Nothing new here... “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels
Man, this is apparently no lie: According to the AP, the GOP platform will call for no limit on clip size. It's much more gun-friendly than even the 04 or 08 platform gun statements. Yeah, it makes sense that we need infinite clips for hunting and protecting our homes from the once-every-hundred years drug-addled intruder. FAIL. And SMDH. How can anyone but the absolute fringe get behind this?
You are wrong for thinking an American needs to justify ownership of some property (that's not the American way). The government needs to justify preventing ownership of some property. This is why liberals always lose this debate (at least in polls/votes). They can't give good reasons why certain weapons should be banned and instead demand citizen's explain themselves like you are. Who gives a **** why a person wants a clip of ammo. It's not relevant. Why do you want to prevent every American from owning a clip of ammo? that's far more relevant.
I agree but she won't have the clout for a successful run at the GOP nomination down the line as many are hoping now. She is pro-choice so she might as well be Jon Huntsman. That is, unless she has a cynical Etch-A-Sketch moment as Romney daily does, proving she has zero strength of conviction. Also, she has never had the fire in the belly for politics and good for her for recognizing that. Also, is nobody going to point out her weird, off-putting dialect? ("ahngenuity," "uh-lies") Seriously, a secretary of state that doesn't know how to pronounce "allies?" That makes the mispronunciation 'nucular' sound totally reasonable. I also agree that hitting Obama on foreign policy is kind of silly. It's kind of like saying FDR didn't do enough to right the ship with regard to the Great Depression, Lincoln didn't do enough on Emancipation, that Churchill was disappointing on WWII, that LBJ was a failure on civil rights, that Nixon wasn't good on relations with China, or Reagan on the Cold War, that W was bad at getting us into stupid, unnecessary, elective, off-the-books wars, or that Clinton didn't get enough extra-marital blowjobs. Obama has killed on foreign policy, most especially relative to his direct predecesor, for whom Condi did all of her most important work.
It would be relevant I wanted "to prevent every American from owning a clip of ammo." But since I don't have that ridiculous sentiment and never have had such, your red herring and the disingenuous attempt at "discussion" it represents, is, shock of all shocks, completely irrelevant. I want to know this: why one party wants to exacerbate a serious problem. Why not roll back tobacco legislation while we're at it? And seatbelts? Those are pesky regulations about purchasing and ownership as well, no? As for your generic libertarian ideals, we just disagree fundamentally. I believe if you don't want a serious social contract, you shouldn't try to exist on a planet with 2x the number of humans it can healthily support. A colony on Mars might be a better plan. But anyway, you did answer my question as to who could support infinite clips available to any nutjob who wants to arm his ass to the teeth: tallanvor. So thanks for that.
Alright, why do you want to prevent someone from owning as big a clip as they want? gun/clip ownership isn't a problem. Violence is a problem. you have failed in 2 consecutive posts to give a reason why someone shouldn't be able to have an 'infinite' clip.
Re: the idea that Ryan did not lie, okay, by the strict, lawyerly definition; and Clinton "didn't have sexual relations with that woman" either. To say "we built that" is racist is dumb, though the GOP is dog whistling loud enough for people to hear it and clearly. To say the entire GOP convention (and literally every single speech that referenced it -- which is every single speech to date) built their convention theme on a blatant lie, taken out of context for the express purpose of deceiving the American people, is 100% accurate.
I disagree entirely. Obama did in fact give a speech at the auto plant saying it could be there for 100 years. It did in fact close and is closed today. I'm glad we can agree on that. While I agree there is some racism in the GOP, I think many leftists are just hearing dog whistles when they aren't really there. Yes, the we built it line is definitely based on a misconstruing of Obama's statements. Obama's team has done the same (worse at times) so it's hard for me to work up a give a damn.
And it closed in December 2008, a few workers filling in the last few orders notwithstanding. LOL. Yes, Obama has misconstrued something and made it the central theme of his campaign and his party's convention.
Obama's team has put together ads implying Romney was responsible for the death of a person by costing her insurance (which was a lie) and ran for weeks on the "I like firing people" meme which was no more out of context than the "You didn't build that" one.
First part, not at all true. Romney is almost always excellent in debates. Second part, true as hell. And those are the debates he sucks at. Can Obama get under his skin by calling him out on his constant barrage of lies and mistruths? Or on the fact that he's 100X Kerry in the "I voted for it before I voted against it" department? Or on the fact that he's so rich that he's building a damn car elevator but keeps all his money in foreign countries to game the IRS and his duty to country and too refuses to even meet the basic standard of openness that was inaugurated by his own father's run for the presidency and that has been observed by every single candidate since George Romney until now? Or on the fact that he's so rich he's building a car elevator while paying a lower tax rate than any American who is not a part of the 0.1%? Or on the fact that he has rejected science and fact-checkers; refuses to go on the Sunday shows where he knows he'll face tough questions; and most of all refuses to release his plans for the next four years on the grounds that if he did that (as with his taxes) he would lose. Obama's got a lot of material to work with there. What's Romney's answer on pre-existing conditions, for example? On Leno he said of course he was against covering them before being shamed into saying of course we'll look into that and of course we'll take care of those people. A gigantic, earth-shaking, life-or-death (to hundreds of thousands if not millions) flip-flop that occurred in less than one full minute. One can apply this exercise on more issues than not. And it takes very little to get under his skin. Once that's done, he comes across as the guy you hated all the way through school, the spoiled brat, smarmy school bully that still thinks meanness is the same thing as a sense of humor. (When he said "I live to laugh," what he obviously meant was I love virtually tying peoples' shoelaces together so I can watch them fall down. Pranks FTW!) But as far as sharpness, agility on his feet, command of numbers (factual or not; usually not), he is an excellent debater. During the primaries there were very few debates he did not clearly win. Of course, for all his bluster to the contrary, Gingrich is not a master debater and no one else on those stages can debate like Obama, especially when Obama is fired up. And since Romney started running for office, every single one of his opponents has been fired up in debates because he inspires a deep, abiding, and seemingly unprecedented hatred in his opponents. Why? Because he's a dick. America knows this and his favorability ratings (the lowest in presidential polling history) reflect that. Americans won't elect a president they just plain don't like. And there can be no plainer, more apt description of Mitt Romney and how he plays with Americans.
Based on what? The highest praise I've heard of Romney in a debate is that he didn't mess up or "looked presidential." I've never heard anyone say he really did a great job. He's more like a consistent doubles hitter.
what garbage hating on Romney because he's been successful and has done well financially. Sounds like a typical liberal to play the class warfare card and you point about flip flopping -- Obama's coined a new word for it -- it's called evolving brah
Come on Texx, even you have to admit his point about Romney being a dbag has merit. Everyone of his political opponents has ended up with a deep seeded hatred of the man.
