The Shining City Upon a Hill

[Phil B.]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Dude the guy CAN'T read the daily brief they to dumb it down with pictures. Thank god Twitter ban his ASS

More excuses for a failure

Another lie.
1) daily briefings have pictures but of security installations.

Not the crayon pictures you draw.

Obama didn't even take every daily briefings.

At the time he had bigger ' fish to fry '.
He handled many corporations at one time in real life.

How many jobs ( not corporations ) can you handle at one time.

Hell you can't spell and make sense in your posts, doubt you could handle cleaning the restrooms @ Trump Tower.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[bsm2]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Another lie.
1) daily briefings have pictures but of security installations.

Not the crayon pictures you draw.

Obama didn't even take every daily briefings.

At the time he had bigger ' fish to fry '.
He handled many corporations at one time in real life.

How many jobs ( not corporations ) can you handle at one time.

Hell you can't spell and make sense in your posts, doubt you could handle cleaning the restrooms @ Trump Tower.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

More excuses as ALWAYS

[Copier Addict]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Another lie.
1) daily briefings have pictures but of security installations.

Not the crayon pictures you draw.

Obama didn't even take every daily briefings.

At the time he had bigger ' fish to fry '.
He handled many corporations at one time in real life.

How many jobs ( not corporations ) can you handle at one time.

Hell you can't spell and make sense in your posts, doubt you could handle cleaning the restrooms @ Trump Tower.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yup, he handled many corporations into bankruptcy. You really shouldn't be bragging about this Phil

[slimslob]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Joe Biden Snaps, Calls Reporter 'Stupid Son of a Bitch' - Truth Press

[SalesServiceGuy]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Biden Apologizes to Peter Doocy But Hot Mic Gaffe Makes it into White House Transcript


President Joe Biden apologized after calling Fox News reporter Peter Doocy a "stupid son of a b****" on a hot microphone during a meeting about inflation.

Biden met with administration officials Monday afternoon to discuss solutions to deal with the high inflation many in the United States continue to grapple with. Reporters were allowed in the room for the meeting, and several lobbed questions to Biden at the end of it.

Doocy pressed Biden on whether or not he believes inflation will be a "political liability in the midterms."

"It's a great asset—more inflation. What a stupid son of a b****," Biden sarcastically quipped, not appearing to intend for the remark to be heard by others.

Biden later called Doocy the same day to apologize for the remark, according to CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins. Doocy later told Fox News host Sean Hannity that Biden called to tell him, "It's nothing personal, pal."


... the kind of thing an adult would do when he realized that he made a mistake.

... the kind of thing the ex President never, ever did other than to double down ever more rudely on any follow up comments.

[BillyCarpenter]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Biden Apologizes to Peter Doocy But Hot Mic Gaffe Makes it into White House Transcript


President Joe Biden apologized after calling Fox News reporter Peter Doocy a "stupid son of a b****" on a hot microphone during a meeting about inflation.

Biden met with administration officials Monday afternoon to discuss solutions to deal with the high inflation many in the United States continue to grapple with. Reporters were allowed in the room for the meeting, and several lobbed questions to Biden at the end of it.

CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins. Doocy later told Fox News host Sean Hannity that Biden called to tell him, "It's nothing personal, pal."


... the kind of thing an adult would do when he realized that he made a mistake.

... the kind of thing the ex President never, ever did other than to double down ever more rudely on any follow up comments.

I think everyone understands that your posts aren't to be taken seriously. Nothing you say is based in reality.

Harvard-Harris Poll Points to Political Realignment Against Extremist Democrats

[slimslob]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Please Wait... | Cloudflare

[SalesServiceGuy]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

This Silicon Valley city is poised to take a step closer to first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements


San Jose, California, is getting closer to adopting a first-in-the-nation law to address gun violence by requiring all gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance.

The Silicon Valley city's council is due to vote Tuesday on the ordinance, whose dual-pronged approach aims to reduce the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and to ease taxpayers of the financial burden of gun violence.

"Certainly the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,"

Democratic Mayor Sam Liccardo said Monday at a news conference, estimating that San Jose residents incur about $442 million in gun-related costs each year.

Mass shootings have impelled Liccardo to push the fee and insurance measures -- first after the 2019 slayings at a festival in nearby Gilroy, California, then following last year's deadly siege at public transit facility in his city. The mayor has compared the plan to car insurance mandates, which he credits with dramatically reducing traffic fatalities.

San Jose city council after the June mass shooting unanimously approved drafting the ordinance, mayoral spokesperson Rachel Davis said Monday in a news release. If it's approved Tuesday and on second reading February 8, it would take effect August 8.

Just 52% of Americans polled in late 2021 said "laws covering the sales of firearms" should be stricter, the lowest number Gallup has measured on the question since 2014. Meanwhile, there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings, a study released Thursday by Everytown for Gun Safety found.

Under San Jose's proposed law, gun owners would be charged an annual $25 fee directed to a nonprofit set up to distribute funds to gun crime prevention and to victims of gun violence. The measure also would require gun owners to obtain liability insurance that would cover damage caused by their weapon.

Lower premiums for those with gun safes, trigger locks and completed gun safety classes are expected to incentivize safer behavior.

As to enforcement, police officers crossing paths with gun owners would ask for proof of insurance, much like they do with car insurance during traffic stops, Liccardo explained.

While some would be exempt, including those in law enforcement and with concealed carry permits, pushback is expected, the mayor acknowledged.

"We've opposed this ordinance every step of the way and we will see this through to the end," Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights and executive director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights.

The City has identified a law firm that would represent it on the issue at no charge, the mayor's spokesperson said.

[BillyCarpenter]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

This Silicon Valley city is poised to take a step closer to first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements


San Jose, California, is getting closer to adopting a first-in-the-nation law to address gun violence by requiring all gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance.

The Silicon Valley city's council is due to vote Tuesday on the ordinance, whose dual-pronged approach aims to reduce the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and to ease taxpayers of the financial burden of gun violence.

"Certainly the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,"

Democratic Mayor Sam Liccardo said Monday at a news conference, estimating that San Jose residents incur about $442 million in gun-related costs each year.

Mass shootings have impelled Liccardo to push the fee and insurance measures -- first after the 2019 slayings at a festival in nearby Gilroy, California, then following last year's deadly siege at public transit facility in his city. The mayor has compared the plan to car insurance mandates, which he credits with dramatically reducing traffic fatalities.

San Jose city council after the June mass shooting unanimously approved drafting the ordinance, mayoral spokesperson Rachel Davis said Monday in a news release. If it's approved Tuesday and on second reading February 8, it would take effect August 8.

Just 52% of Americans polled in late 2021 said "laws covering the sales of firearms" should be stricter, the lowest number Gallup has measured on the question since 2014. Meanwhile, there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings, a study released Thursday by Everytown for Gun Safety found.

Under San Jose's proposed law, gun owners would be charged an annual $25 fee directed to a nonprofit set up to distribute funds to gun crime prevention and to victims of gun violence. The measure also would require gun owners to obtain liability insurance that would cover damage caused by their weapon.

Lower premiums for those with gun safes, trigger locks and completed gun safety classes are expected to incentivize safer behavior.

As to enforcement, police officers crossing paths with gun owners would ask for proof of insurance, much like they do with car insurance during traffic stops, Liccardo explained.

While some would be exempt, including those in law enforcement and with concealed carry permits, pushback is expected, the mayor acknowledged.

"We've opposed this ordinance every step of the way and we will see this through to the end," Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights and executive director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights.

The City has identified a law firm that would represent it on the issue at no charge, the mayor's spokesperson said.

I say this as a person who has never owned a gun in my entire life. Democrats say that don't want to take your guns. They lie. They want to confiscate every gun in the country.

This law will be fast tracked to the supreme court and quickly shot down. But don't relax. They want your guns and they want you to be powerless against their bullshit.

[Copier Addict]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Anyone who believes any political party wants to take everybodies guns is not very bright. Anyone who associates gun control with taking away everybodies guns is not very bright.
Just sayin"
No offence to anyone.

[BillyCarpenter]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Anyone who believes any political party wants to take everybodies guns is not very bright. Anyone who associates gun control with taking away everybodies guns is not very bright.
Just sayin"
No offence to anyone.

Anyone that uses improper grammar when describing "everybody's" guns isn't very bright. "Everybodies" guns? Seriously?

[Copier Addict]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Anyone who believes any political party wants to take everybody's guns is not very bright. Anyone who associates gun control with taking away everybody's guns is not very bright.
Just sayin"
No offence to anyone.

[BillyCarpenter]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Anyone who believes any political party wants to take everybody's guns is not very bright. Anyone who associates gun control with taking away everybody's guns is not very bright.
Just sayin"
No offence to anyone.

Hhhmmmm...you are capable of learning.


Here's another teachable moment for you. Liberals told me the same thing back in the 80's when I suggested that if we passed gay marriage that they'd want to use the girl's restroom. I was told that I was crazy and that I was making a foolish "slippery slope" argument.

We've seen democrats sit idly by while BLM and Antifa attacked our country. So, excuse me if I don't trust you and your liberal friends.

[slimslob]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

This Silicon Valley city is poised to take a step closer to first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements


San Jose, California, is getting closer to adopting a first-in-the-nation law to address gun violence by requiring all gun owners to pay a fee and carry liability insurance.

The Silicon Valley city's council is due to vote Tuesday on the ordinance, whose dual-pronged approach aims to reduce the risk of gun harm by incentivizing safer behavior and to ease taxpayers of the financial burden of gun violence.

That shows how little you really know about US laws. Similar laws and regulations have already been found to violate the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is very clear "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It has already been ruled that such laws and regulations are indeed infringements.

"Certainly the Second Amendment protects every citizen's right to own a gun. It does not require taxpayers to subsidize that right,"

Every taxpayer does expect that their government will protect them from violent criminals, terrorists like BLM and ANTIFA, those lacking in morals and the criminally insane. When the government fails to do so, the armed citizen has the responsibility to step in.

[slimslob]

Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

Anyone who believes any political party wants to take everybody's guns is not very bright. Anyone who associates gun control with taking away everybody's guns is not very bright.
Just sayin"
No offence to anyone.

It is documented as having come directly out of their mouths. Here are a couple of examples for you.
December 2017. Then Lt Governor of California Democrat Gavin Newsom: California Lt. Gov Gavin Newsome to NRA: "We ARE Coming for Your Guns" – RedState
August 2020. Then VP candidate Kamala Harris 'President' Kamala Harris is Coming for Your Guns – Constitutional or Not!