Remember, it's illusion of choice...

[unfy]

Just in case anyone's forgotten:



 

[NENick]

ugghhhh, why did you have to do that to me, Mitt?

[bullit]

I would sugget you investigate what really happened with this law in MA.  The PRO-firearms groups were on board with the whole gig....  That being said (and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils time and again) make your vote count for Romney. 

[AAllen]

I would sugget you investigate what really happened with this law in MA.  The PRO-firearms groups were on board with the whole gig....  That being said (and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils time and again) make your vote count for Romney. 

Bullit you are correct the largest organization in Mass. is on record talking about this, They already had an assault weapons ban and many other very strict gun laws on the books when Romney took office.  The bill that Romney signed actually reduced the impediments to gun owners, this was a bill requested by the firearms community and did away with many problems caused by the conflicts in all the other laws.  Would they have liked to do away with the assault weapons ban, yes, but they knew there was no chance of that getting through their state house.

[unfy]

That being said (and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils time and again) make your vote count for Romney. 

Sorry, but that's gotta make most everyone laugh. 

Particularly in context of this conversation.


The bill changes renewal time from 4 years to 6.... cutting the cost from $25 a year (annuitized) to $16. I'll grant that's kind of nice.

Grants a 90 day grace period on getting things renewed.  Seems a bit 'meh' to me - I can't do that with my driver's license, vehicle registration, etc.

Peace officer provides a receipt of taken firearms (handy).

Review board: not a huge fan myself.  Having recourse is handy, but who makes up that board ?  Who's to say they aren't all anti-gun peoples etc ?  They do seem to be pulled from all sorts of bureaucratic offices, though... so that may or may not be good.

There's a bit dealing with prior criminal history.  It's a bit... confusing to read sadly.  From what I've gathered on it, it allows juvenile offenses to no longer be an immediate no ?

Continues the 'assault weapons ban'.

.... This is is deemed a huge win, how ?

The text of the bill:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter150


As for those that love Romney and hate Obama, I have a very simple question:

Can you name 5 policy differences between the two ?

[bk09]

As for those that love Romney and hate Obama, I have a very simple question:

Can you name 5 policy differences between the two ?

Taxes, healthcare, defense spending, abortion, energy

[unfy]

Taxes, healthcare, defense spending, abortion, energy

Hey look, one word vague answers that are as rather meaningless.

Taxes: Both are pro big gov't, and as governor Romney got around some of his pledges to not increases taxes by instead adding on 'fees' and such.  Also, Obama claimed to not add taxes and has done otherwise.  Hate to 'convict' Romeny before he has a chance to make good on his claim... but... Differences are where ?

Healthcare: Romney Care vs Obama Care ?  Sounds awefully similar to me.

Defense Spending: Looking at all of the charts and historical records concerning the history of US "defense spending", everything looks to be increasing over time - including during the Obama Administration.  Looks to be a shallow talking point with no bite.

Abortion: now there's a funny one.  How many times has Romney changed views and how unclear has his position been in the last few weeks that it's required a lot of media attention ?

Energy: see... this one, I *MIGHT* be able to give to you as a good solid answer.  You'd have to be more detailed though .

[Hardwood83]

Ok we get it, you're not thrilled with Romney. Join the club, as I don't know anyone that is- so 'stirring the pot' is juvenile imo. Romney is clearly not a conservative nor a champion of individual liberty..... I still voted for him (early, obviously) and gladly would 3-4 more times if I lived in Chicago. Obongo is a despicable socialist and the single greatest threat to America. Claiming there is no difference between the 2 isn't credible. Enjoy voting for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul or whoever else you so choose.   

[FarmerRick]

Vote for who ever you want to, but a vote that isn't for Willard is one less vote that Obama has to overcome. 

That's a scenario that scares the living daylights out of me.

[unfy]

"Stirring the pot" is a tad excessive don't you think ?

I'm attempting to get people to think for themselves and to ask if a given candidate truly matches their own beliefs, and to possibly do their own research.  Also - to get beyond fluffly shallow talking points.

What ideals do you find favorable ?

When you compare those ideals to the history of a given elected official (or a person running for a position) - are they similar to your own ?

Is the platform that person running on actually have any meat and potatoes or is it just buzz word compliant with no substance ?

Does the history of that person coincide with their proposed platform ?

Claiming there is no difference between the 2 isn't credible

See, I'd love to agree with you ... but I can name maybe only three differences myself, and they're not earth shattering.  You sadly also didn't name any differences .  I really really really want someone to make me have some faith in the guy, I really do. 

But concerning 'the two' -> one is running under a republican banner, the other under a democrat banner.  Outside of that, where are the differences ?  We'll skip the implication this implies concerning parties on a national level.


I imagine most everyone here considers themselves a republican.  They have a certain core set of beliefs and feel quite strongly about them.  That's great!  Comparing person to person, probably most of us share 90% of beliefs.

My problem is I don't see any of those beliefs being represented by Romney.

Just because he's under the republican flag and because the republican party's platform used to coincide with my own beliefs, doesn't mean that he's going to magically turn into *MY* representative despite all evidence to the contrary.

Wish in one hand, and what in the other ?

In no particular order:

[ ] Strong defender of the 2nd Amendment
[ ] Reduce government spending
[ ] Reduce government bureaucracy
[ ] Reduce our intervening in foreign affairs
[ ] Reduce government involvement in my personal affairs (economic or social)
[ ] Reduce federal government stepping on states rights
[ ] Secure border / assist States in dealing with it
[ ] Reduce government interference with businesses
[ ] Not a Keynsian economics person

As noted, I can't check any of those for Romney.

If there's not much difference between the two then what's the difference for voting for one or the other ?  If the end result is the same...

[DaveB]

5 real good reasons to vote Romney.

   

    1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
    2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
    3. Justice Breyer was 76 in August
    4. Justice Ginsburg just turned 81. In addition, she is reportedly quite ill.
    5. Justice Stephens has already said he is ready to retire and is just waiting for Obama to be reelected.

    The next president could appoint as many as FIVE new Supreme Court Justices over the next four years.

[unfy]

5 real good reasons to vote Romney.
 
    1. Justice Scalia just turned 78
    2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
    3. Justice Breyer was 76 in August
    4. Justice Ginsburg just turned 81. In addition, she is reportedly quite ill.
    5. Justice Stephens has already said he is ready to retire and is just waiting for Obama to be reelected.

    The next president could appoint as many as FIVE new Supreme Court Justices over the next four years.

Not a bad argument for 'lesser of two evils' hehe.

[00BUCK]

Not at all thrilled with Romney - so my vote is ABO - Anybody But Obama. And I feel that my vote HAS to count towards defeating Obama - so I can't waste that on Ron Paul. A vote for ANYONE other than Romney this election is a vote FOR Obama - and that is just unthinkable to me.

Four more reasons are completely unneeded.

[unfy]

And yes I realize it's close to election, and I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind... but I want ya'll to think about it.  Really think.  If you look at a man's history and listen to his rhetoric and find it wanting... then... what are you to do ?

Concerning the original topic, we have an incumbent who is blatantly anti-gun, and a challenger who has given autographs at an anti-gun rally as well as made the above youtube clip statement.  Looks like we have a choice between anti-gun and gun-control.  Yay ?  I'll choose someone else, thank you very much.

[unfy]

Not at all thrilled with Romney - so my vote is ABO - Anybody But Obama. And I feel that my vote HAS to count towards defeating Obama - so I can't waste that on Ron Paul. A vote for ANYONE other than Romney this election is a vote FOR Obama - and that is just unthinkable to me.

Four more reasons are completely unneeded.

Voting a name instead of voting a platform - I can't do that anymore.  I gave McCain the benefit of the doubt last presidential election, but never again.  And no, it's not because he lost, it's because I felt a little dirty coming out of the booth.

This year we have two 'primary' candidates that no one seems to be able to name 5 *hard* differences between.

Just for the sake of it, the three that I can come up with are:

* energy policy: romney has stated that he's for taking advantage of our already established energy stores and such.  yay.

* i'd assume, given his faith, romney would be against forcing those of faith to offer contraceptives that violate their faith.  if you think this applies to the health care thing as a whole, i guess you didn't watch the debates nor hear the man speak.

* romney would probably better support our veterans. as governor he did sign into law several veteran friendly things

 

[wallace11bravo]

Grumble.

[cckyle]

I am so sick of hearing, "a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama."  If anything it's the percentage of voters that are voting for a candidate just because they are not the other guy when there is another candidate they would actually prefer that are making this the case.  I don't know about anyone else but I will be voting for the candidate I feel will be best fit as president, which I don't think is Romney or Obama.  If Obama get's re-elected it will be the fault of the percentage of the population that isn't voting for the candidate they feel best fit, and instead voting for the "lesser of two evils" as many say.  I know it won't be the fault of my vote.  Especially in Nebraska   

[bk09]

Here's another way to think of it: Who was was representing in Massachusetts? Elected officials are supposed to support the majority of their constituents, and he did that in Massachusetts whether we like it or not. I would like to think as President he would abide by his parties policies while still listening to critics.

[bullit]

"I know it won't be the fault of my vote.  Especially in Nebraska"   
cckyle you got that tight.... Nebraska ain't gonna tip the balance.  In fact, according to the drive by media we should all stay at home as Ohio will decide the POTUS
Kerrey v. Fisher is really the election that matters for Nebraska

"Elected officials are supposed to support the majority of their constituents, and he did that in Massachusetts whether we like it or not"
bradkoll...spot on....i.e. Ernie Chambers....as much as he is pooed pooed he is repesenting his constituents as the voters there demonstate time after time...and will again.....

[unfy]

Here's another way to think of it: Who was was representing in Massachusetts? Elected officials are supposed to support the majority of their constituents, and he did that in Massachusetts whether we like it or not. I would like to think as President he would abide by his parties policies while still listening to critics.

I'm fond of being represented.  I'm fond of being listened to when I make my small say in a matter.  But with how this sounds, we're not picking leaders ... we're picking lobbyists ? And all of the very dangerous implications there-in that I won't get into ?

By population and celebrity contests, if he were to act as a lobbyist, he'd favor the big cities and such which turn out to be mostly democrat.

This also ties into the 'health care' thing.  "What was right for massachussettes isn't necessarily right for the rest of the country".  And during the debates his responses were more or less 'tweaking'.  Lastly, in 2008 MA has 4.2M registered voters, of which 1.5M were democrat, 490K republican, and 2.1M independents.  I'm sure that his plan was 'right' for all of those people, too.

This kinda ties into a conversation I was having last night on the subject matter with a friend.  I asked a similar question, but didn't include the word 'platform' or 'policy' for comparing the 'two' runners.  Her answers were quite well done - if they were running in the primaries to seek their party's nomination.  With tongue in cheek, I'll note she voted Obama last year, but is voting Romney this year .

I would like to think as President he would abide by his parties policies while still listening to critics.

See, I've been avoiding party policy.  The republican platform looks great on paper.  Too bad they don't follow much of it.  It's probably also why I see far less contrast between Obama and Romney as many people do.

I know it won't be the fault of my vote.  Especially in Nebraska

I've got friends and family scattered throughout the country (the joys of being a military brat).  I'm bugging them just the same as I am you guys. Surely you've got family elsewhere as well ?


For what it's worth, I've still not seen 5 policy differences between the two from anyone.

Heard one wibbly wobbly don't believe it until I see it thing as is the same with all candidates (taxes).

One was mentioned without detail, but I happen to concur *with* details (energy).

C'mon.... you guys have to have a reason other than the very tired and old cry of "anyone but so-and-so" . 


Concerning the original topic of the thread, if Mr. Allen or anyone else well versed in the matter could clarify why the MA gun law was a huge triumph, I'd love to know why.  As mentioned in my prior posts, it seems to be a wash ?