Skip to main content

View Diary: Conservative guns-in-schools plan runs afoul of the insurance industry (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And nearly a quarter was happy to see that (0+ / 0-)

    the background check voted on was defeated.

    "intellectually dishonest"
    Are you shitting me?
    You argued that nearly a quarter of Dems being 'happy or relieved' that the background check was defeated was 'silly' Implying that it was, somehow, a good thing for Dems.

    "Elizabeth Busch ran in an overwhelmingly republican district in South Carolina"
    And she was up by nine fucking points two weeks before the election.....until Sanford (whom was abandoned by the Republican party) made it a 'national election'.
    Gun Control was dominating the national debate at the time......if your '90% support background checks' poll was relevant, that would have worked in her favor, and she wouldn't have managed to lose eighteen fucking points in two goddamn weeks.
    Some 'electoral winner' you have there.
    And that isn't even mentioning that Colorado is facing not one, but two recalls.....the first ones in history. How can you remain so willfully blind? What political upside has happened?
    Reality is happening. It may be time you pay attention.

    I have voted a strait D ticket every year except in 2000 when I voted for Nader. I am abstaining my vote this election cycle.
    Unless you are planning on voting twice, or convincing a GOPer to not vote because of gun control, then you are shit out of luck.
    I know that I am not the only one.

    "As long as the NRA puts out fundraising letters with bold face lies..."
    They don't have to lie. The President proposed a gun ban & it was proposed to the Senate by a Senator that said "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

    Gun Controllers have done fucked up. This will have political ramifications for years.....all for an object that murders less than half the amount of people thatbare hands do.

    You can push for more and better Democrats or you can push for the AWB. You're not getting both.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 06:42:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Your point was silly because it had nothing to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      do with the question I asked you and secondly there are many things that poll with less than 90 percent democratic support.  I in no way suggested that is good for Dems.  that's just absurd.  Nice try.

      As a matter of fact I'm sure the voting rights act would have polled worse than that for Dems than that watered down bill that we don't even know if the Dems that were relieved in that poll actually wanted the bill dead to get an even better more restrictive bill. As in the ACA polls.

      The point we were discussing was the NRA not the Dems.  

      The only reason that Busch was up by nine points was because Mr appalachian trails was making a total ass of himself not because that district was suddenly democratic leaning, stop being obtuse. For fucks sake the last winner of that seat won 62-36 in 2012 just six months before the Busch race.  That is just classic intellectual dishonesty

      The President proposed a ban on assault weapons but that never made it to the final bill because there is no support for it in the senate nor the house.  The NRA lie by claiming that the bill would take your guns away.  It is a blatant bold face lie.  They are liars.

      You keep bringing up all these stats that have nothing to do with

      background  checks.
       The reason you do it is that you have no reasonable argument against universal background checks and you are doing the same bs the NRA does by clouding the argument with strawman arguments and false claims that Obama is going to to take away your guns.

      Right man, right job and right time

      by Ianb007 on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 08:59:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "The only reason...." (0+ / 0-)

        The reason why Sanford was down by nine points a mere 2 weeks before the election was because he used state funds to commit adultery, was outspent 4-1, was arrested during the campaign, and was abandoned by his own party.
        In contrast, in 2008 the Democratic candidate lost in a squeaker 52-48., because the GOP candidate received a fine.
        52-48 in 2008, because of a fine.
        A fine.....not adultery, not arrested, not outspent 4-1, not stealing state funds, not abandoned by his own party, not down by 9 points 2 weeks before the election.....A fine.
        He won because he made the election national....and your 'big winner' was unable to keep Colbert-Busch from losing eighteen points in two weeks to the weakest candidate imaginable.

        "Clouding the argument with strawmen arguments and false claims that Obama is going to take your guns away"
        1) I never made that claim.
        2) it's not a 'strawman'. It was the President's proposal.
        Nothing in that sentence is correct. 'Strawmen and false claims', indeed.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:39:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Media (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Racism (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site