Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2007, 07:34:27 AM
Now. How do we get them to ask a question about GUN CONTROL, so the candidates, except for Bill Richardson, if he's even included, can answer and provide their own rope?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 27, 2007, 07:40:44 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2007, 07:41:41 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2007, 07:44:21 AM
I dont know what difference it makes. Does anyone think any of these guys is actually against gun control? And if they said they were, would anyone believe them?
Bill Richardson is the only one who isn't a direct threat. He's pro-2a with no caveats, according to all statements and records. And Americans are still so brainfogged by Obama that they don't realize he'd once called for a ban on ALL semiautomatic firearms, pistols included.
If he had to admit to that, and Hillary was just herself on the issue, tens of millions of people would be exposed to the truth. I'm pretty sure she'd just give a smug, elitist answer and shove her foot in her mouth, and Obama would slip like he did with the "wasted troops" remark, and expose himself as a far-leftist.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 27, 2007, 09:14:19 AM
Post by: Sindawe on February 27, 2007, 09:23:26 AM
Quote
Bill Richardson is the only one who isn't a direct threat.
Make no mistake, Richardson IS is threat to this nation, just from another direction. From his exploratory committee web page:
Quote
As the California-born son of an American father and a Mexican mother, and as the Governor of a border state, I understand better than most the effects of immigration on our country -- legal and illegal. I declared a state of emergency on New Mexico's border to crack down on illegal activity and protect our citizens. I also believe we must pass comprehensive immigration reform to help secure our borders, protect our workers and our economy, and to be true to the ideals that have made this country great -- a country of immigrants.
Source: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues
Source: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues
comprehensive immigration reform = amnesty for criminal invaders
Like the gun-grabbers, these people are somewhat adept at using calm sounding words to mask their knife they are holding to your throat.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 27, 2007, 09:28:44 AM
Quote
Bill Richardson is the only one who isn't a direct threat.
Make no mistake, Richardson IS is threat to this nation, just from another direction. From his exploratory committee web page:
Quote
As the California-born son of an American father and a Mexican mother, and as the Governor of a border state, I understand better than most the effects of immigration on our country -- legal and illegal. I declared a state of emergency on New Mexico's border to crack down on illegal activity and protect our citizens. I also believe we must pass comprehensive immigration reform to help secure our borders, protect our workers and our economy, and to be true to the ideals that have made this country great -- a country of immigrants.
Source: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues
Source: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues
comprehensive immigration reform = amnesty for criminal invaders
Like the gun-grabbers, these people are somewhat adept at using calm sounding words to mask their knife they are holding to your throat.
Well, I'll put it this way, then. He's better than Ghouliani or Romney or McCain, and of course better than Hillary or Obama.
I just find it disheartening that we're reduced to trying to guess which candidate:
1) Won't try to take our guns, at least not immediately, and
2) Will destroy the country the slowest.
It's like asking if you prefer to be kicked in the head or in the jewels.
Post by: Fly320s on February 27, 2007, 09:40:14 AM
"Given a choice, would you rather:
A. Lose some freedom to gain some security,
or
B. Lose some security to gain some freedom?"
That would speak volumes about their intentions.