Trump won’t help Puerto Rico

[stgislander]

Does it take a super majority in the Senate to pass the legislation to cut a territory loose?

 

[Gilligan]

These were the first results on google

Neither is anything close to positive in terms of his efforts

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/opinion/trump-fails-puerto-rico.html

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/03/oxfam-puerto-rico-trump/

Bwa ha ha haaa..NYT and Salon....way to go, slug!..way to go!

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Only problem with that failed supposition is....I didn't get any of it from "right wing news sources". It was all directly from people I know..or their family..that live in PR. ;-) Sorry kid.

You're all wrong, and gullible to boot.

You see, debates/arguments/whatever you want to call it don't work like this. You don't make a baseless claim with zero evidence (you know, the actual definition of "logical fallacy") then stand behind that as your reasoning behind being right. Especially when faced directly with evidence of the contrary.

Weird, this guy Pedro Gonzalez just so happen to have the same caption as your "friends in Puerto Rico".
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...42409759802.1073741826.100003321601428&type=3

 

[PsyOps]

The shooter could not have killed and injured that many people with a revolver. End of story

Yes. That would mean there is one more AR that could be stolen and misused.

So, less people murdered is acceptable, because it wasn't done with as lethal a gun? Can you tell me what number would be acceptable? And I really would appreciate an answer from you...

Can YOU be trusted with an assault rifle? I mean, obviously you can since you've shot one before. IF you had one, would you be more inclined to go out and murder a bunch of people?

 

[Gilligan]

So very many reports...how about this one from that bastion of ultra-right propaganda...NPR:

Most of the containers coming in have never left. Crowley says it has more than 3,400 commercial containers at its terminal now. That's just one shipping company, at one port. Several other ports are accepting shipments, and stranded crates total an estimated 10,000.

"These containers are full of food, these containers are full of water, full of medicine ... full of construction materials," says Vice President Jose Ayala, who notes a barge a day has arrived since the port opened on Saturday. "It has reached Puerto Rico. The problem is we can't get it on the shelves."

Ayala says it's frustrating: "People are out there under so much need, and there's this cargo here."

"Plenty of vessels can get cargo to the island," agrees Mark Miller, Crowley's vice president of communications. "But the real difficulty is getting the goods to the people via trucks."

Mmm hmmm

The Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration tells NPR that the government is working with the truck driver's union to find a solution for driving with downed power lines and damaged roads,

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554297787/puerto-rico-relief-goods-sit-undistributed-at-ports

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So very many reports...how about this one from that bastion of ultra-right propaganda...NPR:



Mmm hmmm





http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554297787/puerto-rico-relief-goods-sit-undistributed-at-ports

Where, exactly, does the story mention a strike?

Everybody — the government, aid groups and private firms — is having trouble moving those goods around.

Maybe the truckers are striking along side the govt., aid groups, and private firms too?

 

[Gilligan]

Where, exactly, does the story mention a strike?


Maybe the truckers are striking along side the govt., aid groups, and private firms too?

Keep shoveling child...keep shoveling.

 

[Hijinx]

Where, exactly, does the story mention a strike?


Maybe the truckers are striking along side the govt., aid groups, and private firms too?

What difference does it make if a strike isn't called, but the trucks aren't moving.

 

[Gilligan]

What difference does it make if a strike isn't called, but the trucks aren't moving.

A child like Chris...could never understand.

 

[kom526]

The fashion choice for those on the leading edge of political suicide.


Does someone want to tell her that MeeMaw did not win?

Trump/Pence '20 thanks Mayor Cruz for her support.

 

[littlelady]

The fashion choice for those on the leading edge of political suicide.
View attachment 120105

Does someone want to tell her that MeeMaw did not win?

Trump/Pence '20 thanks Mayor Cruz for her support.

I love your use of fashion sense; so many meanings in this day and age. And, yeah, I thank her, too.

 

[Sapidus]

So, less people murdered is acceptable, because it wasn't done with as lethal a gun? Can you tell me what number would be acceptable? And I really would appreciate an answer from you...

Can YOU be trusted with an assault rifle? I mean, obviously you can since you've shot one before. IF you had one, would you be more inclined to go out and murder a bunch of people?

Seriously. Can you not read? I have answered all your questions but apparently you don’t like the answer so you just keep asking.

I wouldn’t own a AR because there is no need to and even the tiny chance it could fall into the wrong hands or kill someone isn’t worth a couple hours of fun shooting pumpkins. Sometimes in society we sacrifice for the good of the whole.

No. Less people murdered is not acceptable but using a revolver takes a hell of a lot longer and there is a better chance they will be stopped before they can injure 400+ and Kill 60.

And as to your stupid well armed militia defense unless you plan to get your geriatric friends to chip in and buy an aircraft carrier, some nukes and fighter planes you are never gonna be more well armed then the the US government. So your argument that you need these weapons to defend against the government is stupid. It’s not possible to arm yourself better than the most well armed force on the planet.

 

[This_person]

Seriously. Can you not read? I have answered all your questions but apparently you don’t like the answer so you just keep asking.

I wouldn’t own a AR because there is no need to

Why must one prove a need? There's no need to own a home, no need to own a car, no need to own a television set, no need to own a computer...exponentially more people are killed by cars than guns, so should we not ban cars, since there is no need to own one?

 

[SamSpade]

some nukes and fighter planes you are never gonna be more well armed then the the US government. So your argument that you need these weapons to defend against the government is stupid. It’s not possible to arm yourself better than the most well armed force on the planet.

To win a war? Of course not, and that was also unlikely at the signing of the Constitution. But for some reason, the British felt it necessary to disarm the colonists even though at the time, THEY were the most well armed force on the planet.
Something about leaders being picked off from an unknown location scared them a little.

But we've also been bogged down for years abroad - the most well armed force on the planet - by armed militias mingled in with the civilians. I'd say it worked.

 

[GURPS]

It’s not possible to arm yourself better than the most well armed force on the planet.

Muslims Seem to being doing fine tying up large amounts of troops and materials

 

[Hijinx]

To win a war? Of course not, and that was also unlikely at the signing of the Constitution. But for some reason, the British felt it necessary to disarm the colonists even though at the time, THEY were the most well armed force on the planet.
Something about leaders being picked off from an unknown location scared them a little.

But we've also been bogged down for years abroad - the most well armed force on the planet - by armed militias mingled in with the civilians. I'd say it worked.

A war where guerilla's just keep coming is almost impossible to fight.

 

[PsyOps]

Seriously. Can you not read? I have answered all your questions but apparently you don’t like the answer so you just keep asking.

I wouldn’t own a AR because there is no need to and even the tiny chance it could fall into the wrong hands or kill someone isn’t worth a couple hours of fun shooting pumpkins. Sometimes in society we sacrifice for the good of the whole.

That doesn't answer the question at all. I'm not asking if you "need" an AR, or your fear that it might get stolen, I'm asking if you can be trusted with one? If you had one; are you more inclined to commit mass murder?

 

[PsyOps]

No. Less people murdered is not acceptable but using a revolver takes a hell of a lot longer and there is a better chance they will be stopped before they can injure 400+ and Kill 60.

And as to your stupid well armed militia defense unless you plan to get your geriatric friends to chip in and buy an aircraft carrier, some nukes and fighter planes you are never gonna be more well armed then the the US government. So your argument that you need these weapons to defend against the government is stupid. It’s not possible to arm yourself better than the most well armed force on the planet.

So, you admit that banning assault weapons would not result in putting an end to mass murder, it would only reduce the number a madman with a gun could kill.

What you call stupid is written in the constitution; that same constitution that protects your right call me all the names you want. But there lies the problem... The founders never intended for our military to be more armed and powerful than the people. It seems our schools and historians have brainwashed the people into believing we are subject to the government rather than the other way around.

 

[PsyOps]

To win a war? Of course not, and that was also unlikely at the signing of the Constitution. But for some reason, the British felt it necessary to disarm the colonists even though at the time, THEY were the most well armed force on the planet.
Something about leaders being picked off from an unknown location scared them a little.

But we've also been bogged down for years abroad - the most well armed force on the planet - by armed militias mingled in with the civilians. I'd say it worked.

When I think about how tyranny could occur in this country I realize our military - all the way up to the highest ranks - would be reluctant to take up arms against Americans to support such tyranny. That's why Obama's statement on a "civilian national security force" really raised my eyebrows. A "leader" bent on tyranny would have to establish an alternate force, willing to take up arms against Americans. It's what the south did.

 

[Sapidus]

Muslims Seem to being doing fine tying up large amounts of troops and materials

I don't think you understand what arming yourself better then the other side means.

It may be a quagmire but they are nowhere nearly as well armed