Yep, and neither seems to understand the NFA process or the effects of an AWB.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Both these fuckers hate my AKs
I think Obama will try for a ban
Obama might push for a ban. Romney would sign one if it made it to his desk, methinks. The disincentive is more for Romney, as more of the Republican base would reject him if he did so. The DNC supports an AWB as part of their national platform, so one would think there would be less negative backlash from the Democratic party base.
it frightens me that you guys would consider it a political make or break depending on whether a president would take away your AK47's.
there are more pressing concerns than the type and size of toy you can keep in your gun locker.... surely?
are you that deluded that you consider having an ak47 taken away from you some huge political 'no-no'?
how about fixing the economy? looking after the planet? universal healthcare? public education? nasa? fuck, i dunno... anything of importance?
there are more pressing concerns than the type and size of toy you can keep in your gun locker.... surely?
are you that deluded that you consider having an ak47 taken away from you some huge political 'no-no'?
how about fixing the economy? looking after the planet? universal healthcare? public education? nasa? fuck, i dunno... anything of importance?
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-10-17 15:50:17)
>The second amendment of the United States constitution
>not important
Pick one
>not important
Pick one
You'd be surprised how important it is to a lot of people here
He's not saying it isn't important, he's saying there are more important issues than your guns.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
You'd be surprised how important it is to a lot of people here
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
Hurricane, who are you voting for and why Romney?
Then why spend (waste) time and resources making laws to ban/restrict them?Camm wrote:
He's not saying it isn't important, he's saying there are more important issues than your guns.
Obama admitted the problem in his city, which is one of the worst in the country for gun crimes and gun rights, isnt an "assualt weapon" problem. They're using cheap pistols. What does that tell you...Obama wants to ban them too
Spoiler (highlight to read):
he wants to ban all guns
Since Obama doesn't have to worry about getting reelected, this is the time he'll try to get something through.
These bans/restrictions are a violation of the 2nd Amendment and they don't solve the problem.
Banning guns, which doesn't work, is their solution to gun violence.
The real problem is parenting and education, but they don't know how to fix that.
He can't vote.AussieReaper wrote:
Hurricane, who are you voting for and why Romney?
who would you vote for and why?AussieReaper wrote:
Hurricane, who are you voting for and why Romney?
I'd be disappointed with Obama but vote for him.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
who would you vote for and why?AussieReaper wrote:
Hurricane, who are you voting for and why Romney?
The republicans don't deserve the.vote until they shift back towards the middle. The social conservatives ands religious conservatives are downright idiotic, the fiscal conservatives are sane but under represented.
Santorum, Bachmann and Perry are crazy, but it's Huntsman that was laughed at for saying evolution and climate change is real.
How could a moderate or fiscal conservative accept that as their party platform?
so you'd vote for Obama because the republicans don't deserve the vote? Or in other words, you'd vote against the republicans for being too socially/religiously conservative?
Yep.
Gotta cancel out the crazy vote.
Should the GOP lose, they either move toward the centre, or further right. Which do you think they'll do?
They used to be a credible party. Embracing the tea party "Obama is a Muslim" extreme is utterly pathetic. As is the birther movement.
Gimme a GOP that cares about fiscal conservatism, hold the nuts, thanks.
Gotta cancel out the crazy vote.
Should the GOP lose, they either move toward the centre, or further right. Which do you think they'll do?
They used to be a credible party. Embracing the tea party "Obama is a Muslim" extreme is utterly pathetic. As is the birther movement.
Gimme a GOP that cares about fiscal conservatism, hold the nuts, thanks.
Sounds like the Libertarian Party.AussieReaper wrote:
Yep.
Gotta cancel out the crazy vote.
Should the GOP lose, they either move toward the centre, or further right. Which do you think they'll do?
They used to be a credible party. Embracing the tea party "Obama is a Muslim" extreme is utterly pathetic. As is the birther movement.
Gimme a GOP that cares about fiscal conservatism, hold the nuts, thanks.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Gary Johnson wrote:
America’s challenges and the crises we face demand a real debate — not dueling Phil Donahue acts carping at one another over who is worse.
I defy anyone who watched the debate to identify a plan from either the Republican or Democrat that will achieve a balanced budget. Behind the fuzzy math and the quibbling, there was nothing more than a commitment to continue the status quo — with at most a few minor adjustments. We don’t need adjustments. We need a fundamental reduction in the role and cost of government, and both Romney and Obama are fundamentally big-government guys.
We watched a blame game over immigration, while the problem festers with no solution in sight. We heard quibbling over whose government plan would have saved GM better, but nothing about why the government should be bailing out any company at all. And we heard cheap shots about government -run health care from two candidates who both support it. Where is the reasonable argument that government shouldn’t be running health care in the first place?
On the attacks in Libya, the debate we must have is not over what we call it or when; we need a debate over why we were there at all.
There are clear choices in this election, but they weren’t on the stage tonight.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Penn Jillette wrote:
“The only difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama is killing more people. He’s about double the numbers now. Can you imagine if McCain had won and did precisely what Obama has done, with every speech and every political maneuver overseas? There’d be riots in the streets about the people we’re killing. And yet because it’s Obama, and he’s better looking and better at reading the teleprompter, we let him get away with it.”
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No one is reading that shit but thanks
when were they a credible party?AussieReaper wrote:
Yep.
Gotta cancel out the crazy vote.
Should the GOP lose, they either move toward the centre, or further right. Which do you think they'll do?
They used to be a credible party. Embracing the tea party "Obama is a Muslim" extreme is utterly pathetic. As is the birther movement.
Gimme a GOP that cares about fiscal conservatism, hold the nuts, thanks.
Worth noting that AR may be used to a electoral paradigm where not voting for someone (anyone) is a pretty big deal, and a much bigger call than actually voting for someone.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
so you'd vote for Obama because the republicans don't deserve the vote? Or in other words, you'd vote against the republicans for being too socially/religiously conservative?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
when they governed by the consent of the people, not the fringe base of the primaries.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
when were they a credible party?AussieReaper wrote:
Yep.
Gotta cancel out the crazy vote.
Should the GOP lose, they either move toward the centre, or further right. Which do you think they'll do?
They used to be a credible party. Embracing the tea party "Obama is a Muslim" extreme is utterly pathetic. As is the birther movement.
Gimme a GOP that cares about fiscal conservatism, hold the nuts, thanks.
when they viewed foreign policy as actual policy.
when they actually advocated economic policy that didn't demagogue
when they acted in the best interest in the country, not the best interest of the party
when they believed infrastructure mattered
when they would show bi-partisan support in times of national crisis.
R I P President Eisenhower
Burnz, the only people I ever hear talking about bipartisanship are democrats crying about not being able to pass their pie in the sky visions.
You are advocating a vision of a time that never existed, sorry. The country has been hyperpartisan since its founding.
You are advocating a vision of a time that never existed, sorry. The country has been hyperpartisan since its founding.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I agree that not voting for someone is a big deal. He wouldn't have to vote for obama, especially as a 'lesser of two evils'. Its a cop out response. If you don't agree with a two party system as it currently stands then why vote either or?Spark wrote:
Worth noting that AR may be used to a electoral paradigm where not voting for someone (anyone) is a pretty big deal, and a much bigger call than actually voting for someone.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
so you'd vote for Obama because the republicans don't deserve the vote? Or in other words, you'd vote against the republicans for being too socially/religiously conservative?
The lesser of two evils in the hope that the most evil reforms. You need a strong opposition in government, and a strong opposition is better for democracy as a whole. I don't believe the Republicans offer that opposition, when they fight to be more socially conservative. Or daresay, regressive.
Not voting is a copout.
Not voting is a copout.
lol no. I understand that the government offers safety nets to people, the libertarian concept of an ever smaller government is backwards for many reasons.Jay wrote:
Sounds like the Libertarian Party.AussieReaper wrote:
Yep.
Gotta cancel out the crazy vote.
Should the GOP lose, they either move toward the centre, or further right. Which do you think they'll do?
They used to be a credible party. Embracing the tea party "Obama is a Muslim" extreme is utterly pathetic. As is the birther movement.
Gimme a GOP that cares about fiscal conservatism, hold the nuts, thanks.
well, it's your lucky day! i am not advocating pie in the sky and i don't vote a straight ticket. i want a federal budget passed and i blame congress, both democrats and republicans for not getting it done.Jay wrote:
Burnz, the only people I ever hear talking about bipartisanship are democrats crying about not being able to pass their pie in the sky visions.
i disagree with you. it's ok though, you're young enough to think you know everything, and old enough to think you've seen everything.Jay wrote:
You are advocating a vision of a time that never existed, sorry. The country has been hyperpartisan since its founding.
before gingrich engineered this latest round of hyper-partisanship, name the fiscal year that a federal budget wasn't passed. oh wait, gingrich and clinton did pass a bi-partisan budget, after the government closures forced both of them back to the table. not only passed a budget, but a democratic president signed a balanced budget!
so, name the fiscal year that a federal budget wasn't passed, before the teabaggers were elected in 2010 please.
this, but if I could vote it'd either be Gary Johnson or Obama. I don't think Romney would be any worse at fixing our economy than Obama, but socially he's just way too unacceptable for me. Obama's not the greatest social liberal either, but he's a fucking shitload better than Romney and the party of psychotic individuals who guide their decisions based on a book.Macbeth wrote:
He can't vote.AussieReaper wrote:
Hurricane, who are you voting for and why Romney?
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2012-10-17 20:28:31)