RobertNashville

We can step back from the abyss and change course in a planned, responsible way but it will hurt and I don't know that there are enough in Congress or the White House who have the guts to do it and take the heat for it. However, whether it's done in a controlled way or we go over the cliff, we WILL make the cuts because there simply won't be any other choice and that pain will be orders of magnitude worse than would be experienced if we try to do it in a rational way. I think we'll know how it's going to happen by the end of Romney's first term or much sooner if Obama gets a second term. In either case, we all had better have our personal affairs (financial, and otherwise) in order - I see tough and dangerous times ahead with the only real question being "how tough and how dangerous".

I could have looked it up but since anyone can I guess I didn't see a need to do so....the data isn't hard to find.

You can look up their rating of just about every candidate/race on their website.There are stories you can find on the Web as well regarding Democrats they've supported/made contributions to, etc. They do support Republicans more often than Democrats but for good reason.

The NRA supports Democrats all the time...they don't care about "party" at all (which often makes a lot of the membership angry because most people aren't single issue voters) - the NRA is a true single-issue organization. All they care bout is how a candidate has voted on firearm related issues in the past (assuming it's a candidate that has a record to see).

You still seem to keep thinking of the Tea Party movement as if it's some sort of one homogenous group of people; it's never been that and I pray to God it never is like that.I'm not sure why anyone would care what others think the Tea Party means or who the Tea Party supports, most especially the "media"...I don't give a rat's ass how the "media" portrays it or what they think about it; it has never had a clue what the movement is which is why the media and both parties are scared to death of it (and should be).

I think you have a significant and basic misunderstanding of what the Tea Party is, the major misunderstanding being not recognizing that there is no "Tea Party". There is a movement of hundreds, maybe thousands of different groups with somewhat similar ideas about government...some of those groups support, Romney, some don't...most are less concerned about the Presidency and far more concerned about local and regional and state elections because there is where change has to start. To ascribe monolithic ideas to the movement is to totally miss the point. If you've given up on the movement after only three/four years then I'd say your expectations of how quickly things can change are more than a little unrealistic.

There is plenty of evidence; maybe you just aren't looking (and I guess $Trillion deficits, forcing us into socialized health care and gun-hating supreme court justices doesn't bother you). But hey, vote for who you want.

Woe...is this Romney is no different/no better than Obama ever going to stop? Is it supposed to be news here that Romney isn't as pro-Second Amendment as Ted Nugent or doesn't fit the perfect pro 2A mold enthusiasts want? Do you really think that someone who signed an assault weapons ban for MA and supported a waiting period (which about EVERY politician did until the instant system went into effect) is as anti 2A rights as someone who actually voted against a citizen even being allowed to keep a weapon in his own home for defense? Obummer will sign ANY anti-second amendment legislation that hits his desk, Romney may or may not IF any reaches his desk. Obama will almost certainly PUSH for new 2A restrictions, I truly doubt Romney will (if only because trying to salvage our economy is going to be center stage for a long time). Even if 2A is the ONLY issue you care about, Romney is still the better choice even if the difference isn't as much as you want. However, I can't believe that 2A is the only issue important to people, even people on TGO and if it is, then I'd suggest you start digging some spider holes and ammo-cashes because with unending $Trillion deficits as far as the eye can see, 2A issues are going to be the least of our worries.

I think it's called the "microwave mentality"...people think that problems that have been brewing and gaining momentum since the 1930s are going to be solved by one movement and in one or two election cycles. If people aren't willing to work for something that may take decades, maybe even not be resolved in their lifetimes then they might as well save themselves the headaches, put blinders on and hope for the best.

Yuup...that was one of the best lines ever...I watched that debate; one of the best ever.

I think the answer to RP is easy, he's old and he's not very "Presidential" looking, sounding or acting. The lame street media isn't going to give anybody but Obama much opportunity but even if Fox turned into the Ron Paul 24/7 channel I don't think it would have made any difference at all. Aside from what I mentioned specifically about Paul, above, all the candidates like him, I believe, are simply not where much of the electorate is politically. It' my observation that the libertarian mindset doesn't "click" with most people; the more libertarian a candidate is the less likely he/she is to get anywhere. I'd vote for a libertarian over a progressive any day but even so, there are many of their ideas that I do not support and if a true libertarian was up against a true conservative I'm going to support the conservative every time.

To what purpose - I suspect that there isn't anything that could be said that would change your mind.In any case, the reasons have been stated many, many times indicating that you either haven't listened or have listened and rejected them so there is no reason why anyone should waste more of their time stating them again.

Now...if you start asking questions like that you are just going to interject facts into it...I think for a lot of folks, they are "for" Johnson because he isn't Romney.

I see...those who aren't crazy in love with Romney as a candidate but are being pragmatic are sheep. Thanks for clearing that up.I wonder...what about the people who think neither Paul and/or Johnson are the answer but think Obama will destroy the country...if they vote for Romney are they "sheep" too or would voting for Romney in that case be okay???

I suggest that you are taking it a bit too seriously...thinking, encouraging, trying to convince somehow how another thinks he "should" vote is quite a bit different than telling them how anybody "has" to vote. The only thing really wrong with the two party system is too many people, even those who say they care and will talk all day about their political opinions won't even bother to register let alone vote. If we don't vote and we don't get involved then WE are the problem because as long as people are satisfied to sit on their brains and complain on the internet or sit and watch the idiot box all day nothing will change whether we have two parties, twenty parties or no parties.

I have a G21 and I don't think you can go wrong with it.

And there shouldn't be legal stuff attached...that's my point...leave the "legal stuff" to the realm of written contracts about property, survivorship, etc. - all that can be done without every calling it "marriage". Unfortunately, the government injected itself into the process so they could tax it (licensing) and use the tax code to encourage it, etc.Government has co-opted the word to the point that people think marriage in the eyes of government means the same thing as marriage in the eyes of a religion. It is not unusual in other countries for it to be impossible for people to marry other than through their church (which would pretty much leave out atheists). Government defining marriage makes as much sense as government defining what communion is/how it should be conducted.

Odd that many people want to define "marriage" in some way that suits them when the concept of "marriage" is a religious one.

I'm not sure where you are coming from, Mike?I've studied world religious. most teach that homosexual activity is morally wrong. However, it's been my experience that most people who follow any of those religions don't discriminate against homosexuals...the problem comes when homosexuals DEMAND that others not just accept homosexuality but also MUST change their religious views about it. Or said another way, many (or at lest the radical) homosexuals want fairness and equality that they aren't willing to give to people with counter religious views. At least for me, however, this outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-a had nothing to do with religion or homosexuality or anything similar...it was about the government attempting to harm a private sector business because the CEO held a firm religious belief that the government didn't like...an act that strikes at the very heart of what the first amendment, the right to freedom of expression, including religious expression that the amendment sought to protect.

Actually, unwed mothers and nontraditional families are the symptom.

One can make arguments about almost anything but without empirical data to support the arguments I'm not sure they have much value.

The only way that any law can be enforced is if the vast overwhelming majority of the people are willing to obey the law thus allowing identification/incarceration/eradication of those few who don't abide. We could destroy the income tax system, property tax system, sales system or any other system in very short order if people simply refused to pay (which is why most taxes are collected automatically before you get what's left).

Humm...well...I'd at least think about it if he was a capitalist and not a socialist...

More likely they have higher standards that he couldn't meet...you know...like a brain with more than two neurons.

I took the Fighting Pistol class in March of 2011. I used a very pretty, very expensive 1911 that is, allegedly, designed for carry (for the sake of feelings I'm not going to name the brand). Less than halfway through the first day the pistol was choking so badly I was spending half of my time clearing malfunctions (good practice but took me away from what I was supposed to be learning). I switched to a different 1911 and finished that day and the next day with no malfunctions other then then ones purposely introduced. Neither of the two instructors made fun of my pretty 1911 nor suggested that a Glock was the best defensive pistol in the world. One of the girls in the class had an HK45 (just like the one I bought from TGO David)...big gun...worked perfectly for her although I can't imaging carrying it...the instructors never made fun of her either. I'm a big guy (read that fat) with a bit of a bum knee and not able to do all the on the ground work you do in the class...the instructors didn't chide me about being fat...they showed me how I could compensate for my weaknesses. I learned a lot during the class...I highly recommend it. I also learned a lot at the Rage Master Tactical Pistol II class I took last Sunday and I highly recommend it...I've learned a lot form Larry Yatch at Sealed Mindset and if you've got the time and money I can highly recommend him. I hope I learn a lot at the Fighting Rifle class I have scheduled at Tactical Response this fall. I suggest that you take a lot of training from a lot of different instructors...if you come across one you don't like, don't take any more classes from him. P.S. I still have plenty of great 1911s...I love 1911s...but I now carry a G31 with a G20 or G21 as a backup; not because anyone belittled me but because my experience has shown me that my Glocks tend to go bang with a little more dependability than my 1911s. Now, if I had my old Navy issued government model 1911 that might not be the case but unfortunately, I don't have that one.