I guess I'll teach my kids to be politically expedient. No need to have character any more. Good luck with your next globalist puppet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
Printable View
I guess I'll teach my kids to be politically expedient. No need to have character any more. Good luck with your next globalist puppet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
I would have to say that his current stance is much better than Obamas.
What really matters is who is picking SCOTUS justices, how the house and senate elections fare, and hopefully no underhanded amendments are attached to anything important to both parties/the country
Maybe you should teach them about federalism and how different levels of government have different powers/limitations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rust_shackleford
To boil his 2A stance down to political expediency or lack of character is not taking all things into account, IMO. Is it a possibility that since 2002 his views have changed? And if so, are we going to beat him up over it, even if he has legitimately changed into something that we agree with? Or is it possible that what he views as acceptable for a state isn't acceptable at the federal level?
The point is to discuss the topic and be able to back up your opinions.
Just putting some info out there. Instead of listening to people accuse him or make excuses for him, listen to Romney declare his stance in his own words. Does it matter how long it took him to change his stance? His position was wildly different during the last elected office he held. You either believe in something and stand by it, or in the absence of such integrity you say whatever your advisers say you should to get elected. I agree with you, he's not as 2A-friendly as some believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
When it comes to the 2nd.. it boils down to this fact imho. Obama has been proven to bypass The US Congress by appointing Czars and issuing Executive Orders (In fact he issued 139 executive orders in lesser than 4 years). Our federal govt is designed to check and balance itself, if Obama gets his 2nd term, there is not such thing as check and balance!
And W also appointed many czars and issued 291 executive orders in his 8 years in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ers/wbush.html
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey
Listing of Executive Branch czars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_branch_czars
True.Quote:
and issuing Executive Orders (In fact he issued 139 executive orders in lesser than 4 years).
Listing of numbers of executive orders issued, by President:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html
In number of executive orders issued by year in office, Obama comes in right after President Bush in lowest average at 38 per year, compared to 36 per year for GWB.
You know, I once new a man who did not believe in God and believed that marriage was a outdated bunch of BS, did not believe in corporate anything. We lost touch, he went his way, I went mine. Well time passed and when we met again years later he was married, is a mortgage broker/loan guy, has kids, and is a devout member of his local Church (my hometown Church actually).Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
But yanno, people dont change.
Fact.. It's Romney vs Obama. I dont know about you.. I don't want another Bush, or Obama.. Obama has proven to be worse than Bush w/ those eo and czars numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridge
Fact: As he hasn't been President, I can't really compare stats that don't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey
You make it sound like Obama has been liberal with EOs and czars, when the previous Republican President was about equal on both terms.