that s#*! and ask for more, while swearing on a bible that there is nothing wrong with what he said.

Oh, and if you want to talk about research, more Democrats supported the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights bill than Republicans, in the House, Senate, and Executive Branch. I know conservofascists always try to quote percentages here, and ignore how out of power Republicans were pre-Southern Strategy, but in terms of pure numbers, more Democrats supported the Civil Rights act than Republicans.

 

 

 

 

 

And now we have Biden talking about removing some of our second amendment rights. He wants to ban "assault rifles", high capacity magazines, and bring about 'universal background checks'. This is one of the main reasons I did not vote for him. He wants to implement a bunch of laws that will make zero difference. The folks selling guns to people that should not have them, are already aware they are breaking various laws, adding another isn't going to change a thing.

Ah yes, the classic "Laws don't ever stop criminals, so why bother" excuse that, curiously, never seems to stop conservatives when it comes to abortions, weed, or voting.

 

 

 

On one point at least we can agree. The vile, divisive and sometimes violent rhetoric of Democrats inevitably led to months upon months of riots and terrorism, and the latest farce with this impeachment scam will only serve to make matters worse.

 

I to fear that America is being forced by the Democrats and their cabal into heading down a very dark path, with only one resolution, and that is very sad. Pitting neighbour against neighbour or even family member against family member is truly evil.

Adding a bunch of faux-intellectual blather to it doesn't change the fact that you are just saying "Democrats keep saying things that make me mad, and that makes it their fault I will start killing Americans to shut them up"

You realize that you could end the division whenever you wanted by just moving over to the Democrats side, right? Oh, but you won't do that? Cause you think that the things you believe in are more important than unity? Well, how about that, huh?

 

Well, I'm not a fascist, racist, narcissistic white supremacist, so why would I join the Democrat party? The party founded, and sopported by such? The Democrat party hasn't done anything to help anyone but themselves for virtually their entire existence.

 

You could always disavow those things, and start believing in personal and individual freedom and responsibility and join the Republican party. That too would end the division, and at the same time make the world a better place for everyone.

 

 

Hey look, its an attempt by a conservative fascist to pretend the Southern Strategy never happened. Can you name a single thing after 1965 that the GOP has done for anyone but themselves, in their sociopathic single minded lust for power?

 

The government banned drugs too, we see how well that worked.

 

Sure is lucky how Guns will literally grow out of the f*#@ing ground, and can be smuggled in inside someones colon, or that argument would be incredibly disingenuous and moronic.

 

 

 

And this is just a case of the dems wanting to look like they are "doing something", even though they are very well aware that it won't make any difference at all. As Perraine pointed out, long guns in general account for about 3% of ALL gun crime. The so-called 'assault weapons' are a sub-set of long guns, which means their percentage is even lower. Likely less than 1%.

So your argument is that these laws would affect an incredibly small number of people, and yet, you will visciously, psychotically oppose them anyway?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, there are literally millions of guns in civilian hands here in the us. But, because a few folks use them for ill, NO ONE can have them? What about the thousands, if not millions, of owners that have never used their weapons in a crime? Are we going to punish everyone for the actions of a few? By that reasoning, we should ban cars, as cars kill just as many, if not more folks, than guns, every year. They are also used in mass attacks. So why are we not banning cars?

 

Ah yes, I recall that time cars were designed solely to increase their efficiency in killing as many civilians as possible

 

 

 

Biden also wants to allow folks to sue the manufacturers, for the actions of people they have no control over. So, if joe blow shoots someone, the victim, or their family..... can sue the folks that made the gun??? Where is the logic in that? It's a blatant attempt to simply keep guns out of civilian hands. Can I sue GM if some drunk guy in his Chevy injures me, or kills one of my family members? Why not?? If I can't sue GM, why should anyone be able to sue any other product manufacturer?

Chevy doesn't run ads encouraging people to run over civilians, and Chevy does not sociopathically rely on mass vehicular homicides to cynically pump up their own sales on high profit car models.

While gun manufacturers continue to put out advertising that tells the sad, lonely, bitter angry morons out there that the world will have to respect them if they have a weapon, and that the world is dangerous and they need a gun to protect themselves, they are contributing to these mass slaughters. While they do this, they profit as morons mass buy guns every time theres a mass shooting, like clockwork. The only way to stop this depressing cycle is to make it so those monsters actually feel pain when there is a mass shooting, instead of seeing dollar signs.

 

 

 

The laws biden is talking about are most certainly an infringement of my second amendment rights, and you can bet that if it actually passes, it will be challenged. (and if the supreme court actually deigns to hear the case, it will be struck down....)

Which is a reason why the far right stacked supreme court needs to be balanced out by one that has a better understanding of the 2nd Amendment, one that does not value your need to grip your phallic symbol over the liberty of others, one that actually understands a sensible position on guns.

 

 

 

If some guy is selling guns illegally, do you really think it is going to change anything at all, if it comes out that there is yet another law he is breaking? That's just stupid.

You do realise that conservofascists are trying to argue that Kyle Rittenhouse broke no laws by driving with his gun to shoot protesters, right? Weird how they will argue that the existing laws already cover enough, and that a murderous far right gunman broke no laws.

 

 

The end goal here is to disarm the general public. Several dems have flat out stated that. They know they can't just ban them all outright, so, they are going to do it a little at a time.

No, the end goal is to stop mass shootings. You were TOLD that the end goal is to disarm everyone, because you are an easily manipulated sheep who is being conned into buying expensive surplus military equipment at an obscene markup.

 

 

 

Thing is, if biden manages to ban a segment of weapons, what happens with the huge number of them already out there?

Well, when that happens, the people who are illegally holding those weapons, will be bad guys with guns. According to conman Wayne La Pierre, they will then shoot themselves in the head, since a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun.

 

 

And now we have Biden talking about removing some of our second amendment rights. He wants to ban "assault rifles", high capacity magazines, and bring about 'universal background checks'. This is one of the main reasons I did not vote for him. He wants to implement a bunch of laws that will make zero difference. The folks selling guns to people that should not have them, are already aware they are breaking various laws, adding another isn't going to change a thing.

Ah yes, the classic "Laws don't ever stop criminals, so why bother" excuse that, curiously, never seems to stop conservatives when it comes to abortions, weed, or voting.

 

 

 

On one point at least we can agree. The vile, divisive and sometimes violent rhetoric of Democrats inevitably led to months upon months of riots and terrorism, and the latest farce with this impeachment scam will only serve to make matters worse.

 

I to fear that America is being forced by the Democrats and their cabal into heading down a very dark path, with only one resolution, and that is very sad. Pitting neighbour against neighbour or even family member against family member is truly evil.

Adding a bunch of faux-intellectual blather to it doesn't change the fact that you are just saying "Democrats keep saying things that make me mad, and that makes it their fault I will start killing Americans to shut them up"

You realize that you could end the division whenever you wanted by just moving over to the Democrats side, right? Oh, but you won't do that? Cause you think that the things you believe in are more important than unity? Well, how about that, huh?

 

Well, I'm not a fascist, racist, narcissistic white supremacist, so why would I join the Democrat party? The party founded, and sopported by such? The Democrat party hasn't done anything to help anyone but themselves for virtually their entire existence.

 

You could always disavow those things, and start believing in personal and individual freedom and responsibility and join the Republican party. That too would end the division, and at the same time make the world a better place for everyone.

 

 

Hey look, its an attempt by a conservative fascist to pretend the Southern Strategy never happened. Can you name a single thing after 1965 that the GOP has done for anyone but themselves, in their sociopathic single minded lust for power?

 

The government banned drugs too, we see how well that worked.

 

Sure is lucky how Guns will literally grow out of the f*#@ing ground, and can be smuggled in inside someones colon, or that argument would be incredibly disingenuous and moronic.

 

 

 

And this is just a case of the dems wanting to look like they are "doing something", even though they are very well aware that it won't make any difference at all. As Perraine pointed out, long guns in general account for about 3% of ALL gun crime. The so-called 'assault weapons' are a sub-set of long guns, which means their percentage is even lower. Likely less than 1%.

So your argument is that these laws would affect an incredibly small number of people, and yet, you will visciously, psychotically oppose them anyway?

 

 

 

 

 

Now, there are literally millions of guns in civilian hands here in the us. But, because a few folks use them for ill, NO ONE can have them? What about the thousands, if not millions, of owners that have never used their weapons in a crime? Are we going to punish everyone for the actions of a few? By that reasoning, we should ban cars, as cars kill just as many, if not more folks, than guns, every year. They are also used in mass attacks. So why are we not banning cars?

 

Ah yes, I recall that time cars were designed solely to increase their efficiency in killing as many civilians as possible

 

 

 

Biden also wants to allow folks to sue the manufacturers, for the actions of people they have no control over. So, if joe blow shoots someone, the victim, or their family..... can sue the folks that made the gun??? Where is the logic in that? It's a blatant attempt to simply keep guns out of civilian hands. Can I sue GM if some drunk guy in his Chevy injures me, or kills one of my family members? Why not?? If I can't sue GM, why should anyone be able to sue any other product manufacturer?

Chevy doesn't run ads encouraging people to run over civilians, and Chevy does not sociopathically rely on mass vehicular homicides to cynically pump up their own sales on high profit car models.

While gun manufacturers continue to put out advertising that tells the sad, lonely, bitter angry morons out there that the world will have to respect them if they have a weapon, and that the world is dangerous and they need a gun to protect themselves, they are contributing to these mass slaughters. While they do this, they profit as morons mass buy guns every time theres a mass shooting, like clockwork. The only way to stop this depressing cycle is to make it so those monsters actually feel pain when there is a mass shooting, instead of seeing dollar signs.

 

 

 

The laws biden is talking about are most certainly an infringement of my second amendment rights, and you can bet that if it actually passes, it will be challenged. (and if the supreme court actually deigns to hear the case, it will be struck down....)

Which is a reason why the far right stacked supreme court needs to be balanced out by one that has a better understanding of the 2nd Amendment, one that does not value your need to grip your phallic symbol over the liberty of others, one that actually understands a sensible position on guns.

 

 

 

If some guy is selling guns illegally, do you really think it is going to change anything at all, if it comes out that there is yet another law he is breaking? That's just stupid.

You do realise that conservofascists are trying to argue that Kyle Rittenhouse broke no laws by driving with his gun to shoot protesters, right? Weird how they will argue that the existing laws already cover enough, and that a murderous far right gunman broke no laws.

 

 

The end goal here is to disarm the general public. Several dems have flat out stated that. They know they can't just ban them all outright, so, they are going to do it a little at a time.

No, the end goal is to stop mass shootings. You were TOLD that the end goal is to disarm everyone, because you are an easily manipulated sheep who is being conned into buying expensive surplus military equipment at an obscene markup.

 

 

 

Thing is, if biden manages to ban a segment of weapons, what happens with the huge number of them already out there?

Well, when that happens, the people who are illegally holding those weapons, will be bad guys with guns. According to conman Wayne La Pierre, they will then shoot themselves in the head, since a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun.

[HeyYou]

My argument is, our government is going to punish ALL of the law abiding, for the actions of a few criminals.

 

Also, the measures the government is proposing, won't make any difference whatsoever. There is already precedent to prove that as well. The last 'assault weapons ban' did NOTHING to reduce gun crime.

[HackWithTHeJacket]

My argument is, our government is going to punish ALL of the law abiding, for the actions of a few criminals.

 

No, it would not punish anyone, except those who refused to comply with it, who would be criminals by definition. Nobody law abiding would be punished in any way.

 

Unless you're actually a petulant enough child that you think just having your toys taken away to prevent mass shootings is somehow a "punishment" to you. I assume that you feel speed limits are also "punishments" to car owners who should be allowed to drive at any speed they want?

 

 

Also, the measures the government is proposing, won't make any difference whatsoever. There is already precedent to prove that as well. The last 'assault weapons ban' did NOTHING to reduce gun crime.

You keep mentioning gun crime, creating a strawman argument that this is about reducing handgun related crime, and isn't targeted at reducing mass shootings. Something the assault weapons ban did reduce, even after Republicans watered it down to exempt weapons made before the bans date to still freely be sold and kept.

[HeyYou]

 

My argument is, our government is going to punish ALL of the law abiding, for the actions of a few criminals.

 

No, it would not punish anyone, except those who refused to comply with it, who would be criminals by definition. Nobody law abiding would be punished in any way.

 

Unless you're actually a petulant enough child that you think just having your toys taken away to prevent mass shootings is somehow a "punishment" to you. I assume that you feel speed limits are also "punishments" to car owners who should be allowed to drive at any speed they want?

 

 

Also, the measures the government is proposing, won't make any difference whatsoever. There is already precedent to prove that as well. The last 'assault weapons ban' did NOTHING to reduce gun crime.

You keep mentioning gun crime, creating a strawman argument that this is about reducing handgun related crime, and isn't targeted at reducing mass shootings. Something the assault weapons ban did reduce, even after Republicans watered it down to exempt weapons made before the bans date to still freely be sold and kept.

 

Banning a class of weapons, (even though the folks that want to ban them, don't have a definition anyone agrees on.) because a few people use them for ill, IS punishing the law-abiding for the actions of a few.

 

Gun crime is ANY crime where ANY kind of gun is used.

 

Want to see Mass Shootings stop happening? Ban gun-free zones. Or maybe you haven't noticed that darn near EVERY mass shooting has happened in a gun free zone.

[HackWithTHeJacket]

 

 

My argument is, our government is going to punish ALL of the law abiding, for the actions of a few criminals.

 

No, it would not punish anyone, except those who refused to comply with it, who would be criminals by definition. Nobody law abiding would be punished in any way.

 

Unless you're actually a petulant enough child that you think just having your toys taken away to prevent mass shootings is somehow a "punishment" to you. I assume that you feel speed limits are also "punishments" to car owners who should be allowed to drive at any speed they want?

 

 

Also, the measures the government is proposing, won't make any difference whatsoever. There is already precedent to prove that as well. The last 'assault weapons ban' did NOTHING to reduce gun crime.

You keep mentioning gun crime, creating a strawman argument that this is about reducing handgun related crime, and isn't targeted at reducing mass shootings. Something the assault weapons ban did reduce, even after Republicans watered it down to exempt weapons made before the bans date to still freely be sold and kept.

 

Banning a class of weapons, (even though the folks that want to ban them, don't have a definition anyone agrees on.) because a few people use them for ill, IS punishing the law-abiding for the actions of a few.

 

Gun crime is ANY crime where ANY kind of gun is used.

 

Want to see Mass Shootings stop happening? Ban gun-free zones. Or maybe you haven't noticed that darn near EVERY mass shooting has happened in a gun free zone.

 

Guns are not people. People, are people. Guns are objects that are sold at high volume to people who stockpile said guns. When the laws are changed so that they can no longer do so, law abiding people are not punished, they merely have their access to something they should have never had in the first place curtailed.

 

Again, "safe" driver who are forced to drive the speed limit are not being punished, since they are still allowed to drive.

 

Oh and, I know conservatives have no concept of how statistics work, but the 10% of mass shootings that happen in gun free zones are not "damn near every mass shooting". Just cause the NRA screeches something at you, doesn't make it real.

[HeyYou]

We obviously have different views here, and completely different perspectives, so, I am not going to engage you any further on this.

 

Also, your link gives me an "Internal Server Error". Although, I did find the article you were referring to on the Everytown for gun safety website. Not exactly an unbiased source....... and their definition of 'mass shooting' doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their data either.

 

You also assume that I am a conservative. I may vote republican, but, that does not make me a conservative. I simply do not agree with the democrat positions on a selection of issues that are important to me, therefore, I won't vote for them.

[xrayy]

defending this stupid u.s. "i need my weapon collection" disease is like defending slavery. it is pointless but it will last decades to get rid of it...

it is sad and sounds stupid but too many u.s. citizens are still not mentally prepared to live without their assault rifle under the pillow instead. they could invest their money in more useful toys but they just love their weapons so deeply until their 3 year old children shoot them accidentally.

apart from the different views here the answer to the question "who is the worst president ?" was already given by the last president himself on 6th of January. so in my opinion we can close this topic

[HeyYou]

defending this stupid u.s. "i need my weapon collection" disease is like defending slavery. it is pointless but it will last decades to get rid of it...

it is sad and sounds stupid but too many u.s. citizens are still not mentally prepared to live without their assault rifle under the pillow instead. they could invest their money in more useful toys but they just love their weapons so deeply until their 3 year old children shoot them accidentally.

apart from the different views here the answer to the question "who is the worst president ?" was already given by the last president himself on 6th of January. so in my opinion we can close this topic

Your opinion, and as you are not even here in the US, I really could not care less what you think. You are not an american, you did not grow up here, you are used to your government pissing down your back, and telling you it's raining. We here in the states, however, don't really care to have our constitutional rights stepped on by an overzealous government, the whole reason the 2nd amendment is in there in the first place. So you can just take your opinion, and stick it where the sun don't shine.

[xrayy]

the "you are not an amercan"is so boring and not even an argument. you should know after the last election that 82 000 000 americans - the majority - do not share your opinion and you should begin to respect that. I´m just a humble foreigner trying to help you to understand that and to think about the reasons. forget about me.