After (almost) 8 years of Obama...

-President -Bush-is--unfairly-maligned

No, he's really not.

President Bush is not nearly maligned enough. He should be serving a long prison sentence.

People have short memories.

Only compared to the Trump nightmare.

The general consensus in law enforcement and justice agencies seems to be 4 or more. This has been a common (and thus accepted or "true") definition of "mass" for several years.

How many people have to be shot at once for you to consider it a significant mass?

QFT.

Yea.

To answer @Spaceturkey, I'm going to say 5 dead and at least that many wounded, with a decent amount of witness's, that could have been easily hit.

Edit: or ten wounded and several witness, or ten dead and several witness

Edit part two: a lot of my problem is they will call an incident in a private home a mass shooting when 2 are dead and two injured.

And that's just murder.

So basically a mass shooting is whatever random number you decide on?

What's wrong with the number of four or more victims? It holds as much weight as any other random number. Seems the only argument for increasing the number shot in defining a mass shooting is to reduce the number of mass shootings in the public eye.

That would be rather helpful for NRA types....

For what?

Why do you always ask questions that you've been told the answer to repeatedly in the past?

I would wager you were going to make some claim about the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Despite the fact it was approved by a clear majority of the U.S. Congress and was consistent with American law and previous established practices.

Or producing a Star Trek show.

I would have thought you knew better. How sad that you really don't.

I have consistently said we need to treat the problem not the symptom.

If I said I had a mass of m&m's but I only had 4 is it what you consider a mass? It's not to me.

There are different standards because shooting situations vary quite a lot. Often the largest number of victims occurs in domestic situations where a family member goes psycho and kills five or six family members in a murder suicide. Then there are armed robberies where the thieves open fire on a bunch of people to retain control of the situation. Much, much rarer is what we think about when we use the term "public mass shooting" where the shooter's sole intent is to kill as many people as possible in a public place.

Examples of the latter would be the Texas tower killer, the Newton Connecticut school attack, the Orlando attack, the San Bernadino attack, the Aurora Colorado theater attack (the Joker), and the Luby's massacre in Texas that led to concealed carry laws being passed.

That vote was based on poor infomation and intel. As such, yeah Dubya deserves all the flack he gets, as does Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Reaction to last useless piece of shit president (for the kids, he was named Carter): Ronald Reagan.

Reaction to the most recent useless piece of shit president: the successful candidacy of Donald Trump.

Small chance that Trump wins, but what a legacy he'd be for Obama. [ Aside from gay marriage, political correctness gone wilder, and euphemisms literally bursting on fire (too bad angry muslim guys with guns aren't motivationally challenged).]

Guy who said Romney would win by a land slide says Trump stands a small chance. That's probably as strong an indication that Trump is done as any I've seen so far.

People have a serious tendency to think of a "mass shooting" as a "substantial number of people killed by strangers in a public location."

A group of gang members opening fire on a house with rival gang members in it, killing two and having two of their own killed by return fire might technically qualify as a "mass shooting" but it isn't what people get upset about.

Just look at Chicago.........

Obama and Hillary's home town but the gang related killings there barely attract notice.

I recall you digging up my post predicting Romney would win (a forgettable bit of pre-election posturing), but landslide? Is that what I said? Don't think so.

And if I could pick only one person in the world that could lose to Trump beset with so many and such deep flaws, it would be the most corrupt non-Italian or Turkish politician on the face of the earth.

And if you *don't* think that Trump's success is a direct result of Obama's horrific performance in America on so many deep and important levels of his absence of "leadership," then you belong with the loony-left not just the idiot-left.

You and reality do not park in the same garage.

Either that, or he's constantly stoned. In which case, I applaud.

Just like Ramen's return unintentionally raised the avg. intelligence of WF by a point or two so WF desperately needed leftist moron like mark b to also return to keep the place in balance on the low Dayton/dinner level of idiots, insults and fluff.

That's the parking garage around which I circled.

Yup, stoned. But stupid too.

Dayton agreed with this post!

The Dow has regained everything it lost in the Bush crash and then some; unemployment is back down to pre-crash levels; gas prices have come back down out of the stratosphere; and insurance companies are no longer allowed to practice blatant discrimination in the pursuit of obscene profits. If that's "horrific," then sign me up for some more horror.

Slowest economic recover on record.

In May 2007 employment was 146,254,000, unemployment was 6,724,000 and 78,055,000 were not in the labor force.

In June 2016, employment was 151,097,000, unemployment was 7,783,000 and 94,517,000 were not in the labor force.

So we added 22.36 million people, but only created 4.8 million new jobs, and average of 500,000 new jobs a year. Unemployment is still a million higher than before the crash that Obama was going to fix, and 16.4 million people either dropped out or never entered the labor force.

In percentage terms, the adult population went up by 9.68%, the number of unemployed went up 15.7%, the number not working (unemployed or not in the labor force) went up 21.1%, but the number working went up only 3.3%. or 0.37% per year.

That's stagnation and decline.

Also note that gas prices declined because Obama couldn't stop US fracking on private land, while Obamacare insurers are either exiting the exchanges or raising rates to exorbitant levels to cover the costs of what everyone on the right said would happen.

Growth is anemic, even the Eurolanders are snickering.

Leftist talking points are all about a narrative that explains this sub 1.5% growth is the new "new," and that 1.5% growth is the best a prosperous America can achieve in the new reality of our declined and senile state.

Oh, and US real wages are stagnant [at best] over several time periods, both short term and over decades, and most of the bottom quintile have become even poorer despite (or thanks to) leftist economic policies that would seem almost hostile to business if we didn't know better (snigger).

Yes, but we've created a tremendous number of jobs in China, Malaysia, and Mexico.