Jump to content

Did our political debate thread vanish?


needncash

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All of this from a guy (?) who cuts and pastes talking points from the Huffington Post. Bet you were crushed when Air America went out of business.

 

You're right . . . liberalism really is where it's at. BTW, doesn't it strike you as paradoxical that, if your political heroes got their way, we wouldn't be having a discussion on a firearm forum at all?

 

Why? Because, despite your little "quiz", and funny little redneck pictures, every left-wing leader in the United States (or, for that matter, the entire world) would criminalize the private ownership of firearms overnight, if they thought they could get away with it politically. The only reason they don't push ahead is that they're afraid of what us illiterate rednecks would do to them at the ballot box.

 

Your quiz, by the way, displays a love for Michael Moore that is somewhat greater than natural. Just how many times have you seen Farenheit 911, anyway?

 

You truly are a clown, regardless of the fact that you've pounded out 6,414 posts on this forum (and, if the template holds true, countless others on different forums). Your arrogance and false sense of superiority remind me of a college professor: smart in school . . . dumb on the bus.

 

see ya little fella . . . don't you have a DNC rally to slither off to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like TaintSkimmer has a brighter cousin!

 

But when you sift through the better writing and composition, you're essentially left with the same response -

 

"I have no grounds or facts upon which to debate you, so I offer you a litany of insults. I sure hope that's enough to throw a few people off track and make them overlook the fact that I really didn't say anything worth a flying #^$%."

 

Well, perhaps. But I doubt it.

Nice of you to pass through. Be sure and stop by the gift shop and get yourself a t-shirt or a troll doll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So answer my question, Tucks. Don't you find it ironic that, without support from the right wingers you so obviously despise, you wouldn't have a 2nd Amendment right to exercise? I assume you do, in fact, own a firearm?

 

I won't waste my time answering your little quiz. Suffice it to say, I'm a conservative because:

 

1) I believe this country is exceptional.

2) We are exceptional because of the fact that ours (unlike any other country in the history of the world) is a country based upon the primacy of the individual over the state; and on self-reliance over dependency.

3) For us to remain exceptional, that must remain the case.

4) For that to remain the case, the federal government must not be allowed to have the degree of control over our lives that the Left in this country would like.

5) For that to be the case, we must demand a government that endeavors to do much less FOR us, so that it is incapable of doing whatever it likes TO us (the 2nd Amendment plays a role in that, by the way).

 

I further believe that a 30% federal tax rate is immoral, much less a 40% rate. Upon ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the top marginal rate was only 7%. The lust for power and control kicked in quickly, however, and by the third year of it's existence the top marginal tax rate had jumped to 67% . . . growing to as much as 94%, until JFK injected some small amount of common sense.

 

We now have a situation where a little over 50% of the population in this country pays no federal income tax whatsoever - a situation liberals love. I find this to be positively un-American. The majority can vote a tax increase upon the minority, without impacting their own wallet. It (the majority) can also vote itself benefits - again, without having to pay a penny for them.

 

Benjamin Franklin said, "Once the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic." He was right . . . to no sane man's surprise.

 

Oh, we can go down the path of the European Socialist democracies - and, in fact, Obama and his ilk would very much like to - but that will ruin the character of our country . . . the only thing that makes us unique; and, yes, exceptional.

 

Ours has been a grand experiment. It looks as though it's probably failed, however. Many on this forum would simply like to hold onto it for a little while longer . . . and allow our children to do the same. Make fun of us for that, if you will, but I dare say your wit (and that of Obama, et. al.) couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Jefferson and Franklin.

 

Call me crazy, but I'll hitch my wagon to those old white men any day, over a charismatic smooth talker with a teleprompter, preaching dependence upon him.

 

There's much more to be said, and your little quiz would be child's play given a few minutes' time, but I tend to ground myself in my own carefully-considered philosophy, which I've attempted to outline above. As a result, I tend not to fall into childish traps set by those with an agenda.

 

I'll leave you with a few pearls:

 

[A] wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” -Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States

The Utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.” – Samuel Adams, Founder of the Constitution of the United States

And now, from President Barack Obama:

 

“..and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” – Barack Obama

 

 

see ya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So answer my question, Tucks. Don't you find it ironic that, without support from the right wingers you so obviously despise, you wouldn't have a 2nd Amendment right to exercise? I assume you do, in fact, own a firearm?

 

I won't waste my time answering your little quiz. Suffice it to say, I'm a conservative because:

 

1) I believe this country is exceptional.

2) We are exceptional because of the fact that ours (unlike any other country in the history of the world) is a country based upon the primacy of the individual over the state; and on self-reliance over dependency.

3) For us to remain exceptional, that must remain the case.

4) For that to remain the case, the federal government must not be allowed to have the degree of control over our lives that the Left in this country would like.

5) For that to be the case, we must demand a government that endeavors to do much less FOR us, so that it is incapable of doing whatever it likes TO us (the 2nd Amendment plays a role in that, by the way).

 

I further believe that a 30% federal tax rate is immoral, much less a 40% rate. Upon ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the top marginal rate was only 7%. The lust for power and control kicked in quickly, however, and by the third year of it's existence the top marginal tax rate had jumped to 67% . . . growing to as much as 94%, until JFK injected some small amount of common sense.

 

We now have a situation where a little over 50% of the population in this country pays no federal income tax whatsoever - a situation liberals love. I find this to be positively un-American. The majority can vote a tax increase upon the minority, without impacting their own wallet. It (the majority) can also vote itself benefits - again, without having to pay a penny for them.

 

Benjamin Franklin said, "Once the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic." He was right . . . to no sane man's surprise.

 

Oh, we can go down the path of the European Socialist democracies - and, in fact, Obama and his ilk would very much like to - but that will ruin the character of our country . . . the only thing that makes us unique; and, yes, exceptional.

 

Ours has been a grand experiment. It looks as though it's probably failed, however. Many on this forum would simply like to hold onto it for a little while longer . . . and allow our children to do the same. Make fun of us for that, if you will, but I dare say your wit (and that of Obama, et. al.) couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Jefferson and Franklin.

 

Call me crazy, but I'll hitch my wagon to those old white men any day, over a charismatic smooth talker with a teleprompter, preaching dependence upon him.

 

There's much more to be said, and your little quiz would be child's play given a few minutes' time, but I tend to ground myself in my own carefully-considered philosophy, which I've attempted to outline above. As a result, I tend not to fall into childish traps set by those with an agenda.

 

I'll leave you with a few pearls:

 

[A] wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” -Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States

 

The Utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.” – Samuel Adams, Founder of the Constitution of the United States

 

 

And now, from President Barack Obama:

 

“..and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” – Barack Obama

 

 

see ya

 

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet you're a Teabagger, aren't you?

 

You quote patriots as though you have some exclusive rights to their ideals, and anyone who is opposed to your current philosophies must therefore be unpatriotic.

 

It's a shallow and ridiculous notion that has served the extreme right well for a good while now. But it's finally falling apart, isn't it?

 

Even your beloved Sarah tossed you under the bus.

That must have stung a bit. You bectha!

 

"Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party," .... "Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’." - Sarah Palin

 

Sounds like someone has sat her down and had a talk.

 

Taxes? The new tax cuts reduce (

 

But somehow he's a tax and spend Democrat? Interesting concept. But there may be some truth to that.

 

And what about all of that tax and spend vs fiscal conservatism?

 

Over the past 75 years, which Administrations have contributed more to our national deficits?

Which ones made strides in the other direction?

These are not trick questions. They go right to the very heart of some of our most prevalent concerns for our children's futures.

 

If the Democrats are tax and spend, then certainly the Republicans are borrow and spend.

 

So when the more responsible of the two comes along, the first thing they're left with doing is to pay the bills and clean up the mess their predecesor left behind.

 

Tell you what.

I'll come to your house and throw a big party.

I'll borrow a gaggle of cash from, oh... let's say China, and we'll have some some drinks and do some gambling... maybe hire a few pricey strippers. You know? The works.

 

Most of my friends are going to leave with a hefty profit, because they weren't gambling with their own money to begin with.

There will be some stains on the carpets, some pee in the pool and maybe a few unsavory items lying around. Perhaps we'll even invade the neighbor's place and trash that too?

 

When your patience with me and my friends runs out, I'll tell you how much you owe the lender, the caterers, the bar, and band, ... it's all in your name.

 

Now you just have to figure out a way to pay for it.

Good luck with that.

 

Gun legislation?

Please show me where the bills are? That shouldn't be hard to do, should it?

What has the new administration done, other than repeal the previous one's ban on guns in national parks? perhaps I've missed something. Obviously I have, or you wouldn't invoking these dead patriots, would you?

 

Yes, I know there are some leftists who want to abolish all guns.

There are also some right-wingers who want to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

 

Both ideas sicken me. Both are affronts to liberties.

 

There are some lefties who do think the solution to everything is more regulation.

 

There are also some righties who think that unregulated capitalists would not dare do anything to harm their fellow Americans, even in the wake of the epic clusterf*** of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the collapse of the financial systems it brought about.

 

And please don't start a war of malapropisms with W in your corner. That's like bringing silly putty to a gunfight.

 

Great quotes from Jefferson and the others. They were wise and great men. But they weren't exclusive to your current political discontent. They apply equally to all who are uneasy these days.

They are as appealing as a basket of puppies, and about as much help.

 

The ability for them to vote themselves this or that didn't just happen last January.

That one has been around for while now, and it has been abused by the very fools you seem to prefer to have in power.

 

So, now the butler is in the mansion, but he's sleeping in his master's bed.

As upsetting as that may be, please keep in mind that the master experienced quite an epic amount of incontinence in that bed.

 

So it's going to take the new fellow maybe a bit more than a year to clean up 8 years worth of crap.

 

He is my President. He was duly elected by both a popular and electoral majority. He's got the previous clown beat on that one.

He inherited two wars, the worst economy in 70 years, and got stiffed for a staggering bar tab from the last party.

 

I support him and I hope he succeeds in getting this nation back together and back on track.

God bless him and God help him.

 

Civil discourse is always a healthy thing, but condemnation based on lies, innuendos, and in some cases, ignorance divides a nation that really needs to come together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we have someone in the group who appears to have some command of the language, let me run this by you.

 

Too Big To Fail?

 

More and more, our healthcare system is being consolidated into a handful of insurance and hospital conglomerates. Massive companies that are gobbling each other up and growing into powerful monsters.

 

So what happens if the American public continues to be more frugal, even when we do get back to work?

What happens when we stop believing that we have every other fabricated ailment on the commercials?

 

What happens when the oil companies get jumpy again and run gas prices back through the roof?

 

Many of these companies are raising their rates in excess of inflation to compensate for the loss of business from out of work customers.

 

It's a situation that may well mirror what happened with the creditors in the months leading up to the mortgage collapse.

Trust me, there are a lot retirement dollars in the healthcare sector as well. There's a healthcare bubble out there too.

 

What if people simply stop going to the doctor for every little thing, because they're either uninsured or they don't want to risk losing coverage by making small claims and having pre-existing conditions documented.

 

Things get tight and the big ones like Anthem begin to falter.

Suddenly, there could be millions of people who can no longer have access to healthcare.

Is the government, you know, the one who has no business in healthcare, going to step in and bail them out?

 

Will all of those people be tossed out into the streets with no medical services?

Will these huge companies lay off thousands and thousands of workers?

What happens to the support industries? The medical equipment manufacturers. The pharmaceutical companies?

 

Does this snowball effect sound familiar? It should.

 

Is this when failed capitalism must once a gain be propped up by the taxpayers, in order to preserve a quality of life for all?

 

As I see it, the only difference between that model and [gasp] Socialism is that in our model we let someone slip out the back door with scads of profits on top of what it actually costs to run the system. Only when they've slipped away and the house is on fire, do we rush in to save it.

 

Now I'm not decrying that Socialised medicine is the answer.

But if we're going to end up with government run healthcare to go along with our government run banking and government run auto industries, I'd just as soon skip the painful part and apply a little regulation up front.

 

In 2007, the US Auto Industry accounted for 144 billion dollars of the GDP.

Finance and Insurance - 960 billion dollars.

Healthcare - 769 billion.

New reports indicate that healthcare is now at 2.5 trillion dollars, or about 17.3 percent of our GDP.

Can we afford to allow a handful of major players control 17% of our Gross Domestic product, with little to no regulation?

 

You thought the others were too big too fail? How does $282 million per hour grab you?

Edited by tucker301
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'll bet you're a Teabagger, aren't you?" No, I'm an American who advocates a return to what made us great, rather than a scamper toward the policies that have failed every time they've been tried.

 

Besides, wasn't it you who decried those who, "offer you a litany of insults"? I find that hypocritical, but maybe that's just me.

 

Sure, there's regulatory action to be taken in the banking and healthcare industries. That doesn't call for the Socialist solutions pushed by greedy and power-hungry Democrats (including your esteemed President), however.

 

You really do sound like a whiny George Soros disciple. Truly a product of Dem talking points, and a hatred for all that made this country great. What a shame, because you also seem to have a reasonable level of intelligence.

 

see ya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sure, there's regulatory action to be taken in the banking and healthcare industries. That doesn't call for the Socialist solutions pushed by greedy and power-hungry Democrats (including your esteemed President), however.

 

You do understand that Republican lawmakers can write bills too, don't you??

If there's work to be done, and they don't like what the other side is coming up with, then they can take on a higher level of participation instead of just sitting back and saying NO all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do understand that Republican lawmakers can write bills too, don't you??

If there's work to be done, and they don't like what the other side is coming up with, then they can take on a higher level of participation instead of just sitting back and saying NO all the time.

 

That is completely childish. Republicans share plenty of the blame for what's wrong with this country . . . largely because they've spent money like Democrats. However, when it comes to the current congress, they've been completely shut out in terms of input, and if you're honest, you'll admit that.

 

Then there are these little gems:

 

"Gun legislation? Please show me where the bills are? That shouldn't be hard to do, should it? What has the new administration done, other than repeal the previous one's ban on guns in national parks? perhaps I've missed something. Obviously I have, or you wouldn't invoking these dead patriots, would you?

 

Yes, I know there are some leftists who want to abolish all guns.

 

There are also some right-wingers who want to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies."

 

OK, are you serious, Tucker? Do you not agree (and this is a simple test of honesty) that - were there no political consequences - probably 75% of congressional Dems and certainly the entire Administration would abolish the private ownership of firearms (at the very least, all handguns and semi-automatics) TODAY? Are you seriously not honest enough to admit that? If you're not, then you're delusional; and conversations with the delusional are seldom (if ever) productive.

 

And the bit about telling women what they can do with their own bodies? Who are you, Patricia Ireland? Seriously, there's nothing in the world more feminine-sounding than a male liberal prattling on like that. Man up, for heavens sake!

 

I happen to be grudingly pro-choice, but I also have to admit that the taking of an innocent life occurs EVERY time that "right" is excercised - as opposed to our very clear 2nd Amendment right, where the same occurs in far less than 1% of cases. Yet, oddly enough, most pro-choice types refuse to acknowledge the latter, while supporting the former with a passion that is almost religious in nature.

 

You're previous 700 or so posts in this thread alone indicate a high level of contempt for "rednecks" and "teabaggers" (one in the same, in your opinion). I happen to be neither; but that disdain for "regular folk" appears to be common among liberals. We now know that the recently-fallen-from-grace John Edwards (famous liberal though he is) had the same contemptuous feelings, though he prattled on about fighting for "regular people" and "two Americas", blah blah blah. The elitist leftist mindset of superiority tends to lead to that. You people tend to think that you're smarter than everyone else, and should therefore be allowed to take care of those of us who comprise the rabble - since you know what's best for us.

 

Frankly, to borrow from that model of inclusiveness, Rahm Emanuel, that kind of thing makes you sound "f'ing retarded" to the rest of us - and I can tell you're not; so snap out if it, Skippy!

 

Tucks, you strike me as the kind of person who enjoyes bullying others with your sharp tongue and (admittedly) sharp wit. It appears as though you're used to intimidating people. That obviously works better with some than others. You also have a 6,000 plus post history on this forum, and I do not.

 

So, I'm obviously new around here, but it strikes me as strange that:

 

A) You're a gunowner at all, given your far-left leanings (be honest, that makes you about as rare as an un-groped intern in the Clinton Administration).

B) You're serious enough about it to post 6,000 times on this forum.

C) You have so little respect for, and in common with, what I would guess is the VAST majority of other forum members.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why none of those things should surprise me. Anyhoo, it's been fun, and we could go on forever, I'm sure. As you can probably tell, I enjoy this as much as you do.

 

see ya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I am just as bored with you as I was the previous dork.

You're not bringing anything new to this discussion at all.

Just the same old attempts at branding someone so that you can more clearly discern the "enemy" from the "good guys".

 

I simply don't know who some of the people you mention are.

Patricia Ireland? Wasn't she in SI Swimsuit issues for several years?

 

Yours is the typical hard right attack tactic. "You're either with us or you're against us!" & "I don't understand you so I need to pigeon hole you as every other liberal stereotype so I can feel better about hating you."

 

It's old, it's tired, and it simply doesn't work anymore.

I don't give rat's backside if you think I'm Ted Kennedy. I know who I am and where I've come from. More importantly, I know where I want to go.

 

Here is what I know.

I tried "conservative" leadership for 8 years.

 

They took us from a stable economy with a budgetary surplus to a complete economic meltdown, necessitating government intervention with taxpayer money to stop the bleeding.

It was they who instigated the TARP to prevent the economy from "cratering". Legislation was shoved through at an alarming rate, and the same people who had driven us into the ditch were given the keys to the kingdom and a bag of gold for their efforts.

 

They all but abandoned the important and duly justified war in Afghanistan and devoted resources towards settling an old debt and making rich friends richer, sacrificing scores of lives and stretching our defenses to a near breaking point. For what? Some crackhead said there were WMD's and he was treated as though the information was unimpeachable gospel.

 

They strained our relationships with the rest of the world and drug us into an abyss.

 

Then, when it finally comes time to consider new leadership, the same party offers the same old tired and ineffective philosophies.

 

Yet still, even then, I was considering voting for McCain, because I do like my guns.

 

Then he shows what is quite possibly the biggest lapse in judgment in the history of American politics and recruits a vacuous null-wit weather girl from Alaska.... Alaska?! to be his running mate.

 

Finally, I get it.

 

My guns will have to take a back seat in this one, and I'm going to have to hope that the 2nd will stand up to any challenges brought forth, because what the heck good are my guns if I have to sell them all to provide for my family?

 

There are more facets to my life than my love for firearms.

 

I'm not the liberal elitist you choose to paint with such a broad brush.

 

I'm just a guy who realized that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is generally what is classified as a fool.

 

I'm tired of being that guy. I'm tired of being held hostage by one party with my guns as ransom.

I would gladly give all of my guns to bring back just one of the 3,000 plus brave souls who went to fight without once questioning whether they were fighting for the right reasons.

 

I have listed facts in this ongoing discussion. Facts that have in no way been challenged nor debunked by a darned thing you or any of the others have said.

 

Yes, I have over 6,000 posts.

I truly get tired of that being thrown up in my face as though it's something I did wrong.

 

I came here seeking information one day some years ago.

I have stayed because I truly enjoy helping people when I can, in any way I can.

 

My job affords me a lot of time in front of the computer, waiting, as I am right now, waiting for other things to be completed.

I choose to spend that time doing things I like to do.

When hunting season is out, I like coming here.

 

You're just going to have to deal with that in your own way with that if it bothers you.

 

Get a new label-maker. Your old one is obsolete.

Edited by tucker301
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, I get it.

My guns will have to take a back seat in this one, and I'm going to have to hope that the 2nd will stand up to any challenges brought forth, because what the heck good are my guns if I have to sell them all to provide for my family?

.

 

 

What he said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply don't know who some of the people you mention are. Patricia Ireland? Wasn't she in SI Swimsuit issues for several years?

 

No, that was Kathy Ireland. You libs have no eye for hot women either, apparently. Patricia was the president of NOW (or NAG - the Nat'l Organization of Gals). She blabberred on endlessly about nothing of importance. You two would have gotten along famously.

 

Yours is the typical hard right attack tactic. "You're either with us or you're against us!" & "I don't understand you so I need to pigeon hole you as every other liberal stereotype so I can feel better about hating you."

 

Not at all. I understand you completely. You're perfectly comfortable with having a bloated and growing federal government suck you dry, in order to "take care of you". I'm not. I want Slobama the **** out of my life. I don't want any him and his moronic power-hungry pals to take MY damned money. I don't want them to do a damn thing for me but keep the interstate highways in good repair, and fight wars for me. I want them to scrap social security and let me save for myself. I also don't want my tax dollars going to anyone else. I donate plenty to charities, where most of the money actually does get to the intended recipients; unlike federal programs, where only about 40% filters through. The rest is eaten up by the disgusting bureaucracy. Do you realize that the average federal employee makes $71,000/year, vs. about $40,000 for the average private sector employee? If that doesn't sicken you, you truly are a Marxist.

 

It's old, it's tired, and it simply doesn't work anymore. I don't give rat's backside if you think I'm Ted Kennedy. I know who I am and where I've come from. More importantly, I know where I want to go.

 

You're not Ted Kennedy. I think you actually believe what you say, whereas he was a fat drunken, womanizing slob who had enough money to afford to perpetrate ruinous policies on others, in order to provide salve for his conscience.

 

Here is what I know. I tried "conservative" leadership for 8 years.

 

No you didn't. Bush spent money like a Democrat.

 

They took us from a stable economy with a budgetary surplus to a complete economic meltdown, necessitating government intervention with taxpayer money to stop the bleeding.

 

Ok Skippy, fact time. We began a recession in the final six months of Clinton's presidency. Then, after 8 months in office, we experienced 9/11 - the most crippling single blow to our economy, arguably in our history. The economy was set up for a downward spiral the likes of which we'd never seen, in the eyes of many. For the overrated, inexperienced clown who currently holds the office (or anybody else who makes the argument - present company included) to NOT realize all of that, and credit Bush with stopping said spiral is beyond disingenuous.

 

FACT is that, after the slowdown from Clinton's recession of 2000, the terrorist attacts of late '01, and Bush's tax cuts finally taking effect in '03, income tax revenues to the treasury INCREASED in every year from 2004-2007. Translation for the socialist-inclined among us? Marginal rate reductions for EVERY tax payer stimulated economic growth. Period. That is verifiable, and unassailable.

 

It was they who instigated the TARP to prevent the economy from "cratering". Legislation was shoved through at an alarming rate, and the same people who had driven us into the ditch were given the keys to the kingdom and a bag of gold for their efforts.

 

TARP was assinine. So was nationalizing GM. A pox on both of them.

 

They all but abandoned the important and duly justified war in Afghanistan and devoted resources towards settling an old debt and making rich friends richer, sacrificing scores of lives and stretching our defenses to a near breaking point. For what? Some crackhead said there were WMD's and he was treated as though the information was unimpeachable gospel.

 

Which crackhead? Clinton, Kerry, the French? Which "crackhead" told him about WMD's; because all of the above and everyone else in the world believed they existed. The rest of that crap is pure Michael Moore, and that fat idiot's gotten enough airtime.

 

They strained our relationships with the rest of the world and drug us into an abyss.

 

Whatever. Most European leaders had their own vested interests in seeing Hussein (Saddam, not Barak) stay in power. The Russians and Chinese are communist liars, and the French are pussies (yes, I know the French are Europeans. I just thought they deserved their own second category). We tried the sanctions route first to "get along", but the UN is so utterly spineless and corrupt that there was no chance of enforcement.

 

Then, when it finally comes time to consider new leadership, the same party offers the same old tired and ineffective philosophies.

 

The philosophies have worked every time they've been tried. Point invalid (insert "wrong answer" buzzer sound here). I'm not all a McCain fan, however.

 

Yet still, even then, I was considering voting for McCain, because I do like my guns.

 

B.S. Your obvious leanings push you inexorably toward the Marxist candidate every time. Tell the truth.

 

Then he shows what is quite possibly the biggest lapse in judgment in the history of American politics and recruits a vacuous null-wit weather girl from Alaska.... Alaska?! to be his running mate.

 

What the ****'s wrong with Alaska? Friggin' snob. I'm not a huge Sarah fan, but I love the fact that she gets under the skin of snooty libs.

 

Finally, I get it.

 

My guns will have to take a back seat in this one, and I'm going to have to hope that the 2nd will stand up to any challenges brought forth, because what the heck good are my guns if I have to sell them all to provide for my family?

 

That's it. Be a good boy and hand them over. We'll take goooooood care of you. Serf. That's a ridiculous false choice. I assumed you were brighter.

 

There are more facets to my life than my love for firearms.

 

Me too. I'm a former Marine, father of 3 boys, husband of 1 woman, owner of a successful small business, and Pop Warner football coach. My guns are important to me as much for what they represent, as what they are.

 

I'm not the liberal elitist you choose to paint with such a broad brush. I'm just a guy who realized that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is generally what is classified as a fool.

 

No, what's foolish is going along with 40% tax rates, and new federal programs when our 2 largest have already failed. We need to DRASTICALLY slash our federal budget, and get back to dependence upon ourselves. We need to credit the producers in society, not punish them through "progressively" higher taxation.

 

I'm tired of being that guy. I'm tired of being held hostage by one party with my guns as ransom. I would gladly give all of my guns to bring back just one of the 3,000 plus brave souls who went to fight without once questioning whether they were fighting for the right reasons.

 

Most of those souls knew exactly what they were doing, and believed in their mission. How dare you dishonor them by insinuating otherwise.

 

I have listed facts in this ongoing discussion. Facts that have in no way been challenged nor debunked by a darned thing you or any of the others have said.

 

Yes they have. See above.

 

Yes, I have over 6,000 posts. I truly get tired of that being thrown up in my face as though it's something I did wrong.

 

I don't care what you're tired of.

 

I came here seeking information one day some years ago.

I have stayed because I truly enjoy helping people when I can, in any way I can.

 

Fine.

 

My job affords me a lot of time in front of the computer, waiting, as I am right now, waiting for other things to be completed.

 

I'm happy for you. Just spit ballin' here, but any way you could fill that "dead time" with something more productive, assuming you work for someone else? I can't help but think like a business owner.

 

I choose to spend that time doing things I like to do.

When hunting season is out, I like coming here.

 

You're just going to have to deal in your own way with that if it bothers you.

 

Get a new label-maker. Your old one is obsolete.

 

Blah Blah Blah

 

So I've answered your little talking points. I have to say that I don't see how an adult who doesn't wear a diaper can think the way you do; but whatever.

 

Buh Bye now. I'm not sure I'll waste any more time with you. You appear to be an arrogant liberal, who happens to be fun to toy with, but I've grown tired of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing new here.

Just different words repeating the same crap.

 

You go, patriot!

Please protect me when "they" come for my guns, my children, my ficus, and my duck decoys. :rolleyes:

 

I will address the one point in which you seemed to almost show interest. I suppose it's because you haven't been instructed by your handlers on how to respond to such a deep reference.

 

The "crackhead" I was referring to, the loser who brought forth the "intelligence" about WMD's in Iraq, was a fellow named Rafid Ahmed Alwan, AKA "Curveball".

 

Follow that link and spend some time with your head out of the sand for a change.

 

One more thing. About that economy....

 

National-Debt-GDP.gif

 

Do you see a trend there, SKIPPY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of those souls knew exactly what they were doing

 

Really?

They knew that they were fighting a war based on false pretenses for a tired old man with and axe to grind?

 

They knew that the information fed to Congress by the administration was complete BS?

 

They knew that the entirety of evidence against Iraq was based on nothing more than hearsay from a lowlife informant?

 

They knew that Cheney's old buds at KBR would profit so heavily from a war that he had 9 years prior

 

bush-mission574x315.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I made the mistake of assuming you were aware that presidents can't spend or appropriate money. Uh, they can't. Reagan had a Dem congress, Clinton had a Repub congress, and Bush had Harry and Electric-Eyes Pelosi. See a pattern there? Hmmmm? Okay, I'll try to slow down.

 

This will be too much for you, I'm sure, but try to engage for a sec. I see that you conveniently blew by my explanation of what happened to our economy from 2000-2007, and how Bush should get credit for what he did, not blame.

 

So I don't have any hope that you'll follow this logic, either (something you appear incapable of doing in any case), but what was it that Reagan accomplished during that '80's that allowed Good Time Charlie (aka Clinton) to ride the wave that he did in the 90's? Hmmm? C'mon little fella'. Wouldn't you say that ridding the world of Communism gave us a fat "peace dividend" to spend . . . or to not spend? Clinton also had a Republican congress for 6 years, which pushed him to make the cuts he did.

 

He (Reagan) frankly wouldn't have increased the deficit a penny if he'd gotten the budgets through congress that he submitted. When Tip and the girls got finished with them, however, they were as full of pork as, well . . . Tip was. Remember the talk about his budgets being dead on arrival, due to the spending cuts he proposed? Nice try, but we all know where the blame belongs.

 

Reagan submitted cuts virtually commensurate with increased military spending. In the end, however, he went along with O'Neil's blackmail to get his tax cuts and much-needed military spending through.

 

Your ridiculous little point seems to be that Dems are far more responsible, in terms of budgets. Everyone knows that both parties spend money like it's someone else's; but to try to assert that Dems are more "responsible" is ludicrous. There's more to your little chart than that single line, and you know it (or at least you should).

 

More than anything else though, the friggin' federal budget is bloated. We should set an upper limit to the income tax (20% or so), then make the spoiled oligarchs in Washington come up with a budget that fits, not the other way around. Isn't that the way we live our lives? Can you take from your employer what you need to live on, or do you have to make your spending fit your income?

 

Goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing new here.

Just different words repeating the same crap.

 

You go, patriot!

Please protect me when "they" come for my guns, my children, my ficus, and my duck decoys. :rolleyes:

 

I will address the one point in which you seemed to almost show interest. I suppose it's because you haven't been instructed by your handlers on how to respond to such a deep reference.

 

The "crackhead" I was referring to, the loser who brought forth the "intelligence" about WMD's in Iraq, was a fellow named Rafid Ahmed Alwan, AKA "Curveball".

 

Follow that link and spend some time with your head out of the sand for a change.

 

One more thing. About that economy....

 

National-Debt-GDP.gif

 

Do you see a trend there, SKIPPY?

 

Oh, one other thing I noticed about your purty little picture is that Slobama seems to be headed in the same direction FDR went! The original socialist leads the neo-socialist . . . even from the grave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

They knew that they were fighting a war based on false pretenses for a tired old man with and axe to grind?

 

They knew that the information fed to Congress by the administration was complete BS?

 

They knew that the entirety of evidence against Iraq was based on nothing more than hearsay from a lowlife informant?

 

They knew that Cheney's old buds at KBR would profit so heavily from a war that he had 9 years prior

 

What a load of crap. Are you, in fact, Michael Moore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of crap. Are you, in fact, Michael Moore?

 

Nevermind. I just looked at your picture. Question answered. :D

 

I've enjoyed it immensely, tuck. I'm glad you love Obama. Personally, I would've preferred the Old Man . . . especially since his Veep would've been major eye-candy.

 

C'mon tuck, even an old lib like you has got to admit that Sarah's smokin' hot with that hair up, eyeglass-wearin' librarian look . . . don't ya? Don't ya?

 

Oh, forget it . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reagan ridding the world of Communism is going to come as quite a shock to China.

You remember China? They are the people the Republicans borrowed all of that money from to fund their "booming economies."

 

But your beloved Reagan was a master at foreign policy. No one's arguing that. He just sucked at domestic policy.

Don't get me wrong. If you were rich, Reagan was your best friend. He cut the top tax bracket from 70% to 28%, but he didn't raise minimum wage once.

 

I'm simply not rich enough to be a Republican. I like guns too much to be a liberal.

It's a tough spot to be in. But it is the category that probably most Americans fall into comfortably.

 

Extremists views and policies are not what we need right now. There is a a lot of middle ground between these two parties, but no one seems to want to step into it.

 

The Democrats thought they would steamroll with the so-called super-majority, but all they did was drive a wedge in between two halves of Congress, forcing everyone to choose a side. Some even changed sides as the wedge was being driven deeper.

 

The Republicans got their feelings hurt and decided to say no to everything, regardless of what their constituency might have felt about it.

They wanted a seat at the table.

 

Now they've been offered a conciliatory seat, but they're afraid to take it, because this new guy has made them look like fools once already, with his atypical knowledge of the issues.

 

Government is gridlocked.

While other countries move forward by implementing policies and programs, we tread water in a rip current.

 

Spending v appropriation.

Presidents can spend. They just can't raise revenues without Congress. See Bush & General Motors for more on that. Although Congress had specifically declined to give money to GM, Bush pulled money from the bank bailout appropriations and gave it to them.

 

I wonder what he's driving these days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing about all of the fear-mongering over "Socialized Medicine".

 

Have you ever compared Insurance to Socialism?

As far as I can tell, the only difference is that Insurance is Socialism, but with a profit for those who run it.

Otherwise, they're basically the same model.

 

The many contribute small amounts each so that that the few who need use the services can have access to them.

The premise is that more money comes in than is paid out. After overhead, etc., what's left over becomes profit.

 

The simple reason that we need insurance in the first place is that we may need to spend more to save a life than that life is worth.

 

That's the practical side of it.

 

The moral side says we can't simply let people die, just because they can't afford to pay the costs to save them.

 

On the surface, insurance sounds like a good solution to the problem. We all pay in and hope we don't get sick. Some do get sick, but they have access to the resources that the rest of us didn't need to use.

 

However, since the system is profit-based, the people who run it are under constant pressure to reduce the amount paid out and increase the amount paid in. Simple math.

 

When they start thinking of ways to accomplish these goals, they begin to lose track of what the system is supposed to be doing in the first place. They start looking for ways to get the people who are needing the services out of the system. They are leeches.

Ideally, insurance companies want a bunch of healthy people paying in, and very few sick people taking money out.

 

Another problem with the system is that people like me, who otherwise could not afford to have a litany of diagnostic tests and procedures done, can afford to do so with insurance. At face value, this sounds like a good thing. But is it? How many tests and procedures are done unnecessarily in this country each year. Collectively, American spend more and get less from our healthcare system than any other industrialized nation. We get a sniffle and run to the doctor, because insurance pays for it, not us.

 

Insurance skews the very basis of supply and demand by overstating the buying power of the individual to levels well beyond their actual capacity.

This leads to a false sense of what we, as a collective group, can afford.

That inflated perception drives providers to charge more than their services are worth, because they know that while the individual may not be able to afford it, the group certainly can.

 

Toss in cheating, corruption, fraud, increased operational costs, processing costs, litigation costs, etc., and you have our wonderful health insurance model.

Socialized medicine for a Capitalist society.

 

Freedom! Doesn't it feel great?!

Edited by tucker301
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...