• 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.

Fred's out.

F

FightingGlock19

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
583
Location
, Kentucky, USA
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
.40 Cal wrote:
Romney is a businessman. He knows that more stringent gun control laws will lead to loss of support and power, two things a President needs to make it a second term. McCain Doesn't care about a second term as he probably won't survive a first term.
Click to expand...
Romney promised to signa gun banas president. This is different than Giuliani who supported one as mayor and then said he would NOT sign one as president.
Click to expand...
how quickly people forget Romney got an AWB passed in Mass :?
 
E

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

"At least it's not a gun ban" is exactly the attitude the antis want you to take. Romney's a bad idea and so is McCain. Settling for the guy that will create less gun laws, when there's a candidate who will support revoking gun laws is the definition ofretarded.
 
.40 Cal

.40 Cal

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
1,379
Location
COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Ama-Gi: What does it mean when you have to resort to name calling? Simpletons? Idiots?

As the governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Romney was obliged to play the part. The stakes would e greater as the Republican nominee. It would make bad business sense to alienate such a large part of his constituency, and he is the most likely to pander to the GOA and NRA.

Again, this is my opinion. I take offense to your inflamatory remarks and would appreciate you not take that tack with me or anyone on this board again for expressing their opinion.
 
S

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

.40 Cal wrote:
As the governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Romney was obliged to play the part.
Click to expand...
So your argument in favor of Multiple Mitt is, "yes, he was a flaming liberal, but I know he's on my side because I also know he's a liar and he lied to the people of his state about being a closeted conservative." Is that what you're saying? How inspiring!

Where are you getting this information that Romney is on our side (besides your various orafices)?
It would make bad business sense to alienate such a large part of his constituency, and he is the most likely to pander to the GOA and NRA.
Click to expand...

Then why the hell is he making this "bad business move" as we speak? He's said over and over again: "I support an Assault Weapons Ban." How much clearer can he get? If he's not worried about alienating people now, what's going to change till then? If he can get elected with that position, you think our influence is going to increase after the election? If he thought this was a barrier, he'd have changed his position by now like he has with various other issues. He just thinks that gun owners are dumb enough to vote for him if he says a few magic words and then proceeds to sign the same gun laws that Bill Clinton did. Apparently, he's right.

He already is "pandering" to the NRA by saying the empty words, "I support the 2nd Amendment" and then going on to say that he also supports gun bans. If he can get elected with that rhetoric, what is his incentive to act differently? And what pressure will come to bear when people like you will roll over as soon as he whistles?

Again, this is my opinion.
Click to expand...
It's a dumb opinion. You're welcome to it.

Question: Are you by chance Mormon, because this conversation would make a whole lot more sense if you were.


"He ran a business so you know all his opinions line up with mine, despite his protestations to the contrary" -- The various sheeple of the Republican Party
 
S

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:
It is my opinion, dumb as it may be, that anyone who would state that a Huckabee supporter must be a Baptist, or a Romney supporter must be a Mormon, smacks of being a bigot.

It is also my opinion, as dumb as it may be, that anyone who calls members of the Republican Party "sheeple"is a condescending elitist.
Click to expand...


Your inability to read English entraps you again. I asked a question about his religion; I didn't make a statement. It's relevant considering where Romney's support is coming from. I see blind devotion and assume there's a logical explanation. I've often asked you were your blind devotion for Mitt comes from as well. Religion seems like a logical place from which it could spring.

"He ran a business" says nothing. So did Rudy, so did Ron Paul, so have millions of other people. That says nothing about how he would govern. It's shorthand for non-thinking.

You can play the Hannity "Oh that's so mean that I won't even answer the point," but itmakes no difference. A person who believes what he is told without question is a sheep. You've never complained about the multiple uses of the term before but when I applied it to Republicans, you were all of a sudden shocked - shocked - that I would attack your "team."

Get some principles.

If "elitists" are people who demand facts, logic and consistency, than I guess the label applies. I sure got the short end of the "elitist" stick though...damn, don't I get to be rich or something now?
 
D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
If "elitists" are people who demand facts, logic and consistency, than I guess the label applies. I sure got the short end of the "elitist" stick though...damn, don't I get to be rich or something now?
Click to expand...

There are elites and there are 'elites'. The only thing they have in common is their refusal to participate in demotic egalitarianism. We are created equal, after the first breath all bets are off.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
 
M

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
imported post

"You and millions of other constitutional conservatives"

This has been covered in this thread before, but if you really are a constitutional conservative, Ron Paul seems like a no brainer.
 
T

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

Ford Truck wrote:
When I go to the polls in November, I might have to leave that space (president) blank. Remember, when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.
Click to expand...

That May be true, but when you don't vote for the lesser evil,, you do vote for the greater evil.



Tarzan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top