On October 26 2012 09:17 Leporello wrote: I'm not surprised by that $111M figure.
I was just reading about Romney's top donor so far this campaign:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/romneys_top_5_campaign_donors.html No. 1: Sheldon Adelson, 79, owner of the Las Vegas Sands casino empire.
Total: $34.2 million
Adelson is the largest declared donor to the Romney campaign and supporting political committees, providing more than $34.2 million this election season. He and his wife, Miriam, a physician who heads the Nevada-based Adelson Drug Clinic, have given $10 million to the Restore Our Future, a super PAC backing Romney. Adelson also joined relatives to give $24 million to committees backing former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. And he has made public pledges vowing to give $10 million to Karl Rove's American Crossroads super PAC and as much as $100 million this election more broadly to the GOP. Worth an estimated $25 billion, Adelson oversees the Las Vegas Sands Corp., which runs casino and resort interests in Las Vegas, Singapore and Bethlehem, Pa., and Sands China Ltd., a cluster of casinos in the Chinese territory of Macau. He would benefit from loosened trade restrictions and a rise in the Chinese currency rate against the dollar. His company devoted $60,000 this year to lobby on tax issues, foreign tourist visas, travel and Internet gambling issues -- and has spent $1.86 million lobbying on legislation dealing with China trade, gambling and travel since 2002. A staunch supporter of Israel, he also is a contributor to the Republican Jewish Coalition, which spent $920,000 since 2002 backing bills aimed at pressuring Iran and enhancing U.S. security cooperation with Israel. Adelson's casino company has advised shareholders that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Investigators were said to be focusing on the Macau casinos and reports of missing money and possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
People like this shouldn't be allowed to donate -- I'm seriously not even sure he should be allowed to vote.
It seems to me over the past few decades, with this brave new world of globalization, that there are many people and corporations (or should I say "people"), who despite their citizenship, which could seemingly change in the future, their actual livelihood -- their wealth -- is not country-bound. This guy is just as much invested in China's and Israel's welfare as America's. Not something that could probably ever be feasibly legislated, but I find it terrifying and disturbing that so much money being sent to our politicians could just as well have been sent in the form of Yen. Too many conflict of interests in today's globalized world to just let this money flow into our political system like this. It's insane and inexcusable.
I'm sure this is a bipartisan problem, although it's much more pronounced in the Republican party.
whine whine whine.
Rich Americans have just as much right to give funds as you or I.
From his wikipedia profile:
Adelson was born and grew up in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, the son of Sarah (née Tonkin) and Arthur Adelson.[2][3][4] His father drove a taxi and his mother, who immigrated from the U.K., ran a knitting store. His family was Jewish.[5] He worked as a mortgage broker, investment adviser and financial consultant. He started a business selling toiletry kits, and in the 1960s he started a charter tours business.[2] Adelson went to college at the City College of New York, but dropped out.
Be fair to the man, he earned it. Each and every penny he owns was through his efforts, not his ancestors.
His reasoning for giving so much money?
Adelson told Forbes magazine that he is "against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy and I'm not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don't want to go through ten different corporations to hide my name. I'm proud of what I do and I'm not looking to escape recognition."
His reasoning stinks. George Soros doesn't even come close to how much money Adelson has donated this election.
Yes, Adelson earned his money. I'll give him credit for that absolutely. I have nothing against his business. I think gambling is as fair a business as any.
But if you control major assets (not just investments) in foreign countries, sorry, you have conflicts of interest. America is not your only interest. And so your money should be left out of our politics. Just my opinion on that.
It has nothing to do with being rich either, it's the fact that Adelson's wealth is anchored to other countries as much as this one.
For example, he has a very direct interest in seeing China's currency values rise. This has also been a talking-point of the Romney campaign, and he mentioned it just in the last debate, that he wants to see China's currency deflate.
Let's sell our economic policies!!! Yay!
If you bar someone from voting / donation because they own foreign assets wouldn't that mean you need to bar anyone who owns foreign assets? As in virtually everyone with a diversified 401K / pension...
I understand you said "direct control... not just investments" but I'm not sure what difference exists that you are alluding to.
On October 26 2012 10:04 Leporello wrote: But if you control major assets (not just investments) in foreign countries, sorry, you have conflicts of interest. America is not your only interest. And so your money should be left out of our politics. Just my opinion on that.
Should a person with joint citizenship be allowed to donate?
How about someone with a grandfather living in Russia?
Fresh immigrants?
How about anyone who does importing? Exporting?
How about directors of third-world charities? Employees? Donors?
If you don't want a bright line rule, you have to clarify how you are going to determine who's allowed to donate and who is not. You can't just say "I don't like this person donating money" and have that be reason enough to strip the privilege for a person of something you allow other to do.
It really is weird seeing the European members call free-market "liberalism." If you go by the original classical definition of the word, you're absolutely right, but sadly the socialist/"progressive" movement hijacked the word "liberal" in America. Generally in America and most other first-world countries, a fiscal conservative is someone who supports free-market economic policies.
On October 26 2012 10:04 Leporello wrote: But if you control major assets (not just investments) in foreign countries, sorry, you have conflicts of interest. America is not your only interest. And so your money should be left out of our politics. Just my opinion on that.
Should a person with joint citizenship be allowed to donate?
How about someone with a grandfather living in Russia?
Fresh immigrants?
How about anyone who does importing? Exporting?
How about directors of third-world charities? Employees? Donors?
If you don't want a bright line rule, you have to clarify how you are going to determine who's allowed to donate and who is not. You can't just say "I don't like this person donating money" and have that be reason enough to strip the privilege for a person of something you allow other to do.
It's actually an interesting topic because we don't allow foreign interests to donate money to political campaigns, it's against the rules. This is actually one of the arguments some people used against citizens united, saying lifting restrictions would let foreign money dictate our politics. However, foreign money is still not allowed, and as far as I know hasn't been allowed directly into our politics.
If your a citizen of the U.S. your allowed to donate money, etc, even if you have foreign interests.
I think having no caps, and allowing corporations to donate infinitely via super pacs, etc.. is a fundamental problem with our election system, but I also don't think picking and choosing who should be allowed to donate and who shouldn't based on their financial interests in other countries is taking it too far, and would be basically violating that persons right to vote/support a campaign.
I think what's crazy is our election costs are higher than ever, and as far as I can tell will only keep going up.. so much money on advertisements for both democrats and republicans, it's insane.. we need a better way to do this badly.
On October 26 2012 10:53 Swazi Spring wrote: It really is weird seeing the European members call free-market "liberalism." If you go by the original classical definition of the word, you're absolutely right, but sadly the socialist/"progressive" movement hijacked the word "liberal" in America. Generally in America and most other first-world countries, a fiscal conservative is someone who supports free-market economic policies.
You can try and politicize the drift in meaning inherent to any word meant to operate as a sort of ideological shorthand, but you'd be wrong no matter what you offered forth justification wise. Words and their respective significations are heavily, some might argue primarily, influenced by use above all else, and attempting to pin intent on widespread linguistic changes in use is childishly stupid.
On October 26 2012 05:14 Defacer wrote: It's true that Obama is cooler than all of us, particularly you. But he was not raised a politician. He was raised in Hawaii, than South East Asia, than Hawaii again, by his absentee single mother and his grandparents. He went to college on student loans. He was not born and raised a politician. He was born, and he raised himself, and did a pretty good job.
No offense, Defacer, but this is pretty incorrect. Obama wrote in his books that he had learned to manipulate white people into liking him by being "a non-angry black man" and he also said that from a very young age he "chose the people he associated with carefully," as not to hurt his political "ambitions."
Additionally, Obama was far from being extremely poor like he wants people to believe, yes his father did abandon him, but his father was a man of great influence, wealth, and power in Kenya. Additionally, his step-father was a rather very successful businessman in Indonesia. Also from a young age, Frank Marshall Davis, a well-known communist, had raised Obama as his own and dare I say, indoctrinated him. In Obama's book he said he viewed Frank Marshall Davis as a "father figure" and Obama went on to mention him 22 separate times in his book.
It sounds to me like a man who was raised to be a politician.
On October 26 2012 05:14 Defacer wrote: It's true that Obama is cooler than all of us, particularly you. But he was not raised a politician. He was raised in Hawaii, than South East Asia, than Hawaii again, by his absentee single mother and his grandparents. He went to college on student loans. He was not born and raised a politician. He was born, and he raised himself, and did a pretty good job.
No offense, Defacer, but this is pretty incorrect. Obama wrote in his books that he had learned to manipulate white people into liking him by being "a non-angry black man" and he also said that from a very young age he "chose the people he associated with carefully," as not to hurt his political "ambitions."
Additionally, Obama was far from being extremely poor like he wants people to believe, yes his father did abandon him, but his father was a man of great influence, wealth, and power in Kenya. Additionally, his step-father was a rather very successful businessman in Indonesia. Also from a young age, Frank Marshall Davis, a well-known communist, had raised Obama as his own and dare I say, indoctrinated him. In Obama's book he said he viewed Frank Marshall Davis as a "father figure" and Obama went on to mention him 22 separate times in his book.
It sounds to me like a man who was raised to be a politician.
So 1) He was careful who he befriended 2) Grew up middle class
On October 26 2012 05:14 Defacer wrote: It's true that Obama is cooler than all of us, particularly you. But he was not raised a politician. He was raised in Hawaii, than South East Asia, than Hawaii again, by his absentee single mother and his grandparents. He went to college on student loans. He was not born and raised a politician. He was born, and he raised himself, and did a pretty good job.
No offense, Defacer, but this is pretty incorrect. Obama wrote in his books that he had learned to manipulate white people into liking him by being "a non-angry black man" and he also said that from a very young age he "chose the people he associated with carefully," as not to hurt his political "ambitions."
Additionally, Obama was far from being extremely poor like he wants people to believe, yes his father did abandon him, but his father was a man of great influence, wealth, and power in Kenya. Additionally, his step-father was a rather very successful businessman in Indonesia. Also from a young age, Frank Marshall Davis, a well-known communist, had raised Obama as his own and dare I say, indoctrinated him. In Obama's book he said he viewed Frank Marshall Davis as a "father figure" and Obama went on to mention him 22 separate times in his book.
It sounds to me like a man who was raised to be a politician.
On October 25 2012 14:58 Swazi Spring wrote: [quote] You can tell yourself this all you want, but it simply isn't true.
It's true.
It's not at all true. I'm a Republican, but I think most people would consider me a liberal if they talked policy with me.
It's true. Once again people needa stop throwing out minority examples in an attempt to discredit a larger trend.
Where is your proof?
Now you're gonna make me go through my posts to find a graph I posted a long time ago... sigh.
I'm still waiting...
Your statement was incredibly ridiculous, Suoma, and it shows just how polarized the left has become, that they have resorted to calling anyone who disagrees with them "neo-Nazis" and equates opposition to abortion with an "ethnic cleansing."
Edit: I just read your other post, in which you said you were no longer even going to try to back up your statement.
Uh, he didn't use the words "neo-Nazis" or "ethnic cleansing" in his post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you quoted them. Unless you're saying the current far-right extremist parties worldwide are all neo-Nazis in favor of ethnic cleansing? Even then quotes are inappropriate.
I suggest you re-read what he posted. He said that the "American Republicans are further right than European/"global" extremist parties," so I asked him to clarify and he said he was referring to parties such as the BNP, National Front (France), and the NDP (Germany). These parties are effectively neo-Nazi parties, and according to him, "the Republican Party is just as, if not more, extreme as them."
Whoops, I didn't realize you guys were talking extremist extremist parties and not the significant conservative parties such as the U.K. Conservative Party or the German CDU (you know, parties that actually matter).
Yeah, Republicans are not crazier than the extremely extreme parties, but no, I don't believe most people would think you're "liberal" if they talked policy with you, but then that's an assumption going off how you tout guns and call Romney a liberal.
It's okay, I understand why you would think that, I didn't quote the post in which he said that, as it was actually a few posts down from his original post (the one I quoted).
I'd like to think of myself as pretty moderate, I agree with my liberal friends on a number of issues, such as gay marriage, abortion, and putting regulations on banks. I don't see how "touting guns" makes someone "radical" or "not moderate." Gun rights are, or at least should be, a non-partisan issue, just like the right to free speech is. There are plenty of liberals, socialists, and even communists who are gun owners and/or support gun rights.
On October 26 2012 05:14 Defacer wrote: It's true that Obama is cooler than all of us, particularly you. But he was not raised a politician. He was raised in Hawaii, than South East Asia, than Hawaii again, by his absentee single mother and his grandparents. He went to college on student loans. He was not born and raised a politician. He was born, and he raised himself, and did a pretty good job.
No offense, Defacer, but this is pretty incorrect. Obama wrote in his books that he had learned to manipulate white people into liking him by being "a non-angry black man" and he also said that from a very young age he "chose the people he associated with carefully," as not to hurt his political "ambitions."
Additionally, Obama was far from being extremely poor like he wants people to believe, yes his father did abandon him, but his father was a man of great influence, wealth, and power in Kenya. Additionally, his step-father was a rather very successful businessman in Indonesia. Also from a young age, Frank Marshall Davis, a well-known communist, had raised Obama as his own and dare I say, indoctrinated him. In Obama's book he said he viewed Frank Marshall Davis as a "father figure" and Obama went on to mention him 22 separate times in his book.
It sounds to me like a man who was raised to be a politician.
Sources for any of that?
It's a quote from his book: Dreams from my Father
I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand and told her not to worry, I wouldn’t do anything stupid. It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved—such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.
Barack Obama's father is generally recognized to have been an economist for the Kenyan government. Strangely enough, I am having trouble finding information online from the "mainstream media" that recognize this. You can however watch the documentary, 2016: Obama's America, which thoroughly covers Barack Hussein Obama Sr.'s life and job as an economist. Also, Wikipedia says he was an economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.
On October 26 2012 10:04 Leporello wrote: In other news:
Whoever in Obama's camp thought this ad was a good idea should be fired and ridiculed immediately, and have all their academic achievements revoked. This might be the dumbest, most clueless ad I've ever seen. Republicans are calling it offensive. I don't know it it's offensive, unless you're offended by stupidity because it sure as hell has plenty of that.
How could someone that cute be so incredibly stupid?
I'm sure this ad will backfire on Obama. Just look at all of the dislikes on YouTube.
It's not at all true. I'm a Republican, but I think most people would consider me a liberal if they talked policy with me.
It's true. Once again people needa stop throwing out minority examples in an attempt to discredit a larger trend.
Where is your proof?
Now you're gonna make me go through my posts to find a graph I posted a long time ago... sigh.
I'm still waiting...
Your statement was incredibly ridiculous, Suoma, and it shows just how polarized the left has become, that they have resorted to calling anyone who disagrees with them "neo-Nazis" and equates opposition to abortion with an "ethnic cleansing."
Edit: I just read your other post, in which you said you were no longer even going to try to back up your statement.
Uh, he didn't use the words "neo-Nazis" or "ethnic cleansing" in his post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you quoted them. Unless you're saying the current far-right extremist parties worldwide are all neo-Nazis in favor of ethnic cleansing? Even then quotes are inappropriate.
I suggest you re-read what he posted. He said that the "American Republicans are further right than European/"global" extremist parties," so I asked him to clarify and he said he was referring to parties such as the BNP, National Front (France), and the NDP (Germany). These parties are effectively neo-Nazi parties, and according to him, "the Republican Party is just as, if not more, extreme as them."
Whoops, I didn't realize you guys were talking extremist extremist parties and not the significant conservative parties such as the U.K. Conservative Party or the German CDU (you know, parties that actually matter).
Yeah, Republicans are not crazier than the extremely extreme parties, but no, I don't believe most people would think you're "liberal" if they talked policy with you, but then that's an assumption going off how you tout guns and call Romney a liberal.
It's okay, I understand why you would think that, I didn't quote the post in which he said that, as it was actually a few posts down from his original post (the one I quoted).
I'd like to think of myself as pretty moderate, I agree with my liberal friends on a number of issues, such as gay marriage, abortion, and putting regulations on banks. I don't see how "touting guns" makes someone "radical" or "not moderate." Gun rights are, or at least should be, a non-partisan issue, just like the right to free speech is. There are plenty of liberals, socialists, and even communists who are gun owners and/or support gun rights.
I don't think you're "radical" for touting guns. I think you aren't liberal for calling gun control advocates "the worst lefties" and calling Romney a liberal when he isn't, but then again, I honestly don't know what Romney is at this point.
On October 26 2012 05:14 Defacer wrote: It's true that Obama is cooler than all of us, particularly you. But he was not raised a politician. He was raised in Hawaii, than South East Asia, than Hawaii again, by his absentee single mother and his grandparents. He went to college on student loans. He was not born and raised a politician. He was born, and he raised himself, and did a pretty good job.
No offense, Defacer, but this is pretty incorrect. Obama wrote in his books that he had learned to manipulate white people into liking him by being "a non-angry black man" and he also said that from a very young age he "chose the people he associated with carefully," as not to hurt his political "ambitions."
Additionally, Obama was far from being extremely poor like he wants people to believe, yes his father did abandon him, but his father was a man of great influence, wealth, and power in Kenya. Additionally, his step-father was a rather very successful businessman in Indonesia. Also from a young age, Frank Marshall Davis, a well-known communist, had raised Obama as his own and dare I say, indoctrinated him. In Obama's book he said he viewed Frank Marshall Davis as a "father figure" and Obama went on to mention him 22 separate times in his book.
It sounds to me like a man who was raised to be a politician.
I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand and told her not to worry, I wouldn’t do anything stupid. It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved—such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.
Barack Obama's father is generally recognized to have been an economist for the Kenyan government. Strangely enough, I am having trouble finding information online from the "mainstream media" that recognize this. You can however watch the documentary, 2016: Obama's America, which thoroughly covers Barack Hussein Obama Sr.'s life and job as an economist. Also, Wikipedia says he was an economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.
The quote you posted from the book doesn't include the words "non-angry black man," unless my reading skills have dramatically deteriorated. Don't put it in quotes if it's not actually something he said. "Well mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time" isn't the same as "non-angry black man."
On October 26 2012 05:14 Defacer wrote: It's true that Obama is cooler than all of us, particularly you. But he was not raised a politician. He was raised in Hawaii, than South East Asia, than Hawaii again, by his absentee single mother and his grandparents. He went to college on student loans. He was not born and raised a politician. He was born, and he raised himself, and did a pretty good job.
No offense, Defacer, but this is pretty incorrect. Obama wrote in his books that he had learned to manipulate white people into liking him by being "a non-angry black man" and he also said that from a very young age he "chose the people he associated with carefully," as not to hurt his political "ambitions."
Additionally, Obama was far from being extremely poor like he wants people to believe, yes his father did abandon him, but his father was a man of great influence, wealth, and power in Kenya. Additionally, his step-father was a rather very successful businessman in Indonesia. Also from a young age, Frank Marshall Davis, a well-known communist, had raised Obama as his own and dare I say, indoctrinated him. In Obama's book he said he viewed Frank Marshall Davis as a "father figure" and Obama went on to mention him 22 separate times in his book.
It sounds to me like a man who was raised to be a politician.
Sources for any of that?
It's a quote from his book: Dreams from my Father
I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand and told her not to worry, I wouldn’t do anything stupid. It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved—such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.
Barack Obama's father is generally recognized to have been an economist for the Kenyan government. Strangely enough, I am having trouble finding information online from the "mainstream media" that recognize this. You can however watch the documentary, 2016: Obama's America, which thoroughly covers Barack Hussein Obama Sr.'s life and job as an economist. Also, Wikipedia says he was an economist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr.
The quote you posted from the book doesn't include the words "non-angry black man," unless my reading skills have dramatically deteriorated. Don't put it in quotes if it's not actually something he said. "Well mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time" isn't the same as "non-angry black man."
Very well, sorry, I didn't remember what he wrote word-for-word, but knew it was something along those lines.
On October 26 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote: wow, CNN is blasting Obama's proposed budget right now. They just called him a hypocrite.
I heard something about that. Can you tell me what's being said exactly? I don't know the details.
They're saying his re-election budget is the exact same as his previous budget plan, almost word-for-word. Apparently the only thing that is different is Obama says he wants to change the tax code to remove "tax deductions" for companies that outsource jobs. However, Obama has been blasted for that as well, since the fact-checkers are saying that no such deduction exists.
So now it's politically damning to admit to considering consciously the way that you present yourself to the world?
edit: you think any black man who hadn't at some point in their life realized that it would be a good idea to take special pains to be a "non-angry black man" would ever become president? lol. You're already brandishing pitchforks because he was friends with "Marxists" and "feminists"
On October 25 2012 15:09 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
It's not at all true. I'm a Republican, but I think most people would consider me a liberal if they talked policy with me.
It's true. Once again people needa stop throwing out minority examples in an attempt to discredit a larger trend.
Where is your proof?
Now you're gonna make me go through my posts to find a graph I posted a long time ago... sigh.
I'm still waiting...
Your statement was incredibly ridiculous, Suoma, and it shows just how polarized the left has become, that they have resorted to calling anyone who disagrees with them "neo-Nazis" and equates opposition to abortion with an "ethnic cleansing."
Edit: I just read your other post, in which you said you were no longer even going to try to back up your statement.
Uh, he didn't use the words "neo-Nazis" or "ethnic cleansing" in his post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you quoted them. Unless you're saying the current far-right extremist parties worldwide are all neo-Nazis in favor of ethnic cleansing? Even then quotes are inappropriate.
I suggest you re-read what he posted. He said that the "American Republicans are further right than European/"global" extremist parties," so I asked him to clarify and he said he was referring to parties such as the BNP, National Front (France), and the NDP (Germany). These parties are effectively neo-Nazi parties, and according to him, "the Republican Party is just as, if not more, extreme as them."
Whoops, I didn't realize you guys were talking extremist extremist parties and not the significant conservative parties such as the U.K. Conservative Party or the German CDU (you know, parties that actually matter).
Yeah, Republicans are not crazier than the extremely extreme parties, but no, I don't believe most people would think you're "liberal" if they talked policy with you, but then that's an assumption going off how you tout guns and call Romney a liberal.
It's okay, I understand why you would think that, I didn't quote the post in which he said that, as it was actually a few posts down from his original post (the one I quoted).
I'd like to think of myself as pretty moderate, I agree with my liberal friends on a number of issues, such as gay marriage, abortion, and putting regulations on banks. I don't see how "touting guns" makes someone "radical" or "not moderate." Gun rights are, or at least should be, a non-partisan issue, just like the right to free speech is. There are plenty of liberals, socialists, and even communists who are gun owners and/or support gun rights.
I don't think you're "radical" for touting guns. I think you aren't liberal for calling gun control advocates "the worst lefties" and calling Romney a liberal when he isn't, but then again, I honestly don't know what Romney is at this point.
Fair enough, I was the first person here (to my knowledge) to have used that stereotype. I should have said "the worst human beings," since my statement implies that gun rights is a partisan issue. Though I suppose you can argue that it has become one, even though it shouldn't be.
EPT
