Obama takes: guns, bible
Obama gives: healthcare

Romney gives: healthcare, guns, extra bible
Romney takes: beer, porn, Sunday sports, guns, healthcare

slayer199: coeyagi: Correction: You get a kick out of being a mouth breather who doesn't realize that the assault weapons ban is completely different than what Obama did. A) Because Obama has only expanded gun rights B) Because MA is liberal and Romney had no problems doing that there; but try doing that on a federal level.

I wasn't only talking about the assault weapons ban. I was talking about all of Romney's policies while governor. And yes, it's amusing to me because I hate both parties and contend there's little real difference between the 2 aside from the rhetoric.

Yep! Exactly the same. Except for their stances on equal rights, religious freedom, tax policy, foreign policy, health care policy...

slayer199: coeyagi: Correction: You get a kick out of being a mouth breather who doesn't realize that the assault weapons ban is completely different than what Obama did. A) Because Obama has only expanded gun rights B) Because MA is liberal and Romney had no problems doing that there; but try doing that on a federal level.

I wasn't only talking about the assault weapons ban. I was talking about all of Romney's policies while governor. And yes, it's amusing to me because I hate both parties and contend there's little real difference between the 2 aside from the rhetoric.

So, you are basically saying that they have the same policies? Or that one HAD the same policies as the other before he became a total tea party butt boy? You might not agree with their policies, but one has been just a BIT more consistent than the other.

LarryDan43: Obama takes: guns, bible

No.

qorkfiend: That's interesting. Why is selective fire the discriminator?

Historically the term 'assault rifle' is derived from the class of weapons that were roughly equivalent to the StG 44, and uses those classification methods. It's also not the ONLY discriminator, there are others as well (magazine, not belt fed, must have a stock, only certain power cartridges, etc).

The assault weapons ban created a new term, and by definition anything that is an "assault weapon" cannot be an assault rifle, since "assault weapon" specifically refers to semi-automatics.

FarkedOver: I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

This would make drive-by fairly entertaining. "Slow down! I need to reload!"

optimistic_cynic: FarkedOver: I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

This would make drive-by fairly entertaining. "Slow down! I need to reload!"

"Fark it! Let's just get out of the car and club the motherfarker!"

optimistic_cynic: FarkedOver: I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

This would make drive-by fairly entertaining. "Slow down! I need to reload!"

"Quit laughing, this is how you reload these. It's called 'packin- QUIT LAUGHING!"

unlikely: So let me get this straight

Obama, the Democrat, has opened up gun regulation, allowing guns into places they've never been allowed before.
Romney, the Republican, has a record of restricting gun freedom.

And the NRA endorses... which?

There's no accounting for stupid, son...

FarkedOver: I strictly follow the constitution as written by our founding fathers and what they had intended. I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

This little bit of free speech is especially entertaining because it was posted on the internet.

Epoch_Zero: optimistic_cynic: FarkedOver: I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

This would make drive-by fairly entertaining. "Slow down! I need to reload!"

"Quit laughing, this is how you reload these. It's called 'packin- QUIT LAUGHING!"

Just wait till the Minie Balls lesson.

optimistic_cynic: FarkedOver: I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

This would make drive-by fairly entertaining. "Slow down! I need to reload!"

What goes "clop clop clop clop *BANG* clop clop clop clop clop clop *BANG* clop clop clop clop"?

An Amish drive-by shooting.

slayer199: I kinda get a kick out of fark libs hate for Romney and conversely conservatives' endorsement of Romney. If you look at his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, he's not that different from Obama. The rhetoric is different but not the actually policy stances Romney took as governor.

As a Lib, Romney sounded dreamy, until he started talking. I could judge him by his actions and not his words, but he is just trying so damn hard to drive me away.

I will most likely be voting for Jill Stein unless my state comes into play.

Corvus: [i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

unlikely: And the NRA endorses... which?

I think for them its a case of backing the man who promises to work on their behalf VS backing the man who's said nothing.
In reality, this could be bad news for Mittens.

Obama has been intentionally silent and this is likely to continue.
Romney is on the record as being prone to knee-jerk responses.

/If Obama slips up, its proof of the secret ban everyone has been stockpiling for.
/If Romney slips up, People have to ask if they prefer the Devil they know over the Devil they don't.
/If gun owners are divided, the NRA's endorsement has no effect.

FarkedOver: I strictly follow the constitution as written by our founding fathers and what they had intended. I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

And a slave.

ChimpMitten: FarkedOver: I strictly follow the constitution as written by our founding fathers and what they had intended. I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

And a slave.

As long as you are white and own land.

FarkedOver: I strictly follow the constitution as written by our founding fathers and what they had intended. I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

You can believe you could fly and you would be just as wrong.

sprawl15: qorkfiend: That's interesting. Why is selective fire the discriminator?

Historically the term 'assault rifle' is derived from the class of weapons that were roughly equivalent to the StG 44, and uses those classification methods. It's also not the ONLY discriminator, there are others as well (magazine, not belt fed, must have a stock, only certain power cartridges, etc).

The assault weapons ban created a new term, and by definition anything that is an "assault weapon" cannot be an assault rifle, since "assault weapon" specifically refers to semi-automatics.

Ah, for some reason (not a gun owner, if that's not transparently obvious) I had it in my head that "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" were interchangeable terms. Thanks for the info.

FarkedOver: I strictly follow the constitution as written by our founding fathers and what they had intended. I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

That's right but I never bother arguing that. The intent was to protect the citizens from its government if it got out of hand. That's both sides had the same weaponry and the US military wasn't ridiculously huge. None of that applies now but like I said, it's no use arguing that point.

Giltric: FarkedOver: I strictly follow the constitution as written by our founding fathers and what they had intended. I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

You can believe you could fly and you would be just as wrong.

I believe he can soar
I see him running through that open door

way south: unlikely: And the NRA endorses... which?

I think for them its a case of backing the man who promises to work on their behalf VS backing the man who's said nothing.

And by "promises to work on their behalf" you mean actively signed laws that are 100% contrary to their core interests, values, and mission, versus the person who has "said nothing" by signing laws 100% in line with their core interests, values, and mission.

So, just like EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA OUTLET, words mean more than actions to them.

Got it.

theorellior: If Romney actually gets elected even with all the stupid-ass things he's said and all the outright lies he's told, it will be proof positive that the American public is dumber than a sack of hammers.

bush got elected. twice. rmoney is a step up.

qorkfiend: Ah, for some reason (not a gun owner, if that's not transparently obvious) I had it in my head that "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" were interchangeable terms. Thanks for the info.

Yeah, that's pretty much why the term was picked. It conjures images of people with AK's spraying full auto into crowds.

In reality, the Assault Weapon Ban termed 'assault weapons' as basically things that looked like - but weren't - assault rifles, which is a huge part of why the AWB was so terrible. A weapon could drop out of the 'assault weapon' classification by removing a bayonet mount or removing a pistol grip.

FarkedOver: ChimpMitten: FarkedOver: I strictly follow the constitution as written by our founding fathers and what they had intended. I believe everyone belonging to this great nation is entitled to a single shot musket and/or pistol.

And a slave.

As long as you are white and own land.

Oh I do. My wife will be upset about not being able to vote anymore, but them's the breaks.

namatad: bush got elected. twice. rmoney is a step up.

Bush did have an awesome 8 years.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: The NRA lost all credibility concerning endorsements for me when a few years back when I got an email saying the Democratic candidate has a perfect record of supporting gun rights and responded to the NRA election questionnaire promptly with the correct answers and is rated A+. In comparison the Republican candidate has no record of supporting gun rights and didn't bother responding to the questionnaire, but he's a Republican so we're just going to give him an A rating by default.


The Veterans of Foreign Wars is the same way.

There was a former U.S. Army Special Forces captain running, against a chickenhawk, with a terrible record on veterans' bills. SF dude came out supporting the repeal of DADT. She mocked him, saying he had "no command experience" to comment on DADT, despite being a former Special Forces Alpha Team commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. The VFW not only never asked her to apologize, they endorsed her.

There was a triple-amputee veteran who has done amazing work with the VA. Her opponent had never served, and had a mediocre to shiatty voting record on veterans' issues. They endorsed her opponent.

I let you guys plug in the D's and R's.

slayer199: I wasn't only talking about the assault weapons ban. I was talking about all of Romney's policies while governor. And yes, it's amusing to me because I hate both parties and contend there's little real difference between the 2 aside from the rhetoric.

REALLY?
little difference??

gay rights
abortion
education
freedom from religion
progressive taxes

this was without waking up. so if you really think there is no difference, please, vote libertarian or green or nationalist or dont vote. but really, help america by not screwing with it

Mercutio74: namatad: bush got elected. twice. rmoney is a step up.

Bush did have an awesome 8 years.

beep beep BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEP
my sarcasm detector went off and wont stop beeping now

Sgt Otter: The Veterans of Foreign Wars is the same way.

There was a former U.S. Army Special Forces captain running, against a chickenhawk, with a terrible record on veterans' bills. SF dude came out supporting the repeal of DADT. She mocked him, saying he had "no command experience" to comment on DADT, despite being a former Special Forces Alpha Team commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. The VFW not only never asked her to apologize, they endorsed her.

There was a triple-amputee veteran who has done amazing work with the VA. Her opponent had never served, and had a mediocre to shiatty voting record on veterans' issues. They endorsed her opponent.

At what point do these groups lose their non-profit status? If a group is a de facto wing of a political party ...

slayer199: coeyagi: Correction: You get a kick out of being a mouth breather who doesn't realize that the assault weapons ban is completely different than what Obama did. A) Because Obama has only expanded gun rights B) Because MA is liberal and Romney had no problems doing that there; but try doing that on a federal level.

I wasn't only talking about the assault weapons ban. I was talking about all of Romney's policies while governor. And yes, it's amusing to me because I hate both parties and contend there's little real difference between the 2 aside from the rhetoric.

Cynicism, much like nihilism, is intellectual and moral laziness.

namatad: Mercutio74: namatad: bush got elected. twice. rmoney is a step up.

Bush did have an awesome 8 years.

beep beep BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEP
my sarcasm detector went off and wont stop beeping now

Mine just hit the south tower.

Sgt Otter: Mr. Coffee Nerves: The NRA lost all credibility concerning endorsements for me when a few years back when I got an email saying the Democratic candidate has a perfect record of supporting gun rights and responded to the NRA election questionnaire promptly with the correct answers and is rated A+. In comparison the Republican candidate has no record of supporting gun rights and didn't bother responding to the questionnaire, but he's a Republican so we're just going to give him an A rating by default.


The Veterans of Foreign Wars is the same way.

There was a former U.S. Army Special Forces captain running, against a chickenhawk, with a terrible record on veterans' bills. SF dude came out supporting the repeal of DADT. She mocked him, saying he had "no command experience" to comment on DADT, despite being a former Special Forces Alpha Team commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. The VFW not only never asked her to apologize, they endorsed her.

There was a triple-amputee veteran who has done amazing work with the VA. Her opponent had never served, and had a mediocre to shiatty voting record on veterans' issues. They endorsed her opponent.

I let you guys plug in the D's and R's.

I think the R's in those two stories are the only ones doing the plugging, if you know what I mean.

Seriously though, what races were those?

unlikely: So let me get this straight

Obama, the Democrat, has opened up gun regulation, allowing guns into places they've never been allowed before.
Romney, the Republican, has a record of restricting gun freedom.

And the NRA endorses... which?


This is what drives me NUTS about the NRA. They have become so fixed in their positions they aren't even good at what they were invented for. They are so busy flogging the bogus "Fartbongo is gunna use the UN to take yer guns" whargrabl that they can't see Romney is worse.

I remember when they stuck to the issues.

namatad: theorellior: If Romney actually gets elected even with all the stupid-ass things he's said and all the outright lies he's told, it will be proof positive that the American public is dumber than a sack of hammers.

bush got elected. twice. rmoney is a step up.

Sadly, you are correct, sir.

namatad: Mercutio74: namatad: bush got elected. twice. rmoney is a step up.

Bush did have an awesome 8 years.

beep beep BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEP
my sarcasm detector went off and wont stop beeping now

No, seriously, Dubya himself said it was awesome... See?

unlikely: way south: unlikely: And the NRA endorses... which?

I think for them its a case of backing the man who promises to work on their behalf VS backing the man who's said nothing.

And by "promises to work on their behalf" you mean actively signed laws that are 100% contrary to their core interests, values, and mission, versus the person who has "said nothing" by signing laws 100% in line with their core interests, values, and mission.

So, just like EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA OUTLET, words mean more than actions to them.

Got it.

Now you understand why politicians suck?

Technically the NRA was more about hunting and competition shooting than finding any true meaning in the 2nd amendment. So the AWB didn't go entirely against their views, just as they found themselves accepting of the Brady bill and Hughes amendment.
...Much to the annoyance of many gun owners.

I think if Romney wanted to get any traction out of a pro-gun endorsement, he needs to give something back to the gun owners.
Politically, he can't do that now.

Epoch_Zero: namatad: Mercutio74: namatad: bush got elected. twice. rmoney is a step up.

Bush did have an awesome 8 years.

beep beep BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEP
my sarcasm detector went off and wont stop beeping now

Mine just hit the south tower.

Dudes, Bush like totally had an awesome eight years.

"Eight years was awesome and I was famous and I was powerful."

So...

Obama, who has signed the most pro-gun piece of legislation in recent history, and has never pressed national gun control, loses the NRA's endorsement.

But Romney, who has signed an assault weapons ban, wins the NRA's endorsement.

The NRA has no principles whatsoever.

SpectroBoy: unlikely: So let me get this straight

Obama, the Democrat, has opened up gun regulation, allowing guns into places they've never been allowed before.
Romney, the Republican, has a record of restricting gun freedom.

And the NRA endorses... which?


This is what drives me NUTS about the NRA. They have become so fixed in their positions they aren't even good at what they were invented for. They are so busy flogging the bogus "Fartbongo is gunna use the UN to take yer guns" whargrabl that they can't see Romney is worse.

I remember when they stuck to the issues.

To be honest, they should be secretly supporting Obama. He's not only been better for relaxing gun regulations, he's done wonders for increasing gun sales and NRA memberships/donations.

unlikely: So let me get this straight

Obama, the Democrat, has opened up gun regulation, allowing guns into places they've never been allowed before.
Romney, the Republican, has a record of restricting gun freedom.

And the NRA endorses... which?

Obama is a black man with a funny name who might be a seekrit muslin.

SpectroBoy: This is what drives me NUTS about the NRA. They have become so fixed in their positions they aren't even good at what they were invented for. They are so busy flogging the bogus "Fartbongo is gunna use the UN to take yer guns" whargrabl that they can't see Romney is worse.

I remember when they stuck to the issues.

That was before America elected its first black president.

Coincidence?

Edsel: To be honest, they should be secretly supporting Obama. He's not only been better for relaxing gun regulations, he's done wonders for increasing gun sales and NRA memberships/donations.

You're exactly right. It's such a farked up dynamic. I wonder if the NRA has a secret PAC to funnel money to ol' Fartbama. Now THAT would be hilarious.

FTA: Controlling access to guns would appear, on its face, the simple answer to preventing public massacres like the movie-theatre tragedy in Colorado.

Actually, there's a great deal of debate about whether easy access to firearms would have do anything to prevent public massacres. Even places like Great Britain, with notoriously restrictive gun laws, has shooting sprees.

The fact that this "reporter" makes a blatantly stupid assumption as the first sentence in his article shows just what kind of coverage you can get out of the media these days.

Jake Havechek: unlikely: So let me get this straight

Obama, the Democrat, has opened up gun regulation, allowing guns into places they've never been allowed before.
Romney, the Republican, has a record of restricting gun freedom.

And the NRA endorses... which?

Obama is a black man with a funny name who might be a seekrit muslin.

Weird thing is, Mormonism has been compared to Islam since its founding. So much so that Christians have called Joseph Smith the "Mormon Mohammed." Some people say Mormonism and Islam have the same mystical foundational principles in Freemasonry.

Link

Thus, it appears Romney make in fact be a sekrit Muslin, while there is no evidence Obama is.

We get it, conservatives. He's black.

bugontherug: So...

Obama, who has signed the most pro-gun piece of legislation in recent history, and has never pressed national gun control, loses the NRA's endorsement.

But Romney, who has signed an assault weapons ban, wins the NRA's endorsement.

The NRA has no principles whatsoever.

HeartBurnKid: slayer199: I kinda get a kick out of fark libs hate for Romney and conversely conservatives' endorsement of Romney. If you look at his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, he's not that different from Obama. The rhetoric is different but not the actually policy stances Romney took as governor.

The problem is, Romney now actively disowns the policy stances he took as governor. So the question becomes, which Romney would we get as President? Governor Romney, or Candidate Romney?

Personally, I don't think we'd see either. Rather, we'd get this Romney:

[cdn3.standard.net image 800x624]

That picture always reminds me of the pics of wannabe gangsta kids on Facebook or MySpace, posing with a handful of tens and twenties to show how badass they are. In that Bain pic, even assuming all the bills are hundreds, that's about $1500 they're flashing. Divided among the seven dolts there, it's about $214 a piece. Captains of industry, they is. Might as well be posting on FARK, telling the rest of us how rich they are.

Fubini: FTA: Controlling access to guns would appear, on its face, the simple answer to preventing public massacres like the movie-theatre tragedy in Colorado.

Actually, there's a great deal of debate about whether easy access to firearms would have do anything to prevent public massacres. Even places like Great Britain, with notoriously restrictive gun laws, has shooting sprees.

The fact that this "reporter" makes a blatantly stupid assumption as the first sentence in his article shows just what kind of coverage you can get out of the media these days.

In countries like Norway, Canada, Britain, and Australia, these mass murders are so exceptional that everyone remembers them and could readily give you a comprehensive list of all of them. Try naming every single mass murder that has happened in America since Columbine.

Serious Black:
The Veterans of Foreign Wars is the same way.

There was a former U.S. Army Special Forces captain running, against a chickenhawk, with a terrible record on veterans' bills. SF dude came out supporting the repeal of DADT. She mocked him, saying he had "no command experience" to comment on DADT, despite being a former Special Forces Alpha Team commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. The VFW not only never asked her to apologize, they endorsed her.

There was a triple-amputee veteran who has done amazing work with the VA. Her opponent had never served, and had a mediocre to shiatty voting record on veterans' issues. They endorsed her opponent.

I let you guys plug in the D's and R's.

I think the R's in those two stories are the only ones doing the plugging, if you know what I mean.

Seriously though, what races were those?

The SF dude was Major Tommy Sowers, and his opponent was incumbent Jo An Emerson, for a race in Missouri.

This was her exact words on why a Special Forces Major was unqualified to comment on DADT:

In addition, Emerson said her opposition is based on comments from field commanders "who have said that in very difficult situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, in combat jobs, that it is beneficial to have knowledge of that because there can be distractions. Since Sowers has never commanded anybody, he might have a different perspective."

The amputee was Lt. Col. Tammy Duckworth, and her opponent was Peter Roskam, for a race in Illinois.