Looking at GOAL rated politicians and I have to wonder.....

Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
11,131
Likes
1,589
Feedback: 56 / 0 / 0
...I know that the candidates fill out a questionnaire and they are scored, but Cahill really has a 98% rating? And Baker has a 94%? From everything I have seen, neither one of them has taken a hard stance one way or another regarding 2A in MA, and that is just as disconcerting as having an anti out in the open.


Thats it, Im voting for Batman this year.
 
Its not they aren't completely honest with their answers - rather the answers provided are true within the context of the questions - and being quoted in context is not always possible so to give an answer that is true, even out of context, is better than making a statement that can be twisted out of context - and if the answer is taken out of context and twisted does that then become a lie or is that merely a twist of facts to make the reader ses what they want either in or out of context?

So they aren't lying so much as only telling some of the truth about their position on a given question - but don't take that out of context and in no way am I defending - or not defending - the political figures in question - about their answers - or lack of answers - on a given topic - as asked by...

what were we talking about now?

What do you want to do with your life?
 
Anyone who rates a politician's 2A stance based solely on the GOAL petition, is akin to rating me a great brain surgeon because you handed me a million bucks and I told you I qualified to do the surgery...History counts. Experience counts. Words count. These would not be the first two people who wooed gun owners until election day and then rammed it right up their asses... [thinking]
 
I can't speak for his actions, but for Charlie Baker, at least, words speak pretty loudly.

He was asked by someone on this forum what he would do about reforming MA's c**ptastic gun laws.

His (form letter) response included the phrase "We need to focus on enforcing the laws we already have".
 
I can't speak for his actions, but for Charlie Baker, at least, words speak pretty loudly.

He was asked by someone on this forum what he would do about reforming MA's c**ptastic gun laws.

His (form letter) response included the phrase "We need to focus on enforcing the laws we already have".

Only problem is that governors do not make laws or reform them. Ask the Devil how well it worked out for him with 4102?

The AG (and DAs) enforce laws and the legistraitors make the laws.
 
Only problem is that governors do not make laws or reform them. Ask the Devil how well it worked out for him with 4102?

The AG (and DAs) enforce laws and the legistraitors make the laws.

No question. But how would H2259 have fared if we'd had a governor campaigning for it?
 
No question. But how would H2259 have fared if we'd had a governor campaigning for it?

Unless s/he was the same party as the majority of legistraitors, they would laugh at him/her.

There is a huge diff between one who will sign it if it becomes law and one who would actively campaign for gun rights in a moonbat state . . . certain road to oblivion if anyone did that in MA.
 
Back
Top Bottom