Leaderboard

Romney does not represent entrepreneurship, he represents corporate raiding and outsourcing, the very things that have destroyed the American small business world. The true entrepreneur is behind the eight ball with both political parties. Republicans and Democrats are both Progressives. The Democrats are Populist Progressives and the Republicans are Corporate and Elitist Progressives. We need to quit drinking the Kool-Aid and bring both parties to task for how they have ruined this country.

$20 says some redneck has his kid shoot him in mouth with it before he takes another shot of tequila.

I'll up you one. I believe TGO is a bunch of closet Democrats who are happy with the direction and that's why they support Romney. Cause he is a mirror image.

I meet some more die hard Ron Paul supporters today handing out flyers that said Ron Paul was the only answer to beat Obama. I did a little Q&A with them and for the most part they were nice and humored me. I asked them a question that seemed to piss them off and they walked away from me. What might that question be you ask, I simple asked "How does Ron Paul plan on winning when the last third party to win a single electoral vote was 50 years ago and the last guy to take more than 50 electoral vote was a guy named Theodore Roosevelt?" They did not have anything to say to that and just walked away from me. I normally I do not talk politics but this year my blood is boiling a little with people voting 3rd party so they don't have to vote for Romney and they fully believe that the 3rd party person they will vote for can win the election. I am all for voting for who you think is the best candidate any year but this year. To me this year comes down to voting for based n how you feel Obama did the last 3 1/2 years. If you are ok with his job vote for Obama, if you are upset with the direction of the country then you need to vote for Romney. To many people voting straight ticket kills any chance for a 3rd party to win. ok rant over

Isn't it sort of odd that the action of a business can result in a misdemeanor charge for what is otherwise a legal action (HCP)? Wouldn't it be interesting if there was a law that stated that the business would be charged with a misdemeanor if their gunbuster sign wasn't in clear view. There is such a law - - - for the health inspection score.

Thats how it was on post before a movie..I liked that.They do not do this here... I actually dont really like going to the theater anymore.Its so expensive for 3 people nowadays.And I dont like crowds..

And they played the National Anthem first, and we all stood up.

I can't find anything that supports this. Seems like unsubstantiated rumor.

There would be no point in spending the time doing so unless the one listening were truly listening and willing to be persuaded to support Romney. Moreover, it's unnecessary in any event since anything one wants to know about Romney, good and bad, is readily available to anyone who wants to find it.

Except in my above remark I was joking (which I thought would have been obvious); the ones I'm talking about berating me were most definitely not joking. In fact, one the most vile and abusive of the bunch I've personally had an encounter with this election cycle is in the video that is the subject of this thread, standing behind RP.

Right, that's why I'll throw my vote to Johnson? You get upset claiming you are berated, yet you continue to berate. You reap what you sow.

Yes, Mitt did not put the laws in place. But he has made any number of questionable quotes. Let me share a few gems... “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,†he said during a gubernatorial debate “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.â€2 (On support for the brady bill) "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA (National Rifle Association)," he said. "I don't line up with a lot of special interest groups." I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal, There are dozens more of these but they all say the same thing: Mitt's support of the 2nd is casual at best --- he does not support "high cap" mags, he does not support ownership of semi automatic rifles, he does not agree with the NRA in general but wants their endorsement, and he thinks gun control helps to reduce crime. Just the words that come out of his mouth are enough even if we give him a pass for anything he did in MA.

They don't have to knock, they'll just do like they did in England - outlaw them, allowing a grace period to turn in all firearms, no questions asked, after which possession of a firearm is felony. And it would work, for the most part. All of those that didn't turn them in could essentially never again use them without fear of prison time, even in self-defense. But, since we DC v Heller on our side, I don't see it happening.

Poose Morgan needs to waddle his ass back to England. The way he treated John Lott was disgraceful. Bloomberg... did anybody notice that both candidates just blew him off? Little gasbag with a weak following.

No. That would be bad form in my opinion. I have followed people out of a store and offered money but never when they are dealing with the shop.

Sorry, I just can't seem to bring myself to give a rat's hiney what a bunch of stupid limeys think.

Hah, I was right! Every time there is someone making the south look bad, a yankee or a leftcoaster is involved. Mark my words.

i showed a friend of mine the video last night and he just shook his head and said "now that's a special kinda stupid"

Obviously had a HCP badge.

Yes we do get stuck with what we get stuck with. I'd put off watching this video and finally did. Having watched it now, I'd point out that yes the primaries are over, but the nomination has yet to happen. It appears to me to be the R's who keep trying to drag the supporters of Dr. Paul in to support Romney, as is the case here on TGO. While I understand the R's wanting their guy to win, it will not be the fault of Paul's Supporters if Romney does not. It will be the fault of the R's who wanted Romney. When Rand endorsed Romney he was identified as a turncoat by the Paul supporters so, I don't see his being added as VP having much sway. If Dr. Paul were to endorse Romney, it is my belief that he would not sway too many of his supporters, as he would be identified as a sellout. We supported Paul based on his unwaivering stances throughout his tenure. We may not like all of his policies, but at least we feel we know what he would do based on his history. If we (folks who support Paul) use the previous actions, stances and policies of Romney and Paul, while elected, to determine which candidate to support during the election, most Paul supporters would line up with Johnson, based on his actions, stances and policies which were proven during his time as Governor of NM. You can only ask a man to fall in line then kick him in the nuts so many times before he says no thanks. I'd rather die with my boots on.

By this logic just because I know I'm not happy eating a sh$@ sandwich, I know I don't want a sh@$ sandwich with mustard but because I order the soup I really wanted the sh$& sandwich? I think I'm about done talking about the election here, but I will say I'd rather vote for Donald Duck than Obama or Rommney.

A government granting a business license isn't "supporting" it. To suggest that you would have to assume that every abortion clinic is supported by government, when they are clearly not. You would have to assume that somehow governments support titty bars, Bible stores, sex shops, gun stores and so on. The government shouldn't be supporting or not supporting any business beyond the possibility of creating jobs for their citizens. This is a just a restaurant with owners that believe in the Bible more literally than many Americans. If this was a Muslim owned business that happened to make a public statement regarding their beliefs and a local government refused to grant them a business license based solely on that belief people would be outraged. I know I would be. This is America and folks are entitled to their beliefs without prejudice or punishment from the government. The free market gets to decide whether or not such a business is patronized.

But if you don't vote for him DaddyO, remember it's your fault and not the folks who picked him in the primary because he was the most palatable according to MSM and could pull from the Obamanites.

Now, now, DaddyO, don't you realize that a person's past actions are absolutely no indicator of their future behavior? Remember, just vote for Obama Vanilla (Romney) and everything will be okay.

I haven't voted for a Presidential candidate that I truely thought was the best man for the job since Reagan. I have voted in every election but my vote has basically been a vote against the other candidate. Thats the way I'll have to vote again this year. I don't think that Romney is the right man either but if I don't vote for him then thats one less vote that O needs to be put back in office.I hate that but that's the way it is!

That isn't discrimination anymore than a company taking a stance in support of gay marriage and calling Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin are automatically homophobes. Both are opinions, but not discrimination by definition. What would be discrimination is the government refusing to allow that business to operate based solely on those opinions. Besides, I'm certain there are more Catholics in Boston than gays. I'm not condoning or condemning Chick Fil A's stance. I'm merely pointing out that believing in a religion isn't grounds to deny business permission to operate. If this were the reverse, such as a southern town not allowing a gay business to operate based on principles of he community there'd be national outrage with people marching in the streets chanting "we shall overcome" and making a spectacle out of it. Why are there two different acceptable reactions to the same injustice? Objectively.

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html Allow me to explain. I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise. Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake. Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934. There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own. So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake. And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again. This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it. Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!) I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise". I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise". LawDog

It's been many years since I attended an indoor motion picture. I stopped going when they stopped the news reels and cartoons before the motion picture, but... At my local motion picture / general dry goods store, it was policy to check any bags and purses for any candy, snacks and popcorn brought into the premises. That was a big no, no and would get you kicked out faster than yelling "fire"! And no 25 cent refund on your admittance ticket. The ticket tearer it in half taker / security guy was usually about 5' - 1" tall wearing a "Call for Phillip Morris" starched uniform. That was the same dude that walked down the center isle with his whale oil lantern making sure there was no hankie panky going on, and you were eating the theaters melted chocolate candy and drinking their warm soda pop. Was a great place to go on a hot July / August afternoon, as they had a fan blowing across ice. The band providing the music in the subterranean alcove wasn't very good either. They never could get the lions roar in the opening segment of the movie to mimic the lion with a violin. Back in the day, a Winchester .30 - .30 repeater was the assault weapon of choice for a man, and a cast iron skillet for the other gender. Ah... The good ole days

Yep, those gays are butt hurt alright.

Where is the ACLU on this one? A business to be denied a permit to operate based on its religious beliefs? Sounds like a legitimate civil liberty issue.

We won't have much of a country for long and especially not much of an economy either if Obama is allowed to continue in office.By the time Obama is done with us all the truly wealthy will have left the country and the rest of us will be taking inflatable rafts to Cuba and crossing the Rio Grand into Mexico to escape the horrible economy we are going to be left with.

Ha, I got -2 rep for my post here. Must have been a rival that hosts permit classes not liking me suggesting Guns and Leather in Greenbriar.

Sounded kinda racist to me.

I also hate that if I vote who best fits my values and goals, I would be taking a vote away from the candidate that actually has a chance of winning. I by no means feel that Romney is the guy that is going to turn the country around in 4yrs but I am terrified that if I don't vote for him that in 4yrs there will be no reason to vote in an election ever again. I feel that 4 more years of the current situation is going to collapse the US as we know it.

+1

That's what the primary election was for was it not?

Rant heard and accepted with the same feelings. What burns me up is that RP knows what is at stake and surely knows that Mitt really is the only solution to getting this marxist out of office. He should throw his support to Mitt and the R-Party that got him as far as he's been.

I couldn't agree more. ArmyVeteran has actually been fairly unobtrusive compared to many I've dealt with - I have been beaten over the head, called names, put up with condescending attitudes, called ignorant and just plain insulted by Paulbots because I don't worship at the feet of Ron Paul that I'd have trouble voting for Ron Paul if he were the only candidate for office and running unopposed.I understand supporting one's candidate but some of these people have taken "support" to the level of a religious fervor.

The 357 Sig has more penetration, stopping power and better accuracy than the 40 S&W. Also shape of cartridge gives more reliable feeding.

Troopers shoot across further distances than in an urban enviroment, pentration THORUGH barriers such as glass and metal is much better with less deflection, and it's a better round in most every way. Regardless of what cops will tell you, Metro depts went with a .40 becasue of fear of over penatration with a 9mm projectile in a close range urban enviroment. In a congested urban enviroment the .40 makes sense in a collateral damage context. For Troopers, where that is not so much a factor, it is better for them to have a round that will get through car barriers that they have to shoot through over greter distances.

That change happened at least a few yeas ago and I suspect their reasons were the similar to why I carry 357 Sig; I think it's simply a better round. Dick Metcalf said it this way...

If you buy a Glock, you'll shoot yourself in the ass!!!

SR9c in Black, with Galloway Precision's CCW trigger Kit, checkered stainless steel guide rod, Aluminum Striker Indicator, with Ramora 6ART holster works for me.. also don't forget the kay-bar TDI knife just incase. Shot well over a thousand rounds using the cheapest russian made steel case ammo for practice worked great, as for my defensive rounds, speer gold dot 115 grain hollow points.

Thanks for info. I do not like Glocks solely on the reason of lack of safety's (let's be real the trigger safety is not a safety). I have 2 boys under the age of 3 so I like having that extra security w/ a safety.

sr9c over a glock anyday!