View Full Version : Romney becomes an Anti Gun rights advocate
Don't adjust your browser, this is only a test.
Imagine an alternate universe where everything remained the same exept on thing: the two presidential candidates decided to exchange positions on one issue; Gun Rights.
All their other positions and beliefs remained exactly the same. And this question is mainly goes out to the right leaning segment of the community, which I suspect/hope constitutes the majority. Would it change what you do in the polling booth? Who you vote for?
This one should test ya good. [Bang]
if I understand you correctly, and you are saying that both are the exact same, except obama was for gun rights, and romney was against gun rights.
I would vote obama.
however, this is infact in an alternate, unrealistic universe. The only difference between the two is that one has a slight clue on government limitations, and at very least pretends to have some respect for our constitution and bill of rights.
if I understand you correctly, and you are saying that both are the exact same, except obama was for gun rights, and romney was against gun rights.
Precisely
Too tough, ah men? Can't ask the gals to do what we wouldn't ourselves. Verstehen?
romney isnt a big friend to the 2a
romney isnt a big friend to the 2a
What if obama was? And Romney was just itchin to stomp on the 2A? Everything else about the 2 men the same.
What if obama was? And Romney was just itchin to stomp on the 2A? Everything else about the 2 men the same.
In our reality;
Romney signed a permanent AWB into law in MA
Obama signed into law bills that allow carry in national parks and on AMTRAK trains
In our reality;
Romney signed a permanent AWB into law in MA
Obama signed into law bills that allow carry in national parks and on AMTRAK trains
So you think Obama in his next term would be more friendly to gun owners than Romney. Well, OK, it affects the test a little, but you can still play. Unless you also think Obama would also be better for the economy. If that's the case, you're excused, here's your hall pass.
It's funny that you think the economy is going to get much better.
The jobs are gone. They've all gone overseas. No such thing as careers anymore. You can either join a labor union or you can get an entry level service/sales position.
It's funny that you think the economy is going to get much better.
The jobs are gone. They've all gone overseas. No such thing as careers anymore. You can either join a labor union or you can get an entry level service/sales position.
Sounds pretty hopeless, Ridge. With that perspective, this test just won't work for you. I designed it for folks who think theres's still hope left that the state of things in this country have the potential to get better.
Sounds pretty hopeless, Ridge. With that perspective, this test just won't work for you. I designed it for folks who think theres's still hope left that the state of things in this country have the potential to get better.
There is no hope when your two options are both going to do whatever they can to make a buck at your expense.
Neither of the two realistic options in November are exactly palatable, regardless of which positions you switch.
I'd prefer not to have another four years of Obama. Romney hasn't indicated he has one single idea other than not being Obama (not altogether bad, but is this really the best the GOP has to offer?!).
Romney hasn't indicated he has one single idea other than not being Obama (not altogether bad, but is this really the best the GOP has to offer?!).
Agreed. Also when he acts like a douchebag and says stupid ass things like a hyper conservative Joe Biden.
Neither of the two realistic options in November are exactly palatable, regardless of which positions you switch.
I'd prefer not to have another four years of Obama. Romney hasn't indicated he has one single idea other than not being Obama (not altogether bad, but is this really the best the GOP has to offer?!).
If you think that then you really aren't listening.
- Cut taxes on business
- Slash regulations that are overwhelming small business people and stifling growth.
- Measures to repatriate corporate profits stuck over seas
- Get tough on China
- Unleash US energy exploration and development.
- Lower capital gains tax
- kill obama care.
That's just a short list off the top of my head. With that list of goals, you will see a major resurgence in the private sector the moment he's declared the winner. Employment will come roaring back. Billions of dollars being held in coffers by corporations because of their fear and uncertainty of how Obama's current initiative will impact them, and what he has up his sleeve for attacking them next, will start to get invested in growth opportunities. The newly surging economy will produce a spike in tax revenue inflow, which will help lower the runaway deficit.
The contrast this election between the courses these two men want to take is could not be more striking, or crucial.
If you think that then you really aren't listening.
- Cut taxes on business
- Slash regulations that are overwhelming small business people and stifling growth.
- Measures to repatriate corporate profits stuck over seas
- Get tough on China
- Unleash US energy exploration and development.
- Lower capital gains tax
- kill obama care.
That's just a short list off the top of my head. With that list of goals, you will see a major resurgence in the private sector the moment he's declared the winner. Employment will come roaring back. Billions of dollars being held in coffers by corporations because of their fear and uncertainty of how Obama's current initiative will impact them, and what he has up his sleeve for attacking them next, will start to get invested in growth opportunities. The newly surging economy will produce a spike in tax revenue inflow, which will help lower the runaway deficit.
The contrast this election between the courses these two men want to take is could not be more striking, or crucial.
Well off the top of your head I can tell you that Romney has already said that he would keep the big parts of Obamacare in place.
Don't forget Obamacare is just a watered down version of Romneycare, which he made law in MA.
And at least two of your points are the same thing. Possibly three or even 4.
BPTactical
09-13-2012, 19:51
Let me answer your question with a question:
Would you rather lose your 2A rights or the country?
Given Obozo's performance the last 3 1/2 years it is clear he does not hold America's being a global power economically, militarily, spiritually or any other way in high regards.
Four more years of his policies and this country will be reduced to a has been. We will become Greece/Italy.
Is that worth keeping the 2A rights of individuals as we know?
Even though Romney is far from a Reaganesque individual I believe he has the best interest of the country in mind.
Become the global example that we once were and sacrifice traditional 2A or become a second rate country and keep the 2a?
Crummy choice to make.
Let me answer your question with a question:
Would you rather lose your 2A rights or the country?
Given Obozo's performance the last 3 1/2 years it is clear he does not hold America's being a global power economically, militarily, spiritually or any other way in high regards.
Four more years of his policies and this country will be reduced to a has been. We will become Greece/Italy.
Is that worth keeping the 2A rights of individuals as we know?
Even though Romney is far from a Reaganesque individual I believe he has the best interest of the country in mind.
Become the global example that we once were and sacrifice traditional 2A or become a second rate country and keep the 2a?
Crummy choice to make.
Bravo, BP, you've framed the question perfectly. Luckily, it's a choice we don't really have to make, but there is a point to this thread.
Our country is at a crossroad. Too many voters are prioritizing smaller personal pet issues that benefit them, over the big picture issues that will determine the fate of the country. If the country falls, all the personal pet issues will suffer and fall along with it.
This thread was meant to give us a taste of having to sacrifice and put country first, in front of self. It's a choice many are going to have to face and take the high road on if we're to save ourselves. Especially true when half the country is not paying taxes, becoming more and more dependent on the crumbs thrown to them by a government seeking to enslave them.
BPTactical
09-13-2012, 20:19
I could not agree more.
Some things in this world are greater than the individuals needs and this election is one.
The "liberal" crowd really needs to think of something other than themselves.
I think we would be wise to realize our 2A rights will change regardless of who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania in January.
In what context and to which degree is the question.
Even though Romney is far from a Reaganesque individual I believe he has the best interest of the country in mind.
Become the global example that we once were and sacrifice traditional 2A or become a second rate country and keep the 2a?
Crummy choice to make.
Bert,
I'm not following well, this may need to be explained in-person when I drop off the next barrel to be threaded...my mind is slow like that.
Id still vote Romney. Obama fucked our country for more years than we know with his SCOTUS appointments. I don't want to see any more of his choices.
BPTactical
09-13-2012, 21:37
Bert,
I'm not following well, this may need to be explained in-person when I drop off the next barrel to be threaded...my mind is slow like that.
I reduced the question to its most basic terms (in my mind) to what he was asking:
Keep 2A and continue the downward spiral we are in with BHO at the helm.
Sacrifice 2A and at least have a chance to pull the country out of the swirly pool we are floating in with Romney holding the reins.
Like I said, crummy choice.
Like I said, crummy choice.
I was hoping for some good news... :(
If Romney and Obama switched positions, they'd both still be anti-gun.
sellersm
09-13-2012, 23:15
Our country is at a crossroad. Too many voters are prioritizing smaller personal pet issues that benefit them, over the big picture issues that will determine the fate of the country. If the country falls, all the personal pet issues will suffer and fall along with it.
This is the truth, and the result of many years of planned indoctrination, etc., as well as just plain old human behavior. I see no change in this fundamental problem, therefore, as Bert said: do we lose our country or our 2A rights? I propose that we will lose both...
pickenup
09-13-2012, 23:25
Romney signed the nation's first ban on assault weapons in Massachusetts and steeply increased fees on gun owners by 400%.
Becomes Anti Gun?????
Rust_shackleford
09-14-2012, 08:33
http://www.alipac.us/f12/romney-signs-off-permanent-assault-weapons-ban-261253/
Rust_shackleford
09-14-2012, 08:33
Romney signed the nation's first ban on assault weapons in Massachusetts and steeply increased fees on gun owners by 400%.
Becomes Anti Gun?????
shhhh no reality allowed
KevDen2005
09-14-2012, 09:48
Still Romney. Plenty of seriously important reasons to get the Big O out! However, we will be fighting for gun rights no matter who the president is, so we would fight for those rights. But, if there isn't a country left or the Constitution is completely thrown out there won't be much to fight for.
If you think that then you really aren't listening.
- Cut taxes on business
- Slash regulations that are overwhelming small business people and stifling growth.
- Measures to repatriate corporate profits stuck over seas
- Get tough on China
- Unleash US energy exploration and development.
- Lower capital gains tax
- kill obama care.
That's just a short list off the top of my head. With that list of goals, you will see a major resurgence in the private sector the moment he's declared the winner. Employment will come roaring back. Billions of dollars being held in coffers by corporations because of their fear and uncertainty of how Obama's current initiative will impact them, and what he has up his sleeve for attacking them next, will start to get invested in growth opportunities. The newly surging economy will produce a spike in tax revenue inflow, which will help lower the runaway deficit.
The contrast this election between the courses these two men want to take is could not be more striking, or crucial.
Bravo, BP, you've framed the question perfectly. Luckily, it's a choice we don't really have to make, but there is a point to this thread.
Our country is at a crossroad. Too many voters are prioritizing smaller personal pet issues that benefit them, over the big picture issues that will determine the fate of the country. If the country falls, all the personal pet issues will suffer and fall along with it.
This thread was meant to give us a taste of having to sacrifice and put country first, in front of self. It's a choice many are going to have to face and take the high road on if we're to save ourselves. Especially true when half the country is not paying taxes, becoming more and more dependent on the crumbs thrown to them by a government seeking to enslave them.
WHO ARE YOU!? I need to come down to woodland park and buy you a beer![Beer]
I underlined the points that are spot on... I couldn't agree more, and with the emotional, void of logic thinking that the left excretes out of their minds and pie holes is just appalling and shameful. They can't look at the bigger picture and see what's better for the nation as a whole, they only think what would be better for their lazy, moronic selves. [Bang]
Thanks, Ronin. One of the things I'm enjoying so much about this site, and finding so encouraging, is that so many within the membership have their heads on straight about the plight of our country, and what needs to be done to fix it.
This election could be our last chance. If Obama wins again, our next opportunity may just well be after the collapse, once the lefties have actually felt the severe pain resulting from their choices, and are finally ready to rediscover the magnificence of what we were, the brilliance of our forefathers, and what actually made us great.
I hope we don't have to take that course, but I'm not confident we won't. If we do, it won't be the fault of the folks here. Do what you can, everyone, to spread the word of the importance of Nov 6th. We're Americans, we don't go down without a fight.
It's funny that you think the economy is going to get much better.
The jobs are gone. They've all gone overseas. No such thing as careers anymore. You can either join a labor union or you can get an entry level service/sales position.
Or you can get educated for the low low cost of 100k
It's funny that you think the economy is going to get much better.
The jobs are gone. They've all gone overseas. No such thing as careers anymore. You can either join a labor union or you can get an entry level service/sales position.
Got that f***** right!
I worked in manufacturing for 25 years.
Im not sure the public understands how much manufacturing has left and how much technology has left with it.
As soon as it hits Chinas "free economic zone" the technology is copied,but thats not important. Whats important is that the "business model is achieved". Stock goes up, big bonus for CEO YAY!
Got that f***** right!
I worked in manufacturing for 25 years.
Im not sure the public understands how much manufacturing has left and how much technology has left with it.
As soon as it hits Chinas "free economic zone" the technology is copied,but thats not important. Whats important is that the "business model is achieved". Stock goes up, big bonus for CEO YAY!
Too, what a lot of people don't understand is WHY so many jobs are flying abroad. It's a world market. Our government makes operating here so expensive our businesses can't produce product and compete on that world stage. They're forced to move off shore. Hammering them with even more taxes and regulations is not the answer. That just makes the situation worse.
That's why all this Obama class warfare is so damaging. It promotes the mentality that demonizes business, which makes it even more difficult for people to fix the problem. People end up wanting to attack and punish business and corporations, which will come back to bite them even more.
Originally Posted by Ridge http://www.ar-15.co/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ar-15.co/forums/showthread.php?p=626173#post626173)
It's funny that you think the economy is going to get much better.
The jobs are gone. They've all gone overseas. No such thing as careers anymore. You can either join a labor union or you can get an entry level service/sales position.
Or you can get educated for the low low cost of 100k
You guys are such worry warts! Everyone will just work for goverment subsidized businesses. Maybe theyll extend unemployment to 10years. There are solutions!
Too, what a lot of people don't understand is WHY so many jobs are flying abroad. It's a world market. Our government makes operating here so expensive our businesses can't produce product and compete on that world stage. They're forced to move off shore. Hammering them with even more taxes and regulations is not the answer. That just makes the situation worse.
That's why all this Obama class warfare is so damaging. It promotes the mentality that demonizes business, which makes it even more difficult for people to fix the problem. People end up wanting to attack and punish business and corporations, which will come back to bite them even more.
I respectfully disagree. Yes all the factors you mention are a issue but many business that were very lucrative operating in the USA have been moved overseas only to have the product quality go to shit. The product is then mercessly pirated by competitors. The company is ruined , complete value destruction but the CEO got his bonus because the cost of manufacture went down on paper and the business model was met. In many cases the CEOs know nothing about the business, could care less about the company, they are only in for 3-4 years before they move on to the next "success". The CEO could care less about the true value the company provides. In many cases he doesnt understand the business enough to increase the value even if he wanted to. What the CEO does understand is that if he outsources jobs the stock goes up, he gets his bonus, his career is augmented by the success, and he will move on to the next company at a higher rate of compensation.
Rucker61
09-16-2012, 11:45
Too, what a lot of people don't understand is WHY so many jobs are flying abroad. It's a world market. Our government makes operating here so expensive our businesses can't produce product and compete on that world stage. They're forced to move off shore. Hammering them with even more taxes and regulations is not the answer. That just makes the situation worse.
The cost to produce the products is so much lower in China that American companies can't afford to pay American salaries. They were forced to move production to low cost regions to compete in the world market you refer to. Regulations were not the driving force; cost of labor and components compared to what the competition had with Asian labor, combined with a near absolute demand by the America buying public for the cheapest goods drove manufacturing overseas.
The cost to produce the products is so much lower in China that American companies can't afford to pay American salaries. They were forced to move production to low cost regions to compete in the world market you refer to. Regulations were not the driving force; cost of labor and components compared to what the competition had with Asian labor, combined with a near absolute demand by the America buying public for the cheapest goods drove manufacturing overseas.
Very true, Rucker. What you and I said are both contributing factors to why our jobs are disappearing. We have no control over what foreign economies pay their workers. We do, however, have control over the tax burden we impose on companies who try to operate here. We have one of the highest corporate tax rate and regulatory environments in the world. It's stupidity.
No, I take that back, it's not stupidity, it's "fairness". Fairness to the detriment of the very people that fairness is suppose to help. Nah, guess I was right in the first place; STUPIDITY.
BPTactical
09-16-2012, 12:57
News flash- life is not fair.
Therefore the concept of "fairness" is a moot point.
The problem with the liberal left: they want everybody equal and everything fair.
Its a pipedream steeped in idealistic goals and disconnected from reality.
The cost to produce the products is so much lower in China that American companies can't afford to pay American salaries. They were forced to move production to low cost regions to compete in the world market you refer to. Regulations were not the driving force; cost of labor and components compared to what the competition had with Asian labor, combined with a near absolute demand by the America buying public for the cheapest goods drove manufacturing overseas.
Salaries are a definate factor. I guestimate it to be about 12-1 for somewhat equivalant employee. $5 a hour buys quite a nice lifestyle in china even in a "free economic zone"
Lets get to the nitty gritty. China doesnt float its currency( allow its currency to betraded on the free market). The ability to control this exchange rate arbitrarily enables them to determine the price of things including employee compensation not free markets. Thats like a cage fight where you put one guy in shackles and give the other guy a sledge hammer. Who would agree to such a contest? Well Clinton was the first. I suppose a argument for Nixon being the first would have some validity. All subsequent presidents have apparantly liked the odds as well after all lots of $ being made and contibuted to campaigns. If we competed with China in a free market we would clean their clocks, today, still, even after giving them the technology that has taken them from the stone age to a modern society including the pivotal technology of the century the semi conductor microprocessor. These two factors are the great distortion in the "its a small world lets compete globally" argument. The argument is correct but no one mentions the two distortions that destroy the jobs and value of this country. One, we are competing globally, fine, lets compete, just float your currency china! Oh so sorry. Two, every technological breakthrough discovered in the USA via good old yankee innovation we give to china via outsourcing. How nice of us, we get our cage fight opponent in an arm bar only to let them go. This is not free market competition by any definition. Well Im sure China gives us all their technological innovations. Oh so sorry. We give them technology that is the fruit of our society . USA education, USA innovation. Then we allow a economic distortion contrary to free markets of vast proportion that allows them to harness and cultivate the technology but does not allow us to do the same. Wages are cheaper in china. Are they? We really dont know until they float their currency do we? I have nothing against china as a nation or the chinese as individuals. Who is keeping us in shackles for the cage fight is what I want to know.
Rucker61
09-16-2012, 14:01
Very true, Rucker. What you and I said are both contributing factors to why our jobs are disappearing. We have no control over what foreign economies pay their workers. We do, however, have control over the tax burden we impose on companies who try to operate here. We have one of the highest corporate tax rate and regulatory environments in the world. It's stupidity.
No, I take that back, it's not stupidity, it's "fairness". Fairness to the detriment of the very people that fairness is suppose to help. Nah, guess I was right in the first place; STUPIDITY.
There's the argument that we need to compare effective tax rates rather than statuatory tax rates, but one problem there is how the ETR is calculated. I've seen claims from "The US ETR is well below the world-wide industrial average" to "the ETR is still the highest in the world". GE's 2002-2011 tax figures would indicate someone towards the lower end.
One problem with lowering the STR, and assuming that the ETR goes down as well (not assured) is that tax revenues will decrease as a result, and another is that the other industrial countries could counter with a reduction of their own to retain the current level of capital investment in their own economy, rather than it moving to the US.
And what would it gain us? The Congressional Research Service issued a report in March 2011 that stated
"Regardless of tax differentials, could a U.S. rate cut lead to significant economic gains and revenue feedbacks? Because of the factors that constrain capital flows, estimates for a rate cut from 35% to 25% suggest a modest positive effect on wages and output: an eventual one-time increase of less than two-tenths of 1% of output. Most of this output gain is not an increase in national income because returns to capital imported from abroad belong to foreigners and the returns to U.S. investment abroad that comes back to the United States are already owned by U.S. firms. [Congressional Research Service, 3/31/11 (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41743_20110331.pdf)]"
We have no control over what foreign economies pay their workers. We do, however, have control over the tax burden we impose on companies who try to operate here. .
We do agree to trade with china when we float our currency on the free market and they do not. It is estimated that if China floated its currency its value would increase three to four times. When we trade with a country that allows its currency to trade on the free market we have no control over what they pay their workers, not so with China. We have agreed to discount their workers salaries by 75% by agreeing to trade with them when they do not float their currency. The economic distortion that is the trade between the USA and China does not exist freely, it was created. It is not free trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMan
If you think that then you really aren't listening.
- Cut taxes on business
- Slash regulations that are overwhelming small business people and stifling growth.
- Measures to repatriate corporate profits stuck over seas
- Get tough on China
- Unleash US energy exploration and development.
- Lower capital gains tax
- kill obama care.
That's just a short list off the top of my head. With that list of goals, you will see a major resurgence in the private sector the moment he's declared the winner. Employment will come roaring back. Billions of dollars being held in coffers by corporations because of their fear and uncertainty of how Obama's current initiative will impact them, and what he has up his sleeve for attacking them next, will start to get invested in growth opportunities. The newly surging economy will produce a spike in tax revenue inflow, which will help lower the runaway deficit.
The contrast this election between the courses these two men want to take is could not be more striking, or crucial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMan
Bravo, BP, you've framed the question perfectly. Luckily, it's a choice we don't really have to make, but there is a point to this thread.
Our country is at a crossroad. Too many voters are prioritizing smaller personal pet issues that benefit them, over the big picture issues that will determine the fate of the country. If the country falls, all the personal pet issues will suffer and fall along with it.
This thread was meant to give us a taste of having to sacrifice and put country first, in front of self. It's a choice many are going to have to face and take the high road on if we're to save ourselves. Especially true when half the country is not paying taxes, becoming more and more dependent on the crumbs thrown to them by a government seeking to enslave them.
WHO ARE YOU!? I need to come down to woodland park and buy you a beer!
I underlined the points that are spot on... I couldn't agree more, and with the emotional, void of logic thinking that the left excretes out of their minds and pie holes is just appalling and shameful. They can't look at the bigger picture and see what's better for the nation as a whole, they only think what would be better for their lazy, moronic selves.
__________________
I believe Romey is the clear choice this time because of the economy. Cutting the capital gains tax is a bad idea in my mind. It only benefits those who independantly invest, unlike the majority of us who have to run it through a 401k. We see none of the benefits.
Obama hasn't done anything about gun control because he saved it for his second term, Romney won't do anything about gun control because he will want a second term.
If we get enough congressmen and women who are pro gun it won't be an issue. Our two senators are not very pro gun, but neither is up for reelection this time.
Biger than the next four years is the make up of the SCOTUS for the next 10-25 years. Obama has shown he will nominate extremely liberal justices, can we afford one or two more?
Rust_shackleford
10-02-2012, 18:12
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMan
If you think that then you really aren't listening.
- Cut taxes on business
- Slash regulations that are overwhelming small business people and stifling growth.
- Measures to repatriate corporate profits stuck over seas
- Get tough on China
- Unleash US energy exploration and development.
- Lower capital gains tax
- kill obama care.
That's just a short list off the top of my head. With that list of goals, you will see a major resurgence in the private sector the moment he's declared the winner. Employment will come roaring back. Billions of dollars being held in coffers by corporations because of their fear and uncertainty of how Obama's current initiative will impact them, and what he has up his sleeve for attacking them next, will start to get invested in growth opportunities. The newly surging economy will produce a spike in tax revenue inflow, which will help lower the runaway deficit.
The contrast this election between the courses these two men want to take is could not be more striking, or crucial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastMan
Bravo, BP, you've framed the question perfectly. Luckily, it's a choice we don't really have to make, but there is a point to this thread.
Our country is at a crossroad. Too many voters are prioritizing smaller personal pet issues that benefit them, over the big picture issues that will determine the fate of the country. If the country falls, all the personal pet issues will suffer and fall along with it.
This thread was meant to give us a taste of having to sacrifice and put country first, in front of self. It's a choice many are going to have to face and take the high road on if we're to save ourselves. Especially true when half the country is not paying taxes, becoming more and more dependent on the crumbs thrown to them by a government seeking to enslave them.
WHO ARE YOU!? I need to come down to woodland park and buy you a beer!
I underlined the points that are spot on... I couldn't agree more, and with the emotional, void of logic thinking that the left excretes out of their minds and pie holes is just appalling and shameful. They can't look at the bigger picture and see what's better for the nation as a whole, they only think what would be better for their lazy, moronic selves.
__________________
I believe Romey is the clear choice this time because of the economy. Cutting the capital gains tax is a bad idea in my mind. It only benefits those who independantly invest, unlike the majority of us who have to run it through a 401k. We see none of the benefits.
Obama hasn't done anything about gun control because he saved it for his second term, Romney won't do anything about gun control because he will want a second term.
If we get enough congressmen and women who are pro gun it won't be an issue. Our two senators are not very pro gun, but neither is up for reelection this time.
Biger than the next four years is the make up of the SCOTUS for the next 10-25 years. Obama has shown he will nominate extremely liberal justices, can we afford one or two more?
great theory. However Romney signed Massachusetts "assault weapons" ban.
Obama's base is anti gun. [Luck]
BPTactical
10-02-2012, 19:24
great theory. However Romney signed Massachusetts "assault weapons" ban.
Obama's base is anti gun. [Luck]
True, but Mittens would have a little tougher road to hoe Federally
Rucker61
10-02-2012, 19:34
I believe Romey is the clear choice this time because of the economy.
Google "DJIA ten year history" and "corporate profits sixty years" and let me know what you find. Look up "trickle down" while you're at it.
dwalker460
10-02-2012, 19:59
Mitts quote from the 2008 regarding his stance on gun control-
"I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that if they're implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reason. That's the right that people have."
So Oblammy WILL take our guns, Mitt wants to simply enforce the law as it is already in place.
Also dont forget the bigger picture, Oblammy is setting up to remove the limitations on how many terms the Pres can serve, so he can be the Supreme Leader he sees himself as.
Rust_shackleford
10-02-2012, 20:04
Mitt's flip flops seem to make Kerry look like a solid guy. Also you only have the illusion of choice. Both candidates are owned and you know it.
Scanker19
10-02-2012, 20:13
So Obama is going to do these nefarious things legally? Wouldn't he just do it? If I was in a room with some of you, I'd swear I was in a nut house.
Keep in mind it take a congress to make these changes as well.
sellersm
10-02-2012, 20:18
There are enough executive orders in place that all it will take is one 'catastrophe' or 'terrorist event' and voila! Permanent presidency with lots of 3-letter agencies with gobs of power and control. And any number of a zillion other chain of events, and we can end up with lots of changes that we never thought 'could' happen.
There's no need for congress to do anything anymore, at least not with the guy who's in charge today.
<tin foil hat put away>
dwalker460
10-02-2012, 20:26
So Obama is going to do these nefarious things legally? Wouldn't he just do it? If I was in a room with some of you, I'd swear I was in a nut house.
Keep in mind it take a congress to make these changes as well.
It takes Congress to do a lot of things... guess that showed Big O.... dammit, wait... he already has done what the eff he pleased and Congress said nothing to do with it.
I think many do not really get how big a nutjob he really is.
BPTactical
10-02-2012, 20:30
It takes Congress to do a lot of things... guess that showed Big O.... dammit, wait... he already has done what the eff he pleased and Congress said nothing to do with it.
I think many do not really get how big a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER he really is.
FIFY
dwalker460
10-02-2012, 20:36
FIFY
Thanks Bert
great theory. However Romney signed Massachusetts "assault weapons" ban.
Obama's base is anti gun. [Luck]
I hope and pray Romney doesn't go that way if/when he becomes president. It is so tough to tell where they stand on 2A and assault weapons. Hopefully the congress won't pass the law, so we don't have to worry about a signature from the presidant, no matter who it is.
Sharpienads
10-05-2012, 20:26
In our reality;
Romney signed a permanent AWB into law in MA
Obama signed into law bills that allow carry in national parks and on AMTRAK trains
Romney signed the nation's first ban on assault weapons in Massachusetts and steeply increased fees on gun owners by 400%.
Becomes Anti Gun?????
great theory. However Romney signed Massachusetts "assault weapons" ban.
Obama's base is anti gun. [Luck]
What bill was this that Romney signed, exactly?
I believe Romey is the clear choice this time because of the economy. Cutting the capital gains tax is a bad idea in my mind. It only benefits those who independantly invest, unlike the majority of us who have to run it through a 401k. We see none of the benefits.
So what?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.