THIS is the NRA.......

[Logical]

Ted Nugent For Mitt Romney: Rocker Stumps For GOP Candidate At NRA Convention

LOL....and the NRA seems like a unbiased organization to many here!

[Lint Head]

1. Killing is a profitable business. Threats to kill politicians is apparently good advertising.

[HALO141]

4. Huh. I saw no such threat.

[bongbong]

5. Really?

You should take the NRA-wax out of your ears.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Really???

You must be mistaken; it's all right there in Federalist #29.

[Lint Head]

12. If someone said they would chop your head off then go to jail and, by the way, suck

on an automatic weapon's barrel would you consider that a threat? I would. That is what Nugent the coward said about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He also crapped his pants to get out of the military, so yes, he is probably to cowardly to actually kill anything other than a naive animal.

[HALO141]

76. It depends, really, on my perception of whether or not

said threat was credible. The Nuge is a loudmouth but I think he does serve a purpose. I think the prohibition of firearms (be they long guns or handguns) is extreme and unacceptable but as long as there are people out there espousing such ideas I want there to be another group out there expressing equally extreme and unacceptable, yet diametrically opposed, ideas. It helps to keep the overton window centered.

[Lint Head]

77. Please specifically name the politician along with what they said who is prohibiting firearms.

I hear this deception all the time and the people doing the deceiving are never able come up with a specific person who wants to end guns rights in this country. It is fear mongering. Nugent is a coward that deserves to be shunned. I can specifically name gun nuts who have blown the heads off of innocent people. Zimmerman is just one. There is regulation and gun laws today and they need to stay in place. Gun laws have been loosened under Obama. We can now carry guns in national parks which was past under Obama and there is more. I have presented specifics.

[HALO141]

81. If you won't trouble yourself to address what I really said

then my discourse with you is at an end.

[Lint Head]

82. What I "really" said is obviously being ignored so I will end the converstion here.

There was a "credible threat". Otherwise the Secret Service would never have investigated it. The Secret Service obviously scared Nugent into crapping his pants one more time because a threat from a coward like Ted Nugent can be easily determined as not credible. Your original comment was related to Nugent being a "credible threat". I troubled myself to answer you with specifics.

[HALO141]

83. That doesn't even make sense.

You changed my statement then challenged me to defend it. Clearly, you're not interested in an honest debate.

[Lint Head]

84. I thought you were done. End it here please by not responding.

[HALO141]

85. Why, so you can have the last word? P'shaw.

[Lint Head]

86. Yep!

[otohara]

40. Dateline, 48 Hours

depend on murders.

Cue up Keith Morrison:

It can't happen here, no one saw it coming, he was an amazing father, loving husband, money problems, life insurance, affairs, custody battles and in the end, the responsible gun owner decided murder was a better option than divorce.

I expect to see the story of my neighbors son who was killed by her ex and then they were robbed while dead, by passersby. It has all the elements needed for NBC or CBS to do a story, maybe even a two-parter

[sharp_stick]

2. The NRA has been nothing but

a fundraising arm of the NRC for decades. The scumbags still call me begging for my return and I dumped them back in 1998.

[Logical]

3. I agree! Wish there was a non-right wing pro gun group

[Cirque du So-What]

6. Excellent idea

The lickspittle fawning over RW politicos is truly disgusting and highly inappropriate on an ostensibly 'democratic' board.

[eqfan592]

9. They exist, they just aren't very big right now.

2nd Amendment Democrats is one I know of.

Tho I can't seem to find their website anymore....

[iverglas]

61. yeah, funny how there isn't, isn't it?

One might even think it's kinda like how there isn't a non-right wing pro-war group ... just for starters ...

[rl6214]

8. But I thought THIS was the NRA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=30516

[Logical]

21. Once again, no slam of the NRA, but mad I slammed them!

[rl6214]

27. Don't know what you're going on about here,

all I did was point out that you posted the same title TWICE about the NRA and was wondering which one is the REAL NRA?

Also please show me where I am "MAD" that you slammed them.

I'll wait...

On edit: Why didn't you jump on post #13 where he posted the same thing..."I thought this was the NRA"

[rl6214]

10. According to the Ed Show

Video has been removed from NRA website AND

According to the Secret Service the issue has been resolved.

[ellisonz]

13. I thought this was the NRA:

[gejohnston]

14. thank you for proving my point

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=32867

[ellisonz]

15. There's some statistical truth to the portrayal.

You don't have to like it for it to be true. I say that as the son of a Missoura man who hunted and ate squirrels as a boy.

[gejohnston]

16. even if there was

so what? I think you kind of missed the point. The NRA has a lot of 99 percent. The VPC and Brady have a couple of billionaires and a foundation or two. The NRA has more Democrats (and Dem leaning independents) than the other two has in combined membership.

[ellisonz]

17. So you're admitting...

...that the caricature isn't totally off base and now want to change the subject. Honestly, the gun nut culture is cult like in their worship of their totems. Might does not make right and you well know that there is a lot of opposition to the gun nut culture, so basically: whatever

[beevul]

18. I can see how you draw your conclusions...

I can see how you draw your conclusions, though none of them are accurate.

"Honestly, the gun nut culture is cult like in their worship of their totems."

I can certainly see how you'd draw that conclusion, for example. How you fail in drawing it, however, is this:

"Gun nut culture". You have completely misidentified us. "Gun nut culture", is made up of LOTS of different people from all over the spectrum. Carriers and non-carriers. Target shooters, enthusiasts, collectors, and even people like me who haven't bought a gun in ten-ish years or more.

Yes, within that group there are likely some who "worship" guns, however, they'd be a small minority. What we all have in common, is resisting efforts to curtainl gun rights to a ridiculous degree, AND resisting resisting the ideology that goes hand in hand with such things.

I'd dare say, that what you mistake for "worship", is something you extrapolate from how much resistance you meet.

And thats where you err.


"Might does not make right and you well know that there is a lot of opposition to the gun nut culture, so basically: whatever"

Without a doubt. I think you said more than you realize, or probably wanted to. Of course, anti-gun ideologues oppose "the gun culture". It is what stands in the way of them getting what they want. The "assault weapon ban, for example, had nothing to do with the actual weapons, and everything to do with attacking the "gun culture".

As far as "might not making right"...

You infer that the anti-gun cause is right...

Well, I dont see any "right makes might, going on with that, either.

Just three moms and a pizza, a few foundations, and a few 1%ers and their sycophants.

[rl6214]

28. Well said

[prefunk]

75. Awesome post!

Well said.

[gejohnston]

19. no,

it shows the underlining classism. Like I said in your seven questions, it is more of a cover for higher income urban and suburbanites (right and left) to be respectable bigots towards working class and rural. You can see that in the two movements. Ever been to a Brady Campaign function? A couple of celebrities (right wingers like Rambo Stallone, Don Trump,and maybe a progressive someplace but all one percent) wearing tuxedos. Go to a gun rights function, most or all are 99 percent.

Honestly, the gun nut culture is cult like in their worship of their totems.

In my experience, that is more like the drug culture than the gun culture. That is one reason why I don't really like the drug culture that much.

There actually is little opposition. We have the grassroots, you have a couple of billionaires and a corporate foundation or two.

In this thread, probably the longest in DU history, posters are ranting about Ms. Moody being an innocent victim of drunken rednecks, who must have some undisclosed criminal records. Never mind that there is no mention of drinking by the adults. Never mind that her and her friends were committing a felony.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117231712
Would the posters that describe the girl as "innocent" if she lived in a trailer park and wore camo? No.
But since she is a high school athlete and from a middle or upper middle income household, she must be an innocent bystander.

[ellisonz]

20. Talk about stereotyping...

You just attacked stereotyping and then stereotyped the heck out of gun control proponents.

Also at least our celebrities aren't TED NUGENT!

Also, that's not even close to the longest thread in DU history. This is the longest thread in DU history:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=8358611&mesg_id=8358611

Enjoy.

[gejohnston]

22. Notice I said as a rule

and that really didn't refute anything. I made no reference to race, only economics and culture.
Yeah we have Ted Nugent, if you want to call that a celebrity. But the NRA still does not have the felony conviction rate of MAIG.

[iverglas]

62. "Go to a gun rights function, most or all are 99 percent."

They're also all fucking right-wing assholes. What is your point?

The 99 percent are also the ones who hold up gas stations, beat their wives and kids and drive drunk. Given that they are the 99 percent, they do pretty much everything under the sun.

So some of them are asshole gun militants. So the fuck what?

[gejohnston]

65. and the 1 percenters at Brady functions

are also breaking unions
making violent movies, making money off of it
make fraudulent home loans
run "health care" insurance companies
run polluting industries
run cosmetics companies who test products on live animals
buy drugs from Mexican cartels
and don't forget the occasional war profiteer.
who want stricter gun laws, but carry concealed in NYC plus have armed body guards
so WTF was your point?

[iverglas]

66. the fixation in this place with the Brady organization

is beyond belief.

Poll after survey after poll shows that a majority of people in the US does N*O*T support the gun militant agenda.

So they don't go marching in the streets about it. Most people don't march in the streets about anything. Most people don't know what the gun militant agenda is. It's not like anybody has ever sat them down and explained how allowing sales at gun shows without background checks in Ohio could be dangerous to their own health. It's not like the gun militant agenda is getting their homes foreclosed or keeping them away from the doctor when they're sick.

Oh, well, of course ... it is. Because the gun militant agenda involves electing right-wing scum at every level of government.

A load of people subscribe to the NRA's bumph and wear its ballcaps because it's the cool thing to do in their milieu. They know no more about firearms legislation and policy than they do about banking regulations. They're the "culture war" guys.


If you're going to start listing questionable élites that support an organization, you're going to decimate the donor base of the Democratic Party before long, I fear.

[gejohnston]

67. so?

What polls are those? The ones that show support for current laws by everyone including "gun militants"?
You are talking about private sales. They don't have to take place at a gun show. If an FFL is selling at a gun show anywhere, background checks are done.

More like right wing scum using RKBA for their own purposes, as a wedge issue.

If you're going to start listing questionable élites that support an organization, you're going to decimate the donor base of the Democratic Party before long, I fear.

Some give to both parties to hedge their bets.

[Upton]

23. This is the NRA too..

a list of some of the Democrats endorsed by the NRA in 2010..

AL-2: Bobby Bright
AR-4: Mike Ross
Ca-18: Dennis Cardoza
CO-3: John Salazar
CO-4: Betsy Markey
FL-2: Allen Boyd
Ga-2: Sanford Bishop
Ga-8: Jim Marshall
Ga-12: John Barrow
IA-3: Leonard Boswell
IL-11: Debbie Halvorson
IL-12: Jerry Costello
IN-Senate-Brad Ellsworth
IN-2: Joe Donnely
IN-8: Trent Van Haaften
IN-9: Baron Hill
KY-6: Ben Chandler
MD-1: Frank Kratovil
MI-1: Gary McDowell
MN-1: Tim Walz
MS-1: Travis Childers
MS-4: Gene Taylor
MO-4: Ike Skelton
NC-7: Mike McIntyre
NC-8: Larry Kissell
NC-11: Heath Shuler
ND-At Large: Earl Pomeroy
NM-1: Martin Heinrich
NM-2: Harry Teague
NM-3: Ben Lujan
NY-20: Scott Murphy
NY-23: Bill Owens
NY-24: Mike Acruri
OH-Gov. Ted Strickland
OH-6: Charlie Wilson
OH-16: John Boccieri
OH-18: Zack Space
OK-2: Dan Boren
OR-5: Kurt Schrader
PA-4: Jason Altmire
PA-10: Chris Carney
PA-11: Paul Kanjorski
PA-12: Mark Critz
PA-17: Tim Holden
SD-At Large: Stephanie Sandlin
TN-4: Lincoln Davis
TN-8: Roy Herron
TX-17: Chet Edwards
UT-2: Jim Matheson
VA-2: Glenn Nye
VA-5: Tom Perriello
VA-9: Rick Boucher
WI-3: Ron Kind
WI-8: Steve Kagen
WV-Senate: Joe Manchin
WV-3: Nick Rahall

[Logical]

24. Another NRA defender on the DU, amazing. Get back to me....

With the 2008 and 2010 independent expenditures and try to spin that for us!

[PavePusher]

25. Stating a fact =/= "defender". n/t

[Logical]

26. LOL....sure it doesn't. I will post some info about how some of Fox news stories are accurate also!

[PavePusher]

30. On rare occasions, they are.

Doesn't mean I watch them, waiting for those occasions, or defend them, based only on those occasions.

[Logical]

31. You are trying to counter the bad of the NRA. Just admit it and lets quit pretending you were just..

posting facts.

Fox News is an arm of the GOP. Just like the NRA. No real dem defends Fox news here and no real dem defends the NRA either.

[PavePusher]

32. Firstly....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Secondly, who's defending whom? Where? When?

[Logical]

33. LOL....like I said. FOX News = NRA. Defend them if you want. I admire your progressiveness.

[PavePusher]

34. Your name seems to have been chosen... poorly. n/t

[Logical]

35. You calling me illogical is a compliment. Like I said, Fox News = NRA. No argument from you?

[AH1Apache]

42. And just who the fuck are you to determine who is a real Dem here?

[Logical]

43. It is not that difficult. Sorry it is hard for you!

[Logical]

46. No, somethings make a good dem. Some make a troll dem. Some make a half ass dem. Some make a fake...

dem.

You seem to like to cuss to make your point.

[Logical]

48. Calm down. You are way too emotional. How are you truing to change it from within? If you....

are trying it like you are talking to me it might not work. You seem hostile and angry.

Wow, you seem like an angry man.

[AH1Apache]

49. I am only angry at those that say just because some of us belong to the NRA,

we're not good Dems. I say bullshit, the NRA has endorsed many Dems, I don't agree with their message about Obama, or their choice of speakers, but at least I'm trying to change things from within. Once again, you don't get to determine who is or who isn't a good Dem.
I also belong to the NRA because they are an effective org. at protecting our 2A rights like no other Org.

[Logical]

50. A supporter of the NRA is not a good dem.......

If you hate the NRA but are just a member to secretly change them then good for you. Not sure how you are doing it. Writing their idiot president Wayne LaPierre? How are you doing it?

There is NOTHING liberal or progressive about that organization.

80% of their members are right wing nuts. Their speakers are the worse of the worse of the GOP right wing. Every single year.

The spent $15 million dollars to defeat Obama in 2008!

The NRA = Fox news. No different!

[iverglas]

73. the Malicious Intruder Removal Team is who is!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=282593&sub=trans

I'd say adieu, but I should probably say au revoir ...

[rl6214]

29. Typical of that poster

Likes to accuse people of things he has no evidence of.

[Logical]

36. RL, what is your opinion of the NRA? Right wing group or not?

[rl6214]

37. The NRA contributes to both Rep and Dem candidates.

They do go over the top with some of their fear mongering. Pres Obama's stance on gun control in the past has been reason for concern but he has not given them reason for concern so far during his presidency and until he does they should not be running the crap that they do.

"Right wing group of not?"

They contribute more money towards Rep candidates but you have to admit that it has only been recently that there have been more Dem candidates willing to stand up for gun rights. In the past it was only the Reps and that has always been disturbing.

I do not demonize the entire organization but I also do not provide and support to them, financially or otherwise.

[Logical]

38. See, that is a little hard to accept.....

Look at the speakers last week. Look at Ted Nugent. Look at the board of directors which are most ex-GOP supporters or lobbyists.

I have a hard time believing anyone can really spend 2 hours researching the NRA and not see they are a wing of the GOP.

[Simo 1939_1940]

39. Why is it hard to accept when the list of Dems that the NRA supports

has been posted over and over again in this forum?

Willful blindness, perhaps?

[rl6214]

41. What is so hard to accept?

Did you see my post on nugget? My words:

Nugent is a peice of shit and his music sucks too. You have a problem with that? As far as them being a wing of the GOP I don't get into conspiracy theories. Many say that MSNBC is a wing of the Dem party but I don't believe that either. Lean left, most definately but not an arm of any party.

[Logical]

44. Comparing MSNBC to the NRA? Really?

MSNBC has a show hosted my a major republican. 3 hours in the morning. A major time slot. Joe constantly discusses how the DEMS are wrong and in error. Slams dems many times.

Show me ONE major dem, like Obama or Pelosi or Frankin or Maddow that the NRA has let take center stage at their national meeting. Or any NRA event.

Really really really weak comparison. LOL.

[rl6214]

52. Look at the evening lineup:

You have Chris Mathews, Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence ODonnell.

Now you look at Fox News and they used to have Alan Colmes in the evening, now they have Bob Beckell. You really think that balances them out and makes them "fair and balanced"?

I can't show you any dems the NRA has had speaking at their convention but you have been shown time and time again how many they have supported financially because they were pro gun rights.

So I suppose you are willing to say that the Republican party openly gives money to Democrat candidates just for grins and giggles. Why exactly is that?

Really weak comparison? Not if you look at it with open eyes and don't subscribe to every conspiracy theory.

[Logical]

53. You really have nothing. So who is the Morning Joe of the NRA? This answer will crack me up.

[rl6214]

54. I don't know who or what "morning joe" is.

As asked in post 39
Simo 1939_1940 (489 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

39. Why is it hard to accept when the list of Dems that the NRA supports


has been posted over and over again in this forum?

Willful blindness, perhaps?




Care to address all of the Democrats that recieve funds and are rated highly by the NRA? I don't care who they have speak at their conventions cuz I'm never gonna go. I do care that they are supporting the candidates with the D by their names because they are standing up for our RKBA. That is what should matter in their endorsements.

Glossed right over this, care to give it a try again:

So I suppose you are willing to say that the Republican party openly gives money to Democrat candidates just for grins and giggles. Why exactly is that?

"This answer will crack me up."

Again being snarky, that's all you've got, that and conspiracy theories.

[Logical]

55. You REALLY want me to posat numbers of NRA support for and against Dems? You think.....

I guess you can just post lots of text with no facts and make your point.

I have never seen anyone dem try to defend the NRA right wing stance like you.

Please ask me to post the money numbers from 2008. Or try yourself to look in Open Secrets. And look at al lthe numbers. You seems like the "cherry picking" type.

[rl6214]

57. As I have posted in the past, please link to anything I have posted that

proves your assertion that I defend the NRA. Anything, you haven't been able to yet, yet you accuse me of it constantly.

What are you doing to oppose the NRA, beside whining about it on the internet of course.

"You seems like the "cherry picking" type. " Just more accusations:

NRA backs Democrats in key races, frustrating GOP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100603363.html

Open Secrets:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

Looks to me like in the house the funds are pretty much equal including a greater amount given to dem candidates since 2006-2012 but in the senate the reps recieve much more than the dems. How do you explain the equality in the spending in the house and the greater amount given to dem candidates since 2006?

Explain that cherry picking to me.

[Logical]

59. LOL....See, you did Cherry Pick.....

You left off Independent Expenditures on purpose because it makes your NRA look like the right wing nuts they are. I knew you would.

"Explain that cherry picking to me." Sure I will!! Do I need to do the math for you? Percents to Republicans vs. Democrats. At this point you are just looking silly. I can't wait for the next list of excuses. Actually, give me the percents. I would love to see you admit it.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indexpend.php?cmte=C00053553&cycle=2008&txt=

NRA Independent Expenditures, 2008
Grand Total: $17,938,707
Total For Democrats: $188,370
Total Against Democrats: $13,620,549
Total For Republicans: $4,129,788
Total Against Republicans: $0

NRA Independent Expenditures, 2010
Grand Total: $7,263,028
Total For Democrats: $167,552
Total Against Democrats: $1,998,730
Total For Republicans: $5,056,131
Total Against Republicans: $35,834

NRA Independent Expenditures, 2012
Grand Total: $353,227
Total For Democrats: $7,911
Total Against Democrats: $3,700
Total For Republicans: $277,324
Total Against Republicans: $64,292

[iverglas]

63. pretty funny, isn't it?

I've been posting the numbers like that for years.

And some of them think they can still copy off a few names of Democrats nobody has ever heard of (often not even at the federal level) and make like the NRA is all non-partisan and all.

It would be funnier if it weren't so boring.

The great big one that counts is kinda the presidential one. And it's not like the NRA just doesn't give any money to the Democratic side in that one, it's the lying and foaming at the mouth they do do to defeat the Democrat, every time.

[Logical]

64. Yes, they spend $15 million in 2008 to defeat Obama and they still defend the NRA as bipartisan.

[rl6214]

69. I NEVER said they were non-partisan

I just dispute his claim that they are a wing of the GOP. I want him to answer why an arm of the GOP would contribute to ANY Democrat running for ANY office. Care to take a shot at it.

[iverglas]

74. "Care to take a shot at it"?

I have, repeatedly, in this very forum.

I've looked at various individual races. In some cases, it was clearly a case of the NRA knowing which side its bread was buttered on: things being relatively equal from its perspective between two candidates, why back a losing horse? Give a good rating and maybe a little bit of money to the Democrat who is obviously going to win, get some potential influence ... and people get to come to DU and carry on about how the NRA gives money to Democrats.

I've also looked at NRA-endorsed candidates and crosstabulated their other endorsements, comparatively with candidates given bad ratings by the NRA. There is a close to perfect correlation between NRA endorsement and anti-choice organization endorsement, and low NRA ratings and pro-choice organization endorsement. Huh. One would almost think that the one was a proxy for "right-wing" and the other a proxy for, well, "not right-wing".

For pity's sake, everybody knows there are Democratic politicians who are farther to the right than numerous Republican politicians. There is no party discipline in the US, and the selection of candidates is not subject to any real party control.

Where I'm at, candidates in each constituency are nominated by the local constituency association, with only paid-up members of the party doing the voting. The federal or provincial party then has to approve the candidacy. Once in Parliament, an MP is required to vote with the party unless a free vote is allowed (on matters of "conscience", which historically comes down to capital punishment, abortion and same-sex marriage, that I can think of). An NDP MP voted against the Liberals' same-sex marriage legislation (as did numerous Liberals and most Conservatives) a few years ago. Unfortunately, she wasn't booted from caucus, but she did lose the local nomination in the next election, and as I recall the party would not have allowed her to run under the NDP banner if she had won it. (Once she lost it, she resigned from caucus and sat as an independent until the next election.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev_Desjarlais#Policy_views

In the US, without any really clear political platform that candidates and members of Congress are required to adhere to, and without any party discipline in Congress, you get what you get. Which includes opportunists using the party name, and opportunists endorsing people running under the party banner.

[rl6214]

79. So, something we agree upon

"I've looked at various individual races. In some cases, it was clearly a case of the NRA knowing which side its bread was buttered on"

Something we agree upon, they are a one trick pony and will support whomever will help them the most.

"Where I'm at, candidates in each constituency are nominated by the local constituency association, with only paid-up members of the party doing the voting. The federal or provincial party then has to approve the candidacy. Once in Parliament, an MP is required to vote with the party unless a free vote is allowed (on matters of "conscience", which historically comes down to capital punishment, abortion and same-sex marriage, that I can think of). An NDP MP voted against the Liberals' same-sex marriage legislation (as did numerous Liberals and most Conservatives) a few years ago. Unfortunately, she wasn't booted from caucus, but she did lose the local nomination in the next election, and as I recall the party would not have allowed her to run under the NDP banner if she had won it. (Once she lost it, she resigned from caucus and sat as an independent until the next election.)"

So tow the party line or you're gone? Dosen't seem entirely fair.

"In the US, without any really clear political platform that candidates and members of Congress are required to adhere to, and without any party discipline in Congress, you get what you get. Which includes opportunists using the party name, and opportunists endorsing people running under the party banner."

Which is why we also have so many politicians, knowing they are in a losing fight, switching parties to keep themselves in power. Does that happen in Canada as well?

[iverglas]

80. Does that happen in Canada as well?

Ha.

At the moment, the new leader of the federal NDP is a former Liberal cabinet minister in Quebec, and the presumptive leader of the federal Liberal Party (formal coronation not yet held) is the former NDP Premier of Ontario.

The Liberal government in Quebec in which the present federal NDP leader was a minister is led by the provincial Premier who was formerly a federal Progressive Conservative cabinet minister.

And pretty much any retired prominent politician in Canada, of every stripe, ends up on the board of directors of Magna Inc. ... whose CEO until recently (she seems to have departed) was the founder's daughter, who was elected as a Conservative MP and crossed the floor to become a member of the Liberal cabinet.

We may actually have you beat!

[rl6214]

68. No, I didn't leave off anything at all, just didn't post to your liking

Did I say that it was at all equal? Nope, never made that claim.

" At this point you are just looking silly. I can't wait for the next list of excuses."

Don't know what the hell you are going on about here. I'm not gonna post every single thing I find just for you. You're absolutely not worth my time. All I asked, which you don't have the guts to answer is to

1, show any post where I have supported or shown support for the NRA,

2- At this point you are just looking silly. I can't wait for the next list of excuses.

3 So I suppose you are willing to say that the Republican party openly gives money to Democrat candidates just for grins and giggles. Why exactly is that?

4 Care to address all of the Democrats that recieve funds and are rated highly by the NRA?

You're a one trick pony, almost as much of a joke as many of the anti-gun zealots, they can't answer direct questions either.

[Logical]

71. R, if $15 million dollars difference is not proof enough then I give up!

[rl6214]

72. Not gonna answer any of my questions I see

[Logical]

56. And you are a progressive and don't know Morning Joe? LOL. sure.

[rl6214]

58. Since the title is morning joe, I would assume it is on in the morning.

I don't watch tv during the day, only at night so no, I don't know morning joe.

So, you still not going to go into why the NRA, a wing of the GOP actually gives money to it's opponents, the Democrat party? I don't want to hear the difference in spending, I want to hear why they give to them at all. Seems to me if the Dems were the opposition that they would give them NO money. Why is the GOP/NRA party giving money to the Democrats?

And what are YOU doing to defeat the NRA? Other than complaining about them on DU.

[Logical]

60. Well, me complaining is better than you defending!

[rl6214]

70. Still can't provide a link where I have ever defended the NRA

You're shtick is about as old as the:

a gun or two stuffed in your pants, gun militants, gun nuts and some of the other crap that the usual antigun zealots like to spout off about. You're a joke when it comes to defending gun rights.

They are a single issue group, unless you are able to come up with another issue they lobby for. Many of the other posters here know that to be true, you're just blinded by your shtick.

GreenStormCloud (7,007 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

51. A single issue group. Guns only.

They take no stance on any other issue. To the extent that the left is against guns then the NRA will oppose them. If the left would give up gun control completely and become pro-gun then the NRA would support them.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. A single issue group. Guns only.

They take no stance on any other issue. To the extent that the left is against guns then the NRA will oppose them. If the left would give up gun control completely and become pro-gun then the NRA would support them.

[Hoyt]

78. Ran across this from Tennessee racist gun lobbyist with NRA ties. Where do they find these people?

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2012/04/06/top-tennessee-gun-lobbyist-unfurls-facebook-freak-flag

Not sure he works directly for NRA, but he certainly works with them to pass relaxed gun laws.