Thoughts on Mitt and the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban

**ScottLC** · 07-15-2012, 02:32 AM

All of the drama over Mitt as the imperfect candidate has taken me back to the early days of the Bush presidency. When he was silent on the AWB, except to have said if it reached his desk he would sign it. People threw a fit. They wanted him to come out swinging on the issue and that he would go so far as to say sure, he'd sign it if he saw it, incensed them. Conservatives were ready to not vote for him and, probably, the gun owners he lost because they didn't know how to play the game were the difference between Gore trying to steal the election, and a Bush 3 million vote victory that should have been.

Back then I kept telling people to shut up and think. Listen to what he said. IF it reached his desk he'd sign it. A clearer message could not be sent during a campaign: Make sure I have a House and Senate that will never send it to me because, right now, I have to play the game the best I can. I went over this and over it. Still people were complaining after he was elected. After the AWB died they still complained. It wasn't enough it was dead, they wanted Bush to have killed it. They wanted to see him wield the mighty pen. That he did not meant he was no conservative.

In fact he wasn't much of a conservative but he was a decent Republican and he held things together in a difficult time. As long as he could. But nothing he did made those hardliners happy. That he did not single handedly slay the AWB was enough to make them stay home. Enough that we almost got Gore and then Kerry. Looking back now we can all see what a trainwreck either of those events would have played out to be.

But now we've got the same sort of thing going on with Romney. Yes, he's a lesser candidate. But he's superior to the alternative. He's playing the game. He can win and he will be better for our side than the alternative. If we give him a House and Senate that will have his back he might even turn out to be, with some help, some of what we're looking for in a president. But some of you are going to have to get past the Bush days and that AWB type fixation. It doesn't matter what seemingly messed up way things get done at this point so long as they get done.

Hold back your vote. Keep insisting he do things not only that you want but the way you want them when you want them. Hand this election to Obama and submit this nation to four years of unrestrained socialist rule by Executive Order. Then what? You can pat yourself on the back for cutting off your noses to spite your faces? The rest of us will really be appreciative, as will your children...and the bankers and the Elites for entirely different reasons.

http://www.tyrannyslain.com/conklin/...t-weapons-ban/

http://www.redstate.com/scottconklin...t-weapons-ban/

**Apollo5600** · 07-15-2012, 02:39 AM

"But now we've got the same sort of thing going on with Romney. Yes, he's a lesser candidate. But he's superior to the alternative. He's playing the game. "
-----------------------

Mittens does more than play the game. He contradicts himself, and then lies about it, and then lies about the lie. I can provide a video montage if you want. They're a dime a'dozen, and probably need to be updated. He can't even keep his story straight on the stimulus, or TARP, or amnesty for illegals. Within the same few months he completely changes his position. George Bush, at least, was an honest man, though not very conservative. Mittens doesn't even have that bright spot. He is a profound liar. And not only is he a profound liar, he's actively worked against conservatives before. For example, it was his team which put out the "Palin is unstable" meme during the election against Obama. They wanted Obama to win so Mittens could have his chance in 2012. This is the darkest of the dark here. Even Macbeth would blush. At least Macbeth had the decency to stick you with a knife. Mittens wants you to defend and praise him for it.

This election is a cartoon, at best. It's like we're running Ren, and the Dems are running Stimpy, except they're both psychopaths.

**ScottLC** · 07-15-2012, 02:40 AM

Do you have a viable alternative?

**Apollo5600** · 07-15-2012, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by ScottLC

Do you have a viable alternative?

So I say, and you apparently agree, that Mittens is a pathological liar who has actively betrayed our movement before with lies and falsehoods, revealing a dark and putrid character (I did update my post with an extra sentence or two). And your response is "Do you have a viable alternative?"

I don't know. Who is the alternative to Cthulhu(D)? Is it Beelzebub(R)? I guess he has the R by his name, so he HAS to be better. Lets carry his water! Out of sight, out of mind.

"But he's Beelzebub! The prince of darkness!"

"Do you have an alternative?"

**ScottLC** · 07-15-2012, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Apollo5600

So I say, and you apparently agree, that Mittens is a pathological liar who has actively betrayed our movement before with lies and falsehoods, revealing a dark and putrid character (I did update my post with an extra sentence or two). And your response is "Do you have a viable alternative?"

And that's all I am going to say again: Do you have a viable alternative. Because what you are asking us to do right now is...nothing. Ain't gonna happen. Which is why I am at a loss why you keep going at this point.

I don't know. Who is the alternative to Cthulhu(D)? Is it Beelzebub(R)? I guess he has the R by his name, so he HAS to be better. Lets carry his water! Out of sight, out of mind.

Beelzebub would be marginally better than Cthulhu, yes. But Cthulhu holds the upper hand. So you are saying you will unilaterally do nothing to dethrone Cthulhu? AND that nobody else should, either? And you are then going to try and defend that position as, itself, being anything other than evil as well?

"But he's Beelzebub! The prince of darkness!"

"Do you have an alternative?"

Not this time around. So Beelzebub it is!

Get it?

**DoctorDoom** · 07-15-2012, 05:16 AM

Aside from the whinings of the "Romney is Satan!" contingent, the infamous 1994 assault weapons "ban" in fact banned NOTHING. From 2000...

President Clinton, Senator Schumer, and Congresswoman McCarthy have no answers and remain silent, much as they have after each of the dozens of similar such incidents that have permeated the past eight years.

The sickening irony is that each of them knows they participated in a cruel charade, perpetrated purely for politics, because each of them knew at the time they told us otherwise that their "law" could never do anything to protect anyone.

Why?

Because, in perhaps the most cynical manner ever witnessed, the actual law bans not a single firearm.

Oh, the title certainly implies that it does. And each of these three told us it did. But it does not, and they knew it. In short, they lied.

More Blood on the Hands of the Left

It was juist one more example amongst millions of liberalism's hypocrisy and dishonesty.

**Xantrawler** · 07-15-2012, 08:38 AM

I learn my lesson many years ago. I was pissed at Bush 1, it looked like Clinton was going to win so I did a protesdt vote for, er what's his name? Yeah I'm one of the 20%s. We got Clinton for 8 years. Now we have all these people going on about Mitt. Can we stop attacking this guy? We don’t hear how he will be better than the president. We hear how he is bad on this, just like the president on that. How many undecided read these posts? Look at other sites? How many are walking away with the thought “Well, even the Republicans think he is no better. Might as well stick with the Devil I know” We know what his bad points are so why do we have to keep hammering at them? If he is this bad why should we give him the job? With what I keep hearing maybe I should vote for Obama. Then get a house and senate as strongly conservative as possible and in four years point out that it is Obama’s fault. Of course that won’t work either as they will all say that the republicans were obstructionists.

**Tea Party Patriot** · 07-15-2012, 08:54 AM

re:

I learn my lesson many years ago. I was pissed at Bush 1, it looked like Clinton was going to win so I did a protesdt vote for, er what's his name?

That would be H Ross "Giant sucking sound" Perot.

Back when I was young, idealistic and stupid I did the same thing (voted for Perot) and have felt guilt and responsibility for Clinton's 8 years ever since. I won't make that Apollo sized mistake again.

I was working for EDS (the company Perot founded) at the time which had just been bought by GM by the time I started there ('88) - but had a great deal of respect for Perot because he had organized a commando team to rescue some kidnapped employees.

**Wyatt Junker** · 07-15-2012, 09:33 AM

Never liked Perot. He talked a good game, but couldn't stand his fohking ego.

**tac** · 07-15-2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Xantrawler

I learn my lesson many years ago. I was pissed at Bush 1, it looked like Clinton was going to win so I did a protesdt vote for, er what's his name? Yeah I'm one of the 20%s. We got Clinton for 8 years. Now we have all these people going on about Mitt. Can we stop attacking this guy? We don’t hear how he will be better than the president. We hear how he is bad on this, just like the president on that. How many undecided read these posts? Look at other sites? How many are walking away with the thought “Well, even the Republicans think he is no better. Might as well stick with the Devil I know” We know what his bad points are so why do we have to keep hammering at them? If he is this bad why should we give him the job? With what I keep hearing maybe I should vote for Obama. Then get a house and senate as strongly conservative as possible and in four years point out that it is Obama’s fault. Of course that won’t work either as they will all say that the republicans were obstructionists.

Some people learn, others refuse to.