Are you SURE Obama supports gun rights?

[MoFinz]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...in 1996, Obama answered “Yes” to a survey question asking whether he would support state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” The Obama 2008 presidential campaign claimed the form had been filled out by an aide who mischaracterized Obama’s position, even though Obama’s handwriting was found on survey.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheWalrus]

I don't think he ever intended to make his presidency about it. Wasn't on his list of major issues. But circumstances have sort of forced his hand, not unlike how he was eventually talked into taking a more definitive gay marriage position despite demurring on the issue earlier.

[jared81]

I don't think he ever intended to make his presidency about it. Wasn't on his list of major issues. But circumstances have sort of forced his hand, not unlike how he was eventually talked into taking a more definitive gay marriage position despite demurring on the issue earlier.

uh, or how about he is a political hack that will do anything to push his agenda. he wasnt seeking to have strick gun laws because he needed white, blue collar votes. he only pretended to not like gays because he needed minority votes and wanted to "act" like a christian, only to change his opinion when he got the minority vote in his pocket, but needed the gay vote.

his opinions do evolve (as he said), but it only evolves into which voting block he needs for his political survival. most politicians think this way, which is why the cockroach has a better approval rating than does congress.

[MoFinz]

I don't think he ever intended to make his presidency about it. Wasn't on his list of major issues. But circumstances have sort of forced his hand, not unlike how he was eventually talked into taking a more definitive gay marriage position despite demurring on the issue earlier.

Yeah, but isn't it funny how he picks and chooses his issues? And the press just lets him...but he doesn't get deferential preference. Wish he was as interested in gun control before he invoked Exec. Priveledge on Fast & Furious, and tried to mislead the country on Benghazi

[jared81]

Yeah, but isn't it funny how he picks and chooses his issues? And the press just lets him...but he doesn't get deferential preference. Wish he was as interested in gun control before he invoked Exec. Priveledge on Fast & Furious, and tried to mislead the country on Benghazi

you are using racist, hate speech!!!!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheWalrus]

Yeah, but isn't it funny how he picks and chooses his issues? And the press just lets him...but he doesn't get deferential preference. Wish he was as interested in gun control before he invoked Exec. Priveledge on Fast & Furious, and tried to mislead the country on Benghazi

I've explained already why the "liberal bias" thing is a myth and no one's yet offered a coherent response. It forces you to explain why you believe the press doesn't function according to supply and demand.

But go on making accusations if that makes you feel better.

The guy is a politician. Clearly. And anyone who follows politics at all knows there's a difference between a politician having a preference on an issue and making it a priority. It was always pretty clear to me that Obama was in favor of gay rights but it wasn't a big issue to him, or at least he felt that leading from Washington wasn't the right way to do it. I wasn't aware of the 1996 questionnaire thing on guns, but it doesn't surprise me either. Likewise on that, he didn't consider it a priority.

The rule of thumb always is that preferences will eventually give way to priorities in politics, since your opponents will eventually force you to choose. Some people characterize this as selling out or whatever, but it's just a fact of life. Either see three or four issues to completion or... none. Some of the guys that history considers the very worst presidents were in fact the most "principled." Carter, Andrew Johnson and John Tyler come to mind.

Obama's making a lot of noise about guns but I'm not sure if he's ready yet to trade one of his other priorities in for it. Public opinion is more ripe now than it perhaps has ever been, but it's still a dangerous and damaging issue.

[MoFinz]

I've explained already why the "liberal bias" thing is a myth and no one's yet offered a coherent response. It forces you to explain why you believe the press doesn't function according to supply and demand.

But go on making accusations if that makes you feel better.

The guy is a politician. Clearly. And anyone who follows politics at all knows there's a difference between a politician having a preference on an issue and making it a priority. It was always pretty clear to me that Obama was in favor of gay rights but it wasn't a big issue to him, or at least he felt that leading from Washington wasn't the right way to do it. I wasn't aware of the 1996 questionnaire thing on guns, but it doesn't surprise me either. Likewise on that, he didn't consider it a priority.

The rule of thumb always is that preferences will eventually give way to priorities in politics, since your opponents will eventually force you to choose. Some people characterize this as selling out or whatever, but it's just a fact of life. Either see three or four issues to completion or... none. Some of the guys that history considers the very worst presidents were in fact the most "principled." Carter, Andrew Johnson and John Tyler come to mind.

Obama's making a lot of noise about guns but I'm not sure if he's ready yet to trade one of his other priorities in for it. Public opinion is more ripe now than it perhaps has ever been, but it's still a dangerous and damaging issue.

He can't be re-elected. His priorities are coming to the forefront now. He's going to truly reveal himself and his agenda, because theres nothing for him to lose. Not sure why you're not considering that fact, but unless he appoints himself dictator, he's only got a little over 3 years to get whatever he wants done.

As far as media bias, whether you acknowledge it or not, it is there. It was there for Bush, it was there for Clinton. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. I dont know what to tell you to convince you if you dont see all the passes this administration gets.

[TheWalrus]

He can't be re-elected. His priorities are coming to the forefront now. He's going to truly reveal himself and his agenda, because theres nothing for him to lose. Not sure why you're not considering that fact, but unless he appoints himself dictator, he's only got a little over 3 years to get whatever he wants done.

Just because you don't have to be reelected doesn't mean you have to political capital or time to go after every issue on which you have an opinion. Every politician has to prioritize and every issue that isn't a priority is ripe to be trampled upon.

As far as media bias, whether you acknowledge it or not, it is there. It was there for Bush, it was there for Clinton. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. I dont know what to tell you to convince you if you dont see all the passes this administration gets.

How about evidence that the media doesn't function according to the laws of supply and demand?

[MoFinz]

Just because you don't have to be reelected doesn't mean you have to political capital or time to go after every issue on which you have an opinion. Every politician has to prioritize and every issue that isn't a priority is ripe to be trampled upon.



How about evidence that the media doesn't function according to the laws of supply and demand?

And you convince me how the supply side does not manipulate the market. Or do you really think we are tethered to gasoline engines and coal and oil fired electricitybecause no viable alternative is developed? Or do you think the government was not manipulating the market for its friends by mandating new light bulbs and TVs, because the market was not going in those directions on its own fast enough?

Tell me how Bush wasn't tarred with pics of flag draped coffins, yet Obama has yet to receive the coverage of his drone strikes and gun running. You seem to believe that the demand side totally dictates what the supply side does. But the supply side can manipulate the demand side as well. Or have you forgotten the secret ingredient in coca cola, or how cigarettes were spiked?

[Spesh]

And you convince me how the supply side does not manipulate the market. Or do you really think we are tethered to gasoline engines and coal and oil fired electricitybecause no viable alternative is developed? Or do you think the government was not manipulating the market for its friends by mandating new light bulbs and TVs, because the market was not going in those directions on its own fast enough?

Tell me how Bush wasn't tarred with pics of flag draped coffins, yet Obama has yet to receive the coverage of his drone strikes and gun running. You seem to believe that the demand side totally dictates what the supply side does. But the supply side can manipulate the demand side as well. Or have you forgotten the secret ingredient in coca cola, or how cigarettes were spiked?

Because they now use graphics instead of pics(technology more available? Easier? Cheaper? Probably a combination of the three):



And for your earlier post about Benghazi and Fast & Furious(in this thread at least, not every other one youve made about those subjects), i did a simple google search on the words "Benghazi" and "Fast and Furious". Check the dates:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I assure you, there was no shortage of articles or stories.

edit: Drone strikes, done by a simple google search: