Is John Boehner Drunk 24/7?

For me, I would say any mental condition requiring care constitutes a no gun law. If you are on meds for a mental condition, no guns. If your caregiver or parent leaves guns unsecured and you get one and do harm, the victims families should be able to take everything the irresponsible gunowner has in damages. Thats for starters.

Let's do the "cool" cliff. I'm 70% in cash now...go for it...Obama doesn't have any skin in the game. Let's go over....maybe people will not be payed for not working, what a novel idea...

It's time to worry about the taxpayer, period.

Want more revenue, pass VAT/Sales taxes.

Everyone should pay some taxes, IT'S ONLY FAIR, remember?

Gunz wrote:For me, I would say any mental condition requiring care constitutes a no gun law. If you are on meds for a mental condition, no guns. If your caregiver or parent leaves guns unsecured and you get one and do harm, the victims families should be able to take everything the irresponsible gunowner has in damages. Thats for starters.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Does that include depression, OCD, ADD, PTSD, or just plain old wacko...?

I agree about the folk who have insecure (sic) weapons. And they should be targeted if their weapon is used for bad deeds like harming someone, even themselves.

W_T_M wrote:

Gunz wrote:For me, I would say any mental condition requiring care constitutes a no gun law. If you are on meds for a mental condition, no guns. If your caregiver or parent leaves guns unsecured and you get one and do harm, the victims families should be able to take everything the irresponsible gunowner has in damages. Thats for starters.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Does that include depression, OCD, ADD, PTSD, or just plain old wacko...?

I agree about the folk who have insecure (sic) weapons. And they should be targeted if their weapon is used for bad deeds like harming someone, even themselves.

Yes sir....all of the above. Hate to be that way but it has come to that in my opinion.

Gunz wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

Gunz wrote:For me, I would say any mental condition requiring care constitutes a no gun law. If you are on meds for a mental condition, no guns. If your caregiver or parent leaves guns unsecured and you get one and do harm, the victims families should be able to take everything the irresponsible gunowner has in damages. Thats for starters.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Does that include depression, OCD, ADD, PTSD, or just plain old wacko...?

I agree about the folk who have insecure (sic) weapons. And they should be targeted if their weapon is used for bad deeds like harming someone, even themselves.

Yes sir....all of the above. Hate to be that way but it has come to that in my opinion.

I have to agree....JFTR....Civil service policemen can not be on any medications for depression, anxiety, OCD, ADD or PTSD or any other mental issue

Gunz wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

Gunz wrote:For me, I would say any mental condition requiring care constitutes a no gun law. If you are on meds for a mental condition, no guns. If your caregiver or parent leaves guns unsecured and you get one and do harm, the victims families should be able to take everything the irresponsible gunowner has in damages. Thats for starters.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Does that include depression, OCD, ADD, PTSD, or just plain old wacko...?

I agree about the folk who have insecure (sic) weapons. And they should be targeted if their weapon is used for bad deeds like harming someone, even themselves.

Yes sir....all of the above. Hate to be that way but it has come to that in my opinion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Should they be allowed to be LEO or Firemen/First responders...?

How about doctors and nurses....? They can sure harm someone, and do so at an alarming rate.

Thank God it's only your opinion.

Sal wrote:Boehner told his caucus that the government should cut spending by more than whatever amount they add to the debt ceiling. In other words, Speaker Boehner committed himself to holding the debt ceiling hostage despite the president's adamant refusal to negotiate over the issue.

The president will have his inaugural speech and his State of the Union speech to make his case for never negotiating on the debt ceiling again. He'll have all of Wall Street on his side. He'll have every reputable economist on his side. He'll have Bill Clinton on his side. He'll have a unified Democratic Party on his side. And he already has the good will of the people.

Boehner is incapable of thinking more than one step ahead. He ought to ask himself how he plans on winning this showdown with the rest of the universe. He could, for example, pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion and cuts spending by more than that. And he could hand that to the Senate and dare them not to pass it. Except, he could never get his caucus to vote for the cuts to Medicare that such a bill would require. But, let's say he could pass it. He'd be threatening everyone's Medicare on one side and the global economy and the nation's credit rating on the other. And he'd be doing it in the context of a simultaneous hostage situation on the sequester that threatens every powerful interest group in the country, including the Pentagon. And, all this, without the slightest whiff of a mandate from the people.

Boehner was barely reelected as Speaker. He has no margin for error. If ever anyone was waddling into the threshing blades, it's John Boehner.

Hmmm, mostly copied, perhaps from the Booman Tribune? Attribution for the reuse would be polite.

nochain wrote:

Hmmm, mostly copied, perhaps from the Booman Tribune? Attribution for the reuse would be polite.

Indeed.

How frightfully rude of me.

I'm afraid I've a bad habit of doing that when I'm in a hurry to post something.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/1/4/115447/1973

If I was John and I had to deal with that whacked out caucus.....I would stay drunk......it would be the only way I could possibly understand them.