Post by: Bogie on January 25, 2008, 08:52:42 PM
They may not be all the great, but they're better than the alternative. So, if you write in Ron Paul, or Mickey Mouse, or John Holmes, when the crap starts hitting the fan, I don't want to hear you bitching about how your rights are being trampled upon.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 25, 2008, 09:31:41 PM
Post by: Bogie on January 25, 2008, 09:40:19 PM
And the Republican political machine is a LOT less likely to do bad things to 2nd amendment rights than the Democratic political machine.
Post by: Finch on January 25, 2008, 09:51:16 PM
Ah, but when it boils down, we're not voting for individuals. We're voting for the political machine.
And the Republican political machine is a little bit slower to do bad things to 2nd amendment rights than the Democratic political machine.
And the Republican political machine is a little bit slower to do bad things to 2nd amendment rights than the Democratic political machine.
Fixed it.
Voting for a political machine? HA! Why would I vote for a machine that arbitrarily invades countries and ignores the constitution? A machine that thinks a $600 rebate is the answer to our economic problems? Thanks but no thanks. And no, I will not swear to "shut up" because I am supporting who I believe would be best to FIX this country, not defeat the Democrats. Both the Neo-cons and Democrats are headed to the same end, they are just taking different roads.
Post by: SomeKid on January 25, 2008, 09:59:18 PM
How about this, if your man gets elected, and screws us, you renounce your citizenship, and go live in China?
If you want me to vote for your party man, make your party man acceptable to me. Otherwise, get over it, cause I will not vote for someone who will take away my rights. Regardless of party.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 25, 2008, 10:27:09 PM
Ah, but when it boils down, we're not voting for individuals. We're voting for the political machine.
And the Republican political machine is a little bit slower to do bad things to 2nd amendment rights than the Democratic political machine.
And the Republican political machine is a little bit slower to do bad things to 2nd amendment rights than the Democratic political machine.
Fixed it.
Voting for a political machine? HA! Why would I vote for a machine that arbitrarily invades countries and ignores the constitution? A machine that thinks a $600 rebate is the answer to our economic problems? Thanks but no thanks. And no, I will not swear to "shut up" because I am supporting who I believe would be best to FIX this country, not defeat the Democrats. Both the Neo-cons and Democrats are headed to the same end, they are just taking different roads.
This is just another reason to vote for Ron Paul, he is the only GOP candidate that can beat Hillary or Obama. If he is not on the ballot I will still vote for him by writing his name in.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 25, 2008, 10:28:37 PM
In other words, if we do not do our duty to vote for your party, we are just evil little commies, and should keep our rotten mouths shut?
How about this, if your man gets elected, and screws us, you renounce your citizenship, and go live in China?
If you want me to vote for your party man, make your party man acceptable to me. Otherwise, get over it, cause I will not vote for someone who will take away my rights. Regardless of party.
Excellent post. This is essentially my thoughts. The GOP candidates suck, with the exception of Paul they are all corporate shills who will sell us down the drain for their own selfish desires.
How about this, if your man gets elected, and screws us, you renounce your citizenship, and go live in China?
If you want me to vote for your party man, make your party man acceptable to me. Otherwise, get over it, cause I will not vote for someone who will take away my rights. Regardless of party.
Post by: SomeKid on January 25, 2008, 11:05:53 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 25, 2008, 11:07:52 PM
In other words, if we do not do our duty to vote for your party, we are just evil little commies, and should keep our rotten mouths shut?
How about this, if your man gets elected, and screws us, you renounce your citizenship, and go live in China?
If you want me to vote for your party man, make your party man acceptable to me. Otherwise, get over it, cause I will not vote for someone who will take away my rights. Regardless of party.
Excellent post. This is essentially my thoughts. The GOP candidates suck, with the exception of Paul they are all corporate shills who will sell us down the drain for their own selfish desires. How about this, if your man gets elected, and screws us, you renounce your citizenship, and go live in China?
If you want me to vote for your party man, make your party man acceptable to me. Otherwise, get over it, cause I will not vote for someone who will take away my rights. Regardless of party.
Hare krishnaaaaa ...oops...I mean Ron Paulllll...
Post by: Finch on January 25, 2008, 11:10:42 PM
Hare krishnaaaaa ...oops...I mean Ron Paulllll...
Bursting at the seams with substance.
Post by: seeker_two on January 26, 2008, 01:39:14 AM
Will YOU take a pledge that, if (and when) Guiliani/Romney/Huckabee sign the new AWB or any other right-abridging law passed by a liberal-controlled Congress, you will do a month of mea culpa on this board?
Post by: HankB on January 26, 2008, 03:00:18 AM
Will YOU take a pledge that, if (and when) Guiliani/Romney/Huckabee sign the new AWB or any other right-abridging law passed by a liberal-controlled Congress, you will do a month of mea culpa on this board?
I'll have to second that, especially if the GOP elects Guiliani or Romney . . . with a GOP president, the GOP congress will meekly go along.Looking at the leading candidates of BOTH parties, I think we're screwed . . .
Post by: K Frame on January 26, 2008, 04:14:05 AM
Yeah, that's about the size of it.
"A machine that thinks a $600 rebate is the answer to our economic problems?"
You know, you are the FIRST person at any level I've seen use the term solution.
No one is claiming that the rebate is a solution to the economy. It's one of a NUMBER of tools/actions that, when all put together, hopefully will help stabilize the economy.
Where did you come up with the idea that it's a solution?
Post by: K Frame on January 26, 2008, 04:18:51 AM
I'm going to say this in advance.
Keep your emotions in check when you post.
If you haven't noticed, there have been quite a few locked threads over the past couple of days, and it's getting to the point where we're going to start locking posters, not just threads.
Post by: seeker_two on January 26, 2008, 04:23:09 AM
This thread looks like it could tip.
I'm going to say this in advance.
Keep your emotions in check when you post.
If you haven't noticed, there have been quite a few locked threads over the past couple of days, and it's getting to the point where we're going to start locking posters, not just threads.
I'm going to say this in advance.
Keep your emotions in check when you post.
If you haven't noticed, there have been quite a few locked threads over the past couple of days, and it's getting to the point where we're going to start locking posters, not just threads.
In other words, don't make Lil' Baby Jesus cry.....or Mike will get you.....
Post by: K Frame on January 26, 2008, 04:44:56 AM
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 26, 2008, 04:48:15 AM
Except maybe those who would vote for Guliani, cause c'mon folks...
Post by: Antibubba on January 26, 2008, 06:53:45 AM
Quote
This is just another reason to vote for Ron Paul, he is the only GOP candidate that can beat Hillary or Obama. If he is not on the ballot I will still vote for him by writing his name in.
When Paul starts beating Giuliani in the primaries, then I'll be willing to say he has more than a snowball's chance to get the nomination. But win the Presidency? No. Frickin'. Way. Actually, I take that back--he doesn't have a chance at even the Republican nomination--Paul's views on limited government are as much a threat to the GOP's largesse as they are to the Democrats socialist ideas. The War on Terror, The War on Drugs, Homeland Security, these are multibillion dollar industries whose leaders will not allow them to be scaled back or even revealed for the scams that they are. In fact, I'll go so far as to say the GOP would rather lose the Oval office, and thus gain momentum for 2012 with the usual themes, than to back a libertarian who would force them to reconfigure their platform.
The GOP vehicle is broken, but the Republicans would rather have a broken-down Hummer than a running Focus.
And I'm not sure America as a whole is ready for libertarian reform.
All that being said, I'd vote for him. Not that I think he could fix America, but because only then would Americans wake up to see how far we've strayed from the ideals that started this country.
Post by: geronimotwo on January 26, 2008, 07:55:41 AM
Both the Neo-cons and Democrats are headed to the same end, they are just taking different roads sides of the same road.
fixed it
Post by: El Tejon on January 26, 2008, 08:00:57 AM
bogie, I like your proposed pledge.
Post by: Tallpine on January 26, 2008, 08:06:33 AM
Quote
When Paul starts beating Giuliani in the primaries, then I'll be willing to say he has more than a snowball's chance to get the nomination.
Actually, he did beat Jailiani in Nevada IIRC
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 26, 2008, 08:10:17 AM
Quote
Guys, I want you to take a pledge...
It sure is nice to want things, isn't it?
I'll PM you my mailing address for the check if you want to buy my vote, ok?
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 26, 2008, 08:13:16 AM
Regarding Paul, as mentioned previously, his primary utility is to stir things up and modify the political discourse at the Primaries level. He is not only non-viable as a general elections candidate, he is downright dangerous, the Ralph Nader way.
Tecumseh, we get it - Thompson is fat. So?
Post by: SomeKid on January 26, 2008, 08:17:37 AM
Quote
When Paul starts beating Giuliani in the primaries, then I'll be willing to say he has more than a snowball's chance to get the nomination.
Actually, he did beat Jailiani in Nevada IIRC
And a few other states.
Michigan, Iowa, Wyoming, and likely a bunch more soon. So far, only NH and SC have gone for Rudy of Ron.
Post by: K Frame on January 26, 2008, 08:44:22 AM
Post by: Nitrogen on January 26, 2008, 08:48:10 AM
1) A kick to the groin that supports an AWB.
2) A kick to the solar plexus that supports an AWB, and has supported all sorts of gun control that never passed.
3) A gunshot wound to the kneecap that supports an AWB
4) a shotgun blast to the kneecap that supports an AWB
5) Being lit on fire by a blowtorch that doesn't support an AWB.
6) a $20,000,000 lottery ticket, along with a 1 in 25,827,165 chance of getting it if you actually choose it. (That's Ron Paul.)
Personally? I'm going to choose the kick to the groin.
It's an excersise for the reader to match the choices up to actual candidates except for Ron Paul.
I think we can all agree that the lineup we have to choose from is subpar at best.
Post by: Finch on January 26, 2008, 09:26:50 AM
Where did you come up with the idea that it's a solution?
Ummm, when the powers that be consider it a solution. No, I'm not going to search for a quote where Bush actually used the word solution, but considering this a tool or an action to fix the economy, that's pretty close be being considered a solution.
As much as I would love to wax semantics, I find the original discussion of voting for the lesser of two evils much more entertaining.
Post by: K Frame on January 26, 2008, 09:58:02 AM
That's funny, both the President and the Democrats, in their respective radio addresses today, NEVER called this a solution to the economic problems.
Roughly, they both called it a step forward, but certainly not the only thing that's needed.
"As much as I would love to wax semantics, I find the original discussion of voting for the lesser of two evils much more entertaining."
No semantics about it. The meaning of the word solution is very precise -- in essence, the thing that will fix the problem. The rebate has never been called that.
From the President's weekly radio address today: "By working together, we can provide our economy with a shot in the arm when we need it most."
From Byron Dorgon's Democratic Radio Address of today: "And also, the President and the Congress began quickly to work together in a bipartisan way this week to develop an economic stimulus plan that would try to give this economy a lift.... Frankly, there's a lot more that has to be done to put our economy back on track for the longer term."
Certainly nothing in their messages saying "This is the only thing we need to do to get the explosive American growth potential going again. Take those checks and spend spend spend, because if this doesn't work, we're out of ideas!"
And come on. You can multitask.
Post by: Dannyboy on January 26, 2008, 12:16:36 PM
This is just another reason to vote for Ron Paul, he is the only GOP candidate that can beat Hillary or Obama.
Really. Really? On what planet do you reside? Or, more likely, what the hell have you been smoking/snorting/shooting?
Post by: Tallpine on January 26, 2008, 12:55:29 PM
Neither one does any good, of course ...
Post by: El Tejon on January 26, 2008, 12:59:06 PM
At an election held in someone's mother's basement? At a pizza joint at 3AM? An election where only employees of Starbuck's could vote?
Post by: Bogie on January 26, 2008, 01:08:30 PM
Okay. Fine. Do exactly what they want. You may not be voting _for_ Hillary, but you're not going to be voting against her. And that's all they care about.
So, three years from now, when they've got the FBI combing through stacks of 4473s, cross-reffing all the dealer registration stuff, and they're talking about how you can "give back" your AR for a $400 "gift card," you can feel really happy that you voted like they wanted you to.
Post by: Finch on January 26, 2008, 01:32:40 PM
In what election could Ron Paul beat anyone?
He has yet to come in last place in any of the primaries or caucuses...so....HA!
Quote
And come on. You can multitask.
I can. And I was. I leave that to your imagination.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 26, 2008, 01:33:55 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 26, 2008, 01:44:54 PM
The object of the game is to claim moral superiority over others, not to influence the results of the political process.
Ouch!
Post by: Tecumseh on January 26, 2008, 01:58:03 PM
This is just another reason to vote for Ron Paul, he is the only GOP candidate that can beat Hillary or Obama.
Really. Really? On what planet do you reside? Or, more likely, what the hell have you been smoking/snorting/shooting?
The only thing I am high on the gospel!
Post by: Tecumseh on January 26, 2008, 01:59:08 PM
In what election could Ron Paul beat anyone?
At an election held in someone's mother's basement? At a pizza joint at 3AM? An election where only employees of Starbuck's could vote?
Well he did beat Fred Thompson in the primaries, raise more money than McCain, and took 2nd in Nevada.
At an election held in someone's mother's basement? At a pizza joint at 3AM? An election where only employees of Starbuck's could vote?
Post by: matis on January 26, 2008, 02:29:39 PM
"You don't understand, Bogie. The object of the game is to claim moral superiority over others, not to influence the results of the political process."
Sure seems like it.
Quote from: Bogie [b
So, three years from now, when they've got the FBI combing through stacks of 4473s, cross-reffing all the dealer registration stuff, and they're talking about how you can "give back" your AR for a $400 "gift card," you can feel really happy that you voted like they wanted you to.[/b]
Not to mention putting liberal judges on the federal benches AND the Supreme court. That, to me, is the worst part of a Democrat victory. Those who want to "teach the Republicans a lesson" seem to overlook the wreckage wrought by "compassionate" liberal judges who consider themselves wiser than those who wrote the constitution.
I agree that there are no "good" choices. But those who think there ever will be are lost in fantasyland. From my experience I don't know of a better country to live in than the United States.
But all governments are corrupt -- it's the nature of the beast -- and "Democracy is the worst kind of government -- except for all the others." (Winston Churchill).
Government impacts my life in many ways. The 2nd amendment is very important to me, but it is only one of the ways. So I do my best to select the "least bad" choice.
If you refuse to vote for the lessor of the evils then you can never vote at all.
I will hold my nose, as they say, and vote Republican.
matis
Post by: Finch on January 26, 2008, 03:08:52 PM
But all governments are corrupt -- it's the nature of the beast -- and "Democracy is the worst kind of government -- except for all the others." (Winston Churchill).
Fortunatly we don't live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Now if we can just get those slimey critters to understand that our government operates under the rule of law and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Post by: matis on January 26, 2008, 03:33:48 PM
Quote
Fortunatly we don't live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Now if we can just get those slimey critters to understand that our government operates under the rule of law and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
You're making my point.
You cannot get those slimy critters to understand because, in addition to their ignorance, they are corrupt. Politicians fare better in a democracy -- fewer constraints upon their profligacy and power lust.
Most people today seem to believe that the US IS a democracy. The very concept is almost revered. And there is agitation to eliminate the electoral college. I'm sure you know that the popular vote for senators was instituted to make it more "democratic".
matis
Post by: Bogie on January 26, 2008, 05:00:51 PM
Well, they're gonna get it.
I'm guessing that not a lot of 'em have thought about what "kind" of change they'd like to have. But by golly, they want it.
I suspect that Hillary's folks are _desperately_ looking for new buzzwords - They've been pushing "change" since 2, and unfortunately now Obama's stuff seems like even MORE change, and since change is good...
Actually, it's a hoot watching the news... CNN, etc., are trumpeting that Obama's the leader in committed delegates. They're not saying a darn thing about the fact that Hillary's got more overall delegates than he does...
The internet musings I see are SO deja-vu... I remember WWIV and UseNet discussion groups, when Clinton won against Bush and Perot (who, the theory is, is _mightily_ peeved at the Bush family around some oil stuff, so he spent the money with the sole purpose of harpooning the election).
Post by: Boomhauer on January 26, 2008, 06:01:41 PM
If the Hildabeast or Obama wins, that's the fastest route to the failure of this Republic. They will screw it up economically, for sure, and quite possibly drop the ball when it comes to fighting the terrorists. Also, look for abuses of the Patriot Act like never seen before. So far, Bush hasn't used it to go after political enemies. But the Hildabeast will.
Getting McCain in will result in the same situation. Supposedly, one of his aides has already said "Mexico First". Reference Domestic Enemies if ya need more detail on THAT. That story was on World Net Daily, and of course, you leftists on this board immediately snub it based on that.
Romney might or might not institute an AWB, that is, if one does come into law. I don't think he will do too bad on economy. I can't get a read on how he will run the War on Terror or domestic security, or extensions of stuff like the Patriot Act, etc. (something I DON'T want to happen)
Guiliani is toast. Huckabee, maybe so. I certainly don't want his "change the constitution" crap. Thankfully, the Constitution is not easily amended.
And say that Ron Paul does overcome the odds and get elected? What would he actually get done? Probably not much at all. He would still have to overcome the resistance of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who don't want to stop their antics at all. He'd be an ineffective president...
Voting for Romney, much as I dislike to do so, is still better than voting for McCain, or Obama, or Hillary. It could very well give us a few more years to prepare for the really, really bad times...
And I think that if Obama keeps winning primaries, Hillary might have something done about it...
Post by: SomeKid on January 26, 2008, 07:03:43 PM
If you refuse to vote for the lessor of the evils then you can never vote at all.
matis
How is that God complex of yours doing?
Post by: Tecumseh on January 26, 2008, 07:16:03 PM
The train's going to off the track. It's only a matter of time before it jumps the rails. Now, this election, I do believe, will determine whether we have a few more years or not to prepare. And by prepare, I mean buying it in bulk and stacking it deep, if you know what I mean.
If the Hildabeast or Obama wins, that's the fastest route to the failure of this Republic. They will screw it up economically, for sure, and quite possibly drop the ball when it comes to fighting the terrorists. Also, look for abuses of the Patriot Act like never seen before. So far, Bush hasn't used it to go after political enemies. But the Hildabeast will.
Getting McCain in will result in the same situation. Supposedly, one of his aides has already said "Mexico First". Reference Domestic Enemies if ya need more detail on THAT. That story was on World Net Daily, and of course, you leftists on this board immediately snub it based on that.
Romney might or might not institute an AWB, that is, if one does come into law. I don't think he will do too bad on economy. I can't get a read on how he will run the War on Terror or domestic security, or extensions of stuff like the Patriot Act, etc. (something I DON'T want to happen)
Guiliani is toast. Huckabee, maybe so. I certainly don't want his "change the constitution" crap. Thankfully, the Constitution is not easily amended.
And say that Ron Paul does overcome the odds and get elected? What would he actually get done? Probably not much at all. He would still have to overcome the resistance of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who don't want to stop their antics at all. He'd be an ineffective president...
Voting for Romney, much as I dislike to do so, is still better than voting for McCain, or Obama, or Hillary. It could very well give us a few more years to prepare for the really, really bad times...
And I think that if Obama keeps winning primaries, Hillary might have something done about it...
If Ron Paul does win, that is at least 4 years of freedom that we dont have to worry about. I think Bush has done more to destroy the Bill of RIghts than anyone. And I do think that Romney and Huckabee will use the Patriot Act to attack religious enemies and people who do not agree with the official doctrine of their church. Guiliani will just turn the country to a police state. Hillary and Obama will not be as bad as Romney or Huckabee in my opinion.
If the Hildabeast or Obama wins, that's the fastest route to the failure of this Republic. They will screw it up economically, for sure, and quite possibly drop the ball when it comes to fighting the terrorists. Also, look for abuses of the Patriot Act like never seen before. So far, Bush hasn't used it to go after political enemies. But the Hildabeast will.
Getting McCain in will result in the same situation. Supposedly, one of his aides has already said "Mexico First". Reference Domestic Enemies if ya need more detail on THAT. That story was on World Net Daily, and of course, you leftists on this board immediately snub it based on that.
Romney might or might not institute an AWB, that is, if one does come into law. I don't think he will do too bad on economy. I can't get a read on how he will run the War on Terror or domestic security, or extensions of stuff like the Patriot Act, etc. (something I DON'T want to happen)
Guiliani is toast. Huckabee, maybe so. I certainly don't want his "change the constitution" crap. Thankfully, the Constitution is not easily amended.
And say that Ron Paul does overcome the odds and get elected? What would he actually get done? Probably not much at all. He would still have to overcome the resistance of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who don't want to stop their antics at all. He'd be an ineffective president...
Voting for Romney, much as I dislike to do so, is still better than voting for McCain, or Obama, or Hillary. It could very well give us a few more years to prepare for the really, really bad times...
And I think that if Obama keeps winning primaries, Hillary might have something done about it...
Post by: Bogie on January 26, 2008, 07:34:10 PM
Oh, and another thing to pledge... Thus far, "Bush has used" the Patriot Act to go after "Americans" like Jose Padilla... All you folks who are screaming about him abusing stuff need to promise that you'll scream just as loudly when Hillary uses it, and the department of homeland security, to go after people who the Democrats feel threatened by... Remember those magical IRS audits that showed up on people who were giving the Clintons a hard time? Sheesh.
Post by: SomeKid on January 26, 2008, 09:39:19 PM
Nope. If Ron Paul gets elected, we'll have four years of political lunacy, with the house and senate going at each other, with veto overrides every other week.
I highly doubt the underlined part. Sure, he would get overridden a good bit, but how could most Republicans justify voting to override a fellow Republican time and time again on spending issues when he says too much is being spent? I think enough Republicans would realize they can't override him all the time or they themselves won't be re-elected. With a president who actively pushes for smaller government and less spending, I think most Republicans (and maybe even some Democrats) would realize that if they want to appear fiscally conservative and not look like tax and spend nutjobs, they have to go along a good amount of the time with him.
Post by: Bogie on January 26, 2008, 10:25:54 PM
Remember - the president doesn't initiate legislation. He just rubber-stamps it...
If Romney gets in, we'll have four more years of "It's Romney's fault, him and his political cronies."
If Hillary gets in, there's gonna be one heckuva lovefest, and a complete ignoring of enemies getting destroyed...
Post by: Fly320s on January 27, 2008, 04:31:06 AM
1. Rupublicans suck, but the Democrats suck more.
2. Vote Republican anyway, or don't bitch at the result.
3. Doesn't matter what the Republican front-runners want to do, just vote for them anyway.
Riddle me this, Batman, since the Republican party is slowly but surely sliding to the political left, should I slide with them to become a statist, or hope for a white knight?
Post by: matis on January 27, 2008, 07:36:35 AM
Quote
Riddle me this, Batman, since the Republican party is slowly but surely sliding to the political left, should I slide with them to become a statist, or hope for a white knight?
Too late, Fly320s. If you are a law abiding citizen and pay your taxes in today's United States, you ARE a statist (de facto). What practical difference do your beliefs and values actually make, anymore?
As for "white knight", I've never seen or heard of any real ones. Look closely and you'll see that they are actually a sort of mottled-gray. It's like the archer who always shot bulls-eyes. First he shot his arrow, then he painted the circle around it. In this case it's the historians who paint the circle.
Quote from: Somekid
Quote from: matis on January 26, 2008, 02:29:39 PM
If you refuse to vote for the lessor of the evils then you can never vote at all.
matis
How is that God complex of yours doing?
If you refuse to vote for the lessor of the evils then you can never vote at all.
matis
How is that God complex of yours doing?
Oh, Somekid, I'm afraid it's gotten much worse.
The more I learn Talmud, the more amazed I become at its profundity in dealing with life's complexities.
matis
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 27, 2008, 07:51:17 AM
Riddle me this, Batman, since the Republican party is slowly but surely sliding to the political left, should I slide with them to become a statist, or hope for a white knight?
Technically, you are right. But your underlying assumption is that there would be no major events to disturb the current political trends. I beg to differ on that point. Many major issues are coming to a head in perhaps less than a decade or two - social security, energy crisis, globalization plus 3rd world modernization, demographic catastrophe, climate change. All of these especially in combination will remake the world in such a radical way that current trends will be completely swept away, for the better or the worse.
From that perspective, voting Republican while waiting to see the new conditions is a conservative approach. Repubs will simply have insufficient time to devolve significantly meanwhile. I'd rather keep my guns and money while preparing for the world-changing events. Call me short-sighted.
Post by: Bogie on January 27, 2008, 09:03:34 AM
Republicans and Democrats are at about 50/50 split... All the Dems need to do is persuade one lousy percent to either fragment away, not vote, or vote Dem... And I'm guessing they're going to do it.
Which means that we're going to have a retreat from the middle east, with a resulting resurge of "The great satan is weak, so we should attack his heart."
Which means that we're going to see more feelgood legislation, bumping our taxes to pay for "art" and buying color televisions for crackhead welfare mothers.
Which means that we're going to have a president who will say "I will sign an assault weapons ban," _and_ actually work to make sure it makes it to her desk, instead of doing everything in her power, and calling in tons of political favors, to torpedo it...
Which means that we're going to have a lot of you same guys crying about "Why can't I go shooting my AR any more, because if I take it out, and the policeman at the range sees it, they'll put me in jail."
Those of you who are hoping to make money off a ban - next time, they're not going to screw up. All those $10 magazines you're buying up aren't going to be worth $35-40... They're going to be worth 10 years...
And ask yourself if this doesn't sound right... If I was running the Dems' campaigns, I'd damn sure have a BUNCH of folks carefully sowing seeds of dissent among the portions of the Republican party that are most likely to fragment - and gun owners are fickle, independent, and seem to have a really short memory.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on January 27, 2008, 11:29:28 AM
Quote
Remember - the president doesn't initiate legislation. He just rubber-stamps it...
Wha...??Technically speaking, you're right. The President can't start a bill in congress. But an awful lot of bills (the majority, IIRC) are first slapped together in the White House, then sent to a congress-critter to submit officially. Special interest groups (NRA, Greenpeace) also write up bills, and have their congress-critter pals submit them.
Post by: gunsmith on January 27, 2008, 01:03:33 PM
Quote
Voting for Romney, much as I dislike to do so, is still better than voting for McCain, or Obama, or Hillary. It could very well give us a few more years to prepare for the really, really bad times...
I agree with this about 80%.
Clinton was called "the best republican president" and Reagan got amnesty passed. It might be easier to rally fudds and fence sitters against anti gun laws if we have Hussien or the wicked witch in office.
It might be time though, to create a conservative party to combat the dems and repubs who fall over themselves in inviting illegal wage slaves in and keeping cool guns out.
Post by: Finch on January 27, 2008, 01:41:43 PM
Quote
Remember - the president doesn't initiate legislation. He just rubber-stamps it...
Wha...??Technically speaking, you're right. The President can't start a bill in congress. But an awful lot of bills (the majority, IIRC) are first slapped together in the White House, then sent to a congress-critter to submit officially. Special interest groups (NRA, Greenpeace) also write up bills, and have their congress-critter pals submit them.
And let's not forget all those beautiful Executive Orders.
Post by: Bogie on January 27, 2008, 03:32:30 PM
Now, I know some folks are peeved because Norinco's on the "nasty" list - but hey, they're there because they were doing some nasties. Hillary would put EVERY overseas manufacturer/importer on the "nasty" list.
Altho, I would like to say one nice thing about her - I think Obama would do it faster...
Post by: Tecumseh on January 27, 2008, 05:35:15 PM
Nope. If Ron Paul gets elected, we'll have four years of political lunacy, with the house and senate going at each other, with veto overrides every other week.
Oh, and another thing to pledge... Thus far, "Bush has used" the Patriot Act to go after "Americans" like Jose Padilla... All you folks who are screaming about him abusing stuff need to promise that you'll scream just as loudly when Hillary uses it, and the department of homeland security, to go after people who the Democrats feel threatened by... Remember those magical IRS audits that showed up on people who were giving the Clintons a hard time? Sheesh.
I am going to assume then that you believe the gun bans are only to stop gangs and criminals from getting guns. You would believe that the government would not attempt to disarm its citizens, right? I mean the government could not abuse its power, at least not when the POTUS has an R next to their name. Am I right?
Oh, and another thing to pledge... Thus far, "Bush has used" the Patriot Act to go after "Americans" like Jose Padilla... All you folks who are screaming about him abusing stuff need to promise that you'll scream just as loudly when Hillary uses it, and the department of homeland security, to go after people who the Democrats feel threatened by... Remember those magical IRS audits that showed up on people who were giving the Clintons a hard time? Sheesh.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 27, 2008, 05:38:56 PM
Thing is, most of the Washington Republicans are going to see him as an outsider... Actually, that's also somewhat similar to the Obama bit - I think he'll have a hard time if he gets elected.
You realize he has been a Congressman for many years now right?
Post by: seeker_two on January 27, 2008, 05:39:43 PM
Will YOU take a pledge that, if (and when) Guiliani/Romney/Huckabee sign the new AWB or any other right-abridging law passed by a liberal-controlled Congress, you will do a month of mea culpa on this board?
Bogie: I still haven't heard your answer.......
Post by: Tecumseh on January 27, 2008, 05:43:11 PM
Whichh means that we're going to see more feelgood legislation, bumping our taxes to pay for "art" and buying color televisions for crackhead welfare mothers.
Which means that we're going to have a president who will say "I will sign an assault weapons ban," _and_ actually work to make sure it makes it to her desk, instead of doing everything in her power, and calling in tons of political favors, to torpedo it...
Which means that we're going to have a lot of you same guys crying about "Why can't I go shooting my AR any more, because if I take it out, and the policeman at the range sees it, they'll put me in jail."
Those of you who are hoping to make money off a ban - next time, they're not going to screw up. All those $10 magazines you're buying up aren't going to be worth $35-40... They're going to be worth 10 years...
And ask yourself if this doesn't sound right... If I was running the Dems' campaigns, I'd damn sure have a BUNCH of folks carefully sowing seeds of dissent among the portions of the Republican party that are most likely to fragment - and gun owners are fickle, independent, and seem to have a really short memory.
Do you have any links to links to legislation that pays for television sets for crackhead mothers? Or "art" as you say? How about the previous legislation as you said more legislation, I assume there was some introduced? I googeld "Bill for crackhead mothers to get a tv" but could not find one. Thanks.
Which means that we're going to have a president who will say "I will sign an assault weapons ban," _and_ actually work to make sure it makes it to her desk, instead of doing everything in her power, and calling in tons of political favors, to torpedo it...
Which means that we're going to have a lot of you same guys crying about "Why can't I go shooting my AR any more, because if I take it out, and the policeman at the range sees it, they'll put me in jail."
Those of you who are hoping to make money off a ban - next time, they're not going to screw up. All those $10 magazines you're buying up aren't going to be worth $35-40... They're going to be worth 10 years...
And ask yourself if this doesn't sound right... If I was running the Dems' campaigns, I'd damn sure have a BUNCH of folks carefully sowing seeds of dissent among the portions of the Republican party that are most likely to fragment - and gun owners are fickle, independent, and seem to have a really short memory.
Post by: nico on January 27, 2008, 07:29:18 PM
Will YOU take a pledge that, if (and when) Guiliani/Romney/Huckabee sign the new AWB or any other right-abridging law passed by a liberal-controlled Congress, you will do a month of mea culpa on this board?
Bogie: I still haven't heard your answer.......
I've posed that question a few times in the past (not necessarily to Bogie) when "propositions" similar to the original post have been made. Never got a response either. . .
Post by: Tecumseh on January 27, 2008, 07:37:56 PM
Will YOU take a pledge that, if (and when) Guiliani/Romney/Huckabee sign the new AWB or any other right-abridging law passed by a liberal-controlled Congress, you will do a month of mea culpa on this board?
Bogie: I still haven't heard your answer.......
I've posed that question a few times in the past (not necessarily to Bogie) when "propositions" similar to the original post have been made. Never got a response either. . .
Post by: Bogie on January 27, 2008, 07:50:09 PM
I don't think that the republicans will be as bad.
AS BAD.
How old are you? Do you remember the Bush/Perot/Clinton election?
As for the rest of that stuff - to me, it sounds like your basic "student center debate society rhetoric." No, nothing is specifically labeled "buy a tv set for a crackhead welfare mother" but it might as well be... We've got people that are paying for their groceries with their "state cards" who have their carts full of crap, and we wonder why they look like they need a shoehorn and vaseline to get into their newer car... And you're not going to say anything about the pork projects that fund "art" are you... Because that'll be one heckuva lot easier to specifically google... Remember - there's a man with a gun who can come into your house, and take your money. And you can't do anything about it. In fact, you have to smile and bear it, when he does things like hand it to "artists" who think that smearing their own feces on a public subway wall is "creative."
What is really sad is that a lot of you guys in the "protest vote mutual admiration society" are going to wonder WHY Hillary got elected, after you find out what's going to happen to your toys... The rest of you will be getting your performance bonuses...
Post by: Tecumseh on January 27, 2008, 08:02:24 PM
Post by: Bogie on January 27, 2008, 08:34:55 PM
Either that, or you also think that smearing one's own feces on a public subway's walls is "protected speech."
Or maybe you think that the only -good- television is that which receives a public subsidy, which coincidentally taken from other people.
I just have to wonder... no, I have to conclude that you are an advocate of vote buying - after all, when 51% of the population discovers that it can force the other 49% of the population to work and provide for them, then you'll have achieved your goal...
Post by: RevDisk on January 27, 2008, 09:00:17 PM
If you vote for someone other than a Republican candidate, and Hillary/Obama gets elected, and starts enacting all sorts of draconian gun laws (remember "stroke of the pen, law of the land - kinda cool!"), you will swear to just shut up, because you didn't do anything to stop it when you had the chance.
They may not be all the great, but they're better than the alternative. So, if you write in Ron Paul, or Mickey Mouse, or John Holmes, when the crap starts hitting the fan, I don't want to hear you bitching about how your rights are being trampled upon.
They may not be all the great, but they're better than the alternative. So, if you write in Ron Paul, or Mickey Mouse, or John Holmes, when the crap starts hitting the fan, I don't want to hear you bitching about how your rights are being trampled upon.
I intend to vote for the best candidate on the ballot. I apologize if I am not appropriately indoctrinated in Party ideology, but that's how it is.
The 'favorites' on both sides don't seem too gun friendly. Romney seems more anti-gun than Hillary, which is downright scary.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 28, 2008, 12:21:00 AM
Son, if you think that people who are on public assistance, welfare, etc., don't use the money to buy stuff like drugs, alcohol, and what many folks who WORK for their money would consider luxury items, then you are likely living in some sort of suburban utopia, or have been spending FAR too much time in the hallowed halls of academia...
Either that, or you also think that smearing one's own feces on a public subway's walls is "protected speech."
Or maybe you think that the only -good- television is that which receives a public subsidy, which coincidentally taken from other people.
I just have to wonder... no, I have to conclude that you are an advocate of vote buying - after all, when 51% of the population discovers that it can force the other 49% of the population to work and provide for them, then you'll have achieved your goal...
You make it sound as if those on welfare are living extravagant lives with new sports cars and large tvs. I am just asking for proof. Either that, or you also think that smearing one's own feces on a public subway's walls is "protected speech."
Or maybe you think that the only -good- television is that which receives a public subsidy, which coincidentally taken from other people.
I just have to wonder... no, I have to conclude that you are an advocate of vote buying - after all, when 51% of the population discovers that it can force the other 49% of the population to work and provide for them, then you'll have achieved your goal...
And where did I say that I support feces being smeared on walls as art or that I support public broadcasting?
I do think it is art if someone feels it means something, that said I could care less for it and I dont think tax dollars should pay for it. I have to conclude that you are not actually reading what I write. I am simply asking for you to back up your claims and statements with fact.
Post by: Boomhauer on January 28, 2008, 03:49:57 AM
Quote
You make it sound as if those on welfare are living extravagant lives with new sports cars and large tvs.
Apparently, you've never been out in the real world.
I see it every f***ing day.
Cellphones, TVs, brand new cars, IPODS, computers, all are far from necessities. BUT I see many, many people on welfare who do have all of that and more.
NO news network is going to touch it. Nobody is going to write an article. Mainly because a good portion of welfare reciepients- at least down here, are black, and to say anything against them is practically a hate crime.
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 06:37:29 AM
I suppose there's also a civil rights thing at hand too... I mean, if you're driving around with plans and planning to make a weapon that'll kill a bunch of folks, you should just be allowed to go ahead and do it, since you're not hurting anyone up until you hit the button...
Post by: vernal45 on January 28, 2008, 07:30:15 AM
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 07:45:50 AM
And just remember - if someone blows up a high school picnic with a car bomb, we need to ban the assault rifles...
Dang, I'm getting GOOD at that kind of logic...
Every vote for a third party is one vote ahead for Hillary.
Or Obama. How many of you want to live with Illinois gun laws? Where you can't even TOUCH a gun without government permission.
Post by: K Frame on January 28, 2008, 07:47:01 AM
When I was a reporter I interviewed in their home a family that was on welfare.
Brand new TV, elaborate stereo, good furnishings and clothes, and a nearly new Chevy in the driveway.
They're not the only ones I saw living to the same levels of affluence while on the dole.
Just down the street from my house is a Title 13 housing complex, Federally assisted cooperative housing.
I must be doing something wrong as the number of BMWs, Mercedes, and other high-end or high pricetag cars that have co-op parking stickers on them is sobering.
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 08:07:34 AM
"Well, they ain't gonna be 'round too long..."
One genius of a neighbor couldn't pay his mortgage, but he -could- pay to fence his back yard... A month before they moved out...
Post by: Paddy on January 28, 2008, 08:11:22 AM
Bush will leave deficits as far as the eye can see and we've got nothing to show for it.
If you want to trade absolute fiscal ruin in exchange for temporary permission to keep your semiauto EBR, I think your priorities are seriously misplaced.
Post by: Finch on January 28, 2008, 08:17:23 AM
Every vote for a third party is one vote ahead for Hillary.
And every vote for a Neo-Con is a vote for a horrid economy and trampled liberties.
Post by: vernal45 on January 28, 2008, 08:30:27 AM
Quote
If you want to trade absolute fiscal ruin in exchange for temporary permission to keep your semiauto EBR, I think your priorities are seriously misplaced.
Hmm, economy or my civil right. I will take my civil right everytime. But, I guess I have my priorities wrong. If you want to balance the budget, get rid of social entitlements, last figures I had was over 50% of the population got a suck at the govt teat. And a full 2/3rds of them DID NOT PAY ANY TAXES. Talk about a waste of money and skin.
Post by: Stetson on January 28, 2008, 08:35:56 AM
Can't get the first pic from there to show up.
Post by: Paddy on January 28, 2008, 08:46:36 AM
Quote
If you want to trade absolute fiscal ruin in exchange for temporary permission to keep your semiauto EBR, I think your priorities are seriously misplaced.
Hmm, economy or my civil right. I will take my civil right everytime. But, I guess I have my priorities wrong. If you want to balance the budget, get rid of social entitlements, last figures I had was over 50% of the population got a suck at the govt teat. And a full 2/3rds of them DID NOT PAY ANY TAXES. Talk about a waste of money and skin.
It's an illusion that Republicans will limit welfare. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (aka welfare to work) was signed by Clinton. The result was a 50% reduction in the number of people on welfare. It expired after 5 years and a Republican majority congress failed to renew it.
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 08:47:38 AM
And those of you who are hoping that Hillary will provoke some sort of civil unrest...
Civil War II will be VERY expensive. And VERY uncomfortable. I happen to LIKE cold beer, in a can, bottle or keg, as opposed to warm beer that was brewed out behind the shack that the survivors are calling a "tavern."
Post by: vernal45 on January 28, 2008, 08:52:10 AM
Post by: vernal45 on January 28, 2008, 08:54:02 AM
Post by: Paddy on January 28, 2008, 08:58:52 AM
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, guess you need to google that. It was a conservative Republican, E. Clay Shaw jr, who thought this up, and slick willie really did not want to sign it, but you had a republican majority in the congress in 96, thanks to the Democrats AWB in late 93. Google is your friend.
Exactly right. Clinton signed it, it expired after 5 years, yet Bush and a Republican congress failed to renew it. Whyizzat?
Google might be your friend, but big government 'Republicans' are not.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 28, 2008, 09:24:01 AM
Welfare and TVs - http://www.nola.com/katrinaphotos/tp/gallery.ssf?cgi-bin/view_gallery.cgi/nola/view_gallery.ata?g_id=9467
Can't get the first pic from there to show up.
So you found one poor person with a big screen tv? You dont know how she came by that tv and proof that she is abusing the system? Can't get the first pic from there to show up.
The rest of the pictures were children playing and some bicycles on fire escapes.
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 09:38:59 AM
Sheesh.
Honey, we've got people in battery wheelchairs who hold down jobs - get one!
Post by: Stetson on January 28, 2008, 09:54:15 AM
Welfare and TVs - http://www.nola.com/katrinaphotos/tp/gallery.ssf?cgi-bin/view_gallery.cgi/nola/view_gallery.ata?g_id=9467
Can't get the first pic from there to show up.
So you found one poor person with a big screen tv? You dont know how she came by that tv and proof that she is abusing the system? Can't get the first pic from there to show up.
The rest of the pictures were children playing and some bicycles on fire escapes.
Read that article since you cannot bother to read the caption and what SHE said about poor......
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 09:56:18 AM
Here is caption:
Quote
Sharon Jasper sits in the living room of her voucher-backed private residence. "I might be poor but I don't like to live poor. I thank God for a place to live but it's pitiful what people give you."
Post by: Paddy on January 28, 2008, 10:01:27 AM
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 10:04:17 AM
Sooner or later, they're just gonna come out and say "Make those bad rich people work for you - vote for me!"
Riley, do you have a job? You're supporting someone. You probably helped pay for that TV.
Again. We've got people who can't even manage to use a manual wheelchair who become gainfully employed. The only thing stopping a lot of the folks who are on welfare is their attitude.
Post by: K Frame on January 28, 2008, 10:04:49 AM
The Democrats.
Who fought like hell in the 1990s to get career welfare recipients OFF welfare and into jobs training programs and jobs?
The Republicans.
Who fought like hell to prevent the Republicans from getting career welfare recipients off welfare and into jobs training programs and jobs?
The Democrats.
Seems to me no matter how you cut it the Republicans have done a lot more at ending the career welfare debacle in this country than the Democrats.
Post by: Paddy on January 28, 2008, 10:11:42 AM
Quote
Seems to me no matter how you cut it the Republicans have done a lot more at ending the career welfare debacle in this country than the Democrats.
I've three words for you. Medicare Part D. Tell me that isn't welfare.
Post by: vernal45 on January 28, 2008, 10:23:32 AM
Quote
Although PRWORA has expired, Congress has continued to fund the program until a new bill is enacted.
]From the above wiki article.
It's like this. Both parties are bad, real bad. The democrats are the worst of the lot, kinda wanting to make us in to the USSA, and doing a fair job at it. From your comment about the 2nd Amend being less important than the economy, it tells me all I need to know how you look at things. The 2nd Amend is not negotiable, it is not second place, to anything IMO.
Post by: vernal45 on January 28, 2008, 10:27:50 AM
Quote
Instead of holding the Republican politicians you elect responsible, you blame the welfare recipients.
You damn right I do. When over 50% of the population is sucking at the govt teat, you have one hell of a voting block. And all 3 democrats running want to INCREASE the size of the TEAT. So yes, I do blame the welfare rats. (you dont even want to know what taxes I pay) A waste of good skin and oxygen. And we do want to hold the Republicans responsible, we just dont want the democrats taking all we own to redistribute it. If you think welfare is such a good thing, feel free to help them out. I am sure they wont turn you down.
Post by: Paddy on January 28, 2008, 10:28:44 AM
Quote
The 2nd Amend is not negotiable, it is not second place, to anything IMO.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't rely on government's permission for you to retain your RKBA. Apparently, you think it is negotiable, because you're afraid some political party will take it away from you.
Post by: vernal45 on January 28, 2008, 10:44:24 AM
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 10:50:19 AM
I can see the newspaper story now:
PODUNKVILLE: The Firearms Anti-Terror and Warfare Homeland Security (FATWHS) unit assigned to Eastjeebers County responded to a tip this afternoon, in the Happy Acres subdivision. They discovered a group of heavily entrenched firearms-owning insurgents, and after a sustained altercation, recovered three assault rifles, and dozens of rounds of live ammunition. During the conflict, in which the insurgents' hiding place was destroyed, it was reported that the insurgents shot over 48 residents of the Happy Acres, and destroyed eight houses with the firepower from their assault weapons. Captain Issac Burbanite says that things could have been much worse, but since his unit approached the concealed fortress in several M1 Abrams tanks, they did not sustain any casualties from the powerful assault weapons.
Post by: Paddy on January 28, 2008, 10:57:26 AM
Or is it just too much fun to do keyboard commando conjecturing?
*and even if it were to happen nobody would do squat about it anyway. Nobody's doing squat right now (except vote Republican
)when the battle is easy.
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 11:33:43 AM
Because a protest vote is a vote for Clinton and/or Obama and/or Clinton...
Post by: seeker_two on January 28, 2008, 12:24:38 PM
Quote
The 2nd Amend is not negotiable, it is not second place, to anything IMO.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't rely on government's permission for you to retain your RKBA. Apparently, you think it is negotiable, because you're afraid some political party will take it away from you.
No....but I do believe that, depending on who is elected to government, that said government will send out large numbers of individuals better-armed than I to take what few guns I have......
...and I want to delay that as much as possible.
A true conservative leadership will do that......compromise won't......
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 12:44:02 PM
Bogie head 'splode...
Post by: nico on January 28, 2008, 12:47:43 PM
Because a protest vote is a vote for Clinton and/or Obama and/or Clinton...
. . . and a vote for Romney is a vote for a guy who, a few weeks ago, said he'd have signed the AWB renewal. . . and a vote for McCain is a vote for a guy who has shown disdain for the First Amendment and can't be trusted to veto any gun-grabbing bills either.
I don't see anyone arguing that there's anything good about the Dems. The reason I probably won't be voting Republican this election is I have no faith in the Republican candidates. I already know that my state is going to the Democrat by a wide margin regardless of what I do, so I have no desire to give any of the current Repubs the kind of "mandate" that Bush claimed he had after he barely got the majority of the popular vote.
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2008, 02:01:49 PM
And we know that Hillary and Obama will go with their party, and support gun control.
So it's better that Hillary and Obama get elected.
Y'all's logic jist purely do 'scape this poor country boy...
Post by: Finch on January 28, 2008, 02:04:14 PM
So, compromise voting is bad, because folks won't erode civil liberties as fast, so you want someone in office who will tear 'em down faster?
Bogie head 'splode...
Bogie head 'splode...
NO! We want someone who won't tear then down at all. Not faster or slower, not at all. Why is that so hard to accept.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 28, 2008, 02:07:03 PM
So, compromise voting is bad, because folks won't erode civil liberties as fast, so you want someone in office who will tear 'em down faster?
Bogie head 'splode...
Bogie head 'splode...
NO! We want someone who won't tear then down at all. Not faster or slower, not at all. Why is that so hard to accept.
Oh, I agree with you whole-heartedly. I accept it entirely. The problem is that Ross Perot and Badnarik and Ron Paul will never deliver on that expectation.
Post by: Paddy on January 28, 2008, 02:09:07 PM
So if a Republican president wants gun control, he'll get it, with either a Dem or Repub congress. If a Dem president wants gun contol, he'll need a solid Dem majority.
There's your answer.
Post by: K Frame on January 28, 2008, 03:41:13 PM