Beware Obamas So called change

imported post

Well, Holo, if you'd said that political content was not appropriate on this forum, I'd think seriously about that. But that's not what you said. What you did was to allege that a lot of mis-information had been printed in this thread. So please be specific. Which statements are incorrect? I'm inclined to take the NRA-ILA at face value unless someone points out specifically where they are in error. So what does your own research tell you about the ILA's statements? Spceifically?

imported post

Holo wrote:

SNIP If your guns are more important to you than the economy, getting our children home from war, and our looming energy crisis, you shouldn't be voting anyway.

Click to expand...

Realize its not the guns themselves.

Its whatguns protect against. The opposition you see is really opposition to what can happen if gun rights are infringed further or de factoeliminated through policy mechanisms. And what has happened repeatedly in history.

Edmund Burke said it best. Addressing Parliament prior to the American Revolution he said of the colonists:

"They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."

imported post

I see a propensity for taxing the rich to give to the poor kind of entitlement mentality.Why should my money pay for these peoples health care etc.I earned the money .I may want to spend on a new jet ski. I give a lot to christian orginizations by my choice.It is not the gov.to decide who they are going to give my money to.I never heard him talk of winning the war just quitting.On an interview on fox he refused to admit the surge worked for example.I would have a lot more respect if he had conceded that it worked now lets move on from hear.He talks of talking with our enemys as opposed to destoying them.As for second ammendent .I haven,t heard him talk of loosening Il. Gun restrictions.

imported post

My constitutional rights ARE more important to me that the economy, getting the troops home (I do have friends & family over seas), and the supposed energy crises. I want security first, and more money in my pocket second.

Another country has gone through this before, and I don't want America to follow suit.

In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

'When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'

'But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of knotches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.

imported post

155gr wrote:

Well, Holo, if you'd said that political content was not appropriate on this forum, I'd think seriously about that. But that's not what you said. What you did was to allege that a lot of mis-information had been printed in this thread. So please be specific. Which statements are incorrect? I'm inclined to take the NRA-ILA at face value unless someone points out specifically where they are in error. So what does your own research tell you about the ILA's statements? Spceifically?

Click to expand...

I'm not here to do your research for you, that's the whole point of me telling you do it yourself. I can't help you, you can only help yourself. If you can't see the blatant propagandic posturing in *every* advertisement, maybe you should take a class on marketing. I honestly don't mean that in a mean way. Everyone knows nearly all politicians out there are corrupt and running on an agenda. The NRA/ILA are no different. You should question everything and everybody that tries to convince you of anything.

I'll give you something to go on to help you though. That picture where Obama was not crossing his heart during the national anthem? Go find the video that the picture comes from. Or better yet, go to http://www.snopes.com and just search for it. He's singing the anthem and nobody else on that platform is. You sing during the anthem, you put your hand over your heart for the pledge (This comes from the military manual of taking off your hat and putting it over your heart). At least that's what my veteran father taught me. It's as ridiculous as the flag pin issue. Next they'll be all over him because he doesn't have a yellow ribbon magnet on his car.

Realize its not the guns themselves.

Its whatguns protect against. The opposition you see is really opposition to what can happen if gun rights are infringed further or de factoeliminated through policy mechanisms. And what has happened repeatedly in history.

Edmund Burke said it best. Addressing Parliament prior to the American Revolution he said of the colonists:

"They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."

Click to expand...

I never said I didn't realize there are many factors that contribute to a gun-centric lifestyle. Democrats are always going to try to control guns. It's a near-sweeping fact. This is true of Obama and more than the majority of other democrats. It's also true for quite a few Republicans. I'm not going to get drawn into the political argument being given here, because I personally don't believe this is the place for soapboxes and high horses.

I just hate seeing people propagate misinformation and lies without the whole story. If you don't provide the background on something you're just as guilty as the person who it originated from.

imported post

I wouldn't say there's a LOT of misinformation in this thread. You'll need to specify what you are referring to, rather than making a blanket statement.

I want our children (and parents and aunts/uncles, brothers/sisters, and everyone else serving) to come home AFTER their work is done and not one day sooner, because THAT's what soldiers do (I should know, I used to be one). They're fighting a war over there so we won't have to fight it over here.

Gun ownership is AS important as the economy and the energy crisis (neither of which Obama has articulated a plan for, by the way). If you believe gun ownership amounts to nothing more than a hobby or luxury then YOU shouldn't be voting. Really.

It's true, no one should vote on one issue and people really should take the time to research each candidate. Unfortunately, there isn't much to research on Obama other than his consistent voting that leans toward socialism, his 20-year membership in a militant "church" that he disowned AFTER it became political baggage, and his incessant use of the words "hope" and "change" without any details to describe what he means. I have yet to meet an Obama supporter who can articulate what the hell that guy is talking about.

The media (particularly MSN, CNN, and Yahoo et.al.) are so blatantly fellating this man that it's patently obvious to even the least educated "simp" that they cannot be relied on for anything resembling truth.

Those anti-Obama images are NOT "absolutely @#$%ing retarded." The first one is a photo of a man who wants to be President of the United States but who can only muster disgust for this country and it's symbols. That's not someone I want to see in charge of anything. The second shows roots. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Obama is a socialist who supports more government and fewer liberties under the guise of providing "help and safety for everyone." He has no love for this country and no interest in the individuals who comprise it's citizenry.

He's in this for himself and has NOTHING to offer us.

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

I see a propensity for taxing the rich to give to the poor kind of entitlement mentality.Why should my money pay for these peoples health care etc.I earned the money .I may want to spend on a new jet ski. I give a lot to christian orginizations by my choice.It is not the gov.to decide who they are going to give my money to.I never heard him talk of winning the war just quitting.On an interview on fox he refused to admit the surge worked for example.I would have a lot more respect if he had conceded that it worked now lets move on from hear.He talks of talking with our enemys as opposed to destoying them.As for second ammendent .I haven,t heard him talk of loosening Il. Gun restrictions.

Click to expand...

Talking with our enemies as opposed to destroying them...you mean like George Bush and John McCain have both done AFTER Obama supported it? /boggle

I don't support either candidate yet, but I've done my research on BOTH candidates for months. There are still many months to come before I have to make a final decision.

Oh god, maybe I just need to stay out of this one. I just can't keep up this late.

imported post

Those anti-Obama images are both absolutely @#$%ing retarded. I don't even have the energy right now to say anything other than do your research. Don't act like an uneducated simp.

Click to expand...

You know, I've gotten kind of attached to the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment, as well as the ones in the Second. There are some countries where people would not be allowed to publish even mildly satirical send-ups, like these, of politicians. As mentioned, Cuba is a good example.

As long as I'm in a country (one of the few) that allows freedom of expression, I don't mind if someone calls me an uneducated simp.

imported post

I want our children (and parents and aunts/uncles, brothers/sisters, and everyone else serving) to come home AFTER their work is done and not one day sooner, because THAT's what soldiers do (I should know, I used to be one). They're fighting a war over there so we won't have to fight it over here.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but the definition of "done" is the primary argument here. Your view of the war and it's reasons may not be correct. You state it as if it's fact. The fact is none of us but the higher ups in the government know why they're there. You said it yourself, what the media tells us can't be trusted. Fox, NBC, CNN, CBS, all of them are for-profit and thus for-themselves. It's like trusting a used car salesman.

Gun ownership is AS important as the economy and the energy crisis (neither of which Obama has articulated a plan for, by the way). If you believe gun ownership amounts to nothing more than a hobby or luxury then YOU shouldn't be voting. Really.

Click to expand...

Gun ownership being as important as the economy and the energy crisis was my entire point. I agree with you there. But if you're trying to say there aren't any articulable plans that Obama has put forth I would posit that you haven't done your research.

Just from the horse's mouth here as I'm heading to bed after this:

Energy/Environment:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Economy:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

I honestly don't really care about your opinion on Obama's issues. I'm simply showing you how easy it is to find information that you apparently don't have. Yes, those links constitute "articulating a plan". We all know what articulate means here. There are hundreds of other sources out there to find the information you don't think is out there. As I said above, I'm not doing your research for you.

He's in this for himself and has NOTHING to offer us.

Click to expand...

Now apply this to every politician and you're well on your way to understanding our government.

The rest of your post isn't even worth arguing, to be honest. I've had discussions with many Obama and McCain supporters and generally they all parrot the same talking points. I've taken the time with the people I care about to be sure they are informed, but I really don't care *that* much go in depth here. I've changed a few Obama folks to McCain and vice versa. I simply try to make sure everyone has all the information. Unfortunately, it seems I chose the wrong venue and the wrong time.

Good night folks. Remember who the enemy is

imported post

Holo, please look at the beginning of this thread, at "Obama's 10-point plan" for gun rights. It is the essence of this thread. Based on the research you say you have done, please tell us which of those ten claims about Obama's prior statements and votes on gun issues are incorrect.

Don't tell us about the economy. Don't tell us about the war. Don't tell us about how you've convinced people to vote for both McCain and Obama.

Tell us which of those ten claims are incorrect.

imported post

Thank you ,I got side tracked myself and a little ticked.AS you said I wish he would itemize those points that are incorrect......

imported post

I'm not quite sure you understand how debating works.

If I make a claim I.E., "The sky is red." I have to prove that it is red. You don't have to disprove that it's red. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, not with the defendant. No, I'm not the plaintiff in this case.

That being said, I'm doing this to help you understand why nothing on that picture should be taken at face value.

A claim was made about "Obama's 10 points of change". Not only are these not Obama's words, there are no facts or background to back the claims up.

Going from the propaganda filled picture to the link given, you see base claims (which very well may be fact, I'm not looking them all up right now) that are extrapolated (without foundation) to conclusions. Go to the link yourself and try to find any of those 10 items on that page without stretching the truth.


For instance:

[size="FACT:][/size][/i][/b] Barack Obama[/b] supports a ban on inexpensive handguns[/b].[sup]9"[/sup]

Becomes....

6.) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition 500 percent.


This goes back to my main point. I don't disagree that Obama has a different stance than my own on guns and gun ownership. I never have. What I have issue with is the misinformation and the blatant hyperbole that you guys are buying into.

Again, I don't have to prove my side. The person making the claim does. Just to stop you before you get into it, arguing the claims doesn't make me the plaintiff. If you are going to say Obama is XYZ or McCain is XYZ, then back it up. Don't post stupid pictures and accept them as truth.

imported post

As far as I am concerned both candidates are corporate stooges. I am writing in Ron Paul. Libertarian here.

imported post

I'm Voting for Pat Paulson........anyone remember that.Kind of dates me doesn,t it?

imported post

Senator Obama voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the two new Supreme Court justices in the narrow 5-4 majority that broke the DC gun ban. The next president will appoint as many as three new justices to replace those expected to retire. Those new justices will tip the balance for the next twenty years on whether the supreme court supports your gun rights or votes to take them away.

Up until a few weeks ago, I thought I wouldn't vote in the next election. Thinking about the next President's court appointments changed my mind. Here's what the NRA Institute for Legislative Action has to say about Obama. You can expect his court appointments to fall in line. This is from http://www.nraila.org/obama/ , which has footnotes to source material.

imported post

Holo wrote:

I'm not quite sure you understand how debating works.

If I make a claim I.E., "The sky is red." I have to prove that it is red. You don't have to disprove that it's red. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, not with the defendant. No, I'm not the plaintiff in this case.

That being said, I'm doing this to help you understand why nothing on that picture should be taken at face value.

A claim was made about "Obama's 10 points of change". Not only are these not Obama's words, there are no facts or background to back the claims up.

Going from the propaganda filled picture to the link given, you see base claims (which very well may be fact, I'm not looking them all up right now) that are extrapolated (without foundation) to conclusions. Go to the link yourself and try to find any of those 10 items on that page without stretching the truth.


For instance:

[size="FACT:][/i][/b] Barack Obama[/b] supports a ban on inexpensive handguns[/b].[suP]9"[/suP]

Becomes....

6.) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition 500 percent.


This goes back to my main point. I don't disagree that Obama has a different stance than my own on guns and gun ownership. I never have. What I have issue with is the misinformation and the blatant hyperbole that you guys are buying into.

Again, I don't have to prove my side. The person making the claim does. Just to stop you before you get into it, arguing the claims doesn't make me the plaintiff. If you are going to say Obama is XYZ or McCain is XYZ, then back it up. Don't post stupid pictures and accept them as truth.

Click to expand...

Well HOLO it is time for you to check your facts. Those things listed here are published fact. If you wish to disprove them they you come up with some documentation other than that provided by the Obana campaign. Like how about a copy of his voting record. Oops that won't work. Already listed here. How about a detailed report of his activities in Africa. Oops that won't work either. Too much support for those pushing genocide. Lets see how about his anti American religious views. Oops Oops Oops. How about his military service? These things are documented. How about his overwhelming support for the second amendment and of course open carry. Which by the way is what this site is about.

imported post

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

As far as I am concerned both candidates are corporate stooges. I am writing in Ron Paul. Libertarian here.

Click to expand...

While I can certainly understand the principle, what is there to gain from voting for anyone other than the two major party candidates?

Seriously, there is no chance that a minor party candidate or a write would ever garner the necessary votes to win an election. You might as well stay home.

It is unfortunate that the system has become a choice ofor the lessor of two evils, but that is what it is. Any conservative, libertarian, or other such vote not cast Republican is essentially a vote for Obama by proxy since you are just reducing the number of votes he needs to win.

Libertarians would do better to use their base to leverage for concessions from those they are closer to in ideology and join forces against the Dems. Sometimes you have to go along to get along.

imported post

911Boss wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

As far as I am concerned both candidates are corporate stooges. I am writing in Ron Paul. Libertarian here.

Click to expand...

SNIP While I can certainly understand the principle, what is there to gain from voting for anyone other than the two major party candidates?

Click to expand...

That is what the two parties are counting on people thinking.

In my life-time it hasn't really mattered which was in power. The fedgov got bigger, things got worse, etc., etc., ad infinitum, adnauseum, ad fukmeum.

Personally, I refuse to sic a main-party candidate on my fellow Americans. There is nobody I hate badly enough to wish a big-government candidate on them.

That leaves third-party candidates. For the moment, I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate. Let the big party loser wonder about that when he sees how many votes went for the third-party candidates.

imported post

irfner wrote:

Well HOLO it is time for you to check your facts. Those things listed here are published fact. If you wish to disprove them they you come up with some documentation other than that provided by the Obana campaign. Like how about a copy of his voting record. Oops that won't work. Already listed here. How about a detailed report of his activities in Africa. Oops that won't work either. Too much support for those pushing genocide. Lets see how about his anti American religious views. Oops Oops Oops. How about his military service? These things are documented. How about his overwhelming support for the second amendment and of course open carry. Which by the way is what this site is about.

Click to expand...

I'm not really surprised that you resorted to the straw man attack instead of actually replying to what I said.

I don't have to disprove anything. The person making the claim does. You talk about "anti-American" then you take a @#$% on what our justice system is based on by requiring the defendant to prove his innocence. Unfortunately, I don't think I can make it any clearer for you if you don't get it already.

Have a good day.

imported post

irfner wrote:

Holo wrote:

I'm not quite sure you understand how debating works.

If I make a claim I.E., "The sky is red." I have to prove that it is red. You don't have to disprove that it's red. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, not with the defendant. No, I'm not the plaintiff in this case.

That being said, I'm doing this to help you understand why nothing on that picture should be taken at face value.

A claim was made about "Obama's 10 points of change". Not only are these not Obama's words, there are no facts or background to back the claims up.

Going from the propaganda filled picture to the link given, you see base claims (which very well may be fact, I'm not looking them all up right now) that are extrapolated (without foundation) to conclusions. Go to the link yourself and try to find any of those 10 items on that page without stretching the truth.


For instance:

[size="FACT:][/i][/b] Barack Obama[/b] supports a ban on inexpensive handguns[/b].[suP]9"[/suP]

Becomes....

6.) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition 500 percent.


This goes back to my main point. I don't disagree that Obama has a different stance than my own on guns and gun ownership. I never have. What I have issue with is the misinformation and the blatant hyperbole that you guys are buying into.

Again, I don't have to prove my side. The person making the claim does. Just to stop you before you get into it, arguing the claims doesn't make me the plaintiff. If you are going to say Obama is XYZ or McCain is XYZ, then back it up. Don't post stupid pictures and accept them as truth.

Click to expand...

Well HOLO it is time for you to check your facts. Those things listed here are published fact. If you wish to disprove them they you come up with some documentation other than that provided by the Obana campaign. Like how about a copy of his voting record. Oops that won't work. Already listed here. How about a detailed report of his activities in Africa. Oops that won't work either. Too much support for those pushing genocide. Lets see how about his anti American religious views. Oops Oops Oops. How about his military service? These things are documented. How about his overwhelming support for the second amendment and of course open carry. Which by the way is what this site is about.

Click to expand...

You expect me to believe what the NRA says... What makes you think the NRA is not spreading propaganda and lies like the rest of the Republican Party does? Yes, let's see your facts? You are linking theNRA as a source of your facts?I got some swamp land to sell you in Georgia. At least Obama knows are enemy unlike McSane who has to have Lieberman whispering in his ears to tell him who are enemy is in Iraq. Or knows that Pakistan does not border Iraq. I figure that McSanes Campaignwill probably self implode this Fall. Obama will take him apart during the first one or two debates. I cannot wait.

The Democrats are not even running on a Gun Control Platform. There are a lot more important issues to run on than Gun Control e.g. Economy, the unending wars, and our energy crisis.

Did you not forget that the Supreme Courts ruling just a few weeks ago about gun ownership... So, what are you scared of?

The NRA is nothing more thana business that has your best interest at heart, a long with your membership dues that support Pierres 6 or 7 figure salary a long with board members they will say whatever...

Dave