Agenda

~ commandercranky

image

Never under-estimate the eagerness of a politician to take advantage of a horrifying tragedy and capitalize on the suffering of others in order to promote their favorite pet agenda. In this case, the President and his pet gun-grabber agenda.

Ya know… dead bodies are really a great thing for a politician if he’s crass and tasteless. My personal view is that the bodies should be cold before we turn their tragic memories into a political ad, but I guess CrassBama see it otherwise. This was not a disturbed white youth who murdered 9 black parishioners after all… no, this was an evil metal gun that jumped right out of whitey’s hand and started shooting people all by itself.

Does the public know how he got the gun? The President claims it was all too easy. I wonder if he went through the background check… Okay, if guns are the problem, why are the feds looking at a hate-crime investigation? Wouldn’t that suggest we needed hate-control rather than gun-control? How come the only person in this church with a gun is the bad guy? Aren’t there any gun-toting followers of Jesus in the Carolinas who know how to shoot? I would have thought so.

Easy to get guns… I wonder if it’s actually easy for criminals to get guns and hard for decent folks? Well regardless, I don’t personally think that should be the discussion for today. I think we should let the bodies get cold first before we politicize their memory. Yeah, just kinda sensitive that way I guess.

27 thoughts on “Agenda”

  1. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

    There will always be some psychopath looking to harm other folks. Their weapon of choice is whatever they can get their sick hand on. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

    If people didn’t have guns they would use bows and arrows, bombs, knives, sticks & stones, and if need be their own two hands. Hell they could use their car to run you down. Guns are not the problem, people are.

    Making something illegal does not change the character, mentality, or the will of another. It is illegal to murder and yet crazy folks be killing by the thousands each year. If there is a will, there is away, and your local psychopath has nothing but will and determination to harm others.

    Guns are not the problem and even if you outlawed them, people would still get shot. Because criminals don’t follow the law and that is the point. If you recalled all the guns, they’d make their own at home.

    The Boston Bomber didn’t obtain a license and purchase explosives at your local bomb store, because there is no such thing as a bomb store. It still didn’t stop those two psychopaths. Rather they bought some common household goods and got to work.

    Guns do not kill people. People kill people. And in recent years people have been killing people more often and with greater efficiency. You hear it in the news all the time. For whatever reason, there sure is a lot more crazy folk out there.

    The best way to solve a problem is recognizing what the problem is. Given that we have established that people are the problem… Do you really want to get rid of affordable healthcare with all the crazies out there?

    Your local psychopath could be 1 doctor or 1 subscription short from blowing his or her cork and living next door. Is it such a wise idea to make it harder for him or her to seek the treatment they need?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. And if that little known fact was more public… They’d force us all to license and register kitchen knives. lol 😛

        The problem is most folks fail to see the actual root cause of problems and just assume if they can remove something or make it illegal, that the problem would go away. In this case the problem is people and often their mental state.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Ha ha ha ha. No.

    In recent years people have been killing people more often and with greater efficiency. You hear it in the news all the time. For whatever reason, there sure is a lot more crazy folk out there.

    The best way to solve a problem is recognizing what the problem is. Given that we have established that people are the problem… Do you really want to get rid of affordable healthcare with all the crazies out there?

    Your local psychopath could be 1 doctor or 1 subscription short from blowing his or her cork and living next door. Is it such a wise idea to make it harder for him or her to seek the treatment they need?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. They know damned well what the problem is but they haven’t got the guts to say it like it is. Did you ever notice that a rare politician who tells it like it is doesn’t last very long on the political scene?
      We had a female Prime Minister for a short time who talked straight and addressed the root of the problems. She didn’t last long! Most of the people don’t want to hear about reality — they just want everything to be nicey-nicey.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. As you already know, I do not want to get rid of affordable health care… I simply want to get rid of federal involvement in it and give control off it to the states where it belongs according to the Constitution… You remember the Constitution? 😉

    Like

    Reply

    1. It would be unsustainable on a state level and you cannot trust the states to do the right thing.

      Everyone would just relocate to the few states that did offer it, thus those few small states would be supporting the nation and no single state alone can do that. So what would eventually end up happening is no one would have affordable healthcare.

      There is nothing unconstitutional about affordable healthcare… The supreme court ruled that. 😉

      Like

      Reply

      1. We have several states that have a plan of their own already, some good and some not as it should be to give the states to be competitive with each other. You have no evidence that the federal government is more trustworthy than the states… in fact, quite the opposite, looking at the condition of the VA, I would suggest that your naive trust and devotion to the federal government is quite misplaced, and the day will come when the quality of what they provide will be everything you never wanted, and you shall have no recourse.

        As for the Supreme Court, they stopped adjudicating the law long ago, and the recent decision you mention based on defining Obama care as a tax shows me what a lying fraud that institution has become. By their own reasoning, a bounty on ass-rape would make it Constitutional for a federal officer to poke you in the booty against your consent then tell you it’s a tax.

        Like

      2. States competing with each other will only mean that the best state is where everyone will go and that state will be supporting the nation, which is something no single state can do. So what would eventually end up happening is no one would have affordable healthcare.

        I don’t trust local, state, or federal government. But I trust my local government less.

        Like

      3. Sorry Adam, incorrect. State competition has already shown that it serves as a ceiling in helping state governments control runaway costs, as the case with public assistance in The state of California. Competition creates an equalization force. States that draw more recipients are forced to control cost while states that loose residents are forced to expand services to make their state more attractive. The problem today is that the federal government’s reaction toward any correctional behavior is completely dictatorial.

        Like

      4. Unfortunately, that is not how it works here. It’s good concept, but reality dictates otherwise.

        MA was one of the 1st states to have their own healthcare system… In fact The Affordable Healthcare Act is modeled after us (mostly). Before it was a federal requirement, our state was removing it in stages… For the reason stated earlier.

        Like

      5. This however is not a correct comparison. MA has no neighboring competition to force an improvement of quality in it’s institutions. There can be no test of what I describe now that the fed is involved, and what is clear is that we have already seen the future… it’s called the VA.

        Like

  4. I think that is my point…

    States would either not complete at all or the winner in such a competition would end up supporting to many people who would locate there for the healthcare. That was the problem in MA and why they were removing it.

    The result is the same… No one ends up with affordable healthcare. This can only work on a federal level.

    Like

    Reply

    1. It will never work on the federal level ever. It will become a living stock of waste, fraud, abuse, all managed by the arrogant disinterest of bureaucrats, just like every social program in our history. The VA for all of us. No division, no cooperation.

      Like

      Reply

      1. The same could be said for any program run on any level of government… local, state, and federal.

        Removing social programs is not the answer or the solution to all government problems. Germany is an example of how social programs actually help the people and with the people properly cared for, they have become one of the leading beacons in Europe where good health and a strong economy is the norm.

        Like

      2. The German plan has been a financial nightmare for Germany for decades, and frankly… I really don’t care much about what happens in Europe. They do not have the libertarian guarantees we are supposed to have under our federalist structure, so nothing there comes without a cost in freedom. No European system is appropriate to our principles of divided and separated powers, and if we fail to exercise and protect those principles that will go away. You’re going to loose your freedom for the price of cough syrup.

        Like

  5. Republicans are the only people I know on earth that would let the poor starve and get sick, the homeless die in the cold, while bailing out millionaires and billionaires…. And yet call that freedom.

    I’d much prefer Germany’s system adapted in a fashion. And they seem to be very successful.

    Like

    Reply

    1. By now you should know very well that I do not support bailouts of any kind, I can’t stand the Republicans any more than the democrats, and I don’t have any problem with states and local communities having programs to assist people with food, clothing, shelter or health needs.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. What you fail to realize or accept is that the federal only made such programs because the state and locals either never did (often the case) or they were short lived (removed) and almost always at a time when they were needed the most.

        Like

      2. No, what you fail to accept is that Americans have lost their love of liberty and have abandoned their original principles and will run to the presidential monarch and the congressional aristocracy first, and it never really occurs to them that they should start in their local communities and states first. This is the mindset that will destroy our liberty forever and it is happening right before our eyes.

        Like

      3. Why is it everything that actually helps the people… You call the end of the America or the destruction of society?

        The local and state seldom, if ever help the people. Why? Because while it is the politically correct thing to say you want to help, seldom do people actually want to make that effort.

        That’s when I’m thankful someone else steps in and does something.

        Like

      4. I have helped in my community as a volunteer for years… And I am very much aware of what has been called the 80/20 rule. In any given charity or church, 80 percent of the lazy fuckers out there will sit and watch while 20 percent carries the load. I have plenty to say about that but it’s dinner time. LOL

        Like

Leave a reply to SociallyUncensored.com Cancel reply