Ummm not the same: it would be like discussing wether farming exists or not.
I meant all aspects of farming. Should the admins not discuss farming in any way because it's obvious that people can, have and will do it?
Same as debating wether such a move favours Obama for the elections or not. The answer is obvious... so why debate it? Its much better to debate something useful, as to how to prevent farming, or in this case, wether it is morally correct or not. Plus, the debate started with the argument that it was unconstitutional and would leave the citizenship unprotected, nothing involving Obama and his run for a second term.
If you thoroughly read Ducky's post, you would see that it said this idea wouldn't come into the picture anyway, because it wouldn't get passed as a bill.
got it right on the nose. learn how democracy works. you will find that the president has very little power, think of him more as a figurehead than a leader persay. its the houses (upper+lower) and the senate where the power is concentrated. every bill has to walk its fat, many worded, behind through the gauntlet that is politics. my response itself was general, i couldnt be stuffed analyzing all the posts so i replied moreso to the first post than any particular one after it. aka. that nra article.
I wonder if anyone will look back on the NRA and say "those guys were wacko!", or if we are all going to look back and think "damn...we should have listened to those guys!"?
Have a look at this article.
Time will tell...
if you go to the first page, read the first handful of replies, all of them are paranoid nubs who dont actually pay attention and fall for the rhetoric. obama was 'acting' as a good president that first term so he can unleash hell in his second term? sounds beyond ridiculous, it sounds *CENSORED*.
if obama must go, there must be reasons why him personally must go and why the replacer (currently looking like romney) will somehow make everything better. spewing slogans and shouting ad hominems gets you no where. is it because romney will now dump 5 trillion a year into the NRA in order to protect gun laws? or is it because romney is conservative and you feel much safer with a buffoon (his and santorum's gaffes during these republican nominations are hilarious). you dont need people to turn it into comedy. you have santorum on the record saying women shouldnt work and romney constantly failing to connect to middle america because he is oblivious to their needs and wants due to how rich he is. other campaigners are rich, but they do it subtly.
this is about politics. its all about what happens in 2016 (see thread subject) when APPARENTLY obama's opponents make another promise on his behalf which is to outlaw guns, introduce death camps and submit USA to netherlands because obama hates america or something.