Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would think the state of the country would be why people think he is not fit for office or needs to be replaced. It is quite evident. Do the facts just blow right over your head? The GOP hasn't had to misrepresent anything. People are hurting in this country...they know what they and their families are experiencing first hand.
But let's not forget that a big part of the reason they're hurting is the exporting of jobs overseas--which was made possible due to deregulation from Presidents Reagan and Bush II. And then the mortgage bubble burst and made it so much worse.
Last edited by Carlingtonian; 09-17-2011 at 04:42 PM..
Ron Paul is the only candidate capable of bringing real "change" as the rest have sold out to special interests, big banks, and coporations. If the OP want's real change and real liberty then Ron Paul is the one who deserves your vote in the primary. If not; any status quo candidate will do.
But what would keep me from voting for Romney is the prospect of corporations continuing to evade taxes and move jobs offshore while polluting our air and removing mountaintops in the Applalachians--and any hint of a reversal of common-sense equal rights for gay Americans, or of common-sense consumer protections.
It's funny; a lot of what I'm for is what conservatives and Libertarians claim is their mantra: Leave me alone.
Don't try to cheat me or my fellow countrymen. (Strengthen consumer protections on everything from credit cards to mortgages).
Don't pollute my lungs (Clean Air Act) or let corporations dump their crap into the lakes and streams (EPA).
Don't mess with my friends. (Let the gays get married if they want to--and no, they won't do it in your Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, etc., church).
Don't force your religion down my throat.
Let me buy a pistol, rifle, or shotgun if I want, but give me the FREEDOM to go into a restaurant and know that some nut with an AK-47 isn't gonna walk in and start shooting.
Don't let the corporations off the hook on their taxes, because that means you're really RAISING the portion of the nation's tax collection that's paid by regular folks like me.
I assume you're alluding to his signing of the assault-weapons ban. Banning private ownership of fully automatic weaons doesn't make him against ownership of all weapons. I've thought about buying a shotgun or a handgun, and I'm 100% against DC's gun law that prevents concealed carry for all but LEOs. But you don't need an AK-47 to protect your house or to go hunting.
The Second Amenment codifies the right to bear arms--but that doesn't mean ALL arms. I think restrictions against fully automatic weapons, shoulder-to-air missile launchers, bioweapons, and bombs are common sense.
You realize the Mass.-AWB signed by Romney, like the CA-AWB, delt with semi-auto rifles and handguns, their appearance, and their magazine capacity, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian
But let's not forget that a big part of the reason they're hurting is the exporting of jobs overseas--which was made possible due to deregulation from Presidents Reagan and Bush II. And then the mortgage bubble burst and made it so much worse.
Uh, no! Clinton's NAFTA and the "un-fair" trade laws to follow along with union demands and over-regulation took care of corporations shipping jobs overseas. Mortgage bubble again.....thank you Clinton (repeal of Glass-Stegal)!
Really, you need to take off the partisan blinders and educate yourself to history and facts before casting your next ballot.
I would think the state of the country would be why people think he is not fit for office or needs to be replaced. It is quite evident. Do the facts just blow right over your head? The GOP hasn't had to misrepresent anything. People are hurting in this country...they know what they and their families are experiencing first hand.
Are you so myopic in your view of reality that you believe that the current woes are caused purely by President Obama? If so, then my attempting to correct your misguided view would be as useless as a blind man turning around to look.
Don't exclude yourself from serious consideration in future discussions with this nonsense.
I was a huge supporter of Obama till he tried to place nice with the GOP Congress on the debt-ceiling issue. He seems inherently unable to be the mean, semi-ruthless SOB that a president has to be when it comes to dealing with the other party. (LBJ was great at this.) He didn't even *threaten* to use executive privilege to raise the ceiling!
Now I find it frustrating that instead of pushing through a REAL jobs program like FDR did--a longer-term and larger version of ARRA [2009 stimulus bill], he's asking for this paltry series of tax credits. It's barely better than nothing, and no one thinks it's going to have any real impact. In my view, the federal government is the only employer with the money, stability, and mandate to create more jobs. (I think this should be funded by higher taxes on multimillionaires and by closing the loopholes corporations have used to evade taxes for the last 2-3 decades.)
Stay with me; I'm getting to the Romney part.
It seems like no matter what Obama proposes (even ideas that were formerly supported by Republicans), the GOP Congress opposes him. So I wonder if a moderate GOP president with progressive tendencies here and there might be able to get some of those passed with a GOP Congress, because they'd have no vested interest in his failure.
My reservations about Mitt are that he might gut the Clean Air Act (but then BHO wants to drill everywhere), that he might appoint some extreme religious conservatives to important positions to appease that wing of the party, and that he might also gut consumer protections. And the Healthcare Act, which I think was a great thing, just too limited.
To boil it down even further:
Is it better to have a moderate Dem president who can't get anything done without making major, sell-the-farm compromises? Or is it better to have a GOP president who might be able to get more progressive policies in place? I'm kind of picturing George HW Bush.
(Am I wrong to think Mitt might actually have progressive impulses? I tend to regard his "repeal Obamacare" talk as pandering to the Teapots.)
I'm thinking you just gave Romney the kiss of death. Now he has you and Jimmy Carter touting him. Say, does Momar Qadaffi think he's swell, too? Maybe Casey Anthony will endorse him, next.
Just teasing you.
Most of us don't know what Romney stands for. That's what got him in trouble in 2008.
Remember the second amendment fiasco with Romney in 2008? That one sticks in my mind. On the other hand, at least he's qualified to be President, unlike Bachmann and a few others.
You realize the Mass.-AWB signed by Romney, like the CA-AWB, delt with semi-auto rifles and handguns, their appearance, and their magazine capacity, right?
I'll have to look that up about the MA law. I think magazine capicity restrictions are reasonable. If you need 20-something rounds in a handgun, and you're not a cop (or warfighter), you're either up to no good or just too lazy to reload at the firing range.
The AK is fully automatic. (You can switch between fully- and semi-).
I've been to a gun show. There were plenty of semi-autos for sale. (There was even a machine gun for sale, but it cost $30K, because evidently they don't make them anymore.)
I'm thinking you just gave Romney the kiss of death. Now he has you and Jimmy Carter touting him. Say, does Momar Qadaffi think he's swell, too? Maybe Casey Anthony will endorse him, next.
Just teasing you.
Most of us don't know what Romney stands for. That's what got him in trouble in 2008.
Remember the second amendment fiasco with Romney in 2008? That one sticks in my mind. On the other hand, at least he's qualified to be President, unlike Bachmann and a few others.
How do you know I'm not writing this from a cave in Tunisia, through the dim light of my aviator shades, the hookah smoke swirling about the keyboard?
I've never understood why some conservatives who are otherwise intelligent could really believe that any serious presidential candidate wants to (or could) "take their guns away." The most anyone would do is ban guns that are beyond the purpose of home protection and hunting, and establish a national database of who owns a gun--which is what most other countries do. (Did you know that in Germany, they even make you report when you move house?)
Seriously, why would even a liberal Dem want to take away hunters' guns? Or those of law-abiding target shooters/home protectors? Where's the political benefit? The die-hard extremists on the left for this issue aren't that many. And even the most meek attempt to prevent the next Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, etc., is met with rabid, borderline violent vitriol from the NRA.
Howard Dean got an A rating from the NRA, remember. And Obama's been in office four years; has he taken anyone's gun away yet? Has he even made increased gun regulations of the type I described a priority? (Has he even mentioned this?)
I assume you're alluding to his signing of the assault-weapons ban. Banning private ownership of fully automatic weaons doesn't make him against ownership of all weapons. I've thought about buying a shotgun or a handgun, and I'm 100% against DC's gun law that prevents concealed carry for all but LEOs. But you don't need an AK-47 to protect your house or to go hunting.
The Second Amenment codifies the right to bear arms--but that doesn't mean ALL arms. I think restrictions against fully automatic weapons, shoulder-to-air missile launchers, bioweapons, and bombs are common sense.
The assault weapon ban had nothing whatsoever to do with private ownership of fully automatic weapons. Possession of those weapons is already regulated by federal law. It was a ban against semi-automatic weapons based on nothing other than their appearance. FBI statistics compiled during the Clinton gun ban document that the ban had essentially no effect on reducing gun related crime. The ban is little more than a feel good measure aimed at placating the anti-gun crowd. The only people that comply with such restrictions are the law abiding.
As far as the "common sense" aspect of gun control is concerned that's a favored buzzword of groups such as HCI. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is difficult to understand?
Romney is not 'notoriously' anti-gun. He was only for the ban on assault weapons as they should be banned.
Sorry, having read this portion of your rebuttal I'm unwilling to waste any more of my time reading the rest.
Neither Romney nor yourself are the final arbiters of which firearms should or should not be banned from civilian possession. Romney's claims of support for the Second Amendment are proven false by his actions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
