**Official** townhall debate thread - Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama

[DeMintConservative]

O-bomb-ya talks.

RMoney did.

He banned guns in Mass.

Period.

You are factually wrong and, as per usual, misleading people about Obama's record.

He did a lot more than talking. He introduced, pushed and voted for gun control legislation as a legislator - he was one of the most radical gun control proponents in the entire country.

If, in your view, legislative work doesn't count as "doing" and is immaterial, one wonders why would you support Ron Paul.

 

[FrancisMarion]

First Question: Recent College Grad:

Blah, blah (look at notecard) blah, blah, (look at notecard), i need to find work because its most important to my parents, blah (looks up from notecard sheepishly)

Hopefully others don't follow this one in school selection.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Your point?

Your point would be (should be) based upon your view of the 2nd amendment. Knowing a bit about the 'asker' myself, his question seems to be in line with what I understand his view of the 2nd amendment to be -not some kind of 'gotcha' trick.

I'd be interested to hear what the 2nd amendment means to you and how it has led to your decision to push Romney. Leading to your point.

I imagine it might be some kind of 'last resort' view. Maybe you could walk me through your thinking.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

The question I raised was about Anti-Federalist proposition that Romney's record on guns is somehow worse than Obama's because he signed a law that got mixed reviews from 2nd Amendment advocates while Obama was pushing for far more offensive legislation.

Here's a take on Romney's record as a governor on this issue:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

In any case, there's one thing that seriously matters in the gun control issue: who's more likely to appoint the best justices from a 2nd perspective? Does anyone wants to argue it's Obama - while keeping a straight face?

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

O-bomb-ya talks.

RMoney did.

He banned guns in Mass.

Period.

Not to defend Romney that much, but it's a whole different ballgame when you're Governor of Massachusetts, which has the most one-sided partisan legislature in the entire country (with Democrats, mostly anti-gun ones too), and being President. The U.S. Congress won't pass an assault weapons ban now with Republicans controlling the House. But is there any doubt in your mind that if they did, Obama would not sign it?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

The question I raised was about Anti-Federalist proposition that Romney's record on guns is somehow worse than Obama's because he signed a law that got mixed reviews from 2nd Amendment advocates while Obama was pushing for far more offensive legislation.

Here's a take on Romney's record as a governor on this issue:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

In any case, there's one thing that seriously matters in the gun control issue: who's more likely to appoint the best justices from a 2nd perspective? Does anyone wants to argue it's Obama - while keeping a straight face?

Don't you ever get tired of election after election having to do these "who is more likely to do x" scenarios?

They don't work. And if the Obamacare situation doesn't show you that (previously considered as) "conservative" judges are worthless for freedom, nothing will.

 

[TCE]

First Question: Recent College Grad:

Blah, blah (look at notecard) blah, blah, (look at notecard), i need to find work because its most important to my parents, blah (looks up from notecard sheepishly)

Hopefully others don't follow this one in school selection.

Best to live with your parents for as long as possible. Then when I move out, I'll have so much money it'll be crazy. Who cares if women will never love me?

 

[Anti Federalist]

You are factually wrong and, as per usual, misleading people about Obama's record.

He did a lot more than talking. He introduced, pushed and voted for gun control legislation as a legislator - he was one of the most radical gun control proponents in the entire country.

If, in your view, legislative work doesn't count as "doing" and is immaterial, one wonders why would you support Ron Paul.

Yes, he was.

Mandate Mitt signed a permanent gun ban into law in Massachusetts.

I support Ron Paul because, unlike Mandate Mitt, has never flip flopped on the Second Amendment.

He, in thirty years, has never voted for gun control.

Unlike Mandate Mitt.

Or O-bomb-ya.

Why are you on a liberty and constitution forum, hustling for a gun banner?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Not to defend Romney that much, but it's a whole different ballgame when you're Governor of Massachusetts, which has the most one-sided partisan legislature in the entire country (with Democrats, mostly anti-gun ones too), and being President. The U.S. Congress won't pass an assault weapons ban now with Republicans controlling the House. But is there any doubt in your mind that if they did, Obama would not sign it?

Yup.

W said he would sign one too.

That was pretty much it for me and the GOP.

 

[RickyJ]

Not to defend Romney that much, but it's a whole different ballgame when you're Governor of Massachusetts, which has the most one-sided partisan legislature in the entire country (with Democrats, mostly anti-gun ones too), and being President. The U.S. Congress won't pass an assault weapons ban now with Republicans controlling the House. But is there any doubt in your mind that if they did, Obama would not sign it?

The problem with Romney is after this long campaign, and the one in 2008, and his time as Governor of Massachusetts and even his run for Senator of Massachusetts in 1994, we still don't know the guy's core beliefs! Does Romney have core beliefs or will he always just sway whichever way the wind is blowing? I think he has no core beliefs other than making a lot of money.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You are factually wrong

In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “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.”

Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.

“We are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime,” said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. “The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens.”

http://www.alipac.us/f12/romney-signs-off-permanent-assault-weapons-ban-261253/

 

[bunklocoempire]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

The question I raised was about Anti-Federalist proposition that Romney's record on guns is somehow worse than Obama's because he signed a law that got mixed reviews from 2nd Amendment advocates while Obama was pushing for far more offensive legislation.

Here's a take on Romney's record as a governor on this issue:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

In any case, there's one thing that seriously matters in the gun control issue: who's more likely to appoint the best justices from a 2nd perspective? Does anyone wants to argue it's Obama - while keeping a straight face?

I'm asking: What does the 2nd amendment mean to you, and how does that view support your Romney vote.

I can take you through what my 2nd amendment right means to me, and how I arrive at my choice of candidate.

I may not agree with your choice of candidate, but I'd still like to try to understand your reasoning other than "X is better than Y". Sure you'll vote for one of them, but Romney and Obama are not you.

For example, do you believe the 2nd amendment is a last resort to prevent tyranny ...so therefore..? Do believe the 2nd amendment applies only to the armed forces...so therefore...? Or?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

What does the 2nd amendment mean to you, and how does your view of it support your Romney vote?

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

The question I raised was about Anti-Federalist proposition that Romney's record on guns is somehow worse than Obama's because he signed a law that got mixed reviews from 2nd Amendment advocates while Obama was pushing for far more offensive legislation.

Here's a take on Romney's record as a governor on this issue:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

In any case, there's one thing that seriously matters in the gun control issue: who's more likely to appoint the best justices from a 2nd perspective? Does anyone wants to argue it's Obama - while keeping a straight face?

I don't know what kind of judges he would appoint since I can't believe a single thing he says.

This was the same argument used by apologists for W.

Roberts.

That is all.

I ain't drinking your kool-aid.

Peddle it elsewhere.

No One But Paul.

 

[fr33]

Romney is a gun grabbing, tax hiking, abortion supporting, stimulus spending, bailout supporting, war mongering, central planning fascist. That is his record. 8 more years of Obama's policies is worse than 4.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Romney is a gun grabbing, tax hiking, abortion supporting, stimulus spending, bailout supporting, war mongering, central planning fascist. That is his record. 8 more years of Obama's policies is worse than 4.

But, but, but, but MY gun grabbing, tax hiking, abortion supporting, stimulus spending, bailout supporting, war mongering, central planning fascist is better than their gun grabbing, tax hiking, abortion supporting, stimulus spending, bailout supporting, war mongering, central planning fascist.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

But, but, but, but MY gun grabbing, tax hiking, abortion supporting, stimulus spending, bailout supporting, war mongering, central planning fascist is better than their gun grabbing, tax hiking, abortion supporting, stimulus spending, bailout supporting, war mongering, central planning fascist.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

damn, that was totally rep-worthy, too. Someone else +rep AF for me, plz?

 

[jclay2]

But, but, but, but MY gun grabbing, tax hiking, abortion supporting, stimulus spending, bailout supporting, war mongering, central planning fascist is better than their gun grabbing, tax hiking, abortion supporting, stimulus spending, bailout supporting, war mongering, central planning fascist.

Turd Sandwhich....Turd Sandwhich......Turd Sandwich

Giant Douche..... Giant Douche......Giant Douche



Come on people. Wake up.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

The problem with Romney is after this long campaign, and the one in 2008, and his time as Governor of Massachusetts and even his run for Senator of Massachusetts in 1994, we still don't know the guy's core beliefs! Does Romney have core beliefs or will he always just blow whichever way the wind is blowing? I think he has no core beliefs other than making a lot of money.

We already know what Romney's core beliefs are:

Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato

 

[cindy25]

But, but, but, but MY gun grabbing, tax hiking, abortion supporting, stimulus spending, bailout supporting, war mongering, central planning fascist is better than their gun grabbing, tax hiking, abortion supporting, stimulus spending, bailout supporting, war mongering, central planning fascist.

if it wasn't for Obamacare then gridlock would be best. Al Gore could never have passed the patriot act. but Obamacare changes things

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

8 more years of Obama's policies is worse than 4.

This is a weak sauce argument for Obama. It's like saying you support Bush in 2004 because he'd only have four years left.

 

[RickyJ]

This is a weak sauce argument for Obama. It's like saying you support Bush in 2004 because he'd only have four years left.

I don't thing fr33 is saying he/she supports Obama, they are just saying 4 more years of Obama is better than 8 years of Romney. If one of them have to win, and it appears the elite will let nothing less happen, then Obama winning would be better for that reason.