Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Apr 18, 2012.
Who cares. Earmarks, and haven't you heard about earmarks? We can only elect a liberal gun grabber cause of those earmarks ya know! EARMARKS I tell ya!!
take the blue pill, mitt and the club will take care of everything.
That earmarks argument the haters use is pretty pathetic and desperate.
At first I thought it was a comparison between Obama and Paul, except Obama never signed a gun ban bill like Romney did.
The race between RP and MR is still going the way it's going. You can't always get what you want. That's life for ya. Be sure to vote though, anyway you want to vote. What will happen will happen, then we will try again in 2016. Maybe Rand will take a shot at a run.
depends if the country is still here and who the rnc thinks gets the next turn. well theres always 2020.
A lot of powerful people want an Obama or Romney for president. They won't permit a Rand or Paul. And with that much money they can buy enough influence to get what they want.
Advertising only sways your opinion if you let it.
It'll be interesting to watch. Paul had a lot of baggage with his newsletters, kooky defense statements, the blame america first stuff and the earmarks. I know a lot of people defend him on those, but a lot of very reasonable people simply don't agree with him or think he is presidential material. He has some great ideas, and I hope he can influence the party to return to fiscal conservatism. If he stays in, he should be able to get some speaking time at the convention. We'll have to wait and see.
Whereas Romney's baggage was staking pro-choice, pro-mandate, and anti-gun positions while serving as governor of one of the most liberal states in the country.
The ones who do, badly outnumber the ones who don't.
I'm pretty sure we are past the tipping point. In order for us to straighten stuff out, we would have to give up some stuff. There are now too many people who are not willing to do that, and they will believe whatever they have to in order to continue as we are. " I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage."
Monsanto gives money to Obama. Obama uses that money to advertise the fact that he will take care of the people who vote for him. Once he is elected he appoints a former Monsanto lobbyist to the Food and Drug Administration.
The people get mad because they still have bills, so he blames Zimmerman and all is forgiven. Besides that, he can do whatever he wants because their only other choice is to vote for a republican.
I fear for an America that eats differently colored hard-boiled eggs every four years.
I'd love to have Paul for president. I'd love it twice as much if he got there running for a third party.
Sadly, I live in the real world, so priority one remains not letting Obama get reelected. That means voting for the Republican. I will vote for Paul in the primary, but I'll vote Republican in the general election, no matter who it is. Make Jessie Jackson the Republican nominee and he's got my vote.
That is absurd.
That is ridiculous but very truthful of the typical GOP member.
Would you vote for Hillary Clinton if she was running on the GOP ticket?
Give it 15 or 20 years and she will be.
Yes. So would any intelligent Republican, conservative, or anyone other than a lefty Democrat.
1. Even if she is as liberal as Obama, she's no worse.
2. She'd be a first termer, which places some restraint on what she will do, since a second term is possible - Obama will be unrestrained after the election.
3. She'd be the candidate of the Republican party and I'd rather have a liberal president who owes favors to Republicans and is somewhat directed by them, than a president who owes favors to Democrats and is directed by them.
Either the Republican or the Democrat candidate will be the next president. I already know who the Democrat is, so, for the reasons, stated, any Republican is better.
I have posted this before. If anyone has an explanation why it's wrong, feel free to finally respond instea dof the one-liners like "that's absurd" (meaning: I can't say why it's wrong but I don't like it).
So explain either (1) why Obama is better or (2) why a rational person would believe that a third party candidate can be elected in 2012.
If not, your response is ridiculous. You have repeatedly made it clear that you are willing to re-elect Obama, either to be spiteful toward the Republicans or to deny your own responsibility for the outcome of the election.