Romney won the debate - but

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by G19G20, Oct 4, 2012.


  1. How about on practical grounds? Is the federal government really gonna tell DC and the state of Maryland, where most of them live, they must allow people who have, say, a Washington state CCW, where no training whatsoever is required, to carry concealed in their territory?

    It'll never happen. The "CCW reciprocity law" is going to be several hundred pages. It's going to require "lowest common denominator" rules for states issuing CCWs. Public safety funds will be cut off for states who don't comply. It won't take long before the feds are in control of all CCW issuance rules. Again, if you don't believe that, you've been living on a different planet.

    If you wanted to undo a quarter century of phenomenal state progress in the realm of CCW within a couple of years, getting the feds involved is the way to do it. :sad:
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. I often think the convulsive hatred that the RP fanboys have for Romney is rooted, at least in part, in their organizational hatred for Jews and Israel. The Mormons have a number of philosophical and historical parallels to Judaism, according to a number of scholars, so one supposes that probably accounts for the Paulinista antagonism toward the guy.

    Last I knew, there haven't been any Mormons yelling "God is great" as they fly Boeing aircraft into our skyscrapers...and it wouldn't take much to figure out, between Obama and Romney, which one is the Marxist.
     

  3. You're the guy that doesn't smoke pot, right? :crazy:
     
  4. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    I don't think there's a distinction in that difference, FWIW.

    Well, on that specific point I don't happen to believe that there should be a training requirement built into the law before one may legally carry. Such things tend to be abused into de facto gun bans. For example, there's a training requirement in DC which must be satisfied before one may own a handgun, but there are no actual trainers in DC...in other words, to exercise a constitutional right in DC one must first drive to another state.

    That said....

    I don't think extortion of public safety funds would be required. To me, in this area federal supremacy is clear. It's only when the Feds want a state to do something they can't specifically require that the extortion bit comes in (drinking age minimums come to mind...). In certain cases the Feds can certainly tell a state what it must allow in its own "territory" (the Full Faith and Credit clause springs to mind as an example).

    But again, something can be entirely Constitutional but still a bad idea. I can agree that having the Federal Government dictate reciprocity standards is a big minefield, but that doesn't mean that it would be unconstitutional for it to do so.
     
    #184 Goaltender66, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  5. Aw, c'mon now...stop being mean. I'm trying to promote understanding here. You know...celebrate diversity, etc? :whistling:
     
  6. Or maybe, he returned in order to foment such animosity and hatred within the party that it would destroy itself from within...
     
    #186 Gundude, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  7. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    0
    0
    Did you mean to imply he's the only one that doesn't smoke pot?? :dunno:
     
  8. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    0
    0
    With friends like that.....

    I'd prefer a reformer instead of a destroyer, but if you're sure that's what he's been up to, I'll take your word for it.
     
    #188 Cavalry Doc, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  9. Sometimes the rot is so deep you just gotta tear it down and build a new one.
     
  10. Nope, just that the scattered nature of that post suggested he might have been on pot when he wrote it.
     
  11. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    0
    0
    Well that is a little far fetched, dontcha think?
     
  12. You have been taking statistical analysis courses from another one of your liberal bretheren on this forum.

    I am not expanding on you theory of a lower turnout at all.

    You do understand that I was referring to the percentage of third party representation.

    In other words for all their talk and bluster they are going to prove to be full of hot air when it comes to results.

    There is going to be so little actual turnout that even wasting time on the Forum mentioning them is less productive than analyzing belly-button lint.
     
  13. Jerry

    Moderator Millennium Member

    I'll try to keep this simple for you. You asked for an “example” and I gave you one. Obomacare! If you wanted an explanation also you should have asked for and example and an explanation.

    First mistake… health care is not a right it’s a privilege.

    Who should pay you ask. The person using the service. If you don’t pay the bill you get sued. It should work just like any other product or service works. However, the bleeding heart liberals are mandating that the working people once again pay for the lame and lazy by mandating health care and levying a tax if you don’t have it. Are those that can’t pay for it being forced to pay or be taxed? NO! And that is the only reason for Obomacare… so the rest of us can pay for those that don’t pay.

    Now before you reply read this. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html it’s quite lengthy but you REALLY need to read it. The Federal Government has no business giving out or mandating charity. But the liberals just love their free stuff that others have to pay for.
     
    #193 Jerry, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  14. The only surprise is that it took this long. When EMTALA was passed, the door was opened for freeloaders to get free medical care. It was only a matter of time before everybody had to pay for this.
    Who was the bleeding heart liberal in office in 1986 who signed this abomination? Probably the type of guy who would ban machine guns too.
     
    #194 Gundude, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  15. Jerry

    Moderator Millennium Member

    They don't smoke it. I'm a conservative and I'm all for legalizing drugs. But I'm not getting into a debate about it.

    You know who started the war on drugs. Teddy Roosevelt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_State_Narcotic_Drug_Act Conservative? NO! Founder of the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party of 1912. Progressive... better know as Liberals who now want to be call Progressives again. So it looks like that liberals put that ca-bash on drugs too. :rofl:
     
    #195 Jerry, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  16. Jerry

    Moderator Millennium Member

    I absolutely agree.


    Democrats control the House of Representatives passed it, Reagan signed it. Reagan was from Koymfornia so no big surprise there. :rofl:
     
    #196 Jerry, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  17. It is pretty fascinating that he is the model for who conservatives want their "real" conservative candidate to be.
     
  18. Not me. Foreign policy maybe. Domestic? He was too fricken "compassionate"
     
  19. Jerry

    Moderator Millennium Member

    Some things yes some things no. After 50 + years I'm still looking for the "PERFECT" congress and president. So far I'm 0 for 0. What I am sure of is... I've lost all tolerance for liberals and stupidly. Not necessarily in that order. :rofl: ActualI I've come to believe they are one in the same. :whistling:
     
    #199 Jerry, Oct 5, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  20. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    It says "shall not be infringed" but the bill of rights was only designed to regulate the federal government, just as the constitution creates and empowers only the federal government. It's like, the local fire department has a regulation saying "no employee can carry a gun on duty" - that doesn't regulate the police, because it's a fire department rule, even if it doesn't say "no fire department employee."
     

Share This Page