Obama Supreme Court Nominee Has Anti-Gun Record

[hmbld]

The phrase "with an ounce of logic or common sense" is, I would say, impossible to prove has any truth in it.  Can we measure either logic or common sense by weighing them in ounces?  One can confirm or deny something without being condescending.  Scripture backs this up, but Joe has already shown you this.  Vendtre, disagreeing is fine, but insulting and calling it truth?  

[Vendtre]

1 minute ago, hmbld said:

The phrase "with an ounce of logic or common sense" is, I would say, impossible to prove has any truth in it.  Can we measure either logic or common sense by weighing them in ounces?  One can confirm or deny something without being condescending.  Scripture backs this up, but Joe has already shown you this.  Vendtre, disagreeing is fine, but insulting and calling it truth?  

It is what is known as an "expression"

or a "figure of speech".  

http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/figuresterms.htm

I consider being accused of supporting the DNC an insul, but nobody has a problem with those sorts of things.  Seems a double standard is at play here 

[hmbld]

1 minute ago, Vendtre said:

It is what is known as an "expression"

or a "figure of speech".  

http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/figuresterms.htm

I consider being accused of supporting the DNC an insul, but nobody has a problem with those sorts of things.  Seems a double standard is at play here 

A figure of speech as an insult.  By all news accounts I have read, Garland is counted as anti-gun rights and Obama made it known his goal for this year is to make a change in gun rights.  To which you respond by calling it hysteria, so your words in this thread and others do lead me to think you are more inclined to support the DNC, which is not an insult.  

[Vendtre]

1 minute ago, hmbld said:

A figure of speech as an insult.  By all news accounts I have read, Garland is counted as anti-gun rights and Obama made it known his goal for this year is to make a change in gun rights.  To which you respond by calling it hysteria, so your words in this thread and others do lead me to think you are more inclined to support the DNC, which is not an insult.  

You make two mistakes here.

1.  All the news accounts are using the same reason for saying he is anti-gun rights.  One case that all he did was agree to a review by the full bench.  He has been a judge for decades and that is all that they have.  That should tell you something.  I also understand the workings of the higher levels of our judicial branch and I know that supporting review denotes neither support or opposition to the ruling.  

2. You assume because I do not support the GOP I must support the DNC.  Most of the left dislike Garland as much as you folks on the right.  My views on gun laws are pretty much right between the far right and the far left.   I am not a Republican not a Democrat, I am neither a liberal not a conservative.  I have beliefs that would fall under both labels, which is the problem with them.  Most people of my generation are that way, we do not fit into the boxes of our parents or grandparents. 

 

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:

There it is again.

I dont know why you even waste your time arguing with him. hes your classic troll, just here to stir up trouble. I have a feeling if the majority of this board was sanders fans, hed be pushing trump on us.

[hmbld]

1 minute ago, Vendtre said:

You make two mistakes here.

1.  All the news accounts are using the same reason for saying he is anti-gun rights.  One case that all he did was agree to a review by the full bench.  He has been a judge for decades and that is all that they have.  That should tell you something.  I also understand the workings of the higher levels of our judicial branch and I know that supporting review denotes neither support or opposition to the ruling.  

2. You assume because I do not support the GOP I must support the DNC.  Most of the left dislike Garland as much as you folks on the right.  My views on gun laws are pretty much right between the far right and the far left.   I am not a Republican not a Democrat, I am neither a liberal not a conservative.  I have beliefs that would fall under both labels, which is the problem with them.  Most people of my generation are that way, we do not fit into the boxes of our parents or grandparents. 

 

1.  I don't think Obama is stupid, he has caused enough intention damage to be stupid.  His priority is gun control, and news from many sources label Garland as against gun rights.  Am I mistaken?  Possibly.

2.  I read your words, and you may feel like you don't fit in any box, but the truth is, we all do.  We believe what we believe and it shows in our words.  Luke 6:46  A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Am I mistaken?  Possibly.  You have the chance to prove me wrong with your words, and if you need to resort to insulting as you have in the past, it only works against you.  

[Vendtre]

40 minutes ago, hmbld said:

1.  I don't think Obama is stupid, he has caused enough intention damage to be stupid.  His priority is gun control, and news from many sources label Garland as against gun rights.  Am I mistaken?  Possibly.

2.  I read your words, and you may feel like you don't fit in any box, but the truth is, we all do.  We believe what we believe and it shows in our words.  Luke 6:46  A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Am I mistaken?  Possibly.  You have the chance to prove me wrong with your words, and if you need to resort to insulting as you have in the past, it only works against you.  

1.  Did all the "many" sources use the same reason that he was anti-gun.

2.  True we all fit in a box, some of us just don't fit in the cookie cutter boxes most people try and use. With the exception of abortion my views on things tend to be a conglomeration of the views of both liberals and conservatives.  Setting aside abortion for which I am very conservative, none of my views are either liberal nor conservative on any other issues, they are a mix of both worlds.

and I hate being lumped into either camp, which is why I get so defensive when people do that to me.  

[hmbld]

1.  Ok, I'll admit I may have been heavily influenced by hearing something on the news that Garland was anti-gun rights.  Then I read several articles stating the same.  Now after reading what I could find stating facts about Garland, there really is little to form an opinion on his stance.  I'm even beginning to think Obama may have calculated in the fact that the establishment was going to block his nomination anyway, and this may contribute to more disintegration of the Republican party.  I am getting tired of news not reporting, but trying to influence everyones opinion.    I think I'll count this one as you made a great point and I was wrong.

2.  Fair enough.  I don't know if anyone actually fits entirely in one box!

[Vendtre]

5 minutes ago, hmbld said:

1.  Ok, I'll admit I may have been heavily influenced by hearing something on the news that Garland was anti-gun rights.  Then I read several articles stating the same.  Now after reading what I could find stating facts about Garland, there really is little to form an opinion on his stance.  I'm even beginning to think Obama may have calculated in the fact that the establishment was going to block his nomination anyway, and this may contribute to more disintegration of the Republican party.  I am getting tired of news not reporting, but trying to influence everyones opinion.    I think I'll count this one as you made a great point and I was wrong.

2.  Fair enough.  I don't know if anyone actually fits entirely in one box!

I think it was a calculated can't lose move by Obama.  If he is confirmed it is a win, if he is not Obama can use it against the GOP.  Also the GOP has to factor in how sure they are they will win in November , this guy is way better than anyone Hillary would nominate. 

[other one]

51 minutes ago, Vendtre said:

I think it was a calculated can't lose move by Obama.  If he is confirmed it is a win, if he is not Obama can use it against the GOP.  Also the GOP has to factor in how sure they are they will win in November , this guy is way better than anyone Hillary would nominate. 

whoever they nominate, they don't have to confirm....   she's not going to get anyone any better.