Obama Completes Flip Flop On Gun Ban?

[the chief]

Some people CAN"T Win. First, you guys say Obama was wrong because he didn't want people to be able to possess guns in DC., and NOW that he agrees with you, he is wrong because he flip flopped.

My question to you that agree with the Supreme Court, SINCE you believe that is up the individual's rights to own a gun, then why do you not believe in an individual's rights when it comes to choosing what to do with their body when they are carrying an unwanted child caused by rape or incest?

Talk about flip flopping!

 

[CattleArmy]

Interesting question the chief I'll look forward to seeing how they answer you if any do.

 

[RobertMac]

Some people CAN"T Win. First, you guys say Obama was wrong because he didn't want people to be able to possess guns in DC., and NOW that he agrees with you, he is wrong because he flip flopped.

My question to you that agree with the Supreme Court, SINCE you believe that is up the individual's rights to own a gun, then why do you not believe in an individual's rights when it comes to choosing what to do with their body when they are carrying an unwanted child caused by rape or incest?

Talk about flip flopping!

Interesting question the chief I'll look forward to seeing how they answer you if any do.

I love how liberals frame their questions using extremes so they think they can say,"Got ya!!!"

I'll answer your question in a minute, but first some important business...

jodywy, it's been a will since I dealt in guns, but I remember someone making a 45/70 hand gun...wasn't that how Dick started?

One of, if not the best home defense weapon, is a sawed off shotgun (18 1/2+ inches, to be legal) with pistol grip, full of buck shot! Pointed in the right direction, they generally hit EVERYTHING!!!! :shock:

First, the second amendment was put into the Bill of Rights to give "THE PEOPLE" the ability and means to over throw an oppressive government!!! After all, that's what our forefathers had just done to create this great country...they weren't about to give back their hard fought freedom and liberty to a new oppressive government. Read the Constitution...it is a document for limiting the power of federal government and keeping most governmental powers local...in the hands of "THE PEOPLE"!!! Ben H is right...back then hunting wasn't a "sport", it was, to a great extent, an industry that provided meat. So, you see that the Second Amendment was meant for "THE PEOPLE" to own guns meant for killing other people!!!

Now the question...

the chief, you frame your 'got ya' question so as to imply that if one agrees with the Constitution on gun ownership, then we must also be extreme enough not to care about rape and incest. That is delusional and shows you have no sound argument. Rape and incest is against our laws...owning a gun is protected by our laws so some would have the ability to defend themselves against rape! (Does that mean you are for rape and incest because you can clean it up later with an abortion? See how stupid these type questions are!!) I doubt you would find anyone but an extremist(yes, we have them on the right too) that wouldn't allow abortion in these cases. Owning a gun by law abiding citizens is for the protection of life...abortion terminates a life. Those "individual's rights" can't be equated. Abortion is the law, but I don't think it should be used as birth control for irresponsible behavior.

My wife is going to kill me if she catches me on this board...says I spend too much time on the computer as it is!!! (For you liberals, I meant that metaphorically!) :wink: :wink: :lol:

 

[kolanuraven]

Why do some always think we frame " got ya" type questions?

Are ya'll that paranoid or insecure that you see any question to you as a ' got ya'?


It was a good question.....a straight forward one at that.

 

[Goodpasture]

Frankly I don't find Obama flipflopping in the least. Ask him his opinion and you will get it. But once the supreme court rules on the issue, your personal opinion means little, and as Obama is going to be the senior law enforcement official as President, it is nice to know that despite his personal preferences, he will abide by the courts decision.

 

[RobertMac]

Why do some always think we frame " got ya" type questions?

Are ya'll that paranoid or insecure that you see any question to you as a ' got ya'?


It was a good question.....a straight forward one at that.

"Does that mean you are for rape and incest because you can clean it up later with an abortion?"

Do you think that is a straight forward, good question?

 

[Goodpasture]

"Does that mean you are for rape and incest because you can clean it up later with an abortion?"

Do you think that is a straight forward, good question?

Rape is fine so long as it's consensual.

Incest should be kept within the family.

Abortion decisions are between the woman, her God, and the doctor. No one else's opinion matters.

 

[kolanuraven]

"Does that mean you are for rape and incest because you can clean it up later with an abortion?"

Do you think that is a straight forward, good question?

Rape is fine so long as it's consensual.

Incest should be kept within the family.

Abortion decisions are between the woman, her God, and the doctor. No one else's opinion matters.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Robert...being from MS...you should know that " incest is something the whole family can enjoy"

 

[Sandhusker]

Frankly I don't find Obama flipflopping in the least. Ask him his opinion and you will get it. But once the supreme court rules on the issue, your personal opinion means little, and as Obama is going to be the senior law enforcement official as President, it is nice to know that despite his personal preferences, he will abide by the courts decision.

He's not flip-flopping, he's lying. He's already shown what he believes via his voting record. A tiger doesn't change it's stripes and his comments supporting the decision that goes against his votes is just pandering for voters.

I guess honesty in one's core beliefs isn't one of the changes he's talking about. BTW, what are the changes he keeps talking about?

 

[RobertMac]

Rape is fine so long as it's consensual.

If it's consensual, it's not rape...then there are situations like the "Duke case".

Incest should be kept within the family.

I find incest unconscionable...I hope that was a bad joke.

Abortion decisions are between the woman, her God, and the doctor. No one else's opinion matters.

At some point, abortion is the taking of a life which makes someone else's opinion matter. As long as the baby is partially in the womb, it's not a life?

 

[Anonymous]

Frankly I don't find Obama flipflopping in the least. Ask him his opinion and you will get it. But once the supreme court rules on the issue, your personal opinion means little, and as Obama is going to be the senior law enforcement official as President, it is nice to know that despite his personal preferences, he will abide by the courts decision.

He's not flip-flopping, he's lying. He's already shown what he believes via his voting record. A tiger doesn't change it's stripes and his comments supporting the decision that goes against his votes is just pandering for voters.

I guess honesty in one's core beliefs isn't one of the changes he's talking about. BTW, what are the changes he keeps talking about?

Sandhusker-- Using your theory--then where does McCain sit on immigration, on Bushs tax cuts, on offshore drilling, windfall taxes on oil companies, the estate tax...

Do we take his position 5 years ago- or his last years position (which was different on many) or his position he spouts now -- all different :???:

McCain - Two-faced Maverick of Convenience
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The McCain campaign (and much of the mainstream media) keeps trying to keep alive the myth of McCain the Maverick, but it is clearly on life support, and getting a bit crazy. In a conference call today, a McCain spokeswoman tried to compare McCain's bipartisan cred with Obama's, using the example of immigration reform:

It's fairly significant that Senator McCain worked on the immigration reform legislation while he was pursing the nomination of his party. [He] reached across the aisle despite a heated primary campaign.

What's hilarious about this statement is that after McCain's legislation failed, he completely flip-flopped and has now said repeatedly that he does not support immigration reform. Even right-wing blogs see it that way. During the Jan 30 presidential debate, McCain said he would not vote for his own legislation.

In fact, if you take every example from the past 8 years where McCain has acted as a maverick and bucked his party's position, he has since done a screeching U-turn and now completely supports the party line:

He has changed his mind (repeatedly) on immigration.
He voted against tax cuts for the rich, but now wants to make them permanent.
He supported windfall profits taxes for oil companies, but now argues against them.
He changed his mind on off-shore drilling (using an argument that is a blatant lie).
He flip-flopped on the estate tax.
McCain once called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance", but now praises them.
He now agrees with Bush on the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects.
He tried to take credit for the GI benefits bill after working to kill it.
In 2007, he voted with Bush's position 95% of the time, and so far this year it is 100%.
What really amazes me is that they are now claiming that Obama is not bipartisan enough. Yesterday, the McCain campaign released a memo saying:

There has never been a time when Barack Obama has bucked the party line to lead on an issue of national importance.

I don't get it. I understand why McCain would want to claim that he is different than President Bush and his disastrous Republican policies, but attacking Obama because he hasn't distanced himself from the Democrats? Who cares?

Besides, it's obviously false — Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq when Democrats were falling over themselves to support Bush's position. To me, that's bucking the party line of both parties on an "issue of national importance". And you know, Obama was right.

 

[RobertMac]

"Does that mean you are for rape and incest because you can clean it up later with an abortion?"

Do you think that is a straight forward, good question?

Rape is fine so long as it's consensual.

Incest should be kept within the family.

Abortion decisions are between the woman, her God, and the doctor. No one else's opinion matters.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Robert...being from MS...you should know that " incest is something the whole family can enjoy"

kolanuraven, typical of liberals...when you got nothing, you resort to personal attacks. Where is the tolerance?????????? :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[RobertMac]

Sandhusker-- Using your theory--then where does McCain sit on immigration, on Bushs tax cuts, on offshore drilling, windfall taxes on oil companies, the estate tax...

Unfortunately,I don't have a candidate in this race...the one thing I can say good about Sen. McCain is that he is less socialist than George Soros...........................I mean O'bama! :shock: :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

 

[Anonymous]

Did you ever see all the ties to George Soros that McSame has? Soros is the number one contributor to the Reform Institute McCain founded- and has used to promote his open borders, pro immigration policy, along with provide funding for his campaign workers....

Many of the Conservative (true conservative-not neocon) have been speculating that when McCains campaign was broke earlier in the year- Soros was his provider of funds to keep operating...

ELECTION 2008
John McCain funded by Soros since 2001
Candidate's Reform Institute also accepted funds from Teresa Kerry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 12, 2008
1:00 am Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

As Sen. John McCain assumes the GOP front-runner mantle, his long-standing, but little-noticed association with donors such as George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry is receiving new attention among his Republican critics.

In 2001, McCain founded the Alexandria, Va.-based Reform Institute as a vehicle to receive funding from George Soros' Open Society Institute and Teresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation and several other prominent non-profit organizations.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177

Heres another article:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/25/meet-the-open-borders-family-mccain-hernandez-soros-and-the-reform-institute/

 

[kolanuraven]

Rape is fine so long as it's consensual.

Incest should be kept within the family.

Abortion decisions are between the woman, her God, and the doctor. No one else's opinion matters.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Robert...being from MS...you should know that " incest is something the whole family can enjoy"

kolanuraven, typical of liberals...when you got nothing, you resort to personal attacks. Where is the tolerance?????????? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Where you been?
:???: :???:

I have less tolerance for ignorance than you seem to have.

 

[RobertMac]

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Robert...being from MS...you should know that " incest is something the whole family can enjoy"

kolanuraven, typical of liberals...when you got nothing, you resort to personal attacks. Where is the tolerance?????????? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Where you been?
:???: :???:

I have less tolerance for ignorance than you seem to have.

You bring nothing of substance to illustrate my ignorance...just personal attacks.

I'll not trade insults with you...Oh wait, I AM attacking you...I called you a liberal!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[RobertMac]

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Robert...being from MS...you should know that " incest is something the whole family can enjoy"

kolanuraven, typical of liberals...when you got nothing, you resort to personal attacks. Where is the tolerance?????????? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Where you been?
:???: :???:

I have less tolerance for ignorance than you seem to have.

You bring nothing of substance to illustrate my ignorance...just personal attacks.

I'll not trade insults with you...Oh wait, I AM attacking you...I called you a liberal!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

Frankly I don't find Obama flipflopping in the least. Ask him his opinion and you will get it. But once the supreme court rules on the issue, your personal opinion means little, and as Obama is going to be the senior law enforcement official as President, it is nice to know that despite his personal preferences, he will abide by the courts decision.

He's not flip-flopping, he's lying. He's already shown what he believes via his voting record. A tiger doesn't change it's stripes and his comments supporting the decision that goes against his votes is just pandering for voters.

I guess honesty in one's core beliefs isn't one of the changes he's talking about. BTW, what are the changes he keeps talking about?

Sandhusker-- Using your theory--then where does McCain sit on immigration, on Bushs tax cuts, on offshore drilling, windfall taxes on oil companies, the estate tax...

Do we take his position 5 years ago- or his last years position (which was different on many) or his position he spouts now -- all different :???:

McCain - Two-faced Maverick of Convenience
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The McCain campaign (and much of the mainstream media) keeps trying to keep alive the myth of McCain the Maverick, but it is clearly on life support, and getting a bit crazy. In a conference call today, a McCain spokeswoman tried to compare McCain's bipartisan cred with Obama's, using the example of immigration reform:

It's fairly significant that Senator McCain worked on the immigration reform legislation while he was pursing the nomination of his party. [He] reached across the aisle despite a heated primary campaign.

What's hilarious about this statement is that after McCain's legislation failed, he completely flip-flopped and has now said repeatedly that he does not support immigration reform. Even right-wing blogs see it that way. During the Jan 30 presidential debate, McCain said he would not vote for his own legislation.

In fact, if you take every example from the past 8 years where McCain has acted as a maverick and bucked his party's position, he has since done a screeching U-turn and now completely supports the party line:

He has changed his mind (repeatedly) on immigration.
He voted against tax cuts for the rich, but now wants to make them permanent.
He supported windfall profits taxes for oil companies, but now argues against them.
He changed his mind on off-shore drilling (using an argument that is a blatant lie).
He flip-flopped on the estate tax.
McCain once called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance", but now praises them.
He now agrees with Bush on the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects.
He tried to take credit for the GI benefits bill after working to kill it.
In 2007, he voted with Bush's position 95% of the time, and so far this year it is 100%.
What really amazes me is that they are now claiming that Obama is not bipartisan enough. Yesterday, the McCain campaign released a memo saying:

There has never been a time when Barack Obama has bucked the party line to lead on an issue of national importance.

I don't get it. I understand why McCain would want to claim that he is different than President Bush and his disastrous Republican policies, but attacking Obama because he hasn't distanced himself from the Democrats? Who cares?

Besides, it's obviously false — Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq when Democrats were falling over themselves to support Bush's position. To me, that's bucking the party line of both parties on an "issue of national importance". And you know, Obama was right.

Oh yeah, it's the samo-samo. However, McCain isn't the one flapping his lips about "change" while hypocritically not changing a damn thing. I can't believe that Dems. are so gullible to buy that "change" mantra. When they can't answer the question "Change what", it should tell them something.

McCain also knows that he's going to have to do a few things that he would rather not in order to keep the party behind him. I don't see the same savy with Barry - he think's he's the messiah.

 

[kolanuraven]

kolanuraven, typical of liberals...when you got nothing, you resort to personal attacks. Where is the tolerance?????????? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Where you been?
:???: :???:

I have less tolerance for ignorance than you seem to have.

You bring nothing of substance to illustrate my ignorance...just personal attacks.

I'll not trade insults with you...Oh wait, I AM attacking you...I called you a liberal!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You bring nothing of substance to illustrate my ignorance...
:shock: :shock: :shock:

Well.....you're right on with that...you don't need my help!!!

 

[Anonymous]

He's not flip-flopping, he's lying. He's already shown what he believes via his voting record. A tiger doesn't change it's stripes and his comments supporting the decision that goes against his votes is just pandering for voters.

I guess honesty in one's core beliefs isn't one of the changes he's talking about. BTW, what are the changes he keeps talking about?

Sandhusker-- Using your theory--then where does McCain sit on immigration, on Bushs tax cuts, on offshore drilling, windfall taxes on oil companies, the estate tax...

Do we take his position 5 years ago- or his last years position (which was different on many) or his position he spouts now -- all different :???:

McCain - Two-faced Maverick of Convenience
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The McCain campaign (and much of the mainstream media) keeps trying to keep alive the myth of McCain the Maverick, but it is clearly on life support, and getting a bit crazy. In a conference call today, a McCain spokeswoman tried to compare McCain's bipartisan cred with Obama's, using the example of immigration reform:

It's fairly significant that Senator McCain worked on the immigration reform legislation while he was pursing the nomination of his party. [He] reached across the aisle despite a heated primary campaign.

What's hilarious about this statement is that after McCain's legislation failed, he completely flip-flopped and has now said repeatedly that he does not support immigration reform. Even right-wing blogs see it that way. During the Jan 30 presidential debate, McCain said he would not vote for his own legislation.

In fact, if you take every example from the past 8 years where McCain has acted as a maverick and bucked his party's position, he has since done a screeching U-turn and now completely supports the party line:

He has changed his mind (repeatedly) on immigration.
He voted against tax cuts for the rich, but now wants to make them permanent.
He supported windfall profits taxes for oil companies, but now argues against them.
He changed his mind on off-shore drilling (using an argument that is a blatant lie).
He flip-flopped on the estate tax.
McCain once called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance", but now praises them.
He now agrees with Bush on the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects.
He tried to take credit for the GI benefits bill after working to kill it.
In 2007, he voted with Bush's position 95% of the time, and so far this year it is 100%.
What really amazes me is that they are now claiming that Obama is not bipartisan enough. Yesterday, the McCain campaign released a memo saying:

There has never been a time when Barack Obama has bucked the party line to lead on an issue of national importance.

I don't get it. I understand why McCain would want to claim that he is different than President Bush and his disastrous Republican policies, but attacking Obama because he hasn't distanced himself from the Democrats? Who cares?

Besides, it's obviously false — Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq when Democrats were falling over themselves to support Bush's position. To me, that's bucking the party line of both parties on an "issue of national importance". And you know, Obama was right.

Oh yeah, it's the samo-samo. However, McCain isn't the one flapping his lips about "change" while hypocritically not changing a damn thing. I can't believe that Dems. are so gullible to buy that "change" mantra. When they can't answer the question "Change what", it should tell them something.

McCain also knows that he's going to have to do a few things that he would rather not in order to keep the party behind him. I don't see the same savy with Barry - he think's he's the messiah.

I think both Obama and the Dem party have seen they need a new direction- as was shown in the 2004 and 2006 elections, when many of the Dems elected are more fiscally conservative and pro-gun than the Repubs (almost 70% of the public believe in the Constitutional right of an individual to bear arms)...
Right now its the Blue-Dog Democrats in the House that are holding up many spending bills coming out of the Senate- because they are enforcing the Pay-Go (Balanced Budget) that used to be a Repub war chant- that they totally forgot from 2000 on...
On many issues- the Dems are moving into where the Repubs were years ago before they decided their biggest issues were being bedroom morals police, enabling unregulatrd corporate profiteering, and telling state governments how they could/should run themselves...

So its OK if McCain changes his beliefs to get his party behind him- but its a flip flop when Obama does it to get the people behind him.... :???: :roll:

You know that with McSame- the cattle industry will have the same Lobbyist controlled administrators and bureaucrats running the industry--that allow Packer concentration and continued mergers, oppose captive supply bans, opposed M-COOL, oppose oversight of the markets or enforcement of GIPSA, wide open unregulated, uninspected imports, etc., etc.....
At least with Obama there is a chance for a "CHANGE"- we know their is none with the neocons and McSame....