Romney Panders To NRA, Anti-Gunners. Simultaneously.

[strickj]

And this continual crap that he actually signed and Obama never did wreaks of silliness, since it is obvious what Obama wants. He has said as much himself.

Saying you want something and actually doing it are two completely different things.

I want to be a fit 180 pound stud.

But am I ever going to loose any weight to do so?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Saying you want something and actually doing it are two completely different things.

I want to be a fit 180 pound stud.

But am I ever going to loose any weight to do so?

I can't help you, there, more up to you, isn't it?

Saying something when having never had the opportunity to do so is what I meant by your comparison being silly.

When has Obama been given the opportunity? It's not a rational comparison. And you make a simple statement

avoiding everything else that went along with his signing it. Going to one website to find what you want to declare

fact, when the NRA has differing opinions about the issue might be a little disingenuous.

[strickj]

I can't help you, there, more up to you, isn't it?

Saying something when having never had the opportunity to do so is what I meant by your comparison being silly.

When has Obama been given the opportunity? It's not a rational comparison. And you make a simple statement

avoiding everything else that went along with his signing it. Going to one website to find what you want to declare

fact, when the NRA has differing opinions about the issue might be a little disingenuous.

If Obama wanted gun control, he would have made it happen. Look at Obaercare. Very least, he would have actively pressed for legislation.

I'll give you the whole "Romney only signed it" thing.

The two problems here, though, is the simple fact that he still signed it. If he was really a friend of the gun owner, he would have not signed it or vetoed it.

NRA? Romney once received a lower rating than Ted Kennedy. He is now only receiving approval from the NRA crowd because of his pandering.

This pandering is being reported by both liberal and conservative media. Search them yourself if my one website isn't enough for you.

And I should point out here that the pandering Romney is doing is the exact same pandering Obama is and has done.

White House makes clear: No push for new gun laws

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I love your link references. If you really believe what Huffpo puts up, good luck with that, like the other one.

If that's where these last three years got you, Fine.

Your opinion on the NRA's endorsement is pandering. I guess they would never admit that, so fine, again.

I don't really care what his rating was "once".

We resolve to view things differently. Okay?

[RobertNashville]

I love your link references. If you really believe what Huffpo puts up, good luck with that, like the other one.

I'm sure that linking to the Huffington Post as if it was a legitimate source for facts was just a joke.

Edited July 31, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/26/white-house-obama-not-seeking-new-gun-laws/\

I guess Fox News is just an unreliable liberal rag, too?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It had to have been, Robert.

[RobertNashville]

http://www.foxnews.c...-new-gun-laws/\

I guess Fox News is just an unreliable liberal rag, too?

LOL

Liberal rag or conservative rag or any other rag...the truly questionable source here is not as much what "news organization" is involved, it's that the story being reported is based on the word or a liar; the same liar told all these whoppers...

1. The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime. (that's a real good one although somewhat true, it won't increase it by one dime...a $Trillion dollars a year maybe, but not one dime)

2. If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it

TownHall

3. “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.â€

U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009.

4. ObamaCare Fee is not a new tax (I really love this one...this of course was said before Obama's attorney's went an argued to SCOTUS that is was a tax).

Obama denies healthcare is a new tax on all Americans

.

5. We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil.

Obama’s oval office speech in June 2010

6. Now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.

Arizona Immigration Law

7. Doctors choose amputation because they get better compensation. Greedy Doctors taking out tonsils for more money.

Claims never documented

8. The Health Care Package will pay for itself

Time

9. We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care (another great one; the cornerstone to Obamacare IS the mandate)

Democratic Debate Lies

10. Obama says he’ll save average family $8,000 in gas

Video Proof

11. I am immediately instituting PayGo “Pay as you goâ€

Said during a speech immediately after the Trillion Dollar “Shovel Ready†bill.

He did say at least one thing that I absolutely believe which is that he want's to fundamentally transform America ( [media=]

[/media] ) Edited July 31, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

Robert, I have never denied any of that about O.

I just find it strangely interesting (to sat the least) that so many will dismiss the lies, pandering and blatant anti-gun past of Romney simply because "it was in the past".

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

[RobertNashville]

Robert, I have never denied any of that about O.

I post just a small sampling of Obama's lies (all of which have happened during his administration), and you don't deny that he is a liar, yet you post links to articles quoting Obama as saying he won't push for new gun controls measures "this election year" as if the promises of a liar are supposed to mean something.

Actually, I can easily believe that Obama won't push for new gun control measures this year...my concern is with regards to the next four should this country be unfortunate enough that he wins a second term.

I just find it strangely interesting (to sat the least) that so many will dismiss the lies, pandering and blatant anti-gun past of Romney simply because "it was in the past".

Would you care to cite and substantiate the lies Romney has told?

I don't believe that anyone who has participated in this or any of the plethora of other "Romney is no good" threads is dismissing what you call the "blatant anti-gun past" of Mit Romney nor has said Romney is some huge fan of Second Amendment rights...I am sure he believes in some degree of "gun control" that I and many here find objectionable and I even believe that Romney might well sign some gun control legislation should it cross his desk.

On the other hand, I'm positive that Obama will sign anything that further restricts gun rights that crosses his desk; up to and including an outright ban/confiscation - I do not believe Romney would ever go that far.

I believe that Obama would confiscate/outlaw all firearms if he could because I believe that he, as a Marxists/communists/socialist, has a disdain for power residing in the "people" rather than the government and arms, in the hands of the people, represents tremendous power that Obama sees a need to quash or at least control.

Even if I believed that Romney was as much of an enemy of the Second Amendment as I believe Obama is, that wouldn't stop me from voting for Romney because I am not a "single issue voter"...I would still vote for Romney for the simple reason that no Marxist/communist/socialists should ever be sitting in the oval office and the one sitting there now needs to be sent back to the Chicago cesspool he came from.

Edited July 31, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

I post just a small sampling of Obama's lies (all of which have happened during his administration), and you don't deny that he is a liar, yet you post links to articles quoting Obama as saying he won't push for new gun controls measures "this election year" as if the promises of a liar are supposed to mean something.

Seriously? Did you even read that post?

I said:

And I should point out here that the pandering Romney is doing is the exact same pandering Obama is and has done.

White House makes clear: No push for new gun laws

The link to the WH press release was to show Obama's pandering. I never even remotely defended O.

Would you care to cite and substantiate the lies Romney has told?

Why should I? My links will just be dismissed as being "unreliable sources" or a "joke", as you put it.

But if you insist, see the other thread fo a slue of lies he told. Or, see the OP in this thread .

OK, read this and then tell me that Mitt Romney cares about your Second Amendment rights more than Barry ODumbo....

“Actually the law that we signed in Massachusetts was a combination of efforts both on the part of those that were for additional gun rights and those that opposed gun rights, and they came together and made some changes that provided, I think, a better environment for both, and that’s why both sides came to celebrate the signing of the bill.†Mitt Romney, CNBC, July 23rd, 2012.

While signing into law a permanent ban on many kinds of semi-automatic rifles, he proclaimed “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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.†With Republicans like Romney, who needs Democrats?

http://www.thetrutha...simultaneously/

That's it; I'm not voting for this puke.

Course, that is, if telling the NRA that he would never support gun bans when he already has can be called a lie.

From that link:

As governor of Massachusetts in 2004 he pandered to gun-grabbers and made his state one of the worst in the nation for gun rights . . .

While signing into law a permanent ban on many kinds of semi-automatic rifles, he proclaimed “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. 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.†With Republicans like Romney, who needs Democrats?

But then he became an NRA life member just a year later. And in 2012, as a GOP presidential candidate, he pandered to the same NRA and delivered a speech at their 2012 convention.

Edited July 31, 2012 by strickj

[RobertNashville]

Oh wow...NOW I get it.

Obama's known lies, pandering and votes that go much further than just a ban on certain kinds of weapons in Illinois is somehow superior/better to what you call Romney's lies, pandering and his signing an assault weapons ban which makes Obama a better President than Romney can be.

I appreciate you clearing that up.

Edited July 31, 2012 by RobertNashville

[JAB]

Saying something when having never had the opportunity to do so is what I meant by your comparison being silly.

When has Obama been given the opportunity?

The point isn't so much about whether or not Obama has been given the opportunity. The point is that Romney was given the opportunity and he took it. What Obama might do is not certain - although I suspect you are correct in assuming he would sign such a law. What Romney actually did do is clear fact and, therefore, is certain. It happened and no amount of, "Well, I was governor then but I want to be president, now," attempts at spinning what he did is going to change the fact that he signed sweeping gun control legislation. I, for one, refuse to simply take his word that he wouldn't do it, again.

Edited July 31, 2012 by JAB

[JAB]

Oh wow...NOW I get it.

Obama's known lies, pandering and votes that go much further than just a ban on certain kinds of weapons in Illinois is somehow superior/better to what you call Romney's lies, pandering and his signing an assault weapons ban which makes Obama a better President than Romney can be.

I appreciate you clearing that up.

I think the problem here is that some folks, including you, are assuming that because some of us have zero faith in Romney's ability to be a good president and zero faith in his claims that he will behave differently as president than he behaved as governor we are somehow saying that Obama is better. See, this isn't a 'one must be better' thing with some of us. It is more along the lines that we believe them to be equally bad. Being anti-Romney doesn't automatically make someone pro-Obama. Some folks seem to think that it does and that one must 'believe in' one or the other but that simply is not the case. I don't think that strickj is saying that Obama's lies and pandering are any better than Romney's. Instead, he is saying that Romney is just as guilty as Obama of lying and pandering. In other words, I think that he is saying that (in his opinion) Obama sucks as a presidential candidate and, when taken on his own merits (or lack thereof), and judged by his own actions. independent of anything else, rather than a viewpoint of "I hate Obama so Romney must be good," Romney also sucks as a presidential candidate. As for myself, I have no faith in either of them when it comes to choosing the next leader of our nation. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. So why the heck should I vote for a candidate in whom I have no faith, whatsoever - be it Obama or Romney - regardless of who the 'other guy' is?

Edited July 31, 2012 by JAB

[strickj]

Can someone link to the NRA endorsement for Romney?

The only thing I'm coming up with is articles about is appearance at the NRA convention and some slams about his anti-gun past.

http://www.nraila.or...h.aspx?s=romney

Also found this little gem from 2007

Romney Claims NRA Endorsement He Didn't Receive

[RobertNashville]

...why the heck should I vote for a candidate in whom I have no faith, whatsoever - be it Obama or Romney - regardless of who the 'other guy' is?

I believe (and for good reasons) that Obama is the most dangerous enemy to all (not just 2A) our liberty and freedom that this country faces right now; leaving him in office for another team is simply not acceptable.

I believe for a number of reasons that Romney will be a good President - whether some folks think Romney is "different enough" or "good enough" is immaterial to me because it's either Romney or it's Obama; I find that to be a very easy choice.

[JAB]

I believe for a number of reasons that Romney will be a good President - whether some folks think Romney is "different enough" or "good enough" is immaterial to me because it's either Romney or it's Obama; I find that to be a very easy choice.

And there is nothing I can or should try to dispute about that because it is your opinion, based on what you have come to believe. All I am saying is that, where you see an easy choice (as is certainly your perogative), I seen no meaningful difference that I think will positively impact me or the nation. Therefore rather than an easy choice, I see no choice, at all when sticking with the 'big two'. It's either vote for a left-leaning, anti-gun, big government politician, vote instead for the other left-leaning, anti-gun, big government politician or vote for someone else - someone who likely has zero chance of winning but in whom I can at least have some modicum of faith. You can say, "Well, that's really just a vote for Obama," all you want but it isn't. Funny thing is, the other side will be just as quick to say that voting for 'someone else' is really just a vote for Romney but it isn't that, either. It is me voting my conscience and my beliefs and casting a vote in support of the person I believe would be the 'best' choice, not simply trying to make sure that one of two candidates I find repugnant wins.

In the last TN gubernatorial election, I knew I wasn't going to vote for McWherter. In the end, I decided to listen to all the, "Well, the other Republicans will keep him in line," BS and voted for Haslam. I decided to let it slide that he had been a member of Bloomberg's anti-gun Mayors group. After all, that was when he was mayor and he quit that group and started saying he supported gun rights (not that I really believed him.) Yeah, we all see how that worked out for us - a Republican controlled state Congress and a Republican governor and they still wouldn't pass a law to strengthen citizens' ability to defend themselves on the way to and from work. In the end, one last time I bought into the idea that I should vote for the 'lesser of the evils' and that really was the last time. In every election since I've been old enough to vote (the first one being the Clinton/Bush 1 race), I have voted for the candidate I believed to be the 'lesser evil'. For the record, that has meant voting for the Democratic candidate in some elections and voting for the Republican candidate in others. Meanwhile, the degree by which the 'lesser evil' is truly a 'lesser' evil has decreased with every, single election cycle. I saw little difference between Obama and McCain but I certainly wasn't voting for Obama. Now, I see even less difference between Obama and Romney than I saw between Obama and McCain. Well, I'm sick of voting for the piss-poor candidate that I find the least distasteful and I'm done doing it. I'd rather 'waste' my vote than cast it in favor or either of these two clowns.

Edited July 31, 2012 by JAB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I doubt we will ever have another good President. Our country has lost it's way.

[RobertNashville]

...All I am saying is that, where you see an easy choice (as is certainly your perogative), I seen no meaningful difference that I think will positively impact me or the nation. Therefore rather than an easy choice, I see no choice, at all

I am certain that there are truly people who are exactly what I think you are describing...they are open minded and wanted to support someone they could believe in and are disillusioned with the two candidates because they don't see a significant difference between the two. I've been disillusioned and disappointed too; Romney not only wasn't my first choice for the nomination; he didn't even make it to third. Nevertheless I'll be contributing to his campaign and voting for him in November.

However, after these many, many threads on this same general theme, my impression is that most of the "Romney isn't good enough" threads are being started by folks are not just people disillusioned with the two candidates bur are, actually, hardcore Paul supporters who are pissed off that Paul didn't win the nomination and won't be President. As a result, threads like this are posted every few days which are really just a way to vent at all the "sheeple" who aren't smart enough to have supported Paul. They are not open minded and one of the significant differences between where I am not and where there are now is that had Paul won the nomination I would have supported his campaign and would have been just as happy to have voted for him in November as I am not willing to vote for Romney...I don't believe the reverse is true at all.

Now, I could be absolutely, 100% wrong in my interpretation of what/who is behind these threads and if I am; well then I am. Whether I'm right or wrong, it does seem pretty clear that there really is nothing to gain by my participating in these threads any longer. It just seems to piss people off so I'm going to do my best to just bow out.

[RobertNashville]

I doubt we will ever have another good President. Our country has lost it's way.

I hope you are wrong...no...I pray you are wrong.

I think and I hope that there are some Wasningtons and Jeffersons and Madisons out there but I fear we don't have enough time left for them to be of help.

[Guest zort]

who is the third canidate....just curious

[Oh Shoot]

I hope you are wrong...no...I pray you are wrong.

I think and I hope that there are some Wasningtons and Jeffersons and Madisons out there but I fear we don't have enough time left for them to be of help.

They'll likely have to wait until after The Fall.

Another term of BHO and the perpetual majority of the on-the-teat Dem voting base will be a lock, as long as they can still get enough of them to the polls, Or at least claim they did.

- OS

Edited August 1, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest ThePunisher]

They'll likely have to wait until after The Fall.

Another term of BHO and the perpetual majority of the on-the-teat Dem voting base will be a lock, as long as they can still get enough of them to the polls, Or at least claim they did.

- OS

Don't they have to be at the polls for their vote to count?

[Oh Shoot]

Don't they have to be at the polls for their vote to count?..

Opinion varies. Since they don't have to show ID of any kind in 19 states, and non-photo ID in 19 more, actual registered voter may not even have to be alive.

- OS

Edited August 1, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I hope you are wrong...no...I pray you are wrong.

I think and I hope that there are some Wasningtons and Jeffersons and Madisons out there but I fear we don't have enough time left for them to be of help.

There are plenty of them out in society, but they are usually generalised out of existence. The individual is being replaced by the collective

because we don't care enough to preserve our individualism. Shucks, we just argue for our own egos, nowadays.

If I say something around here, I'm sure someone else is thinking or saying "Aw , he is just flapping his jaws to make himself feel important".

I actually give a damn. It takes more of us to come to a solid agreement on basic principles and throw all the other issues in the "to do"

file, for another day. We get caught up in less important or "emotional issues" and barely come together. That's a reason for political

parties. It's a way to get people together on a platform.

Yep, it can get corrupted, but that's usually because we didn't pay attention and let it happen because we got sidetracked.