OC for ME
Regular Member
The NRA 'A' rating is how NRA bigwigs get invited to "The Inside the Beltway" cocktail parties. If they did not hand them out they would be drinking PBRs at the VFW in Winfield Missouri.
-
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.
Paul Ryan: 'I Am Happy To Be Clinging To My Guns And My Religion!'
- Thread starter oldbanger
- Start date
Does not mean much, he will say and do anything to be elected. Romney cannot say or be a pro gun supporter just as you cannot just put a nice Sunday dress on a hooker making her into honest homemaker; fact is she is still a dirty hooker. Just because he will likely get a “A” from the NRA does not change the fact he is a two faced liar and cannot be trusted. How any gun rights group can look past his record of flip flopping ever give him an A.To be fair he is a life-long hunter and life time NRA member
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-is ... amendment/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/mitt-romney-nra-courtship_n_1422258.html
Sorry it doesn't. He is just another progressive playing the conservative flute, he flip flops on what he believes in more than how many johns a hooker see a night. PRO GUN MY BUTT, do your own research on him and dont really on the NRA or the GOA, I am a member of both but they have their motives too.
During his failed Senate campaign in 1994, Romney came out in favor of the Brady Bill, a Clinton-era touchstone for gun-control advocates, and a ban on specific assault weapons. To the chagrin of gun owners, he bluntly declared, "I don't line up with the NRA."
It won’t be the first time Romney’s lied on this subject. When he later ran for governor, he promised he would veto any efforts to weaken the state’s gun laws. Later, he claimed the NRA had endorsed him in that election. Of course, it hadn’t.
And the NRA was right not to endorse back then. Once he became governor, Romney quadrupled fees on Massachusetts gun owners, making it harder for folks to get a license to carry their firearms.
But when Romney started running for president six years ago, he decided it was time to join the NRA. He even admitted that he did so merely to get the group’s blessing. I earned an “A” rating from the NRA by being an actual defender of the Second Amendment; Romney tried to sneak in the back door.
Romney has also been caught lying about his hunting experience and guns. “I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life” he pandered in 2007, making the awkward claim that he hunts “small varmints.” What Romney neglected to mention is that he’d hunted only twice: First as a 15-year-old shooting rabbits, and then 45 years later, when he went quail hunting with some political donors.
The Romney campaign admitted a few months ago that its candidate bought two shotguns in the past five years – but not before he falsely claimed to be a gun owner. “Leave it to Mitt Romney, “ the Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi wrote, “to shoot himself in the foot with a gun he doesn’t own.”
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
What is Romney's NRA rating?
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
for posterity sake... I was trying to be ironic. Romney is quite simply a liar.
He would make a great follow-up on the liar in the WH right now.
Vote Johnson!
http://www.nrapvf.org/
That is the website that would tell us but he is not on there.
The Man deserves and F, but I guess because he has a R next to his name and he is another empty suit. I am sure he will get an A for effort. The only thing I could find was he says he was given a B rating by the NRA, yet he was NEVER endorsed.
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I don't believe we are going down a path of degredation is all respects. The economy is going to continue to lag because of many factors: Debt, oil prices, etc. We are going to continue to be a Nation of takers, and not a Nation of givers.--meaning: nobody wants to pay extra taxes for our infrastructure, nobody wants to work-out a form of health-insurance that is not-for-profit. Both sides of the equation are contributing to a self-fulfilled prophecy of Degredation.
I assert that there is no candidate, currently, that is trying to improve things.--all I see is individuals who make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (only counting on the books), arguing more than many of us argue on here. It's funny but we all respond on here, and aren't paid for it, and it appears most of the time we form a general consensus, event though it doesn't always feel like it...and we aren't being paid to.
You make a good point about why vote at all.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Wrong, he just brought aboard, as his VP, someone who is in support of the negative policies I outlined. I know where Romney stands.
You are correct, the President has nothing to do with proposed Constitutional Amendments.
KYGlockster
Activist Member
I believe we have paid our share. When we audit the Federal Reserve (only a very small portion pertaining to the bailouts) and discover that $16,000,000,000,000 has vanished into thin air, then I believe it is time we all stop paying. Our country should be in excellent shape, but we give all of our money to a PRIVATE BANK called the Federal Reserve which is no more federal than Federal Express. Our country is in ruins because of the Federal Reserve and the private billionaires across the World whose families helped create this monster.
We also need to look at social security. The only reason this was created was because our country was broke and needed money to pay debts. They devised social security, knowing that they would bring billions of dollars IN without paying OUT for numerous years. Not only did they receive the money, but they also collected large amounts of interest on it. This was never developed to last, and this is why it is in destruction mode as we speak. There are others that was "made to fail" as well, but this is the worst. I believe a program such as this is great for all the tax paying Americans tha work their entire lives, but we need to rewrite the entire operating system.
I agree with you on every other comment. When a candidate believes he must raise nearly a BILLION dollars just to get re-elected to a posistion that pays a little over $400,000 then something is awkward.
KYGlockster
Activist Member
As for Paul Ryan and him "clinging to his guns," I believe that is a lie! He had TSA "officers" at a campaign stop illegally searching people and their belongings, and yet he calls himself a conservative? This is pathetic. I can't believe who we have to choose from this election cycle, because there is no difference in either one of these morons or their show buddies. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though, it has been this way for years now, and it will only get worse.
PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
You're absolutely right. It's a political tactic known as using "hot words" to play the emotions of people who will be attracted to key words or phrases.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Anyone find the statement particularly ironic since Obama was talking about people being bitter because of lack of jobs, and Ryan a multi-millionaire is using it now?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Do you have a reliable cite that HE had TSA illegally searching people? You do know which bureaucrat is in charge of the secret service don't you?
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
It was also a way to put numbers on the populace, for taxes. With the passage of the act almost everybody was then put into reporting income, that they did not before.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Wrong, it didn't disappear, it was spent. Our Country is in ruins because politicians have half-a$$ed followed through with most agendas over the years.--no wonder Monarchies work better in certain respects--it does offer greater stability.
We would have had the money for Social Security if it wasn't being undermined for decades.
The White House is being bought, and we can thank SCOTUS for opening the floodgates so a small group of billionaires can dontate as much as they like. We ought to do away with it, and have public finance, period, where both candidates are alotted, say, a hundred million bucks each, and there can't be any Pack groups, or anything like that. It would force the candidates to run on Substance, PERIOD!
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
This is just the lesser-of-two-evils argument in a different package. If a principle vote is a waste of gas, you can always stay home and withhold your consent. You don't have to contribute and validate the lesser evil. Both evils have primary responsibility for their own actions. Just because they give you the apparency of having a say does not make you responsible if you don't exercise that say.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
You convinced me, thank you; it is a Principle vote.--President Obama is the lesser of two evils.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Hey B-lady,
As a homosexual, and seeing as the dems are noted as the gay-supporting party, would you say most homosexuals will always vote dem no matter what they do?
As a homosexual, and seeing as the dems are noted as the gay-supporting party, would you say most homosexuals will always vote dem no matter what they do?
mtlhdtodd
Regular Member
Not quite right he's the evil of two lessors.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I suppose the question can be put to Black's as well.
Democrats pay, for the most part, lip-service to making sure Gays are treated Equally under the Law, and protected from being denied simple things like Housing, for merely being Gay. I will say that Democrats have furthered protection of Gay people, and Republicans have offered Hug Therapy.
There are Gay Republican groups out there. Gay Marriage, Nationally, is inevitable, and Republicans are on the wrong side. Abortion restrictions is inevitable, and there are many Democrats on the wrong side; although, many of those Democrats understand that there is a Practical purpose in forming a consensus, instead of drawing a line in the sand and refusing to do zero about the issue.
I would vote for a Republican if there weren't deep philosophical divides between my view, and their on social safety nets. I'm not claiming that Democrats aren't anti-poor, but the whole Ideological Puritan crapola the Republicans spew completely negates what, in my opinion, is more a social obligation than a individual obligation.
Example: Institutional Racism exists; it undermines Economic, Education, Family, etc., yet there is what seems a attitude on the Right that if the individuals are made to suffer in their unfortunate circumstance, they will get-up and 'better' themselves. Decades of increases in Black incarceration is proof that Get Tough policies don't work, not one iota. Those policies reject the reality that Institutional Racism even exists, that are no barriers.
Example (both sides do this): Offering programs that predominantly females, and minorities use that are meant to 'better' their economic position. Many of these so-called Careers are after thousands of dollars in schooling is spent on mere Certificates. IMO, it is a waste of time. Most of the programs the State offers are nothing more than go-nowhere, feel-good programs that leave the economically disadvantaged individuals with nothing, other than a fancy looking certificate in their possession, and the refusal of more assistance when they aren't able to acquire a job.
I could go on, but it is a waste of time. Many Republicans don't want to acknowledge that Welfare, the thing they harp on so much, has been undermined over the decades, and is almost non-existent as far as the scope that it helps individuals. And what do we have to show for it?--more poverty, and more people that are cut from a system of help that have no other place to go, and for whatever reason are unable to find stable jobs that pay a livable wage.
America has a lot of potential of being the greatest Country in the world, but we squander it, and what we are left with is a cluster-**** of a mess, and blame-gaming.
Let me see here: Emotive, Straw-man, Irrational, Illogical, Bleeding Heart Liberal, not-Educated, etc. (just thought I would prime some of you for a good response)
Last edited: