Romney won the debate - but [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Romney won the debate - but


Pages : [1] 2

G19G20
10-04-2012, 01:01
This Paulite thinks Romney won the debate. The thing is, he should have. Obama is so weak on economic and monetary issues that anyone could. I still won't vote for Romney because I don't trust his record and rhetoric but he did objectively win this debate. If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.

My .02 as the GTPI Paul weathervane.

Big Mad Dawg
10-04-2012, 03:56
. If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.

My .02 as the GTPI Paul weathervane.

Well he would have been the second worst “if he had lost” the worst bowed out a while back let’s hope for the last time too. After a while even RP has to come to the conclusion that he just is never going to win but please enjoy your sour grapes drink.

JBnTX
10-04-2012, 04:03
Romney just demonstrated what great things the GOP can do without that leech Ron Paul sucking the life out of them.

Faulkner
10-04-2012, 05:59
. Obama is so weak on economic and monetary issues that anyone could.

Just curious . . . exactly what is Obama not weak at? :whistling:

JFrame
10-04-2012, 06:26
Heh...We might have gotten a foretaste of what Obama's strategy in the foreign policy debate will be. He managed to work in a mention of OBL in a domestic policy debate... :upeyes:


.

Fed Five Oh
10-04-2012, 06:37
If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.Ron Paul has that title for life. Can y'all imagine what that debate would have looked like with that bumbling idiot Ron Paul up there?:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
10-04-2012, 06:38
Romney won the debate, but you still want Paul. The devotion is noted, but simply irrelevant.

There were two guys on the stage last night, and only one of THEM will be the president in 4 months. That may suck for all of us, but that's reality. Keep working through those stages of grief, you'll get there. If you get stuck, some counseling may help.

GAFinch
10-04-2012, 06:49
How dare a non-libertarian Republican display working knowledge of macroeconomics, inherent supremacy of revenues and decreased spending over higher taxes, inherent supremacy of the free market over the federal government, and inherent efficiency of states over the federal government. :burn:

beforeobamabans
10-04-2012, 07:01
What Romney proved last night is that he is the big government "moderate" Rockefeller RINO we all knew he was in the primaries which was why we all supported more conservative candidates. Last night we learned that his tax "cuts" are smoke and mirrors (no net reduction due to elimination of deductions), that he WILL borrow from the Chinese if he can spend it on the military, that he won't touch entitlement spending and therefore really won't reduce net spending at all, that he still wants federal control of healthcare (just called RomneyCare instead of ObamaCare), and that he really, really doesn't like renewable energy.

Here's what will happen if Romney gets elected: very little will change which means the economy doesn't do much and "conservative" policies get blamed for not working (again).

Goaltender66
10-04-2012, 07:34
What Romney proved last night is that he is the big government "moderate" Rockefeller RINO we all knew he was in the primaries which was why we all supported more conservative candidates.

OK, so let's go through your bullets.

Last night we learned that his tax "cuts" are smoke and mirrors (no net reduction due to elimination of deductions),

First, Romney has been touting a revenue-neutral restructuring of the tax code since the primaries, so saying you just learned it last night seems odd to me.

That said, lowering rates and eliminating deductions makes perfect sense since it puts incentive back where it belongs...to work harder and earn more to put in your pocket...instead of where it is now, which is to spend your extra earnings on government-approved things in order to gain a deduction.

Taken to its extreme, would you prefer a high tax rate with a bunch of deductions written into a labrynthine code, or a low flat tax rate with no deductions at all?

that he WILL borrow from the Chinese if he can spend it on the military, that he won't touch entitlement spending and therefore really won't reduce net spending at all,
I combined these two because I think you have too. The acid test Romney used was if a program isn't worth borrowing from the Chinese to fund, it would be eliminated. PBS seems pretty clear under that formula. Obamacare definitely. Free cell phones? Yep.

But the big drivers are SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. On its current trajectory it's going to go BK. The question is actually how do we get these things working until we can actually cut them off?

that he still wants federal control of healthcare (just called RomneyCare instead of ObamaCare),
I just heard him flat out say he will a) repeal Obamacare and b) devolve the issue back to the states where it belongs (he even brought up the 10A. :) ).

and that he really, really doesn't like renewable energy.
It isn't that he doesn't like it, just that he apparently doesn't believe the Federal Government has a role in pouring venture capital down that hole. I don't think that's an unreasonable opinion.

Here's what will happen if Romney gets elected: very little will change which means the economy doesn't do much and "conservative" policies get blamed for not working (again).

The federal behemoth has had many many many years to get momentum. To expect it to get cut down to nothing in the space of a presidential term is unrealistic.

To me, the main issue revolves around what to do with SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's not politically feasible to just cut it all to nothing. That's the sad fact. So the conversation is how can we shore up these programs until the Overton Window shifts and then get rid of them? To me the answer is to grow our way out of this current hole we've been in for four years now (Romney's tax structure changes is a reasonable component to that), and begin to hammer home the idea that these programs are inherently unsustainable...we can shore it up here and there but the end game has to be to terminate them.

Because Romney is right...there is a sizeable bloc of people out there who think government exists to give them stuff. Once in office he's got to figure out a way to get them on a path to empowerment, probably against their wills, and make them see that a life of self-sufficiency is much better than a life of dependency. And again, this is a long term project but it's something we really need to get started on now.


Edited in italics above to finish a phrase...sorry about that.

Glock30Eric
10-04-2012, 07:35
Where is Gary Johnson? That tell us Obama and Romney are afraid of him because they think he would steal their votes and afraid to be schooled by him.

JFrame
10-04-2012, 07:50
Where is Gary Johnson? That tell us Obama and Romney are afraid of him because they think he would steal their votes and afraid to be schooled by him.


I dunno -- Johnson couldn't even hang in the GOP primaries. To think that he would suddenly become a third leg that schools the others seems delusional.


.

beforeobamabans
10-04-2012, 07:53
OK, so let's go through your bullets.



First, Romney has been touting a revenue-neutral restructuring of the tax code since the primaries, so saying you just learned it last night seems odd to me.

That said, lowering rates and eliminating deductions makes perfect sense since it puts incentive back where it belongs...to work harder and earn more to put in your pocket...instead of where it is now, which is to spend your extra earnings on government-approved things in order to gain a deduction.

Taken to its extreme, would you prefer a high tax rate with a bunch of deductions written into a labrynthine code, or a low flat tax rate with no deductions at all?


I combined these two because I think you have too. The acid test Romney used was if a program isn't worth borrowing from the Chinese to fund, it would be eliminated. PBS seems pretty clear under that formula. Obamacare definitely. Free cell phones? Yep.

But the big drivers are SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. On its current trajectory it's going to go BK. The question is actually how do we get these things working until we can actually cut them off?


I just heard him flat out say he will a) repeal Obamacare and b) devolve the issue back to the states where it belongs (he even brought up the 10A. :) ).


It isn't that he doesn't like it, just that he apparently doesn't believe the Federal Government has a role in pouring venture capital down that hole. I don't think that's an unreasonable opinion.


The federal behemoth has had many many many years to get momentum. To expect it to get cut down to nothing in the space of a presidential term is unrealistic.

To me, the main issue revolves around what to do with SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's not politically feasible to just cut it all to nothing. That's the sad fact. So the conversation is how can we shore up these programs until the Overton Window shifts and then get rid of them? To me the answer is to grow our way out of this current hole we've been in for four years now (Romney's tax structure changes is a reasonable component to that), begin to hammer home the idea that

Because Romney is right...there is a sizeable bloc of people out there who think government exists to give them stuff. Once in office he's got to figure out a way to get them on a path to empowerment, probably against their wills, and make them see that a life of self-sufficiency is much better than a life of dependency. And again, this is a long term project but it's something we really need to get started on now.

The only solution to our economic mess is dramatic reductions in spending with equally dramatic reductions in taxes. Why? Government spending is stimulative, it just isn't very efficient. When you reduce it, you need to replace with a more efficient stimulus, which is putting the money back into the hands of private enterprise where it will be spent to grow businesses. Has this ever been done? Yes. Study the depression of 1920 in the wake of the progressive Wilson and the measures instituted by Coolidge that resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Romney is only slightly closer to this than Obama. His prescriptions are weak and really won't solve the country's problems. Many here think he can be a placeholder until something more conservative comes along but what will happen is, when he fails, the pendulum will swing harder to the left and there will be no chance for a true conservative reformer.

Snowman92D
10-04-2012, 07:58
Where is Gary Johnson?

My guess is he was busy out there in the real world, taking his message to The People, and campaigning for votes. He was probably the featured speaker at the Grand Opening of a new medical marijuana shop in some run-down strip mall. :smoking:

Goaltender66
10-04-2012, 08:02
The only solution to our economic mess is dramatic reductions in spending with equally dramatic reductions in taxes. Why? Government spending is stimulative, it just isn't very efficient. When you reduce it, you need to replace with a more efficient stimulus, which is putting the money back into the hands of private enterprise where it will be spent to grow businesses. Has this ever been done? Yes. Study the depression of 1920 in the wake of the progressive Wilson and the measures instituted by Coolidge that resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Romney is only slightly closer to this than Obama. His prescriptions are weak and really won't solve the country's problems. Many here think he can be a placeholder until something more conservative comes along but what will happen is, when he fails, the pendulum will swing harder to the left and there will be no chance for a true conservative reformer.

But back in 2008 the argument was that four years of Obama would allow the pendulum to swing very hard to the right and a "true conservative" would emerge.

I'm not sure why the Libertarian Right keeps asking me to let Obama win.

I agree that government spending must decrease, and decrease a lot. The problem however is twofold. This isn't like a SimCity game where you can just push a button and things happen. There are political realities, and as Romney said, 47% of the electorate honestly believe government is there to provide bennies to people. Frankly, four straight years of chronic under/unemployment will do that to people.

So I disagree. The first step is to get the jobs picture fixed, and that necessarily means structural changes to the tax code to incentivize investment and hard work. The second is to put SS/Medicare/Medicaid on a terminal path, but that's not going to happen as long as there are millions of baby boomers out there demanding their stuff (Hell, read posts from Trew2Life for a disturbing view into this mentality). So the unfortunate reality is to try and make the programs solvent in the short term while setting the stage for their eventual demise. Is Romney going to do the latter in one or even two terms? I don't think he *can*, but to me it's fantasy to suggest that anyone else can either.

So the here-and-now reality is we can only do short-term monkeying around with discretionary spending, which seems reasonable to me. I don't think we should be pouring $90 billion into alternative energy, not when Canada is right north of us willing to sell us oil. But what we also *can* do is work to shift the Overton Window and make self-sufficiency more palatable to that 47%. Trouble is, it's a hard sell if a significant portion of that 47% don't have jobs.....

Kirishiac
10-04-2012, 08:04
This was not just winning the debate. It was winning the major issue of the election. How the hell Obama decides to half-ass a debate on the economy....well, actually, it explains why the economy is in such horrible shape.

Glock30Eric
10-04-2012, 08:10
Think for a minute. Gary Johnson could easily give an education lecture on Obama and Romney with the economy, Gov't going beyond the Constitution's scope, total failure of social policy, and the mess of current forgiven policy.

Everyone knows that Gary is right on those points but we don't want to sacrifice our unlimited pleasure of printing money, broken promises of pension, and policing the world. With that perspective and I don't think we could reverse the current path to the destruction of the America as we know.

series1811
10-04-2012, 08:13
This was not just winning the debate. It was winning the major issue of the election. How the hell Obama decides to half-ass a debate on the economy....well, actually, it explains why the economy is in such horrible shape.

Yeah, pretty much.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 08:21
... inherent supremacy of revenues and decreased spending over higher taxes, inherent supremacy of the free market over the federal government, and inherent efficiency of states over the federal government. :burn:

The most interesting thing about your post is that it illustrates a common ideological theme of the right, which is using the "over the" comparisons as if the concepts compared are mutually exclusive. It is REALLY appealing and effective to "low information" voters. Unfortunately it is nonsense and a patronizing argument that appeals to emotions more than reality.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 08:30
What Romney proved last night is that he is the big government "moderate" Rockefeller RINO we all knew he was in the primaries which was why we all supported more conservative candidates. Last night we learned that his tax "cuts" are smoke and mirrors (no net reduction due to elimination of deductions), that he WILL borrow from the Chinese if he can spend it on the military, that he won't touch entitlement spending and therefore really won't reduce net spending at all, that he still wants federal control of healthcare (just called RomneyCare instead of ObamaCare), and that he really, really doesn't like renewable energy.

Here's what will happen if Romney gets elected: very little will change which means the economy doesn't do much and "conservative" policies get blamed for not working (again).

Good post! Another way of saying it ... IMO ... is that Romney simply has continued his strategy of saying whatever it takes to appeal the audience at hand. Regardless of whether it conflicts 100% with what he said yesterday or 6 months ago or a year. He has absolutely no shame (not that many politicians do ... but he takes it to a whole new level). The man really has no character or shame to be able to say/claim with a straight face something 100% asymmetric with what he effectively said yesterday.

In summary Romney "won" the debate as he has no character. The sad thing is ... the vast vast majority think he "won" also ... But don't realize WHY they think that.

series1811
10-04-2012, 08:39
Good post! Another way of saying it ... IMO ... is that Romney simply has continued his strategy of saying whatever it takes to appeal the audience at hand. Regardless of whether it conflicts 100% with what he said yesterday or 6 months ago or a year. He has absolutely no shame (not that many politicians do ... but he takes it to a whole new level). The man really has no character or shame to be able to say/claim with a straight face something 100% asymmetric with what he effectively said yesterday.

In summary Romney "won" the debate as he has no character. The sad thing is ... the vast vast majority think he "won" also ... But don't realize WHY they think that.

Well, Obama thanks you for seeing it that way. He was hoping someone would. :supergrin:

ModGlock17
10-04-2012, 08:42
... the vast vast majority think he "won" also ... But don't realize WHY they think that.

Here, I do think you are Projecting yourself on to others.

I've discussed the debate with many people this morning, face to face. Every one of them had a handful of specifics, why he won.

So what you are really saying is that Obama got knocked flat and you have no idea how. I'm ok with that. Hope Axelrod feels the same as you.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 08:49
...
I've discussed the debate with many people this morning, face to face. Every one of them had a handful of specifics, why he won.

I won't dispute that. There are plenty of people that know policy details and agree with Romney's positions (even though they are still WAY to vague and without detail ... exactly HOW again is he going to do a 20% tax cut across board, add 2 trillion to defense spending, not cut medicare/medicaid/SS (arguably even increase spending), and NOT add dramatically to the debt? Clue: It is IMPOSSIBLE without assuming some magical/mythical growth and/or significant changes to deductions that primarily would impact middle class negatively). But for every one of these people in our circles who know the policies and are intelligent enough to parse them ... there are 10 that think Romney looked "more Presidential" or was "more energetic" or "had nicer hair" .... etc. To these folks, Romney "won" and might have been swayed.

edit: folks like Goaltender66 (post #10 above I believe) are doing thoughtful and legitimate analysis based on their beliefs on policy. While I don't AGREE with some of the beliefs, he is at least making information, policy based arguments. If we were a world full of Goaltender66 critical thinking skills (not necessarily of same conclusions though :) ) ... we would be in much better place. But instead .... we have Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian voting.

beforeobamabans
10-04-2012, 08:53
I'm not sure why the Libertarian Right keeps asking me to let Obama win.
It's a reach to attribute this to the entire Libertarian movement when it's one or two guys on PI promoting this aberrant view. I detest Obama and am in mourning over the damage he has done to this country. I have already stated on PI that I will hold my nose and vote for Romney, but man, the GOP really blew an opportunity to change things in a major way.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 08:54
...
So what you are really saying is that Obama got knocked flat and you have no idea how. I'm ok with that. Hope Axelrod feels the same as you.

Not at all what I'm saying. He got "knocked flat" based primarily on "feel good" types of analysis IMO (e.g., level of energy, aggressiveness, etc.) Romney won the battle for "low information" voters who vote based on stupid **** ... in other words.

Romney was simply MUCH better prepared in the technicalities and superficial things needed to effectively debate. Like he practiced for weeks. It looked like Obama practiced and prepared about 3 days and was just pissed he had to be there.

One pundit made an interesting comment last night that I think was good. It was that presidents (particularly during their first term) tend to live in a "bubble" of "yes men". As a result, they are well out of practice in challenging aggressive opposition. Romney took him off guard in this manner ... in that I don't think any single person has directly challenged Obama face to face like that (facts not necessarily withstanding ... it was perception that counted) since the 2008 election.

JFrame
10-04-2012, 09:03
I won't dispute that. There are plenty of people that know policy details and agree with Romney's positions (even though they are still WAY to vague and without detail ... exactly HOW again is he going to do a 20% tax cut across board, add 2 trillion to defense spending, not cut medicare/medicaid/SS (arguably even increase spending), and NOT add dramatically to the debt? Clue: It is IMPOSSIBLE without assuming some magical/mythical growth and/or significant changes to deductions that primarily would impact middle class negatively). But for every one of these people in our circles who know the policies and are intelligent enough to parse them ... there are 10 that think Romney looked "more Presidential" or was "more energetic" or "had nicer hair" .... etc. To these folks, Romney "won" and might have been swayed.

edit: folks like Goaltender66 (post #10 above I believe) are doing thoughtful and legitimate analysis based on their beliefs on policy. While I don't AGREE with some of the beliefs, he is at least making information, policy based arguments. If we were a world full of Goaltender66 critical thinking skills (not necessarily of same conclusions though :) ) ... we would be in much better place. But instead .... we have Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian voting.

Speaking of critical thinking skills...

I'll add that other left leaning broadcasting exists too (ala MSNBC), but no where as near as virulent as what you get non-stop from right wing media).


.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 09:06
Speaking of critical thinking skills...
.

Wow ... you're clever. You are officially classified as a "low information" voter now. :rofl:

Do you actually think that is a "gotcha"?

Ironically ... that post was in response to your statement in that thread:
...I got tired of having to "read between the lines" (when such lines were even made available) to discern even a glimmer of truth ...
.

That ... my friends ... is EXACTLY an illustration of a "low information" voter who lacks the ability (or maybe just desire ... but same effect) of thinking critically. They don't want to hear fact based news and have to "read between the lines" and make inferences and decisions to form their opinions. They would rather have a blatantly partisan media source like right-wing radio, fox news (or even MSNBC) GIVE them their opinions.

JFrame
10-04-2012, 09:07
Wow ... you're clever. You are officially classified as a "low information" voter now. :rofl:

Do you actually think that is a "gotcha"?


Why expend additional energy when one can just echo back the inane comments that expose someone for the leftist moonbat that they are? :dunno:


.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 09:27
Why expend additional energy when ... :dunno:

.

Exactly ... which is why I've ignored the other probably 4 times(?) you've whipped that same quote of mine out on unrelated threads like you have some golden nugget "gotcha". It is hilariously lame (because it is only in your own mind a "gotcha") and not worth my time and energy ... as you noted. :wavey: So ... perhaps I'll just stop responding to it again.

Debate me on something meaningful and topical and I'll respond. Otherwise/until then, I hereby banish you back to rube-ville and willl essentially ignore you. :supergrin:

Goaltender66
10-04-2012, 10:06
It's a reach to attribute this to the entire Libertarian movement when it's one or two guys on PI promoting this aberrant view.

Fair point, though I have heard it in other venues than GTPI. Regardless, I apologize for being overbroad.

I detest Obama and am in mourning over the damage he has done to this country. I have already stated on PI that I will hold my nose and vote for Romney, but man, the GOP really blew an opportunity to change things in a major way.
The thing is, I don't know that a major change *can* be made given the facts on the ground. I would absolutely love for the vast majority of government to be cut down to nothing. Let me offer an anecdote:

I recently went through my passport renewal process. As part of the process I'm given the choice of the regular passport book, a passport card, or both. In talking with the clerk at the passport office I find out the card is a credit-card sized credential used only for land travel between the US and Canada or Mexico, or sea travel to those ports plus the Caribbean. It's useless for air travel (except as ID to board the plane, but it won't get you through customs.). I was asking why I would need this extra $30 card if I had a book. I was told "convenience."

Turns out that border control stopped allowing travellers across the Mexican/Canadian borders to simply use drivers licenses and birth certificates and started requiring passports. Frequent travellers started complaining about this, so in response the State Department applied a brand new level of bureaucracy and created an all-new RFID-enabled passport card. And while it's supposedly secure enough for ground travel, you can't use it for air travel...you have to have the full passport book.

To me this is yet one more example of bureaucracy existing to perpetuate itself. Instead of working to lower the cost of the passport book, they complicate the options with something only useful in limited, specific circumstances.

My point is that all of this crap isn't going to go away overnight. I would love to dismantle the entire US Department of Education, but the reality is that building full of bureaucrats isn't going anywhere any time soon. So instead, until we conservatives can change attitudes, why not try to transform the Dept of Ed from a jobs program for union teachers into something that can advocate for decent curricula in our schools? Then gradually reduce the role of that bureaucracy until it withers away.

I honestly can't think of another politically feasible way to accomplish a reduction in government on the scale that we need. As long as people like Trew2Life are demanding their bennies, we're kind of stuck in what we can do.

whoflungdo
10-04-2012, 10:07
Exactly ... which is why I've ignored the other probably 4 times(?) you've whipped that same quote of mine out on unrelated threads like you have some golden nugget "gotcha". It is hilariously lame (because it is only in your own mind a "gotcha") and not worth my time and energy ... as you noted. :wavey: So ... perhaps I'll just stop responding to it again.

Debate me on something meaningful and topical and I'll respond. Otherwise/until then, I hereby banish you back to rube-ville and willl essentially ignore you. :supergrin:

Nice delusions of grandeur there Douggie.

JFRAME, I didn't know you were headed to DU...:whistling:

wjv
10-04-2012, 10:28
I still won't vote for Romney because I don't trust his record and rhetoric but he did objectively win this debate.

And helping re-elect Obama is such a superior plan. . . . :upeyes:

Glock30Eric
10-04-2012, 10:31
And helping re-elect Obama is such a superior plan. . . . :upeyes:

Thank you for trashing the Republic of America as you want to incorporate communism system by telling people who to vote for. You are very awesome!!! You are helping to destruct the America as we know with either Obama or Romney! High five!!

Seriously, please don't tell a person if he doesn't want to vote Romney then he is helping Obama to be re-elected.

I'm going to vote Ron Paul or Gary Johnson because both represents me better than Obama or Romney. I am living to the republic and not in accordance with your lesser of two games which it is the bottom line of a communism system or even worse a tyranny system.

Enjoy the America as you have know while it last.

JFrame
10-04-2012, 10:33
Nice delusions of grandeur there Douggie.

JFRAME, I didn't know you were headed to DU...:whistling:


:rofl::rofl:

Leftists tend to ignore those they cannot defeat -- and they especially hate being hoisted on their own petard. :supergrin:


.

JFrame
10-04-2012, 10:34
double

douggmc
10-04-2012, 10:35
Fair point, though I have heard it in other venues than GTPI. Regardless, I apologize for being overbroad.


The thing is, I don't know that a major change *can* be made given the facts on the ground. I would absolutely love for the vast majority of government to be cut down to nothing. Let me offer an anecdote:

I recently went through my passport renewal process. As part of the process I'm given the choice of the regular passport book, a passport card, or both. In talking with the clerk at the passport office I find out the card is a credit-card sized credential used only for land travel between the US and Canada or Mexico, or sea travel to those ports plus the Caribbean. It's useless for air travel (except as ID to board the plane, but it won't get you through customs.). I was asking why I would need this extra $30 card if I had a book. I was told "convenience."

Turns out that border control stopped allowing travellers across the Mexican/Canadian borders to simply use drivers licenses and birth certificates and started requiring passports. Frequent travellers started complaining about this, so in response the State Department applied a brand new level of bureaucracy and created an all-new RFID-enabled passport card. And while it's supposedly secure enough for ground travel, you can't use it for air travel...you have to have the full passport book.

To me this is yet one more example of bureaucracy existing to perpetuate itself. Instead of working to lower the cost of the passport book, they complicate the options with something only useful in limited, specific circumstances.

My point is that all of this crap isn't going to go away overnight. I would love to dismantle the entire US Department of Education, but the reality is that building full of bureaucrats isn't going anywhere any time soon. So instead, until we conservatives can change attitudes, why not try to transform the Dept of Ed from a jobs program for union teachers into something that can advocate for decent curricula in our schools? Then gradually reduce the role of that bureaucracy until it withers away.

I honestly can't think of another politically feasible way to accomplish a reduction in government on the scale that we need. As long as people like Trew2Life are demanding their bennies, we're kind of stuck in what we can do.

I appreciate and share some of your disenfranchisement with wasteful spending and bureaucratic crap. Your anecdote about the passport is spot on. I would say that I don't agree specifically with your D. of Ed. opinion though.

With that said though, both of those things (like doing away with the ~250 million dollar funding/year to "Big Bird") won't do SQUAT to our budget issues. It is simply mathematically impossible. You alluded to "bennies" though ... and I'll assume you mean SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Now THAT is the big bucket of spending that is meaningful ... along with DoD.

ONLY these two areas (entitlements and DoD) make up between 2/3 and 3/4 of our budget. We could cut the the rest of expenditures (25 - 30 of spending), and leave entitlements and DoD as is ... and STILL be running a deficit. So ... while it feels good to complain about D. of Ed., passports, and "Big Bird" ... it is nothing more than an illusion and meaningless.

I'm of the opinion that we need to:
a) Drastically cut DoD. Call me crazy ... but I'd be OK with a budget that doubles the next highest country's instead of one that is more than the next 5 combined. We could cut DoD spending by 50% and still be 2x more than the next country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures I'm ex-Military FWIW. I believe in appropriate use of military force and in peace through power ... i.e., walk softly and carry a big stick. But the MiC in this country is ridiculous and the false patriotic propaganda pushed by so many to perpetuate it "discusting" :whistling: We need smart DoD spending. Not quantity over quality.

b) Means test SS. Sorry ... if you don't need it, you don't get it. In other words, on a scale based on net worth/income ... you index down the eligibility to receive SS benefits. This sucks ... I know. Somebody is gonna feel pain in some manner or another ... no way around it.

c) Raise SS eligibility age based on a scientific lifespan index assessment that is adjusted periodically. Dropping dead at 67 a couple years after you retire is not as common as it used to be. Thank Medicare! Nor can can we expect to retire at 62 (unless you've smartly self-funded your retirement ... which is great then you can) when we expect to live to 90+. So ... need to account for longer lifespans.

d) Return tax brackets to those during mid-90s. We are disingenuous to only take a spending cut approach to solve our problems. Hey .. after all ... a top bracket of 39% is way better than what we had during those wonderful booming 1950s we always refer to .. right? Those great days of economic growth and thriving middle class? :whistling: Cough .. cough: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

wjv
10-04-2012, 10:36
Seriously, don't tell a person if he doesn't want to vote Romney then he is helping Obama.


You can vote for anyone you want but the FACT is that only one of two people will become the next president.

If you don't like Obama, but you don't vote for the ONLY person who can replace him, you ARE helping Obama win.

Sorry if the truth hurts. .

JFrame
10-04-2012, 10:37
Exactly ... which is why I've ignored the other probably 4 times(?) you've whipped that same quote of mine out on unrelated threads like you have some golden nugget "gotcha". It is hilariously lame (because it is only in your own mind a "gotcha") and not worth my time and energy ... as you noted. :wavey: So ... perhaps I'll just stop responding to it again.

Debate me on something meaningful and topical and I'll respond. Otherwise/until then, I hereby banish you back to rube-ville and willl essentially ignore you. :supergrin:


Great! I love it when leftists give me immunity! :cool:

(I also love that you're trying to laugh this off, but I can virtually see your teeth clenched in rage every time you get your idiotic words thrown back at you... :supergrin: )



.

Glock30Eric
10-04-2012, 10:45
You can vote for anyone you want but the FACT is that only one of two people will become the next president.

If you don't like Obama, but you don't vote for the ONLY person who can replace him, you ARE helping Obama win.

Sorry if the truth hurts. .

You are feeding to that system: Only Obama or Romney will be the next President. You are trashing the US Constitution and you are feeding to that crap. Sorry that truth is more painful for you.

We are beyond of no return. Therefore I couldn't see any ways to reverse the system right now, so it is either you are feeding to it or to be opposite to it and stand up for the right cause.

Enjoy your cheerleadering for the destruction of America as we know.

wjv
10-04-2012, 10:45
The thing is, I don't know that a major change *can* be made given the facts on the ground. I would absolutely love for the vast majority of government to be cut down to nothing.


Unfortunately it takes time to turn things around. The Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that if Paul was elected, he would cut the budget in half on the first day and all would be fine.

But it doesn't work like that. When you dig a deep hole over several decades, it can take a long long time to climb out of that hole.

A person can run up thousands in CC debt in a short period of time. But it might take years to pay off that debt. The USA is in the same situation. We don't have any free (discretionary) money to "pay down" the debt.

Even cutting spending is a difficult task because of legal obligation that were incurred with that spending. Sure there is some low hanging fruit (PBS, Grants to study the sex life of the fruit fly). But the serious money will require total restructuring of programs such as SS and medicare, which no one has the guts to do. Especially Congress! And the President can't accomplish those types of changes without Congress. . .

douggmc
10-04-2012, 10:52
Unfortunately it takes time to turn things around. The Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that if Paul was elected, he would cut the budget in half on the first day and all would be fine.

But it doesn't work like that. When you dig a deep hole over several decades, it can take a long long time to climb out of that hole.

A person can run up thousands in CC debt in a short period of time. But it might take years to pay off that debt. The USA is in the same situation. We don't have any free (discretionary) money to "pay down" the debt.

Even cutting spending is a difficult task because of legal obligation that were incurred with that spending. Sure there is some low hanging fruit (PBS, Grants to study the sex life of the fruit fly). But the serious money will require total restructuring of programs such as SS and medicare, which no one has the guts to do. Especially Congress! And the President can't accomplish those types of changes without Congress. . .

:goodpost: I would just add that the "low hanging" fruit you refer to is largely mathematically irrelevant too. It might make us warm and fuzzy ... and sound REALLY good to the aforementioned "low information voters" in a debate ... but it is of no real fiscal consequence. Further .. a lot of the "low hanging fruit" cutting would arguably result in disproportionate "pain".

Glock30Eric
10-04-2012, 10:53
Unfortunately it takes time to turn things around. The Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that if Paul was elected, he would cut the budget in half on the first day and all would be fine.

But it doesn't work like that. When you dig a deep hole over several decades, it can take a long long time to climb out of that hole.

A person can run up thousands in CC debt in a short period of time. But it might take years to pay off that debt. The USA is in the same situation. We don't have any free (discretionary) money to "pay down" the debt.

Even cutting spending is a difficult task because of legal obligation that were incurred with that spending. Sure there is some low hanging fruit (PBS, Grants to study the sex life of the fruit fly). But the serious money will require total restructuring of programs such as SS and medicare, which no one has the guts to do. Especially Congress! And the President can't accomplish those types of changes without Congress. . .

Absolutely right on spot. The legislative branch of US is our weakest link. They could have easily denied/overrun everything that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Carter have done to America. They didn't and they have allowed it to happen in form as a representative for us.

Ron Paul as President and to replace majority of people in the legislative branch could make a big different in the path where we are heading to.

We could slow down Obama or Romney if we appoint right people in the legislative branch. I don't think that would ever happens.

wjv
10-04-2012, 10:55
You are feeding to that system: Only Obama of Romney will be the next President. You are trashing the US Constitution and you are feeding to that crap. Sorry that truth is more painful for you.

Right now only Obama or Romney will be the next President. And that NOT TRASHING THE CONSTITUTION!

Trashing the Constitution is the Ron Paul supporters who's party:

- Failed to get a viable campaign organization
- Failed to get a viable candidate
- Failed to get any substantial vote in the primary
- Failed to get a candidate on the ballot

But now think their guy was somehow cheated and should be on the ballot anyway.

I would happily vote for a conservative third party candidate who got on the ballot via the CONSTITUTIONAL methods.

It can be done. Ross Perot almost did it, till he backed out.

You complain about the Rs and the Ds, but the Ls have their own set of problems that are stopping them from becoming mainstream. Maybe people don't want a foreign policy that says "withdraw from the rest of the world", or a drug policy that says "make it all legal". And what's Paul's view on immigration?

If you want to place blame, look at the people that the Ls are putting up as THEIR candidates.

Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually get someone on the ballot. Till then, deal with reality. Obama or Romney will be the next President. Voting for a "snowball in hell chance of winning" candidate doesn't improve the situation, and it doesn't make a statement that anybody will bother listening to.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 10:58
Silly but still funny ...
http://www2.tbo.com/mgmedia/image/0/354/230335/big-bird-panel/

beforeobamabans
10-04-2012, 11:13
Fair point, though I have heard it in other venues than GTPI. Regardless, I apologize for being overbroad.

The thing is, I don't know that a major change *can* be made given the facts on the ground.

Hey, no need to apologize, this is the Internet!

You're probably right that only gradualism will be acceptable to the masses but we can always hope for more, can't we?
:wavey:

Goaltender66
10-04-2012, 11:15
I appreciate and share some of your disenfranchisement with wasteful spending and bureaucratic crap. Your anecdote about the passport is spot on. I would say that I don't agree specifically with your D. of Ed. opinion though.

With that said though, both of those things (like doing away with the ~250 million dollar funding/year to "Big Bird") won't do SQUAT to our budget issues. It is simply mathematically impossible. You alluded to "bennies" though ... and I'll assume you mean SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Now THAT is the big bucket of spending that is meaningful ... along with DoD.

ONLY these two areas (entitlements and DoD) make up between 2/3 and 3/4 of our budget. We could cut the the rest of expenditures (25 - 30 of spending), and leave entitlements and DoD as is ... and STILL be running a deficit. So ... while it feels good to complain about D. of Ed., passports, and "Big Bird" ... it is nothing more than an illusion and meaningless.

I'm of the opinion that we need to:
a) Drastically cut DoD. Call me crazy ... but I'd be OK with a budget that doubles the next highest country's instead of one that is more than the next 5 combined. We could cut DoD spending by 50% and still be 2x more than the next country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures I'm ex-Military FWIW. I believe in appropriate use of military force and in peace through power ... i.e., walk softly and carry a big stick. But the MiC in this country is ridiculous and the false patriotic propaganda pushed by so many to perpetuate it "discusting" :whistling: We need smart DoD spending. Not quantity over quality.

b) Means test SS. Sorry ... if you don't need it, you don't get it. In other words, on a scale based on net worth/income ... you index down the eligibility to receive SS benefits. This sucks ... I know. Somebody is gonna feel pain in some manner or another ... no way around it.

c) Raise SS eligibility age based on a scientific lifespan index assessment that is adjusted periodically. Dropping dead at 67 a couple years after you retire is not as common as it used to be. Thank Medicare! Nor can can we expect to retire at 62 (unless you've smartly self-funded your retirement) when we expect to live to 90+. So ... need to account for longer lifespans.

d) Return tax brackets to those during mid-90s. We are disingenuous to only take a spending cut approach to solve our problems. Hey .. after all ... a top bracket of 39% is way better than what we had during those wonderful booming 1950s we always refer to .. right? Those great days of economic growth and thriving middle class? :whistling: Cough .. cough: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

I dunno...I can't imagine keeping the Department of Education at the expense of the US Military.

That said, raising the retirement age is certainly a given, and Romney said as much in at least one primary debate. I don't know where we got the idea that when you're 65 you should automatically qualify for a life of leisure at least partially paid from the public dole, but there we go. And there's a valid point about means testing, but even there I see a political problem. In essence, means testing involves even more income redistribution in an already redistributive program. That makes it harder to scale down.

If it were me, I'd restructure the program thusly:

1) Stop requiring the SSA to invest collected fund in US Treasuries. This kind of accounting sleight-of-hand is what's complicating everything to begin with.

2) Come up with an age limit for inclusion in the current system. In other words, tell everyone who is 60+ "hey, you will continue to participate in SS as planned. Create another age tranche (say, 40-59) and offer up a choice: "we will repay to you every penny you've ever paid for Social Security, with which you may make tax-deferred investments in a 401(k) vehicle of your choosing, or just take the money and put it in a savings account." Expensive? Sure, but not as expensive as paying those people benefits for 25 years.

3) If you're under 40, gradually shift FICA contributions from the SS system to private investment vehicles, percentages weighted by age (younger have a higher % paid into SS, older have higher % into private investments) until the outstanding obligations are all paid off.

Theoretically we'd get to a point where we'd reimburse the younger folks for money paid into SS and we could end the program. There are certainly issues involved in this, but again at least it's a blueprint for a way out of this mess.

Inre military spending, the main conversation isn't that we have a large military but what we need it *for*. The reality is that we live in an unstable world where we are a target. I don't think Fortress America is a realistic concept, not any longer.

There are also some big problems with military cuts. Say for instance we decide we aren't going to buy any more tanks. Leaving aside the implications of shutting those factories down (unemployment, etc), what happens when we suddenly *need* a bunch of tanks? Our defense industry is full of brilliant people but it still takes a significant amount of time to spin up production of a tank. Specialized tooling needs to be put into place, qualified people need to be hired and trained, materials need to be procured, etc etc. And no contractor is going to let all of that capital sit idle.

Another factor is that of innovation. Continued spending into R&D feeds innovation that won't happen if we just continue a maintenance level of spending.

So yeah, military spending can be wasteful, and indeed I think it's inherently so (you were in the military and you've probably seen this firsthand). My suggestion is to look at the implications on the other side of the ledger...what risks do we face if we do not have a ready force with at least a somewhat active industry behind it?

Inre tax brackets, a 39% bracket is not a pro-growth tax rate. Clintonistas like to tout mid-90s tax rates as evidence of some kind of economic necessity, but I don't believe that's a valid argument. Remember, Clinton's tax rates were elevated from Reagan's tax rates and were also retroactive. If the goal is to gain revenue to help pay for Obama's spending spree, to me it seems far better to structure the tax code to encourage growth, which means lowering rates and removing deductions from the IRC. Increasing economic activity has the side effect of increasing tax revenue since the tax base has expanded. I don't think the tax base will expand with a 39% top marginal rate.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 11:18
Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually get someone on the ballot. Till then, deal with reality.To those who are going to whine and blame libertarians and blame just about everybody else in the world on November 6, I would like to say this:

Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually win a presidential election. Till then, deal with reality.

marchboom
10-04-2012, 11:36
This Paulite thinks Romney won the debate. The thing is, he should have. Obama is so weak on economic and monetary issues that anyone could. I still won't vote for Romney because I don't trust his record and rhetoric but he did objectively win this debate. If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.

My .02 as the GTPI Paul weathervane.

By not voting for Romney, you are supporting obama, whether you believe it or not. This election is not a game and it's not about who wins a debate. Its about whether or not we, as a nation, survive the way our founding fathers wanted it to.

We are down to 2 candidates and there just is no logical reason not to vote for Romney. obama will destroy this country.

kensb2
10-04-2012, 11:40
To those who are going to whine and blame libertarians and blame just about everybody else in the world on November 6, I would like to say this:

Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually win a presidential election. Till then, deal with reality.
Uh, uh, my dad can beat up your dad!! :faint:
Or better yet, 'I'm rubber and you're glue. Things bounce off of me and stick to you".

How are you going to just regurgitate the exact same info? You'd likely gain more credibility here if you actually attempted to defend your side of the ball in an intelligent manner, rather than do what you did.

JMag
10-04-2012, 11:41
What Romney showed last night was that he was not (nor Obama) the caricature the MSM has created and he has the tools to get the job done. Anyone refusing to recognize that is simply not wanting to admit the obvious or simply incapable of it.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 11:43
Uh, uh, my dad can beat up your dad!! :faint:
Or better yet, 'I'm rubber and you're glue. Things bounce off of me and stick to you".

How are you going to just regurgitate the exact same info? You'd likely gain more credibility here if you actually attempted to defend your side of the ball in an intelligent manner, rather than do what you did.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2l9nl0y.png

countrygun
10-04-2012, 11:52
To those who are going to whine and blame libertarians and blame just about everybody else in the world on November 6, I would like to say this:

Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually win a presidential election. Till then, deal with reality.

I assume, when Romney wins you will have the grace to get lost?

I am really tired of the delusiions on the part of the Paulbots and their ilk. There was simply no way he was electable. His followers live in a fishbowl surrounded, politically, by each other and they think they are a big school of fish. Ron Paul had an opportunity to make changes in the Republican party by actually taking part in the primary system by using the votes and support he had at one time as leverage. He could have offered them to another candidate for inclusion of some of the principles he was running on. But his ego was inflated like a balloon and he refused to let go of his run when it would have done some good. IMO he was pumped up by false followers who were trying to split the Republican vote for the benefit of Obama. I can see no rational person who could think that Paul really could have been elected, but he COULD have made a change it's his fault he didn't.

As to the other third party candidates, well they are obviously too little, too late. They should have tried to change the Republican party from the inside.

If, they don't think they have what it take to change one party, how in the heck do they have the ego to think they can change the whole Country?

whoflungdo
10-04-2012, 12:00
:goodpost: I would just add that the "low hanging" fruit you refer to is largely mathematically irrelevant too. It might make us warm and fuzzy ... and sound REALLY good to the aforementioned "low information voters" in a debate ... but it is of no real fiscal consequence. Further .. a lot of the "low hanging fruit" cutting would arguably result in disproportionate "pain".


You've obviously never dug yourself out from under a lot of debt. One of the principle Dave Ramsey teaches is the start off attacking the smaller bills, then using that money to attack the larger ones. It has nothing to do with making us warm and fuzzy. It has to do with spending within your means and cutting back wherever and whenever you can. Learning spending discipline.

ModGlock17
10-04-2012, 12:01
I assume, when Romney wins you will have the grace to get lost?

I am really tired of the delusiions on the part of the Paulbots and their ilk. There was simply no way he was electable. His followers live in a fishbowl surrounded, politically, by each other and they think they are a big school of fish. Ron Paul had an opportunity to make changes in the Republican party by actually taking part in the primary system by using the votes and support he had at one time as leverage. He could have offered them to another candidate for inclusion of some of the principles he was running on. But his ego was inflated like a balloon and he refused to let go of his run when it would have done some good. IMO he was pumped up by false followers who were trying to split the Republican vote for the benefit of Obama. I can see no rational person who could think that Paul really could have been elected, but he COULD have made a change it's his fault he didn't.

As to the other third party candidates, well they are obviously too little, too late. They should have tried to change the Republican party from the inside.

If, they don't think they have what it take to change one party, how in the heck do they have the ego to think they can change the whole Country?

Well said !

Gundude
10-04-2012, 12:03
I assume, when Romney wins you will have the grace to get lost?Not likely. Dozens of country guns have come and gone in the time I've been here.

I am really tired of the delusiions on the part of the Paulbots and their ilk. There was simply no way he was electable. His followers live in a fishbowl surrounded, politically, by each other and they think they are a big school of fish. Ron Paul had an opportunity to make changes in the Republican party by actually taking part in the primary system by using the votes and support he had at one time as leverage. He could have offered them to another candidate for inclusion of some of the principles he was running on. But his ego was inflated like a balloon and he refused to let go of his run when it would have done some good. IMO he was pumped up by false followers who were trying to split the Republican vote for the benefit of Obama. I can see no rational person who could think that Paul really could have been elected, but he COULD have made a change it's his fault he didn't.

As to the other third party candidates, well they are obviously too little, too late. They should have tried to change the Republican party from the inside.

If, they don't think they have what it take to change one party, how in the heck do they have the ego to think they can change the whole Country?I see you missed the point too, so it could be my fault for not being clear.

For those who say the libertarians, the Libertarians, the "Paulbots", etc, have nobody to blame but themselves for the predicament of their candidates or their party, please remember those exact words when "your" candidate loses next month, because I'm certain I will see a lot of outward finger pointing at that time. Look at what you're saying now to those who didn't win what they wanted, and apply it to yourself when you don't win what you want.

That is all. Clear now?

countrygun
10-04-2012, 12:35
Not likely. Dozens of country guns have come and gone in the time I've been here.

I see you missed the point too, so it could be my fault for not being clear.

For those who say the libertarians, the Libertarians, the "Paulbots", etc, have nobody to blame but themselves for the predicament of their candidates or their party, please remember those exact words when "your" candidate loses next month, because I'm certain I will see a lot of outward finger pointing at that time. Look at what you're saying now to those who didn't win what they wanted, and apply it to yourself when you don't win what you want.

That is all. Clear now?

The Libertarians were rejected by the Country as a whole and the Republican party specifically. The Primary numbers show it.

Most mature adults learn to handle rejection well, some, on the other hand, follow those who have rejected them around saying things like,

"You never gave me a fair chance"

"I can give you what you really want"

"You know I am really the one for you"

and my favorite

"You'll never be happy with anyone else"


We call those people who deal with rejection in that manner,

"Stalkers"

Gundude
10-04-2012, 12:38
The Libertarians were rejected by the Country as a whole and the Republican party specifically. The Primary numbers show it.

Most mature adults learn to handle rejection well, some, on the other hand, follow those who have rejected them around saying things like,

"You never gave me a fair chance"

"I can give you what you really want"

"You know I am really the one for you"

and my favorite

"You'll never be happy with anyone else"


We call those people who deal with rejection in that manner,

"Stalkers"Again, there's only a little more than a month to go until we see how maturely the election results will be handled by the mature adults in this forum. I will be happy to revisit the topic then.

kensb2
10-04-2012, 12:44
If Romney loses, that'll defintely suck. The conservative middle, that could throw their support to Romney and possibly turn the tide to the right (but stick with 3rd party anyways to make whatever statement they think they're making), will most certainly be culpable in the loss. Whether or not they'll admit it. Beyond that, if we lose, then ourselves and are party shoulder a great majority of the rest of the blame.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 12:55
If Romney loses, that'll defintely suck. The conservative middle, that could throw their support to Romney and possibly turn the tide to the right (but stick with 3rd party anyways to make whatever statement they think they're making), will most certainly be culpable in the loss. Whether or not they'll admit it. Beyond that, if we lose, then ourselves and are party shoulder a great majority of the rest of the blame.What luck, it looks like we don't even have to wait a month.

Why would those who stuck with a 3rd party be responsible at all? Why should they vote for somebody they dislike, when somebody they like is on the same ballot?

Why doesn't the party shoulder 100% of the blame, for not being able to win enough votes to elect Romney? After all, they know the third parties are out there. They need to be able to win in the real world, not in some fantasy world where there are no third parties. If they can't win in a real world that includes third parties, it's 100% their fault, not the fault of those third parties or anybody who votes for them.

That's what you're saying to those RP and GJ supporters, right? You need to accept reality and accept full responsibility for your performance in that reality.

Well, it applies to you too.

countrygun
10-04-2012, 13:12
If Romney loses, that'll defintely suck. The conservative middle, that could throw their support to Romney and possibly turn the tide to the right (but stick with 3rd party anyways to make whatever statement they think they're making), will most certainly be culpable in the loss. Whether or not they'll admit it. Beyond that, if we lose, then ourselves and are party shoulder a great majority of the rest of the blame.

You know, the heck of it is here, I am a believer in quite a bit of this "Third party"s ideals but I have watched how this Country has changed, and it didn't happen overnight. My Grandfather talked to me about how he had seen the changes before he died in 1979. I watched a many of the changes he predicted were slowly implimented and I fought against them. I am just practical enough to know that pinning any hopes on just winning one office, and especially the POTUS to change things for the better is pure foolishness.

This Country got screwed up one progressive, City Councilman, County Commisioner, State Representative, Senator, POTUS and SCOTUS member at a time. Every liberal/progressive teacher in the schools, every professor in the colleges that preaches the progressive agenda.

It has to be unravelled the same way. There is NO way any POTUS without support of Congress can unravel the mess. At best it will be an excuse for neither party to cooperate and but the brakes on, in which case, over the cliff we go and both parties will be able to point at the third party POTUS who "wouldn't work with them".

It is childish at best to contemplate grabbing the big brass ring of the White House without laying the groundwork to make it effective. It will take much more than one office to change anything in a maor way. I keep hearing about the Founders from these folks. That is nice, I am a big fan too, but we would have never heard of them, we wouldn't still be talking about them if it weren't for the individual, largely unremembered sacrifices of the people who's names we don't know, in the history of our Country since the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence. The hard work and small victories carried out by unknown people built the Country, one battle at a time. To take the Country back we have to start winning the little battles. We have to change the minds of the people. We cannot do that merely seeking the instant gratification of the White House. That is winning a flashy battle at the cost of the war.

Forget about the Presidency for major change. Vote to get the twit out and campaign for change at every level, those are the steps that lead to a successful POTUS.

rjinaz85308
10-04-2012, 13:17
Just curious . . . exactly what is Obama not weak at? :whistling:

He's real good at vacations


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

G19G20
10-04-2012, 13:56
By not voting for Romney, you are supporting obama, whether you believe it or not. This election is not a game and it's not about who wins a debate. Its about whether or not we, as a nation, survive the way our founding fathers wanted it to.

We are down to 2 candidates and there just is no logical reason not to vote for Romney. obama will destroy this country.

Ive now heard this general line of rhetoric so many times that it has lost any sort of meaning to me. Let me issue my general line of rhetoric in response one more time. I don't care which nominee wins. They both suck for conservatives and both REALLY suck for libertarians.

The entire point of my OP was to agree with most people that Romney won the debate but to also point out that ANY GOP candidate should have been able to win that debate, considering the state of the economy. It tanked under a Republican president and continued tanking under a Democrat and will continue to tank under whoever wins this election. This was a "gimme" debate for Romney. Failing to win it would have secured his spot as worst nominee ever.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 14:10
The entire point of my OP was to agree with most people that Romney won the debate but to also point out that ANY GOP candidate should have been able to win that debate, considering the state of the economy. It tanked under a Republican president and continued tanking under a Democrat and will continue to tank under whoever wins this election. This was a "gimme" debate for Romney. Failing to win it would have secured his spot as worst nominee ever.That entire argument carries over to the election itself. This is a "gimme" election for Romney. If he fails to win it, it's because he is the worst nominee ever. Republicans, especially in the early primary states, will need to determine whether voting for somebody simply because they're told he's the "electable" one is a sound strategy going forward.

Republicans will need to shoulder 100% of the blame for the loss. Will they be able to do that? Will they be able to then learn from it and fix it next time? My instinct says "no". They will blame the media, voter fraud, libertarian voters, Ron Paul, and a whole lot of others. Hopefully I'm wrong, because I want them to fix it next time.

Providence
10-04-2012, 14:14
I look at myself as a libertarian. I am more than willing to vote libertarian in local races and maybe even statewide races. But I cannot, with a clear conscious, vote for Gary Johnston or any other 3rd party candidate. A vote for the 3rd party candidate is a vote for Obama. The Libertarian party needs to be built from the ground up, and I believe that's happening. I don't believe the country can take another 4 years of an Obama administration. So arguments and discussions are fine, but right now we must defeat Obama!


Please vote! It's that important!

Gundude
10-04-2012, 14:23
So arguments and discussions are fine, but right now we must defeat Obama!The "right now" attitude is the problem, not the solution.

"We finally have a budget surplus, but right now, we just got attacked by terrorists so let's spend like crazy, expand the government like crazy, flail our military wildly in wars without goals, and deal with it all later" is what got us into this mess.

Now, "later" is here, and we don't have anybody who truly wants to deal with it. Not anybody who can get elected, anyway, which means the people don't want to deal with it.

Let's think past the "right now" now, because we know we won't want to deal with it later.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 14:25
You've obviously never dug yourself out from under a lot of debt. One of the principle Dave Ramsey teaches is the start off attacking the smaller bills, then using that money to attack the larger ones. It has nothing to do with making us warm and fuzzy. It has to do with spending within your means and cutting back wherever and whenever you can. Learning spending discipline.

Let me introduce you to some basic arithmetic ... sourced from 2010 Federal Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

1) Mandatory spending (comprised of Entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and interest on debt) + DoD budget = 2.837 trillion

2) EVERYTHING else in the Fed. budget expenditures = 714 billion.

3) Federal revenue = 2.165 trillion

Do I really even need to go further? You see the problem with folks like you preaching about cutting 200 million from PBS or closing Dept. of Ed. ... or pick ANY and ALL federal departments ... and how ridiculous it is ultimately?

MATHY NO WORKY :faint::upeyes:

BUT I'll assume you failed 4th grade math ... lets take a scenario where we cut EVERYTHING from the budget but entitlements and DoD. So our ONLY expenditures are 2.837. Ooops! WE only have 2.165 trillion to spend. So our deficit grows by another 672 billion dollars this year. But I like "Big Bird" .. I'm gonna add him back to the budget. Guess what ... our deficit (assuming rounding) is still 672 billion. LMAO

From the budget ... in case visuals help you "get it":
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/2010_Receipts_%26_Expenditures_Estimates.PNG/445px-2010_Receipts_%26_Expenditures_Estimates.PNG

countrygun
10-04-2012, 14:26
The "right now" attitude is the problem, not the solution.

"We finally have a budget surplus, but right now, we just got attacked by terrorists so let's spend like crazy, expand the government like crazy, flail our military wildly in wars without goals, and deal with it all later" is what got us into this mess.

Now, "later" is here, and we don't have anybody who truly wants to deal with it. Not anybody who can get elected, anyway, which means the people don't want to deal with it.

Let's think past the "right now" now, because we know we won't want to deal with it later.

Yah, and reelecting Obama by voting third party Right Now, is sure a good plan for the future:upeyes:

G19G20
10-04-2012, 14:29
Yah, and reelecting Obama by voting third party Right Now, is sure a good plan for the future:upeyes:

Im pretty sure the left is saying the same thing, except swapping Obama with Romney.

"If you vote for the Green Party, you're voting for Mitt! Obama needs your vote!"

See how that works?

ModGlock17
10-04-2012, 14:29
Send out SOS !

The battleship Obama is listing 30degrees portside.

Jim, can you right 'er ?

countrygun
10-04-2012, 14:32
Im pretty sure the left is saying the same thing, except swapping Obama with Romney.

"If you vote for the Green Party, you're voting for Mitt! Obama needs your vote!"

See how that works?

Your "man" ran in the Republican Primary. He lost


See how that works?

Gundude
10-04-2012, 14:43
Your "man" ran in the Republican Primary. He lost


See how that works?And "your" man is running in the general election. When he loses, are you going to see how it works yourself?

My guess is that your behavior after that loss won't be any more mature than many of the "PaulBots" were after his.

Your admonitions to the PaulBots to accept reality are going to come back at you, are you prepared?

countrygun
10-04-2012, 14:47
And "your" man is running in the general election. When he loses, are you going to see how it works yourself?

My guess is that your behavior after that loss won't be any more mature than many of the "PaulBots" were after his.

Your admonitions to the PaulBots to accept reality are going to come back at you, are you prepared?

Carter

Clinton

Obama

I handled those well. More importantly, I didn't become obnoxious when my primary choice didn't win. Obviously you lack that skill.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 14:55
Carter

Clinton

Obama

I handled those well. More importantly, I didn't become obnoxious when my primary choice didn't win. Obviously you lack that skill.Is this the part where you show an example of me being obnoxious over somebody (I presume RP) not winning, or is it the part where you say it's not worth your effort to back up your personal attacks with facts?

427
10-04-2012, 15:03
Im pretty sure the left is saying the same thing, except swapping Obama with Romney.

"If you vote for the Green Party, you're voting for Mitt! Obama needs your vote!"

See how that works?

The Dems know the damage a third party candidate can do. Remember what the DNC did to the Nader campaign? They tried to keep off of the ballots in like 18 states. Nader had to file a lawsuit against them that was later dismissed.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 15:05
All I'm trying to gauge here is whether any Republicans will accept responsibility for Romney's loss and begin to think about what actions on their part would make for better results next time around.

427
10-04-2012, 15:07
All I'm trying to gauge here is whether any Republicans will accept responsibility for Romney's loss and begin to think about what actions on their part would make for better results next time around.

What are you talking about, the election isn't over.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 15:09
What are you talking about, the election isn't over.I meant it in the future tense, but you can interpret it as hypothetical if you want.

GAFinch
10-04-2012, 15:10
Let me introduce you to some basic arithmetic ... sourced from 2010 Federal Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

1) Mandatory spending (comprised of Entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and interest on debt) + DoD budget = 2.837 trillion

2) EVERYTHING else in the Fed. budget expenditures = 714 billion.

3) Federal revenue = 2.165 trillion

Do I really even need to go further? You see the problem with folks like you preaching about cutting 200 million from PBS or closing Dept. of Ed. ... or pick ANY and ALL federal departments ... and how ridiculous it is ultimately?

MATHY NO WORKY :faint::upeyes:

Federal revenue before the recession was over $2.5 trillion/year, so that's an extra $400 billion/year that can be added back in. Means-tested welfare spending is over $500 billion/year and the one-third in cuts made in the 90's that were undone in with the stimulus can be restored. Revenues from opening up domestic drilling could add $100 billion/year in revenues. That's $6-700 billion/year right there.

countrygun
10-04-2012, 15:11
Is this the part where you show an example of me being obnoxious over somebody (I presume RP) not winning, or is it the part where you say it's not worth your effort to back up your personal attacks with facts?

You can answer that question yourself.

Who are you voting for?

427
10-04-2012, 15:18
I meant it in the future tense, but you can interpret it as hypothetical if you want.

What would you have me say/do if Mittens looses?

TexasGlockster
10-04-2012, 15:19
The only solution to our economic mess is dramatic reductions in spending with equally dramatic reductions in taxes. Why? Government spending is stimulative, it just isn't very efficient. When you reduce it, you need to replace with a more efficient stimulus, which is putting the money back into the hands of private enterprise where it will be spent to grow businesses. Has this ever been done? Yes. Study the depression of 1920 in the wake of the progressive Wilson and the measures instituted by Coolidge that resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Romney is only slightly closer to this than Obama. His prescriptions are weak and really won't solve the country's problems. Many here think he can be a placeholder until something more conservative comes along but what will happen is, when he fails, the pendulum will swing harder to the left and there will be no chance for a true conservative reformer.

I didn't finish reading the thread so forgive me if this was addressed. You do know that virtually none of the actions taken during the 20s, 30s, or early 40s had any real impact on the economy (at least any helpful impact)? Be careful when you reference history to support a faulty conclusion. It took WW2 to get us out of the Great Depression.

On a separate note, for those of you who aren't voting because you don't like Romney: do you really think your failure to support Romney is beneficial? Make no mistake. Not voting for Romney is still a vote for Obama.

G19G20
10-04-2012, 15:20
The Dems know the damage a third party candidate can do. Remember what the DNC did to the Nader campaign? They tried to keep off of the ballots in like 18 states. Nader had to file a lawsuit against them that was later dismissed.

It loses all relevance and impact when both sides are using the same fear based rhetoric, with the only difference being the names. It's a great way to wrangle the crowds into voting for more-of-the-same though.

Your "man" ran in the Republican Primary. He lost


See how that works?

As Ive said before, the only people more rabid than Paul supporters are Paul haters. You have a serious case of the Paul Derangement Syndrome. And for the record, RP would have torn Obama apart last night by bringing up real issues like the Fed monetizing federal gov't debt and inflation and all the other issues that neither Mitt nor Obama will talk about.

whoflungdo
10-04-2012, 15:20
Let me introduce you to some basic arithmetic ... sourced from 2010 Federal Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

1) Mandatory spending (comprised of Entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and interest on debt) + DoD budget = 2.837 trillion

2) EVERYTHING else in the Fed. budget expenditures = 714 billion.

3) Federal revenue = 2.165 trillion

Do I really even need to go further? You see the problem with folks like you preaching about cutting 200 million from PBS or closing Dept. of Ed. ... or pick ANY and ALL federal departments ... and how ridiculous it is ultimately?

MATHY NO WORKY :faint::upeyes:

BUT I'll assume you failed 4th grade math ... lets take a scenario where we cut EVERYTHING from the budget but entitlements and DoD. So our ONLY expenditures are 2.837. Ooops! WE only have 2.165 trillion to spend. So our deficit grows by another 672 billion dollars this year. But I like "Big Bird" .. I'm gonna add him back to the budget. Guess what ... our deficit (assuming rounding) is still 672 billion. LMAO

From the budget ... in case visuals help you "get it":
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/2010_Receipts_%26_Expenditures_Estimates.PNG/445px-2010_Receipts_%26_Expenditures_Estimates.PNG

That was very kind of you. I bet you are a whiz at Powerpoint too..:wavey:

Providence
10-04-2012, 15:23
On a separate note, for those of you who aren't voting because you don't like Romney: do you really think your failure to support Romney is beneficial? Make no mistake. Not voting for Romney is still a vote for Obama.

I agree.


Please vote! It's that important!

Gundude
10-04-2012, 15:26
You can answer that question yourself.

Who are you voting for?Obama.

Ohhh, I see what you did there. A person's vote in itself is obnoxious if it's not the same as yours. You got me :upeyes:

You still think any non-Romney vote by a libertarian is some kind of tantrum or revenge for RP losing, don't you?

You really can't fathom that:
A vote for Obama by a libertarian can be a pragmatic "lesser of two evils" vote
A third party vote by a libertarian can actually be a reflection of a preference for that third party, and not a revenge vote from an event long past

can you?

427
10-04-2012, 15:26
It loses all relevance and impact when both sides are using the same fear based rhetoric, with the only difference being the names. It's a great way to wrangle the crowds into voting for more-of-the-same though.

Whatever. The fact is, third parties don't win and they siphon votes.


As Ive said before, the only people more rabid than Paul supporters are Paul haters. You have a serious case of the Paul Derangement Syndrome. And for the record, RP would have torn Obama apart last night by bringing up real issues like the Fed monetizing federal gov't debt and inflation and all the other issues that neither Mitt nor Obama will talk about.

Umm, I remember seeing Paul in the Primary debates and he wasn't all that.

BTW I voted for Paul in my state's primary.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 15:29
The only solution to our economic mess is dramatic reductions in spending with equally dramatic reductions in taxes. Why? Government spending is stimulative, it just isn't very efficient. When you reduce it, you need to replace with a more efficient stimulus, which is putting the money back into the hands of private enterprise where it will be spent to grow businesses. Has this ever been done? Yes. Study the depression of 1920 in the wake of the progressive Wilson and the measures instituted by Coolidge that resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Romney is only slightly closer to this than Obama. His prescriptions are weak and really won't solve the country's problems. Many here think he can be a placeholder until something more conservative comes along but what will happen is, when he fails, the pendulum will swing harder to the left and there will be no chance for a true conservative reformer.

I didn't finish reading the thread so forgive me if this was addressed. You do know that virtually none of the actions taken during the 20s, 30s, or early 40s had any real impact on the economy (at least any helpful impact)? Be careful when you reference history to support a faulty conclusion. It took WW2 to get us out of the Great Depression.

On a separate note, for those of you who aren't voting because you don't like Romney: do you really think your failure to support Romney is beneficial? Make no mistake. Not voting for Romney is still a vote for Obama.

Agreed. Further the "dramatic reductions in taxes" in early 1920s ( http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 ) that you cite and attribute to the roaring 20s ended in ... what? Hint .. started 29/30 :) Sound familiar? Examine the tax rates during that time frame vs. what we started doing in Reagan years and you'll see a parallel.

countrygun
10-04-2012, 15:29
It loses all relevance and impact when both sides are using the same fear based rhetoric, with the only difference being the names. It's a great way to wrangle the crowds into voting for more-of-the-same though.

Do you really think that, with the Libertarians low numbers, if Romney can't beat Obama, a third party could have?

I mean you seriously think that?

The only thing Libertarians can do, at best, is take the blame for a disasterous next four years. What they will do is hang the albatross of "loser party" around the neck of every libertarian candidate running for any other office in the Country.

Really folks, spend the wasted time trying to get libertarians elected to local office and help them be successful. Pick GOOD cnadidates and get more on Capitol Hill. No matter what YOU think a large number of of the folks still look at Romney as "conservative". If he wins he would certainly be better than 4 more of Obama. Take some of the credit for it. Losing the election outright is going to get you NO credit with the voters, all you can do, as I said, is be in position to catch the blame and damage the party's reputation. Take the small victories and create a winning record.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 15:30
That was very kind of you. I bet you are a whiz at Powerpoint too..:wavey:

Weak dude ... weeeeaaaak. :yawn:

whoflungdo
10-04-2012, 15:31
Obama.

Ohhh, I see what you did there. A person's vote in itself is obnoxious if it's not the same as yours. You got me :upeyes:

You still think any non-Romney vote by a libertarian is some kind of tantrum or revenge for RP losing, don't you?

You really can't fathom that:

A vote for Obama by a libertarian can be a pragmatic "lesser of two evils" vote
A third party vote by a libertarian can actually be a reflection of a preference for that third party, and not a revenge vote from an event long past

can you?

I get number 2 and have seriously considered it myself. However, how can ANYONE that wants limited/less/smaller government/Liberty vote for Obama and claim it's pragmatic?

whoflungdo
10-04-2012, 15:32
Weak dude ... weeeeaaaak. :yawn:


Thank you for caring enough to respond to my weeeaaakk retort. Maybe you can teach me some of your verbal jujitsu.:supergrin:

427
10-04-2012, 15:33
Obama.

Ohhh, I see what you did there. A person's vote in itself is obnoxious if it's not the same as yours. You got me :upeyes:

You still think any non-Romney vote by a libertarian is some kind of tantrum or revenge for RP losing, don't you?

You really can't fathom that:
A vote for Obama by a libertarian can be a pragmatic "lesser of two evils" vote
A third party vote by a libertarian can actually be a reflection of a preference for that third party, and not a revenge vote from an event long past

can you?

Based on what you've said in the past, I don't buy your premise(s).

G19G20
10-04-2012, 15:34
I didn't finish reading the thread so forgive me if this was addressed. You do know that virtually none of the actions taken during the 20s, 30s, or early 40s had any real impact on the economy (at least any helpful impact)? Be careful when you reference history to support a faulty conclusion. It took WW2 to get us out of the Great Depression.

Or maybe the fact that the feds STOPPED doing the stuff they were doing in the 20s, 30s, and 40s got us out of the Depression? All WW2 did was send gov't spending and borrowing through the roof and institute inflation in order to set a "new normal" and saddle the next generations with the war debt. The ending of the constant gov't interventions in the financial markets and monetary policies was what ended the Depression. We're seeing it playing out nearly identically right now. The more the gov't does to "fix it", the worse the situation becomes. The only way to resolve the issues to to let the market work and liquidate the bad debt, let failed companies fail (banks, eg), and stop trusting the Ivory Tower folks to be smart enough to actually "fix" anything.


On a separate note, for those of you who aren't voting because you don't like Romney: do you really think your failure to support Romney is beneficial? Make no mistake. Not voting for Romney is still a vote for Obama.

Blah blah. It's beneficial in that my principles stay intact and maybe the GOP will realize that nominating liberals only guarantees more loses. Btw, I don't depend on gov't for my existence, good or bad, so I have little stake in the outcome of who wins the election as it stands now. That's one of the biggest appeals of conservatism to me. Small gov't generally means letting me take care of myself. Neither Mitt nor Barack offer this appeal.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 15:38
What would you have me say/do if Mittens looses?Why, thanks for asking! :cheers:

Off the top of my head:

"Damn, we sure screwed the pooch that time around. How on earth did we lose that? Next time, instead of worrying so much about which guy can beat the scary Democrat, and getting all bent out of shape over cries of impending doom, I'll think a little more about which guy would best work towards my vision of a freer, less government-centric country."

countrygun
10-04-2012, 15:38
Obama.

Ohhh, I see what you did there. A person's vote in itself is obnoxious if it's not the same as yours. You got me :upeyes:

You still think any non-Romney vote by a libertarian is some kind of tantrum or revenge for RP losing, don't you?

You really can't fathom that:
A vote for Obama by a libertarian can be a pragmatic "lesser of two evils" vote
A third party vote by a libertarian can actually be a reflection of a preference for that third party, and not a revenge vote from an event long past

can you?

I have no problem fathoming your being wrong. No problem at all. It is nice to know however that your support for a third party, which is parasiting the Republicans, comes from the position of an Obama voter who wants Obama reelected. Confirms what I thought. No he certainly isn't the "lesser of two evils" but that shows more liberal than conservative in the "Libertarian" view.

I can understand that people want to reflect their preference, to make themselves feel better without accomplishing anything. Happens all the time.

AtlantaR6
10-04-2012, 15:39
Not at all what I'm saying. He got "knocked flat" based primarily on "feel good" types of analysis IMO (e.g., level of energy, aggressiveness, etc.) Romney won the battle for "low information" voters who vote based on stupid **** ... in other words.

He had 2 minutes to answer a question! If he went more detailed no one would understand in 2 minutes Wtf he was talking about.

You have 2 minutes to tell me how a Glock works and I've never heard of a gun. Are you going to talk about gunpowder, spark, and lead, or get into the mechanics of the striker pin hits the primer, the slide ejects the shell, and the feed ramp works?

Ruble Noon
10-04-2012, 15:43
the GOP really blew an opportunity to change things in a major way.

And why is that? Because they don't want to change things in a major way perhaps? I would say yes. They got their rino nominated, he gave a good speech and the republicans have tingles running up their legs today but, never forget how the republicans stood in the way of the TEA party getting anything accomplished. The republican establishment is only against obama's form of big government while they fully embrace their own version of big government.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 15:43
Or maybe the fact that the feds STOPPED doing the stuff they were doing in the 20s, 30s, and 40s got us out of the Depression? ... The ending of the constant gov't interventions in the financial markets and monetary policies was what ended the Depression. We're seeing it playing out nearly identically right now. The more the gov't does to "fix it", the worse the situation becomes. The only way to resolve the issues to to let the market work and liquidate the bad debt, let failed companies fail (banks, eg), and stop trusting the Ivory Tower folks to be smart enough to actually "fix" anything.



With all due respect ... are you in a bizarro fact world? :wavey:

I've never heard of FDR's policies characterized as less government intervention in financial markets and monetary policies. You do know that under FDR in 1933 we abandoned the gold standard. I would call that about as significant of an intervention into monetary policy as one could possibly imagine by the gov.

It was the drastic deregulation and laissez-faire policies of the "roaring 20s" that most economists attribute to the bust of 29 leading the the Great Depression! :faint:

http://carpetbaggery.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bizarro-world.jpg

Gundude
10-04-2012, 15:45
Whatever. The fact is, third parties don't win and they siphon votes. That's an acceptable second-place prize, provided their voters keep at it and don't chicken out like the Nader people did last time around. If the party who loses because of them knows they're going to lose again because of them, that party has to adjust to them in some way.

No, it's not as good as winning, but it's better than having both parties ignore you equally.

What's critical though is that the voters keep at it every election. Succumbing to the fear-mongering that gets thrown their way is a very real risk.

G19G20
10-04-2012, 15:48
I get number 2 and have seriously considered it myself. However, how can ANYONE that wants limited/less/smaller government/Liberty vote for Obama and claim it's pragmatic?

Ive seen the argument before and there is a pragmatic strategy if one chooses to exercise it, depending on individual ideology.

Obama is only guaranteed 4 more years if elected. Republicans continue to fiercely counter his agenda and resist sliding further to the left. Then, a more conservative and hopefully a liberty minded Republican can then run in 2016, such as Rand Paul or another up-and-comer.

If Romney wins then it's 4 years of him likely pushing a similar agenda to Obama's (on large scale issues), moving the party itself further to the left and still have no primary challenge in 2016, even if Romney turns out be horrible. You'll still be expected to fall in line behind him in 2016. The Dems can put up their terrible "anybody but Romney" candidate (Hillary?) and possibly win. If Romney wins a second term despite this, liberty minded Republicans are left to wait until 2020(!) to try to field another candidate. By then, who knows how much of this country will even be left intact to fight over. Will conservatism even exist by 2020 with guys like Romney and Obama as the choices in 2012?

In this context, a vote for Obama can be a strategic vote for anyone that's tired of the current status quo of bad nominees with little differences and little respect for the Constitution. It's not the strategy I'm following but it is a strategy worth understanding, particularly if you're not happy with either party.

427
10-04-2012, 15:54
Why, thanks for asking! :cheers:

Off the top of my head:

"Damn, we sure screwed the pooch that time around. How on earth did we lose that? Next time, instead of worrying so much about which guy can beat the scary Democrat, and getting all bent out of shape over cries of impending doom, I'll think a little more about which guy would best work towards my vision of a freer, less government-centric country."

Wait. What!? You rabid Paul guys had been screaming about impending doom while wrapping yourselves in the flag.

Now you're lecturing me about a freer, less government centric country while you take self-righteous pride in supporting and voting for a Communist endorsed president!? OMG!!!

You can justify your vote all you want, but, you have no credibility.



That's an acceptable second-place prize, provided their voters keep at it and don't chicken out like the Nader people did last time around. If the party who loses because of them knows they're going to lose again because of them, that party has to adjust to them in some way.
Nader's people didn't chicken out! They sued the DNC!

No, it's not as good as winning, but it's better than having both parties ignore you equally.

What's critical though is that the voters keep at it every election. Succumbing to the fear-mongering that gets thrown their way is a very real risk.

Third Parties don't win.

G19G20
10-04-2012, 16:00
With all due respect ... are you in a bizarro fact world? :wavey:

I've never heard of FDR's policies characterized as less government intervention in financial markets and monetary policies. You do know that under FDR in 1933 we abandoned the gold standard. I would call that about as significant of an intervention into monetary policy as one could possibly imagine by the gov.

It was the drastic deregulation and laissez-faire policies of the "roaring 20s" that most economists attribute to the bust of 29 leading the the Great Depression! :faint:

Im afraid there was some misunderstanding if that's what you thought my post said. I thought I was pretty clear that all the gov't interventions in fiscal and monetary policy (ie New Deal, et al) made the problem of free spending in the early to mid 20s worse by not allowing bad decisions (aka malinvestment) to shake out of the system. WW2 did not end the Depression. The end of gov't intervention in the economy is what ended it.

Again, you can see clear parallels between that period and today's economy. The early to mid 20s would be parallel to the early to mid 2000's with loose monetary policy that led to speculative bubbles. 2008 would be akin to 1929. Now we have the same gov't and central bank intervention going on and it's making the problem worse by propping up the malinvestment instead of liquidating it and allowing the market to correct itself. The gov't and the Fed needs to get out of the way, not repeat the same bad policies that extended the GD.

G19G20
10-04-2012, 16:05
Whatever. The fact is, third parties don't win and they siphon votes.

They siphon votes from both sides so the point is moot.


Umm, I remember seeing Paul in the Primary debates and he wasn't all that.

BTW I voted for Paul in my state's primary.

Hard to be "all that" when you get 89 seconds to talk in an hour long debate broadcast. See the ABC debate in Spartanburg SC for reference. Good job on the vote though.

wjv
10-04-2012, 16:07
You've obviously never dug yourself out from under a lot of debt. One of the principle Dave Ramsey teaches is the start off attacking the smaller bills, then using that money to attack the larger ones.

Problem is, cutting all the small stuff DOESN'T give us any extra money. just a smaller deficit. There is no extra money to attack the other debt. We would have to find something like $1.2T or so before we started actually freeing up cash to start reducing the debt.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 16:12
I get number 2 and have seriously considered it myself. However, how can ANYONE that wants limited/less/smaller government/Liberty vote for Obama and claim it's pragmatic?What does a pragmatic libertarian intend to accomplish by voting third party? He knows that party won't win, right? The only things he can hope for are that: The Republicans lose the election, because if they win it'll just cement the fact that they don't need to implement any libertarian principles in their platform
It is clear that if even a fraction of the votes that went to the third party went to the Republican party, they would have won the election.
(I'm using Republicans and libertarians here as the more relevant example, but it has played out on the Democrat side too.)

Primarily though, the Republicans have to lose. I'm in a swing state. I have to take care of problem #1. There was a time when voting for somebody like Obama would be troublesome to me. I don't care about that anymore. Pragmatism rules now when it comes to politics. Romney needs to lose, so Obama needs to win. If a vote for third party is a vote for Obama, then a vote for Obama is two votes for Obama. (Yeah that sounds weird, but take it up with the folks who keep telling us that a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama)

If I wasn't in a swing state, I'd vote Gary Johnson. Who knows, I might even do it here, depending on the outlook on election day, because if problem #1 is in the bag, #2 can be addressed.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 16:13
Im afraid there was some misunderstanding if that's what you thought my post said. I thought I was pretty clear that all the gov't interventions in fiscal and monetary policy (ie New Deal, et al) made the problem of free spending in the early to mid 20s worse by not allowing bad decisions (aka malinvestment) to shake out of the system. WW2 did not end the Depression. The end of gov't intervention in the economy is what ended it.

Again, you can see clear parallels between that period and today's economy. The early to mid 20s would be parallel to the early to mid 2000's with loose monetary policy that led to speculative bubbles. 2008 would be akin to 1929. Now we have the same gov't and central bank intervention going on and it's making the problem worse by propping up the malinvestment instead of liquidating it and allowing the market to correct itself. The gov't and the Fed needs to get out of the way, not repeat the same bad policies that extended the GD.

OK ... I understand your timeline better now. I did misinterpret it a bit.

I think we are a bit on same page, but not quite. You attribute and draw a parallel between the 20s and early 2000s as loose monetary policy leading to speculation and a bubble. I would see the same parallel, but attribute it to not enough oversight and regulation (are we saying same thing/agreeing?). This let the engine spin out of control so to speak during the 20s/1980-2000s... an engine without a governor if you will. Hence my characterization of the 20s as laissez-faire ... and to a certain degree the late 80s through mid 2000s the same. Not enough APPROPRIATE oversight and regulation in the right areas.

I would agree that WW2 didn't end the depression too. I disagree with your characterization of what did. You say it was in spite of FDRs policies and government intervention ... and that only after they ended we recovered. I say it was because of it. It took awhile .. yes .. but just as the excessive laissez-faire conditions that create busts don't happen overnight, the implementation of corrective policies don't happen overnight either. It was the very policies of the FDR administration that REBUILT the middle class and lit a fire under the heart of what can be the really ONLY true driver of sustained and healthy growith ... A HEALTHY MIDDLE CLASS.

G19G20
10-04-2012, 16:13
Do you really think that, with the Libertarians low numbers, if Romney can't beat Obama, a third party could have?

I mean you seriously think that?

I said nothing of the sort and I don't know where you got that from.


The only thing Libertarians can do, at best, is take the blame for a disasterous next four years. What they will do is hang the albatross of "loser party" around the neck of every libertarian candidate running for any other office in the Country.

Im not taking blame for your bad choice of nominee. I put in a hell of a lot more work in this election season than you did so blame yourself. See my sig.


Really folks, spend the wasted time trying to get libertarians elected to local office and help them be successful. Pick GOOD cnadidates and get more on Capitol Hill.

This is the single smartest thing Ive ever seen you post and it's exactly what is underway. If you like libertarian and conservative ideals, I can happily point you toward several good candidates for Congress that you can actively support.

Here's a couple that could use your help in tight House races against Democrats.

http://www.thomasmassie.com

http://www.artforcongress.com

wjv
10-04-2012, 16:15
All I'm trying to gauge here is whether any Republicans will accept responsibility for Romney's loss and begin to think about what actions on their part would make for better results next time around.

I'm trying to figure out why all you Paulites have become Obama cheerleaders. . . As far as all of you are concerned, a Romney loss is a forgone conclusion.

Instead of trying to work toward improving the situation, all of you seem to be cheering on the one man who is trying (and succeeding) to "fundamentally change" America, in a VERY bad way.

Again it's the "If you're not MY KIND of conservative, then you're not a REAL conservative" attitude that all the Paulites seem to have.

wjv
10-04-2012, 16:24
Obama is only guaranteed 4 more years if elected.

And in those 4 year Obama can inflict some permanent, if not fatal wound to this country by:

- appointing liberal judges
- killing entire industries such as coal
- making sure O-Care isn't abolished
- setting polices that make us more dependent on foreign oil
- bring the national debt to $20T (O's own predicted number)
- allowing agencies such as the EPA, DoE, DoEd from establishing more business killing, growth killing, education killing policies.
- killing the value of the dollar
- continued mis-handling of middle-east policies

Hell, what's 4 more years. .

4 more years could be the difference between this country living or dying.

I'm not willing to take THAT CHANCE!

Romney will be answerable to the conservative base. . Who will Obama be answerable to?

427
10-04-2012, 16:25
What does a pragmatic libertarian intend to accomplish by voting third party? He knows that party won't win, right? The only things he can hope for are that: The Republicans lose the election, because if they win it'll just cement the fact that they don't need to implement any libertarian principles in their platform
It is clear that if even a fraction of the votes that went to the third party went to the Republican party, they would have won the election.
(I'm using Republicans and libertarians here as the more relevant example, but it has played out on the Democrat side too.)

Primarily though, the Republicans have to lose. I'm in a swing state. I have to take care of problem #1. There was a time when voting for somebody like Obama would be troublesome to me. I don't care about that anymore. Pragmatism rules now when it comes to politics. Romney needs to lose, so Obama needs to win. If a vote for third party is a vote for Obama, then a vote for Obama is two votes for Obama. (Yeah that sounds weird, but take it up with the folks who keep telling us that a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama)

If I wasn't in a swing state, I'd vote Gary Johnson. Who knows, I might even do it here, depending on the outlook on election day, because if problem #1 is in the bag, #2 can be addressed.

Pragmatism. :rofl:
March 2012.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

Obama will bring about change, although it won't be the change he's hoping for.

Mittens will not. Mittens is politics as usual, and for those who are repulsed by the trend we're on, electing somebody who will maintain that trend is unacceptable.

Conservatives, by definition, fear change. That is why conservatives are on board with Mittens despite his unconservative credentials. They know he's "safe". They know he won't change anything.

The time for "safe" is gone. Let Obama bring the pot to a full boil quickly, and let's see what America is made of.

G19G20
10-04-2012, 16:27
OK ... I understand your timeline better now. I did misinterpret it a bit.

I think we are a bit on same page, but not quite. You attribute and draw a parallel between the 20s and early 2000s as loose monetary policy leading to speculation and a bubble. I would see the same parallel, but attribute it to not enough oversight and regulation (are we saying same thing/agreeing?). This let the engine spin out of control so to speak during the 20s/1980-2000s... an engine without a governor if you will. Hence my characterization of the 20s as laissez-faire ... and to a certain degree the late 80s through mid 2000s the same. Not enough APPROPRIATE oversight and regulation in the right areas.

I would agree that WW2 didn't end the depression too. I disagree with your characterization of what did. You say it was in spite of FDRs policies and government intervention ... and that only after they ended we recovered. I say it was because of it. It took awhile .. yes .. but just as the excessive laissez-faire conditions that create busts don't happen overnight, the implementation of corrective policies don't happen overnight either. It was the very policies of the FDR administration that REBUILT the middle class and lit a fire under the heart of what can be the really ONLY true driver of sustained and healthy growith ... A HEALTHY MIDDLE CLASS.

The core difference is we apparently disagree on what oversight and regulation means and how it should be applied. My version of oversight and regulation is that which is inherent to a truly free market where those that make bad decisions are allowed to fail. That unto itself is the regulation since it requires the malinvestment to be shaken out and the system reset. The banks, GM, AIG, etc would not have been "rescued" by papering over the failure with freshly printed money while waiting for the other shoe to drop, as we're doing right now. The gov't and Fed can never truly regulate or provide oversight because they are part of the system that failed. Market forces is the only true regulator and it's a good one. People run amok when they know the Fed will be there to paper over their failures and pass the inflation tax onto the common man.

countrygun
10-04-2012, 16:28
I said nothing of the sort and I don't know where you got that from

So you weren't trying to get Obama out? You didn't think Paul could win? You were just trying to take votes from the Republican Party. OK That's what I thought all along.



Im not taking blame for your bad choice of nominee. I put in a hell of a lot more work in this election season than you did so blame yourself. See my sig.

And you lost, get over it


This is the single smartest thing Ive ever seen you post and it's exactly what is underway. If you like libertarian and conservative ideals, I can happily point you toward several good candidates for Congress that you can actively support.

Here's a couple that could use your help in tight House races against Democrats.

http://www.thomasmassie.com

http://www.artforcongress.com


I work at my State level and leave others to work on their own States, you know, kinda like the Founders had in mind.

Ruble Noon
10-04-2012, 16:33
And in those 4 year Obama can inflict some permanent, if not fatal wound to this country by:

- appointing liberal judges
- killing entire industries such as coal
- making sure O-Care isn't abolished
- setting polices that make us more dependent on foreign oil
- bring the national debt to $20T (O's own predicted number)
- allowing agencies such as the EPA, DoE, DoEd from establishing more business killing, growth killing, education killing policies.
- killing the value of the dollar
- continued mis-handling of middle-east policies

Hell, what's 4 more years. .

4 more years could be the difference between this country living or dying.

I'm not willing to take THAT CHANCE!

Romney will be answerable to the conservative base. . Who will Obama be answerable to?

The conservative base that is trying to elect a liberal rino gun banning big government socialized medicine man? What does he have worry about?

427
10-04-2012, 16:33
They siphon votes from both sides so the point is moot.
That's true to a point. Third parties siphon more from one side than the other. For example, all thing being equal, a libertarian candidate will siphon more votes from a republican candidate than the dems. A Greenparty candidate will siphon more votes from a democrat candidate than a republican. Again, all things being equal.


Hard to be "all that" when you get 89 seconds to talk in an hour long debate broadcast. See the ABC debate in Spartanburg SC for reference. Good job on the vote though.
He made a bunch of strange faces and misspoke several times on several different topics.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 16:35
Wait. What!? You rabid Paul guys had been screaming about impending doom while wrapping yourselves in the flag. I'm not a "Paul guy". I'm a libertarian. I haven't been screaming about impending doom. I've been doing the opposite, saying we'll get through this no matter who gets elected. You need to get your people straight and not be so aggresive with the pigeonholing.

Now you're lecturing me about a freer, less government centric country while you take self-righteous pride in supporting and voting for a Communist endorsed president!? OMG!!!Yeah, that's how pragmatism works. Cool, huh?

You can justify your vote all you want, but, you have no credibility.Telling me that after you've proven that you have no idea who I am doesn't carry much weight.




Nader's people didn't chicken out! They sued the DNC!His voters chickened out. Look at his numbers in 2000 and 2004. In 2004, they succumbed to fear mongering, and had to vote for Kerry "otherwise that evil George Bush will get a second term and we'll all be doomed". Sound familiar?

427
10-04-2012, 16:37
I'm not a "Paul guy". I'm a libertarian. I haven't been screaming about impending doom. I've been doing the opposite, saying we'll get through this no matter who gets elected. You need to get your people straight and not be so aggresive with the pigeonholing.

Yeah, that's how pragmatism works. Cool, huh?

Telling me that after you've proven that you have no idea who I am doesn't carry much weight.




His voters chickened out. Look at his numbers in 2000 and 2004. In 2004, they succumbed to fear mongering, and had to vote for Kerry "otherwise that evil George Bush get a second term and we'll all be doomed". Sound familiar?

How long have we been sparring? About a year or so? I know you about as well as someone who posts on an internet forum.

Not a Paul guy?
Really?

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18802976&postcount=7

Gundude
10-04-2012, 16:41
Pragmatism. :rofl:
March 2012.Was something in there supposed to prove my vote for Obama is a revenge vote for RP losing?

How could that be, when I showed my intention to vote for Obama months before RP lost?

G19G20
10-04-2012, 16:41
And in those 4 year Obama can inflict some permanent, if not fatal wound to this country by:

- appointing liberal judges
- killing entire industries such as coal
- making sure O-Care isn't abolished
- setting polices that make us more dependent on foreign oil
- bring the national debt to $20T (O's own predicted number)
- allowing agencies such as the EPA, DoE, DoEd from establishing more business killing, growth killing, education killing policies.
- killing the value of the dollar
- continued mis-handling of middle-east policies

Hell, what's 4 more years. .


This is assuming one thinks Romney's policies will ultimately be any better on such issues. I do not and that opinion is based on his record and extreme flip-flopping.


4 more years could be the difference between this country living or dying.

Meh. Same was said in 2008 as why to vote for McCain. Im watching a slow death spiral that's mostly unrelated to which puppet-in-chief gets elected on Nov 6.


I'm not willing to take THAT CHANCE!

That's fine. I think America has more resilience than that though.


Romney will be answerable to the conservative base. . Who will Obama be answerable to?

Just like Bush was answerable to the conservate base when he signed Medicare-D, No Child Left Behind, debt ceiling increases, Bill of Rights destroying legislation, etc? That "answerable" argument doesn't ring true to me since I've seen how the president himself can get his base to just follow his bad decisions by wrapping them up in patriotic garb and buzzwords like "compassionate".

I see the Republican party as being the foil to Obama getting too squirrely in the next 4 years. We will counter him much harder than his own party will. This is basic politics.

Drilled
10-04-2012, 16:42
This Paulite thinks Romney won the debate. The thing is, he should have. Obama is so weak on economic and monetary issues that anyone could. I still won't vote for Romney because I don't trust his record and rhetoric but he did objectively win this debate. If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.

My .02 as the GTPI Paul weathervane.

You are just another vote for Obama throwing your vote away on Paul. Get over it.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 16:43
How long have we been sparring? About a year or so? I know you about as well as someone who posts on an internet forum.

Not a Paul guy?
Really?

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18802976&postcount=7So a reference to your own post of a couple of quotes of mine (neither of which mention Paul) grouped with a bunch of Paul guys' posts proves I'm a Paul guy?

countrygun
10-04-2012, 16:44
The conservative base that is trying to elect a liberal rino gun banning big government socialized medicine man? What does he have worry about?

Oh but you miss details deliberately. The "gun Banning" myth has been debunked and, at best, all you can do is spin it to Romney still being better than Obama.

Romney made a very good point, and he has never waivered from it from the beginning, last night. He wants the individual States to work out health care systems to suit the people. (you know, kind of a "State's Rights" position). That is what he approved in Mass. Go back and listen to the debate again, you missed him explaining that.

It makes perfect sense. Being a believer in the free enterprise system, allowing the States to choose their method is entirely sensible. Some States will go with a winning idea, some won't. those that don't can copy from the success. Like the free enterprise system it engenders a competition of sorts to come up with a workable system rather than the Federal Government trying to slap a "one size fits all" solution to 50 States. The odds are against the Fed being successful. If a Federal solution fails EVERYBODY loses.

Fed Five Oh
10-04-2012, 16:47
Seems our Super Patriots are in full melt down mode with 0bama losing the first debate.

Weird.

G19G20
10-04-2012, 16:50
That's true to a point. Third parties siphon more from one side than the other. For example, all thing being equal, a libertarian candidate will siphon more votes from a republican candidate than the dems. A Greenparty candidate will siphon more votes from a democrat candidate than a republican. Again, all things being equal.

This changes from election to election but third parties affect both parties. My gf is a registered Dem that voted for O in 2008, but she will be voting Green Party this election. Anecdotal but goes to show that neither candidate is immune from losing votes to third parties, particularly this election, with such high anti-establishment sentiment going around.


He made a bunch of strange faces and misspoke several times on several different topics.

Strange faces and occasional misspeaking? He and his positions should be ignored in favor of the guy with good hair and scripted lines. Though Im pretty sure you are an example of the mindset of the typical voter.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 16:53
Oh but you miss details deliberately. The "gun Banning" myth has been debunked It has? I didn't see you in the thread where I show the exact wording of the MA gun ban and ask for anybody to step up and dispute it's a gun ban.

Go ahead and debunk it:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1445862&page=2

Ruble Noon
10-04-2012, 16:55
Oh but you miss details deliberately. The "gun Banning" myth has been debunked and, at best, all you can do is spin it to Romney still being better than Obama.

Romney made a very good point, and he has never waivered from it from the beginning, last night. He wants the individual States to work out health care systems to suit the people. (you know, kind of a "State's Rights" position). That is what he approved in Mass. Go back and listen to the debate again, you missed him explaining that.

It makes perfect sense. Being a believer in the free enterprise system, allowing the States to choose their method is entirely sensible. Some States will go with a winning idea, some won't. those that don't can copy from the success. Like the free enterprise system it engenders a competition of sorts to come up with a workable system rather than the Federal Government trying to slap a "one size fits all" solution to 50 States. The odds are against the Fed being successful. If a Federal solution fails EVERYBODY loses.

You've been fed a bunch of bunk by acujeff.
Romney said that he wants to install socialized medicine through the states. Romney's idea is big government directed onto the states which is a far cry from states rights under the 10th Amendment. Nice try at spinning it though. He has also said that he would end obamacare, then he has said that he will keep parts of it, never mind all that though, he gave a good speech and you got a tingle up your leg.

G19G20
10-04-2012, 16:56
Seems our Super Patriots are in full melt down mode with 0bama losing the first debate.

Weird.

Don't you have some dogs to go shoot?

countrygun
10-04-2012, 17:01
Don't you have some dogs to go shoot?

I dunno, he's sure found some SOB's to aim at around here.

:whistling::tongueout:

427
10-04-2012, 17:04
So a reference to your own post of a couple of quotes of mine (neither of which mention Paul) grouped with a bunch of Paul guys' posts proves I'm a Paul guy?
You've been an admitted Paul supporter since at least March when Paul was still in the race.

From your Romney Needs to loose thread: It's locked so I can't quote it.

The entire exchange is there all 177 posts.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1427904

Gundude
10-04-2012, 17:05
You've been fed a bunch of bunk by acujeff. Yup, he and acujeff can now point to each other's "facts" as backup. :rofl:
Romney said that he wants to install socialized medicine through the states. Romney's idea is big government directed onto the states which is a far cry from states rights under the 10th Amendment. Nice try at spinning it though. He has also said that he would end obamacare, then he has said that he will keep parts of it, never mind all that though, he gave a good speech and you got a tingle up your leg.Romney said he will keep "the part" of Obamacare. The mandated pre-existing condition coverage (along with the mandated buy-in). That he can now say in a debate that he'd repeal Obamacare, and anybody would believe him, is laughable.

Jerry
10-04-2012, 17:05
Don't you have some dogs to go shoot?

I don't know about dogs, but when we can start shooting liberals I'm in. :tongueout:

G19G20
10-04-2012, 17:08
I dunno, he's sure found some SOB's to aim at around here.

:whistling::tongueout:


I don't know about dogs, but when we can start shooting liberals I'm in. :tongueout:

Makes me fear for the future of this country just a little more every day.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 17:18
You've been an admitted Paul supporter since at least March when Paul was still in the race.

From your Romney Needs to loose thread: It's locked so I can't quote it.

The entire exchange is there all 177 posts.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1427904That's BS. You can cut and paste. Show me.

Is it this one?No, what was the date on that post? I'm pretty sure it was long before Ron Paul evaporated from the race. If I was a Ron Paul supporter, I would've been supporting Ron Paul at the time.
ETA: Oh yeah, there's a link there: 03-09-2012. So there you go.

I like most of RP's ideas. Most of his ideas that I like aren't even really his, but simply libertarian principles. At the time of that post, and now, I believe it's more important to prevent the Republican party from straying even further from any sort of small-government platform than to expend effort worrying about Ron Paul. Voting Republican with the "warning" that big-government behavior won't be tolerated is a laughable fantasy. Only one currency matters: votes. Idle threats do not matter. Therefore I do what I can: vote against them. Oh yeah, you got me! :rofl: Sounds like the psychotic ramblings of a PaulBot!

Is that why you refused to quote anything? Because you found the opposite of what you claimed?

Jerry
10-04-2012, 17:19
Makes me fear for the future of this country just a little more every day.

You should be afraid. If the liberals keep forcing their will on people The People will eventually revolt. If a Conservative doesn't like something he doesn't do it. If a liberal doesn't like something he doesn't want anyone to do it. It's the difference between Freedom and Fascism.

countrygun
10-04-2012, 17:26
It is time for a countrygun prediction



I will go out on a very solid limb here and I want those who disagree to PLEASE chime in so we can have your opinions preserved.


""Third parties will have one of the 2 lowest turnout percentages,(for third parties) in this election, of the last 40 years."

427
10-04-2012, 17:33
That's BS. You can cut and paste. Show me.

Is it this one?Oh yeah, you got me! :rofl: Sounds like the psychotic ramblings of a PaulBot!

Is that why you refused to quote anything? Because you found the opposite of what you claimed?

Fine.

Later on in the thread:
You:

My vote is a vote against Romney. The "two-party rule" says to vote against Romney, I need to vote for Obama. This is the exact same "two-party rule" that everybody else is citing in their intention to vote for Romney, even though they don't like him.

I'm not 100% behind Obama. I'm probably not even 5% behind him. I'm voting for him because I'm 0% behind Romney.

Any more smoking guns you got for me?

Me;I guess I wasn't clear.

The contradiction is that Obama is the very antithesis of everything Paul supporters say they believe, yet they are willing to vote for Obama, to teach a lesson, to effect change.

What is right is voting Obama out of office.

You;Well thank you for dropping your flip-flop accusation and testifying to my consistency. You can also see now that it has nothing to do with bitterness about Ron Paul dropping out of the race.

If you want to treat the words "voter" and "supporter" as synonymous, then yes, your statement is correct. I've intended to vote for Obama ever since it became obvious who the Republican candidate would be. The reasons for my intent have been repeatedly and consistently explained.

You may not agree with them, but the purpose of publishing them is to encourage others with the same philosophy to do likewise. I did come to the realization that if I want somebody to lose, I should vote for the other person, as unpleasant a task as that is. To refuse to vote while still hoping for a certain outcome is wrong.

So to those who feel they're unable to bring themselves to vote for Obama, think again. If you really don't care who wins, then not voting is fine. But if you're rooting for one or the other, to either win or lose, consider that it is your duty to help make that outcome a reality.
Me:

First you say you're Paul supporter, now you say are an Obama supporter, the very antithesis of Paul,- that is not consistancy, that's flip flopping. Then after admitting you're voting for Obama and admitting your Obama vote is to affect change in the GOP, you can't figure out why people think you are an Obama supporter, and the obsession with teaching a lesson.

You didn't deny being a Paul supporter then, now you're denying it?

douggmc
10-04-2012, 17:37
You should be afraid. If the liberals keep forcing their will on people The People will eventually revolt. If a Conservative doesn't like something he doesn't do it. If a liberal doesn't like something he doesn't want anyone to do it. It's the difference between Freedom and Fascism.

I'd really be interested in reading some examples.

Jerry
10-04-2012, 17:52
I'd really be interested in reading some examples.

Why? So you can go run and hide like Flintlocker did when I start asking questions and back you into a corner. One of the things that make me laugh at liberals (at them not at what they are trying to accomplish) is they're all for making others do or stop doing but when it comes to them having to do or stop doing it's "hey, I have right's you know". I'm a Constitutionalists. Liberals only recolonize the parts of the Constitution that benefit them at the particular moment they need it to.

Example? Try Obomacare for one. The list is long.

Now if you need more of an explanation be prepared to answer some of my question and give me explanations. Be afraid! Be very afraid! :rofl:

Gundude
10-04-2012, 17:54
Here's where you're going wrong:

Me:

"First you say you're Paul supporter, now you say are an Obama supporter, the very antithesis of Paul..."


You didn't deny being a Paul supporter then, now you're denying it?You saying I'm a Paul supporter doesn't make me a Paul supporter. You linking back to a place where you say I'm a Paul supporter still doesn't make me a Paul supporter.

In that same thread I said "If I was a Ron Paul supporter, I would've been supporting Ron Paul at the time." Does that sound like a Paul supporter? No, it sounds like somebody denying he's a Paul supporter, so even in your fantasy land where not denying something is the same as admitting something, it wouldn't apply.

That thread is full of rabid people attack Paul supporters. Ron Paul wasn't even brought into that thread by a Paul supporter, but instead by somebody trying to lump everybody who doesn't vote for Romney together as Paul supporters:

You Ron Paul/Barack Obama supporters need to get your priorities straight. You guys have serious PaulBot-phobia. Not everything is about Ron Paul, and you guys make everything about Ron Paul far more than so-called "PaulBots' do.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 18:30
Why? So you can go run and hide like Flintlocker did when I start asking questions and back you into a corner. One of the things that make me laugh at liberals (at them not at what they are trying to accomplish) is they're all for making others do or stop doing but when it comes to them having to do or stop doing it's "hey, I have right's you know". I'm a Constitutionalists. Liberals only recolonize the parts of the Constitution that benefit them at the particular moment they need it to.

Example? Try Obomacare for one. The list is long.

Now if you need more of an explanation be prepared to answer some of my question and give me explanations. Be afraid! Be very afraid! :rofl:

:dunno:
Hmm. Seems like an awfully presumptive, defensive, and sharp response to what was a simple question. I'm sorry you seem to have an issue with another member. I don't recall having any interaction with you in the past. So ... bit surprised.

... and I'll try not to "run and hide", but I do have a job and require sleep, so no promises I will respond on your schedule :tongueout: (or that I won't get bored and go elsewhere).

So ... I'd be happy to answer questions. I haven't read one from you yet though (beyond "Why?"). Ask away. Otherwise ... I hope YOU don't "run and hide" from the question I posed to you already. Here it is again:

I'd really be interested in reading some examples.
:supergrin:

PS - Trust me .. I'm not going to be "afraid". I enjoy it ... it is nice entertainment and stimulating to lounge w/ my laptop on the couch interacting and reading while watching the boobtube.

juggy4711
10-04-2012, 18:36
For all those so impressed or pleased by Romney's performance I would reference a bit of Chris Rock. Warning, foul language and NSFW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0B_ekSrsEk

That was Romney in a nut shell tonight. Granted he put the whoop on Obama, but again how hard was to do given the circumstances.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 18:40
For all those so impressed or pleased by Romney's performance I would reference a bit of Chris Rock. Warning, foul language and NSFW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0B_ekSrsEk

LMAO ... you mean like him bragging that "his plan" will create 12 million new jobs in 4 years? Even though that is already the projection based on current policies. :rofl:

Rick Scott did the same thing in 2010 FL Gov election.

countrygun
10-04-2012, 18:45
:dunno:
Hmm. Seems like an awfully presumptive, defensive, and sharp response to what was a simple question. I'm sorry you seem to have an issue with another member. I don't recall having any interaction with you in the past. So ... bit surprised.

... and I'll try not to "run and hide", but I do have a job and require sleep, so no promises I will respond on your schedule :tongueout: (or that I won't get bored and go elsewhere).

So ... I'd be happy to answer questions. I haven't read one from you yet though (beyond "Why?"). Ask away. Otherwise ... I hope YOU don't "run and hide" from the question I posed to you already. Here it is again:

I'd really be interested in reading some examples.
:supergrin:

PS - Trust me .. I'm not going to be "afraid". I enjoy it ... it is nice entertainment and stimulating to lounge w/ my laptop on the couch interacting and reading while watching the boobtube.


Jerry is right.
The minute they get cornered by Federal law they yell "States rights, Big Brother get out of my way. It's up to my State". If they don't like the State law they yell "It's my Constitutional Right, Big Brother, butt in and see to it I get my way".

Gundude
10-04-2012, 18:50
Jerry is right.
The minute they get cornered by Federal law they yell "States rights, Big Brother get out of my way. It's up to my State". If they don't like the State law they yell "It's my Constitutional Right, Big Brother, butt in and see to it I get my way".Kind of like how CCW people want the fed to mandate reciprocity?

And the "war on drugs" people want the fed to continue busting MJ clinics in states where they're legal?

countrygun
10-04-2012, 19:11
Kind of like how CCW people want the fed to mandate reciprocity?


The 2nd Amendment IS a Federal issue.

No Cigar. Fail

And the "war on drugs" people want the fed to continue busting MJ clinics in states where they're legal?

Or the people of a State voting to keep MJ illegal, and the dopers expecting the Fed to change it.

Fail again






http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/srrongis.png

Jerry
10-04-2012, 19:34
:dunno:
Hmm. Seems like an awfully presumptive, defensive, and sharp response to what was a simple question. I'm sorry you seem to have an issue with another member. I don't recall having any interaction with you in the past. So ... bit surprised.

... and I'll try not to "run and hide", but I do have a job and require sleep, so no promises I will respond on your schedule :tongueout: (or that I won't get bored and go elsewhere).

So ... I'd be happy to answer questions. I haven't read one from you yet though (beyond "Why?"). Ask away. Otherwise ... I hope YOU don't "run and hide" from the question I posed to you already. Here it is again:

I'd really be interested in reading some examples.
:supergrin:

PS - Trust me .. I'm not going to be "afraid". I enjoy it ... it is nice entertainment and stimulating to lounge w/ my laptop on the couch interacting and reading while watching the boobtube.

Pardon my attitude (NOT!) but I've been debating with liberals for years and it always goes the same way. For "example". You asked for an example. I gave you and "example". You missed it! Or you chose to ignore it. Rather than accept or comment on my "example" you've choose to use the "You're such an "awfully presumptive" person opening. So to answer another of "your" questions... After years of dealing with liberals I found there is no such thing as reasoning so I just tell it like it is then after listening to them whine I give them facts and they come back with more emotional BS. So here we are!

And here's "MY" first question. If you read my post how did you miss my "EXAMPLE"?

Example? Try Obomacare for one. The list is long. :upeyes:

douggmc
10-04-2012, 19:45
Pardon my attitude (NOT!) but I've been debating with liberals for years and it always goes the same way. For "example". You asked for an example. I gave you and "example". You missed it! Or you chose to ignore it. Rather than accept or comment on my "example" you've choose to use the "You're such an "awfully presumptive" person opening. So to answer another of "your" questions... After years of dealing with liberals I found there is no such thing as reasoning so I just tell it like it is then after listening to them whine I give them facts and they come back with more emotional BS. So here we are!

:upeyes:

So ... your response to my request for examples of:

... If a Conservative doesn't like something he doesn't do it. If a liberal doesn't like something he doesn't want anyone to do it.

is:

"Obomacare for one" ?

May I ask you to expand on that? Is it the mandate?

Are you just being coy? Would rather just seemingly play a game of "gotcha" where you are the winner in your own mind? Because that is what I think any credible, honest observer would conclude based on our exchange so far. I'm trying to engage you in a legitimate debate. If you don't want to, fine. I'll just conclude you can't support your own claims in any meaningful or coherent manner.

By the way, do you know what the root word "moderate" means from the word "moderator"? Because, while I certainly don't expect you to suspend your opinion in any way, I find my exchange with you highly ironic.

Jerry
10-04-2012, 20:37
So ... your response to my request for examples of:



is:



May I ask you to expand on that? Is it the mandate?

Are you just being coy? Would rather just seemingly play a game of "gotcha" where you are the winner in your own mind? Because that is what I think any credible, honest observer would conclude based on our exchange so far. I'm trying to engage you in a legitimate debate. If you don't want to, fine. I'll just conclude you can't support your own claims in any meaningful or coherent manner.

By the way, do you know what the root word "moderate" means from the word "moderator"? Because, while I certainly don't expect you to suspend your opinion in any way, I find my exchange with you highly ironic.

I’ll cover your last question first. I don’t moderate this forum. I am moderated the same as anyone else so I’m allowed to express my opinion the same as anyone else. Liberals just make me laugh sooooo much. They can’t stay on subject, they try to use anything they can to show superiority (yes I know what moderate means) and will use any trick in the book to try to “attack” the other person and draw attention away from their own inadequacy. You ARE living up to my expectation of a liberal. :rofl:


As to the rest of your BS post. And it’s either BS or you are a complete idiot. I Answered the FIST PART HIGHLIGHTED IN YOUR POST. Post 136. You have highlighted “liberals keep forcing their will on people” You highlighted it! You posted in response..
I'd really be interested in reading some examples.


You didn’t say you specifically didn’t want an answer to the VERY FIRST THING YOU HAD HIGHLIGHTED… so I answered it.


Now that you’ve proven to be a liberal without a clue hit me with your best shot because you sure haven’t done a very good job so far. You haven’t agreed with or disputed my EXAMPLE. You ask if it’s a mandate. Mandate or not what it is, IS liberals FORCING THEIR WILL ON OTHERS.

Now do you want to debate liberals forcing their will on other? Or do want to continue playing silly liberal games?

Edit: Just for grins and giggles. EXAMPLE of "If a liberal doesn't like something he doesn't want anyone to do it. It's the difference between Freedom and Fascism." Liberals want laws to limit or eliminate fatty food served in fast food places. If conservatives don't want fatty food they don't buy it.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 21:04
The 2nd Amendment IS a Federal issue.

No Cigar. FailIt's the Feds job to override state laws on the one issue of CCW? Sounds like you're saying "It's my Constitutional Right, Big Brother, butt in and see to it I get my way".



Or the people of a State voting to keep MJ illegal, and the dopers expecting the Fed to change it.

Fail againYou didn't actually address the scenario I put forth did you? I'm not saying Liberals don't play that game. I'm saying everybody does, including conservatives, including Republicans, and definitely including you.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 21:57
They can’t stay on subject, they try to use anything they can to show superiority ...

Hilarious, I'm trying desperately to get forthright, on subject answers from you ... and you post long obfuscated ad hom blanket attacks on me (without knowing me or engaging me in discussion previously) and "liberals" ... instead of engaging me on the topic. :faint: With that said ... I'll try to avoid being guilty of the same by not continuing on with the ancillary diversionary game. So ...

Your 50,000 foot, entirely vague response is in fact "Obomacare". OK. That is per my request for an example of your statement: "liberals keep forcing their will on people ". Pretty hard to respond to that unless you want an equally vague and 50,000 foot answer. Since you won't say what specifically beyond that though ... I'll have to infer it is the most common argument against it:

The mandate. How can the government force me to get insurance or pay a tax penalty (or tax ... whatever you want to call it).

Well ... interestingly enough ... the answer lies mostly within your own original argument ( "how can the liberals (in this case liberal policy) keep forcing their will on people"). I think it can best be illustrated by asking what happens when YOU (I'm speaking figuratively ... I don't know your specific situation) choose to not be insured? Do you think you can control when and where you have a major accident or illness? Do you think you can cover, out of pocket, the million dollars of medical bills (if you even live)? Who exactly has to pay for it when you don't? So ... YOUR choice (gamble) to not be insured, forces me to pay for YOU (in the form of higher direct costs and premiums). YOU are IMPACTING ME. People like you are "forcing their will on" ME. Do you see the irony with that ... when your complaint is ""liberals keep forcing their will on people "? The mandate is necessary to protect my rights and liberty. Without it, I will continue to pay for other peoples bad decisions.

The concept of liberty and life, as far as I'm concerned is: Do what you want, until/if you impact me (or prohibitively "society" in general). Then we have to have some rules.

I call that libertarian, you seem to want to call it "liberal" somehow.

So ... that addresses the mandate angle. It ain't perfect and I think better alternatives, but that is different subject. I hardly feel it is some infringement on my rights though, quite the opposite. It is stopping deadbeats from infringing on MY rights by CHOOSING not to insure themselves.

Liberals want laws to limit or eliminate fatty food served in fast food places. If conservatives don't want fatty food they don't buy it.

I'm not going to address this in this post ... just simply to limit the scope of the discussion. I'll gladly address it separately later if you so desire (I'll try to make a note of it and be proactively respond later if we get to that point).

Gundude
10-04-2012, 22:06
Liberals want laws to limit or eliminate fatty food served in fast food places. If conservatives don't want fatty food they don't buy it.What do conservatives do if they don't want marijuana?

countrygun
10-04-2012, 22:08
It's the Feds job to override state laws on the one issue of CCW? Sounds like you're saying "It's my Constitutional Right, Big Brother, butt in and see to it I get my way".


You didn't actually address the scenario I put forth did you? I'm not saying Liberals don't play that game. I'm saying everybody does, including conservatives, including Republicans, and definitely including you.


Well, since the Founders specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR and left those not enumerated to the States, it seems that "the right to roll a fatty" belongs up to your State. Don't cry to the Feds if the rest of your State doesn't agree with you.

It's really pretty clear but you liberals, in the Faux conservative costumes tend to get a little confused.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 22:19
Well, since the Founders specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR and left those not enumerated to the States, it seems that "the right to roll a fatty" belongs up to your State. Don't cry to the Feds if the rest of your State doesn't agree with you.

It's really pretty clear but you liberals, in the Faux conservative costumes tend to get a little confused.So the states have the right to legalize MJ, right? Why would conservatives want the feds to suppress that right in states which it's legal?

Gundude
10-04-2012, 22:22
Well, since the Founders specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR and left those not enumerated to the States, it seems that "the right to roll a fatty" belongs up to your State. Don't cry to the Feds if the rest of your State doesn't agree with you.So the rights specifically mentioned in the BOR are "special" rights, according to the Founders? They should be enforced by the feds while other, non-listed rights shouldn't? Do you believe that was the Founders' intention?

countrygun
10-04-2012, 22:23
So the states have the right to legalize MJ, right? Why would conservatives want the feds to suppress that right in states which it's legal?


Completely off topic and irrelevant question. Open yet another thread on that issue.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 22:26
Completely off topic and irrelevant question. Open yet another thread on that issue.No, it's completely relevant. If we're talking about liberals wanting to ban everything they don't like while conservatives simply don't buy it, you need to explain why conservatives want MJ banned. You need to realize it's not a liberal thing, it's a human thing. What's also human is seeing the faults in another group of people while ignoring your own faults, even when those faults are identical.

douggmc
10-04-2012, 22:35
Completely off topic and irrelevant question.

Not in the least. I'm not weighing on the topic, but simply pointing out your inconsistent arguments.

Here you say it is a state's right basically (e.g. California chooses to legalize medical MJ) and the Fed Gov should stay out of it:

Well ... it seems that "the right to roll a fatty" belongs up to your State. Don't cry to the Feds if the rest of your State doesn't agree with you.

Here Gundude points out that California legalized medical MJ, but the Federal government has and continues to execute DEA interdiction on dispensaries in the state ... superseding the rights of the state:

So the states have the right to legalize MJ, right? Why would conservatives want the feds to suppress that right in states which it's legal?

... and you (countrygun) now say it is irrelevant and off topic? :crying: Logic fail (your own logic at that)!!

I'm going to bed ... my online *****slap session this evening is making me sleepy :) :rofl:

G19G20
10-05-2012, 05:05
Well, since the Founders specifically mentioned the right to keep and bear arms in the BOR and left those not enumerated to the States, it seems that "the right to roll a fatty" belongs up to your State. Don't cry to the Feds if the rest of your State doesn't agree with you.

It's really pretty clear but you liberals, in the Faux conservative costumes tend to get a little confused.

Im definitely confused because I can't figure out who exactly you're talking about with your posts in the last couple pages.

Constitutional conservatives (should and largely do) understand that the 10th Amendment places issues like drug use squarely on each state's citizens to decide for themselves. If a state votes to ban a substance, that's how it was intended under the 10th and people then have the right to move to another state where that substance is lawful. This is what referendums are for, as we see in Colorado right now. Only in the instance of EVERY state banning a substance independently does it then mimic a federal ban. As it stands now the feds have usurped this 10th Amendment responsibility from the states and even ignore the will of state voters in the case of medical cannabis.

No one is going to complain to the feds if the feds end their War on Some Drugs and their state subsequently legislates a substance illegal. That's how the Founders intended it to work. Using an example like cannabis there will be some states that continue to ban it and other states that repeal existing bans. Let's remember that anything not expressly legislated as illegal is deemed lawful. If state statutes are silent then something is allowed.

G19G20
10-05-2012, 07:08
It is time for a countrygun prediction


I will go out on a very solid limb here and I want those who disagree to PLEASE chime in so we can have your opinions preserved.


""Third parties will have one of the 2 lowest turnout percentages,(for third parties) in this election, of the last 40 years."

That's a reasonable prediction considering you're only expanding on my earlier prediction that this election will be the lowest (relative) turnout since the 70's.

Snowman92D
10-05-2012, 07:20
And for the record, RP would have torn Obama apart last night...

STOP IT...!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: NO...NO MORE...YOU'RE KILLIN' ME! :rofl: BWAHAHAHAHA! :rofl:

Bren
10-05-2012, 07:33
So the states have the right to legalize MJ, right? Why would conservatives want the feds to suppress that right in states which it's legal?

You are correct. I believe the feds began overstepping their bounds on criminal law when the supreme court decided that everything in commerce anywhere could be controlled under "commerce clause" jurisdiction (see the danger of more democratic appointees on the S.Ct.).

To me, a criminal law on possession, growing, selling, etc., is up to the state and the feds only have the power to criminalize transport across state lines...but that theory started going to crap almost 100 years ago.

I don't think conservatives want the feds regulating drugs. I think the elderly do, but we aren't talking about anybody who has given much thought to political/legal philosophy - just a knee-jerk reaction from the average Walmart shopper.

G19G20
10-05-2012, 07:35
STOP IT...!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: NO...NO MORE...YOU'RE KILLIN' ME! :rofl: BWAHAHAHAHA! :rofl:

At least Paul's statements would have been accurate and based on current economic developments. See here:

I combined these two because I think you have too. The acid test Romney used was if a program isn't worth borrowing from the Chinese to fund, it would be eliminated. PBS seems pretty clear under that formula. Obamacare definitely. Free cell phones? Yep.


Someone forgot to tell Romney that China doesn't loan us money anymore. The Chinese have barely bought any Treasury issues at auction in the last year. So either Romney was being intentionally dishonest and demagoguing the issue of federal borrowing to the ignorant masses (those evil cheating Chinese should be punished! But no seriously, hey China can we borrow a few bucks?) or he genuinely doesn't know that China doesn't loan us money anymore, which makes him ignorant of economic conditions. So which is it? Im happy that Romney won the debate, as he should have, but the notion that he has some amazing grasp of economic issues, especially compared to Ron Paul, is downright funny.

Bren
10-05-2012, 07:37
So the rights specifically mentioned in the BOR are "special" rights, according to the Founders? They should be enforced by the feds while other, non-listed rights shouldn't? Do you believe that was the Founders' intention?

Yes, it was their intent. That is very, very obvious. Expressly stated, even (10th amendment?). I'm not sure you thought much before posting that. The specific reason for the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was that the federal government/constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights for anybody in any state, while the "rights" not mentioned are expressly left to the states to regulate.

Of course, most of the rights, like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc., amendments, did not apply to the states until after the civil war. before that, the bill of rights only prohibited the federal government from infringing on those rights. The post-Lincoln slide into an all-powerful federal government (reconstruction) is when we got the bill of rights applying to the states "through the 14th amendment."

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 07:41
Seems our Super Patriots are in full melt down mode with 0bama losing the first debate.

Weird.

You noticed that too. It seems their resentment toward Romney for smoking the messiah in the primary outweighs their concern about the most liberal candidate losing. It sure seems like they wanted Barry to do better. No surprise considering what G19Gwinnie's sig line used to be, It's clear what outcome he wants.

Sour grapes on display.

Snowman92D
10-05-2012, 07:45
No, it's completely relevant. If we're talking about liberals wanting to ban everything they don't like while conservatives simply don't buy it, you need to explain why conservatives want MJ banned. You need to realize it's not a liberal thing, it's a human thing.

In the end, it's always about the dope. :rofl:

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 07:46
It is time for a countrygun prediction



I will go out on a very solid limb here and I want those who disagree to PLEASE chime in so we can have your opinions preserved.


""Third parties will have one of the 2 lowest turnout percentages,(for third parties) in this election, of the last 40 years."

40 years? I think I'd bet on a bottom 20% turnout. The rabid Paul guys are only about 2%, and many of them will be voting for Barry if you can believe what they post in the Paul forums.

Snowman92D
10-05-2012, 07:48
At least Paul's statements would have been accurate and based on current economic developments.

I'm sure Obama would have reminded him about his "statements" supporting the KKK, too. :whistling:

G19G20
10-05-2012, 07:49
I'm sure Obama would have reminded him about his "statements" supporting the KKK, too. :whistling:

Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?

You noticed that too. It seems their resentment toward Romney for smoking the messiah in the primary outweighs their concern about the most liberal candidate losing. It sure seems like they wanted Barry to do better. No surprise considering what G19Gwinnie's sig line used to be, It's clear what outcome he wants.

Sour grapes on display.

Which sig line was that? Keep nominating liberals and then wondering why we keep losing? Or the one that said failing to nominate Paul, the most conservative candidate, guarantees another election loss? I know you're averse to objective truth but yeah I was hoping for the sitting President to do better. He is still in control of the country in case you forgot. I won't root for him to fail because we are all affected by his failures. Are you saying you want Obama to fail the country even more while he's President? That's not very patriotic of you, Mr. Stars and Stripes. Sounds like sour grapes....

You are right about the sour grapes sentiment being strong though. There's still a hell of a lot of Paul supporters that won't vote for Romney based solely on the shenanigans during the primaries and at the RNC. Reap what you sow and all that. The RNC was what cemented my decision that I wouldn't vote for the Mass liberal.

JFrame
10-05-2012, 07:53
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?

Come on, now -- I would say that is a bit of a straw man.

The decision on which Republican to support has been made by most.


.

Snowman92D
10-05-2012, 08:01
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?

Didn't like to be reminded about his KKK affiliation, eh? :okie:

If you're talking about RP, he's obviously not a "fellow Republican".

Why do you support Obama by refusing to vote for Romney?

G19G20
10-05-2012, 08:06
If you're talking about RP, he's obviously not a "fellow Republican".

Oh that's right, he doesn't hate all those evil pot smokers so he's just another liberal :upeyes:. Under a Paul presidency, whose door would you be able to kick down at 4am and be able to shoot their dog?

He'd kill all your drug warrior fun!


Why do you support Obama by refusing to vote for Romney?

Because Romney is a fraud just like Obama and has done precisely zero to earn my vote. No one is entitled to my vote. I thought we were trying to get away from entitlements in this country...

Come on, now -- I would say that is a bit of a straw man.

Just a little taste of nonsense I hear on this forum all the time. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Snowman92D
10-05-2012, 08:35
Oh that's right, he doesn't hate all those evil pot smokers so he's just another liberal :upeyes:. Under a Paul presidency, whose door would you be able to kick down at 4am and be able to shoot their dog?

Now, now...don't be mean.

So...tell me again how your boy RP would have "mopped the floor" with Hussein during the debate? I'm sure the Prez would have overlooked that...ah...little matter of RP being a fanboy for the KKK. Y'think...?
:whistling:

Gundude
10-05-2012, 09:02
Yes, it was their intent. That is very, very obvious. Expressly stated, even (10th amendment?). I'm not sure you thought much before posting that. The specific reason for the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was that the federal government/constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights for anybody in any state, while the "rights" not mentioned are expressly left to the states to regulate. Right, it was to prohibit the government from infringing, not to allow the government to regulate. The federal government has no business regulating CCW. Do you think CCW reciprocity will consist of the federal government simply telling states they can't ban CCW? Do you think it'll consist of the federal government simply telling states they must honor CCWs from other states, in all circumstances? Not on your life. It will create a federal bureaucracy to regulate CCW. If you don't believe that, you've been living on another planet. That's not what the 2nd amendment is about.

Goaltender66
10-05-2012, 09:03
Someone forgot to tell Romney that China doesn't loan us money anymore. The Chinese have barely bought any Treasury issues at auction in the last year. So either Romney was being intentionally dishonest and demagoguing the issue of federal borrowing to the ignorant masses (those evil cheating Chinese should be punished! But no seriously, hey China can we borrow a few bucks?) or he genuinely doesn't know that China doesn't loan us money anymore, which makes him ignorant of economic conditions. So which is it?

You don't fully understand the concept of rhetoric in a debate setting, do you? :wavey:

series1811
10-05-2012, 09:08
In the end, it's always about the dope. :rofl:

The original single issue voters. :supergrin:

JFrame
10-05-2012, 09:11
You don't fully understand the concept of rhetoric in a debate setting, do you? :wavey:


In fact, I thought that was the case that some Ron Paul supporters were making about him -- that his ideas are so detailed and subtle, they can't be reduced to sound bites... That he actually needs, say, 30 minutes to get his profound notions across.

I don't think that would work well in a typical debate setting.


.

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 09:12
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?





Hahahaha :rofl: Ron is a RINO. He supports candidates that are not republican. He wears a republican nametag only to get attention and a snowballs chance in hell if getting back to his .gov paycheck when it was beneficial to him.

I believe he meant every word he wrote in his resignation from the Republican Party, being that he is so principled and consistent, it's illustrative that he flip flopped on that.


As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that's the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.

Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter," the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget ammendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan's urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive "lie detector" tests.

Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has "sent hither swarms" of tax gatherers "to harass our people and eat out their substance." His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the

President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan's new tax "reform" gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.

After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government's best friend.

If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.

I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.

I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.

He returned to avoid unemployment and irrelevance.

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 09:17
Now, now...don't be mean.

So...tell me again how your boy RP would have "mopped the floor" with Hussein during the debate? I'm sure the Prez would have overlooked that...ah...little matter of RP being a fanboy for the KKK. Y'think...?
:whistling:

You can't win a game if you don't even make the team. In football, he'd be the water boy, without the storybook ending.

http://www.brainwashed.com/brain/images/waterboy.jpg

Goaltender66
10-05-2012, 09:30
Yes, it was their intent. That is very, very obvious. Expressly stated, even (10th amendment?). I'm not sure you thought much before posting that. The specific reason for the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was that the federal government/constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights for anybody in any state, while the "rights" not mentioned are expressly left to the states to regulate.

Of course, most of the rights, like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc., amendments, did not apply to the states until after the civil war. before that, the bill of rights only prohibited the federal government from infringing on those rights. The post-Lincoln slide into an all-powerful federal government (reconstruction) is when we got the bill of rights applying to the states "through the 14th amendment."

And since admittedly this is where I start going off the legal reservation with my opinion, I beg your indulgence.

To me the 2A actually seems to bind the states as well as the federal government, even without incorporation. The 2A has the simple imperative "Shall Not Be Infringed." It doesn't have the same phrasing as the 1A, which is that "Congress shall make no law...", which tells me that the Framers intended for the 1A to be a check against federal power only (meaning censorship would be a state matter, as would a religious test before holding office), but the 2A was intended to be more global.

On the other hand, the meat of my argument is mooted by McDonald v Chicago. But even with that, I don't find arguments against federally-enforced CCW reciprocity all that persuasive except on political grounds.

Snowman92D
10-05-2012, 09:35
In fact, I thought that was the case that some Ron Paul supporters were making about him -- that his ideas are so detailed and subtle, they can't be reduced to sound bites.

True "comprehension" only exists in RP's mind, the wellspring of every Supreme Truth...much as "perfection" is said only to exist in the mind of God.

(...and Ron Paul's, too, of course.) :supergrin:

ModGlock17
10-05-2012, 09:36
Now, now...don't be mean.

So...tell me again how your boy RP would have "mopped the floor" with Hussein during the debate? I'm sure the Prez would have overlooked that...ah...little matter of RP being a fanboy for the KKK. Y'think...?
:whistling:

Good point.

One thing people may not realize is that Romney represented all the millions of small biz people who are offended by the "You didn't built it." comment. He represented us, with experience in business. RP is not, simply put.

Gundude
10-05-2012, 09:47
But even with that, I don't find arguments against federally-enforced CCW reciprocity all that persuasive except on political grounds.How about on practical grounds? Is the federal government really gonna tell DC and the state of Maryland, where most of them live, they must allow people who have, say, a Washington state CCW, where no training whatsoever is required, to carry concealed in their territory?

It'll never happen. The "CCW reciprocity law" is going to be several hundred pages. It's going to require "lowest common denominator" rules for states issuing CCWs. Public safety funds will be cut off for states who don't comply. It won't take long before the feds are in control of all CCW issuance rules. Again, if you don't believe that, you've been living on a different planet.

If you wanted to undo a quarter century of phenomenal state progress in the realm of CCW within a couple of years, getting the feds involved is the way to do it. :sad:

Snowman92D
10-05-2012, 09:56
I often think the convulsive hatred that the RP fanboys have for Romney is rooted, at least in part, in their organizational hatred for Jews and Israel. The Mormons have a number of philosophical and historical parallels to Judaism, according to a number of scholars, so one supposes that probably accounts for the Paulinista antagonism toward the guy.

Last I knew, there haven't been any Mormons yelling "God is great" as they fly Boeing aircraft into our skyscrapers...and it wouldn't take much to figure out, between Obama and Romney, which one is the Marxist.

Gundude
10-05-2012, 10:02
I often think the convulsive hatred that the RP fanboys have for Romney is rooted, at least in part, in their organizational hatred for Jews and Israel. The Mormons have a number of philosophical and historical parallels to Judaism, according to a number of scholars, so one supposes that probably accounts for the Paulinista antagonism toward the guy.

Last I knew, there haven't been any Mormons yelling "God is great" as they fly Boeing aircraft into our skyscrapers...and it wouldn't take much to figure out, between Obama and Romney, which one is the Marxist.You're the guy that doesn't smoke pot, right? :crazy:

Goaltender66
10-05-2012, 10:03
How about on practical grounds?

I don't think there's a distinction in that difference, FWIW.

Is the federal government really gonna tell DC and the state of Maryland, where most of them live, they must allow people who have, say, a Washington state CCW, where no training whatsoever is required, to carry concealed in their territory?

Well, on that specific point I don't happen to believe that there should be a training requirement built into the law before one may legally carry. Such things tend to be abused into de facto gun bans. For example, there's a training requirement in DC which must be satisfied before one may own a handgun, but there are no actual trainers in DC...in other words, to exercise a constitutional right in DC one must first drive to another state.

That said....


It'll never happen. The "CCW reciprocity law" is going to be several hundred pages. It's going to require "lowest common denominator" rules for states issuing CCWs. Public safety funds will be cut off for states who don't comply. It won't take long before the feds are in control of all CCW issuance rules. Again, if you don't believe that, you've been living on a different planet.

If you wanted to undo a quarter century of phenomenal state progress in the realm of CCW within a couple of years, getting the feds involved is the way to do it. :sad:
I don't think extortion of public safety funds would be required. To me, in this area federal supremacy is clear. It's only when the Feds want a state to do something they can't specifically require that the extortion bit comes in (drinking age minimums come to mind...). In certain cases the Feds can certainly tell a state what it must allow in its own "territory" (the Full Faith and Credit clause springs to mind as an example).

But again, something can be entirely Constitutional but still a bad idea. I can agree that having the Federal Government dictate reciprocity standards is a big minefield, but that doesn't mean that it would be unconstitutional for it to do so.

Snowman92D
10-05-2012, 10:08
You're the guy that doesn't smoke pot, right? :crazy:

Aw, c'mon now...stop being mean. I'm trying to promote understanding here. You know...celebrate diversity, etc? :whistling:

Gundude
10-05-2012, 10:17
He returned to avoid unemployment and irrelevance.Or maybe, he returned in order to foment such animosity and hatred within the party that it would destroy itself from within...

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 10:35
You're the guy that doesn't smoke pot, right? :crazy:

Did you mean to imply he's the only one that doesn't smoke pot?? :dunno:

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 10:35
Or maybe, he returned in order to foment such animosity and hatred within the party that it would destroy itself from within...

With friends like that.....

I'd prefer a reformer instead of a destroyer, but if you're sure that's what he's been up to, I'll take your word for it.

Gundude
10-05-2012, 10:47
With friends like that.....

I'd prefer a reformer instead of a destroyer, but if you're sure that's what he's been up to, I'll take your word for it.Sometimes the rot is so deep you just gotta tear it down and build a new one.

Gundude
10-05-2012, 10:48
Did you mean to imply he's the only one that doesn't smoke pot?? :dunno:
Nope, just that the scattered nature of that post suggested he might have been on pot when he wrote it.

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 11:21
Nope, just that the scattered nature of that post suggested he might have been on pot when he wrote it.

Well that is a little far fetched, dontcha think?

countrygun
10-05-2012, 12:46
That's a reasonable prediction considering you're only expanding on my earlier prediction that this election will be the lowest (relative) turnout since the 70's.

You have been taking statistical analysis courses from another one of your liberal bretheren on this forum.

I am not expanding on you theory of a lower turnout at all.

You do understand that I was referring to the percentage of third party representation.

In other words for all their talk and bluster they are going to prove to be full of hot air when it comes to results.

There is going to be so little actual turnout that even wasting time on the Forum mentioning them is less productive than analyzing belly-button lint.

Jerry
10-05-2012, 14:41
Hilarious, I'm trying desperately to get forthright, on subject answers from you ... and you post long obfuscated ad hom blanket attacks on me (without knowing me or engaging me in discussion previously) and "liberals" ... instead of engaging me on the topic. :faint: With that said ... I'll try to avoid being guilty of the same by not continuing on with the ancillary diversionary game. So ...

Your 50,000 foot, entirely vague response is in fact "Obomacare". OK. That is per my request for an example of your statement: "liberals keep forcing their will on people ". Pretty hard to respond to that unless you want an equally vague and 50,000 foot answer. Since you won't say what specifically beyond that though ... I'll have to infer it is the most common argument against it:

The mandate. How can the government force me to get insurance or pay a tax penalty (or tax ... whatever you want to call it).

Well ... interestingly enough ... the answer lies mostly within your own original argument ( "how can the liberals (in this case liberal policy) keep forcing their will on people"). I think it can best be illustrated by asking what happens when YOU (I'm speaking figuratively ... I don't know your specific situation) choose to not be insured? Do you think you can control when and where you have a major accident or illness? Do you think you can cover, out of pocket, the million dollars of medical bills (if you even live)? Who exactly has to pay for it when you don't? So ... YOUR choice (gamble) to not be insured, forces me to pay for YOU (in the form of higher direct costs and premiums). YOU are IMPACTING ME. People like you are "forcing their will on" ME. Do you see the irony with that ... when your complaint is ""liberals keep forcing their will on people "? The mandate is necessary to protect my rights and liberty. Without it, I will continue to pay for other peoples bad decisions.

The concept of liberty and life, as far as I'm concerned is: Do what you want, until/if you impact me (or prohibitively "society" in general). Then we have to have some rules.

I call that libertarian, you seem to want to call it "liberal" somehow.

So ... that addresses the mandate angle. It ain't perfect and I think better alternatives, but that is different subject. I hardly feel it is some infringement on my rights though, quite the opposite. It is stopping deadbeats from infringing on MY rights by CHOOSING not to insure themselves.



I'm not going to address this in this post ... just simply to limit the scope of the discussion. I'll gladly address it separately later if you so desire (I'll try to make a note of it and be proactively respond later if we get to that point).

I'll try to keep this simple for you. You asked for an “example” and I gave you one. Obomacare! If you wanted an explanation also you should have asked for and example and an explanation.

First mistake… health care is not a right it’s a privilege.

Who should pay you ask. The person using the service. If you don’t pay the bill you get sued. It should work just like any other product or service works. However, the bleeding heart liberals are mandating that the working people once again pay for the lame and lazy by mandating health care and levying a tax if you don’t have it. Are those that can’t pay for it being forced to pay or be taxed? NO! And that is the only reason for Obomacare… so the rest of us can pay for those that don’t pay.

Now before you reply read this. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html it’s quite lengthy but you REALLY need to read it. The Federal Government has no business giving out or mandating charity. But the liberals just love their free stuff that others have to pay for.

Gundude
10-05-2012, 14:48
However, the bleeding heart liberals are mandating that the working people once again pay for the lame and lazy by mandating health care and levying a tax if you don’t have it. Are those that can’t pay for it being forced to pay or be taxed. NO! And that is the only reason for Obomacare… so the rest of us can pay for those that don’t pay.The only surprise is that it took this long. When EMTALA was passed, the door was opened for freeloaders to get free medical care. It was only a matter of time before everybody had to pay for this.The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.Who was the bleeding heart liberal in office in 1986 who signed this abomination? Probably the type of guy who would ban machine guns too.

Jerry
10-05-2012, 15:22
What do conservatives do if they don't want marijuana?

They don't smoke it. I'm a conservative and I'm all for legalizing drugs. But I'm not getting into a debate about it.

You know who started the war on drugs. Teddy Roosevelt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_State_Narcotic_Drug_Act Conservative? NO! Founder of the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party of 1912. Progressive... better know as Liberals who now want to be call Progressives again. So it looks like that liberals put that ca-bash on drugs too. :rofl:

Jerry
10-05-2012, 15:45
The only surprise is that it took this long. When EMTALA was passed, the door was opened for freeloaders to get free medical care. It was only a matter of time before everybody had to pay for this.

I absolutely agree.


Who was the bleeding heart liberal in office in 1986 who signed this abomination? Probably the type of guy who would ban machine guns too.

Democrats control the House of Representatives passed it, Reagan signed it. Reagan was from Koymfornia so no big surprise there. :rofl:

Gundude
10-05-2012, 16:35
Democrats control the House of Representatives and passed it Reagan signed it. Reagan was from Koymfornia so no big surprise there. :rofl:It is pretty fascinating that he is the model for who conservatives want their "real" conservative candidate to be.

countrygun
10-05-2012, 16:43
It is pretty fascinating that he is the model for who conservatives want their "real" conservative candidate to be.

Not me. Foreign policy maybe. Domestic? He was too fricken "compassionate"

Jerry
10-05-2012, 17:05
It is pretty fascinating that he is the model for who conservatives want their "real" conservative candidate to be.

Some things yes some things no. After 50 + years I'm still looking for the "PERFECT" congress and president. So far I'm 0 for 0. What I am sure of is... I've lost all tolerance for liberals and stupidly. Not necessarily in that order. :rofl: ActualI I've come to believe they are one in the same. :whistling:

Bren
10-05-2012, 17:16
To me the 2A actually seems to bind the states as well as the federal government, even without incorporation. The 2A has the simple imperative "Shall Not Be Infringed." It doesn't have the same phrasing as the 1A, which is that "Congress shall make no law...", which tells me that the Framers intended for the 1A to be a check against federal power only (meaning censorship would be a state matter, as would a religious test before holding office), but the 2A was intended to be more global..

It says "shall not be infringed" but the bill of rights was only designed to regulate the federal government, just as the constitution creates and empowers only the federal government. It's like, the local fire department has a regulation saying "no employee can carry a gun on duty" - that doesn't regulate the police, because it's a fire department rule, even if it doesn't say "no fire department employee."

Jerry
10-05-2012, 18:15
It says "shall not be infringed" but the bill of rights was only designed to regulate the federal government, just as the constitution creates and empowers only the federal government. It's like, the local fire department has a regulation saying "no employee can carry a gun on duty" - that doesn't regulate the police, because it's a fire department rule, even if it doesn't say "no fire department employee."

Agree! But you know what's funny? When it comes to gun "control" the Feds say it's states righs. However, when it comes to drugs the feds say they have power over the state. I disagree! Amendment # 10.

countrygun
10-05-2012, 18:25
It says "shall not be infringed" but the bill of rights was only designed to regulate the federal government, just as the constitution creates and empowers only the federal government. It's like, the local fire department has a regulation saying "no employee can carry a gun on duty" - that doesn't regulate the police, because it's a fire department rule, even if it doesn't say "no fire department employee."

I have to disagree to a certain extent. In the Bill of Rights the only form of Government specifically proscribed from action is "Congress" in the First Amendment. Ergo States may actually make laws regarding religion but Congress may not. In the rest of the 9 Amendments in original BOR no Government entity is specifically prohibited so it therefor implies that NONE may. If the Founders intended otherwise the could have prefaced the remaining 9 in the same manner as the first.

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 18:59
It is pretty fascinating that he is the model for who conservatives want their "real" conservative candidate to be.

Yeah, if you ignore all the surrendercrat BS he has been spewing. He lost. He had his run and he failed miserably.


Reality is what it is.Get a better candidate and try to stop by in about 4 years, and we'll take a look.

certifiedfunds
10-05-2012, 19:13
My guess is he was busy out there in the real world, taking his message to The People, and campaigning for votes. He was probably the featured speaker at the Grand Opening of a new medical marijuana shop in some run-down strip mall. :smoking:

When you have nightmares, do bongs chase you?

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 19:22
When you have nightmares, do bongs chase you?

Back atcha.

I don't care much about marijuana. I can't smoke it and don't want to.

Who cares about it more than the guys that are smoking it?

Jerry
10-05-2012, 19:44
Back atcha.

I don't care much about marijuana. I can't smoke it and don't want to.

Who cares about it more than the guys that are smoking it?

I was a child of the 60's/70's. Smoked it! YES I INHALED!!!. I can take it or leave it. Haven't smoked any is probably 25/35(?) years. The probe I have with the law is it's Government telling ADULTS they can't do something that has no effect on anyone other than the person doing it. I'm not talking about driving under the influence or other crimes commuted while under the influence. A crime is a crime is a crime and should be treated as such but smoking marijuana like drinking alcohol in an of itself shouldn't be a crime. However, at this stage of my life I really don't care to argue about it. It's just wrong!

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 20:10
I was a child of the 60's/70's. Smoked it! YES I INHALED!!!. I can take it or leave it. Haven't smoked any is probably 25/35(?) years. The probe I have with the law is it's Government telling ADULTS they can't do something that has no effect on anyone other than the person doing it. I'm not talking about driving under the influence or other crimes commuted while under the influence. A crime is a crime is a crime and should be treated as such but smoking marijuana like drinking alcohol in an of itself shouldn't be a crime. However, at this stage of my life I really don't care to argue about it. It's just wrong!

I'm just not caring. I have to take care of patients with real life threatening problems. if you happened to ask them, they would probably prefer that I wasn't a doper.

I don't have much of a problem with pot smoking McDonald's assistant managers. If I have a sudden bout of appendicitis, I'd prefer that my surgeon was clean though. Same goes for many other professions. My kids drive, so truck drivers are included.

Just my personal preference. I think I have a right to know who is a doper and who isn't when I am hiring a professorial. Plumbers, surgeons, dentists, mechanics, pharmacists, yard workers, masseuses, etc......

I'm just looking to be an informed consumer.

Jerry
10-05-2012, 20:41
I'm just not caring. I have to take care of patients with real life threatening problems. if you happened to ask them, they would probably prefer that I wasn't a doper.

I don't have much of a problem with pot smoking McDonald's assistant managers. If I have a sudden bout of appendicitis, I'd prefer that my surgeon was clean though. Same goes for many other professions. My kids drive, so truck drivers are included.

Just my personal preference. I think I have a right to know who is a doper and who isn't when I am hiring a professorial. Plumbers, surgeons, dentists, mechanics, pharmacists, yard workers, masseuses, etc......

I'm just looking to be an informed consumer.

I don't disagree. I'm talking about "government" intervention into peoples personal lives. I don't believe Doctors should show up for surgery drunk like the one that lead to a long, long slow death for my father did. However, it doesn't make me want to outlaw the drinking of alcohol for EVERYONE. I don't believe I should show up for work drunk or stoned. But again to outlaw the personal use of anything because someone "might" do harm is un-Americana. Now if someone causes harm let them be held accountable for causing harm... not because they're drunk or stoned on just plain stupid when they caused harm.

certifiedfunds
10-05-2012, 21:11
I'm just not caring. I have to take care of patients with real life threatening problems. if you happened to ask them, they would probably prefer that I wasn't a doper.

I don't have much of a problem with pot smoking McDonald's assistant managers. If I have a sudden bout of appendicitis, I'd prefer that my surgeon was clean though. Same goes for many other professions. My kids drive, so truck drivers are included.

Just my personal preference. I think I have a right to know who is a doper and who isn't when I am hiring a professorial. Plumbers, surgeons, dentists, mechanics, pharmacists, yard workers, masseuses, etc......

I'm just looking to be an informed consumer.

But you don't, any more than you have the right to know who drinks or uses prescription narcotics. But when drug or alcohol use becomes an issue professionally, licensing bodies generally step in, hospitals pull priviliges and professional reputations suffer.

Plenty of all of the people you mentioned smoke. I can introduce you to some, surgeons/physicians included. They don't even drink when on call. I'd prefer my surgeon be sober when he operates on me. If he caught a buzz the night before, I'd prefer it wasn't alcohol he used. However, I could care less if he smoked week on the weekend.

Personally, I drink seldom and I don't smoke.

I responded to Snowman because anytime Paul comes up he starts blabbering about "dopers" without even realizing he's advocating for a liberal reading of the COTUS. There is a world of difference between advocating for drug use and supporting the Constitution.

DOC44
10-05-2012, 23:52
Take a trip and never leave the keyboard.

Doc44

Snowman92D
10-06-2012, 05:51
I responded to Snowman because anytime Paul comes up he starts blabbering about "dopers" without even realizing he's advocating for a liberal reading of the COTUS. There is a world of difference between advocating for drug use and supporting the Constitution.

You must engage in selective reading, are you sure bongs don't populate your dreams? I also point out RP's endless blame-America-first carping, his affiliation with the KKK, and his slime-ball pandering to Islamic groups for campaign cash.

You have to admit, though, dopers are some of Ron Paul's most rabid supporters. :smoking:

series1811
10-06-2012, 05:57
However, I could care less if he smoked week on the weekend.

.

Of course, he will still have THC in his system when he operates on you. But, that's okay. Weed makes you smarter.

Look at Obama. He smoked weed and he's the smartest man in the world. :supergrin:

Snowman92D
10-06-2012, 06:08
Yup...our man "O" should have been preppin' for his debate instead of out back of the White House, jumpin' rope and smokin' dope. :whistling:

onebigelf
10-06-2012, 06:27
Where is Gary Johnson?

Right where he's been all along. Standing under that sign over there:

"IRRELEVANT"

John

onebigelf
10-06-2012, 06:35
I have to disagree to a certain extent. In the Bill of Rights the only form of Government specifically proscribed from action is "Congress" in the First Amendment. Ergo States may actually make laws regarding religion but Congress may not. In the rest of the 9 Amendments in original BOR no Government entity is specifically prohibited so it therefor implies that NONE may. If the Founders intended otherwise the could have prefaced the remaining 9 in the same manner as the first.

There is actually a very good reason for that. When the BoR was written several states had official state religions (Pennsylvania and Maryland) and would not have ratified the Bill of Rights if they were required to change their laws. Both repealed their religious laws shortly afterward, but because they couldn't attract the skilled tradesmen that they needed, not because it was required. This was an example of exactly what our FF intended. The states as laboratories. What the states with official religions were doing wasn't as successful as what the others were doing so they had to change, otherwise the people they needed went to other states. That's the way things are supposed to be rather than one-size-fits-all Federal control so that there is no difference.

John

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 08:26
There is actually a very good reason for that. When the BoR was written several states had official state religions (Pennsylvania and Maryland) and would not have ratified the Bill of Rights if they were required to change their laws. Both repealed their religious laws shortly afterward, but because they couldn't attract the skilled tradesmen that they needed, not because it was required. This was an example of exactly what our FF intended. The states as laboratories. What the states with official religions were doing wasn't as successful as what the others were doing so they had to change, otherwise the people they needed went to other states. That's the way things are supposed to be rather than one-size-fits-all Federal control so that there is no difference.

John


Excellent.

Bren
10-06-2012, 08:40
I have to disagree to a certain extent. In the Bill of Rights the only form of Government specifically proscribed from action is "Congress" in the First Amendment. Ergo States may actually make laws regarding religion but Congress may not. In the rest of the 9 Amendments in original BOR no Government entity is specifically prohibited so it therefor implies that NONE may. If the Founders intended otherwise the could have prefaced the remaining 9 in the same manner as the first.

The Supreme Court said, basically, the only parts of the constitution that apply to states, directly, are parts that specify "states" in them.

The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated.

. . .
If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states. In their several constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested; such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest.
The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists, that the constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their general government. It support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article.
We think, that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court.
The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the general government. Some of them use language applicable only to congress; others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that ‘no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.’ No language can be more general; yet the demonstration is complete, that it applies solely to the government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain state legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that ‘no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.’ This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on state legislation.
The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the general government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the state legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the states. ‘No state shall enter into any treaty,’ &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on the people would apply to the state government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the states.
. . .
If the original constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this plain and marked line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the general government, and on those of the state; if, in every inhibition intended to act on state power, words are employed, which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course, in framing the amendments, before that departure can be assumed.
We search in vain for that reason.
. . .
In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.
We are of opinion, that the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.

Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-51 (1833).

Basically, the opposite of what you said. Your argument is, "if it doesn't say Congress, it applies to feds and states," but the court said, "since it's a U.S. constitution, if it doesn't say 'states' it applies only to the U.S."

jakebrake
10-06-2012, 08:45
Where is Gary Johnson? That tell us Obama and Romney are afraid of him because they think he would steal their votes and afraid to be schooled by him.

my guess is he's e mailing all 12 of his supporters, begging for another contribution.

even ross perot was in the debates.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 14:15
There is actually a very good reason for that. When the BoR was written several states had official state religions (Pennsylvania and Maryland) and would not have ratified the Bill of Rights if they were required to change their laws. Both repealed their religious laws shortly afterward, but because they couldn't attract the skilled tradesmen that they needed, not because it was required. This was an example of exactly what our FF intended. The states as laboratories. What the states with official religions were doing wasn't as successful as what the others were doing so they had to change, otherwise the people they needed went to other states. That's the way things are supposed to be rather than one-size-fits-all Federal control so that there is no difference.

John

Again, the lack of specificity in the BOR leaves generality as the only logical intention. The BOR applies to all citizens as an establishment of their primary rights.

The Congressional prohibition was clearly a double-edged sword in that it leaves Congress powerless, in specific, and therefore empowers the States. The remaning Amendments have no such limitations, when, in fact, it would have been easy enough to include them as well.

Much as going to the fair and seeing a ride that says "No one under 5'4" may get on this ride" It means that it is permissable for people over 5'4" to ride. The other 9 rides all say "Closed, unsafe" meaning that no one may ride them.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 14:42
You must engage in selective reading, are you sure bongs don't populate your dreams? I also point out RP's endless blame-America-first carping, his affiliation with the KKK, and his slime-ball pandering to Islamic groups for campaign cash.

You have to admit, though, dopers are some of Ron Paul's most rabid supporters. :smoking:

You Progressives really hate him, don't you?

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 14:45
Again, the lack of specificity in the BOR leaves generality as the only logical intention. The BOR applies to all citizens as an establishment of their primary rights.

The Congressional prohibition was clearly a double-edged sword in that it leaves Congress powerless, in specific, and therefore empowers the States. The remaning Amendments have no such limitations, when, in fact, it would have been easy enough to include them as well.

Much as going to the fair and seeing a ride that says "No one under 5'4" may get on this ride" It means that it is permissable for people over 5'4" to ride. The other 9 rides all say "Closed, unsafe" meaning that no one may ride them.

Huh? Can you explain this a bit?

Snowman92D
10-06-2012, 16:07
You Progressives really hate him, don't you?

Not sure how the "progressives" feel about him, you'll have to ask them. You were trying to say that I only talk about RP's support of dope use, and obviously that's not the case...unless you're into selective reading, of course.

I can't help it that dopers are invariably some of his biggest supporters. :smoking: I've tried to point out to them that Ryan publicly stated that medical ganja was a "states' rights" issue...and that Romney tends toward being a "states' rights" proponent. That's how he explains his involvement in "Romneycare", that the Massachusetts legislature chose it.

Gosh...I'd think that real Ron Paul "Constitutionalists" would be able to see that. I guess they're too busy over-looking his tireless blame-America-first squeakings, his affiliation with the KKK, his slime-ball pandering to Islamists for their cash, etc.

I gather that allowing medical ganja to be a states' rights issue isn't "progressive" enough. :rofl:

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 16:14
Not sure how the "progressives" feel about him, you'll have to ask them. You were trying to say that I only talk about RP's support of dope use, and obviously that's not the case...unless you're into selective reading, of course.

I can't help it that dopers are invariably some of his biggest supporters. :smoking: I've tried to point out to them that Ryan publicly stated that medical ganja was a "states' rights" issue...and that Romney tends toward being a "states' rights" proponent. That's how he explains his involvement in "Romneycare", that the Massachusetts legislature chose it.

Gosh...I'd think that real Ron Paul "Constitutionalists" would be able to see that. I guess they're too busy over-looking his tireless blame-America-first squeakings, his affiliation with the KKK, his slime-ball pandering to Islamists for their cash, etc.

I guess allowing medical ganja to be a states' rights issue isn't "progressive" enough. :rofl:

I'm confused then. Federal regulation of marijuana requires a liberal progressive reading of the commerce clause. If you support that, how can you not be described as a Progressive?

Snowman92D
10-06-2012, 16:34
I'm not a progressive...that's your fantasy. If medical ganja is a states' rights issue, as Romney and Ryan seem to propose, then it's no longer a federal issue. I gather you're concerned with something beyond "medical" marujuana use...but then that'd explain your affinity for Ron Paul in spite of his other proclivities. :supergrin:

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 16:38
I'm not a progressive...that's your fantasy. If medical ganja is a states' rights issue, as Romney and Ryan seem to propose, then it's no longer a federal issue. I gather you're concerned with something beyond "medical" marujuana use...but then that'd explain your affinity for Ron Paul in spite of his other proclivities. :supergrin:

I suppose you like using the federal government in an unconstitutional manner to control things you don't personally approve of.

That's progressive.

No whining when it bites you on the ass, ok?

BTW, how you liking Obamacare?

countrygun
10-06-2012, 16:40
I'm confused then. Federal regulation of marijuana requires a liberal progressive reading of the commerce clause. If you support that, how can you not be described as a Progressive?


You are completely disengenuous by automatically linking limitations on the commerce clause to a "liberal progressive" reading. That is a completely false misrepresentation.

The commerce clause has always been a stickler to CONSERVATIVES who favor State's right's.

The commerce clause has been used by progressives to expand the powers of the Federal Government.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 16:47
You are completely disengenuous by automatically linking limitations on the commerce clause to a "liberal progressive" reading. That is a completely false misrepresentation.

The commerce clause has always been a stickler to CONSERVATIVES who favor State's right's.

The commerce clause has been used by progressives to expand the powers of the Federal Government.

This is exactly what I'm saying.

Folks like snowman who support fed reg of marijuana, support a liberal progressive reading of the commerce clause to expand the power of the fedgov.

He thinks he's conservative, and may be on some issues, but I suspect he's more progressive than he is willing to believe.

Too often "conservatives" confuse the republican party platform with conservatism. Way often, it isn't. The individual mandate was a "conservative" idea before it was a liberal one.

I don't understand the rest of your post.

The notion that the commerce clause was intended to be read this way is nonsensical. The framers set out to create a document that went to great lengths to specifically limit the power and scope of the fedgov and then inserted one clause that wiped it all out?

The commerce clause was inserted to FACILITATE trade amongst the states, not to control anything that crosses state lines.

Under a proper reading, the only concern the fedgov has with interstate trade of marijuana is that one state doesn't place tariffs on another's weed.

Snowman92D
10-06-2012, 16:50
I suppose you like using the federal government in an unconstitutional manner to control things you don't personally approve of.

That's progressive.

No whining when it bites you on the ass, ok?

BTW, how you liking Obamacare?

Mean, mean, mean...you are so mean. :rofl:

Romney had pledged to end Obamacare. So I'm gonna vote for him. When someone isn't in favor of drug-legalization, that doesn't mean he or she is a "progressive". Is that the new doper word for "JBT" or "Nazi"...?

Let me know when your friends at NORML get the Supreme Court to declare drug enforcement "unconstitutional". We'll talk then. :smoking:

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 16:53
Mean, mean, mean...you are so mean. :rofl:

Romney had pledge to end Obamacare. So I'm gonna vote for him.

Let me know when your friends at NORML get the Supreme Court to declare drug enforcement "unconstitutional". We'll talk then. :smoking:

Mean? No. The same commerce clause that permits the fedgov to prohibit your dreaded weed allows it to impose Obamacare on its citizens.

Snowman92D
10-06-2012, 17:18
Mean? No. The same commerce clause that permits the fedgov to prohibit your dreaded weed allows it to impose Obamacare on its citizens.

Like I said...let me know when your friends at NORML get the SCOTUS to declare drug enforcement illegal. Until then, it's just Progressive whining for drug legalization. The rest of us are working to elect someone who'll put a stop to Obamacare. :wavey:

Gundude
10-06-2012, 17:38
Like I said...let me know when your friends at NORML get the SCOTUS to declare drug enforcement illegal. Until then, it's just Progressive whining for drug legalization. The rest of us are working to elect someone who'll put a stop to Obamacare. :wavey:
You're really going to take a presidential candidate at his word? You laugh at the starry-eyed fools who voted for Obama in 2008, based on promises that obviously didn't fit his profile. He turned out to break all those promises and act as his profile suggested he'd act. Romney would do the same thing. You're high on the same "hopium" that Obama's voters were. You're feeling the same fatigue they were feeling after Bush. You're as desperate to believe as they were.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 17:39
Like I said...let me know when your friends at NORML get the SCOTUS to declare drug enforcement illegal. Until then, it's just Progressive whining for drug legalization. The rest of us are working to elect someone who'll put a stop to Obamacare. :wavey:

Your political compass is more screwed up than I thought.

Jerry
10-06-2012, 19:21
I suppose you like using the federal government in an unconstitutional manner to control things you don't personally approve of.

That's progressive.

No whining when it bites you on the ass, ok?

BTW, how you liking Obamacare?

Something I find very troubling is... both Progressive/Liberal an MANY that call themselves conservative want the "government" to control/outlaw what "they" deem "NECESSARY".

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783

Both will argue why it's "necessary" for the government to control something they want controlled and why it's Constitutional when, if the Constitution is taken at face value, it isn't.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 22:49
Something I find very troubling is... both Progressive/Liberal an MANY that call themselves conservative want the "government" to control/outlaw what "they" deem "NECESSARY".



Both will argue why it's "necessary" for the government to control something they want controlled and why it's Constitutional when, if the Constitution is taken at face value, it isn't.

Precisely.

Lots of "conservative" progressives.

Snowman92D
10-07-2012, 05:06
You're as desperate to believe as they were.

Sorry..."desperate" is dopers still crying because RP got robbed. :rofl:

onebigelf
10-07-2012, 06:26
Something I find very troubling is... both Progressive/Liberal an MANY that call themselves conservative want the "government" to control/outlaw what "they" deem "NECESSARY".

Both will argue why it's "necessary" for the government to control something they want controlled and why it's Constitutional when, if the Constitution is taken at face value, it isn't.

I have to agree with this one. The Constitution is not meant to be ignored for the sake of convenience nor personal views. It protects all of the people all of the time, or, as we have seen, none of us. I don't like drug use, but the nation's drug laws are clearly and unequivocally unConstitutional. The drug laws were passed with the exact same arguments that had been used 40+ years earlier to pass prohibition. However, prohibition required a constitutional amendment to give government the power to make alcohol illegal. Where is the amendment to give the government the power to make drugs illegal? There isn't one. They invented the authority and we let them get away with it because we agreed with the goal. Once we established that the government could create this new authority, however, that authority was then used in myriad other ways, not all of which we've really agreed with, have we.

We must insist that the Constitution be obeyed, fully and at all times, or that it be properly amended and ratified. Otherwise, what we get is... this.

John

GAFinch
10-07-2012, 06:46
Wanna know the best way to end the War on Drugs? Stop using drugs! Cultivate some self-control instead! Has this ever occurred to you guys? Yes, I realize that it's difficult and takes time, but life isn't supposed to be all puppy dogs and marshmallows. Life is supposed to toughen you up. If a progressive dictatorship does hit our country, make sure you're ready to actually be useful.

Providence
10-07-2012, 07:26
I have thought about a lot of liberty issues this last 4 years. I guess I have to give Pres. Obama credit for that. As I have seen my liberties evaporate, I have considered them more seriously. So... I have come to the conclusion that I would be fine with cutting the DEA along with Big Bird. Then we can let people use some personable responsibility or suffer for the lack of it.

But for right now, I think we have to defeat Obama. I don't think we'll have anything left in 4 years. And if we are looking at a collapse, I'd rather have someone with more character than our sitting president.


Please vote! It's that important!

Cavalry Doc
10-07-2012, 07:44
Something I find very troubling is... both Progressive/Liberal an MANY that call themselves conservative want the "government" to control/outlaw what "they" deem "NECESSARY".



Both will argue why it's "necessary" for the government to control something they want controlled and why it's Constitutional when, if the Constitution is taken at face value, it isn't.

Some of us just don't care. I don't do dope, and I don't care much one way or the other. So I don't have any strong interest in ending the war on drugs. I'm a noncombatant.

I tell you what would get me interested though, is if they would go ahead and legalize everything, but with one small little prerequisite. Responsibility. That has been very notably absent from the call for legalization. The unfortunate thing is that we have a welfare society, and I meet people frequently that are smoking, snorting, shooting up and drinking without supporting their habits, and I (along with 49% of Americans) are footing the bill for their recreational lifestyle.

So, if you want me on board, just give me a little. This is what I'd like to see.
1. Employers (.gov and Private) still have the ability to demand a drug free workforce. Testing, not just with urine, but blood and hair too.
2. Drug related illness is not covered by normal insurance. If you want to be covered for that, you should have to have a separate policy to cover that stuff. Hospitals would have the right to refuse treatment for self inflicted injury with drugs if the patients don't have the ability to pay for drug use related illness.
3. Blood, Urine and Hair testing for ALL forms of public assistance, if positive, it's cut in half for 2 months the first positive, and cut off all together for a year on each subsequent positive test.
4. Go ahead and add tobacco and alcohol to that list.
5. Release all the drug users from jail. But if they commit another crime to support their habit, back to jail for a much longer time than they were going to serve. The hurdle for deciding that a crime is drug related should be very low. If the crime gives the criminal money, and they are buying drugs, even in a separate week, that should be enough of a nexus to count.
5. Whatever other measures are needed to place 100% of the cost onto the users.


I'm not against drug use if someone can really be responsible for it, but I don't want it to cost me or any other taxpayer a dime.

If someone wants to be free, and can afford it on their own, more power to them.

marchboom
10-07-2012, 08:15
Drug use becomes a problem when the doper leaves his house, drives a car, interacts with someone else. Do your dope and stay in your house and I couldn't care less. But when the cops become involved it costs tax payers LOTS of money.

DEA? Cut them from the budget. They are not being as effective as they could be. The agents are great but they are not being allowed to do what is necessary to stop the drugs coming into the U.S.

certifiedfunds
10-07-2012, 08:48
I have to agree with this one. The Constitution is not meant to be ignored for the sake of convenience nor personal views. It protects all of the people all of the time, or, as we have seen, none of us. I don't like drug use, but the nation's drug laws are clearly and unequivocally unConstitutional. The drug laws were passed with the exact same arguments that had been used 40+ years earlier to pass prohibition. However, prohibition required a constitutional amendment to give government the power to make alcohol illegal. Where is the amendment to give the government the power to make drugs illegal? There isn't one. They invented the authority and we let them get away with it because we agreed with the goal. Once we established that the government could create this new authority, however, that authority was then used in myriad other ways, not all of which we've really agreed with, have we.

We must insist that the Constitution be obeyed, fully and at all times, or that it be properly amended and ratified. Otherwise, what we get is... this.

John

Bravo!!

G29Reload
10-07-2012, 11:17
I don't like drug use, but the nation's drug laws are clearly and unequivocally unConstitutional.

No, they're not. There are COTUS provisions regarding establishing order and public safety. Drugs left unchecked are a menace and present a special danger.

certifiedfunds
10-07-2012, 11:57
No, they're not. There are COTUS provisions regarding establishing order and public safety. Drugs left unchecked are a menace and present a special danger.

Well that applies to guns too

Jerry
10-07-2012, 12:06
Wanna know the best way to end the War on Drugs? Stop using drugs! Cultivate some self-control instead! Has this ever occurred to you guys? Yes, I realize that it's difficult and takes time, but life isn't supposed to be all puppy dogs and marshmallows. Life is supposed to toughen you up. If a progressive dictatorship does hit our country, make sure you're ready to actually be useful.

Someone please tell me I'm seeing things and that I didn't really read that. :rofl: I've say before that something someone posted was the most "stupid" thing I've ever read but that has to take :number1:

Snowman92D
10-07-2012, 12:20
Well that applies to guns too

We've always had some legal restrictions on who is allowed to own and possess firearms. It's been a constant fight to keep them from encroaching on our liberty, and it always will be...Jefferson warned us to jealously guard our freedoms...but there have always been some restrictions.

I find it hilarious that you equate the RKBA to your imagined right to stayed stoned. :rofl:

Thankfully, the rest of us can take comfort in the knowledge that there are so few Americans who think that way. Otherwise Ron Paul would have fared better in the primaries. :smoking:

GAFinch
10-07-2012, 12:21
It's the people knowingly creating a problem who are complaining about how much it's costing to try to fix the problem. It's like people committing insurance fraud and then complaining about how insurance keeps getting more expensive or shoplifters complaining that there are cameras in dressing rooms. It's ridiculous.

countrygun
10-07-2012, 12:22
I have to agree with this one. The Constitution is not meant to be ignored for the sake of convenience nor personal views. It protects all of the people all of the time, or, as we have seen, none of us. I don't like drug use, but the nation's drug laws are clearly and unequivocally unConstitutional. The drug laws were passed with the exact same arguments that had been used 40+ years earlier to pass prohibition. However, prohibition required a constitutional amendment to give government the power to make alcohol illegal. Where is the amendment to give the government the power to make drugs illegal? There isn't one. They invented the authority and we let them get away with it because we agreed with the goal. Once we established that the government could create this new authority, however, that authority was then used in myriad other ways, not all of which we've really agreed with, have we.

We must insist that the Constitution be obeyed, fully and at all times, or that it be properly amended and ratified. Otherwise, what we get is... this.

John


Society draws lines between two similar things all the time and creates laws for the good of society. Somethings are "OK" and some aren't.

We draw a line in the violence continuum between "Castle Doctrine" and "Honor Killings"

(watch as some half wad now says "are you comparing recreational drugs to murder?:upeyes:)

certifiedfunds
10-07-2012, 12:27
No, they're not. There are COTUS provisions regarding establishing order and public safety. Drugs left unchecked are a menace and present a special danger.

So why was a COTUS amendment required to prohibit alcohol but not a plant?

Snowman92D
10-07-2012, 12:55
We draw a line in the violence continuum between "Castle Doctrine" and "Honor Killings"

(watch as some half wad now says "are you comparing recreational drugs to murder? :upeyes:)

That's okay...we've already heard that doing recreational drugs equates to the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights.

You know...that whole "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to stay stoned, shall not be infringed", and all that.

:rofl:

Jerry
10-07-2012, 12:58
Actually that post wasn’t only about drugs. It was about many things.

Some of us just don't care. I don't do dope, and I don't care much one way or the other. So I don't have any strong interest in ending the war on drugs. I'm a noncombatant.



This sounds harsh because it’s just written matter of fact. Read my whole post before taking offense. Many feel the same way. Until they become unwilling “innocent victims” in the illegal combat. Just one example… No nock warrants, wrong door kicked in people shot. But it doesn’t concern you…. unless one day it happens to you or a loved one. That is EXACTLY why the government gets away with what it gets away with. People with attitudes like you’re displaying right there, “Some of us just don't care”. I’ll bet you scream to high heaven about the things that do affect you. And that‘s the difference between you and me. I care about government abuse in all forms and fashion.

I tell you what would get me interested though, is if they would go ahead and legalize everything, but with one small little prerequisite. Responsibility. That has been very notably absent from the call for legalization. The unfortunate thing is that we have a welfare society, and I meet people frequently that are smoking, snorting, shooting up and drinking without supporting their habits, and I (along with 49% of Americans) are footing the bill for their recreational lifestyle.

Evidently you have missed the parts of my posts where I’ve stated that peole showing up with drug related ailments should be shown the door. And that leads me to another “government abuse”. Making US pay for welfare. Posted this before but perhaps you’d like to read it http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html If you have the money to pay for treatment you receive treatment… you don’t, you don’t.

So, if you want me on board, just give me a little. This is what I'd like to see.
1. Employers (.gov and Private) still have the ability to demand a drug free workforce. Testing, not just with urine, but blood and hair too.

Before hiring? OK! After and on an ongoing basis? NO! That’s an infringement of people’s privacy rights. If a person is hurt or causes damage or injury they will be tested to see if they are UNDER THE INFLUENCE. If the guy/gal had a drink or smoked weed or had a snort of cocaine last week it’s none of your business.
. Drug related illness is not covered by normal insurance. If you want to be covered for that, you should have to have a separate policy to cover that stuff. Hospitals would have the right to refuse treatment for self inflicted injury with drugs if the patients don't have the ability to pay for drug use related illness.
See above post about treatment.
3. Blood, Urine and Hair testing for ALL forms of public assistance, if positive, it's cut in half for 2 months the first positive, and cut off all together for a year on each subsequent positive test.

BINGO! We agree! Public ASSISTANCE should also be for a limited time. After that let your family support you get a job or starve.
4. Go ahead and add tobacco and alcohol to that list.

The treatment falls under my previously mentioned conditions (no pay no play) and I’m with you.
5. Release all the drug users from jail. But if they commit another crime to support their habit, back to jail for a much longer time than they were going to serve. The hurdle for deciding that a crime is drug related should be very low. If the crime gives the criminal money, and they are buying drugs, even in a separate week, that should be enough of a nexus to count.

I believe in the death penalty. Release them. If they then meet one of your criteria... Hang um!

5. Whatever other measures are needed to place 100% of the cost onto the users.

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!


I'm not against drug use if someone can really be responsible for it, but I don't want it to cost me or any other taxpayer a dime.
If someone wants to be free, and can afford it on their own, more power to them.

We’re now on the same page. :supergrin: