Moiraine

Well, it's a pointless question, so the answer doesn't matter. Without a gun he was far less likely to be able to kill that many. If bomb-making was easier, more people would do it.

I'm assuming you mean a AR-15 rifle, not a real assault rifle since they're effectively banned? In that case, there's zero functional difference between a standard AR-15 and a ranch rifle like the ruger mini 14 that's been used for hunting for over half a century, other than the fact that it's black. Thanks. I actually wanted a real answer. I know next to nothing about guns.

Why do people need assault rifles to hunt?

Wow, you are really on a roll with these laughable statements. First off, I will give Obama credit for taking out Bin Laden and other key targets, as any time this is accomplished its putting America First. With that said, Obama would never have caught Osama without the intelligence and interrogation policies put in place by Bush that he and the left strongly opposed. There were countless stories written about this at the time of Bin Laden's death. http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/09/05/no-president-obama-didnt-find-osama-bin-laden/ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/05/bush_led_bin_laden_dead_--_wheres_the_credit_109757.html http://townhall.com/columnists/guybenson/2011/05/05/vindication_three_controversial_bush_policies_help_take_down_bin_laden Second, just as Al Quada began to thrive during the Clinton years, ISIS has began to thrive under the Obama years, GROWING BY 4400%, and this according to Obama's own CIA director. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cia-director-isis-has-grown-4400-percent-under-obama/ What world events or Middle East events happened that allowed a group like ISIS to take hold and grow? None. I'm sure their part of Iraq would've been just as easy to take over while Saddam Hussein was in charge.

Did she really post that?? lol

Should we make the Repubs worst fear come true and give it to him? Amend the constitution!!! Why would Obama try to amend the constitution when he can just issue an executive order? Yeah he needs quite a few more of those; he's still behind Bush II and Regan. bnilhome knows this. He just conveniently ignores it whenever someone shows the numbers.

Here's the thing....it's much more common for Republicans to call each other out when the screw up. When some have had affairs and such, they are pressured to step down or they lose a spot on a committee they are a part of. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but it's way more common than on the Democratic side. I think it's healthy for key figures in a party to call out each other when they screw up. I think we view things things through our own partisan glasses. I would be very surprised to find any metric that proves Republicans are better moral police within their party. Remember: Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican." Donald Trump, a bit like Ron Paul, is carpetbagging the Republican Party, so criticism of Trump is a different animal, especially among those who think he's about to destroy the party. But here's a fun fact: the nearly 8 year Obama administration is among the most scandal free in history. Good times. Well there was Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and others that lost their seat or stepped down facing pressure for saying or doing something stupid. Had Bill Clinton been a GOP nominee in 1992 he would not have made it to the finish line. This past year's contest has been a total change of script with Trump winning despite his many dumb statements. Let's not forget Anthony Weiner hung around (pun intended) for some time after his lovely scandal. As for your assessment that Obama has been scandal free, how do you figure he was more scandal free than his predecessor? Can you explain? And if you really believe that, does that mean that the "right wing conspiracy republicans" that Hillary and many leftists claim are out to get them are not really as bad as Hillary claims? There's a big difference between an actual scandal and throwing everything you can think of at someone hoping it'll stick.

He already changed his mind on that. He's in contact with Reagan advisors now.

I've said it already in this topic but I think we're overvaluing wanting to stay with your high school friends through college. It's comfortable but his goal is the NFL. He needs to see that he can do that at Nebraska.

If we hear nothing how did you hear it?

Regarding your last sentence, unless you've experienced it you not only don't have a clue, you have no right to judge it. I went to college for 4.5 years, got involved with network marketing a couple years ago and learned 1000 times more valuable info through national and regional trainings in MLM than I ever learned in college and high school combined. based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence. What you personally experienced is irrelevant. The whole picture is what matters. I have no idea what that whole picture is, but you're not doing your argument any good.

I think when you start dismantling government programs in the name of Small Government, even the most conservative quickly learn how much they depend on the federal government for SOMETHING. They may hate that inner city crack moms are getting food stamps... The primary role of the (our) government should be to protect the freedom and rights of our people. Not to reform, install new programs, new bills, etc. That's big government.Yes, we need a government like the one that was set up in our constitution to establish the basis for what is acceptable and not. But we've come in this country to our government over-regulating, over-taxing, and over-intervening in areas of every day life they shouldn't be involved in. Yes, the government currently provides semi-socialist programs that certain people are dependent upon. But the average American ought to seek for total freedom and a free marketplace to go out and make things happen and provide for their families instead of being dictated how to do so. "Total freedom" is not the answer. Total freedom leads to the greedy cutting corners that lead to disasters including but not limited to causing death to innocent people. We need the FDA. We need the EPA. We need regulation that prevents people from screwing others over financially. It isn't one way or the other. Yes, you have to have oversight. But intervention shouldn't happen unless there is a true violation. No, we do not need the FDA. I've worked in the food and nutrition industry for years now, and I'll tell you that "FDA approved" carries absolutely no value because all it basically means is the company that produced that product paid a load of cash to the FDA to get it approved. We don't need the DOE on federal level. We don't need the IRS (not the form that we have today) as long as we simplify the tax codes. We need to weed out the corruption in the CIA and other federal agencies. It's a huge mess, and anyone educated on the subject would tell you the same. Before I reply I'd like to know your thoughts on a good alternative to the FDA. What I will say is I know statisticians who work for and with the FDA, and in order to get a drug approved you have to jump through hoops and catalog everything. There is a step by step process to every part of the analysis. I don't doubt there's corruption in all government agencies. I mean, the effing Deputy Commissioner for Foods for the FDA used to work for Monsanto. Don't care if people don't care about GMOs. The simple fact they bought out a bee research company (which was saying Monsanto is a big part of the reason they're dying) should tell you all you need to know. So I'll say again - money should not be allowed to be involved in politics/policy. It's completely effed up that that's possible.

I think when you start dismantling government programs in the name of Small Government, even the most conservative quickly learn how much they depend on the federal government for SOMETHING. They may hate that inner city crack moms are getting food stamps... The primary role of the (our) government should be to protect the freedom and rights of our people. Not to reform, install new programs, new bills, etc. That's big government. Yes, we need a government like the one that was set up in our constitution to establish the basis for what is acceptable and not. But we've come in this country to our government over-regulating, over-taxing, and over-intervening in areas of every day life they shouldn't be involved in. Yes, the government currently provides semi-socialist programs that certain people are dependent upon. But the average American ought to seek for total freedom and a free marketplace to go out and make things happen and provide for their families instead of being dictated how to do so. "Total freedom" is not the answer. Total freedom leads to the greedy cutting corners that lead to disasters including but not limited to causing death to innocent people. We need the FDA. We need the EPA. We need regulation that prevents people from screwing others over financially.

the "lesser of 2 evils" is absolutely Trump Nuh uh. (Drops mic) lol.

... then tweeted today that he didn't have any finals. Been tweeting 2018 QB Cameron Rising about visiting Michigan together this fall. Maybe he only had final(s) Monday morning.

the "lesser of 2 evils" is absolutely Trump Nuh uh.

Yup, that 1% of muslims who actually belive what you just said are a threat. But the other 99% I think are ok... but you're probably right. Just to be sure let's get rid of Ameer Abdullah, move Ali's funeral out of country, Kick Mike Tyson out too, Dave Chappelle needs to go. Akon, Ice Cube, T-Payne, Dr. Oz, Shaq, Fareed Zakaria get em outta here! What you're saying is flat out wrong and disgusting. I live in the Detroit area which has a very large Muslim population. I passed several women in hijab and burka at the mall today (some with the full get up), I work with many Muslims daily, why didn't they slit mt throat? Why don't they over throw the local government? It's corrupt and weak here. Why would they associate with a non beliver like me? Why would they work for American run companies? That's not even including the really important people. There are lots of Muslims getting their PhDs at UNL and other places. About 15% of my department was Muslim. Even those who don't stay in the country after graduating are doing research that benefits us.

There are in the recruiting forum - Satellite camps 2016

Iowa's always near the top. Even when their team is awful.

Exactly...not a difficult concept to grasp that the POTUS should be concerned with American interests first, and when American's interests are fine and we can help out the world, so be it. We should never be in a position where we take a policy position that would counter what is in America's interests. I realize this is a broad statement and can be sliced and diced, but as a general approach to foreign policy and relations, it's really not that complicated. It's long been the philosophy of the U.S. that helping out other countries is something that helps us. I don't see that Obama is putting the world's interests above America's or attempting to do something that counters America's interests.

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored. You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower That those are considered apologies cracks me up. People need to look up the definition. That being said, why should we go around pretending we're perfect? The U.S. has done some f*ed up things. One of those quotes is talking about slavery and segregation. Why should we pretend those didn't happen?

Amen The "establishment" candidate is who the Democrats voted for. Isn't that what matters? I would have voted for Sanders if I was a Democrat, but a loss is a loss.

Sanders is starting to look like an a*hole now. He says he won't give up after the voting is over. He's going to fight for superdelegates. As "unfair" as they are, Clinton has won 3 million more votes than he has. The number of votes is far more important than the delegate count to the voters. If he was actually leading in the number of voters I'd be all for it.

He said not McDonald's.

Lots of companies that post jobs that don't require a college degree to perform still prefer people with college degrees. I know people who have experienced this when applying for administrative assistant jobs. What would you say is the cost of the cheapest company one could start and make enough money to live on? IIRC you often say people should just start their own businesses but that tends to require money. Most people work up to something like that with time. People can start a business and build a livable or even luxurious income in network marketing, but many people are uneducated about that industry so are guarded against it. In traditional business, i would recommend a franchise to any beginning entrepreneur (not McDonald's or big chains like that). Smaller franchises can be started for $50-100k, which is less than most pay for college, and those can provide livable, if not very solid incomes. People paying that for college are usually getting it from loans. It's far easier to get a college loan than a loan to start a business (maybe that's the problem?). $50k-100k requires you to have had a good job or some kind of collateral (which usually requires you to have had a good job).