New Gun Company Advertisement Compares Obama to Hitler, Stal

[Woods Walker]

JPH: Of course there's no comparison in that regard, not even close. But be that as it may, this man is my enemy, on several different levels. That opinion will not change. I live in Illinois, and I've known about this...this...."gentelman" before the rest of the country did. Believe me, he is no friend of the outdoorsman, gun owner, home owner, taxpayer or small businessman. In my lifetime I've NEVER felt this way about a President before.

Now I'm done with this topic before I get banned from here.

[pgchambers]

WW: No way will you get banned. You continue to be respectful to everyone you address within the forum, so I can't see how there would be a problem. No chance any two of us will ever agree on everything. If we did, this forum would get boring pretty fast. I can always just talk to myself if I want my audience to always tell me I'm right.

[JPH]

WW: No way will you get banned. You continue to be respectful to everyone you address within the forum, so I can't see how there would be a problem. No chance any two of us will ever agree on everything. If we did, this forum would get boring pretty fast. I can always just talk to myself if I want my audience to always tell me I'm right.

X2!

[Woods Walker]

Thanks guys....but it wasn't my words to you that I'm concerned about. If I verbalized my thoughts about the "leadership" we now have, trust me, that'd be a deal breaker!!!

[JPH]

Understood WW, but since you won't take it a step further, I will.

I'm actually surprised that this has not come up in this thread yet. If there is any justification for the comparison in the ad, it is not because of guns but abortion. Obama is the most pro-abortion president in the history of this nation. If we stop to consider the innocent lives lost at the hands of American abortionists, we make the butchers in the ad look like rank amateurs. The only problem with using Obama as the focal point for this genocide is that it ignores the fact that our entire society has blood on its hands. See, the nations led by those murderers eventually got themselves free from them and their way of government. Here we continue on down the path of genocide willingly.

How's that for an uncomfortable thought?

[Woods Walker]

J'per: Don't bait me bro!!!!

But you ARE dead on. In fact, when Obama was an Illinois legislator, he voted AGAINST.....AGAINST, do you hear me?..... a bill that WOULD HAVE ACCORDED FULL HUMAN RIGHTS TO AN INFANT THAT SURVIVED A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION!!!!!!!!!!

I will stop now, because while I'm FAR from perfect, I still try to be Christian.

But before I get accused of hyperbole, I'll just let the facts speak for themselves.........

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 Aug 1, 2008

[Woods Walker]

"On March 30, 2001, Obama was the ONLY [emphasis mine] Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion."

Now here was an issue that he DIDN'T vote "present" on. I guess we know what his priorities are.

[pgchambers]

WW: Even with the recent change of topic, I still say we need to consider how we say things. Anti-abortionists do not have a clear majority in this country, no matter how strongly we feel about it. There are a lot of people that are pretty much against abortion in general, but still want exceptions made in cases like rape and such. I will not argue the right and wrong of any of it, as it is not one of those things that any of us are going to change our minds about. I just believe that those people wavering in the middle will lean the other way if the right is not careful with how they frame their words. Feeling you are in the right will do no good if you are standing powerless in the back of the room because you scared off all of the moderates(independents). I probably should have worded my own post a little softer, but like I said, I worry the current Republicans are so busy stirring up the people who are already going to vote for them, that they run the risk of pushing too many independents to vote for the Democrats.

[Woods Walker]

I hear what you are saying, and for the uninformed it's probably somewhat true, but for this coming election at least, it might not really matter because ultimately people vote their wallet, and unless there'a DRASTIC 180 coming our way in the next few minutes, we are all going to be worse off come election time than we are now, God forbid.

Time will tell.

[Woods Walker]

" Anti-abortionists do not have a clear majority in this country, no matter how strongly we feel about it."

Oh, I don't know about that, but even if it were so, even the most liberal polls say that while many people are pro-choice, they are AGAINST partial birth abortion, which from a purely philosophical point of view I find hypocritical. I mean, if you don't belive that a child is human until it's born, then it should be okey dokey with you if the mother wants to kill it whether it is only a few cells or has a fully formed face, limbs and even hair. Kind of like folks who eat at McDonalds and KFC but then think that WE'RE horrible because we kill and butcher our own meat.

And I always thought that the many of the current abortion laws we have are ironic, in that for many of them it's fine to suck a baby down a sink in the first trimester, but not after. ?????? What changes between day 90 and 91? Life begins at day 91? God operates in fiscal quarters?

WHOA!!! This is getting deep now......