ChangoLanzao

I disagree, he should be held accountable as the Individual who committed the crime. I agree that Holmes should be held accountable as the individual who committed the crime. I agree. That sounds very silly.

HERE's another funny one.

What, exactly, DO you think we should do with the "Lazy Poor"? Let the various ministries care for them, like in the old days. But, as President Nixon so accurately stated, once a government program has been funded it will never go away. And, that is where we are stuck in our demise. Where would "the ministries" get the resources to "take care of them"? How would "the ministries" take care of them without "rewarding" them?

Notice how every single citizen in the cartoon is white?

What, exactly, DO you think we should do with the "Lazy Poor"?

Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now. I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs. This has absolutely nothing to do with the drug war. I think it's a matter of time before the tide turns and assault weapons will be banned. We're not going to give up. The drug war is an utter waste of LEO and Funds, just like an all out ban would be, in the end those with no regard for law will still find the way to break it. The NRA did not create the Aurora Incident, but they do make a good scape goat, since addressing the individual, and his mental state and criminal motivation, would be anti PC. Matt This issue has nothing to do with the War On Drugs. The NRA is an accomplice to this crime, and must be held to account.

It's obvious that a very large subset of the U.S. population doesn't understand how percentages are calculated, let alone marginal tax rates.

Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future. No, you can blame one crazy person. You can not legislate us into the world you want to live in. It will never happen. If it were possible to legislate something to the point that you couldn't put your hands on it there would be no drugs available in this country right now. I'm not a drug user but I could bet you $100 I could leave the house now and be back in an hour with at least 3 different types of illegal drugs. This has absolutely nothing to do with the drug war. I think it's a matter of time before the tide turns and assault weapons will be banned. We're not going to give up.

So will life in prison, but we also have the chance to get inside his mind, and that's what I'm all about. If he's still alive, there's always the chance he could kill someone again That chance is a lot smaller than the chance that our government WILL put an innocent man to death again at some time in the near future.

Here's what we DO know: 1. Holmes purchased all of the guns, ammo, and equipment he needed legally. 2. There's no government database that would have alerted law enforcement about what he might have been up to. 3. Nobody in law enforcement ever questioned him about why he needed to purchase 100 round magazines. 4. Holmes had no problem transporting his arsenal without government interference. You can thank the NRA for this situation. They so are feared by every politician in the U.S. that none of them will even think about proposing legislation that would at least help law enforcement to detect such purchases in the future.

And you can't discount the argument that had there been several trained, armed, legal carry citizens, present in the theater they might have started shooting and made the situation ten times worse.

How about if a woman has an abortion? Doesn't get any more clear cut than that. Put her to death. Send her straight to the gas chamber! Indeed, thanks for clearing this up for me.

I really find that position odd...I mean if you're being stabbed and the attacker intends to take your life...you really going to stand behind your statement? Hypothetically speaking? Yes.

This is just insurrectionist nonsense. And yet, history shows it to be true. Matt You've been reading too many Texan history books, my friend.

This is just insurrectionist nonsense.

No. There is no justification for the death penalty in any case.

Banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons to consumers in the United States would. Of course History proves this wrong. The US had a ban, didn't work. That's why we need to make a ban that does work.

Banning the manufacture and sale of assault weapons to consumers in the United States would.

"This is not an argument against taxing the wealthy. And the incomes and tax rates of the wealthy may have jumped back since 2009, with the rebound in financial markets." Duh!

A Dominionist. Any Dominionist.

Sadly, Nation Knows Exactly How Colorado Shooting's Aftermath Will Play Out "According to the nation's citizenry, calls for a mature, thoughtful debate about the role of guns in American society started right on time, and should persist throughout the next week or so. However, the populace noted, the debate will soon spiral out of control and ultimately lead to nothing of any substance, a fact Americans everywhere acknowledged they felt "absolutely horrible" to be aware of."

"Though Brooks Jackson and Glenn Kessler have become heroes to the Romney campaign and its Republican backers, these “independent fact-checkers” have found themselves increasingly isolated within the journalistic community as more news outlets note the contradictory Bain filings and call for more disclosures by Romney’s camp." This is pertinent too: Romney’s ‘Fact-Checker’ Cover-up

This sums up the general idea. Any ID requirement for voting that doesn't provide free ID's amounts to a poll tax, forbidden by the 24th Amendment of the Constitution. With free ID's, the constitutionality issue is less clear, but seems like a waste of tax dollars. +1

YOU are ignoring the main issue which is that the cost - in terms of money and disenfrachisement of voters - is not justified by the miniscule number of actual voter impersonation fraud cases. Requiring voter ID doesn't make it impossible for most people to vote but it definitely makes it harder for many citizens to vote.

Because "Let them be hired" is NOT a good solution, eh? True - Biden told us that employers aren't important. This is merely an expansion of that policy statement. It is absolutely not a good solution in many cases. Who's going to hire them? Especially if they live in an urban area with 20% unemployment and have no car and no public transportation is available. Of course there are some people, I guess, who really are too stupid and/or lazy to get a job. What's your solution for these people? Who's going to hire them (especially if there are no more government jobs available)? Have you hired any stupid/lazy people lately? Wouldn't you want to exclude stupid/lazy people from your firm's work environment? "Let them be hired" has a nice ring to it, but it is not a workable solution, since "job creators" really have no interest in hiring the stupid/lazy people in the first place. No, "Let them be hired" is not a good solution when there are no jobs available. By cutting people off of vital assistance, you condemn them to live like desperate, starving animals. They have kids. Their kids will grow up in desperation too. Do you think it's in our country's best interest to have huge numbers of stupid/lazy people living in desperation like animals just across the railroad tracks? We think we're saving money by not feeding them and providing them with basic health care and education. But what we don't realize is that while the stupid/lazy people might be perfectly happy to stay put, starve to death, and wallow in their own filth, the smart one's are going to figure out ways to go and take your stuff! It's too bad that slavery is illegal, otherwise that would solve the problem, wouldn't it? You could then provide all those stupid/lazy people with food, housing, basic medical care in return for their labor. Another option, which is legal, would be to make sure that there are lots of petty, and/or victimless crimes on the books that you could use to round up a significant number of them and keep them in prison. That would be an excellent solution, assuming that it's cheaper to keep them in prison than to give them public assistance in cash. Even better yet, you could have them all in prison and then contract their labor out to private corporations and farmers in the area who have run out of illegal aliens to hire. It's definitely a problem to have so many stupid/lazy citizens to have to deal with isn't it? What do you think might be a viable Final Solution to this problem that wouldn't involve you having to contribute any of your hard-earned cash?