The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Do you think that it is possible for someone's opinion to evolve on such an issue? Question not just for OP but for the whole board.

Of course. In His Panderness' case, however, his "evolution" was mighty timely. I think most of us realize he was lying or at least trimming with his previous statements on the matter.

 

[duper]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Of course. In His Panderness' case, however, his "evolution" was mighty timely. I think most of us realize he was lying or at least trimming with his previous statements on the matter.

I would phrase it a bit differently, but I agree. Of course people's views on this will evolve. Not everyone's but many people's. I worry about anyone who thinks that views on these things can't evolve.

I doubt, however, that Obama's views on this truly evolved in the past four years. While I support Obama, I am also a bit of a cynic. My guess is that his views match up very closely with bbdl on this issue. (shocking, I know) I would be willing to bet that he frankly doesn't give a darn one way or the other. So, frankly, why not say the politically expedient thing? Works for pretty much every other politician.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Of course. In His Panderness' case, however, his "evolution" was mighty timely. I think most of us realize he was lying or at least trimming with his previous statements on the matter.

Fair enough. Do you think the same thing about your guys view on pro choice vs pro life? Or about the "personal resposibility clause" (aka individual mandate) as far as health care goes?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Do you think that it is possible for someone's opinion to evolve on such an issue? Question not just for OP but for the whole board.

Potentially. But Romney's view changes have not been adjustments, but rather wholesale changes from one side to the other. And on many major issues. This is not small stuff...but whole platform changes. Guns, gays, the environment, healthcare...

Spend some time at ontheissues.org.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Supposedly Westboro was going to protest the Republican convention (of the two conventions....why?). I was wondering if that would cause the Lord to swing the hurricane back that way in an effort to get them to stop giving him such bad PR.

One proof that there is no longer an Old Testament Vengeful God is that a hurricane, a tornado, and a plague of locusts don't follow Phelps around everywhere he goes.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

One proof that there is no longer an Old Testament Vengeful God is that a hurricane, a tornado, and a plague of locusts don't follow Phelps around everywhere he goes.

Jesus politely showed him to the door.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Jesus politely showed him to the door.

Good. The Old Testament God was a nasty, narrow-minded little prick

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Fair enough. Do you think the same thing about your guys view on pro choice vs pro life? Or about the "personal resposibility clause" (aka individual mandate) as far as health care goes?

Let's get one thing straight: They aren't "my guys." I truly wish libstains would give up this guilt by association nonsense. Basically, either all politicians "evolve" or they "flip flop." It's as simple as that. And all of the strenuous efforts to make this election about 30-year old school girls, and whether I have to pay for their birth control, may not be enough. On the matter of "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" it isn't quite as simple as that is it? Particularly for an infant, moments away from "birth" having forceps driven into his skull to end his life. Not quite so theoretical is it? Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that was perilously close to infanticide.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Potentially. But Romney's view changes have not been adjustments, but rather wholesale changes from one side to the other. And on many major issues. This is not small stuff...but whole platform changes. Guns, gays, the environment, healthcare...

Spend some time at ontheissues.org.

Naturally. Of course. The USCHO's equivalent of the Black Knight strikes again. "'Tis but a scratch." Switching from being absolutely, positively against gay marriage, period, to absolutely, positively supporting it, period is "an adjustment."

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Switching from being absolutely, positively against gay marriage, period, to absolutely, positively supporting it, period is "an adjustment."

Back when Romney was running for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he promised to be a champion for "full equality" for gays and lesbians. - NPR

'I'll be better than Ted Kenedy' on gays rights...

...and Teddy was rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a rather pro-gay-rights stance.

From that to...Romney put gay marriage ban into GOP party platform. As I said, the ontheissues.org.

So to your point...pretty much.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Back when Romney was running for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he promised to be a champion for "full equality" for gays and lesbians. - NPR

'I'll be better than Ted Kenedy' on gays rights...

...and Teddy was rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a rather pro-gay-rights stance.

From that to...Romney put gay marriage ban into GOP party platform. As I said, the ontheissues.org.

So to your point...pretty much.

I wasn't talking about Romney, was I? But in your lexicon all Romney did was to "adjust" his position. Why is it wrong for Romney to "adjust" but not His Adjustness? Typical libstain tu quoque argumentation. Either they're both lying putzs or they're not. Chose.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

First off, CC looks like he swallowed Rush. Does anyone really buy that he feels that strongly about Mittens?

Second, that was the whitest bunch of whiteys that have ever whited.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

First off, CC looks like he swallowed Rush. Does anyone really buy that he feels that strongly about Mittens?

Second, that was the whitest bunch of whiteys that have ever whited.

Looks like that emergency shipment of White Out didn't get there on time.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

So can someone help me out with Chris Christie here? What's the draw?

To the point, straight forward, speaks his mind, and can step on others toes periodically. To me he seems like a typical New Yorker. The weird thing is that people usually don't think much of New Yorkers and their brashness/rudeness. In this case and for this Republican, it seems to be the majority of the making the man. Go figure.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

So can someone help me out with Chris Christie here? What's the draw?

To the point, straight forward, speaks his mind, and can step on others toes periodically.

I notice Christie didn't "speak his mind" about what he thinks of the "Christian" right.

 

[pirate]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

So can someone help me out with Chris Christie here? What's the draw?

To the point, straight forward, speaks his mind, and can step on others toes periodically. To me he seems like a typical New Yorker. The weird thing is that people usually don't think much of New Yorkers and their brashness/rudeness. In this case and for this Republican, it seems to be the majority of the making the man. Go figure.

In this day and age, some believe what we need are people willing to step on toes and speak directly to the issues. Whether he truly does that and/or is effective is a different question but I think some are happy at the appearance of somebody that doesn't measure every word against opinion polls.

That he is rare is a big concern.

Good to see though that posters on here would rather judge a leader by the number of his belt size.

On that note, I think what we 'all' we want is somebody that is thin but not from spending any time working out, is smart but didn't go to one of our best colleges, is successful but has no money, is a family man but has no family issues, is decisive but considers every opinion, respects life but is ok killing foreign civilians and unborn children, is honest but has risen to the top of a reverse sewer process, is against crime but for guns, goes to church but believes what every religion believes, is anti-terror but won't constrain anyone's rights, gets all the credit for a kill mission and all the blame if the helicopter crashes, won't negotiate with terrorists but gets every wayward "hiker" home safely, is all about personal responsibility but never asks anyone to do anything they don't want to do, is inclusive aside from "those people", supports the rights of rebel groups as long as they have the same beliefs we do, hates big business but accepts money from it and will say and do anything to get elected.

I think that is the composite candidate.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Let's get one thing straight: They aren't "my guys." I truly wish libstains would give up this guilt by association nonsense.

I'll give up the guilt by association stuff if you do....

This is obviously no big deal to you because your guy is running the cheapest, sleaziest campaign at least since LBJ in '64.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I think what we 'all' we want is somebody that is thin but not from spending any time working out, is smart but didn't go to one of our best colleges, is successful but has no money, is a family man but has no family issues, is decisive but considers every opinion, respects life but is ok killing foreign civilians and unborn children, is honest but has risen to the top of a reverse sewer process, is against crime but for guns, goes to church but believes what every religion believes, is anti-terror but won't constrain anyone's rights, gets all the credit for a kill mission and all the blame if the helicopter crashes, won't negotiate with terrorists but gets every wayward "hiker" home safely, is all about personal responsibility but never asks anyone to do anything they don't want to do, is inclusive aside from "those people", supports the rights of rebel groups as long as they have the same beliefs we do, hates big business but accepts money from it and will say and do anything to get elected.

I think that is the composite candidate.

You forgot a couple. Is a deficit hawk but wants to lower taxes and not cut spending. Works well with the international community but believes America can bomb anybody we want for any reason. Supports a healthy environment for our kids but won't impose job-killing regulations on business.

 

[Rover]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

So can someone help me out with Chris Christie here? What's the draw?

To the point, straight forward, speaks his mind, and can step on others toes periodically. To me he seems like a typical New Yorker. The weird thing is that people usually don't think much of New Yorkers and their brashness/rudeness. In this case and for this Republican, it seems to be the majority of the making the man. Go figure.

Not sure either. I have nothing against the guy as I don't live in New Jersey but if merely being a sarcastic jerk is enough to get fawning press and a seat in the governor's mansion I'm standing right over here, dammit!