pettie4sox

My girlfriend got mugged at gunpoint this past weekend. As long as these damn criminals have them, law abiding citizens should have them as well. If the police had an overwhelming force, then you may have a point but as far as I know the CPD are well understaffed so I think people should take definitely invest in their protection and cops should give people some leeway if they do gun down these miserable waste of lives.

This is going to suck for everyone but maybe just maybe this is the kick in the ass we need to realize that s*** needs to change. That being said, how many of us middle class taxpayers will be really scrapping by with the tax increase? Will anyone be forced to go on the government tit? The problem with the argument I hear from people is that we paid these rates prior to 2001 so it shouldn't be a problem. However, inflation has caused price increases to basic goods and I don't know about you, but my salary has been low or stagnant for the better part of a few years so there is no cost of living adjustment.

So the medical examiner who said that the bodies were riddled with .223 rounds was lying?

They are spiking the Northbrook water supply with something fierce.

mr_genius Did you already give your ideas regarding this topic? You seem to continue on the path of passive aggressive condescending messages. What is your solution?

It must be easy to be a hitman in Florida.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 01:03 PM) Obama is such a p****! THIS is the number one issue I have with the guy. No damn backbone. Is he to wave his magical politcal wand to make all his dreams come true?

One more thing, why in the world would you want the government to give up their guns when those guns are used to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic?

Don't bring a gun to a fight.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 01:08 PM) Yeah, but southern IL has much more in common with IN, versus Chicago. That's just reality. I don't doubt that but can't that be said for most metropolitan areas versus the rural areas?

Ah... people and their partisan views will never cease to amaze me. Bumblef***, IL is still IL contrary that IL is a blue state.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 12:27 PM) Austin, which is barely Texas. Austin, Texas... is Texas??!?!?!?!?! Or am I missing something.

I am trying my damnest to follow this thread but I'm not seeing anyone saying to outright ban guns. More restrictions, yes. I don't understand the back and forth debate occuring. Poll anyone?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 14, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) Oh for f***'s sake, you know the point i'm making. People involved in the incredibly high rate of gun homicides in this city are not doing anything legal, despite the relatively high level of restrictions to guns that the county and city have. It's a farce to believe that more restrictions is going to do anything. We live in a different culture than other countries in the world for better or for worse. Comparing us to Japan as simply as "they ban them, they don't have as many crimes" is overly simplistic. Even that Atlantic article admits that. Do we want to live in a police state? Do we want to go through full body pat downs and strip searches for every building we enter? That's the only way of being 100% safe from GUN violence, but not violence of any kind. Sorry, I prefer not to live like that. I prefer to believe that it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people. I can't help but to picture reading this in a Ron Swanson voice.

There's no stopping tragedies like this. At best revoking the 2nd amendement will be like putting a band-aid on the problem. The problem lies with the individuals who use these tools for their destructive purposes. I think there should be harsh crimes if you're caught with an unregistered gun but that's about all you can do. As an earlier poster mentioned, the cost of freedom means you're going to have incidents like this. Someone is going to misuse a tool for a tragic ordeal.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Dec 13, 2012 -> 01:45 PM) Trumbo too. This is ridiculous... I forgot about him. Isn't Morales a power hitter too?

Damn, with Pujols and Hamilton in the line up everyday, balls will be flying for sure. I'd hate to be the pitcher and have to take on that 3-4 combo or wherever they'll end up hitting. That's going to be a looootttttt of home runs.

This should be good.

Hot dog!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:55 AM) No. According to Politico and the WSJ, it dasn't a broad mandate because he had to rely on minorities and women to win instead of winning the white male vote. Who f***ing cares about the white male vote? If anything this election should prove they can't pander to one demographic and expect to win.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) The main issue with that was the timing. It was a week before the election. If that was 6 months ago, fine, no problem. But as O'Reilly correctly pointed out last night, Sandy was a big blow (ba-doom-ching) to Romney's campaign. He was off the front page for 4-5 days, and in his place was the President talking on the phone or wearing a jacket with the Presidential seal or walking with Christie. I think the GOP has to go with Rubio or at least Rubio as a VP. I'm kind of surprised they didn't do that this year but I guess the thought was to try and catch one last tea party wave. This was such a winnable election. Timing wouldn't have helped Romney. He was a pathetic candidate just like Kerry in 2004. He simply couldn't be trusted and was a complete and utter clown. Even his own party wasn't excited about him. 2016 will be a better presidential race for sure.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:51 AM) I have no doubt in my mind that if Christie runs in 2016, he will be very, very tough to beat. I watched him handling the hurricane, and he's all sorts of presidential. if he loses 100 pounds... It's sad but I could see people disregarding him as a candidate because he's obese. People tend to vote for the "better looking" candidates.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:42 AM) It's so disappointing to see some of the posts on Facebook and the like after the election. And as some of you have mentioned about those saying they are goijng to move to Canada or Europe...they just don't get it. There were many I know whose position was "anyone but Obama". So to them it didn't matter who the GOP rolled up there, that's who was going to get their vote. That's the problem with the two party system. For so many voters it didn't matter what Obama was promising or what Romney said he's do different. It was Democrat and Republican. Obama or the other guy. I've taken those tests online that ask a bunch of questions to see where you are in regards to political alliance. For the most part I end up leaning towards Democrat, but there are things that I believe that are opposite the Democratic way. If there wasn't a two party system, we as voters would probably pay a lot more attention to what the candidates believe in and say they will do. Obviously the party system will never go away, but it's a shame that so many voters are uninformed and for the most part don't want to be informed. YES! I think most Americans are probably very similar but allow themselves to get caught up with the partisan politics. You don't owe a particular party any allegiance! If anything, they owe you to gather your vote. I'll be an independent until the day I take a dirt nap.

We do need a 3rd party option for sure. I am sick and tired of the D's and R's. People are so aligned with their party, that they'll vote for something that against their interests for loyalty sakes. F*** that! We all are different and have our different reasons for why we vote the way we do but this is America and that's what makes in great. FREEDOM! On a side note. Romney was like Kerry was in 2004. They had to throw someone out there but most our eyeing 2016 as a legitimate Presidential race. Romney won't last past the primaries next time for sure.

I just can't wait for the elections to be over.