• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Acorn Video Scandal Emerges- Employee Asks For Sex

Most of this country has a law called "open carry". This means you can openly (not concealed) carry a gun anywhere you want to... it's perfectly legal.

For example, Oregon is an open carry state... you can pack a gun on your hip or over your shoulder almost anywhere in the State.

Here is a site that has the laws for each state: Concealed Firearm Permit Information By State

Legal yes but there's a time and a place. You have a right to drink but would you show up to your son's school drinking a bottle of whiskey? You're expressing your constitutional rights about something unrelated.
 
Democrats have been flaming law abiding citizens how carry a gun and speak out against the President's lies, all while defending child prostitution and promoting taxation without representation to "solve" a problem which has been proven not to exist.

Elections have consequences.
Elections do have consequences.... and the consequence of the last election could be the best thing that has happened to this country for a long time, the end of the liberal movement.... I think the vast majority of the people of this country now have their eyes wide open.

Well you and I may disagree on the issues of child prostitution, etc, at least we can agree on the importance of voting.
 
Legal yes but there's a time and a place. You have a right to drink but would you show up to your son's school drinking a bottle of whiskey? You're expressing your constitutional rights about something unrelated.

I have no right to show up in any public place with drink... not even beer, that is against the law in most states.... fail
 
They are protecting their interests at the expense of propriety and decency.


So no.

Politicians.:(

R, L, and D :(

But in this case, the D's are going to regret their vote in 2010 and 12
 
About carrying guns to town hall meetings...

The guy wasn't at a town hall meeting.

What exactly is the point of bringing a gun especially when one guy brought one within proximity to where the president was going to be.

Assuming carrying a gun in a government building were not a felony and someone actually did this, then I would say that the purpose of carrying a gun is not for you to even ask. How dare you assume you have a right to know.

One guy was arrested carrying a knife to the president's town hall meeting and had a loaded gun in his truck.

Where was his truck?

Defending child prostitution? Sounds like the ACORN employee was trying to find ways for the "ring" to hide their activities.

Right, exactly.

Also taxation without representation? I didn't know congress was dissolved.

Neither did I, when did this happen?
 
Ignorant white, poor and middle class voters who are not sophisticated enough to discern what issues are important to their livelyhoods and what issues are red herrings designed to distract them.
and I bet you think if anybody opposes Dear Leaders policies we must be Racist :roll:
 
I seem to remember someone asking how this ACORN scandal tied to President Obama. Well here's an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article published yesterday that covers some of those ties:

Mr. Obama took great pains to act as if he barely knew about Acorn. In fact, his association goes back almost 20 years. In 1991, he took time off from his law firm to run a voter-registration drive for Project Vote, an Acorn partner that was soon fully absorbed under the Acorn umbrella. The drive registered 135,000 voters and was considered a major factor in the upset victory of Democrat Carol Moseley Braun over incumbent Democratic Senator Alan Dixon in the 1992 Democratic Senate primary.

Mr. Obama's success made him a hot commodity on the community organizing circuit. He became a top trainer at Acorn's Chicago conferences. In 1995, he became Acorn's attorney, participating in a landmark case to force the state of Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter Law. That law's loose voter registration requirements would later be exploited by Acorn employees in an effort to flood voter rolls with fake names.

In 1996, Mr. Obama filled out a questionnaire listing key supporters for his campaign for the Illinois Senate. He put Acorn first (it was not an alphabetical list). In the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama became the leading critic of Voter ID laws, whose overturn was a top Acorn priority. In 2007, in a speech to Acorn's leaders prior to their political arm's endorsement of his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was effusive: "I've been fighting alongside of Acorn on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote in Illinois, Acorn was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."

But the Obama campaign didn't appear eager to discuss the candidate's ties to Acorn. Its press operation vividly denied Mr. Obama had been an Acorn trainer until the New York Times uncovered records demonstrating that he had been. The Obama campaign also gave Citizens Consulting, Inc., an Acorn subsidiary, $832,000 for get-out-the-vote activities in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting the filings after the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.

Hope that provides answers for some of you.

.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqN4NIEtOY"]YouTube - Obama: We are 5 days from FUNDAMENTALly transforming America[/ame]
 
The guy wasn't at a town hall meeting.

He was within the vacinity of where the president was going to be. Also his statements later on about how he thinks Obama should die. Again there's a time and a place.

Assuming carrying a gun in a government building were not a felony and someone actually did this, then I would say that the purpose of carrying a gun is not for you to even ask. How dare you assume you have a right to know.
What exactly is the point of bringing a gun to one of these events? Other than intimidation I don't see any need.

Where was his truck?

In a parking lot outside the event. The guy was scoping out the area and tried to see if he could get through with a knife. He got caught.

Neither did I, when did this happen?

You said taxation without representation. Unless congress is dissolved I'd say you're wrong about taxation without representation
 
He was within the vacinity of where the president was going to be.

That's fine, then say "He was within the vicinity of where the president was going to be". Saying he was "at the town hall meeting" is a lie and only shows the person reading your post that you are not to be taken seriously.

That said, there's nothing at all wrong with lawfully carrying a gun "within the vicinity" of any head of state as lawful gun owners are the LAST people to make an assassination attempt.

Also his statements later on about how he thinks Obama should die. Again there's a time and a place.

He made those comments in the right time and place to make those comments.

What exactly is the point of bringing a gun to one of these events?

You don't even have the right to ask that. If he's not braking a law, his carrying a gun is as much a privacy issue as a woman's abortion. No less.

Other than intimidation I don't see any need.

There is no reason to have a "need", so stop looking for one.

In a parking lot outside the event. The guy was scoping out the area and tried to see if he could get through with a knife. He got caught.

Right, because this guy is a nutcase.

You said taxation without representation. Unless congress is dissolved I'd say you're wrong about taxation without representation.

When representative are actively ignoring the people who elected them, there is no representation. When one party steams ahead with various tax laws simply because they have the votes to ignore the other half of the country, AND that other half of the country passionately opposes those tax laws, there is no representation.
 
Back
Top Bottom