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

[kylejack]

I prefer big banks to Universities and Government funded corporations.

Big banks are government funded corporations.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Your question was clearly biased.

Again, why didn't you ask: which one of those men actually introduced, advocated and voted for endless gun control laws - not only bans but prohibition of interstate transportation of firearms, increasing taxes on sales, storefront sales requirements regulations, restricting gun purchases, banning the sale of firearms at gun shows, increasing licensing fees, etc.?

It's just a rhetorical question, you don't need to answer.

Because that was not what I wanted answered.

Which one of the two men standing on that stage last night signed into law a sweeping, permanent gun ban?

Answer: Mandate Mitt Romney.

No amount of spin can change that fact.

 

[Anti Federalist]

And Roberts is still better than Hagan or Sottomayor and it's not even close.

I think this issue can be settled pretty quickly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Funny how a proclaimed 2nd amendment advocate seems to ignore Heller.

Majority Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

I wasn't jumping for joy over Heller:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

"Congress shall make no law..."

"Shall not be infringed..."

Means what it says.

 

[Anti Federalist]

It's very telling you're resorting to an anti-immigration organization.

Deflection and spin.

That was the first site to come up in a search on RMoney's press release.

Here is the "official" state of Massachusetts' press release.



ROMNEY SIGNS OFF ON PERMANENT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

http://web.archive.org/web/20040804...?gov_pr=gov_pr_040701_assault_weapons_ban.xml

Legislation also makes improvements to gun licensing system

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.”

The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:

Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;

Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal; and

Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.

“This is truly a great day for Massachusetts’ sportsmen and women,” said Senator Stephen M. Brewer. “These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state’s gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms. I applaud Senate President Travaglini for allowing the Senate to undertake this necessary legislation.”

“I want to congratulate everyone that has worked so hard on this issue,” said Representative George Peterson. “Because of their dedication, we are here today to sign into law this consensus piece of legislation. This change will go a long way toward fixing the flaws created by the 1998 law. Another key piece to this legislation addresses those citizens who have applied for renewals. If the government does not process their renewal in a timely fashion, those citizens won't be put at risk because of the 90 day grace period that is being adopted today.”

“Never before has there been such bi-partisan cooperation in the passage of gun safety legislation of this magnitude in this nation,” said John Rosenthal, co-founder and chair of Stop Handgun Violence. “I applaud the leadership of the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker and entire Legislature for passage of this assault weapons ban renewal. They have shown that Massachusetts can continue to lead the nation in protecting the public and law enforcement from military style assault weapons.”



This law also greatly increased the fees required to have a "permit" to exercise your rights.

Mandate Mitt Rmoney is a gun banner.

O-bomb-ya is a gun banner.

I don't vote for gun banners.

No One But Paul

 

[Anti Federalist]

NO ONE BUT PAUL!!!!!

 

[Lucille]

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.

The SCOTUS argument leaves me cold too. "Conservative" judges are police statists, and with the rate that beast metastasizing, we'll have "constitutional" surveillance cameras in our homes inside the decade.

Funny how "conservatives" claim they'll protect economic liberties, and "liberals" claim they'll protect civil liberties, and yet we've ended up with neither.

 

[Odin]

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.

There are a couple problems with that - first, this is a deceitful, lying, corrupt administration which deserves to be kicked out of office no question. On a matter of principle, enabling them to get a second term would be devastating to the integrity of the nation. Second, when a crash does come in their second term, they will blame capitalism and enact "New Deal" style policies that will become impossible to get rid of. Third, I think the debates have shown a substantive difference in philosophy and policies between the two candidates. I think Romney is honest when he says that government is not the answer, because he is not an idiot and he has seen that in his business experience. Obama genuinely thinks that bigger government solves all problems.

No one is foolish enough to think that Romney is a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination but when it comes to big issues in the next 4 years - the appointment of Supreme Court justices, the government's reaction to a debt crisis, the continuing corruption and deceit perpetrated by the current administration, I simply don't see how anyone could view this as a superficial choice. Obama winning could have disastrous consequences that will last centuries - and stay with us our entire lives, and so knowing that it will be either Obama or Romney who is going to be the next president I have to vote for Romney, sure it is a choice between two evils, but one is still substantially better than the other imho.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The SCOTUS argument leaves me cold too. "Conservative" judges are police statists, and with the rate that beast metastasizing, we'll have "constitutional" surveillance cameras in our homes inside the decade.

Funny how "conservatives" claim they'll protect economic liberties, and "liberals" claim they'll protect civil liberties, and yet we've ended up with neither.

Hah hah hah, yeah that is funny...oh, wait.

 

[Lucille]

It's a false f'n choice, and I'm sick of it!

No matter who wins, we're screwed one way or another.

 

[Anti Federalist]

There are a couple problems with that - first, this is a deceitful, lying, corrupt administration which deserves to be kicked out of office no question. On a matter of principle, enabling them to get a second term would be devastating to the integrity of the nation. Second, when a crash does come in their second term, they will blame capitalism and enact "New Deal" style policies that will become impossible to get rid of. Third, I think the debates have shown a substantive difference in philosophy and policies between the two candidates. I think Romney is honest when he says that government is not the answer, because he is not an idiot and he has seen that in his business experience. Obama genuinely thinks that bigger government solves all problems.

No one is foolish enough to think that Romney is a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination but when it comes to big issues in the next 4 years - the appointment of Supreme Court justices, the government's reaction to a debt crisis, the continuing corruption and deceit perpetrated by the current administration, I simply don't see how anyone could view this as a superficial choice. Obama winning could have disastrous consequences that will last centuries - and stay with us our entire lives, and so knowing that it will be either Obama or Romney who is going to be the next president I have to vote for Romney, sure it is a choice between two evils, but one is still substantially better than the other imho.

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.

 

[Anti Federalist]

It's a false f'n choice, and I'm sick of it!

No matter who wins, we're screwed one way or another.

Of course it is and so am I.

I don't whether to laugh or cry at the apologists who are trying to present one as being substantially different than the other.

But then again, I knew the wobblies would be out after a while.

2008 all over again.

 

[Odin]

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.

He's not "my guy" lol. How about address what I said?

 

[Lucille]

And finally, as I expected, the Fed, Obama's wars overseas, the National Defense Authorization Act, the war on drugs, inflation, America's growing police state, and our vanishing Bill of Rights were not mentioned at all. The ultimate winner is the status quo of the welfare-warfare state and the perpetuation of the One Party System, and the loser was the American people, liberty, peace, and sound economics.

That about sums it up.

h/t SA

 

[Ronulus]

I can't even bring myself to watch more than a few minutes of the debates. These guys argue over things that both are clueless about. Yet somehow one of them wins. It's like curving a test so that even though the two students made a 15 and 16 on the test, we have to curve it so they end up with a 95 and 92.

 

[fr33]

There are a couple problems with that - first, this is a deceitful, lying, corrupt administration which deserves to be kicked out of office no question. On a matter of principle, enabling them to get a second term would be devastating to the integrity of the nation. Second, when a crash does come in their second term, they will blame capitalism and enact "New Deal" style policies that will become impossible to get rid of. Third, I think the debates have shown a substantive difference in philosophy and policies between the two candidates. I think Romney is honest when he says that government is not the answer, because he is not an idiot and he has seen that in his business experience. Obama genuinely thinks that bigger government solves all problems.

No one is foolish enough to think that Romney is a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination but when it comes to big issues in the next 4 years - the appointment of Supreme Court justices, the government's reaction to a debt crisis, the continuing corruption and deceit perpetrated by the current administration, I simply don't see how anyone could view this as a superficial choice. Obama winning could have disastrous consequences that will last centuries - and stay with us our entire lives, and so knowing that it will be either Obama or Romney who is going to be the next president I have to vote for Romney, sure it is a choice between two evils, but one is still substantially better than the other imho.

I'm not delusional enough to think Romney's solutions would be any better than Obama's. Both are statists through and through. Both think they can manage an economy from Washington.

 

[Anti Federalist]

He's not "my guy" lol. How about address what I said?

I did.

But let me sum it up.

You're wrong, utterly and totally.

RMoney is a serial liar and flip flopper.

He is all the same things O-bomb-ya is, on every issue that matters.

I don't vote for gun banners, police statists and war mongers.

You can if you want, and may God have mercy on you if you do.

I know I won't, especially when you know better.

 

[Captain Shays]

Candy Creepy Crowley

 

[bunklocoempire]

Originally Posted by DeMintConservative

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 you 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?

Asking again,

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

 

[Odin]

I'm not delusional enough to think Romney's solutions would be any better than Obama's. Both are statists through and through. Both think they can manage an economy from Washington.

It may make sense to say Romney is a statist, overall I agree, but the statement in bold is unfounded imo. Romney has always said the exact opposite, you may argue that when he says the government doesn't create jobs or fix the economy, that he is saying it for political reasons. But I would argue that it is much easier to get votes saying that the government will be more involved in the economy, tax more and regulate more. The most important thing though is that the economy is heading over the cliff, anyone who understands economics and is honest knows that. I'm interested in what the government will do in response. If Obama is in charge, I'm pretty convinced we will see a new wave of social programs that will become sacred cows and will never be undone. That's what happened last time, it was called the New Deal and everyone loved it and it will never go away now.

I did.

But let me sum it up.

You're wrong, utterly and totally.

RMoney is a serial liar and flip flopper.

He is all the same things O-bomb-ya is, on every issue that matters.

I don't vote for gun banners, police statists and war mongers.

You can if you want, and may God have mercy on you if you do.

I know I won't, especially when you know better.

Not economically. If you think that then you aren't paying attention.

 

[Odin]

Asking again,

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

Yes but there's something else to consider, which is who is more likely to nominate a pro-2nd amendment Justice to the supreme court? If any of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, or Kennedy are replaced by another Sotomayor or Kagan then gun rights could be under far more serious threat.

Btw it's sad that we have to use language like "pro-2nd amendment" to describe justices, since all justices should be that by definition.