What A Liar!

[Englebert]

Obama stated on national TV that "we've invited the NRA to have a debate", when in reality he invited the NRA to submit ONE PRE-SCREENED question with no rebuttal. That is not a "debate" according to anyone's standards. I find it very difficult if not impossible to believe anything this guy says.

[77]

Him and his pal Hill lie more than they tell the truth!

[tvc184]

I need to go back and look at the video but when he was directly asked if he invited the NRA to be there his response was something like, well... we have asked them several times. 

It sounded like he was not referring to being at that specific CNN event but is claiming to wanting to debate them but they will not. Obama then followed up with some kind of gibberish that he would debate them but then through out the caveat that he would only allow "facts" to be brought up. I guess he will determine what the "facts" are not simply not answer or will ignore any question that he doesn't approve of as his facts. 

I understand that he doesn't like guns and can speak his peace but the whole, the NRA won't debate me is nonsense. I think several people in the NRA would love to debate him in a truly open forum. 

[Englebert]

His words were: "There's a reason why the NRA is not here. You'd think that they would be prepared to have a debate with the president." That's word for word.

Here's the link:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

He did say in response to Cooper's question that the White House has invited them. I would bet the farm that the White House has never invited the NRA to a equal-footing debate.

Obama can him-haw all around, but he unmistakably said that the NRA was not there because they don't want to debate him. That is a blatant lie. The truth is he wasn't going to allow a debate.

I would love to see his reaction if FoxNews said that they were gonna have a live debate on national TV about Obamacare and would like for him to show up for a debate, but he could only ask one pre-screened question with no rebuttal questions. He definitely would not show up and he would let everyone know that is not how debates work. He would go on and on for an hour about how deceitful and misleading the show would be.

[smitty]

5 hours ago, Englebert said:

Obama stated on national TV that "we've invited the NRA to have a debate", when in reality he invited the NRA to submit ONE PRE-SCREENED question with no rebuttal. That is not a "debate" according to anyone's standards. I find it very difficult if not impossible to believe anything this guy says.

This is consumption for the "Low Information Crowd" that will believe it!  Sad part?  There are those that will believe it and thinks he's serious.!

[westend1]

CNN, which broadcast the event, said it invited the gun group, but the NRA declined.

[stevenash]

CNN invited someone to participate in a hatchet fight but said invitation was valid only if the invitee did NOT bring hatchet.

[Englebert]

11 minutes ago, westend1 said:

CNN, which broadcast the event, said it invited the gun group, but the NRA declined.

If asked, would you participate in a "debate" in which you can only ask one prescreened question?

[Englebert]

I believe that all laws passed limiting gun ownership should equally apply to the right to vote.

To vote you must pass a background check.

To vote you must pass a 5 hour course on how to vote. You must pay for the privilege to attend the class, bring the necessary documents and provide a valid ID.

And before anyone says apples and oranges, I believe that an incompetent/uneducated voter does more harm than an uneducated gun owner.

[baddog]

6 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I believe that all laws passed limiting gun ownership should equally apply to the right to vote.

To vote you must pass a background check.

To vote you must pass a 5 hour course on how to vote. You must pay for the privilege to attend the class, bring the necessary documents and provide a valid ID.

And before anyone says apples and oranges, I believe that an incompetent/uneducated voter does more harm than an uneducated gun owner.

Very good! +1000

[smitty]

30 minutes ago, westend1 said:

CNN, which broadcast the event, said it invited the gun group, but the NRA declined.

Englebert statement was, "in reality he invited the NRA to submit ONE PRE-SCREENED question with no rebuttal."    Westend -- true or false?

[RETIREDFAN1]

14 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I believe that all laws passed limiting gun ownership should equally apply to the right to vote.

To vote you must pass a background check.

To vote you must pass a 5 hour course on how to vote. You must pay for the privilege to attend the class, bring the necessary documents and provide a valid ID.

And before anyone says apples and oranges, I believe that an incompetent/uneducated voter does more harm than an uneducated gun owner.

I have always believed that we should have done what some of the founders wanted and given the vote to property owners only........a lot of the BS that has been passed over the years would not have happened if only property owners could vote.......

[westend1]

16 minutes ago, smitty said:

Englebert statement was, "in reality he invited the NRA to submit ONE PRE-SCREENED question with no rebuttal."    Westend -- true or false?

That's what they are saying now, but not what they said last night on CNN.  Story is changing because they look like idiots.   Here is the true story.  a quote from NRA....."

"Does it make sense to meet with him (Obama)?" Kelly asked Cox.

"And talk about what, Megyn?" he responded. "This president can talk about background checks all day long, but that's nothing more than a distraction away from the fact that he can't keep us safe, and he supported every gun control proposal that's ever been made. He doesn't support the individual right to own a firearm -- that's been the position of his Supreme Court nominees, that's been the position of his administration -- so what are we going to talk about, basketball?

"I'm not really interested in talking to the president who doesn't have a basic level of respect or understanding of the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners in this country."

[westend1]

btw..now that the stock market is down, isn't anyone going to start talking about the economy again?   LOLOLOLOL

[Englebert]

1 minute ago, westend1 said:

btw..now that the stock market is down, isn't anyone going to start talking about the economy again?   LOLOLOLOL

I'll start the conspiracy theory. Obama ordered the stock market to drop to distract from his outright lie yesterday.

[Englebert]

19 minutes ago, westend1 said:

That's what they are saying now, but not what they said last night on CNN.  Story is changing because they look like idiots.   Here is the true story.  a quote from NRA....."

"Does it make sense to meet with him (Obama)?" Kelly asked Cox.

"And talk about what, Megyn?" he responded. "This president can talk about background checks all day long, but that's nothing more than a distraction away from the fact that he can't keep us safe, and he supported every gun control proposal that's ever been made. He doesn't support the individual right to own a firearm -- that's been the position of his Supreme Court nominees, that's been the position of his administration -- so what are we going to talk about, basketball?

"I'm not really interested in talking to the president who doesn't have a basic level of respect or understanding of the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners in this country."

This was on The Kelly File last night:

"Did we participate in CNN's event tonight? No, we didn't," Cox told Megyn Kelly. "We were offered one pre-screened question. Megyn, I know that you don't send your questions over to the White House, so I'd rather have a conversation with you that's intellectually honest than sit through a lecture and get one opportunity to ask a pre-screened question."

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[westend1]

1 minute ago, Englebert said:

This was on The Kelly File last night:

"Did we participate in CNN's event tonight? No, we didn't," Cox told Megyn Kelly. "We were offered one pre-screened question. Megyn, I know that you don't send your questions over to the White House, so I'd rather have a conversation with you that's intellectually honest than sit through a lecture and get one opportunity to ask a pre-screened question."

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

FOX to the rescue.  Obama has them running scared.   Too funny.   They know most of America supports background checks for all gun purchases.

[Englebert]

The last poll I saw was that 60 something percent favored increased background checks, and that poll was taken right after San Bernardino. Obama is lying when he says that 90% favor increased background checks. And I would love to see how the questions are worded on any of the polls.

And if Obama is so enamored about polls, he should immediately repeal Obamacare, since an overwhelming majority dislikes the law.

And the quote I posted above came from the same exact conversation you posted.

[stevenash]

39 minutes ago, westend1 said:

btw..now that the stock market is down, isn't anyone going to start talking about the economy again?   LOLOLOLOL

Be happy to discuss the economy.  This recovery is still the weakest recovery since World War 2 and the GDP has averaged a little over half of what the average recovery has looked like.  In January of 2009, there were 133.56 million Americans with jobs and 31.98 million on food stamps.  By September of 2013 there were 133.76 million Americans with  jobs and 46.68 million on Food Stamps. If one believes that the market tends to predict the future 6 to 12 months down the road ( that's why it is one of the leading economic indicators) it would appear there is a strong suggestion the economy may slow going forward.

[Englebert]

Just now, stevenash said:

Be happy to discuss the economy.  This recovery is still the weakest recovery since World War 2 and the GDP has averaged a little over half of what the average recovery has looked like.  In January of 2009, there were 133.56 million Americans with jobs and 31.98 million on food stamps.  By September of 2013 there were 133.76 million Americans with  jobs and 46.68 million on Food Stamps. 

But 90% of people polled believe the economy is in full recovery.

[Hagar]

There's two stocks that have kept the market afloat, Winchester and S&W lol

[tvc184]

8 hours ago, westend1 said:

FOX to the rescue.  Obama has them running scared.   Too funny.   They know most of America supports background checks for all gun purchases.

Running scared over gun control?

The last meaningful gun control was under Bill Clinton with the assault weapon ban in 1994. That bit of legislation caused an 108 total swing in the House. The Dems had a huge 82 vote lead in the House and the AWB changed that to a 26 vote loss. It also led to the Senate going for the Republicans in a 16 vote swing (with only 1/3 of senators up for election). 

This huge statement from the voters allowed the Republicans to completely control Congress for the first time since 1953. A 42 year complete or partial control of Congress by the Dems ended with the new weapons law. 

Add to that Obama's landmark legislation, Obamacare. The Dems went in holding both houses, riding in on Obama's coattails. Just like Clinton's legislation, it cost the Dems big time with them going from a 77 vote lead to a 49 vote loss. It was a net swing of 126 votes even exceeding the 108 swing from the AWB.

Every time the Dems come up with these kinds of schemes against the wishes of the people, they get slammed back down. Gun sales and have exploded under Obama and some gun manufacturers have had their stocks soar with him in office. The saying is that people vote with their pocketbooks and I think it is certainly true in this case. In 2006 S&W stock was as low as $3.84 a share. It now sits at $23.45 or more than a 600% gain. 

Anytime the Dems bring up a huge change in public policy, they take a beating. The GOP isn't running scared and I imagine they wants gun control to be a major issue in the upcoming campaign. 

These polls that show people want background checks are almost meaningless because they don't ask real questions but just a blanket, do you want checks or felons with guns. Heck, most of the Republicans would vote for the idea. It isn't background checks however but gun registration that is the ultimate goal and that is what rubs people wrong. The Dems want every gun by to go through an FFL or in other words, registered. Every time a person advocating gun control is asked if any current suggested reform would have stopped any of the big shootings in the news, the answer is always the same...... no. So why even have it? I saw Obama on the tube this week when he drug out the tired old mantra, "If it saves one child". 

The only problem with the talks of gun control is not the Republicans running scared but it causes a run on ammo every time and it gets scarce and more expensive. After Sandy Hook a $700 AR-15 jumped to about $3,500. Speaking of Sandy Hook, the next election was in 2014 and that caused the Republicans to gain even more seats in the House (+16) and took over the Senate with the net swing of 18 senators. 

Yeah, running scared.................. 

 

[westend1]

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Running scared over gun control?

The last meaningful gun control was under Bill Clinton with the assault weapon ban in 1994. That bit of legislation caused an 108 total swing in the House. The Dems had a huge 82 vote lead in the House and the AWB changed that to a 26 vote loss. It also led to the Senate going for the Republicans in a 16 vote swing (with only 1/3 of senators up for election). 

This huge statement from the voters allowed the Republicans to completely control Congress for the first time since 1953. A 42 year complete or partial control of Congress by the Dems ended with the new weapons law. 

Add to that Obama's landmark legislation, Obamacare. The Dems went in holding both houses, riding in on Obama's coattails. Just like Clinton's legislation, it cost the Dems big time with them going from a 77 vote lead to a 49 vote loss. It was a net swing of 126 votes even exceeding the 108 swing from the AWB.

Every time the Dems come up with these kinds of schemes against the wishes of the people, they get slammed back down. Gun sales and have exploded under Obama and some gun manufacturers have had their stocks soar with him in office. The saying is that people vote with their pocketbooks and I think it is certainly true in this case. In 2006 S&W stock was as low as $3.84 a share. It now sits at $23.45 or more than a 600% gain. 

Anytime the Dems bring up a huge change in public policy, they take a beating. The GOP isn't running scared and I imagine they wants gun control to be a major issue in the upcoming campaign. 

These polls that show people want background checks are almost meaningless because they don't ask real questions but just a blanket, do you want checks or felons with guns. Heck, most of the Republicans would vote for the idea. It isn't background checks however but gun registration that is the ultimate goal and that is what rubs people wrong. The Dems want every gun by to go through an FFL or in other words, registered. Every time a person advocating gun control is asked if any current suggested reform would have stopped any of the big shootings in the news, the answer is always the same...... no. So why even have it? I saw Obama on the tube this week when he drug out the tired old mantra, "If it saves one child". 

The only problem with the talks of gun control is not the Republicans running scared but it causes a run on ammo every time and it gets scarce and more expensive. After Sandy Hook a $700 AR-15 jumped to about $3,500. Speaking of Sandy Hook, the next election was in 2014 and that caused the Republicans to gain even more seats in the House (+16) and took over the Senate with the net swing of 18 senators. 

Yeah, running scared.................. 

 

There are always a few million nuts who will run out and buy a gun when someone says "boo".   Who were the idiots that paid $3500?  Can't say that was a wise investment.

[stevenash]

Can anyone give me a good reason why all guns should be registered but not voters?  Since Mr. Obama took office, the dems have relinquished control of the house and senate and Republican Governorships have increased from 21 to 31 plus the majority of state legislatures are under Republican control.

[westend1]

2 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Can anyone give me a good reason why all guns should be registered but not voters?  Since Mr. Obama took office, the dems have relinquished control of the house and senate and Republican Governorships have increased from 21 to 31 plus the majority of state legislatures are under Republican control.

Pretty sure voters have to register.