-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Romney keynote speech at the annual NRA convention
- Thread starter 1911 Enthusiast
- Start date
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I reade an article in the NY Times that stated Romney was not friendly with the NRA in 1994 (ish). Romney has a number of hurdles to clear during this election, and it seems there are a number of them that may be difficult to overcome.
Personally, I am of the view that the Republicans are one of two things: (1) inept in the nomination process, as of late, (2) purposely throwing the 2012 presidential election.
Personally, I am of the view that the Republicans are one of two things: (1) inept in the nomination process, as of late, (2) purposely throwing the 2012 presidential election.
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
Romney versus Obummer is a win-win for the ruling class gun controllers.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
+1
Romney is perhaps even worse because he will face less scrutiny from average gun owners (you know, the kind of spineless jellyfish who favor "reasonable restrictions") than the O, simply because he has an "R" in front of his name.
Gil223
Regular Member
Listed on the NYSE as "POTUS" the Presidency is Bought and Sold!
I agree that, in recent years, Reps appear to have lost their competency when selecting their presidential nominee. Romney has several things working against him and a few working in his favor. Here are just a few of the things that jump right out at me that I believe are working against him:
1. He does not belong to a "mainstream religious" organization. This shouldn't matter at all, but it does to many people simply because most believe that their choice is the only right choice and that everybody else is wrong... and going directly to hell, "Do not pass Go, do not collect $200". (The winners there are the atheists, whose belief system is non-belief - there is no "heaven" or "hell", dead is dead, you get stuck in the ground, and there you shall remain)
2. He comes from money. This is not such a big deal, because almost all successful politicians either come from old money, or have strong connections to some serious money. And, for the last 100 years or so, the office of the president has become a commodity - one to be bought and sold in the political marketplace. The average working-class individual cannot afford to run for any office of political significance - regardless of his/her personal qualifications - simply because of the cost. The problem is that many folks who perform physical labor (and those millions who perform NO labor but, instead, choose to feed from the public trough) believe that the moneyed elite have no real frame of reference to life as the worker-bees must experience it... and I won't say that belief is completely wrong.
3. It is well-known that Romney is essentially Obama-Lite when it comes to healthcare policies. He has established a public healthcare program/system in Massachusetts that is socialist by design.
4. His position on 2A and our RKBA, is muddy at best. When last I heard from several "Gun Rights" organizations, he didn't respond to candidate surveys requesting such information.
5. Republican politicians in-general have become less "conservative" over the last 50 years. Conservatism was, in the past, the defining feature of the Republican party, and there are now many that fit the acronym RINO - Republican In Name Only.
What's Mitt got going for him (as opposed to the incumbent)?
1. His religion. Although it's not "mainstream", it isn't as radical as Islam or Black Liberation Theology. Relative to those two belief systems, LDS is quite mundane, normal and spectacularly unremarkable.
2. Romney comes from a political family, he is an experienced, successful businessman and he has held office as the Chief Executive (Governor) of Massachusetts. (The incumbent has a somewhat checkered family history - so much so, that his place of birth isn't quite clear, and he has never held a real job in his life, nor has he exhibited any leadership qualities or skills. His only claim to fame is his charisma and that arrogant "I'm smarter than all of you combined, and I know what's best for you" smirk on his face.)
3. The bottom line on universal healthcare/ObamaCare seems to be that we taxpayers are paying for it anyway, so what's the big deal if UHC is codified? The big deal is that the government doesn't have that authority/power under our Constitution (yet), and the politically appointed "Supremes" don't seem too inclined to rule on that absence of authority and power any time in the foreseeable future. Perhaps this is in mute support of ObamaCare with "a wink and a nod".
4. Although 2A and RKBA are very important to us (and about 2/3 of the voting-age country), there are many who do not see 2A as the keystone to the Bill of Rights, and do not see the right of self-protection as being necessary. Their argument? "We have police for that!" (They fail to understand that police rarely "protect" anybody prior to - or during - the commission of a crime, but rather perform an ex post facto investigation of the scene of a crime. The "clean-up crew", so to speak... complete with detectives, CSI personnel, ME and [body bags!) Whether it's "Gobbler's Knob", Arkansas (pop: 108 = 1 cop per 108 pop) with one town cop, or NYC (pop: 8,314,000± = 1 cop per 245 pop) with 34,000± cops, criminals rarely commit crimes in the presence of LEOs. Response time to 911 calls is, almost universally, significantly longer than it should be, with metropolitan areas (i.e. - Denver, Atlanta, Ok City, Kansas City, Tucson, etc.) taking an overall average time of approximately 10 minutes(±seconds).
5. Once upon a time, in my Grandfather's day, the Dems were known as "The working man's party". Today they are known as the "The tax and spend socialist entitlement party", and the Republicans are only slightly more fiscally and socially conservative.
Overall, the bottom line seems to beg the question, "Do our votes count for anything in the Presidential Election process?" I'd like to believe they do, but if I absolutely had to give an answer today, I would say "I'm inclined to doubt that they do." Who pulls the strings? Who is the puppet master? Almost every day that passes I expect the man/men behind the curtain - "The Great and Powerful Oz" - to be revealed. Pax...
My answer to the OPs original question
I agree that, in recent years, Reps appear to have lost their competency when selecting their presidential nominee. Romney has several things working against him and a few working in his favor. Here are just a few of the things that jump right out at me that I believe are working against him:
1. He does not belong to a "mainstream religious" organization. This shouldn't matter at all, but it does to many people simply because most believe that their choice is the only right choice and that everybody else is wrong... and going directly to hell, "Do not pass Go, do not collect $200". (The winners there are the atheists, whose belief system is non-belief - there is no "heaven" or "hell", dead is dead, you get stuck in the ground, and there you shall remain)
2. He comes from money. This is not such a big deal, because almost all successful politicians either come from old money, or have strong connections to some serious money. And, for the last 100 years or so, the office of the president has become a commodity - one to be bought and sold in the political marketplace. The average working-class individual cannot afford to run for any office of political significance - regardless of his/her personal qualifications - simply because of the cost. The problem is that many folks who perform physical labor (and those millions who perform NO labor but, instead, choose to feed from the public trough) believe that the moneyed elite have no real frame of reference to life as the worker-bees must experience it... and I won't say that belief is completely wrong.
3. It is well-known that Romney is essentially Obama-Lite when it comes to healthcare policies. He has established a public healthcare program/system in Massachusetts that is socialist by design.
4. His position on 2A and our RKBA, is muddy at best. When last I heard from several "Gun Rights" organizations, he didn't respond to candidate surveys requesting such information.
5. Republican politicians in-general have become less "conservative" over the last 50 years. Conservatism was, in the past, the defining feature of the Republican party, and there are now many that fit the acronym RINO - Republican In Name Only.
What's Mitt got going for him (as opposed to the incumbent)?
1. His religion. Although it's not "mainstream", it isn't as radical as Islam or Black Liberation Theology. Relative to those two belief systems, LDS is quite mundane, normal and spectacularly unremarkable.
2. Romney comes from a political family, he is an experienced, successful businessman and he has held office as the Chief Executive (Governor) of Massachusetts. (The incumbent has a somewhat checkered family history - so much so, that his place of birth isn't quite clear, and he has never held a real job in his life, nor has he exhibited any leadership qualities or skills. His only claim to fame is his charisma and that arrogant "I'm smarter than all of you combined, and I know what's best for you" smirk on his face.)
3. The bottom line on universal healthcare/ObamaCare seems to be that we taxpayers are paying for it anyway, so what's the big deal if UHC is codified? The big deal is that the government doesn't have that authority/power under our Constitution (yet), and the politically appointed "Supremes" don't seem too inclined to rule on that absence of authority and power any time in the foreseeable future. Perhaps this is in mute support of ObamaCare with "a wink and a nod".
4. Although 2A and RKBA are very important to us (and about 2/3 of the voting-age country), there are many who do not see 2A as the keystone to the Bill of Rights, and do not see the right of self-protection as being necessary. Their argument? "We have police for that!" (They fail to understand that police rarely "protect" anybody prior to - or during - the commission of a crime, but rather perform an ex post facto investigation of the scene of a crime. The "clean-up crew", so to speak... complete with detectives, CSI personnel, ME and [body bags!) Whether it's "Gobbler's Knob", Arkansas (pop: 108 = 1 cop per 108 pop) with one town cop, or NYC (pop: 8,314,000± = 1 cop per 245 pop) with 34,000± cops, criminals rarely commit crimes in the presence of LEOs. Response time to 911 calls is, almost universally, significantly longer than it should be, with metropolitan areas (i.e. - Denver, Atlanta, Ok City, Kansas City, Tucson, etc.) taking an overall average time of approximately 10 minutes(±seconds).
5. Once upon a time, in my Grandfather's day, the Dems were known as "The working man's party". Today they are known as the "The tax and spend socialist entitlement party", and the Republicans are only slightly more fiscally and socially conservative.
Overall, the bottom line seems to beg the question, "Do our votes count for anything in the Presidential Election process?" I'd like to believe they do, but if I absolutely had to give an answer today, I would say "I'm inclined to doubt that they do." Who pulls the strings? Who is the puppet master? Almost every day that passes I expect the man/men behind the curtain - "The Great and Powerful Oz" - to be revealed. Pax...
My answer to the OPs original question
is that ALL politicians pander to their immediate audience. Trying to get them to give a straight, honest and consistent answer to any policy question is like trying to nail Jello to the wall!
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Votes count for something, unless you are stating that you believe that when we vote, the votes aren't counted?
I see Republicans too confident in their win this November, and it is going to be a shock when they don't.
It's interesting that you bring-up votes, and believing whether they count or not, seems to me you are finding yourself a bit of an out; if President Obama wins, then there was likely some sort of vote manipulation, if President Obama loses, then the voting went right this time around. I look forward to which excuse it will be coming out of the Right-side of this Country the evening of the election when the votes are being tallied.
As I stated on a number of occassions, I think it funny, and ironic that so many hard-liners are going to be forced to vote for Romney. The LDS church is hardly Conservative socially, but they are religiously. Romney is hardly socially, nor religiously Conservative. Romney, from what I have reade, the closest thing he comes to firearms is the body-guards surrounding him everwhere he goes. And last but not least, the current healthcare law was in-part birthed from a law that Romney signed into law.
Like I stated before, there isn't much difference between Romney, and Obama, other than the (D) & (R); but I am sure hard-liners on the Right, in order to swallow the jagged pill that is Romney, are going to justify just why they are doing it--to save us all from some terrible second term where President Obama turns us into some Hitlertarian State.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
....likely some sort of 'vote manipulation'.....manipulation.....priceless.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/91776779.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-22/...workers-number-of-swing-states?_s=PM:POLITICS
If, ya want to find more documented cases.....Google.
Gil223
Regular Member
And here is yet another point of agreement: "there isn't much difference between Romney, and Obama". If Pat Paulsen were still alive I would probably vote for him before I'd vote for either of the two candidates the political machine is offering us. But, I am sure that the blind, left-wing Obamabots will vote for the continuation of his socialist-"progressive" agenda. It isn't a Hitlerian state that some folks are concerned about, it's a Marxist-Socialist state. One that will collapse under it's own fiscal weight simply because a nation cannot survive, when those living off the state outnumber those paying the taxes necessary to support them. Hitler, Marx, Obama... a tyrant by any other name is, nonetheless, still a tyrant.
Politically, I am "Independent", and have no allegiance to either of the corrupt major political parties. (Why do PACs exist? So the rich and powerful can bypass the election laws that limit the amount of money [$2,500 this year - per fec.gov] an individual or business entity may contribute to a campaign). Therefore, I can call a spade a shovel. Politics is - and historically always has been - an extremely dirty business, and there are (perhaps) a handful of relatively "clean" people in that game. (Even that is probably being overly-optimistic and all too charitable).
Pax...
Last edited: