Romney: Gun laws not the answer [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Romney: Gun laws not the answer


Tim151515
08-14-2012, 05:42
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-gun-laws-not-answer-211013037.html

Dennisr1977
08-14-2012, 05:57
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-gun-laws-not-answer-211013037.html

Is that why Massachusetts still has the AWB?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

M2 Carbine
08-14-2012, 05:58
Maybe I feel a little better about having to vote for Romney to get rid of the turd that's presently in the White House.

GAFinch
08-14-2012, 07:48
Is that why Massachusetts still has the AWB?

The Massachusetts Congress is 85% Democrat, so if he had vetoed the renewal of the AWB, it would've been renewed by the next governor. Knowing this, he agreed to sign it, but added numerous pro-gun provisions to it. Romney actually decreased the number of gun laws in Mass.

Dennisr1977
08-14-2012, 08:05
The Massachusetts Congress is 85% Democrat, so if he had vetoed the renewal of the AWB, it would've been renewed by the next governor. Knowing this, he agreed to sign it, but added numerous pro-gun provisions to it. Romney actually decreased the number of gun laws in Mass.

So he knew it was wrong, yet let it pass anyways, good to know he will cave under pressure and not do what's right.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Bren
08-14-2012, 08:26
So he knew it was wrong, yet let it pass anyways, good to know he will cave under pressure and not do what's right.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Unfortunately, there are a lot of gun owners who apply that kind of simple thinking to legal issues. If the NRA approached gun control with the "all or nothing" attitude you seem to prefer, we'd be carrying knives with our CCW permits right now.

You responded to a post making it clear that Romney had a choice between a gun control law and a worse gun control law and he picked the one that was more favorable to guns.

Your attitude is pretty similar to those who are support Obama to spite Romney, by voting third party or refusing to vote. I'm sure you count yourself as one.

Airborne Infantryman
08-14-2012, 08:59
Unfortunately, there are a lot of gun owners who apply that kind of simple thinking to legal issues. If the NRA approached gun control with the "all or nothing" attitude you seem to prefer, we'd be carrying knives with our CCW permits right now.

You responded to a post making it clear that Romney had a choice between a gun control law and a worse gun control law and he picked the one that was more favorable to guns.

Your attitude is pretty similar to those who are support Obama to spite Romney, by voting third party or refusing to vote. I'm sure you count yourself as one.

Bren, you are a man of wisdom. Took the words right out of my mouth for that one. :wavey:

Bilbo Bagins
08-14-2012, 09:08
The Massachusetts Congress is 85% Democrat, so if he had vetoed the renewal of the AWB, it would've been renewed by the next governor. Knowing this, he agreed to sign it, but added numerous pro-gun provisions to it. Romney actually decreased the number of gun laws in Mass.

+1

Let's be honest, you know what is going to happen if Obama wins another 4 years.

Is Mitt Romney a die hard, gun toting supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? No he isn't. However he leans more in the gun owners directions and he will feel pressure and influence from the NRA and other pro gun groups.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 09:12
Didn't Obama say the same thing?

Dennisr1977
08-14-2012, 09:13
Unfortunately, there are a lot of gun owners who apply that kind of simple thinking to legal issues. If the NRA approached gun control with the "all or nothing" attitude you seem to prefer, we'd be carrying knives with our CCW permits right now.

You responded to a post making it clear that Romney had a choice between a gun control law and a worse gun control law and he picked the one that was more favorable to guns.

Your attitude is pretty similar to those who are support Obama to spite Romney, by voting third party or refusing to vote. I'm sure you count yourself as one.

So if I dislike Romney, I must support Obama? It has nothing to do with all or nothing. To claim more gun laws aren't the answer, while your state has some of the worst laws, is hypocritical. It's akin to saying raising taxes aren't the answer, yet signing bills of raising taxes every budget year.

Democrat like Jim Doyle had no problems vetoing bills they didn't agree with. It's one of the reasons Wisconsin took so long acquire CCW. If all we have are politicians whom don't stand up for their beliefs, and our constitution, we keep heading in the same direction we already are.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Dennisr1977
08-14-2012, 09:15
+1

Let's be honest, you know what is going to happen if Obama wins another 4 years.

Is Mitt Romney a die hard, gun toting supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? No he isn't. However he leans more in the gun owners directions and he will feel pressure and influence from the NRA and other pro gun groups.


Name a bill that has passed and limited our firearm freedoms under Obama. It's the same scare tactics they've used forever. If you think our country will be any different because Romney is in office, you're delusional.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 09:16
So if I dislike Romney, I must support Obama? It has nothing to do with all or nothing. To claim more gun laws aren't the answer, while your state has some of the worst laws, is hypocritical. It's akin to saying raising taxes aren't the answer, yet signing bills of raising taxes every budget year.

Democrat like Jim Doyle had no problems vetoing bills they didn't agree with. It's one of the reasons Wisconsin took so long acquire CCW. If all we have are politicians whom don't stand up for their beliefs, and our constitution, we keep heading in the same direction we already are.


Bravo!!! I couldn't say better myself. However, that's not with this country is all about. Oh no, this country is about you're being either a Republican or a Democrat and you better vote the party line because otherwise the American civilization will collapse.

Detectorist
08-14-2012, 10:06
Name a bill that has passed and limited our firearm freedoms under Obama. It's the same scare tactics they've used forever. If you think our country will be any different because Romney is in office, you're delusional.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

That's not the right question, and you know it.

I can name two Supreme Court justices nominated by Obama who got confirmed and who are very anti gun.

What do you say about that? Or did you forget.

frank4570
08-14-2012, 10:20
Didn't Obama say the same thing?

No. He said some guns belong on the battle field and not on american streets.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 10:23
No. He said some guns belong on the battle field and not on american streets.

Ready to eat crow?

"After the Colorado killings, both the president and Mitt Romney say: Enforce the existing laws better"


http://www.pressherald.com/news/obama-wont-push-stricter-gun-laws-now_2012-07-27.html

kensb2
08-14-2012, 10:26
Right, because how many extra votes would either Nominee earn if they starting saying that we need more gun control laws months before the election? Let's use our brains a bit here....

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 10:27
Right, because how many extra votes would either Nominee earn if they starting saying that we need more gun control laws months before the election? Let's use our brains a bit here....

Pssttt...don't you know that Republican politicians are automatic gun rights supporters?:rofl:

kensb2
08-14-2012, 10:31
falman, I'm not even sure how your response applies to what I said....

SC Tiger
08-14-2012, 10:33
Maybe I feel a little better about having to vote for Romney to get rid of the turd that's presently in the White House.

He's the best option we have right now, like it or not.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 10:33
falman, I'm not even sure how your response applies to what I said....

You claimed that neither will rock the boat with the gun rights issues. I agreed.

And I made a sarcastic remark addressing Romney's or any other Repub politicians' stand on gun rights.

frank4570
08-14-2012, 10:33
Ready to eat crow?

"After the Colorado killings, both the president and Mitt Romney say: Enforce the existing laws better"


http://www.pressherald.com/news/obama-wont-push-stricter-gun-laws-now_2012-07-27.html

I saw the video of him saying some guns belong on the battlefield and not on american streets. I watched him say it.

SC Tiger
08-14-2012, 10:34
+1

...he will feel pressure and influence from the NRA and other pro gun groups.

This. He will be accountable to a conservative base.

frank4570
08-14-2012, 10:35
Ready to eat crow?

"After the Colorado killings, both the president and Mitt Romney say: Enforce the existing laws better"


http://www.pressherald.com/news/obama-wont-push-stricter-gun-laws-now_2012-07-27.html

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/07/26/obama-endorses-some-gun-control-measures-in-post-aurora-remarks/

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 10:36
Unfortunately, there are a lot of gun owners who apply that kind of simple thinking to legal issues. If the NRA approached gun control with the "all or nothing" attitude you seem to prefer, we'd be carrying knives with our CCW permits right now.

You responded to a post making it clear that Romney had a choice between a gun control law and a worse gun control law and he picked the one that was more favorable to guns.

Your attitude is pretty similar to those who are support Obama to spite Romney, by voting third party or refusing to vote. I'm sure you count yourself as one.


In a sense Bren, your post is just a longer typed up "Support the lesser of two evils" post.

Supporting the lesser of two evils, is what got this country in the mess it is to begin with.

Regardless, we as a country are a Keynesian train wreck heading for the same destination. I can give a rat's ass if we get there sooner or later. We'll be there soon enough.

kensb2
08-14-2012, 10:36
You claimed that neither will rock the boat with the gun rights issues. I agreed.

And I made a sarcastic remark addressing Romney's or any other Repub politicians' stand on gun rights.

I sorta get it, even though a lot of people are saying Romney's gun views are moderate at best. Which is why it didn't really make much sense to me. Plus, I can never tell which side of a topic you're going to come down on, and may change at any given time during said discussion.

Play ball!

Mushinto
08-14-2012, 10:38
So if I dislike Romney, I must support Obama? ...

If you don't vote for Romney, you are voting for Obama.

Why is that so hard for people to realize?

frank4570
08-14-2012, 10:42
If you don't vote for Romney, you are voting for Obama.

Why is that so hard for people to realize?

And if you don't vote for Obama (stay at home) you are voting for Romney.
And a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Romney, because it isn't a vote for Obama.

BuzznRose
08-14-2012, 10:43
Didn't Obama say the same thing?

LOL! Was that before or after he appointed two 2d Amendment killer justices?

Obama also said if he didn't get the deficit under control in 3 years he'd be a one term wonder.

You really believe anything he says? Drinking that good Chicago Kool Aid, eh?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 10:52
If you don't vote for Romney, you are voting for Obama.

Why is that so hard for people to realize?


Ah I love this one.

So if Obama has 1,000 votes, and Romney has 1,000 votes, and I vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, Obama will have 1,001 votes? :upeyes::rofl::rofl:


http://www.reviewbusters.net/images/game/learn_math_ds_main.jpg

pipedreams
08-14-2012, 11:22
Bren, you are a man of wisdom. Took the words right out of my mouth for that one. :wavey:

+10 :agree:

tantrix
08-14-2012, 11:29
Bravo!!! I couldn't say better myself. However, that's not with this country is all about. Oh no, this country is about you're being either a Republican or a Democrat and you better vote the party line because otherwise the American civilization will collapse.

In a sense Bren, your post is just a longer typed up "Support the lesser of two evils" post.

Supporting the lesser of two evils, is what got this country in the mess it is to begin with.

Regardless, we as a country are a Keynesian train wreck heading for the same destination. I can give a rat's ass if we get there sooner or later. We'll be there soon enough.


Watch it, or we risk being called 'Paulbots' and other names. :whistling:

Threads like this are always pretty funny considering Republicans have been screwing the country for over 20 years, yet the people still vote for them time and time again. We're just as screwed this election as we were the last one.


Congratulations on your new pres...

http://cdn.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/obamney/1578360-1-eng-US/Obamney_large.jpg

http://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/obomney-nobama-romneycare.jpg?w=450

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 11:32
Watch it, or we risk being called 'Paulbots' and other names.

Threads like this are always pretty funny considering Republicans have been screwing the country for over 20 years, yet the people still vote for them time and time again. We're just as screwed this election as we were the last one.


Congratulations on your new pres...

http://cdn.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/obamney/1578360-1-eng-US/Obamney_large.jpg

http://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/obomney-nobama-romneycare.jpg?w=450


But..... But.... Ron Paul is unelectable. Fox and CNN told me so. :crying: If you're voting for Ron Paul, you're voting for Obama! :rofl::tongueout:

byf43
08-14-2012, 11:35
Here are some of my Dad's words of wisdom. . . . .


"I don't trust either one of them, as far as I can pick them up, and throw them."


I feel exactly the same way.

Bren
08-14-2012, 11:36
And if you don't vote for Obama (stay at home) you are voting for Romney.
And a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Romney, because it isn't a vote for Obama.

For those who pretend they don't understand, like you, I'll simplify:

If you would normally vote for the Republican side, pro gun side, more conservative side, or just plain against the democrat, then any choice you make, other than voting for Romney, allows a vote for Obama to go unanswered - therefore, your choice benefits Obama.

If you would normally vote for the Democrat side, anti gun side, more liberal side, or just plain against the Republican, then any choice you make, other than voting for Obama, allows a vote for Romney to go unanswered - therefore, your choice benefits Romney.

Most of us just assume that any member of a pro-gun forum would not vote Democrat, so his choices to vote for a conservative third party or stay home on election day would benefit Obama. Obviously, that isn't true of several here.

ricklee4570
08-14-2012, 11:37
LOL! Was that before or after he appointed two 2d Amendment killer justices?

Obama also said if he didn't get the deficit under control in 3 years he'd be a one term wonder.

You really believe anything he says? Drinking that good Chicago Kool Aid, eh?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


He appointed two anti 2nd amendment Justices and yet there are still knuckleheads on here who wont vote for Romney.

We get what we deserve. And yes, a vote for anyone other than Romney helps keep Barrack Hussein in the White House.

2bgop
08-14-2012, 11:50
But..... But.... Ron Paul is unelectable. Fox and CNN told me so. :crying: If you're voting for Ron Paul, you're voting for Obama! :rofl::tongueout:

How many primaries did he win this election?

2bgop
08-14-2012, 11:56
For those who pretend they don't understand, like you, I'll simplify:



I don't always agree with you, but you nailed this. Everyone of these guys know what they are really doing. They want Romney to lose so they can come back and say I told so. I can understand they desire, but the risks are simply to great to play that game.

Airborne Infantryman
08-14-2012, 11:58
Well......if Obama gets re-elected, at least I know I have job security....people aren't gonna put themselves on the FEMA camp destined box cars. :tbo:

All aboard the FEMA train! WOO-WOO!

:uglylol:

frank4570
08-14-2012, 12:04
But I don't vote for republicans. I vote for individuals. And I vote against republican/christian zealot ideals on a regular basis. Obama suggested we need a new AWB. Romney said we don't. That's enough for me. But I most certainly do not like Romney, and I don't want him in the whitehouse. And I would vote against him in a heartbeat if I had an opportunity to vote for a better candidate.

For those who pretend they don't understand, like you, I'll simplify:

If you would normally vote for the Republican side, pro gun side, more conservative side, or just plain against the democrat, then any choice you make, other than voting for Romney, allows a vote for Obama to go unanswered - therefore, your choice benefits Obama.

If you would normally vote for the Democrat side, anti gun side, more liberal side, or just plain against the Republican, then any choice you make, other than voting for Obama, allows a vote for Romney to go unanswered - therefore, your choice benefits Romney.

Most of us just assume that any member of a pro-gun forum would not vote Democrat, so his choices to vote for a conservative third party or stay home on election day would benefit Obama. Obviously, that isn't true of several here.

John Rambo
08-14-2012, 12:05
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-gun-laws-not-answer-211013037.html

http://www.prodryers.com/catalog/AirMax_Auto_brushed.jpg

byf43
08-14-2012, 12:21
For those who pretend they don't understand, like you, I'll simplify:

If you would normally vote for the Republican side, pro gun side, more conservative side, or just plain against the democrat, then any choice you make, other than voting for Romney, allows a vote for Obama to go unanswered - therefore, your choice benefits Obama.

If you would normally vote for the Democrat side, anti gun side, more liberal side, or just plain against the Republican, then any choice you make, other than voting for Obama, allows a vote for Romney to go unanswered - therefore, your choice benefits Romney.

Most of us just assume that any member of a pro-gun forum would not vote Democrat, so his choices to vote for a conservative third party or stay home on election day would benefit Obama. Obviously, that isn't true of several here.


Incredibly good post, Bren.

:thumbsup:

M&P Shooter
08-14-2012, 12:23
They only say what they know you want to hear near election. Don't listen to Romney or Obamanation, they are both scumbags when it comes to the 2nd

Restless28
08-14-2012, 12:35
Incredibly good post, Bren.

:thumbsup:

He's kicking ass and taking names. I like.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 12:39
LOL! Was that before or after he appointed two 2d Amendment killer justices?

Obama also said if he didn't get the deficit under control in 3 years he'd be a one term wonder.

You really believe anything he says? Drinking that good Chicago Kool Aid, eh?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I don't believe a damn word that of Obama's mouth, but apparently you've swallowed the whole Kool-Aid barrel from Romney.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 12:42
And for those who are like yourself - easy preys for demagogues, I say, "Tough noogies!!!"

I vote where my conscience takes me and not along the party line. I am a thinking human being and not a drone.

For those who pretend they don't understand, like you, I'll simplify:

If you would normally vote for the Republican side, pro gun side, more conservative side, or just plain against the democrat, then any choice you make, other than voting for Romney, allows a vote for Obama to go unanswered - therefore, your choice benefits Obama.

If you would normally vote for the Democrat side, anti gun side, more liberal side, or just plain against the Republican, then any choice you make, other than voting for Obama, allows a vote for Romney to go unanswered - therefore, your choice benefits Romney.

Most of us just assume that any member of a pro-gun forum would not vote Democrat, so his choices to vote for a conservative third party or stay home on election day would benefit Obama. Obviously, that isn't true of several here.

Bren
08-14-2012, 12:43
But I don't vote for republicans. I vote for individuals. And I vote against republican/christian zealot ideals on a regular basis. Obama suggested we need a new AWB. Romney said we don't. That's enough for me. But I most certainly do not like Romney, and I don't want him in the whitehouse. And I would vote against him in a heartbeat if I had an opportunity to vote for a better candidate.

I know.

You may have skipped the part where I wrote: Most of us just assume that any member of a pro-gun forum would not vote Democrat, so his choices to vote for a conservative third party or stay home on election day would benefit Obama. Obviously, that isn't true of several here.
I thought it was pretty clear that I considered you one of the several here, who I assumed intended to vote democrat. In your case, staying home on election day or voting thrird party would benefit Romney, rather than Obama.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 12:44
I don't always agree with you, but you nailed this. Everyone of these guys know what they are really doing. They want Romney to lose so they can come back and say I told so. I can understand they desire, but the risks are simply to great to play that game.

People like you and your democrat counterparts are the ones that have caused this connumdrum by not voting with your conscience. You keep telling yourself to vote for the "lesser evil". How long is it going to be before the "lesser evil" becomes "The Evil"?

Bren
08-14-2012, 12:45
I vote where my conscience takes me and not along the party line. I am a thinking human being and not a drone.

If so, it should be easy for you to consider the probable outcomes of your actions. Your post implies that you have some disagreement about that, but you don't really say what it is.

I don't vote on party lines at all and I have never voted in an election where I voted only for members of one party. In fact, where state offices are on the line, I often vote for democrats - the reason would be obvious if you know about politics in Kentucky.

However, I am able to consider the effect of my vote and vote for a specific outcome of the election - that's pretty much the point of elections. If you don't care who wins, why vote?

iluv2viddyfilms
08-14-2012, 12:48
Is that why Massachusetts still has the AWB?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Exactly. He supported and signed the assault weapons ban in Mass. He has also gone on record stating people don't need AR-15s, AKs, and the like. Recently he has danced around specific questions regarding high cap magazines and such. He's so wishy washy. I have no clue how this man is the Republican nominee. He's a moderate with some very big government ideas including big government involved in our choice to own guns.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 12:49
If so, it should be easy for you to consider the probable outcomes of your actions. Your post implies that you have some disagreement about that, but you don't really say what it is.

I vote with my conscience. I vote for the candidate that I think is best representing me even if that candidate were to not stand a realistic chance in hell of winning.

Of course, if more people were thinking my way instead of thinking they have to vote Democrat or Republican, then maybe, just maybe, my candidate would stand a chance in hell of winning.

But hey, you Democrats and Republicans and your two-parties-oh-my-god-don't-let-the-other-side-win attitudes have worked out so well the last three decades, huh?

tantrix
08-14-2012, 12:52
However, I am able to consider the effect of my vote and vote for a specific outcome of the election - that's pretty much the point of elections. If you don't care who wins, why vote?

Some of us are sick of losing either way it goes, every single time. For once I'd like to see a good candidate instead of a generic Republican in an empty suit. So, if Romney doesn't make me feel any better than Obama does, I'm supposed to be happy?

Now I see why a lot of people just stay home on election day.

2bgop
08-14-2012, 12:53
People like you and your democrat counterparts are the ones that have caused this connumdrum by not voting with your conscience. You keep telling yourself to vote for the "lesser evil". How long is it going to be before the "lesser evil" becomes "The Evil"?

Write in Ron Paul, you send no message, you make no statement anyone will hear, but it will make you feel good about being part of the democratic process. I have no place say you feeling good about who you vote is wrong.

I will take Mitt Romney over Obama any day of the week and twice on a Tuesday if I could get away with it.

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 12:55
Write in Ron Paul, you send no message, you make no statement anyone will hear, but it will make you feel good about being part of the democratic process. I have no place say you feeling good about who you vote is wrong.

I will take Mitt Romney over Obama any day of the week and twice on a Tuesday if I could get away with it.



Enough RP write ins will send a message.

The message will be "next time pick a better GOP candidate, unless you want another 4 years of carter/clinton/obama."

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 12:55
If you don't care who wins, why vote?

Because it's MY RIGHT as an American Citizen to vote, to have a say in the election of my official representation.

So that maybe somewhere out there somebody in the Democratic or Republican Party would look at the tally and say, "Hmmm...all those thousands of votes going to other candidates...what are we doing wrong?"

Also, if you didn't vote, then don't cry afterward.

iluv2viddyfilms
08-14-2012, 12:55
In a sense Bren, your post is just a longer typed up "Support the lesser of two evils" post.

Supporting the lesser of two evils, is what got this country in the mess it is to begin with.

Regardless, we as a country are a Keynesian train wreck heading for the same destination. I can give a rat's ass if we get there sooner or later. We'll be there soon enough.

Yep. We need a man like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul in the White House. Very small limited government minded with a voting history that proves it, who can cut government expenditure and NOT raise taxes. However people don't vote for these men because their name is not out there and those who have heard of them, think of Johnson and Paul as fringe candidates with no chance, and buy into the fallacy of "wasting a vote." The real waste of a vote is someone who will vote for Mitt Romney as a vote against Obama. They concede to the ideology of the lesser of two evils. This essential takes away their choice. We do have a choice and that is not to vote for either of the two clowns put in front of us. If all the people who say "I don't like Romney, but I will vote for him because I dislike Obama more..." would go and put their support behind a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, we could get things done and reduce the deficiet and have a much smaller government.

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 12:57
Yep. We need a man like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul in the White House. Very small limited government minded with a voting history that proves it, who can cut government expenditure and NOT raise taxes. However people don't vote for these men because their name is not out there and those who have heard of them, think of Johnson and Paul as fringe candidates with no chance, and buy into the fallacy of "wasting a vote." The real waste of a vote is someone who will vote for Mitt Romney as a vote against Obama. They concede to the ideology of the lesser of two evils. This essential takes away their choice. We do have a choice and that is not to vote for either of the two clowns put in front of us. If all the people who say "I don't like Romney, but I will vote for him because I dislike Obama more..." would go and put their support behind a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, we could get things done and reduce the deficiet and have a much smaller government.


Gay Johnson and Ron Paul's name never gets out there because right now everyone's goal is to keep the "status qou". It won't last forever, and it's like giving a heroin addict more heroin to keep his "status qou" of that "feeling". Eventually, the addict ends up dying though. Just like this country.


Thanks Keynesians. :wavey:

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 12:58
Write in Ron Paul, you send no message, you make no statement anyone will hear, but it will make you feel good about being part of the democratic process. I have no place say you feeling good about who you vote is wrong.

Damn right. It makes me feel like I'm still an American with some say-so in the politics of my country.

I will take Mitt Romney over Obama any day of the week and twice on a Tuesday if I could get away with it.

I will take Ron Paul over Mitt Romney and Obama any day of the week and five times on Sunday if I could get away with it.

Anyway, I do hope that Romney would win. That way I can rub the noses of the liberal democrats into it and see them cry like little babies. Then a couple of years down the road, when Romney puts the squeeze to the country, I get to laugh at the neocon republicans and go, "Nyuck, nyuck, I told you so." Like I've been doing to them by keep bringing up Dubya and Homeland Security/TSA/Migrant Workers (that was always a good one).

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 12:59
Gay Johnson and Ron Paul's name never gets out there because right now everyone's goal is to keep the "status qou". It won't last forever, and it's like giving a heroin addict more heroin to keep his "status qou" of that "feeling". Eventually, the addict ends up dying though. Just like this country.


Thanks Keynesians. :wavey:

Gary Johnson has more qualitification under ONE fingernail than both Romney and Obama combine.

G36's Rule
08-14-2012, 13:01
:rofl:

Same ****, different election cycle.

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 13:04
Gary Johnson has more qualitification under ONE fingernail than both Romney and Obama combine.


You're preaching to the choir.

This will never happen though, not until the US/fed collapses. Then maybe people will be more Austrian school/libertarian leaning. I'm not holding my breath though.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 13:11
:rofl:

Same ****, different election cycle.

And it'll stay that way since that neither the Dems or the Pubs would dare to think for themselves and vote for the best candidates.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 13:12
You're preaching to the choir.

This will never happen though, not until the US/fed collapses. Then maybe people will be more Austrian school/libertarian leaning. I'm not holding my breath though.

Neither do I. I'll simply shake my head and watch the country crumble even more.

Detectorist
08-14-2012, 13:12
Gary Johnson has more qualitification under ONE fingernail than both Romney and Obama combine.

And what 'qualifications' would that be?

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 13:14
And what 'qualifications' would that be?

It's the age of the Google. I'm sure that you can search for Gary Johnson's past records easily enough as Governor of New Mexico and successful business owner.

G36's Rule
08-14-2012, 13:17
And it'll stay that way since that neither the Dems or the Pubs would dare to think for themselves and vote for the best candidates.

Yeah, right FN, because only you are thinking and using logic and voting for the "best" candidate.

:upeyes:

Detectorist
08-14-2012, 13:19
It's the age of the Google. I'm sure that you can search for Gary Johnson's past records easily enough as Governor of New Mexico and successful business owner.

I did Google him and I didn't see any particular qualifications that stand out. Can you enlighten me?

2bgop
08-14-2012, 13:23
Enough RP write ins will send a message.

The message will be "next time pick a better GOP candidate, unless you want another 4 years of carter/clinton/obama."

Who are you sending that message to?

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 13:26
Who are you sending that message to?


This election, the GOP. Or lack thereof when Obama wins again in 2012.

2bgop
08-14-2012, 13:29
I did Google him and I didn't see any particular qualifications that stand out. Can you enlighten me?

He is a different man now than when he was Gov of New Mexico. He was a very good Gov and was a veto machine.

2bgop
08-14-2012, 13:39
This election, the GOP. Or lack thereof when Obama wins again in 2012.

Oh, you mean Republican primary voters.

Mushinto
08-14-2012, 13:48
I vote with my conscience. I vote for the candidate that I think is best representing me even if that candidate were to not stand a realistic chance in hell of winning....

This is the biggest bunch of bull crap I have ever heard. You are not voting your conscience. You are voting for your fantasy candidate, who has absolutely no chance of winning. You are sending the same message that Ross Perot voters sent, and that is that people can be fooled into throwing their vote toward Clinton.

There is no conscience involved. There is only a lack of discipline to pick a side in a race where there are (shouting now) ONLY TWO SIDES.

History is full of situations where the people only had two choices, the U.S. war for independence. There were people who did not like British rule, but for whatever reason did not trust the founding fathers. However, the reality was that only one side was going to win.

... Most of us just assume that any member of a pro-gun forum would not vote Democrat, so his choices to vote for a conservative third party or stay home on election day would benefit Obama. Obviously, that isn't true of several here.

Aye, here's the rub. For there are pure democrats here that put forth these arguments in order to convince people what are normally pro-rights, that they must "vote their conscience" and support some make-believe candidate. There are some here, and obviously, the tactic works.

As for those who can't tell the difference between Obama and Romney, you are seriously disturbed.

Romney was not my first choice. I would have preferred Cain or Gingrich. Maybe I should just write in their name just to feel good, like some child who insists on ice cream for dessert because that's what he wants.

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 13:55
Oh, you mean Republican primary voters.


Yep.

Glad you're getting it now.

2bgop
08-14-2012, 14:12
Yep.

Glad you're getting it now.

Oh I get it.

It is a fascinating study in perceived cause and effect.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 14:19
Yeah, right FN, because only you are thinking and using logic and voting for the "best" candidate.

:upeyes:

Well, not all the time. I voted for Sarah Palin because she had nice racks and gams. So, you got me there.

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 14:20
Well, not all the time. I voted for Sarah Palin because she had nice racks and gams. So, you got me there.


Doesn't she have a daughter, that's of legal age?

Is she hot? Maybe I'll write her in, instead. :supergrin::rofl:

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 14:23
I did Google him and I didn't see any particular qualifications that stand out. Can you enlighten me?

Runs a successful business. Successful two terms as Governor of New Mexico. Staunch gun rights supporter. Not afraid of slapping down the libtards. Oh yes, he smokes the herbs AND an Ironman triathlete.


He is a different man now than when he was Gov of New Mexico. He was a very good Gov and was a veto machine.

Yeah, he's older now. So what's your point?

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 14:25
Romney was not my first choice. I would have preferred Cain or Gingrich. Maybe I should just write in their name just to feel good, like some child who insists on ice cream for dessert because that's what he wants.

So you kept voting for the lesser of evil time after time, perpetuating this insanity, yet somehow you kept justifying to yourself that something different will happen.

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 14:26
Runs a successful business. Successful two terms as Governor of New Mexico. Staunch gun rights supporter. Not afraid of slapping down the libtards. Oh yes, he smokes the herbs AND an Ironman triathlete.




Yeah, he's older now. So what's your point?


Smokes the herbs?! :wow::wow:

Oh noes! That goes against my christian values, I don't think I'll be allowed to vote for him anymore. :crying:

2bgop
08-14-2012, 14:41
Runs a successful business. Successful two terms as Governor of New Mexico. Staunch gun rights supporter. Not afraid of slapping down the libtards. Oh yes, he smokes the herbs AND an Ironman triathlete.




Yeah, he's older now. So what's your point?


Well I was going to leave it at a compliment to him, which he deserves for running a lean state budget and beating the pants of Chavez, who was the king of race baiting. Actually, I will leave it at that.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 14:44
Well I was going to leave it at a compliment to him, which he deserves for running a lean state budget and beating the pants of Chavez, who was the king of race baiting. Actually, I will leave it at that.

Not just Chavez but also the heavily ladened Democratic state congress.

Once again, Gary Johnson has more qualification under one fingernail than both Romney and Obama combined.

But hey, who cares about qualifications, right? Gotta be popular so that you can win the votes. Isn't that how Obama got elected?

2bgop
08-14-2012, 14:53
Not just Chavez but also the heavily ladened Democratic state congress.

Once again, Gary Johnson has more qualification under one fingernail than both Romney and Obama combined.

But hey, who cares about qualifications, right? Gotta be popular so that you can win the votes. Isn't that how Obama got elected?

Do you really think Romney isn't qualified to be president? That doesn't mean you agree with him at all, just talking about "qualified"? Not agreeing with someone isn't a determining factor in qualification.

Yes, you do have to be popular to be elected president.

ColdSteelNail
08-14-2012, 14:55
I disagree. Gun laws are the answer. Just like In Kennesaw, Georgia. Every head of household is required by law to own at least one gun. In the last two decades the crime rate has dropped 89% and stayed there compared to 11% for the rest of the state.

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 15:02
Do you really think Romney isn't qualified to be president? That doesn't mean you agree with him at all, just talking about "qualified"? Not agreeing with someone isn't a determining factor in qualification.

Yes, you do have to be popular to be elected president.



Ah! So if Obama is more "popular" than Romney, it's kool if he wins then? I mean just because you don't agree with Obama doesn't mean he's not qualified, right?

wjv
08-14-2012, 15:06
Doesn't matter if he signed the AW ban or not. With a 85% Democratic house/senate, the ban was going to become law regardless. All you can do in that position is try to nuder the law as much as possible, and add some pro-2nd parts is possible. . . Which is exactly what he did. . .

GAFinch
08-14-2012, 15:45
I see the Paulite crowd has come out to in full force to demotivate conservative/conservative-leaning voters. I'm sure the Social Democrats will happily reward you with legalized weed if they get re-elected.

Mushinto
08-14-2012, 15:54
So you kept voting for the lesser of evil time after time, perpetuating this insanity, yet somehow you kept justifying to yourself that something different will happen.

Unlike you, I do not consider Romney evil. I rather like him, although I wish he were stronger in certain areas.

The "lesser of two evils" is a childish statement, and not relevant to presidential elections.

I play the cards in my hand, rather than imaginary cards in my head.

There are only TWO cards in this hand. You play one and discard the other.

I am not satisfied with the two party system, but I am not willing to vote for Obama to vainly protest it.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 16:01
Do you really think Romney isn't qualified to be president? That doesn't mean you agree with him at all, just talking about "qualified"? Not agreeing with someone isn't a determining factor in qualification.

Most everybody who is 35-years-old or more and being born in the USA are "qualified" to be POTUS.

Yes, you do have to be popular to be elected president.

Pretty hair, nice skin color...

mt920
08-14-2012, 16:02
Here are some of my Dad's words of wisdom. . . . .


"I don't trust either one of them, as far as I can pick them up, and throw them."


I feel exactly the same way.


Your father is(was) a wise man, who taught you well.

fnfalman
08-14-2012, 16:03
Unlike you, I do not consider Romney evil. I rather like him, although I wish he were stronger in certain areas.

Good for you, but plenty of of people consider Romney to be the lesser of two evils.

The "lesser of two evils" is a childish statement, and not relevant to presidential elections.

Plenty of Democrats and Republicans use the phrase, so something must be in the water.

I play the cards in my hand, rather than imaginary cards in my head.

There are only TWO cards in this hand. You play one and discard the other.

I am not satisfied with the two party system, but I am not willing to vote for Obama to vainly protest it.

You vote the way you do and I vote the way I do.

Mushinto
08-14-2012, 16:24
...You vote the way you do and I vote the way I do.
Obama is counting on you.

Flying-Dutchman
08-14-2012, 16:40
Once again, Gary Johnson has more qualification under one fingernail than both Romney and Obama combined.

OK, now I get it. Just write a $1,000 check to the Obama campaign and proudly display the Obama yard sign and bumper sticker. Same result.

A third party man is a primary washout without a prayer in the general.

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 16:42
Obama is counting on you.


:rofl::rofl:

So what if I voted directly for Obama, instead of Gary Johnson or Ron Paul? Would that mean Obama just got 2 votes? 1 for him, and 1 because I would have potentially voted for a real conservative? :rofl::rofl:

Acujeff
08-14-2012, 17:11
Exactly. He supported and signed the assault weapons ban in Mass. He has also gone on record stating people don't need AR-15s, AKs, and the like. Recently he has danced around specific questions regarding high cap magazines and such. He's so wishy washy. I have no clue how this man is the Republican nominee. He's a moderate with some very big government ideas including big government involved in our choice to own guns.

Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the permanent 1998 MA AWB into law.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006. Romney only reduced gun control or signed pro-gun bills into law.

What is known today as the highly restrictive gun control laws in MA were passed in 1998 by the Massachusetts legislature. It included MA’s assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M) that was more restrictive than the 1994 Fed AWB.

Here’s the entire 1998 CHAPTER 180 AN ACT RELATIVE TO GUN CONTROL IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

If you actually read the law it is clear that this ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of MA's own permanent AWB.

MA Gun owners wanted to get rid of the ban in 2004, but did not have the votes in the state Legislature (over 85% anti-gun Democrat). When the Fed ban expired in 2004, Gun Owners’ Action League (the MA based pro-2A group) and Romney used the opportunity to amend the MA AWB by including the federal exemptions and a few other improvements that were not in the state law.

CHAPTER 150 AN ACT FURTHER REGULATING CERTAIN WEAPONS
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150

If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.

So the actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent AWB and made it less strict. Some folks are misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

Let's look at the rest of Romney's record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

It is understandable that Obama supporters are going to come to gun forums and try to persuade us to avoid supporting and voting for Romney. The liberal mainstream media and politicians are using the same strategy to desperately misrepresent and revise Romney's record in all arenas and distract us from Obama's record and agenda. Expect to see a lot more leading up to the election.

Here's President Obama's record of "no gun control":
Fast and Furious and the subsequent cover-up (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, using the ATF to harrass gun shops out of business, promoting the UN Gun Ban Treaty, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts.

If this is "no gun control" than imagine what he'll do if he gets a second term. In the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce. In addition, a Democrat Senate would likely sign on to the UN Gun Ban Treaty, lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and up to four more anti-gun Supreme Court justices.

Here’s the rest of Obama’s record:
http://www.gunbanobama.com/GettheFacts.aspx

It's up to individual gun-owners to to get the facts and make sure we're not scammed into giving Obama another term.

Romney is not "the same as Obama", the "lesser of evils" or "Obama-lite". In 2008 he was rated "B" by the NRA and Obama was rated "F". Since then, Romney has only become more pro-gun and Obama anti-gun. Romney would be a much better President for gun-owners than Obama.

Romney‘s positions:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution

G36's Rule
08-14-2012, 17:23
Acujeff, awesome post!

Restless28
08-14-2012, 18:07
Acujeff, awesome post!

Ditto, and he's right in the money about Obama supporters here.

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 18:19
Actually, Romney has never banned guns. He was not yet in office and so did not sign the permanent 1998 MA AWB into law.

If you actually examine his record it is clear Romney signed no anti-gun bills while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006. Romney only reduced gun control or signed pro-gun bills into law.

What is known today as the highly restrictive gun control laws in MA were passed in 1998 by the Massachusetts legislature. It included MA’s assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M) that was more restrictive than the 1994 Fed AWB.

Here’s the entire 1998 CHAPTER 180 AN ACT RELATIVE TO GUN CONTROL IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

If you actually read the law it is clear that this ban did not rely on the federal language, was not tied to the federal AWB and contained no sunset clause. The expiration of the Fed AWB in 2004 did not get rid of MA's own permanent AWB.

MA Gun owners wanted to get rid of the ban in 2004, but did not have the votes in the state Legislature (over 85% anti-gun Democrat). When the Fed ban expired in 2004, Gun Owners’ Action League (the MA based pro-2A group) and Romney used the opportunity to amend the MA AWB by including the federal exemptions and a few other improvements that were not in the state law.

CHAPTER 150 AN ACT FURTHER REGULATING CERTAIN WEAPONS
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150

If Romney did not sign that bill, the more restrictive AWB would still be in place today.

So the actual truth is, in 2004, Romney signed a bill that amended the permanent AWB and made it less strict. Some folks are misrepresenting his record and claiming that Romney signed the AWB permanently into effect and that our AWB was set to expire in 2004.

Let's look at the rest of Romney's record:
During the Romney Administration he met and worked with Gun Owners’ Action League (the Mass. based pro-2A group) and no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. In addition, he removed any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006, and signed five pro-second amendment bills into law.

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

It is understandable that Obama supporters are going to come to gun forums and try to persuade us to avoid supporting and voting for Romney. The liberal mainstream media and politicians are using the same strategy to desperately misrepresent and revise Romney's record in all arenas and distract us from Obama's record and agenda. Expect to see a lot more leading up to the election.

Here's President Obama's record of "no gun control":
Fast and Furious and the subsequent cover-up (the biggest criminal political scandal in American history), registering gun purchases in the four southern border states, using the ATF to harrass gun shops out of business, promoting the UN Gun Ban Treaty, appointing two anti-RKBA Supreme Court Justices and appointing 125 anti-RKBA liberals to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts.

If this is "no gun control" than imagine what he'll do if he gets a second term. In the very least, more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce. In addition, a Democrat Senate would likely sign on to the UN Gun Ban Treaty, lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and up to four more anti-gun Supreme Court justices.

Here’s the rest of Obama’s record:
http://www.gunbanobama.com/GettheFacts.aspx

It's up to individual gun-owners to to get the facts and make sure we're not scammed into giving Obama another term.

Romney is not "the same as Obama", the "lesser of evils" or "Obama-lite". In 2008 he was rated "B" by the NRA and Obama was rated "F". Since then, Romney has only become more pro-gun and Obama anti-gun. Romney would be a much better President for gun-owners than Obama.

Romney‘s positions:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution

Awesome man! So you guys are voting in someone who says one thing, and does another. Genius! :upeyes:



1994: backed 5-day waiting period on gun sales. (Jan 2012)
Find common ground with pro-gun & anti-gun groups. (Jan 2012)
2002: I will not chip away at MA's tough gun laws. (Nov 2011)
2008: "Lifelong" devotion to hunting meant "small varmints". (Jan 2010)
2002: My positions won't make me the hero of the NRA. (Nov 2008)
GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA”. (Feb 2008)
Support the 2nd Amendment AND the assault weapon ban. (Jan 2008)
I support the work of the NRA, but disagree sometimes. (Dec 2007)
Ok to ban lethal weapons that threaten police. (Dec 2007)
Compromise MA gun bills were net gain for gun owner. (Aug 2007)
Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban. (May 2007)
Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. (Aug 1994)

Acujeff
08-14-2012, 18:54
Awesome man! So you guys are voting in someone who says one thing, and does another. Genius! :upeyes:

Statements do not amount to a position, a record does. Romney's record is much better than Obama's.

All of Romneys "actions" have been pro-RKBA. Most gun-owners understand a President Romney will be much better for our gun rights.

Obama makes some pro-RKBA statements but all his many well documented "actions" are anti-RKBA, some criminally, and will be a serious threat to our RKBA if he gets a second term.

But if you really believe Romney is more of a threat to the RKBA than Obama, then you should go to liberal, gun control, and anti-RKBA websites and forums and convince them to vote for Romney.

Mushinto
08-14-2012, 18:57
... It is understandable that Obama supporters are going to come to gun forums and try to persuade us to avoid supporting and voting for Romney. The liberal mainstream media and politicians are using the same strategy to desperately misrepresent and revise Romney's record in all arenas and distract us from Obama's record and agenda. Expect to see a lot more leading up to the election....

FAL man and October Rust; you know he's talking about you.

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 20:38
FAL man and October Rust; you know he's talking about you.

just makes you look that much more ignorant. Sorry FNfalman and I actually have standards when we vote. I'm sure if we didn't just let any goof-off vote, and only those who paid taxes, they wouldn't put such clowns up to begin with.

Like the typical Obomney voter you are, you can go back and not find one post where I SERIOUSLY support Obummer. You're running off emotion, not logic.

Statements do not amount to a position, a record does. Romney's record is much better than Obama's.

All of Romneys "actions" have been pro-RKBA. Most gun-owners understand a President Romney will be much better for our gun rights.

Obama makes some pro-RKBA statements but all his many well documented "actions" are anti-RKBA, some criminally, and will be a serious threat to our RKBA if he gets a second term.

But if you really believe Romney is more of a threat to the RKBA than Obama, then you should go to liberal, gun control, and anti-RKBA websites and forums and convince them to vote for Romney.



Looks like they're both hypocritical liars to me. They should take notes from the few politicians who actually do what they say.

iluv2viddyfilms
08-14-2012, 20:42
I see the Paulite crowd has come out to in full force to demotivate conservative/conservative-leaning voters. I'm sure the Social Democrats will happily reward you with legalized weed if they get re-elected.

Demotivate them how? By not wanting to choose a big government moderate over a big government liberal?

tantrix
08-14-2012, 20:45
Like the typical Obomney voter you are, you can go back and not find one post where I SERIOUSLY support Obummer. You're running off emotion, not logic.

Wait, you've seen him too?! :rofl:

http://dancingczars.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/obomney1.png?w=500

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 20:47
Wait, you've seen him too?! :rofl:

http://dancingczars.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/obomney1.png?w=500



Wait, YOU DON'T SUPPORT ROMNEY?!@!@?#!@#!?

OMG YOU'RE A LEFT-WING LIBERAL WHO'S JUST VOTING FOR OBAMA THEN!!!!!!! :tongueout:

tantrix
08-14-2012, 20:55
Wait, YOU DON'T SUPPORT ROMNEY?!@!@?#!@#!?

OMG YOU'RE A LEFT-WING LIBERAL WHO'S JUST VOTING FOR OBAMA THEN!!!!!!! :tongueout:

Apparently so...on the plus side, I get to laugh at both parties no matter how it turns out. :cool:

OctoberRust
08-14-2012, 20:56
Apparently so...on the plus side, I get to laugh at both parties no matter how it turns out. :cool:


:supergrin: True that. It's even better to laugh at the voters who think they're actually going to make a difference by voting with the current system we have in place. LMAO! :rofl::rofl: Some of the neo-conservative posters in this thread make this all worth it. LOL

AZ Jeff
08-14-2012, 20:59
So if I dislike Romney, I must support Obama?



There is just one small flaw in your logic here-----in our two-party presidential elections, you only get TWO CHOICES, realistically.

As painful as it may be, you must take the pragmatic approach and sometimes (often) choose the lesser of two evils.

It's sad, but it's the only PRACTICAL solution. Anything else is a symbolic exercise in futility.

frank4570
08-14-2012, 21:17
Apparently so...on the plus side, I get to laugh at both parties no matter how it turns out. :cool:

Yep. The 2 party system is moving us toward a government neither side wants. Bad for both parties.

tantrix
08-14-2012, 21:19
Yep. The 2 party system is moving us toward a government neither side wants. Bad for both parties.

Yeah and the bad part is I don't see us living long enough to see it changed. One day it will, either by the voters (doubt it :upeyes:) or the country crashing down on itself and being rebuilt from the ground up.

2bgop
08-14-2012, 22:11
Most everybody who is 35-years-old or more and being born in the USA are "qualified" to be POTUS.



Pretty hair, nice skin color...

Right, so it isn't a matter of being "qualified" to be president. It is a matter of policy. With that being said, I think you would be a better president than our current one.

2bgop
08-14-2012, 22:19
Ah! So if Obama is more "popular" than Romney, it's kool if he wins then? I mean just because you don't agree with Obama doesn't mean he's not qualified, right?

By the very definition of an election the more popular candidate wins. It could be argued that the electoral college could produce a different result, but that is a very rare occurrence.

How do you think someone could be elected president without being "popular'? You around 66 million votes nationally.

ricklee4570
08-15-2012, 02:46
We heard all this nonsense 4 years ago, when the Ron Paul people were writing in Ron Pauls name instead of voting for McCain. They did this to send a message. Yea, it really worked then , right?

When you do it this time, and Obama gets re-elected, there will be no message sent.

NeverMore1701
08-15-2012, 04:02
Screw all this, I'm writing myself in!

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 06:09
By the very definition of an election the more popular candidate wins. It could be argued that the electoral college could produce a different result, but that is a very rare occurrence.

How do you think someone could be elected president without being "popular'? You around 66 million votes nationally.


Fair enough, so you're arguing collective vs what's right and constitutional.

Now, when Obama wins in 2012, you have no right to whine about it. Me on the other hand, I don't follow the ideology you just laid out, so I'll complain away. :tongueout:

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 06:11
We heard all this nonsense 4 years ago, when the Ron Paul people were writing in Ron Pauls name instead of voting for McCain. They did this to send a message. Yea, it really worked then , right?

When you do it this time, and Obama gets re-elected, there will be no message sent.


It works about as good as the same two parties putting the same two *******s up for us to vote for. It's ok though, I've already accepted the fact the US will collapse, the big question is when, and will I be fortunate enough in my lifetime to see it so I can say "I told you so."

Restless28
08-15-2012, 06:15
There is just one small flaw in your logic here-----in our two-party presidential elections, you only get TWO CHOICES, realistically.

As painful as it may be, you must take the pragmatic approach and sometimes (often) choose the lesser of two evils.

It's sad, but it's the only PRACTICAL solution. Anything else is a symbolic exercise in futility.

Truth.

None of us will live long enough to see the two party system relinquish its dominance. Neither will we live long enough to see a FairTax.

We sure don't want the country to collapse, because there are so many tyrants with power, that it will be rebuilt as a communist utopia, most likely ran by a dictator.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 06:16
Truth.

None of us will live long enough to see the two party system relinquish its dominance. Neither will we live long enough to see a FairTax.

We sure don't want the country to collapse, because there are so many tyrants with power, that it will be rebuilt as a communist utopia, most likely ran by a dictator.


With that kind of attitude engrained in most Americans, certainly not!

When the going gets tough, Restless gets going! :rofl:

Bren
08-15-2012, 06:18
Because it's MY RIGHT as an American Citizen to vote, to have a say in the election of my official representation.

So that maybe somewhere out there somebody in the Democratic or Republican Party would look at the tally and say, "Hmmm...all those thousands of votes going to other candidates...what are we doing wrong?"

Also, if you didn't vote, then don't cry afterward.

If you vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning, you aren't really "having a say" - you are just treading water and wasting time.

The "let them see people are voting third party" strategy? That might start to work about the time we die. I'm not interested in who is president then.

Restless28
08-15-2012, 06:21
With that kind of attitude engrained in most Americans, certainly not!

When the going gets tough, Restless gets going! :rofl:

I dont see the humor in my post. You really enjoy trolling my posts. :wavey:

series1811
08-15-2012, 06:22
Unfortunately, there are a lot of gun owners who apply that kind of simple thinking to legal issues. If the NRA approached gun control with the "all or nothing" attitude you seem to prefer, we'd be carrying knives with our CCW permits right now.

You responded to a post making it clear that Romney had a choice between a gun control law and a worse gun control law and he picked the one that was more favorable to guns.

Your attitude is pretty similar to those who are support Obama to spite Romney, by voting third party or refusing to vote. I'm sure you count yourself as one.

Exactly right. Living in the real world.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 06:25
I dont see the humor in my post. You really enjoy trolling my posts. :wavey:


It's not trolling if it's the truth. :wavey:

Restless28
08-15-2012, 06:48
It's not trolling if it's the truth. :wavey:

The truth is, you're the troll.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 06:55
The truth is, you're the troll.


Truth is, when I present you with the truth, you get upset and feel the need to call me names. Wouldn't expect anything less from a Romney voter. :rofl:

Restless28
08-15-2012, 08:02
Truth is, when I present you with the truth, you get upset and feel the need to call me names. Wouldn't expect anything less from a Romney voter. :rofl:

Please put me on your ignore list. I'm tired of arguing with you on the forum. I don't like you and you don't like me.

This way, we both stay inbounds in Eric's house.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 08:17
Please put me on your ignore list. I'm tired of arguing with you on the forum. I don't like you and you don't like me.

This way, we both stay inbounds in Eric's house.


That's a bold assumption you're making there. Who says I don't like you? I just simply call it as I see it.

You're more than welcome to add anyone you see fit to your ignore list though, if you can't handle the heat, go ahead and add me to that list, I'm sure many others have as well. :wavey:

2bgop
08-15-2012, 08:31
Fair enough, so you're arguing collective vs what's right and constitutional.

Now, when Obama wins in 2012, you have no right to whine about it. Me on the other hand, I don't follow the ideology you just laid out, so I'll complain away. :tongueout:

If he wins, I will be whining. I will have to deal with the full implementation of Obamacare in several states. Even in the most financially stable states, the astronomical increase in medicaid eligibility is going to destroy budgets.

Example; in Missouri it will add around 400,000 people to medicaid. MO has a very strict balance budget requirement, so that increase is going to take a horrible toll on all the others things most people think the gov should spend money on. Education and Corrections will be cut, there isn't enough general revenue any place else.

Florida is even worse, adding everyone up to 133% will add well over a million people to medicaid. In just the Pharmaceutical line of their medicaid program, that is well over a billion dollar increase. IN ONE BUDGET LINE.

fnfalman
08-15-2012, 08:53
There is just one small flaw in your logic here-----in our two-party presidential elections, you only get TWO CHOICES, realistically.

As painful as it may be, you must take the pragmatic approach and sometimes (often) choose the lesser of two evils.

It's sad, but it's the only PRACTICAL solution. Anything else is a symbolic exercise in futility.

Keep telling yourself that. Or let the two parties convincing you that.

fnfalman
08-15-2012, 08:55
Exactly right. Living in the real world.

It's a damn shame that the Founders didn't live in the "real world". They dared to dream and did something to make a difference.

I think that I would rather that they did live in the "real world". That way my English would have been the Queen's and all sophisticated like.

fnfalman
08-15-2012, 08:56
OK, now I get it. Just write a $1,000 check to the Obama campaign and proudly display the Obama yard sign and bumper sticker. Same result.

Nah, I'll send the $1000 check to Gary Johnson's campaign.

A third party man is a primary washout without a prayer in the general.

That's what the Dems and the Pubs told you, huh? And you believe it lead, line and sinker too?

fnfalman
08-15-2012, 08:57
Obama is counting on you.

I do hope for change.

fnfalman
08-15-2012, 08:58
Statements do not amount to a position, a record does. Romney's record is much better than Obama's.


And Gary Johnson's records trumped both.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 08:59
If he wins, I will be whining. I will have to deal with the full implementation of Obamacare in several states. Even in the most financially stable states, the astronomical increase in medicaid eligibility is going to destroy budgets.

Example; in Missouri it will add around 400,000 people to medicaid. MO has a very strict balance budget requirement, so that increase is going to take a horrible toll on all the others things most people think the gov should spend money on. Education and Corrections will be cut, there isn't enough general revenue any place else.

Florida is even worse, adding everyone up to 133% will add well over a million people to medicaid. In just the Pharmaceutical line of their medicaid program, that is well over a billion dollar increase. IN ONE BUDGET LINE.

But he'll likely be the most popular, so according to your logic, it must make it right. :upeyes:

fnfalman
08-15-2012, 09:00
FAL man and October Rust; you know he's talking about you.

Cool!!!

I'll let Obama know that our insidious work within the gun community will bring down Romney. Mooooaaaaahhhhh.

Lethaltxn
08-15-2012, 09:03
That's what the Dems and the Pubs told you, huh? And you believe it lead, line and sinker too?

Actually, it's what history tells us.
I to am upset my guy didn't get the nod, but that's how the system works. The people voted and got their candidate.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

fnfalman
08-15-2012, 09:05
Actually, it's what history tells us.
I to am upset my guy didn't get the nod, but that's how the system works. The people voted and got their candidate.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

The people voted and got their candidate? You mean Republicans voted in their party's primary and got their GOP candidate?

I am not a Republican. I have yet to cast my vote.

Now, the "people" voted four years ago and Obama is the POTUS. That, I agree.

Lethaltxn
08-15-2012, 09:13
The people voted and got their candidate? You mean Republicans voted in their party's primary and got their GOP candidate?

I am not a Republican. I have yet to cast my vote.

Now, the "people" voted four years ago and Obama is the POTUS. That, I agree.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to.
You're welcome to vote however you see fit.
It just seems that most that are complaining about the rep pick are upset that people didn't vote for their guy.
Just my impression.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 09:18
Yes, that's what I'm referring to.
You're welcome to vote however you see fit.
It just seems that most that are complaining about the rep pick are upset that people didn't vote for their guy.
Just my impression.


The problem is, people vote from and for their bellies and wallets. We don't have adequate representation with taxation. When you let just anyone vote, they're going to vote for what's in their best interest, not the country itself.

Allowing only tax payers (who counts as a "tax payer" is a completely different topic/thread/subject) to vote would fix a lot of this. We're a republic, not a democracy. This is why I'm disappointed once again in the American public.

Lethaltxn
08-15-2012, 09:26
The problem is, people vote from and for their bellies and wallets. We don't have adequate representation with taxation. When you let just anyone vote, they're going to vote for what's in their best interest, not the country itself.

Allowing only tax payers (who counts as a "tax payer" is a completely different topic/thread/subject) to vote would fix a lot of this. We're a republic, not a democracy. This is why I'm disappointed once again in the American public.

You and I are not in disagreement on that point.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 09:32
You and I are not in disagreement on that point.


So now you can understand why falman and myself won't vote for Romney.

Now can you honestly answer to yourself and think Romney OR Obama would stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting a popular vote if only tax payers (again, substantial tax payers) could vote? That would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders on either candidate!!!

rick458
08-15-2012, 09:38
It is AS important to vote in lower level elections as it is for president, Most often moreso.
Those are the folks whose rules, Policies, and Laws directly touch your life.
Vote in the School Board elections It matters as to what and how your children are taught.
Vote for your Councilmen it matters how your local taxes are spent.
State reps, Congress, Senators They ALL matter, and they ALL profoundly touch your life.
Start a third party on the ground level, if you want a third party at the national level (and it IS being built, it just isn't big enough for THIS presidential election).
Remember November do your home work for ALL candidates at ALL levels, The higher up and farther away the position is from you , the less influence you have on it.

Lethaltxn
08-15-2012, 09:38
So now you can understand why falman and myself won't vote for Romney.

Now can you honestly answer to yourself and think Romney OR Obama would stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting a popular vote if only tax payers (again, substantial tax payers) could vote? That would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders on either candidate!!!

I understand the mentality of it.
Hell, I don't fault most for feeling that way.
And to your second point, probably not. But, that's not where we are.
As jacked up as it may sound to some, I'm voting for someone who has a chance of winning and can remove a more present threat, in my mind, from their current position.
JMO. YMMV.

series1811
08-15-2012, 09:39
It's a damn shame that the Founders didn't live in the "real world". They dared to dream and did something to make a difference.

I think that I would rather that they did live in the "real world". That way my English would have been the Queen's and all sophisticated like.

You think the Founding Fathers were in complete consensus about everything? And, that there were no compromises made? You do know the history of why we even have a Bill of Rights, for instance, don't you?

If there is anything you can say about the Founding Fathers, it is that they understood how you got things done, and did something bigger than any of us will ever do in our lifetimes.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 09:45
I understand the mentality of it.
Hell, I don't fault most for feeling that way.
And to your second point, probably not. But, that's not where we are.
As jacked up as it may sound to some, I'm voting for someone who has a chance of winning and can remove a more present threat, in my mind, from their current position.
JMO. YMMV.


I understand what you're trying to get through as well.

Now that you see what I'm saying as well, you realize we're past the point of no return. Now we must wait, and HOPE for a collapse big enough to where we do start all over, or at the very least limit the fed gov's powers back to how it was 200 years ago.

Say Romney gets elected. Romney is in it for himself, and himself only (who can blame him?..) So he'll likely want a 2nd term (just like how Obama wants now). When you're president with the way our voting works now, you're focused on getting to your 2nd term and what's best for you and your party. Romney won't or will try not to raise taxes, this will upset his base. Romney will try to MINIMALLY cut spending, because if you cut too much, that's artificial jobs gone, and that means votes taken away from Romney! Which ultimately leads to a bigger deficit, and inflation tax EVERYONE feels, but few realize or want to realize what's causing it.

Same logic applies to Obama also, he's certainly no saint (and just as bad) as Romney.

They do this though, because of the system I described earlier. Bringing me to my conclusion, and what the other "paulites" or whatever we're being called now are trying to say, as long as we have this BS known as a "democracy" we're going to fail.

2bgop
08-15-2012, 09:45
But he'll likely be the most popular, so according to your logic, it must make it right. :upeyes:

What in the hell is your problem? It is a pretty elementary concept that the most "popular" person is going to win an election.

In what scenario would the least "popular" person win an election?

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 09:48
What in the hell is your problem? It is a pretty elementary concept that the most "popular" person is going to win an election.

In what scenario would the least "popular" person win an election?


Oh say, maybe in a republican system. :whistling:

You do know America was never intended to be a democracy, right?.....

You do know, a big contributing factor to the revolution was taxation without representation, right?.....

You do know when you allow ANYONE and EVERYONE to vote, that takes away representation from tax payers, right?.......

2bgop
08-15-2012, 09:53
Oh say, maybe in a republican system. :whistling:

You do know America was never intended to be a democracy, right?.....

You do know, a big contributing factor to the revolution was taxation without representation, right?.....

You do know when you allow ANYONE and EVERYONE to vote, that takes away representation from tax payers, right?.......

Yeah, I have a decent understanding of the American political system.

Going back to only letting landowners and men vote isn't going to happen. Within the bounds of the constitution, what changes would you make?

Lethaltxn
08-15-2012, 10:02
I understand what you're trying to get through as well.

Now that you see what I'm saying as well, you realize we're past the point of no return. Now we must wait, and HOPE for a collapse big enough to where we do start all over, or at the very least limit the fed gov's powers back to how it was 200 years ago.

Say Romney gets elected. Romney is in it for himself, and himself only (who can blame him?..) So he'll likely want a 2nd term (just like how Obama wants now). When you're president with the way our voting works now, you're focused on getting to your 2nd term and what's best for you and your party. Romney won't or will try not to raise taxes, this will upset his base. Romney will try to MINIMALLY cut spending, because if you cut too much, that's artificial jobs gone, and that means votes taken away from Romney! Which ultimately leads to a bigger deficit, and inflation tax EVERYONE feels, but few realize or want to realize what's causing it.

Same logic applies to Obama also, he's certainly no saint (and just as bad) as Romney.

They do this though, because of the system I described earlier. Bringing me to my conclusion, and what the other "paulites" or whatever we're being called now are trying to say, as long as we have this BS known as a "democracy" we're going to fail.

This I disagree with. I don't hope for a collapse, I have more faith in our country than that. I believe this ship can be righted, it just won't be as fast as some would hope.
I also don't think any good will come of a collapse. I don't understand why so many advocate for it.
If America collapsed and the economy took a complete dump in a second Obama presidency, what is it you think is actually going to happen?
I can tell you it won't be you and others fighting a war wolverine style and reestablishing the constitution.
You think it's bad now, wait until martial law is declared and you have a sitting Marxist thug willing to do whatever is "for the good of the people".
Again, you and others are welcome to vote your conscious.
I've never argued anything less.
I would hope those of you on the other side would do the same.

fnfalman
08-15-2012, 10:57
You think the Founding Fathers were in complete consensus about everything? And, that there were no compromises made? You do know the history of why we even have a Bill of Rights, for instance, don't you?

Yeah, I know the history. I also there were more than two political parties involved during the formative years of the USA and afterward too.

If there is anything you can say about the Founding Fathers, it is that they understood how you got things done, and did something bigger than any of us will ever do in our lifetimes.

I'll try my damndest to live up to their dreams and I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve voting for the lesser of two evils, or the the least mediocre of two, or the best sounding demagogue.

fnfalman
08-15-2012, 10:58
Going back to only letting landowners and men vote isn't going to happen. Within the bounds of the constitution, what changes would you make?

Nothing wrong with the Constitution but everything is wrong with the voters. When they stop swallowing the BS line that the Dems and Pubs feed them on voting for either one or the other, that's when changes will take place.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 11:00
Yeah, I have a decent understanding of the American political system.

Going back to only letting landowners and men vote isn't going to happen. Within the bounds of the constitution, what changes would you make?


I never said only letting men vote. You're putting words in my mouth now.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 11:02
This I disagree with. I don't hope for a collapse, I have more faith in our country than that. I believe this ship can be righted, it just won't be as fast as some would hope.
I also don't think any good will come of a collapse. I don't understand why so many advocate for it.
If America collapsed and the economy took a complete dump in a second Obama presidency, what is it you think is actually going to happen?
I can tell you it won't be you and others fighting a war wolverine style and reestablishing the constitution.
You think it's bad now, wait until martial law is declared and you have a sitting Marxist thug willing to do whatever is "for the good of the people".
Again, you and others are welcome to vote your conscious.
I've never argued anything less.
I would hope those of you on the other side would do the same.

I guess you have more faith than I do in a democracy.
Allowing/thinking these same people to vote us out of this mess, who elected Obama in 08, and any other president for the past 100 years is, in my opinion, insane......

2bgop
08-15-2012, 11:34
I never said only letting men vote. You're putting words in my mouth now.

I know you didn't. It was an example of a smaller voting universe.

Within the bounds of the constitution, how would you change the current eligibility?

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 11:40
I know you didn't. It was an example of a smaller voting universe.

Within the bounds of the constitution, how would you change the current eligibility?


Like I said before, we're past the point of no return. Which is why it doesn't really matter at this point who wins, Romney or Obama.

No way are people who can vote for free gov't hand outs, and pointless gov't jobs for their friends, families, and themselves going to forfeit that. They LOVE to vote in politicians who will waste and steal tax payer dollars in trade for votes. When the basket starts to get a little empty, one of them raises the taxes, so more goodies continue to come, with the private sector getting beat down more and more as days go by.

2bgop
08-15-2012, 11:57
Like I said before, we're past the point of no return. Which is why it doesn't really matter at this point who wins, Romney or Obama.

No way are people who can vote for free gov't hand outs, and pointless gov't jobs for their friends, families, and themselves going to forfeit that. They LOVE to vote in politicians who will waste and steal tax payer dollars in trade for votes. When the basket starts to get a little empty, one of them raises the taxes, so more goodies continue to come, with the private sector getting beat down more and more as days go by.


It's not over man, but we simply must stop the full implementation of Obamacare. If we do not, it is going to decimate state budgets to the point where legit services are going to no longer function.

Lethaltxn
08-15-2012, 12:22
I guess you have more faith than I do in a democracy.
Allowing/thinking these same people to vote us out of this mess, who elected Obama in 08, and any other president for the past 100 years is, in my opinion, insane......

I think a lot of folks have been waking up to the realization they were sold a bill of goods.
If o gets back in then I'll probably concede we are well past the point of no return without drastic action.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 12:34
I think a lot of folks have been waking up to the realization they were sold a bill of goods.
If o gets back in then I'll probably concede we are well past the point of no return without drastic action.

Unfortunately, I thought this back in 2008...... I was wrong then, and I have a feeling you'll be wrong this go-around. Many don't know/care where money is coming from. As long as they can vote for it, that's all that will ever matter until the system is changed.

It's not over man, but we simply must stop the full implementation of Obamacare. If we do not, it is going to decimate state budgets to the point where legit services are going to no longer function.

I'd hate to be the bad news bearer to both of you, but Obama will likely win in 2012. IF Romney does happen to win, it's doubtful he will do anything with the Obama care bill though, he's giving you guys lip service. Just like Bush gave "conservatives" lip service in 2000 about plenty of things, and went on to sign big gov't bills out the ass.

Lethaltxn
08-15-2012, 12:40
Unfortunately, I thought this back in 2008...... I was wrong then, and I have a feeling you'll be wrong this go-around. Many don't know/care where money is coming from. As long as they can vote for it, that's all that will ever matter until the system is changed.



I'd hate to be the bad news bearer to both of you, but Obama will likely win in 2012. IF Romney does happen to win, it's doubtful he will do anything with the Obama care bill though, he's giving you guys lip service. Just like Bush gave "conservatives" lip service in 2000 about plenty of things, and went on to sign big gov't bills out the ass.

I hope that you are wrong.
We shall see.

tantrix
08-15-2012, 12:47
The people voted and got their candidate? You mean Republicans voted in their party's primary and got their GOP candidate?

I am not a Republican. I have yet to cast my vote.

Now, the "people" voted four years ago and Obama is the POTUS. That, I agree.

Exactly.

The one thing I will still be very proud of come election day...is that my vote didn't get either one of those hacks on the ballot. So, with that said, I will still sleep well at night no matter who wins...my conscience is clear.

2bgop
08-15-2012, 13:08
I'd hate to be the bad news bearer to both of you, but Obama will likely win in 2012. IF Romney does happen to win, it's doubtful he will do anything with the Obama care bill though, he's giving you guys lip service. Just like Bush gave "conservatives" lip service in 2000 about plenty of things, and went on to sign big gov't bills out the ass.

If the election were today, Obama would win, no doubt.

What does the path to political salvation look like in your opinion?

fnfalman
08-15-2012, 13:29
Like I said before, we're past the point of no return. Which is why it doesn't really matter at this point who wins, Romney or Obama.

No way are people who can vote for free gov't hand outs, and pointless gov't jobs for their friends, families, and themselves going to forfeit that. They LOVE to vote in politicians who will waste and steal tax payer dollars in trade for votes. When the basket starts to get a little empty, one of them raises the taxes, so more goodies continue to come, with the private sector getting beat down more and more as days go by.

I am afraid that I must agree with you. Human history had shown that a civilization would start out well then crumbled. No civilization has yet revitalized itself.

Look at the Chinese. They're about the longest running ancient civilization, and not exactly a good example either. Yeah, militarily they may be the mightiest of all time, but look at the rest of China: crumbling infrastructure, uninnovative people, rampant pollution, ad nauseaum.

tantrix
08-15-2012, 14:01
If the election were today, Obama would win, no doubt.

What does the path to political salvation look like in your opinion?


But I think it's worse than that though...I think Obama is going to win anyway. The Democrats aren't fighting amongst each other...they have their man. Our side can't seem to come to a compromise so now we have a **** candidate. That's the voter's fault, period.

And, our only "political salvation" is if neither Romney or Obama are elected.

IndyGunFreak
08-15-2012, 14:21
He's the best option we have right now, like it or not.

This is pretty much my feeling.

I'm not a huge fan of Romney (from a gun rights standpoint), but we have got to get our current President out of the White House or he's going to wreck this country (financially).

Fortunately with Romney, the rest of the Republican party and the NRA will likely keep him in check should he be elected.

OctoberRust
08-15-2012, 14:23
If the election were today, Obama would win, no doubt.

What does the path to political salvation look like in your opinion?


I was about to answer this, but Tantrix already did for me. Just read his post. I'm going with that.

ColdSteelNail
08-16-2012, 12:41
Truth is, when I present you with the truth, you get upset and feel the need to call me names. Wouldn't expect anything less from a Romney voter. :rofl:

The name calling usually commences when a person can't express a sensible reply.

ColdSteelNail
08-16-2012, 12:46
Unfortunately, I thought this back in 2008...... I was wrong then, and I have a feeling you'll be wrong this go-around. Many don't know/care where money is coming from. As long as they can vote for it, that's all that will ever matter until the system is changed.



I'd hate to be the bad news bearer to both of you, but Obama will likely win in 2012. IF Romney does happen to win, it's doubtful he will do anything with the Obama care bill though, he's giving you guys lip service. Just like Bush gave "conservatives" lip service in 2000 about plenty of things, and went on to sign big gov't bills out the ass.

Do you remember the Gingrich era contract with America? When it came time to cut spending all of the conservatives who signed on started saying "you can't cut that, that will affect my district" and nothing substantial came of it.

countrygun
08-16-2012, 14:17
I am afraid that I must agree with you. Human history had shown that a civilization would start out well then crumbled. No civilization has yet revitalized itself.

Look at the Chinese. They're about the longest running ancient civilization, and not exactly a good example either. Yeah, militarily they may be the mightiest of all time, but look at the rest of China: crumbling infrastructure, uninnovative people, rampant pollution, ad nauseaum.


I think you are confusing them as a race, with the current Chinese society. Two different thing.

Chinese society and civillization underwent a massive change in the 20th century.

OctoberRust
08-16-2012, 14:32
The name calling usually commences when a person can't express a sensible reply.


Yep, that's what he usually does with me. Oh well.

OctoberRust
08-16-2012, 14:33
Do you remember the Gingrich era contract with America? When it came time to cut spending all of the conservatives who signed on started saying "you can't cut that, that will affect my district" and nothing substantial came of it.


My point exactly. Good example! :wavey:

Paul7
08-16-2012, 15:25
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-gun-laws-not-answer-211013037.html

How disappointing to the Romney-haters here.