• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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 - the Pro-Gun candidate? Who believes this rubbish?

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Blahhh Blahhhh Blahhh

I am voting for Romney to get rid of that communist that is occupying the white house, and nothing you can say or do is going to change it. Get over it already. It's my vote, as it is the vote of everyone in this country who can legally vote. You want to vote for that moonbat be my guest, but don't even try to give me the "Romney is almost as bad as Obama" reason. I am not going to buy it, no matter how many times you try to claim that Obama is not as bad as he is. He clearly has displayed to me that he has no regard for the constitution and the people of this country. And others as well as I have no doubt he will appoint a liberal to the court, he certainly will not appoint a conservative, that would be stupid on his part.

Does that help you any? Or are you going to continue to try to convince someone who is not convinced that Obama is the Messiah. After all I don't care if you or others vote for him, and have no intention on changing your mind. You want to continue to discuss the wonders of the "Chosen One" be my guest but again don't expect others to agree with you.

Obama on the Supreme Court:

I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He's an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there's no indication he's not a man of great character. But when you look at his record – when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding Americans' individual rights.[8]

I think the Constitution can be interpreted in so many ways. And one way is a cramped and narrow way in which the Constitution and the courts essentially become the rubber stamps of the powerful in society. And then there's another vision of the court that says that the courts are the refuge of the powerless. Because oftentimes they can lose in the democratic back and forth. They may be locked out and prevented from fully participating in the democratic process. ... And we need somebody who's got the heart – the empathy – to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old – and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges.[9]

I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and . . . when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it's their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout. . . . ometimes we're only looking at academics or people who've been in the [lower courts]. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.[10]

I want people [like Earl Warren] on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through.
 
Last edited:

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
Blahhh Blahhhh Blahhh . . . communist . . . moonbat . . . no regard for the constitution and the people of this country. . .

And others as well as I have no doubt he will appoint a liberal to the court, he certainly will not appoint a conservative, that would be stupid on his part.

. . . Messiah. . . "Chosen One" etc. etc. etc.

I am not trying to convince you to change your vote, just engaging you on the subject of this thread.

If that is the best response you've got to what is above, so be it.

Edit: In light of your edit -- your addition of Obama's quotation to your post was substantive, although not quite responsive. It also omits some key lines from Obama's 2007 interview -- about the remaining 95% of what a judge does.

There is at least one former federal Judge -- Robert Bork -- who claims to be offended by the notions Obama stated above. But I don't think the Judges I have come to know would be, and that includes many "severely conservative" ones.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I am not trying to convince you to change your vote, just engaging you on the subject of this thread.

If that is the best response you've got to what is above, so be it.

YES IMO you have been telling us not to vote for Romney because he is like Obama, absolutely insane! If you want to talk up Obama please do, but don't try to tell anyone how to vote for any reason. It is not anyone's place here to do for any candidate! I have no intention of voting for Obama, and every intention for voting for Romney and my reasons are really none of your business. But since you seem stuck on this back and forth why people should not vote for Romney, just because he doesn't eat dogs!

Me going to a pro gun control site to tell pro gun voters that they should vote for Romney would be just as stupid.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
:banghead:

moped.gif
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Republicans need to get over their love of Reagan; he was an advocate neither of liberty, nor of fiscal responsibility. Bush 1 was a wet noodle. Bush 2 had a hard-on for big government according to his vision. Look at the Supreme Court we have today. There is not one judge on the court (nor in recent court history) who favors liberty on principle, no matter which President they were appointed by. Any fool who thinks Romney would be better than Obama need only look at Roberts to put lie to that notion.

Romney and Obama are equally disastrous potential Presidents. There is no difference between them worth favoring.

Why do supposed liberty advocates continue to pretend that Romney would be less bad than Obama, or even more slowly bad? What unadulterated nincompoopery.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Republicans need to get over their love of Reagan; he was an advocate neither of liberty, nor of fiscal responsibility. Bush 1 was a wet noodle. Bush 2 had a hard-on for big government according to his vision. Look at the Supreme Court we have today. There is not one judge on the court (nor in recent court history) who favors liberty on principle, no matter which President they were appointed by. Any fool who thinks Romney would be better than Obama need only look at Roberts to put lie to that notion.

Romney and Obama are equally disastrous potential Presidents. There is no difference between them worth favoring.

Why do supposed liberty advocates continue to pretend that Romney would be less bad than Obama, or even more slowly bad? What unadulterated nincompoopery.

Bush and Reagan are not running, I believe that posters have made it very clear why Romney is less bad than the Obama. When will Obama supporters accept that voters are not bound to vote for the chosen one, for any reason they so choose.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Bush and Reagan are not running, I believe that posters have made it very clear why Romney is less bad than the Obama. When will Obama supporters accept that voters are not bound to vote for the chosen one, for any reason they so choose.

I appreciate you making a side point for me: that those wed, irrationally, to one side of the artificial spectrum always assume that anyone who doesn't like the candidate they've been force-fed must favor the supposed alternative. You look a fool.

Romney and Obama are horrible for America. Some addicts prefer cocaine, and some prefer heroine. All favor substances which destroy their minds, and all favor choices which are atrocious. I vehemently support their liberty to engage in what I consider to be imbecilic behavior.

Which do you think is less bad, WalkingWolf, Cocaine or heroine?

Do you still beat your partner?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I am all too aware that some simpletons will interpret this question as a personal attack. Become literate, and realize that this is an example of the Loaded Question. Then grow a brain.

Only a classless person would resort to such low life attacks. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you are not. Your credibility as a human just went out the window. It is a personal attack!
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Only a classless person would resort to such low life attacks. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you are not. Your credibility as a human just went out the window. It is a personal attack!

Wow!

I'll make it very apparent for you, who refuse to educate yourself:
The Loaded Question is a form of question which includes a presumption which is not necessarily agreed to by the questioned person. That is, in the wording of the question, the available responses are limited by an implied assertion which is not necessarily true, or even accepted as true. (You could learn this from reading the link, by the way, but it seems that's far too challenging.) So when, proverbially, someone asks if you still beat your wife, or partner, or child, they are putting you in a false quandary: that is, the question presents the optional answers of yes or no, thereby seeming to force you into admitting, by implication, that you have ever beat your wife, partner, or child.

Now, the reason I invoked the Loaded Question was to point out that the choice between Romney and Obama is tantamount to a Loaded Question: that, by framing the issue such that the only supposed choices are Romney or Obama, the respondent is forced to choose between two unsuitable options. This is, in fact, your argument. So if you say I should be ashamed of myself, that my "credibility as a human just went out the window", you are, indeed, indicting yourself.

See how easy this was to understand, if you'd just tried?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Wow!

I'll make it very apparent for you, who refuse to educate yourself:
The Loaded Question is a form of question which includes a presumption which is not necessarily agreed to by the questioned person. That is, in the wording of the question, the available responses are limited by an implied assertion which is not necessarily true, or even accepted as true. (You could learn this from reading the link, by the way, but it seems that's far too challenging.) So when, proverbially, someone asks if you still beat your wife, or partner, or child, they are putting you in a false quandary: that is, the question presents the optional answers of yes or no, thereby seeming to force you into admitting, by implication, that you have ever beat your wife, partner, or child.

Now, the reason I invoked the Loaded Question was to point out that the choice between Romney and Obama is tantamount to a Loaded Question: that, by framing the issue such that the only supposed choices are Romney or Obama, the respondent is forced to choose between two unsuitable options. This is, in fact, your argument. So if you say I should be ashamed of myself, that my "credibility as a human just went out the window", you are, indeed, indicting yourself.

See how easy this was to understand, if you'd just tried?

What you did was try to make a personal attack and claim it was not a personal attack. Just another reason not to vote for Obama because he has such people with no class for supporters. A person's reason for voting is their own not a loaded question. It is a highly regarded privilege, only a fascist would have a problem with that. You sunk to a low beyond lows and are getting even lower by making excuses. Typical of liberals.
 
Last edited:

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
What you did was try to make a personal attack and claim it was not a personal attack. Just another reason not to vote for Obama because he has such people with no class for supporters. A person's reason for voting is their own not a loaded question. It is a highly regarded privilege, only a fascist would have a problem with that. You sunk to a low beyond lows and are getting even lower by making excuses. Typical of liberals.

To sum up, I'm an Obama supporter, a fascist, "low", and a liberal. Well! I think we have all of the context we need in which to evaluate WalkingWolf's ability to rationally adjudge anything.

EDIT: The grammar was weak with me. Parts of speach and tenses corrected.
 
Last edited:

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
What you did was try to make a personal attack and claim it was not a personal attack. Just another reason not to vote for Obama because he has such people with no class for supporters. A person's reason for voting is their own not a loaded question. It is a highly regarded privilege, only a fascist would have a problem with that. You sunk to a low beyond lows and are getting even lower by making excuses. Typical of liberals.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks
 
Last edited by a moderator:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
To sum up, I'm an Obama supporter, a fascist, "low", and a liberal. Well! I think we have all of the context we need in which to evaluate WalkingWolf's ability to rationally adjudge anything.

EDIT: The grammar was weak with me. Parts of speach and tenses corrected.

Keep it up... you've got him right where you want him... :(
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I've even agreed with this douchebag, and he still questioned my intelligence and motivation. I actually find dicussions with our resident moonbats more worthwhile than this smug paulbot. It's typical of douchebags, and most liberals are beyond ordinary douchebaggery, but some of the paulbots seem to want to advance the opposite fringe of douchbaggery. Then they wonder why more people don't support their agenda, and insult them for not doing so...

It should be shocking that Ron Paul isn't more popular than the moonbat messiah, but when you look at the Paulbots... well no %$#k!ng wonder....

Blaming the lack of popularity Ron Paul has on the "Paulbots" is a crappy excuse. Ron Paul IS popular... The diminished chances of him getting the GOP nomination is a result of GOPers buying into the media mantra that "he can't win".

It is indeed difficult to get an "ANYONEBUTOBAMAbot" to understand this.
 
Last edited:

MainelyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
615
Location
Portland, ME
I've seen an incredible amount of posts on this website, and the internet in general stating that an Obama re-election would put an end to our second amendment rights. Unfortunately, that's where it ended, and I've yet to see any proof or evidence to fuel these speculations that seem to be driving up the price and demand of ammunition. The closest thing I've heard him mention on the subject was said tonight in regards to gun control talks. Maybe I'm missing something, but I would love to see any links/articles/videos/radio addresses/mind-readings that say Obama plans to turn the U.S. into Austrailia [as far as gun control goes.]
 

Chaingun81

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
581
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
I posted Marcus using his own words when discussing homosexuality, and how everyone has 'those feelings.' Uhuh, Marcus, I'm sure 'everyone' does.

I let my posts stand as they are. You can interpret them as me being anti-gay, or gay bashing.--you are free to think what ever your precious mind wants to think.

Since I offered a link regarding Marcus, please, offer-up a link that shows "the party that courts gays" bashing gays. I await your link.

Between my libertarian leanings and not being religious I have no issue with gay rights. That being said, being gay is a definitely a deviation from normal, although not anything government should regulate or restrict. Oh, and what does it have to do with gun rights?
 
Top