HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » NRA goes after Democrats ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 05:10 AM

NRA goes after Democrats in contested Senate races

Until recently, the National Rifle Association’s primary involvement in the 2012 election has been limited to renting booths at state fairs and circulating flyers and bumper stickers, plus the occasional low-budget TV or radio buy.

But thanks to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the powerful gun rights group has stepped up its game. A $420,000 ad buy last week followed by a $358,000 buy reported Tuesday shows the NRA is ready to invest in more than just convincing fair- and rodeo-goers to vote against President Barack Obama.

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action’s new ads, released Monday, attack the records of Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, who are both running for U.S. Senate — and Federal Election Commission filings indicate Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is the next target.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/08/29/10779/daily-disclosure-nra-goes-after-democrats-contested-senate-races

149 replies, 9292 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 149 replies Author Time Post
Reply NRA goes after Democrats in contested Senate races (Original post)
SecularMotion Sep 2012 OP
rDigital Sep 2012 #1
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #2
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #3
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #4
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #6
krispos42 Sep 2012 #68
spin Sep 2012 #92
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #5
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #7
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #8
Doctor_J Sep 2012 #114
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #128
Doctor_J Sep 2012 #143
gejohnston Sep 2012 #144
Doctor_J Sep 2012 #145
gejohnston Sep 2012 #146
rDigital Sep 2012 #10
Kolesar Sep 2012 #13
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #21
Kolesar Sep 2012 #29
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #31
Kolesar Sep 2012 #36
glacierbay Sep 2012 #42
Kolesar Sep 2012 #45
glacierbay Sep 2012 #48
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #53
Kolesar Sep 2012 #60
glacierbay Sep 2012 #61
DWC Sep 2012 #71
Remmah2 Sep 2012 #147
gejohnston Sep 2012 #148
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #149
Kolesar Sep 2012 #9
rDigital Sep 2012 #11
Kolesar Sep 2012 #15
rDigital Sep 2012 #17
Kolesar Sep 2012 #20
rDigital Sep 2012 #24
Kolesar Sep 2012 #27
rDigital Sep 2012 #108
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #12
Kolesar Sep 2012 #14
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #16
Kolesar Sep 2012 #18
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #19
Kolesar Sep 2012 #22
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #23
rDigital Sep 2012 #25
Kolesar Sep 2012 #30
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #49
Kolesar Sep 2012 #50
gejohnston Sep 2012 #64
PavePusher Sep 2012 #86
rDigital Sep 2012 #91
fascisthunter Sep 2012 #56
Loudly Sep 2012 #59
Doctor_J Sep 2012 #117
rDigital Sep 2012 #119
Doctor_J Sep 2012 #120
gejohnston Sep 2012 #121
MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #126
rDigital Sep 2012 #129
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #26
Kolesar Sep 2012 #28
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #32
Kolesar Sep 2012 #35
glacierbay Sep 2012 #39
Kolesar Sep 2012 #43
glacierbay Sep 2012 #54
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #73
rDigital Sep 2012 #109
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #72
glacierbay Sep 2012 #33
Kolesar Sep 2012 #34
glacierbay Sep 2012 #37
Kolesar Sep 2012 #41
glacierbay Sep 2012 #47
Kolesar Sep 2012 #52
glacierbay Sep 2012 #57
Kolesar Sep 2012 #63
glacierbay Sep 2012 #66
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #38
Kolesar Sep 2012 #40
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #46
Kolesar Sep 2012 #51
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #55
Kolesar Sep 2012 #62
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #67
gejohnston Sep 2012 #65
Simo 1939_1940 Sep 2012 #106
MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #127
rDigital Sep 2012 #131
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #140
ladjf Sep 2012 #44
glacierbay Sep 2012 #58
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #69
gejohnston Sep 2012 #70
glacierbay Sep 2012 #74
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #75
glacierbay Sep 2012 #76
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #77
glacierbay Sep 2012 #78
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #79
glacierbay Sep 2012 #82
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #83
glacierbay Sep 2012 #84
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #85
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #130
ladjf Sep 2012 #103
glacierbay Sep 2012 #104
ladjf Sep 2012 #124
rDigital Sep 2012 #132
glacierbay Sep 2012 #139
scottsdalebubbe Sep 2012 #80
gejohnston Sep 2012 #81
bongbong Sep 2012 #98
bongbong Sep 2012 #87
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #88
bongbong Sep 2012 #89
rDigital Sep 2012 #96
bongbong Sep 2012 #97
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #105
glacierbay Sep 2012 #107
rDigital Sep 2012 #90
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #93
rDigital Sep 2012 #95
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #99
rDigital Sep 2012 #100
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #101
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #102
gejohnston Sep 2012 #122
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #137
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #94
rDigital Sep 2012 #110
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #111
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #112
Doctor_J Sep 2012 #115
rDigital Sep 2012 #118
Doctor_J Sep 2012 #113
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #116
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #123
rDigital Sep 2012 #133
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #135
rDigital Sep 2012 #138
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #141
rDigital Sep 2012 #142
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #134
petronius Sep 2012 #125
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #136

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)


Response to rDigital (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 05:43 AM

2. Why would a Democrat want support of an organization that works to defeat President Obama?

Not just an organization that works to defeat President Obama, but an organization that spreads lies and fear to achieve it's goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 05:50 AM

3. Well

 

If the president would come out against further restrictions on gun owners instead of being for them I'm sure the NRA would like to back him. As to why a democrat would want the NRA's support, they're very well funded and have a large dedicated block of members who consistently vote. The "lies an fear" part just seems like you have an ideological ax to grind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 05:56 AM

4. The NRA tries to portray President Obama as anti-gun

while ignoring past statements by Romney which show his support of gun regulation.

You're very gullible if you think the NRA would ever back President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:04 AM

6. Interesting

 

As was pointed out above the NRA does endorse democrats who are pro gun, so what evidence do you have that proves they wouldn't endorse the president if he reversed his stance on gun rights? As for Romneybot, I agree that the NRA should be more critical of him but this months American Rifleman actually had an interview with him where they discussed the AW ban he signed. Apparently it had a large number of protections for gun owners in the bill and was supported by many pro 2A groups in the state so they give him a pass. I don't agree with that logic, but that's what the NRA is saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:47 AM

68. The NRA will never back Obama because Obama is a Democrat...

...and the Democratic party platform has, in recent decades, been anti-gun.


I doubt they're staining their jockies over voting for Romney, either, but Romney is a useful tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 05:50 PM

92. We agree on Romney!

President Obama has been largely pro-gun rights in his first term. He received an "F" rating from the Brady Campaign.

As with most issues Romney Romney has been on both sides of gun control. In the past Romney has been for strong gun control but now has shifted his position to supporting gun rights.


Mitt Romney on Gun Control

Mitt Romney. When he ran for the Senate and for governor, he supported a ban on assault rifles and the Brady Bill's five-day waiting period for gun purchases. He proudly said those positions wouldn't make him "the hero of the NRA." As governor, he made Massachusetts the first state to permanently ban assault weapons. He has even flip-flopped about whether he owns any guns. In New Hampshire, he was asked his view on the Second Amendment. He responded that he had been a hunter "pretty much all my life." Later, red-faced aides of Romney had to admit that Romney had never had a hunting license, and under further questioning, Romney acknowledged that his "lifetime of hunting" was having shot at some birds during a Republican governors meeting during a fund-raising event and maybe shooting at "small varmints" when he was seventeen with his cousin.

GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA”
Top Romney Flip Flops: #3. Gun Control:


Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, Romney said he favored strong gun laws and did not “line up with the NRA.” He signed up for “lifetime membership” of the NRA in August 2006 while pondering a presidential run, praising the group for “doing good things” and “supporting the right to bear arms.”
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: “Top Ten Flip-Flops” , Feb 5, 2008

***snip***

I support the work of the NRA, but disagree sometimes
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, 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.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series , Dec 16, 2007

***snip***

Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban

Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.

A: Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I’ve been governor in a pretty tough state. You’ve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina , May 15, 2007
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 05:59 AM

5. The NRA is non-sectarian

 

They support Democrat and Republican candidates based not on their parties but on their graded-positions on the subject of the RKBA.

Because of a flaw in our party's platform (wrongfully adapted by hopefully well-meaning but misguided Democrats) many more Republican candidates rate highly with the NRA than Democrats. But, that could be easily rectified by amending our party platform to a more pro-RKBA position.

Disarming the civilian populace isn't a liberal position -- it's fascist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:14 AM

7. So the NRA would support Democrats if they were more like Republicans?

and they're non-sectarian?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:20 AM

8. The NRA is a single issue lobby

 

Party doesn't matter, either you support gun rights or you don't and they react accordingly. Simple as that. If the dems really wanted to put an end to the republicans they'd adopt the NRAs platform on gun rights and run the table in future elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 05:07 PM

114. Since Willard has been at least a vocally anti-gun as the president,

and the NRA is violently (and dishonestly) trying to get Willard elected, your post is nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #114)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #128)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:14 AM

143. Here is Governor Romney 6 years ago

"Finally, on gun control Governor Romney signed legislation banning assault rifles in Massachusetts and said at the time that "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #143)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:20 AM

144. he was wrong about that like he is about everything else

since they are used for recreation and self defense. But then, he is the kind of guy that thinks every duck hunter wears tweeds while carrying UK made shotguns that cost more than my house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #144)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:06 AM

145. And yet the NRA is spending a forture trying to get him elected

they are entitled to do so, but calling them "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan" is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #145)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:11 AM

146. I have no idea what they are doing

but they spent money getting Bernie Sanders elected, that was the only good thing that came out of the original AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:48 AM

13. So Sherrod Brown is a fascist by your definition

For someone with a Jewish symbol for an avatar, you use the term fascist loosely

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:06 AM

21. That's between me and my Judaism ...

 

... but, as a Jew, I was raised to recognize fascism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:11 AM

29. Is Sherrod Brown a fascist, in your opinion? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #29)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:23 AM

31. I speak of ideology ...

 

... not personality. I cannot say if Mr. Brown believes in fascism. However, disarming the civilian populace is fascist and anyone who supports disarming the civilian populace supports a principle of fascism. As to whether or not that makes that particular individual a fascist, only the individual can truly say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:42 AM

36. So, you are saying that Sherrod Brown supports a "principle of fascism"

Do I have that correct? That would surprise the editors at the newspaper who always say he is too liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #36)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:58 AM

42. If he supports the disarming of the civilian population

 

then, yes, that would be a principle of fascism, now whether he does, I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:00 AM

45. I didn't ask you , Mr. Buttinski eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #45)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:10 AM

48. Wow

 

I thought this was a discussion board where everyone participated?
And when you start with the insults, it means you've lost the debate and that's all you have left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:26 AM

53. Thank you

 

Apparently, what is clear to everyone else isn't clear him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #53)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:57 AM

60. are saying that Sherrod Brown supports a "principle of fascism"? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #60)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:00 AM

61. Already been answered. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:22 PM

71. Irrelevant to faith

 

As an American, I was raised to recognize fascism and communism as well. Just because someone claims to be in support of our Democratic Republic does not make that claim a fact.

It would not be the first time a politician has misrepresented their true agenda.

Semper Fi,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:54 AM

147. "an organization that spreads lies and fear to achieve it's goals"

 

That's about as SOP as any political/lobby organization can get. That seems to be the norm today.

I wonder what FDR and JFK would think of today's politics? Were lobby/special interest groups as pronounced back then as they are today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:30 PM

148. an organization that spreads lies and fear to achieve its goals

you support the Brady Campaign don't you? Since I don't support either one, you tell me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:39 PM

149. Consider this:

 

If the democrats suddenly decided to become pro-life and vowed to overturn Roe v. Wade they would likely lose the support of NOW right?

Would that mean liberals who support NOW and the right to choose are suddenly political opponents? Or would it mean that the democratic party is wrong on that issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:41 AM

9. It wasn't until a day ago that the gun hypers decided to go after Sherrod Brown

Sherrod Brown has been an outstanding congressman and senator. Now you're people are deciding to attack him.

You're claim of him not :"supporting""RKBA" is bullshit. This is just the Republicans manipulating stupid gun fanatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #9)


Response to rDigital (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:53 AM

15. So, have they turned America into a tyrannical regime, in your opinion?

"Sherrod Brown and his wife Connie Schultz are NOTORIOUS firearms prohbitionists. nt"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:58 AM

17. No more than the Cleveland Browns have. They're not all that important,

 

it's just important to note in this forum that they are anti-RKBA. I wish they'd change their minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:05 AM

20. Sherrod Brown has done nothing to deserve your ire

He was brave enough to speak at all the antiwar rallies in Cleveland. Now, you and the NRA are fascioning a campaign to replace him with that asshole Josh Mandel

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #20)


Response to rDigital (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:08 AM

27. If you can't figure out that Sherrod Brown is the senator we want,...

...then there is something wrong with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #27)


Response to Kolesar (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:46 AM

12. Hum...

 

I can't imagine why the NRA doesn't support him, oh wait yes I can.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Sherrod_Brown_Gun_Control.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:51 AM

14. So, you think the three day waiting period is government tyranny, I presume

That "favorite website of yours" tells DU everything we need to know about your politics.

Gun extremists keep fashioning these issues as a gimmick to get more money to the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #14)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:54 AM

16. I see no reason for a 3 day waiting period

 

And I was simply pointing out why the NRA doesn't support him in response to you call bullshit. As for me, you know nothing of my politics other than my stance on gun rights. I also noticed you avoided the rest of the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:01 AM

18. You support opportunistic NRA demagoguery

On any day of the year, you, the NRA, and the gun industry will always be able to find some fine detail to whine about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:04 AM

19. How is what I posted "fine detail"

 

He earned his "F" rating from the NRA over his voting history. Do you disagree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:08 AM

22. That list of trivial issues does not make a case to replace him with Josh Mandel

Which is, presumably, what your NRA-raters do want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #22)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:10 AM

23. I don't vote for republicans

 

But I certainly wouldn't vote for him either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #23)


Response to rDigital (Reply #25)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:13 AM

30. When a Democrat runs on right wing issues, he loses

That's what happened to Governor Strickland in the last election. He had acquiesced to the NRA platform of ridiculous positions and lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:15 AM

49. Strickland lost

 

Because of the republican wave in response to the affordable care act. Not his stance on gun rights. Ohio is a very pro gun state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #49)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:19 AM

50. Strickland didn't win because of his acquiescence to the gun industry

He had a record that was fine with the NRA. It didn't help him.
He should have run on issues that motivate people to vote Democratic instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #50)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:08 AM

64. His record was fine with the NRA

but not with the Kochs. The current guy voted for the AWB among other things, making him unfine with the NRA and Ohio gun groups. Being a corporatist, he was very fine with the Kochs. Now shall we talk about those easily hacked touch screen voting machines? Yeah I think there was some high tech ballot stuffing going on like 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #50)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:23 PM

86. And your evidence to support this claim is....? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #49)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 05:44 PM

91. Exactly, Ohio also passed a constitutional amendment against ACA. Strickland didn't have

 

a chance in hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:33 AM

56. more proof that gun pushers are craven and have a very dishonest agenda here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:56 AM

59. So was supporting racial equality, at one time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 05:14 PM

117. They could also have received cash from anti-choice zealots

at some point if you take money (or advice) from anti-Dem organizations, you aren't a Dem any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #117)


Response to rDigital (Reply #119)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 06:12 PM

120. The "Christian" Coalition is single-issue too

be anti-choice and they are your new best friend. Like I said, there's all kinds of campaign cash to be had from the NRA, "pro-life", anti-union, and all manner of fringe right-wing groups. But someone who calls himself a Dem should not pander to the extreme right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #120)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 06:16 PM

121. are you saying Jerry Brown is a closet Republican

or what? Bloomberg might by pro-choice, but he is anti-union and anti-Wall Street regulation. To me, that puts him more to the right regardless of his views on guns.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/01/1032282/-Mayor-Bloomberg-repeats-right-wing-lies-about-genesis-of-financial-crisis

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/local/la-me-brown-guns-20110407

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:16 PM

126. FUCK the goddamn fucking NRA.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #126)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:33 PM

129. Tell us how you REALLY feel!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:38 AM

26. Respect the second amendment, the NRA will endorse you. Simple as that.

 

The Democratic party could co-opt this issue within 24 hours. They could literally, overnight, turn the NRA into a campaign organization for our side.

All you have to do is actively support the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:10 AM

28. No, it's not about the Second Amendment

There will always be some trivial detail the the 'pukes and the NRA will use as a wedge issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:25 AM

32. Funny the NRA endorses Dems in my area.

 

In the last election, the NRA gave high marks to all my Democratic candidates except one. Three of them were the endorsed candidate. You can see my ballot in my sig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #32)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:40 AM

35. You know what I am saying, and you are trying to dodge the issue

Because the NRA is indefensible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:52 AM

39. No your wrong

 

The NRA is indefensible in your mind, but not in the minds of it's 4.5 million members, along with millions of other gun owners who are not members.
Just because you say so does not make it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #39)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:59 AM

43. Speak to the issue, quit dodging

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #43)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:28 AM

54. I did speak to the issue

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #43)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 01:19 PM

73. The issue is that some Democrats are hostile to the second amendment.

 

And the NRA will work to put them out of office because of it.

That's the price of shitting on a Constitutionally-enumerated right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #73)


Response to Kolesar (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 01:17 PM

72. Well I guess I have no idea what you are saying.

 

I pointed out that all you have to do to get NRA support is to support the second amendment.

You claimed this wasn't so, that, "There will always be some trivial detail the the 'pukes and the NRA will use as a wedge issue."

Then I pointed out that the NRA endorses Democrats.

Since the NRA endorses Democrats, I'm not sure what trivial details you are talking about that is preventing the NRA from endorsing Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #28)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:25 AM

33. Yeah

 

it is about the Second Amendment, I have a lot of friends who would vote D if the party would change it's stance on gun control.
If the Dem. Party would wholly embrace the Second Amendment, we would take away the R's biggest wedge issue and probably win just about every seat in the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #33)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:39 AM

34. What's wrong with the Democratic Party's stance on gun control?

President Obama is not advocating further restrictions.

More likely, you support a ridiculous continual process of relaxing existing gun regulations. That's your wedge-issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:48 AM

37. Well let's see

 

I didn't say what Pres. Obama is or is not in favor of restricting, I said what the Party stance is, like the permanent renewal of the failed AWB, the closing of the so called gun show loophole which is not a loophole at all, it's the law.
And I do support the laws already passed, enforce them first before even thinking of passing new laws which do absolutely nothing to stop thugs from getting guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #37)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:58 AM

41. "I do support the laws already passed," No, you don't

You support a continuum of right wing legislation to help republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #41)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:06 AM

47. You have no idea what I support

 

Your just like every other anti gun, anti NRA person here, just because we're pro Second Amendment or we agree with NRA, then we support RW legislation to help R's., even though you know nothing about us.

You want to tell lies about me, then we're done, you want to have an honest debate, fine, but don't pretend you know what I do or don't support.
You are so transparent it's laughable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #47)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:24 AM

52. Yeah, you are vague. How about the three day waiting period for purchases?

How about guns on school busses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #52)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:34 AM

57. Guns on school busses?

 

WTF are you talking about, where is that allowed? And I would have no problem with it if the person were properly trained.
The three day waiting period? Why? The instant background check works pretty good now, I would like to see the Fed. Govt fund states for better reporting of prohibited persons to NICS.
And how could I be vague about something I didn't even offer an opinion about yet?
You sure do like to project don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #57)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:04 AM

63. You endorse petty gun-company positions to harm Democratic candidates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #63)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:15 AM

66. Cool strawman bro.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:51 AM

38. Actually he did

 

He came out in support of a new assault weapons ban. He isn't campaigning on it because he knows it will cost him swing states. Also, the democrats support more "common sense" gun control. Renounce that and shun groups like the Brady Campaign and you'll see more NRA support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:55 AM

40. "democrats support more "common sense" gun control. Renounce that " your words

Yeah, nobody should advocate "common sense" gun control. /sarcasm
Why are you here? (not sarcasm)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #40)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:02 AM

46. Well

 

I'm here as a pro gun liberal trying to counter my fellow lefties unreasonable stance on the 2nd amendment. As for why I oppose "common sense" gun control, it's because it serves no purpose other than to disarm the citizens of this country and infringe on the second amendment. When you say "common sense" I hear "I'm frightened and want to strip you of your constitutional rights".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #46)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:23 AM

51. "common sense gun control...serves no purpose other than to disarm the citizens of this country"

Your words.
So, no gun regulations of any sort is necessary by your logic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #51)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:29 AM

55. No

 

I'm using the term as it is currently being used, to justify further gun restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #55)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:00 AM

62. I'm using the term as it is currently being used, to justify further gun restrictions.

"Currently used"?
You are not excelling in writing skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #62)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:18 AM

67. I can rephrase it if you like nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #51)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:13 AM

65. then what does common sense mean?

Florida has a three business day waiting period, meaning if I bought a gun yesterday it would actually be a six day waiting period, since so many people on your side bitch about Florida, I'm guessing the three day waiting period isn't really common sense after all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:37 PM

106. "What's wrong the the Democratic Party's stance on gun control?"


Absolutely nothing, since we have no stance on gun restriction. Have you checked the party platform lately? Not a word regarding the firearm restriction issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:18 PM

127. You mean "Respect THE NRA INTERPETATION of the second amendment."

 

Fuck that shit, and fuck the goddamn special-interest fuckers the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #127)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:39 PM

131. Tell us how you REALLY feel!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #127)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:23 PM

140. Why do you want to fuck 4 million people working collectively to protect their rights?

 

Are you against Unions, too?

There is nothing wrong with individuals joining together to fight collectively for a common cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:59 AM

44. I don't know what the actual agenda of the NRA is, but, I believe that it goes way beyond the

issues of guns and gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #44)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:41 AM

58. The NRA is a one issue org.

 

that's the Second Amendment and the preservation of gun rights, and that's all.
Unless you can prove otherwise, your "beliefs" mean nothing at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #58)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 11:50 AM

69. Are you speaking on behalf of the NRA?

If not, then your comment is only your opinion of the NRA. Many Democrats hold a different opinion of the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #69)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:17 PM

70. easy way to test it

in 2016 we can draft Brian Schweitzer and the Republicans can run Christie, Giuliani, or Bloomberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer

In 1990 the NRA supported Bernie Sanders against Republican Jim Smith because Smith (along with Lott, Thurmond, Helms, Gingrich) supported the AWB.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #69)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 01:40 PM

74. I don't belong to the NRA

 

but it's not opinion, it's fact, all you have to do is go to their web page and read it.
And many Democrats hold the same opinion that the NRA is a one issue org., So what is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #75)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:20 PM

76. What's your point?

 

And what does this have to do with the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #76)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:24 PM

77. Uh-huh. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #77)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:32 PM

78. Somewhere there must be a point

 

but damned if I can find it.
Oh well, have a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #78)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:35 PM

79. Uh-huh. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #79)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:59 PM

82. Still not finding a point here.

 

Maybe you can shine a light on it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #82)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:04 PM

83. Uh-huh. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #83)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:14 PM

84. Got it

 

you have no point, just here to throw insults and stir things up.
Whatever, have a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #84)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:16 PM

85. Uh-huh. "have a good day." <-- Second time you've bid me adieu. We'll see if it takes this time. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #84)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 02:35 PM

130. That's exactly right. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #58)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:02 PM

103. My beliefs mean as much as yours. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #103)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:20 PM

104. Your "beliefs" mean nothing if they're not true.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #104)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:04 PM

124. The flaw in your self proclaimed certianty is that you , no anyone else has proven that the

NRA has only one issue. I could just as easily have said to you that "until you can prove that the NRA is a one issue group" then your statement is meaningless.


Undoubtedly, you will respond to my post with your usual, "I'm right and you are wrong". In other words, you will just piss on my opinion with the smug certainty that you are absolutely correct in you opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ladjf (Reply #124)


Response to ladjf (Reply #124)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 03:52 PM

139. You're the one claiming that the NRA is a multi-issue org.

 

I've proven you wrong even though the onus is on you to prove what you claim.
So far, you've provided no proof of what you claim and until you do, then, this conversation is over.
If and when you do provide proof that the NRA is more than a one issue org., then I will retract my statements and issue an apology to you.
Fair enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:37 PM

80. The NRA is nothing more

than a highly financed front for the gun and ammunition manufacturer , distributor, and retailer lobby.

And the citizen members of the NRA and their fellow travelers are the malleable tools of the NRA who will rush out and buy more guns and ammo, even in a down economy.

They are a captive customer base. Everyone, except them, apparently, knows that the first step in capturing a customer base is to capture their minds. In this case, the fearful and resentful are easily made more fearful and resentful to be captured by made-up stories, wholly without any supporting evidence (because there is none to be had) that Obama and/or the Democrats are going to go house-to-house to confiscate people's guns.

It's like people rushing out to buy toothpaste or deodorant based on the scare tactics of the commercials warning of becoming a social pariah if those products aren't used. Or people asking their doctors for heavy duty pain killers because a a bit of muscle strain or minor headache.

Ultimately, for the NRA, the goal of defeating a political candidate is secondary to selling more product and being able to hold captive already elected officials and still sell more product.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scottsdalebubbe (Reply #80)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:45 PM

81. You have that confused with

NSSF

t's like people rushing out to buy toothpaste or deodorant based on the scare tactics of the commercials warning of becoming a social pariah if those products aren't used.
Poor comparison. People with rotting teeth and ummm natural scent or stench often do become pariahs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scottsdalebubbe (Reply #80)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:08 PM

98. Welcome to DU

 

Don't mistake the gungeon and its residents (the gun-religionists) for the rest of DU. DU is a Liberal chatboard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 04:13 PM

87. Guns!

 

As the NRA acolytes and the DU Gun Lobby know, the 2nd Amendment has nothing about "well-regulated militias" in it. Those words are imaginary!



The interpretation of those words from several Supreme Courts was the same until the ultra-right-wingers came along with Heller. Scalia etal made that part of the 2nd Amendment DISAPPEAR!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #87)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 04:23 PM

88. Watch out! This is Scalia country down hereabouts.

Him, and the other four right-wing jurists on the Supreme Court got their very own fan club in the Gungeon.

Try to pin one of our "pro gun progressives" down on whether he's going to vote for Obama or not given that the President is likely to put jurists on the Supreme Court who are likely to overturn the core ruling in Heller and the Chicago case: it's like trying get a handle on cotton candy. Lots of subject-changing and obfuscations and diversionary nonsense...you've never seen so many "progressives" so reticent to state forthrightly that they'll vote for the progressive, Democratic President of the United States in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #88)


Response to bongbong (Reply #89)


Response to rDigital (Reply #96)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:01 PM

97. Laughs from the emotion-laden, wimpy gun-nuts who need guns to feel safe

 

> Prove it. Also, let's hear some names.

After you prove the many, many assertions you've made to me.

And after you change your ID to the guy I was talking to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #96)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:21 PM

105. He's done more to help the Pro-RKBA crowd? He may have also set a record for hidden posts.

 

16 so far in the last 90 days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #105)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 09:40 PM

107. Yep

 

and probably pretty close to joining bupkus and Hoyt on the ban list for this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #87)


Response to rDigital (Reply #90)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 05:56 PM

93. Notice you won't spell out exactly what you think is "good." I don't blame you:

that'd be a quick way to see your posting privileges revoked.

But if you want to sing the praises of Scalia, be my guest....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #93)


Response to rDigital (Reply #95)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:11 PM

99. So, no answer. Like I said: don't blame you. For you to spell out

what you think is "good" in this regard is a sure path to being shown the DU door - and you well know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #99)


Response to rDigital (Reply #100)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:15 PM

101. Keep on dodgin': I would too, were I you. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #90)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:49 PM

102. Let's go on the record - please answer Yes or No, no qualifications or other diversions, please:

So far, President Obama has appointed Supreme Court justices who would, if they had the votes, overturn the core holding of the Heller and Chicago case rulings.

Given that if re-elected he will likely have the opportunity, due to the advancing age of several of the right-wing justices, to appoint the deciding vote to overturn those rulings, are you going to vote for President Obama this November?

YES or NO, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #102)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:46 AM

122. McDonald won't be over turned

by anyone because it could begin a right wing attack on other incorporation rulings. Plus, I don't see Brady or anyone else pushing anything through the court system to SCOTUS. I'm voting for Obama either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #122)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 03:25 PM

137. "I'm voting for Obama either way" - Thank you for saying so! And unequivocally, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:04 PM

94. Politics 2012 might be the right forum

Or maybe GD.

Nothing here about guns, guns laws, gun rights, actual legislation about guns, crime committed with guns, or anything actually within the group SOP. Why is this here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #94)


Response to rDigital (Reply #110)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 02:30 AM

111. whatever

That doesn't belong in this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #110)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 02:51 AM

112. Let's have your answer: are you going to vote for the Democratic candidate or not?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=67503

Why are you dodging this easy question? I think we know why....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #110)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 05:11 PM

115. actually the NRA is trying to wedge gun nuts to vote for

anti-choice, anti-worker, anti-SS, anti-Medicare, anti-woman fascists just because they want to make the US a free-fire zone. Are you going to vote for Obama or Romney?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #115)


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 05:04 PM

113. It seems that Gunsters are willing to give up the OH seat

- a seat held by a pro-worker, pro-choice, pro-America, anti-oligarchy liberal Dem - to a Repuke who likes guns. Hhich raises the question, "Why do you call yourselves Dems?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #113)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 05:11 PM

116. That's a question I often ask our "pro gun progressives," but all I ever get is obfuscation and

name-calling in return.

Hell, I can't even get one of them to state that they're planning to vote for President Obama's re-election in November: they won't answer the question!

Very telling, methinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #116)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 06:26 AM

123. I'll answer your question

 

Yes I do plan on voting for President Obama because I want to see the entirety of the affordable care act implemented. That being said, I have no problem handing him a hostile congress, by not voting for pro gun control democrats, if he pushes gun control. In 2016 if the democrat runs on a gun control platform they will not be recieving my vote and neither will the republicans. Eventually the democrats will either learn not to touch the gun issue or lose elections. Simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #123)


Response to rDigital (Reply #133)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 03:16 PM

135. What you call "bullies" translates to "people who diagree with me," but let's put that whiny

nonsense aside: you are in the same "boat" as the poster above who is violating TOS? Then the same goes for you: you have no business posting on DU. See TOS here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68545

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #135)


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #135)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:35 PM

141. A pair of timely self-deletions by Digit - and there was some reason for it, too. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #141)


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #123)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 03:14 PM

134. "I have no problem handing him a hostile congress" - this violates DU TOS, plain and simple:

"Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."
-emphases added.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Your post above is in gross violation of those rules, and one wonders why you still retain your posting privileges. They should be revoked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #116)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 01:37 PM

125. You haven't asked me, but I have no problem answering it anyway:

I'll be voting for President Obama and every other Democrat on my ballot, no matter what they say or do regarding RKBA between now and the election, and no matter what promises/threats they might make regarding RKBA for the next term. And, I hope that Pres. Obama gets the opportunity to appoint a few more USSC judges.

That said, if I'm given the choice between two otherwise equivalent Ds I'll vote for the one with a better RKBA record, my active support/donations will be encouraged by a pro-RKBA position, and my communications to my representatives (and anyone else) will always been in favor of RKBA...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #125)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 03:22 PM

136. Thank you for your reply, and an open, unequivocal statement that you are voting the

Democratic ticket. What you do in the Democratic primary is okay with me; but what your post tells me is that you are likely a genuine "pro gun progressive," one who cares about "RKBA" but still overall supports the progressive agenda. I may have to change my Sig line: I think I have found a genuine "pro gun progressive" here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread