I said this yesterday.

Sheeple said there was no deal. No restrictions. No inspections and cameras. Nothing.

This is your Republican Party. PhesteringBoil represents them well here.

LOL, Circleflap DRama Club thread of the day.

#8 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

From the Jerusalem Post? That's a new one.

I can believe they are discussing it. I am not ready to believe they are going through with it.

1. Force us to carefully sort and store our trash into bins based on recyclability and charge us for the privilege.
2. Combine all the carefully sorted plastics into cargo containers and ship to third world for resorting and recycling.
3. Shippers dump it all into the ocean.
4. Since unintended consequences of regulations caused the problem, double down on regulations. (See first rule of holes.)
5. Ban plastic straws.
Yay, we're saving the world!

#19 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Unintended consequences of regulations? It sounds like lack of regulations allow companies to just ship the stuff overseas to be dumped.

Care to explain what regulation is causing this?

Also, plastic straws have nothing to do with it. The ban on plastic straws is because they break apart into microplastics that we can't clean up or get out of the water. So we and various animals end up ingesting them.

Proving once again people vote Republican because they haven't a clue whats going on and are too lazy to Google it.

Nope, He isn't tolling for support from the right, he already has that. He is going to do it. Apprehend, identify, a cursory court appearance and on to the plane they go. They could do it in three days easily. We have the transportation, the courts are coming on line and we have the law enforcement to do it. What if Trump offers a bounty for capture and delivery? There are thousands of licensed LEOs that could.

#9 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

The far right yes. The middle right, no.

Also, no, you can't deport people that quickly because they have due process rights. If we got rid of those, we'd deport a lot of people who are US citizens. It's happened before.

And if you offer a bounty, you'd have a lot of shoot outs and dead citizens that were misidentified.

Our country started to unravel in the 60's with the cultural revolution and decimation of the nuclear family. Any woes the U.S. has can be directly linked back to the liberal destruction of our culture and decent into Sodom and Gomorrah.

#23 | POSTED BY BOAZ

----.

Someone tell Sniper he's no longer the dumbest poster on here. He'll have to take the hat off and pass it to Boaz.

Don't worry, Sheeple. You can keep your Tin Foil Hat for now.

And who doubled it?
#27 | POSTED BY SNIPER

To answer this question specifically, Bush doubled the national debt by (1) massive tax cuts without spending cuts, (2) driving us into a recession, and (3) two wars that led no where. Obama just had to pay the tab.

The deficit. Or more specifically the interest paid on the debt it generates.
#25 | Posted by REDIAL
And who doubled it? Was there ever a budget under the o'bummer admin? 8 years of CR.

#27 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Obama cut the deficit in half.
Trump doubled it.

Game over.

To anybody who liked the Obama/Iran deal:
This is why it's best to get these deals ratified by the Senate.

#16 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

To anybody who is a Republican:
This is why it's best not to elect narcissistic billionaire morons to the White House.

But...

We are going to move anyone whose research takes into account the effects of climate change. That way, when half of them don't move, we can replace them with people who don't believe in it and won't write policies with it in mind!

FTA
"On January 16, 2015, they arrived in Rio Grande City, Texas, and got picked up by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Rafael was separated from the family, without explanation, and taken to a facility in Pearsall, Texas. He didn't see his son for the next eight months."
"I prefer the way Obama did it" - Snoofy

#1 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

You mean only separating people if they had committed serious crimes other than merely crossing illegally?

Yes, I prefer the way Obama did it too.

Any other idiotic comments you want to toss out today or are you back to writing your romantic fan fiction about your date with Trump?

Or maybe they would realize that they owe their standard of living to the 1%, and without them picking up the tab, the rest of us would be paying far more.
#7 | Posted by madbomber

The 1% owe their wealth to the 99% living below them. They owe it to the country that provides the opportunity for them to amass that wealth and to the country that protects that wealth and their lives.

That wealth is worth nothing if the 99% decide its worth nothing. It's worth nothing if the government decides to take it. It's worth nothing unless a lot of people continue to allow the wealthy to be wealthy.

As for the standard of living, it's due to the hard labor of the 99% that they and the 1% have anything.

It's time to get rid of this incredible Republican lie of the self made man. No one runs a business without government support, infrastructure, and workers.

So what?

#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

So you're a socialist now? Good to know!

I was wondering what happened. The entire area is blocked off with cop cars for blocks. Glad no one besides the gunman was hit.

#8 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
We had limits. [No, you didn't] We had inspectors. [No, you didn't] We had a coalition. [The *same* coalition -EU - that is still buying Iranian oil]
Now we have nothing. [You had a piece of paper with toothless suggestions]
#9 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT A
There were incentives not to.[Not really - except the pallets of cash, which Obama flew in personally like he was buying a yacht] There was a coalition in place in case they did. [Did the coalition evaporate? No, they're buying Iranian oil]
And the Hardliners in the Iran government had a lot less power because of what the country would lose if they violated the agreement. [LOL]
Now they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by enriching and going for nukes. And Trump is rattling his saber about invasion. [BOO!]
If I were Iran, I'd definitely go for the nuke now. I don't lose anything and it might be the only way to stop the US.
Good job making it an easy choice for the Iranian government. [Pom-poms for Trump failure - TDS]
#14 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

And here we go with the lies... Is anyone surprised?

1. Yes, the agreement had a number of limits.
2. Yes, the agreement had inspectors and cameras.
3. Yes, we had a coalition in the EU ready to enforce the agreement if Iran violated it...until we tore it up of course.
4. Yes, we had incentives in the way of trade and banking.
5. The pallets of cash was THEIR money that we froze in their accounts.
6. The coalition was buying oil because Iran hasn't breached the deal yet. We were the ones who broke the agreement.

You have no defensed for Trump. We had a solid agreement in place. Now we have nothing and we are hinting at invasion. Iran has NO CHOICE but to go for the nukes now.

And you can't argue otherwise with "Nopes" and "TDS".

Frankly, Trump has no plan in place to deal with this. He has offered no alternative to Iran. And idiots like you cheer him on.

And they totally weren't going to do this anyway...
#2 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Who knows?

There were incentives not to. There was a coalition in place in case they did.

And the Hardliners in the Iran government had a lot less power because of what the country would lose if they violated the agreement.

Now they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by enriching and going for nukes. And Trump is rattling his saber about invasion.

If I were Iran, I'd definitely go for the nuke now. I don't lose anything and it might be the only way to stop the US.

Good job making it an easy choice for the Iranian government.

No one wished to say that. Trump did. He canceled the flawed deal without a second thought.

#3 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

According to Israel, Iran was 1 year away from making a nuke before the deal and 10 years away after the deal.

We had limits. We had inspectors. We had a coalition.

Now we have nothing.

And there is virtually no reason for Iran not to create nuclear material to stop the US from ever invading.

If you thought the original deal was flawed, it still seems a lot better than where we are now.

Look, they are good in theory because they can help retirees stay in their homes.

The problem is the "catches" that come with it. The plans should be designed so that the lender covers the insurance and taxes while the home owner gets a smaller sum.

If Liberals want guns off the streets they have to create a safer world. Instead what we get from Liberals is a more and more unsafe world, with less and less consequences for uncivil behavior.
People have a right to protect themselves. The more we allow criminal behavior to run rampant the more resistance Liberals will have in taking weapons away from people that perhaps even should not have them.
DocNJO makes it perfectly clear if you are paying attention.
Liberals don't seem to see the second order affects of their policies, and the responses normal people have. Even the WillieMCCoy episode, he had the gun for protection, why because the government can't protect him.
Fix that, and guns will be easier to grab.
#36 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Why is it Conservatives are so fact averse?

FACT: The safest states are all Blue and have the strictest gun laws. The states with the highest per capita violent crime rates are all Red with the least strict gun laws.

FACT: Countries with stricter gun laws have less violent crime per capita than the US.

Here's the issue: Conservatives aren't smart enough to think outside of all or nothing gun policies. Yes, dummy, people have the right to protect themselves. Democrats aren't trying to take everyone's guns but sensible regulations would make sure the right people have them.

New laws like:
1. Background checks for criminal and court holds for all sales of guns.
2. Tougher sentencing for violations of gun laws.
3. Yearly Registration of all firearms.
4. Insurance for all owned firearms.
5. Mandatory training for gun owners with a license to own a gun that must be renewed every number of years.
6. Significant fines for owners of lost or stolen guns.

Conservatives talk about being personally responsible. But don't want any rules requiring gun owners to be responsible.

#28 | Posted by AndreaMackris "Women don't carry handguns because they are prone to violence". You should come to my neighborhood, every woman living alone has a firearm, usually a 12 gauge shot gun. Me and my neighbor,(retired cop) ensured that they did. We have loaners. Number of habitation burglaries in the last ten years, one. Number of assaults and home invasions 0. Of course there is that little sign on the corner that warns any passerby of that fact. Most older women I know have a pistol and a Concealed Carry Permit. This is Texas, we refuse to become a victim due to the base desires of some subhuman. In my opinion, meth heads are subhuman. They are notorious for doing inhuman things.

#33 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

You literally just cited the national average for a decent neighborhood and pretended its due to having guns. Your neighborhood isn't special.

Lots of guns in the ghetto too. Lot more burglaries and home invasions there.

Guns isn't the causal factor.

#19
When will be it ok to talk about the Democrat plans to "balance" the budget--or make it worse? After the first debate in a few weeks, or do we have to wait until the DNC convention?

#22 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

What's the Dem plan?

I know a few Dems have some high spending plans. But what's the Democratic Party's plan? What's the overall consensus?

Nulli, you're too stupid to vote. Please stop.

Wonderful .... thats what leadership is about ...

#2 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Denying reality?

That does sum up your posts on here well.

Here we go again, making conclusions from incomplete data. The question one should ask when seeing this article is, "How many whites are committing crimes vs. blacks?". You can't make conclusions from a ratio metric without understanding all controls. Now, I seriously doubt that the ratio of whites committing vehicular crimes over blacks is as much as the ratio of those being pulled over. But that's an assumption.
#15 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I hate to agree with Humtake. But... Being just shy of twice as likely to be pulled over based upon the data is inconclusive and further study is needed.

NOT SAYING THEY DON'T HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES IN MISSOURI. God knows they have racial issues there with the law enforcement.

But the data uses the 2010 census which has changed in 9 years. In addition, I'd want to know if the study accounts for poverty related data as well. Poor communities tend to have more stops due to vehicular issues like registration, missing lights, etc.

They still need to take steps immediately to ensure it's not race based. But I'm not convinced it is as bad as 91% yet.

#6 It disrupts Dem plans to stuff ballots, grab power, abolish the EC, and stack the court.
#7 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Stupidity rides again apparently.

How does the Census affect ballots?

why wouldnt you want to know how many non citizens are here?
#6 | POSTED BY HARVEY64

Why not one more item?
Why so dishonest?
#10 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Because adding the Citizenship question will lower the response and federal law currently prevents Census Bureau from using statistical models to account for it.

So large regions will be undercounted. They will lose representatives and federal funding.

And that's why Republicans want it. The records documenting this already turned up.

Jones is a kook. His attacks on Sandy Hook parents and the tragedy in general were disgusting. I'm sure he'll get everything he deserves.

#8 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Half the Conservative pundits are kooks. Jones just chose the wrong target. If he had only continued to make up stuff about Hillary, Obama, and the DNC, he would still have tons of Conservative followers and a huge income.