• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol

No, you're largely unemployed, not looking for a job, and waiting for a handout.

The mayors, police chiefs, and state and federal peace officers all have jobs.

The law makers wanting to have this discussion all have jobs.

The middle class families concerned about excess illegal weapons filtering into their states and communities, we all have jobs, homes, cars.

Your comment implies that only out of work dead beats want to talk about public safety -- that's a pretty ignorant statement.
 
The mayors, police chiefs, and state and federal peace officers all have jobs.

The law makers wanting to have this discussion all have jobs.

The middle class families concerned about excess illegal weapons filtering into their states and communities, we all have jobs, homes, cars.

Your comment implies that only out of work dead beats want to talk about public safety -- that's a pretty ignorant statement.


I think that even conservatives, and members of the NRA can agree with you if you are truly talking about Excess Illegal weapons. However, your approach is to limit the legal ownership of weapons which does no good to that which you speak.

j-mac
 
I think that even conservatives, and members of the NRA can agree with you if you are truly talking about Excess Illegal weapons. However, your approach is to limit the legal ownership of weapons which does no good to that which you speak.

That wound't be my approach at all.

Legal ownership stimulates the economy and hurts no one, as most of those guns ever leave the closet.
 
Hey, the Democrats and media started this bigtime. This tragedy didn't have to devolve into any of this. Like most conservatives, I'm about as pissed off over these last few days of idiocy as I've been in a long, long time.

The sheriff, Krugman, CNN, Meet the Press, Olbermann, and the vast majority of elected Democrats started banging this drum minutes after it happened, and now it is THEY who are obligated to tone it down. Not us.

Massive damage has been done to the Democratic party over this. People, like me, are in disbelief. Not even I thought it could go this low, and I have no faith whatsoever in the intentions of today's elected Democrats or what they say.

Great post.
Here's the sheriff with Megyn Kelly. The more I see her the more I'm impressed.
This man honestly should be fired in my opinion and I don't normaly call for that sort of thing.Can he not see the irony of his own words? I wouldn't have been able to keep a straight face in Kelly's shoes.[video]http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2011/01/megyn-kelly-confronts-liberal-sheriff.html[/video]
 
That wound't be my approach at all.

Legal ownership stimulates the economy and hurts no one, as most of those guns ever leave the closet.


So then maybe you could articulate for us just exactly what is accomplished by legislating ever more laws that are redundant.


j-mac
 
The mayors, police chiefs, and state and federal peace officers all have jobs.

The law makers wanting to have this discussion all have jobs.

The middle class families concerned about excess illegal weapons filtering into their states and communities, we all have jobs, homes, cars.

Your comment implies that only out of work dead beats want to talk about public safety -- that's a pretty ignorant statement.

The first group are Republicans.

The second group are money-grabbing opportunists.

The third group is tiny and and shrinking, especially after this calamity of errors. Most of the middle class are gun-totin' conservatives.

And then you ended with a strawman.
 
Last edited:
That wound't be my approach at all.

Legal ownership stimulates the economy and hurts no one, as most of those guns ever leave the closet.

The gun used in this crime was perfectly legal, so unless you are for reducing the availability of legal guns to legal gun purchasers, what's your point ??
 
Strawman, try again.


No, it is not a strawman, I haven't said one way or another. I simply asked you a question. Can I assume that you are going to dodge it?


j-mac
 
No, it is not a strawman, I haven't said one way or another. I simply asked you a question. Can I assume that you are going to dodge it?


j-mac

It assumes that somoen is looking to enact redundent laws, and that this is the issue before. By phrasing it the way you do, you set up something easy to beat as no one is for rundancy. Instead, a better question would be what make a specific law, name you law, more effective, or what would it do, or why is needed? Notice no easy to jump on language.

Just trying to help. :coffeepap
 
It assumes that somoen is looking to enact redundent laws, and that this is the issue before. By phrasing it the way you do, you set up something easy to beat as no one is for rundancy. Instead, a better question would be what make a specific law, name you law, more effective, or what would it do, or why is needed? Notice no easy to jump on language.

Just trying to help. :coffeepap


Are you in agreement with hazel on this?

j-mac
 
Are you in agreement with hazel on this?

j-mac

Agree to what? If you mean, do I agree your question is a strawman, yes. I would ask for a better question myself.
 
Sheriff Dupnik is the next Joe the Plumber? Bandied about for his usefulness without knowing if he's knowledgeable about which he speaks.
 
Agree to what? If you mean, do I agree your question is a strawman, yes. I would ask for a better question myself.


I don't think it really is a strawman. Hazel made reference to Anti Gun nuts as being reasonable, their position often refers to more restrictions on lawful gun ownership. When I questioned him on what he meant by his answer on restricting "Illegal Weapons" with more laws, that target these leagal gun owners I get little more than it's a straw argument...BS. Yours and his obfuscation of the obvious is little more than distraction so that the answer never comes.


j-mac
 
I don't think it really is a strawman. Hazel made reference to Anti Gun nuts as being reasonable, their position often refers to more restrictions on lawful gun ownership. When I questioned him on what he meant by his answer on restricting "Illegal Weapons" with more laws, that target these leagal gun owners I get little more than it's a straw argument...BS. Yours and his obfuscation of the obvious is little more than distraction so that the answer never comes.


j-mac

But, you throw up the redundancy language, and he says nothing about wanting redundancy. This is what makes it a strawman. You throw in redundancy because it is easy to beat a redunacy request. No one is arguing for redundancy. That is your imposed strawman.

And j, seriously, you do see anything that doesn't fit your predisposition as being obfuscation. Often, people try to explain their position to you, and instead of examining what is said, you leap elsewhere.

I'm not defending anyone here, merely pointing out that your question is a strawman. There's no way around it. No one has stated they want redundancy.
 
But, you throw up the redundancy language, and he says nothing about wanting redundancy. This is what makes it a strawman. You throw in redundancy because it is easy to beat a redunacy request. No one is arguing for redundancy. That is your imposed strawman.

And j, seriously, you do see anything that doesn't fit your predisposition as being obfuscation. Often, people try to explain their position to you, and instead of examining what is said, you leap elsewhere.

I'm not defending anyone here, merely pointing out that your question is a strawman. There's no way around it. No one has stated they want redundancy.


Do you believe more gun laws are needed, or an answer to what happened?


j-mac
 
Do you believe more gun laws are needed, or an answer to what happened?


j-mac

No, but that's a different question. And whether I think they are needed or not, depending on what they would propose, there might be room to convince me. I would have asked a different question or questions, like what do you want doen? How would it have effected this situation/ And why is what we have not enough?

I certianly wouldn't have started with the redundancy stuff since no one was arguing for redundancy.
 
It assumes that somoen is looking to enact redundent laws, and that this is the issue before.

By phrasing it the way you do, you set up something easy to beat as no one is for rundancy.

Instead, a better question would be what make a specific law, name you law, more effective, or what would it do, or why is needed?

Notice no easy to jump on language.

completely incoherent

Just trying to help.

LOL!
 
The Sherif is a leftie?

The seven-term sheriff and Bisbee native is well known in Arizona for speaking his mind and has established himself as one of the leading liberal voices in a state that boasts only a handful.

Liberal Arizona sheriff Clarence Dupnik sees cause of violence - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

you don't know pima county, you don't know tucson, you don't know what's going on around you

but what could anyone expect from a person who believes senator claire mccaskill is MALE

LOL!
 
"he did not watch tv. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right."

zach osler,
jared loughner's best friend

I can sum that statement up in 2 words...

GAME OVER!


...
 
I can sum that statement up in 2 words...

GAME OVER!


...

Longtime Friend Zach Olser = Game Over???
:2funny::2funny:

Are you far-righties so blind that you can't see how meaningless the FNC web story is??

Seriously?:(
 
Longtime Friend Zach Olser = Game Over???
:2funny::2funny:

Are you far-righties so blind that you can't see how meaningless the FNC web story is??

Seriously?:(

FNC web story ??? Where did you get that ??

Never mind, I keep forgetting that whenever you see something you don't like, you attempt to blame the messenger.

<hint> it wasn't a Fox story, it was ABC News.
 
Back
Top Bottom