Yep, politicians are like that. Hence the popularity of Trump. Well, come to think of it, he's been caught changing his position on things too. But unlike these others, he may be financially above the lobbying and special interest pressures of Washington.
Again, SS diverts from the point by claiming someone else is doing the same thing. It's not the same thing and SS refuses to state what he thinks about Rubio's obvious hypocritical statements. Gun rights for felons YES, voting rights for felons NO. A typical Republican goal, to squelch voting rights whenever possible.
I'm not diverting at all Anon. Mike was showing a republican candidate who, in my opinion is as you said being hypocritical in regards to felons regaining their civil rights. Ms. Clinton's stance on sanctuary cities is very similar in that when it was convientant, she publicly supported the sanctuary movement, which is a de facto refusal to enforce laws by subordinate governments. Now that a very public murder has been committed by someone who should have been sitting in jail waiting to be picked up by ICE, but wasn't, all of these politicians who used to support the sanctuary movement are jumping through hoops to distance themselves while hoping g no one remembers their previous position. As for my personal stance on the rights of felons, when I was growing up, losing your rights when convicted of a felony was a forever thing barring a pardon. That was supposed to be something to make people think about the long term consequences of a felony conviction. My belief is that after you've paid your dues, you get your rights back, every single one of them. This includes those convicted of domestic violence and therefor become prohibited persons under the Lautenberg Act. You do your time, finish out your sentence, and you are a full up citizen again. Though if you repeat the offense again, the punishment goes up, as is normal in our criminal justice system. My position supports all rights for everyone.
Wrong SS. Your position does not support the right of innocent citizens, to not be killed by crazy, kill happy, gun loons. Now back to your job, which is to train people how to kill.
"Now back to your job, which is to train people how to kill."
Anon, you say that like its a bad thing. Especially since I do it as a service to my country and ultimately under the authority of the Commander in Chief.
YOU LOVE TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO KILL. No service to my country. If Bush wants to kill 100's of thousands based on a lie, it's nice to know we have killers like you to do his illegal killing.
Thank God he isn't, but that doesn't change the fact of your job, just changes the fact that we have a president you hate. Nice shot at diverting the point again, but you failed again and proved my point. Thanks.
Anon, my personal opinion of him doesn't change the fact that he is the Commander in Chief. That sort of goes with the job in the military. I've served under four Presidents. Ford, Carter, W. Bush when I was deployed, and our current President. The rest of my time has been serving under various Governors of my state. And after all, I'm supposedly a part of the group that most pro gun control folk seem willing to possess arms.
Anon, I love training soldiers. Its honorable work and I'm fairly good at it. After I retire, my hope is to be able to train citizens in the shooting sports to include becoming a certified carry permit instructor. Just trying to stick with what I'm good at.
Yes SS, you are mentally deranged, you love teaching people how to kill, and you support any illegal reason that allows your trainees to kill. Do you keep track of every kill your trainees get? I can just see the wall filling chart in your office marking every kill your trainees get.
The poster boy for kill crazy gun loons.
ReplyDeleteLucy!
ReplyDeleteAlegre Conga!
Hahaha
DeleteHillary is making similar gyrations regarding her previous support for sanctuary cities.
ReplyDeleteYep, politicians are like that. Hence the popularity of Trump. Well, come to think of it, he's been caught changing his position on things too. But unlike these others, he may be financially above the lobbying and special interest pressures of Washington.
DeleteAgain, SS diverts from the point by claiming someone else is doing the same thing. It's not the same thing and SS refuses to state what he thinks about Rubio's obvious hypocritical statements. Gun rights for felons YES, voting rights for felons NO. A typical Republican goal, to squelch voting rights whenever possible.
DeleteI'm not diverting at all Anon. Mike was showing a republican candidate who, in my opinion is as you said being hypocritical in regards to felons regaining their civil rights.
DeleteMs. Clinton's stance on sanctuary cities is very similar in that when it was convientant, she publicly supported the sanctuary movement, which is a de facto refusal to enforce laws by subordinate governments. Now that a very public murder has been committed by someone who should have been sitting in jail waiting to be picked up by ICE, but wasn't, all of these politicians who used to support the sanctuary movement are jumping through hoops to distance themselves while hoping g no one remembers their previous position.
As for my personal stance on the rights of felons, when I was growing up, losing your rights when convicted of a felony was a forever thing barring a pardon. That was supposed to be something to make people
think about the long term consequences of a felony conviction. My belief is that after you've paid your dues, you get your rights back, every single one of them. This includes those convicted of domestic violence and therefor become prohibited persons under the Lautenberg Act.
You do your time, finish out your sentence, and you are a full up citizen again. Though if you repeat the offense again, the punishment goes up, as is normal in our criminal justice system. My position supports all rights for everyone.
The comparison is dishonest, one isn't the same as the other, which you know and you use this dishonest diversion tactic all the time.
DeleteWrong SS. Your position does not support the right of innocent citizens, to not be killed by crazy, kill happy, gun loons. Now back to your job, which is to train people how to kill.
Delete"Now back to your job, which is to train people how to kill."
DeleteAnon, you say that like its a bad thing. Especially since I do it as a service to my country and ultimately under the authority of the Commander in Chief.
YOU LOVE TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO KILL.
DeleteNo service to my country. If Bush wants to kill 100's of thousands based on a lie, it's nice to know we have killers like you to do his illegal killing.
Anon, you have noticed that Bush isn't President anymore, right? Did you not get the memo? I did.
DeleteThank God he isn't, but that doesn't change the fact of your job, just changes the fact that we have a president you hate. Nice shot at diverting the point again, but you failed again and proved my point. Thanks.
DeleteAnon, my personal opinion of him doesn't change the fact that he is the Commander in Chief. That sort of goes with the job in the military. I've served under four Presidents. Ford, Carter, W. Bush when I was deployed, and our current President. The rest of my time has been serving under various Governors of my state.
DeleteAnd after all, I'm supposedly a part of the group that most pro gun control folk seem willing to possess arms.
"YOU LOVE TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO KILL."
DeleteAnon, I love training soldiers. Its honorable work and I'm fairly good at it. After I retire, my hope is to be able to train citizens in the shooting sports to include becoming a certified carry permit instructor.
Just trying to stick with what I'm good at.
Yes SS, you are mentally deranged, you love teaching people how to kill, and you support any illegal reason that allows your trainees to kill. Do you keep track of every kill your trainees get? I can just see the wall filling chart in your office marking every kill your trainees get.
Delete