Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich "State-Sponsored Terrorism!" (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I didn't 'dodge' anything: (0+ / 0-)

    However you have. If this exact same situation happened with GOPers becoming the first recalled legislators in state history despite being in friendly districts & having a 6-1 spending advantage with 20%-30% of Republicans voting for their recall because of their vote for background checks, what would be your conclusion?

    "The NRA...."
    Did they mastermind this devious plan in a hollowed-out-Vol-ca-no lair?
    Because the NRA only gave $985 to the recall petition.

    "In a regular election cycle..."
    Excuses are for losers.
    Results are for winners.

    "flip back to the D column"
    Exactly. A pro-gun-rights Democrat.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:03:29 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's no hypothetical, you realize. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, coquiero

      We've already lived that scenario, only over union rights instead of background checks, in Wisconsin.

      So we don't need to pretend. We saw the results, and what happened in the next election cycle. And what I described is pretty much an identical scenario with the issue changed and the parties reversed.

      And yes, you're still dodging my question because it continues to go unanswered.

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:49:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  1) No you didn't answer. I wonder why....;) (0+ / 0-)

        2) If gun control actually managed to not humiliate the party with unprecedented electoral losses then the party would continue to pursue it.......
        Of course, the contrary is true.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:54:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, coquiero

          I just DID answer it. With the real-world scenario where it happened.

          You also seem to have tried to answer my question but answered a significantly different one.

          Methinks you're not listening. But KVoimakas answered my question quite directly, and so I'm cool with that. Have a nice day.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:03:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That wasn't my question. (0+ / 0-)

            Which is fine. Both of us know exactly why you won't;)

            "Answered my question directly"
            As did I.
            The only one who didn't answer a question directly is you.

            Glad you've managed to stay consistent in your inconsistency.
            Irony.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:14:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's funny. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, coquiero

              I conclude you're not paying close attention to the thread, you conclude deceptive motives. Think that says something.

              But here, take another potshot if you like. I'm done.

              End of line.

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:31:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site