I'm not sure how one manages to take himself so seriously in a politics section of a football forum :-"

Delusions of grandeur one would suspect.

When you're surrounded by people who reckon they know more about American politics than anyone else in the thread, but in reality know almost nothing; people who peddle conspiracy theories instead of engaging in intellectual discussion; people who don't even make an attempt to be right - yeah, it's pretty easy to take oneself seriously.

If you want to call that delusion then you go right ahead.

So how long until we get the "false flag" conspiracy theories about this shooting?

Perhaps we won't this time, because the right wing extremists who usually make the false flag claims don't want to because a muslim shooting up somewhere fits into their agenda....

Interesting to see how the NRA will react to this.

Will they finally support some level of restricted access to firearms for people on terrorism watch lists at least?

Interesting to see how the NRA will react to this.

Will they finally support some level of restricted access to firearms for people on terrorism watch lists at least?

Agreed.

If they say no, then it appears that they're letting down the general public which would take it as the NRA support guns getting into the wrong hands.

If they say yes, the 2A movement will view it as a weakness and a let down.

Lose/lose situation for them.

-PB

not really
the NRA's succesful strategy has been for decades to claim that the government wants to do a lot more than what they are proposing and no matter how much support for the actual proposals the governments bills don't pass as a result

they will do the same.

Except that the hardcore NRA members that think the Federal Govt is "coming for them" are also the same people that hate muslims the most.

I think it is a fascinating intersection of 2 vote-getting issues on the right:
1) - gun rights
2) - national security policy

A smart politician would use this as a wedge issue to force the hardcore right wing to split.

Except that the hardcore NRA members that think the Federal Govt is "coming for them" are also the same people that hate muslims the most.

I was quite critical of a few of howards decision in particular how he gave tax cuts to those on private insurance and cut bulk billing while creating a private sector by allowing doctors to opt out of bulk billing

but we were very lucky that he stood up to his own party on guns to make it a bipartisan issue. He faced some pretty rabid opposition too. Turnbull missed his chance to do a howard on climate change

Agreed - I always had respect for Howard's gun policy, as well as the GST.

Regardless of whether you agree with the GST or not, it was one of the last times we had a major party going to an election flagging a major policy change (tax policy no less) rather than making the change once they got in.

He did say he wouldn't introduce it while Keating was PM but

It's easier to ban Muslims than it is to ban guns.

It's easier to ban Muslims than it is to ban guns.

No one has yet claimed to have actually slept with the guy, or even kissed him and his police delusion has been revealed. I think his long term visits and chats on the dating apps was casing of the club and targets, more than legitimate attempts at romance.

Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State. The release would, the messaging indicated, prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.

The reports indicated that the decision as to whether to reveal the intercepts would be made by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, and it was possible that the release would, if made, be through a third party, such as Wikileaks. The apparent message from Moscow, through the intelligence community, seemed to indicate frustration with the pace of the official U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the so-called server scandal, which seemed to offer prima facie evidence that U.S. law had been violated by Mrs Clinton’s decision to use a private server through which to conduct official and often highly-secret communications during her time as Secretary of State. U.S. sources indicated that the extensive Deptartment of Justice probe was more focused on the possibility that the private server was used to protect messaging in which Secretary Clinton allegedly discussed quid pro quo transactions with private donors to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for influence on U.S. policy.

The Russian possession of the intercepts, however, was designed also to show that, apart from violating U.S. law in the fundamental handling of classified documents (which Sec. Clinton had alleged was no worse than the mishandling of a few documents by CIA Director David Petraeus or Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger), the traffic included highly-classified materials which had their classification headers stripped. Russian (and other) sources had indicated frustration with the pace of the Justice Dept. probe, and its avoidance of the national security aspects of intelligence handling. This meant that the topic would be suppressed by the U.S. Barack Obama Administration so that it would not be a factor in the current U.S. Presidential election campaign, in which President Obama had endorsed Mrs Clinton.

Moscow’s discreet messaging about a possible leak of the traffic, in time to impact the U.S. elections, was designed to pressure faster U.S. legal action on the matter, but was largely due to Russian concerns about possible U.S. strategic policy in the event of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Apart from the breach of U.S. Federal law in the handling of classified material, the Clinton private server was, according to GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs analysts, always likely to have been a primary target for foreign cyber warfare interception operations, particularly those of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, and North Korea (DPRK), but probably also by others, including Iran.

The apparent message from Moscow, through the intelligence community, seemed to indicate frustration with the pace of the official U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the so-called server scandal, which seemed to offer prima facie evidence that U.S. law had been violated by Mrs Clinton’s decision to use a private server through which to conduct official and often highly-secret communications during her time as Secretary of State. U.S

They should do it. Instead of this dragging through the courts after shes elected.

But I will say - if she is guilty that nomination to run as her Vice president would be a golden ticket.....

They should do it. Instead of this dragging through the courts after shes elected.

But I will say - if she is guilty that nomination to run as her Vice president would be a golden ticket.....

And what?

Impeach the first sitting Female President? :lol:

Imagine the Patriarchy outcry then rofl.

-PB

source is oilprice.com ???

And what?

Impeach the first sitting Female President? :lol:

Imagine the Patriarchy outcry then rofl.

-PB

source is oilprice.com ???