BoiledFrogs
Regular Member
Obama has been lying in wait for re election to take action against guns, as well as a few other of his pet projects.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Election 2012 Bye Bye Guns.
- Thread starter BoiledFrogs
- Start date
Obama has been lying in wait for re election to take action against guns, as well as a few other of his pet projects.
Shoobee
Regular Member
You can either send your $50 bucks to the NRA or you can give it to your local pharmacist for a bottle of Prozac.
Nothing else will treat your paranoia.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I think it was Mitch that stated it was his goal to make Obama a one-term president.
The initial wave coming out of the Republican Party regarding the "why's" is not a positive outcome for bipartisanship.--blaming Romney for not being Conservative enough, not talking about Conservative Core Values, such as: Pro-choice, Heterosexual Marriage, Self-deportation, etc.; Republicans are going to lose if they don't bring individuals into the fold that tend to vote Democratic because Conservative talking points are too extreme. You look at Murdock, and Akin, their comments regarding rape, well, they lost their collective a$$ on that one.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
The above statement is indicative of why Republicans lost the White House. The Republican base is a dying breed that clings to a demographic that is not a reflection of the realities on the ground.
I get it though, all you have left is paranoia.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
That is one of the dumbest statements I have heard, the democrats cannot survive without the republicans, and the republicans cannot survive without the democrats. Otherwise you would end up with a one party system~~just like the USSR.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Republicans, as they are, are over. Last night, we have seen the Tea Party, slowly, being given their hats, and shown the door.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
BS, the president did not win by any mandate or margin, the house is still in republican control. The Tea Party is morphing into the republican party, the republican party will always be the second party due to the large amount of freeloaders in the country. BUT the democratic party would rather deal with the republicans than a large party of libertarians or anarchists. Hell they go to dinner and parties together when we are not looking, they sure have you fooled.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I like the second part: Wrong. The Republican party was morphing into the Tea Party, until now. The Tea Party is the Left Anarchist version of the fringe right.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The Tea Party is not anarchist, do you even know your terminology? The Tea Party is CONSERVATIVE to the letter, that is not anarchy. They believe in less government, NOT no government. They believe in law and order, not everyone for themselves, which pretty much what most left voters are. They want more government so they can get more from somebody else.
Why don't you ask Anarchists on this board if they are Tea Party? :banana:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I didn't state that the Tea Party are Anarchists. I stated that they are the fringe Right version of Anarchists.
BTW, I know what an Anarchist is, I have dealt with a number of Anarchists, unfortunately.--Utopian Ideologues.
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
If Republicans were: pro-choice (in cases of Rape and incest), pro-gay marriage (I know many Gays that are fiscally conservative, pro-gun), pro-practical immigration policy, and fiscally conservative, they would take a big chunk from the Democratic Party.--Republicans diving into social issues is a losing game, and not reflective of the demographics.
One major positive thing about the Republican fold, IMO, is they are more open-minded, and tolerant when discussion occurs; their downfall: Although they have a tolerant dialogue, they hold the hard-line, and alternatively, many of the groups above go to the Democratic Party.
One major positive thing about the Republican fold, IMO, is they are more open-minded, and tolerant when discussion occurs; their downfall: Although they have a tolerant dialogue, they hold the hard-line, and alternatively, many of the groups above go to the Democratic Party.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Give me a break, those really are small issues, and most republicans are not on the party platform~where many democrats are pro-life, anti gay marriage, and want more enforcement at the border. In fact in surveys in recent the swing towards pro life is greater than pro choice, and there are more democrats in America than republicans. The bottom line is handouts and it is exactly why Obama won Ohio, the lamestream media said so.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
LOL, let me guess: It's the economy stupid.? Apparently it isn't.
Many Democrats are anti-gay marriage. It doesn't seem to be the case in Washington State, today.
The pro-life swing includes individuals who are open to cases of rape, and incest.
Hopefully the Republican Party doesn't stick with your thinking, or they will keep losing.
Last edited:
Cite? "Other" votes did NOT affect the outcome. Those who did not like Romney and voted for him anyway are the ones who actually sent a message to the Republicans that they will support any RINO. Thanks for that.
But I still won't insult you for it. You must have had your reasons that hopefully agreed with your conscience.
Even if someone overtly supported Obama, they should not be insulted for it. One would think that if your guy was the better choice, you could articulate it without name-calling.
Last edited:
acmariner99
Regular Member
Oye -- Will Obama use his second term to push for an AWB and other 2A restrictions? Honestly, I doubt it. Congress at this point won't let him. What may happen is if the Supreme Court shifts to the left, then we could see a checkerboard of local restrictions and possibly legislation from the bench regarding an AWB and similar legislation. The status quo is unchanged. America voted for the same set of people and even widened the partisan divide in both houses of Congress. But considering that the country has a lot of higher priorities at the moment, I don't see an AWB gaining any momentum - especially if it starts to meet resistance, which it will.
As far as this debate regarding the fate of the Republican Party - its base is completely fractured. We had a wishy washy candidate that couldn't appeal to the GOP's conservative base, moderates, or independents. I think the Libertarian Party could have a shot at being the next "conservative" party because of their classic liberal and small gov't stance. (Their foreign policy could use some refinement, but less bullying and more collaboration overseas is a good step.) Their socially liberal and fiscally conservative platform is appealing. Can they get enough support without alienating a large percentage of the voter base though?
The Tea Party platform is solid IMO - fiscal responsibility, smaller gov't, tax reform, and some good points on immigration and other issues, but the problem has been their unwillingness to compromise. While that by itself is admirable, it continues to alienate the main base and moderates within the GOP at large.
The me-me-me oh look freebie attitude of the left has got to stop - and the only way we can make any headway is if Congress can come up with a solution, otherwise it's the fiscal cliff for all of us.
As far as this debate regarding the fate of the Republican Party - its base is completely fractured. We had a wishy washy candidate that couldn't appeal to the GOP's conservative base, moderates, or independents. I think the Libertarian Party could have a shot at being the next "conservative" party because of their classic liberal and small gov't stance. (Their foreign policy could use some refinement, but less bullying and more collaboration overseas is a good step.) Their socially liberal and fiscally conservative platform is appealing. Can they get enough support without alienating a large percentage of the voter base though?
The Tea Party platform is solid IMO - fiscal responsibility, smaller gov't, tax reform, and some good points on immigration and other issues, but the problem has been their unwillingness to compromise. While that by itself is admirable, it continues to alienate the main base and moderates within the GOP at large.
The me-me-me oh look freebie attitude of the left has got to stop - and the only way we can make any headway is if Congress can come up with a solution, otherwise it's the fiscal cliff for all of us.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
There are many Democratic Party types that are Libertarian: Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal. But the vote is given to the Democratic Party when Social Issue right-wing stances are taken.
As I stated though, if Republican keep going to Tea Party types--they are not Libertarian because they are Socially Conservative--they will lose lose lose.
END_THE_FED
Regular Member
I completely understand your concern. Could you please explain how this would happen without the Liberals having control of the House of Representatives where a Bill must be approved first by the House which is still controlled by Republicans???
May I suggest you and others watch this informative video that I watched as a child. No need to take a Political Science class to figure this stuff out.
Could you clarify the underlined statement please?
If you mean it must pass the house before becoming law, you are correct. If you are saying it must go to the house first, before the senate you are mistaken.
Only revenue measures must originate in the house of reps.
(this probably does not change the overall point of your post, I just want to prevent misunderstanding that may effect someone later)
Get2DahChopper
Regular Member
I think he is saying a bill cannot become law without the blessing of the house. Watching the video he linked gives one that information. I could be wrong though? My mind reading skills are rusty lately.
BoiledFrogs
Regular Member
Look into it. You might be surprised what you find.
Im not going to do the research for you, it wouldnt be as believable as if you see for yourself.