Sarah Palin??

Originally posted by KidRock
I would say letting a local government constraint a consitutional fredom is just that.

I would say that the local government has the responsability to deal with their problems locally.

Originally posted by KidRock
do you know anything about the government? States can vote and decide on their own issues..but not if it goes against the federal constitution.

I am familiar with government. This is why I used your own party's rhetoric against it. The state of Connecticut just legalized gay marriage. If your party had it's druthers, it would ban gay marriage in the entire nation. There seems to be a disconnect in that logic.

Originally posted by KidRock
So you would support a local government passing a law banning freedom of the press in that town?

Don't confuse the freedom of speech issue with a law banning handguns in the city's limits. If we were to go back to the old west, there were any number of cities that had a gun ban inside city limits. You couldn't carry a gun OR marry another dude. Perhaps you can provide a link that substantiates your idea that Obama wants to take your gun while also burning books on the lawn of the White House.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, and since when does this actually help anything? Oh right, it takes guns away from the innocent and law abiding citizens, the criminals still get guns.

Oh, you mean the illegal weapons that Obama addressed over and over again in the link you posted to support your claim that he wants to take your right's away? Would that be the same link you posted where he said everyone has the right to own a gun? Over and over again, you ignore that a number of republicans have supported exactly the kinds of things Obama said in your own link. There's no need for automatic weapons. Illegal handgun sales are just that. Gun manufacturer's provide incentives to gun suppliers which make them responsible on some level for the death's their product facilitates.

Originally posted by Devil King
I would say that the local government has the responsability to deal with their problems locally.

Dealing with problems = taking away civil liberties? ****ing Neo-con!! Oh wait..I mean CHANGE!

Originally posted by Devil King

I am familiar with government. This is why I used your own party's rhetoric against it. The state of Connecticut just legalized gay marriage. If your party had it's druthers, it would ban gay marriage in the entire nation. There seems to be a disconnect in that logic.

They could until someone sues and the supreme court rules its unconstitutional..like what happened to the DC gun ban that Obama supported, then flip flopped on and rejected after the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Devil King

Don't confuse the freedom of speech issue with a law banning handguns in the city's limits. If we were to go back to the old west, there were any number of cities that had a gun ban inside city limits. You couldn't carry a gun OR marry another dude. Perhaps you can provide a link that substantiates your idea that Obama wants to take your gun while also burning books on the lawn of the White House.

Well when Obama says " I want to ban handguns, extend the assault weapons ban and ban semi-automatic weapons..what other arms are there? What can the people defend their state from if they cannot have handguns, semi-auto's or assault weapons? What is your definition of ones right to bear arms to keep the security of a free state?

The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.

It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.

-Christopher Hitchens

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

Originally posted by Devil King
-Christopher Hitchens

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

Would he be capable of giving a balanced view on any theist?

Originally posted by KidRock
Dealing with problems = taking away civil liberties? ****ing Neo-con!! Oh wait..I mean CHANGE!

I'm sorry, did you just realize that the limits on guns was supported by many a republican? Or maybe your party's almost uniform support for the nationalizing of Wall Street? I'm sorry, did you just realize Mr. Bush has expanded the federal government to it's largest point EVER?

Originally posted by KidRock
They could until someone sues and the supreme court rules its unconstitutional..like what happened to the DC gun ban that Obama supported, then flip flopped on and rejected after the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional.

You're dodging. If it's logical that the government shouldn't get involved in states rights concerning gun laws, why is it logical they they should get involved in gay marriage?

Originally posted by KidRock
Well when Obama says " I want to ban handguns, extend the assault weapons ban and ban semi-automatic weapons..what other arms are there? What can the people defend their state from if they cannot have handguns, semi-auto's or assault weapons? What is your definition of ones right to bear arms to keep the security of a free state?

What was he talking about when he said he wanted to ban hand guns? That's right, he was talking about gangbangers. Besides, if you neuter the criminal, what use do you have to carry a gun to protect yourself? Oh, right, that uppity government you're voting for when you cast a ballot for John McCain.

You responded to everything except this? Why?

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh, you mean the illegal weapons that Obama addressed over and over again in the link you posted to support your claim that he wants to take your right's away? Would that be the same link you posted where he said everyone has the right to own a gun? Over and over again, you ignore that a number of republicans have supported exactly the kinds of things Obama said in your own link. There's no need for automatic weapons. Illegal handgun sales are just that. Gun manufacturer's provide incentives to gun suppliers which make them responsible on some level for the death's their product facilitates.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Would he be capable of giving a balanced view on any theist?

absolutely NOT! But, if you read the entire article, he mentions her witchdoctor religion only once. The rest has little to do with her religion.

Originally posted by Devil King
absolutely NOT! But, if you read the entire article, he mentions her witchdoctor religion only once. The rest has little to do with her religion.

Yes, but I bet if she was an ardent atheist who demanded seperation of Church and State...he would quietly ignore the bad points about her.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Yes, but I bet if she was an ardent atheist who demanded seperation of Church and State...he would quietly ignore the bad points about her.

Being an evangelical hasn't stopped him from complimenting Mr. Bush on several occasions.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm sorry, did you just realize that the limits on guns was supported by many a republican? Or maybe your party's almost uniform support for the nationalizing of Wall Street? I'm sorry, did you just realize Mr. Bush has expanded the federal government to it's largest point EVER?

Limits yes, banning them, no..most republicans don't believe in this. Nationalizing wall street? Obama supported the bailout and the "nationalizing" if u even wanna call it that..I thought he was for change? Why is he siding with Bush now? And yes, I realized that, and people hate Bush..yet Obama wants to do the exact same thing..more bureaucracy and bigger government..yet he is loved for it.

Originally posted by Devil King

You're dodging. If it's logical that the government shouldn't get involved in states rights concerning gun laws, why is it logical they they should get involved in gay marriage?

Because the constitution specifically states an individuals right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon..so how could the states take this right away from people without it being unconstitutional? How can a state override a federal amendment? Where did I say the federal government should be involved in a states right to determine gay marriage laws?

Originally posted by Devil King

What was he talking about when he said he wanted to ban hand guns? That's right, he was talking about gangbangers. Besides, if you neuter the criminal, what use do you have to carry a gun to protect yourself? Oh, right, that uppity government you're voting for when you cast a ballot for John McCain.

so are you drinking the same kool-aid that makes you believe "if we ban criminals from getting handguns..THEY WONT GET THEM!"? Criminals are already banned from buying guns, its called a background check and guess what..they still get them. Only thing a ban would do is take the guns out of the innocent people that carry them for protection.

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Says Obama..oh I mean.."One of Obama's staffers"..gee between Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and this mysterious staffer..Obama sure does have great judgment, just the man I want running this country. Who is senile again?

Originally posted by KidRock
Limits yes, banning them, no..most republicans don't believe in this. Nationalizing wall street? Obama supported the bailout and the "nationalizing" if u even wanna call it that..I thought he was for change? Why is he siding with Bush now? And yes, I realized that, and people hate Bush..yet Obama wants to do the exact same thing..more bureaucracy and bigger government..yet he is loved for it.

They might not believe it, but they've voted for it. Yes Mr. Obama supported the bailout, just as did Maverick McCain. The reality of the bailout isn't popular, but it's sadly needed. I'm sorry, who has been running the government for the last 8 years? Who appointed the treasury secretary? I do not for one minute discount the role of people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. If you think Mr. Obama is going to expand your government, then why does he constantly say that hewants to eliminate so many parts of it and make sure the ones that do work better and more economically responsible? McCain said the bail out was a terrible move, and then voted for it. Why? Because both men are rich and I'm sure they'd both like to keep their million American dollars from becoming worthless. That's why the bail out was likely a smart move; because it benefitte them while also benefitting the Amerrican people and economy.

Originally posted by KidRock
Because the constitution specifically states an individuals right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon..so how could the states take this right away from people without it being unconstitutional? How can a state override a federal amendment? Where did I say the federal government should be involved in a states right to determine gay marriage laws?

The constitution also specifically states that no candidate will have to undergo a religious test for office, but that isn't considered. You're arguing constitutional technicalities that your own party ignores as a matter of course. If you want to know how a state can override the federal government, then perhaps your party shouldn't be attempting to do it. Where did I say you said it? I mentioned the party you will support until that gun is snatched from your cold dead hands.

Originally posted by KidRock
so are you drinking the same kool-aid that makes you believe "if we ban criminals from getting handguns..THEY WONT GET THEM!"? Criminals are already banned from buying guns, its called a background check and guess what..they still get them. Only thing a ban would do is take the guns out of the innocent people that carry them for protection.

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Says Obama..oh I mean.."One of Obama's staffers"..gee between Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and this mysterious staffer..Obama sure does have great judgment, just the man I want running this country. Who is senile again?

No, I seriously doubt that doing nothing about illegal weapons will keep criminals from getting them. I might be a little out of touch, but I don't know a single goddamn person that carries a gun to protect themselves. NOT ONE. I'd also add that those illegal guns are typically manufactured right here in the United States. I grew up in the south and I never met a single person, other than a cop, that carried these guns you're talking about. It's such a bullshit issue that your party has tossed out to feed the frenzies. In fact, I grew up seeing empty gun racks in the back window of pick up trucks because if you had guns in it, the cops would pull you over to ask you why you were carrying four shotguns in your rear windsheild.

a. Obama has not said that he would ban the maufacture or sale of handguns. That's bullshit.

b. Obama realizes you don't need an automatic wweapon. Again, many members of your own party support this. Why? Because it's just common sense. Like I asked you a while ago, why do you need an AK-47? To kill a deer? No.

c. I'm unclear how manditory waiting periods equates to trashing the 2nd amendment.

Originally posted by Devil King
They might not believe it, but they've voted for it. Yes Mr. Obama supported the bailout, just as did Maverick McCain. The reality of the bailout isn't popular, but it's sadly needed. I'm sorry, who has been running the government for the last 8 years? Who appointed the treasury secretary? I do not for one minute discount the role of people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. If you think Mr. Obama is going to expand your government, then why does he constantly say that hewants to eliminate so many parts of it and make sure the ones that do work better and more economically responsible? McCain said the bail out was a terrible move, and then voted for it. Why? Because both men are rich and I'm sure they'd both like to keep their million American dollars from becoming worthless. That's why the bail out was likely a smart move; because it benefitte them while also benefitting the Amerrican people and economy.

Can you show me where these republicans have stated they are for banning firearms, handguns/semiautos?

Obama can say whatever he wants, he has no facts or experience to back up anything he says..at all. The government cant manage things worth the shit..but now Obama wants to create a whole new bureaucracy to control the healthcare system of the united states? That is expanding the government. Obama has said he wants to create a Civilian Security Force..that is expansion and more money spent.."A civilian security force that is just as powerful and WELL FUNDED as the military"..thats a lot of money.

Originally posted by Devil King

The constitution also specifically states that no candidate will have to undergo a religious test for office, but that isn't considered. You're arguing constitutional technicalities that your own party ignores as a matter of course. If you want to know how a state can override the federal government, then perhaps your party shouldn't be attempting to do it. Where did I say you said it? I mentioned the party you will support until that gun is snatched from your cold dead hands.

I dont belong to any party first off. But how are the Republicans attempting to do this..and even if they are, does it make it right for the Democrats to try and do it? I thought they were suppose to be all noble and different.

Originally posted by Devil King

No, I seriously doubt that doing nothing about illegal weapons will keep criminals from getting them. I might be a little out of touch, but I don't know a single goddamn person that carries a gun to protect themselves. NOT ONE. I'd also add that those illegal guns are typically manufactured right here in the United States. I grew up in the south and I never met a single person, other than a cop, that carried these guns you're talking about. It's such a bullshit issue that your party has tossed out to feed the frenzies. In fact, I grew up seeing empty gun racks in the back window of pick up trucks because if you had guns in it, the cops would pull you over to ask you why you were carrying four shotguns in your rear windsheild.

Dont be foolish. Obviously there are plenty of people out there that carry guns on them for protection and plenty of people that care about the 2nd amendment even if you don't. The origin of the guns is moot, criminals would get guns if they want to. How much cocaine is produced outside the US yet used here? Most of it I would wager.

Originally posted by Devil King

a. Obama has not said that he would ban the maufacture or sale of handguns. That's bullshit.

b. Obama realizes you don't need an automatic wweapon. Again, many members of your own party support this. Why? Because it's just common sense. Like I asked you a while ago, why do you need an AK-47? To kill a deer? No.

c. I'm unclear how manditory waiting periods equates to trashing the 2nd amendment.

a) You're right, he didnt say it, he signed a questionnaire stating that he would support it. But again..you can blindly believe what he says and not look at any of his actions.

b) Assault weapon does not equal automatic weapon first off. If you want handguns and semi-automatic weapons banned..what do you suggest an individual uses for the security of the free state?

Also what does the 2nd amendment mean in your words..what can people have and not have..or do you just believe it should be repealed?

Originally posted by KidRock
Can you show me where these republicans have stated they are for banning firearms, handguns/semiautos?

Obama can say whatever he wants, he has no facts or experience to back up anything he says..at all. The government cant manage things worth the shit..but now Obama wants to create a whole new bureaucracy to control the healthcare system of the united states? That is expanding the government. Obama has said he wants to create a Civilian Security Force..that is expansion and more money spent.."A civilian security force that is just as powerful and WELL FUNDED as the military"..thats a lot of money.

I dont belong to any party first off. But how are the Republicans attempting to do this..and even if they are, does it make it right for the Democrats to try and do it? I thought they were suppose to be all noble and different.

Dont be foolish. Obviously there are plenty of people out there that carry guns on them for protection and plenty of people that care about the 2nd amendment even if you don't. The origin of the guns is moot, criminals would get guns if they want to. How much cocaine is produced outside the US yet used here? Most of it I would wager.

a) You're right, he didnt say it, he signed a questionnaire stating that he would support it. But again..you can blindly believe what he says and not look at any of his actions.

b) Assault weapon does not equal automatic weapon first off. If you want handguns and semi-automatic weapons banned..what do you suggest an individual uses for the security of the free state?

Also what does the 2nd amendment mean in your words..what can people have and not have..or do you just believe it should be repealed?

The votes are there to be found in the Minnesota, North Carolina and Tennessee legislation.

Obama has no facts or experience? But Frau Palin does? What planet are you from

The government can't manage things worth a shit, but you espouse Republican rhetoric? Not a support for smaller, less obtrusie government.

Obama wants to create a new bureaucracy, but you don't list them. More over, you don't list them because they're existing bureaucracy, which you're now saying exist because of Obama? Sorry, who has been in charge for the last 8 years? Not Obama. A civilian security force that is comprised of the national guard and the peace corps? Sorry, but I'm fairly certain they already exist. "Powerful"?...no As well funded and maintained Sure, why not. Unless being a country-serving patriot is suddenly unAmerican.

Oh, you don't belong to any party; aren't you a maverick? Too bad you've spent the last few years supporting and defending everything Bush has done.

I'm not being foolish, I'd like you to list a few examples of peoplt hat walk around carrying guns to protect themselves that AREN'T in the mob or gangbangers. You can't and you won't: because they don't exist. You're talking out of your ass, just like your party.

a: I'm right. Cheers. Thank You. I don't see a response to point "c:". I wonder why?

b: Where is this free state you keep espousing? I keep waiting for you to stand up to government terrorism, but it never happens. Maybe one day you'll put your ass where your mouth is and stand up. But you don't. And you don't because you keep arguing with it and then walking into a voting booth and proping it up. You ****ing people keep talking about smaller government while voting that huge government back into power, over and over again. At least people on my side of the aisle aren't ignorant enough to know they've just cast a ballot for a continuation of the very principle we think we are voting against. Which is more realistic? A party that says that government serves a purpose or one that says government ****s you and then keeps voting for an expansion of it?

Much less do I see a response to the paragraph I had to repost because you couldn't come up with an answer for it.

How many guns do you own?

Originally posted by Devil King
The votes are there to be found in the Minnesota, North Carolina and Tennessee legislation.

Obama has no facts or experience? But Frau Palin does? What planet are you from

So people hate on Palin for her lack of exprience..what about Obama? Palin isnt runnign for president, Obama is, and he has less experience then this VP candidate that people criticize..thats sad.

Originally posted by Devil King

The government can't manage things worth a shit, but you espouse Republican rhetoric? Not a support for smaller, less obtrusie government.

Obama wants to create a new bureaucracy, but you don't list them. More over, you don't list them because they're existing bureaucracy, which you're now saying exist because of Obama? Sorry, who has been in charge for the last 8 years? Not Obama. A civilian security force that is comprised of the national guard and the peace corps? Sorry, but I'm fairly certain they already exist. "Powerful"?...no As well funded and maintained Sure, why not. Unless being a country-serving patriot is suddenly unAmerican.

We have a National Healthcare Service? News to me. And wrong about the national guard, Obama specifically said other then the military..please feel free to figure out for me what security force is as powerful and well funded as the military is..because Obama wants to create it. How much money do we spend on the military? I dont approve of private military contractors policing my neighborhood.

Originally posted by Devil King

I'm not being foolish, I'd like you to list a few examples of peoplt hat walk around carrying guns to protect themselves that AREN'T in the mob or gangbangers. You can't and you won't: because they don't exist. You're talking out of your ass, just like your party.

Plenty of people carry guns for self protection..if you're going to deny this then continue to be a fool. LOL you think only gangbangers and people in the mob carry guns around? Hahaha. How stupid can you be to makea statement "people that carry guns arouund for self protection dont exist"..how dense, honestly.

Originally posted by Devil King

a: I'm right. Cheers. Thank You. I don't see a response to point "c:". I wonder why?

Yep, Obama didnt sign anything saying he supported banning the manufacturing and sale of guns. Keep your eyes closed rocking in the corner "Nope, Nope, Nope, it cant be true!" in true Obamabot fashion.

Originally posted by Devil King

b: Where is this free state you keep espousing? I keep waiting for you to stand up to government terrorism, but it never happens. Maybe one day you'll put your ass where your mouth is and stand up. But you don't. And you don't because you keep arguing with it and then walking into a voting booth and proping it up. You ****ing people keep talking about smaller government while voting that huge government back into power, over and over again. At least people on my side of the aisle aren't ignorant enough to know they've just cast a ballot for a continuation of the very principle we think we are voting against. Which is more realistic? A party that says that government serves a purpose or one that says government ****s you and then keeps voting for an expansion of it?

The free state? Oh that would be the United States, but more specifically my right to protect myself and my property, I understand you must forget sometimes. I haven no reason to stand up now, none of my freedoms or liberties have been violated, I will wait for Obama to come knocking on my door burning the 2nd Amendement in front of my face.

Its hilarious how people are so against Bush and his big government, they should be in love with bush if they support Obama and his big government, big spending, high taxes.

Originally posted by Devil King

Much less do I see a response to the paragraph I had to repost because you couldn't come up with an answer for it.

Like how you cant come up with an answer to "What does the 2nd amendment mean if you advocate banning handguns andauto/semi-automatic weapons"?

Originally posted by KidRock
So people hate on Palin for her lack of exprience..what about Obama? Palin isnt runnign for president, Obama is, and he has less experience then this VP candidate that people criticize..thats sad.

We have a National Healthcare Service? News to me. And wrong about the national guard, Obama specifically said other then the military..please feel free to figure out for me what security force is as powerful and well funded as the military is..because Obama wants to create it. How much money do we spend on the military? I dont approve of private military contractors policing my neighborhood.

Plenty of people carry guns for self protection..if you're going to deny this then continue to be a fool. LOL you think only gangbangers and people in the mob carry guns around? Hahaha. How stupid can you be to makea statement "people that carry guns arouund for self protection dont exist"..how dense, honestly.

Yep, Obama didnt sign anything saying he supported banning the manufacturing and sale of guns. Keep your eyes closed rocking in the corner "Nope, Nope, Nope, it cant be true!" in true Obamabot fashion.

The free state? Oh that would be the United States, but more specifically my right to protect myself and my property, I understand you must forget sometimes. I haven no reason to stand up now, none of my freedoms or liberties have been violated, I will wait for Obama to come knocking on my door burning the 2nd Amendement in front of my face.

Its hilarious how people are so against Bush and his big government, they should be in love with bush if they support Obama and his big government, big spending, high taxes.

Like how you cant come up with an answer to "What does the 2nd amendment mean if you advocate banning handguns andauto/semi-automatic weapons"?

I'll respond much more when I have the chance. But I do know that one of the signs of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again while expecting different results.

dont mind kid rock, hes hopelessly right {and everything to do with america being right no matter what} biased.

and people who blindly go for the second ammendment have no brains. "it was in the constitution so it MUST be right no matter what!" . people shud NOT have the right to bear arms against other people.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
. people shud NOT have the right to bear arms against other people.

Why?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
There isn't really much worth saying about her is there...

1. McCain's gimmick VP
2. She-Bush
3. Supposedly hot

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and people who blindly go for the second ammendment have no brains. "it was in the constitution so it MUST be right no matter what!" . people shud NOT have the right to bear arms against other people.

Your logic fails; it fails horribly. People own guns for a variety of reasons besides shooting other people, target shooting and hunting being two of them.

There's also the issue of people having the right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property, especially in their own homes.

The right to bear arms is quite important.

It is a good defense of the citizen against the State.