Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2013, 03:41 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,982 posts, read 10,462,326 times
Reputation: 5752

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
they only asked 100 people.
Prove it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2013, 03:42 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,822,024 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013 View Post
Prove it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 03:43 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,783,616 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
I'll say it again, there was no vote on background checks in the Senate. Anybody who tells you otherwise is either lying or is stupid. There was no vote on background checks. That 54 to 46 vote the Senate had recently was NOT a vote on background checks. There has not been a vote on background checks in the Senate
You have to say this about three or four more times.

Then people will believe it, and it will become The Truth.

Your mentor said so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 03:50 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
8,982 posts, read 10,462,326 times
Reputation: 5752
Once again: FAIL.

Here is a link to a PDF of the actual Quinnipiac poll (the most recent one, from April).

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/pol...s04042013.pdf/

You will notice that historical data is presented without % signs, but current data is presented with them.

Go to the bottom of page 4.

Under question 24, it clearly states that 91% of people favor universal background checks, 8% oppose, and 1% don't know.

The same data is presented at the bottom of the page as Support 91, Oppose 8, DK/NA 1.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that they only asked this person of 100 people. The total sample for this poll was 1,711.

If you have information that proves otherwise, please share it.

But apparently you don't. Reposting that same screenshot again -- which conveniently crops out the numbers with percent signs that match the historical data -- will only prove that you are incapable of comprehending the difference between raw numbers and percentages -- or, worse, that you do comprehend it but are knowingly telling a bald-faced lie.

Which is it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 04:44 PM
 
3,598 posts, read 4,949,242 times
Reputation: 3169
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
So their was a vote obring it to the floor win was not approved.
Is all public schooling in Texas this bad? "You sentence make badly that"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 05:21 PM
 
59,059 posts, read 27,306,837 times
Reputation: 14285
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
Same old same old. Nothing can get done in the Senate anymore unless you can get a super majority of 60 votes to overcome the usual Republican fillibuser, so essentially, nothing gets done.

A plain blog about politics: Manchin-Toomey and the Filibuster
I find it absolutely hilarious to see lefties complain about the 60 vote rule when it was the DEMOCRATS who created it.

"In 1975 the Democratic-controlled Senate[5] revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate, except on votes to change Senate rules, which require two-thirds to invoke cloture.[

And of course the dems NEVER use it.

"In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees".

" Specifically, the Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William H. Pryor, Jr., who had all been filibustered in the Senate before."

Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like they say, "Be careful for what you ask for, you might get it."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 05:33 PM
 
71 posts, read 60,686 times
Reputation: 52
Above all else, these guys do whatever it takes to keep their jobs. If they believed 90 percent of Americans supported this, they would have supported it too! The fact is that the overwhelming majority of emails, faxes, and phone calls that flooded their offices supported rejecting any gun control bills. They listened to their respective constituents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 07:23 PM
 
Location: WA
1,442 posts, read 1,939,617 times
Reputation: 1517
Quote:
Originally Posted by logline View Post
It's actually worse than that... voting to not even bring it to the table is the ultimate in cowardly moves. Who in their right mind goes against 90% of the will of the people they're supposed to represent?
Meddling in the subversion of a constitutional right is a very sensitive thing, logline.

The Senators who opposed cloture and those who opposed yesterday's amendments pertaining to "assault" rifles, high-cap magazines and UBCs are, in my opinion, extremely courageous people (under the circumstances, at least) who ultimately didn't allow the uninformed, emotionally-charged passions of a supposed majority trump those of a minority with constitutional protections.

American Federalism is a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 08:10 PM
 
3,598 posts, read 4,949,242 times
Reputation: 3169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montguy View Post
Meddling in the subversion of a constitutional right is a very sensitive thing, logline.
Get real, will you? What happened to your common sense?

Undergoing a background check in no way subverts your 2nd Amendment rights to own a gun. Allowing crazies and criminals to get guns INFRINGES UPON MY RIGHTS!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2013, 08:32 PM
 
1,472 posts, read 2,406,452 times
Reputation: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlandochuck View Post
Above all else, these guys do whatever it takes to keep their jobs. If they believed 90 percent of Americans supported this, they would have supported it too! The fact is that the overwhelming majority of emails, faxes, and phone calls that flooded their offices supported rejecting any gun control bills. They listened to their respective constituents.

One reason I was on the phone telling those that voted yes what I thought of them

brushrunner
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:58 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top