copperhead Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 No one has touched my soft spot... Legalizing weed and lowering gas prices... If someone said that, I'd vote for them rite meow That was Ron Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewhop Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 No one has touched my soft spot... Legalizing weed and lowering gas prices... If someone said that, I'd vote for them rite meow http://blog.norml.org/2012/10/13/normltv-interviews-gov-gary-johnson-were-on-the-verge-of-making-marijuana-legalization-happen/ Close... Looks like you better start voting for Gary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 http://blog.norml.org/2012/10/13/normltv-interviews-gov-gary-johnson-were-on-the-verge-of-making-marijuana-legalization-happen/ Close... http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/k605/AcE929/fred_mercury_queen_meme_so_close-s300x374-315923-1.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Obama could have got a lot of things done when he first took office. He had the majority. Instead of working across the aisle, he used the majority to pass two of the biggest pieces of shit legislation ever. (Because they were still flawed even though they had good intentions) Obamacare, and Dodd Frank Then when the balance came back he wanted everyone to forget he threw those down our throats. Wrong. There were 28 days of pure majority rules. 28 days. The rest of the time lobbying and fillibustering is what kept only two pieces of legislation in play. Go look it up if you don't believe me. There hasn't been any "balance" and to ignore the blatant unwilling nature of the GOP to work with the Democratic party from their onset was touted across radio, television and internet forms of communication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) If you look at what Obama and his admin has tried to do, you will clearly see that Romney will try and do the same things. Please elaborate and please include the methods of doing these same things. Obama took a Over an awful situation and to forget that is ignorant on anyone's part. I think 100% of the country is clear on where we stood in 2008 and it's also pretty clear where we are now and how the two situations compare. No one is mis informed on either. In 2008 the our situation sucked ass. Today, it sucks ass that's four years older. Romney can promise you the world, but once he gets in there please don't think he is going to do much more than Obama. The difference being Romney has a successful track record, Obama does not. In terms of going forward, I don't base my decision on promises, part of what I base it on is their ability and proven history. If anyone things Obama a better understanding of how to crunch numbers and do anything finanicially related or business related better than Romney, I'd love to understand what they are basing thier beliefs on. They don't make the decision. Both parties promise the world and end up showing you the truth once in office. Either way we are fucked because they are not looking out or us. You're right, leaders don't always make the decisions. They are put in office to provide visions and influence others to do more than they would do on their own. Leaders influence thoughts, emotions and actions of those working for them. Thus why Romney isn't about to put his "details" and plans laid out for all to criticize. He knows all to well that his leadership comes from being able to have a solid framework and vision so that he can work with all parties involved to fill in the details based on decisions that pass his filter system. Obama lacks credibility and thus didn't have the respect he needed to influence others thus was left with gridlock. I don't see that same situation happening with Romney. Edited October 17, 2012 by TTQ B4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngryBMW Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Wrong. There were 28 days of pure majority rules. 28 days. The rest of the time lobbying and fillibustering is what kept only two pieces of legislation in play. Go look it up if you don't believe me. There hasn't been any "balance" and to ignore the blatant unwilling nature of the GOP to work with the Democratic party from their onset was touted across radio, television and internet forms of communication. You're right...I forgot all about how the Democratic Party loves to work with the Republicans on their issues. Did anyone forget about how ObamaCare literally bribed people to vote it into law? I'm ready for November 7th. -Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWW$HEEET Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'm ready for November 7th. -Marc me too, no more 30 second youtube political ads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 me too, no more 30 second youtube political ads. "Liked" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Actually democrats do work with republicans for their causes. When they aren't flying in the face of what's good for our country. Tell me again how a bill detailing help for soldiers and other service members who cleaned up the 9/11 mess and got sick from it being denied is working in the best interests of our country? During the Bush administration the man was a bull in a china shop. Anyone denying his crazy agenda needs help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Bastard Posted October 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Actually democrats do work with republicans for their causes. When they aren't flying in the face of what's good for our country. Tell me again how a bill detailing help for soldiers and other service members who cleaned up the 9/11 mess and got sick from it being denied is working in the best interests of our country? During the Bush administration the man was a bull in a china shop. Anyone denying his crazy agenda needs help. Politicians looking out for what's best for our country... :dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam1647545489 Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CqHPZteJ7rI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngryBMW Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 me too, no more 30 second youtube political ads. Or Pandora. Making me reconsider paying for the 'ad-free' service. -Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Or Pandora. Making me reconsider paying for the 'ad-free' service. -Marc I get very little advertising down here. That's the benefit, I suppose, of living in a state where my vote doesn't count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfunnyryan Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 MODERATOR: Because what I -- what I want to do, Mr. President, stand there a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzalez, who brought up a question that we hear a lot, both over the Internet and from this crowd. QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons? OBAMA: We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves. But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I've had to comfort families who have lost somebody. Most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago, actually, probably about a month, I saw a mother, who I had met at the bedside of her son, who had been shot in that theater. And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and we said a prayer and, remarkably, about two months later, this young man and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new. But there were a lot of families who didn't have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn't survive. So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns. And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young people have opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there's violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control. And so what I want is a -- is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur. MODERATOR: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s. ROMNEY: Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We, of course, don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do, as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have, and to change the culture of violence that we have. And you ask how -- how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things. He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state. And I believe if we do a better job in education, we'll -- we'll give people the -- the hope and opportunity they deserve and perhaps less violence from that. But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the -- the benefit of having two parents in the home, and that's not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that's a great idea. Because if there's a two parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will -- will be able to achieve increase dramatically. So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity, and bring them in the American system. The -- the greatest failure we've had with regards to -- to gun violence in some respects is what -- what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don't know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were -- were given to people that ultimately gave them to -- to drug lords. They used those weapons against -- against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a -- this was a program of the government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can't imagine. But it's one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration. Which I think the American people would like to understand fully, it's been investigated to a degree, but -- but the administration has carried out executive privilege to prevent all of the information from coming out. I'd like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords. OBAMA: Candy? MODERATOR: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind? ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation. And it's referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted. There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven't previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed- upon piece of legislation. That's what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that's gridlocked. MODERATOR: So I could -- if you could get people to agree to it, you would be for it? ROMNEY: We have -- OBAMA: Candy? ROMNEY: -- we haven't had the leadership in Washington to work on a bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my state and bring these two together. MODERATOR: Quickly, Mr. President. OBAMA: The -- first of all, I think Governor Romney was for an assault weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the reason he changed his mind was, in part, because he was seeking the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. So that's on the record. But I think that one area we agree on is the important of parents and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they are less likely to engage in these kinds of violent acts. We're not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally disturbed and we have got to make sure they don't get weapons. [...] because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they're less likely to engage in these kind of violent acts. We're not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally disturbed, and we've got to make sure they don't get weapons. But we can make a difference in terms ensuring that every young person in America, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, have a chance to succeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spankis Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Are there facts somewhere comparing What Obama's record was before becoming president (in his home state) to Romney's record in his home state? I'd be interested to see how pre-presidency accomplishments translate to effectiveness in the White House. A lot of people are talking up all of Romney's experience as governor, but honestly, isn't the working atmosphere at the state level DRASTICALLY different than the environment as president of the country? Aside from that, wasn't the political climate of Massuchusetts during his term of governor DRASTICALLY different than the national political climate of the past 4 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Politicians looking out for what's best for our country... :dumb: Yeah... that actually made me chuckle for a second too. :'( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjrsplat Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Politicians looking out for what's best for our country... :dumb: http://common2.csnimages.com/lf/1/hash/3933/3508101/1/Brakleen%AE+Non-Chlorinated+Brake+Parts+Cleaners+-+20+oz+aerosol+brakleen+brake+parts+cleaner.jpg + http://www.robertguyser.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/mini-Bic.134-599x356.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paktinat Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 Obama's last four years of pain are just his way of instituting greater gun control. He's accomplishing this by keeping people out of work, taxing them to death, letting them spend more on the basics in life and insuring all this will continue by racking up debt so that even our kids won't be able to afford guns. http://i.imgur.com/jaD92.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh8sti Posted October 17, 2012 Report Share Posted October 17, 2012 America loves the underdog. Romney 2012! Paul 2012! Anyone but Obama 2012! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Oh yeah, after talking with Mr. Jones I was able to clarify in my head what the ban was for and what I was actually talking about being restricted. Regular semi-automatic weapons being banned just because of their look is ridiculous, I just was speaking about full-auto weapons being able to be purchased without restriction which obviously they aren't and there's a lengthy and expensive process to owning one anyhow. My apologies if what I was talking about was confusing, any semi-auto is fine to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjrsplat Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Oh yeah, after talking with Mr. Jones I was able to clarify in my head what the ban was for and what I was actually talking about being restricted. Regular semi-automatic weapons being banned just because of their look is ridiculous, I just was speaking about full-auto weapons being able to be purchased without restriction which obviously they aren't and there's a lengthy and expensive process to owning one anyhow. My apologies if what I was talking about was confusing, any semi-auto is fine to me. http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/WYN74ZW4k_E/hqdefault.jpg :gabe: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Oh yeah, after talking with Mr. Jones I was able to clarify in my head what the ban was for and what I was actually talking about being restricted. Regular semi-automatic weapons being banned just because of their look is ridiculous, I just was speaking about full-auto weapons being able to be purchased without restriction which obviously they aren't and there's a lengthy and expensive process to owning one anyhow. My apologies if what I was talking about was confusing, any semi-auto is fine to me. Those are pretty well restricted by all means. Not to mention very well regulated on top of that. Granted, there are some Class III weapons dealers very close to me, but you ain't touching one without a permit. The common uneducated gun haters believe fully automatic weapons are as easy to buy as a bar of soap. That really isn't the case. And we "gun nuts" don't go utter ape shit grabbing all we can. When there is a potential infringement on Rights, and an actual possibility it could happen, shelves will be empty. If you do truly believe in your 2nd Amendment Rights, Obama sure as hell ain't the ticket. Nor does the Democratic Party support the 2nd Amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Here's the part of the speech that folks should pay attention to: "What I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally," Obama said during the debate at Hofstra University. "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paktinat Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 “There’s no question I support Second Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban” Romney said, referring to his signing of a Massachusetts assault-weapons ban in 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritas Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 So... if Obama AND Romney both want the ban... then who are you able to vote for then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.