Democratic party...

[Riverside]

Jared Barrios says he's a Libertarian.

I think Jared is confused. He probably thinks Libertarian is a job at the library!
I'd classify Jared as a Liebearing Socialist.

 

[The Slug]

Look at it this way:

All 3 Dems, Obama, Edwards, and Hillary are committed antis.

Giuliani is definitely no friend of the 2nd Amendment.

John McCain sponsored the McCain/Lieberman gun show bill, which would have given the federal government the administrative power to prohibit all gun shows, and to register everyone who attends a gun show.

So who's left that has a chance of winning?

To me that's Romney. Is he ideal? Not at all but he's a better choice for the preservation of the 2nd amendment than any of the afformentioned candidates. You can go on about Huckabee or Ron Paul but do either of them truly have a reasonable chance of actually winning?

Please, don't waste your vote.

 

[codenamepaul]

Why not? You will waste yours on someone you really don't believe in. I will be able to sleep at night, knowing that I have some integrity left.

 

[Jose]

Why not? You will waste yours on someone you really don't believe in. I will be able to sleep at night, knowing that I have some integrity left.

+1 for the primary.

This isn't a popularity contest.

 

[MarkM]

To me that's Romney. Is he ideal? Not at all but he's a better choice for the preservation of the 2nd amendment than any of the afformentioned candidates. You can go on about Huckabee or Ron Paul but do either of them truly have a reasonable chance of actually winning?

Did you see Romney on "meet the press"? How is wanting a new "assault weapon" ban preserving the 2nd amendment?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/4/

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. Here's the headline: "Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his '94" Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other" guns rights "groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. `That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA,' Romney told the Boston Herald.'" "At another campaign stop" "he told reporters, `I don't line up with the NRA.'" Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.

GOV. ROMNEY: You know, it's, it's wonderful, and you'll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I've had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I...

MR. RUSSERT: You're still for the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I...

MR. RUSSERT: You're for it?

GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned--and I--let me, let me describe it.

MR. RUSSERT: But you're still for it.

GOV. ROMNEY: Let's describe what it is. I signed--I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that's something I would consider signing. There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality...

MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn't act on it, you would support?

GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms.

MR. RUSSERT: How about the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time.

MR. RUSSERT: But the idea of a waiting period.

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That's the key thing. I support background checks to, to--for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure...

MR. RUSSERT: But you stand by your support of the Brady Bill.

GOV. ROMNEY: ...to make sure, to make sure that the, that the crazies don't buy guns.

The, the current Brady Bill is, is a different measure than the original. The original had a waiting period because it took a long time to check on people's backgrounds. Today we can check instantly on backgrounds. I don't want to cause a waiting period that's not necessary based upon today's technology. But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don't.

 

[The Slug]

Why not? You will waste yours on someone you really don't believe in. I will be able to sleep at night, knowing that I have some integrity left.

Enjoy that integrity under the Clinton Administration while your rights wither away. Rights will probably erode under any new administration but who do you think will do their best to accelerate the process?

 

[rwl1955]

Democrat

I agree with Jay Severin`s reason for voting Republican. I will vote for the candidate that I think will do the least damage to me and my paycheck.
Simple as that.

 

[codenamepaul]

Enjoy that integrity under the Clinton Administration while your rights wither away. Rights will probably erode under any new administration but who do you think will do their best to accelerate the process?

I said before-and I'll say it again (it seems to have disappeared) If Ron Paul fails to get the Republican nod, I will surely vote for a Hillary/Obama ticket. I am somewhat intrigued by Huckabee or Thompson however.

I said-better to sink the whole works and start from scratch. You have about 6 years to prepare.

Let's see if this post makes it....

 

[drgrant]

Enjoy that integrity under the Clinton Administration while your rights wither away. Rights will probably erode under any new administration but who do you think will do their best to accelerate the process?

As MarkM has shown, voting for romney is like choosing the turd
that happens to be coated with a layer of frosting. Romney
looks more appealing but is still a turd under that thin layer of
frosting. IMO voting for RP, or Fred in the primary is not
going to be harmful overall. Even if we just assume the MSM
candidates are going to win the primary, it's a no harm
vote anyways. I flat out refuse to vote for someone like
romney, especially in an instance where it's not harmful "strategically".

If RP makes a strong showing in the primary (even if he doesn't
win) I think the net positive effect will be good... hopefully the
GOP will see it as a huge bitch-slap that the party is losing touch
with a LOT of their best support base.

-Mike

 

[Jose]

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. Here's the headline: "Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his '94" Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other" guns rights "groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. `That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA,' Romney told the Boston Herald.'" "At another campaign stop" "he told reporters, `I don't line up with the NRA.'" Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.

GOV. ROMNEY: You know, it's, it's wonderful, and you'll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I've had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I...

MR. RUSSERT: You're still for the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I...

MR. RUSSERT: You're for it?

GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned--and I--let me, let me describe it.

MR. RUSSERT: But you're still for it.

GOV. ROMNEY: Let's describe what it is. I signed--I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that's something I would consider signing. There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality...

MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn't act on it, you would support?

GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms.

MR. RUSSERT: How about the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time.

MR. RUSSERT: But the idea of a waiting period.

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That's the key thing. I support background checks to, to--for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure...

MR. RUSSERT: But you stand by your support of the Brady Bill.

GOV. ROMNEY: ...to make sure, to make sure that the, that the crazies don't buy guns.

The, the current Brady Bill is, is a different measure than the original. The original had a waiting period because it took a long time to check on people's backgrounds. Today we can check instantly on backgrounds. I don't want to cause a waiting period that's not necessary based upon today's technology. But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don't.

GOD HELP US IF THIS F-ING MORON MAKES IT ANYWHERE

 

[z0mbi]

"unusual lethality"?

 

[kevin9]

"unusual lethality"?

What do you expect from someone who doesn't own a gun.

 

[Jose]

Does it get any dumber than Mitt Romney?

That guy is stupendously stupid. He just another W.

 

[kevin9]

Does it get any dumber than Mitt Romney?

That guy is stupendously stupid. He just another W.

A smoother, somewhat more liberal (on social issues), flip-flopping W.

 

[The Slug]

You guys scare me. Really.

The fact that you aren't mature enough to understand compromise is especially disturbing. If Romney get's into office the likelihood is that the house or senate or possibly both will also go Republican. There would be enough pressure to stop any advances in the anti-gun agenda. If enough idiots follow the logic that "if Ron Paul can't get in then I'll just vote for Hillary" then we are doomed and YOU will be responsible.

Some of you from MA are saying the primary vote doesn't matter. Maybe that's true for you but I'm a NH resident and it sure as shit matters here. Go ahead and worship at the alter of Ron Paul but be prepared to enjoy a Hillary presidency as a result. Yes, I will blame you and people like you. You're the same ilk that put Bill Clinton in the White House by voting for Ross Perot.

Flame away.

 

[drgrant]

Some of you from MA are saying the primary vote doesn't matter. Maybe that's true for you but I'm a NH resident and it sure as shit matters here. Go ahead and worship at the alter of Ron Paul but be prepared to enjoy a Hillary presidency as a result.

Uhh, I think you have your wires crossed. To many in MA the
primary is the ONLY viable thing we can do here- the general (eg
main election) is almost not even worth showing up at, since
the state generally hands all the EVs to whoever the demoncat
is anyways.

So, how does voting for RP in the (R) primary = Hitlery in the
white house? If he loses the primary (as you seem to
believe) then that means that Romney or Guiliani probably will
have won it; and then if it comes down to the wire, R's still
will have the choice of "voting for the lesser of 2 evils" if they
really want to, in the general election.


-Mike

 

[The Slug]

Yes, but if the lesser of those 2 evils is someone like Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee then we will indeed have President Hillary Clinton.

 

[codenamepaul]

You guys scare me. Really.

The fact that you aren't mature enough to understand compromise is especially disturbing. If Romney get's into office the likelihood is that the house or senate or possibly both will also go Republican. There would be enough pressure to stop any advances in the anti-gun agenda. If enough idiots follow the logic that "if Ron Paul can't get in then I'll just vote for Hillary" then we are doomed and YOU will be responsible.

Some of you from MA are saying the primary vote doesn't matter. Maybe that's true for you but I'm a NH resident and it sure as shit matters here. Go ahead and worship at the alter of Ron Paul but be prepared to enjoy a Hillary presidency as a result. Yes, I will blame you and people like you. You're the same ilk that put Bill Clinton in the White House by voting for Ross Perot.

Flame away.

I am plenty mature enough to understand that compromise is what we do-not them. Compromise entails both sides give a little-what have they given. It's not maturity, but intelligence that allows such vision-perhaps you should go buy some.

Your logic that puts Romney in the white house and gains a R house and Senate baffles me. It doesn't make any sense-no correlation to me. Perhaps you could enlighten me. And-if that becomes the case-perhaps you can explain what advances in freedom occurred the last time the house and senate were both controlled by the Republicans. Patriot Act? Absolutely no roll back in gun legislation? Yes, the AB did expire. EXPIRED!

You are too ignorant to realize that either the R's or D's frontrunners in the election are served up to you and are little more than 2 sides of the same coin. It is long time past for a change-one that Ross Perot would have brought and Ron Paul would. Or the total collapse that Hillary will expedite and Romney or Guiliani will merely delay until I'm too old to take part in the coming festivites.

 

[TheIglu]

Vote for the best candidate, simple as that. Doing so would be much more effective if there were less fear voters as demonstrated a few posts ago.

 

[rwl1955]

Romney

Does it get any dumber than Mitt Romney?

That guy is stupendously stupid. He just another W.

*********
Romney is far from stupid. He`s made Millions as a funds manager. He`s not a gun guy and he`s not a career politician.
He`s used to working in the private sector and getting things done.
We could do worse.

 

[Nickle]

*********

We could do worse.

Yes, we could do much worse.

Klinton, Gigiloani, O'Bomber, McPOW, and sKerry's clone (Edwards) come immediately to mind.

That being said, I'm no fan of Romney, just agreeing he's not the WORST choice.

 

[Jose]

*********
Romney is far from stupid. He`s made Millions as a funds manager. He`s not a gun guy and he`s not a career politician.
He`s used to working in the private sector and getting things done.
We could do worse.

You're right. He's not stupid. he's a deceitful a**h*** that drifts whichever way the wind blows.

He has no conviction and no anchor philosophy. He is the last kind I need in control of the executive branch.

 

[kevin9]

*********
Romney is far from stupid. He`s made Millions as a funds manager. He`s not a gun guy and he`s not a career politician.
He`s used to working in the private sector and getting things done.
We could do worse.

Please forgive me for being blunt, but did you actually live in MA when he occupied the corner office? Granted he's no Ted Kennedy, but he's been out of the private sector, in government or quasi-government service, for almost 10 years. Nor would I consider his attempt to apply his private sector expertise to elected public service to be any kind of success. What of value did he actually accomplish during his tenure? Nothing!

 

[M1911]

He has no conviction and no anchor philosophy.

I disagree with that. Romney has exactly the same anchor philosophy as Clinton -- he'll say and do whatever he thinks will help him the most.

 

[csharpdev]

I think you could change Romney's mind on the AWB with a little education. Bush said he would sign it, and that's part of why Romney said he would. I think if you brought the facts to Romney and did a cost vs benefit analysis (after all he's a business man) you could get him to veto it.

On the flip side as a business man he could choose to take a loss on one issue if it means he can get a win on another that he feels would be a greater net gain for the country.

Perhaps Romney flip flops as a result of new knowledge compared to Hitlery who acts purely on public opinion polls and behind the scenes does whatever she wants.

 

[Jose]

Perhaps Romney flip flops as a result of new knowledge compared to Hitlery who acts purely on public opinion polls and behind the scenes does whatever she wants.

Romney changes his mind as frequently as his handlers tell him to.

He's a ceritfiable cretin.

 

[kevin9]

I think you could change Romney's mind on the AWB with a little education. Bush said he would sign it, and that's part of why Romney said he would. I think if you brought the facts to Romney and did a cost vs benefit analysis (after all he's a business man) you could get him to veto it.

If he wouldn't do anything about it at the state level, why would anyone expect him to do so at the federal level.

On the flip side as a business man he could choose to take a loss on one issue if it means he can get a win on another that he feels would be a greater net gain for the country.

You mean like taking a loss on running MA for 2 years while pre-running for President, or like cutting loose the whole state and local level Republican party and organization that worked to elect him to try to cozy up to the Dim-o-crat legislature leadership resulting in giving them a super majority able to override anything he wanted to do. Such application of RIO analysis we can do without thank-you-very-much.

Perhaps Romney flip flops as a result of new knowledge compared to Hitlery who acts purely on public opinion polls and behind the scenes does whatever she wants.

I see little difference in this regard between the 2 of them.

 

[The Slug]

Does it get any dumber than Mitt Romney?

That guy is stupendously stupid. He just another W.

As opposed to a bunch of you (us) on this board....
It amazes me how much smarter everyone here is than Mitt Romney, GWB, Bill & Hillary, etc. These people got where they are by being clever, calculating, smart (smaht for those of you in the Boston area) and a whole lot of other adjectives. Any one of them would tear the average poster on this forum apart in a debate. They've got the skills and instincts that make tough politicians and survivors. Say what you want about them, they may be ignorant on some issues but they aren't dumb.

 

[rwl1955]

Romney

Please forgive me for being blunt, but did you actually live in MA when he occupied the corner office? Granted he's no Ted Kennedy, but he's been out of the private sector, in government or quasi-government service, for almost 10 years. Nor would I consider his attempt to apply his private sector expertise to elected public service to be any kind of success. What of value did he actually accomplish during his tenure? Nothing!

*******
Yes, I lived in Mass. when Romney was Governor and still live in Mass. unfortunately. Romney had to deal with a Democratic Senate and a one party controlled State. Also Romney wasn`t one of the boys, he was an outsider. Romney`s a businessman. He`s wealthy so he doesn`t need the money. If I remember correctly he didn`t take a salary when he was Governor. If not Romney who`s your candidate?
Would you rather have Hillary as president?

 

[kevin9]

If not Romney who`s your candidate?

During the primaries, Fred Thompson!

Would you rather have Hillary as president?

Not at all, that's why I'm supporting the candidate that I believe reflects the core of the Republican party, rather sub-optimize on some RINO right from the beginning in a mis-guided attempt to fight the Dim-o-crats for some mysterious, and IMNSHO non-existent, center of the electorate.