Ya, it be funny see how dem crackers act when dey aint got a black man to blame fer everything. Damn crackers just wanna keep the black man down. Dey cant stand see Obama be president.Originally Posted by .blank cd
Prob has nothing at all to do with the relentless tax increases and sheer disregard for the constitution or american values.
Didn't misstate anything. You're drawing a conclusion off of something I didn't say already. Lol. That didnt take long at all. That is what a straw man is if you're taking notes.
I said: DO YOU THINK Romney would have supported Feinsteins bill or something similar to it. I DID NOT SAY Romney indeed supported Feinstein's bill. Romney DID support, and signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004.
The problem is you have a problem with drawing your own conclusions based on statements or positions that dont exist. I'm not dancing around technicalities, and there is text proof of this. Now, stop the backpedaling. I'm tired of calling you out on it.
Hello, I have not backpedalled any. Nor have you been able to nullify even one point that I have stated. YOU asked me to clarify my what needed to be stated, and I did just that. You are the one who keeps getting wrapped up with tangents about hypothetical situations. The fact is that the Mass. 2004 bill is not the same as Feinstein's bill. This fact obviously has escaped your attention and comprehension.
Romney was in support of the 1994 ban back in 2004, but note that when he sign Mass. ban in 2004, that was with the support of his states pro-gun lobby, as they got other concessions that they wanted.
Since 2008, Romney has stated clearly that he does not support a federal ban on assault weapons.
His statement in Jan 2008:
"I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that if they're implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reason. That's the right that people have."
During the 2008 primary campaign, the Washington Post asked Romney, "Do you think tighter restrictions should be in place for those buying a firearm?"
Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."
The only straw man argument is YOUR hypothetical situations, which are detached from reality, but then again, so are you, so we should expect that. Your hypothetical situation is what does not exist. My reality is that Romney did not support the 2013 Feinstein bill, and stated clearly that he was not in support of it.
You need to learn to have the facts on your side before you try to call someone out and utterly and completely fail.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Facepalm
Romney once supported a assault weapons ban similar to that of Feinsteins with bipartisan support. You've agreed to it, and he hasn't changed his position on the issue since then. End of discussion. There is no other reality than that. To think that he is any different than Obama on guns is completely and utterly false.
Can you not read????? I'll bold it for you.
His statement in Jan 2008:
"I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that if they're implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reason. That's the right that people have."
During the 2008 primary campaign, the Washington Post asked Romney, "Do you think tighter restrictions should be in place for those buying a firearm?"
Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."
If you still believe that he would have supported Feinstein's 2013 bill, you are delusional, or in denial. It seems that you believe that you know Romney better than he knows himself.
Finally, look at his own website, and his public statement there:
“...will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals. Mitt will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend, and punish criminals.”
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Facepalm.
Ohh I see. You're right. There was another Mitt Romney created in 2004 who signed an assault weapons ban. My mistake.
You are definitely smacking your own face.
Your mistake is not understanding that 2004 came before 2008 (the calendar works like that), and in 2008, he made the above statements. His website had the information listed above in 2012, which also comes well after 2004 (I only mention it because it is obvious that basic math is a serious challenge to you.).
You wanted to create the hypothetical situation of replacing Obama with Romney in 2012, not 2004. His answer in 2012 is clear. It is not the same as Obama's stated position. You have failed to tie them to the same position on Feinstein's 2013 bill, which was the whole basis for your original statement (I figure that I need to remind you, as your memory has been lacking today.).
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
seems to be working better than your understanding of facts.
I understand how you feel. And I understand that this information goes against a closely held viewpoint of yours that points out candidates from two opposing parties don't have similar views. However, the truth remains that he passed a similar bill in his state. This is an indisputable fact. The text of the bill is everywhere. It doesn't matter what he said in 2008 or 2012. The fact that he doesn't want MORE laws doesn't change the fact that he felt the ones he put in place in 2004 were appropriate measures, especially since he said so himself. Period. I'm not gonna argue this point any further unless you can prove he didnt pass the bill. Move on.
Again, you show that you have zero reading comprehension skills. Read this quote again, and pay attention to the word "federal". Mass. is not a federal entity, its a state.
Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."
Your statements amounts to saying that Romney cannot change his opinion OR that he was lying in 2008-2012, and he secretly was planning to support Feinstein's 2013 bill. Which is it? He clearly stated that he was not for federal gun restrictions in 2008 and in his recent political campaign.
Oh, and you have no idea what my viewpoint is. I actually know that Romney and Obama have similar viewpoints on many issues - they made it clear in their political statements. While this one bill was not one of them, there were plenty of others.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Thank you for confirming what I said again. It is very possible his viewpoints changed, but what he said doesnt suggest that at all. The fact that he believes there doesn't need to be any new federal laws doesn't change the fact that he believes the ones he put in place himself are appropriate regulations.
He never made any such statement in regards to federal restriction. State regulations are not the same as federal regulations. Why can't you understand that? Feinstein's 2013 AWB bill was not a state regulatory bill.
And I can prove that his stated position changed - he supported the 1994 bill, and specifically addressed it.
In 2008, his position changed, and he specifically stated no new federal regulations.
Why did he change his position? Everyone knows that it was because he was to run for the Republican Presidential nomination.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
His position might have changed, but what he said, and what you quoted, doesn't suggest his position on gun control changed. It simply suggests he didnt want new regulations.
Blank, I think what you fail to acknowledge is that Romney's personal beliefs both in 2004 and now are irrelevant. He was/is probably far more interested in political consequences. In 2004, it was in his political interest to sign that legislation and in 2013 (assuming he were president), it would probably be in his political interest not to support any new gun laws. His personal views on what is right (which we can only guess) are most likely irrelevant to how he would behave in office.
I fully acknowledge that. The question was hypothetical.
The fact remains though that at one point, he thought common sense gun laws were just. Why judge one by what he thinks is right and not the other?
You get it.
Do you believe that a person's position is not capable of change?
The fact is that Romney has stated for years that no new federal gun laws are needed. It's also fact that his political position changed on an assault weapons ban when he started to run for the Republican nomination.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I totally believe people's positions are capable of change. But under what pretext? Is it because of new or better information, or is it because you want something. If its because of better information, what information does he have that common sense gun control laws are no longer just or right, after 2004?
How do you know he thought they were "just" then. Maybe it was just a political calculation at the time. Who knows what he really believes? Romney has time after time proven to be such a political creature, you never really know what he truly believes.
I think that we can both agree that both of our opinions are that Romney's change was only politically motivated. He wanted the Republican nomination.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 05-15-2013 at 03:41 PM.
Dude heres the answer to all of your questions........BECAUSE RACECAR
Gun control will eventually happen, and it will be cloaked in an American flag with an eagle shedding a tear, and conservatives will say "this was our idea the whole time"
I know you're new here and all. But this ain't the section brah.
Dont get your hopes up. It's also not something a "logical" person like you claim to be should even be hoping for...... or in your fantasy world does this gun control happen without bloodshed?
why are you on a car website talking about banning cars ?
banning cars is never going to happen...
america needs them way to much, even in ways to help you out.
you can get killed by anything on this earth, dont mean you should ban it
There's 80 pages of reading material here that would answer those questions for you.
dude its just not going to happen , even if they did ban cars i will own one. its what i love, just because i like to build it to go over 100mph or more dont mean im going to cause a crime with my car...... and i dont drink or anything . im always completely sober while driving.plus taking away cars would mean job lost which is the complete opposite of what america wants to happen. which brings me back to saying it will never happen...... now good day to you sir but this topic is completely over. its a shame a 16 year has more since than a so called man
Your intellect is clearly superior. I marvel in the shadow of your mental capacity. I only ask you one favor....... save some pussy for the rest of us.
thanks
but..... just for the sake of curiosity, if the majority of people voted to ban cars... you would support that result right?
i mean i would always want to keep cars no matter what but if it happens it happen
Well, you're a democrat. Thanx for playing.
dude, im 16.......
Would you rather have a job or an allowance?
Don't mind him. Just please for the love of god do well in school.
edited quickly.
Do well in school, get a good job, so you can pay to take care of all the freeloaders who didnt follow blank's advice. Get used to it, because freeloaders will always out number you and by rule of majority, they can vote themselves a portion of your paycheck.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
