Is Glock Talk Overrun by Conspiracy Nuts? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Is Glock Talk Overrun by Conspiracy Nuts?


milglock707
10-29-2012, 14:51
Title of the thread says it all. I don't usually post too much and am more than happy to just lurk and read the threads and comments. However, after reading some of the more recent posts (e.g. the one's supporting Trump), I am wondering if some people are off their medications.

I considered myself a Republican for most of my life but now support Obama because of what I see as the Republican party's movement toward exclusion and pandering to the crazies. The fact that there are prominent people in the Republican party still supporting Trump and his "birthed" movement is insane. Obama is clearly a citizen and there is no evidence to the contrary except for some conspiracy nuts "secret evidence" that is unobtainable.

I have worked for the government my entire life and was there when LTC Lakin disgraced his country and disobeyed a direct order to deploy (a direct order for his superior, a MOH winner, and the only one on active duty at that time). He was wrong and so are the birthers.

What happened to civil discourse about real political issues and the candidates? Why do people on this board have to bring up crazy conspiracy issues to justify their case when a discussion on the merits would work? To espouse these crazy beliefs makes your arguments ineffective and weak. Example: the reply from a former military member who stated that President Obama would never be able to get a security clearance under him because of illegal drug use and lying about it ( whomever you are, you are insane and thank you for retiring because your information is so hilariously wrong it doesn't deserve consideration). The President will receive a security clearance no matter what.

TL:DR: What happened to the rational folks on Glock Talk?

aircarver
10-29-2012, 14:55
... I considered myself a Republican for most of my life but now support Obama because of what I see as the Republican party's movement toward exclusion and pandering to the crazies. ...

I'm out ... :upeyes:

FLIPPER 348
10-29-2012, 14:56
You will find few here in GTPI. It is a great source of entertainment though!

janice6
10-29-2012, 14:56
Rrrrriiiiiigggghhhhtttt.

Kablam
10-29-2012, 14:57
Title of the thread says it all. I don't usually post too much and am more than happy to just lurk and read the threads and comments. However, after reading some of the more recent posts (e.g. the one's supporting Trump), I am wondering if some people are off their medications.

I considered myself a Republican for most of my life but now support Obama because of what I see as the Republican party's movement toward exclusion and pandering to the crazies. The fact that there are prominent people in the Republican party still supporting Trump and his "birthed" movement is insane. Obama is clearly a citizen and there is no evidence to the contrary except for some conspiracy nuts "secret evidence" that is unobtainable.

I have worked for the government my entire life and was there when LTC Lakin disgraced his country and disobeyed a direct order to deploy (a direct order for his superior, a MOH winner, and the only one on active duty at that time). He was wrong and so are the birthers.

What happened to civil discourse about real political issues and the candidates? Why do people on this board have to bring up crazy conspiracy issues to justify their case when a discussion on the merits would work? To espouse these crazy beliefs makes your arguments ineffective and weak. Example: the reply from a former military member who stated that President Obama would never be able to get a security clearance under him because of illegal drug use and lying about it ( whomever you are, you are insane and thank you for retiring because your information is so hilariously wrong it doesn't deserve consideration). The President will receive a security clearance no matter what.

TL:DR: What happened to the rational folks on Glock Talk?

Oh my. :whistling:

John Rambo
10-29-2012, 14:59
Better than the usual Reigh-Wing freaks on this site who scream freedom and smaller government until it comes to their Reigh-Wing agenda.

aircarver
10-29-2012, 14:59
Oh my. :whistling:

Boy Howdy ! ...

.

countrygun
10-29-2012, 15:00
All I can say is, "you must not have a lot of contacts in the general population"

There are fewer "conspiracy theorists" voicing their beliefs here than I meet in society in general, and there are more "Conspiracy debunkers" here as well.

Sit at lunch counters, talk to folks at the grocery store etc. You may be in for a shock.

Some people I consider well balanced and generally stable have come out of left field with some of the most outlandish theories, they fit them in to a rational view some how. They see the effects and problems and have the right questions, but when they get right to the final cause............Conspiracy.

IndyGunFreak
10-29-2012, 15:00
Title of the thread says it all. I don't usually post too much and am more than happy to just lurk and read the threads and comments. However, after reading some of the more recent posts (e.g. the one's supporting Trump), I am wondering if some people are off their medications.

I considered myself a Republican for most of my life but now support Obama because of what I see as the Republican party's movement toward exclusion and pandering to the crazies. The fact that there are prominent people in the Republican party still supporting Trump and his "birthed" movement is insane. Obama is clearly a citizen and there is no evidence to the contrary except for some conspiracy nuts "secret evidence" that is unobtainable.

I have worked for the government my entire life and was there when LTC Lakin disgraced his country and disobeyed a direct order to deploy (a direct order for his superior, a MOH winner, and the only one on active duty at that time). He was wrong and so are the birthers.

What happened to civil discourse about real political issues and the candidates? Why do people on this board have to bring up crazy conspiracy issues to justify their case when a discussion on the merits would work? To espouse these crazy beliefs makes your arguments ineffective and weak. Example: the reply from a former military member who stated that President Obama would never be able to get a security clearance under him because of illegal drug use and lying about it ( whomever you are, you are insane and thank you for retiring because your information is so hilariously wrong it doesn't deserve consideration). The President will receive a security clearance no matter what.

TL:DR: What happened to the rational folks on Glock Talk?

LOL... Thanks for the laugh. Head back to DU now.

Lockback
10-29-2012, 15:01
I'm out ... :upeyes:

Me too.
Ugh. :upeyes:

p.d.
10-29-2012, 15:02
If you think that the republicans are the party of exclusion and pandering, you would be the nut.

eb07
10-29-2012, 15:03
DU nutjobs/trolls? Yeah, been a lot here lately.You know ;)

milglock707
10-29-2012, 15:09
All I can say is, "you must not have a lot of contacts in the general population"

There are fewer "conspiracy theorists" voicing their beliefs here than I meet in society in general, and there are more "Conspiracy debunkers" here as well.

Sit at lunch counters, talk to folks at the grocery store etc. You may be in for a shock.

Some people I consider well balanced and generally stable have come out of left field with some of the most outlandish theories, they fit them in to a rational view some how. They see the effects and problems and have the right questions, but when they get right to the final cause............Conspiracy.

Thanks for the insight. Maybe I just say a couple and became hyper-sensitive to seeing their views in the comment threads. Nothing irritates me more than government conspiracy theories, because often times the government cannot execute a simple plan effectively within one agency -- much less a secretive and complex plan to fool the American public between multiple agencies.

Only exception I have seen is the Social Security Administration who have some exceptionally hard-working and efficient individuals there. Yes, you may laugh, but they run like a well-oiled machine and have always been helpful to me and my colleagues.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 15:13
If you think that the republicans are the party of exclusion and pandering, you would be the nut.

Well they are not getting many votes among Blacks, Latinos, women, gays, immigrant groups, and liberal white individuals. They may say inclusion but the votes and types of supporters appear to indicate otherwise.

I am not saying there are not exceptions, but generally speaking it appears to be this way. I don't include the rich in my analysis since they compromise too small of a population to count and live in their own world (be it a rich Democrat or a rich Republican).

Providence
10-29-2012, 15:13
LOL... Thanks for the laugh. Head back to DU now.

+200

I think the conspiracy is the pseudo-intellectual argument for voting for Obama. What about Fast and Furious? Leaving at least 2 to die in Benghazi and then lying to the American people about it? Are those two of the conspiracy theories to we're referring to?

rgregoryb
10-29-2012, 15:14
I considered myself a Republican for most of my life but now support Obama because of what I see as the Republican party's movement toward exclusion and pandering to the crazies.

I have worked for the government my entire life

yet the dems do not cater to the crazies of the left? you must not have watched the convention

#2 explains it all

eb07
10-29-2012, 15:16
Nothing irritates me more than government conspiracy theories, because often times the government cannot execute a simple plan effectively within one agency -- much less a secretive and complex plan to fool the American public between multiple agencies.


Nothing irritates me more than ignorance....

Tuskegee Syphilis Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male) ongoing from 1932 to 1972

Human Radiation Experiments (http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/experiments/index.html). 1944 to 1974

The 1945 Operation Paperclip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip)

1950 -1970's MKULTRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA) Experiements

Operation Mockingbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)

Project SHAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_shad)

Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident)

The Watergate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate) scandals 1972 to 1974

1990 Testimony of Nayirah

The Iran-Contra Affair

Operation Ajax

Mena Operation

and most recently.....

Operation Fast and Furious

but of course you should always trust what the government tells you, they would never lie :rofl:

countrygun
10-29-2012, 15:16
Thanks for the insight. Maybe I just say a couple and became hyper-sensitive to seeing their views in the comment threads. Nothing irritates me more than government conspiracy theories, because often times the government cannot execute a simple plan effectively within one agency -- much less a secretive and complex plan to fool the American public between multiple agencies.

Only exception I have seen is the Social Security Administration who have some exceptionally hard-working and efficient individuals there. Yes, you may laugh, but they run like a well-oiled machine and have always been helpful to me and my colleagues.

I have to agree. The "Government Conspiracies" generally lead me to a fit of giggles and outright laughter.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 15:17
+200

I think the conspiracy is the pseudo-intellectual argument for voting for Obama. What about Fast and Furious? Leaving at least 2 to die in Benghazi and then lying to the American people about it? Are those two of the conspiracy theories to we're referring to?

Nope, both those were bungled and backed-up with facts. I am referring specifically to the "birther" movement and the arguments of "voter fraud." There is no proof of either of these issues. Also, I differentiate between "voter fraud" and "licenses for illegals to collect welfare."

eb07
10-29-2012, 15:19
Nope, both those were bungled and backed-up with facts. I am referring specifically to the "birther" movement and the arguments of "voter fraud." There is no proof of either of these issues. Also, I differentiate between "voter fraud" and "licenses for illegals to collect welfare."


No voter fraud? What?? Seriously?? I am done here... you are trolling not trying to be intellectual. :upeyes:

milglock707
10-29-2012, 15:20
Nothing irritates me more than ignorance....

Tuskegee Syphilis Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male) ongoing from 1932 to 1972

Human Radiation Experiments (http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/experiments/index.html). 1944 to 1974

The 1945 Operation Paperclip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip)

1950 -1970's MKULTRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA) Experiements

Operation Mockingbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)

Project SHAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_shad)

Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident)

The Watergate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate) scandals 1972 to 1974

1990 Testimony of Nayirah

The Iran-Contra Affair

Operation Ajax

Mena Operation

and most recently.....

Operation Fast and Furious

but of course you should always trust what the government tells you, they would never lie :rofl:

Most of these "operations" are supported by facts though (i.e. documents, victims, etc...).

eb07
10-29-2012, 15:20
Most of these "operations" are supported by facts though (i.e. documents, victims, etc...).


because they were exposed.... some secrets are better hidden than others :wavey:

snerd
10-29-2012, 15:21
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003280541/934501758_stupid_igonrant_obama_voters_91274056885_xlarge.jpeg

milglock707
10-29-2012, 15:22
No voter fraud? What?? Seriously?? I am done here... you are trolling not trying to be intellectual. :upeyes:

"Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376#.UI7zSLRJNHI

sbhaven
10-29-2012, 15:22
I considered myself a Republican for most of my life but now support Obama because of what I see as the Republican party's movement toward exclusion and pandering to the crazies.
Sure you were a Republican for most of your life but left due to excluding and pandering to crazies... :upeyes:

<---------------------------- DU is that way

The Democratic party is run by the Progressive wing which comprizes a small minorety of extreamly far left leaning Democats. The progressive party seeks to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Obama is at any one time a Socalist, Marxist, Communist, Progressive, Black Liberation Theolgist, and a Statist. Obama belives the Constitution is a charter of negatvie liberties. The Democatic party does not tollerate anyone who steps off the plantation. See their treatment of African Americans who are Republicans or voting Republicans.

eb07
10-29-2012, 15:23
"Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376#.UI7zSLRJNHI


The DOJ is the poster children for fraud, corruption, and conspiracies.... thats like taking a poll of foxes on henhouse attack data :rofl:

milglock707
10-29-2012, 15:28
The DOJ is the poster children for fraud, corruption, and conspiracies.... thats like taking a poll of foxes on henhouse attack data :rofl:

This is exactly the type of conspiracy theories I am talking about. You believe that everything the government tells you is a lie and that some organization (non-governmental of course with no access to information) knows the "truth." If there was some massive conspiracy to vote illegally perpetuated by some entity in the government, then why are there any Republicans left?

An entity that powerful run by Democrats would make it a one-party Congress, right? Any proof of this massive fraud? How would you keep this many people quiet? Who's funding it and with what money? Questions......so many questions.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 15:31
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003280541/934501758_stupid_igonrant_obama_voters_91274056885_xlarge.jpeg

I am assuming you are referring to the "free phones," which is a program created by President Reagan and funded by Congress since the 1980s. It is not a "free phone" but a small credit given each month. The phone they use is typically provided to welfare recipients by the phone company (i.e. TracFone Corp.).

FLIPPER 348
10-29-2012, 15:38
I am assuming you are referring to the "free phones," which is a program created by President Reagan and funded by Congress since the 1980s. .


Dude, presenting facts here will have no effect on the local nut-jobs (there are only about a dozen folk who post here). They just enjoy posting moronic links, photoshopped pics and lame avatars while preaching to each other.

countrygun
10-29-2012, 15:40
Nope, both those were bungled and backed-up with facts. I am referring specifically to the "birther" movement and the arguments of "voter fraud." There is no proof of either of these issues. Also, I differentiate between "voter fraud" and "licenses for illegals to collect welfare."

This is where I differ from you because I don't consider there to be a "Big Great Conspiracy" behind voter fraud. It is common at a very low level and independently of the need for "central coordination". It doesn't require more than a few corrupt individuals in a given District. It is sort of like bank robbery, every case isn't part of a major organized crime scheme.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 15:41
Dude, presenting facts here will have no effect on the local nut-jobs (there are only about a dozen folk who post here). They just enjoy posting moronic links, photoshopped pics and lame avatars while preaching to each other.

I see. I was trying to keep my views in the appropriate forums. I'll keep responding to this post but will move out from here I guess.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 15:48
This is where I differ from you because I don't consider there to be a "Big Great Conspiracy" behind voter fraud. It is common at a very low level and independently of the need for "central coordination". It doesn't require more than a few corrupt individuals in a given District. It is sort of like bank robbery, every case isn't part of a major organized crime scheme.

I agree there may be a few local races that are effected, but I doubt they have any impact on the federal level. With 435 congressional districts (plus the 185,994 precincts out there - as of 2004) it does not seem possible to rig the election without a central committee. Americans simply don't care enough to do this, because if they did, I would suspect more voters would actually vote.

More importantly, the President is pretty much useless to dictate policy. A person's congressman and Senator usually have a lot more power over their life than the President ever will. Why people blame the President rather than their local representative is beyond me, because their local rep will usually be in Congress long after whatever President they vote for leaves.

eb07
10-29-2012, 15:58
This is exactly the type of conspiracy theories I am talking about. You believe that everything the government tells you is a lie and that some organization (non-governmental of course with no access to information) knows the "truth." If there was some massive conspiracy to vote illegally perpetuated by some entity in the government, then why are there any Republicans left?

An entity that powerful run by Democrats would make it a one-party Congress, right? Any proof of this massive fraud? How would you keep this many people quiet? Who's funding it and with what money? Questions......so many questions.

No, I think with my brain and know that the government is only out for itself and not for the benefit of the people who it taxes to keep in operation. Regardless of party affiliation. I know that might be too much for you to digest, but that is the reality of it.

countrygun
10-29-2012, 16:01
I agree there may be a few local races that are effected, but I doubt they have any impact on the federal level. With 435 congressional districts (plus the thousands of precincts out there) it does not seem possible to rig the election without a central committee. Americans simply don't care enough to do this, because if they did, I would suspect more voters would actually vote.

It seems as if you are the one looking for the "Conspiracy". It doesn't take a central committe to rob a bank in Chicago and one in Atlanta. There may well not be any higher "rigging" at all, simply enough corrupt people at lower levels doing what is in their nature.




More importantly, the President is pretty much useless to dictate policy. A person's congressman and Senator usually have a lot more power over their life than the President ever will. Why people blame the President rather than their local representative is beyond me, because their local rep will usually be in Congress long after whatever President they vote for leaves.

The second paragraph is an accurate observation, IMO, of a flaw in the thinking of many. I won't point to a specific group (they know who they are). It is an overlooked dichotomy to the office of POTUS however: Many "bad" things can be done from the White House, but "good things" seem to take Congressional cooperation.

427
10-29-2012, 16:06
The OP are you OK with Obama being endorsed by the Communist Party of America?

concretefuzzynuts
10-29-2012, 16:08
This has got to be a joke.

series1811
10-29-2012, 16:10
I considered myself a Republican for most of my life but now support Obama....

Anybody here really believe this? Naw, me, either. I guess that makes me more of a conspiracy nut. :supergrin:

eb07
10-29-2012, 16:10
Posted in wrong thread. Sorry

countrygun
10-29-2012, 16:11
This has got to be a joke.

I was a good boy and played along to see where it was headed.

series1811
10-29-2012, 16:11
Dude, presenting facts here will have no effect on the local nut-jobs (there are only about a dozen folk who post here). They just enjoy posting moronic links, photoshopped pics and lame avatars while preaching to each other.

In other words, they don't realize how great Obama really is. :supergrin:

Providence
10-29-2012, 16:19
The OP are you OK with Obama being endorsed by the Communist Party of America?

How about being endorsed by Putin, Castro, Chavez? And the UN too, but a smart guy like you probably thinks a UN endorsement is a good thing, right? I'll bet the Muslim Brotherhood will be glad to endorse O. as well!

milglock707
10-29-2012, 16:26
The OP are you OK with Obama being endorsed by the Communist Party of America?

Yes, you cannot chose who will endorse you. Also, the Communists have some good ideas that I would not discount. Does that make me a Communist? No. Just like I am not a Nazi because I believe in roads and infrastructure improvements.

The flawed logic you are using is that since the Communist party endorsed a candidate, then that candidate is a Communist. Similar to the logic I used above, which was that the Nazis wanted improved roads, Eisenhower wanted improved roads (i.e. the Interstate system) therefore Eisenhower liked the Nazis. By that extension, Eisenhower was a democracy candidate, therefore democracy endorses Nazism. Sounds silly right?

By the way. Jenna Jameson (porn star) and Michael Lucas (porn star) support Romney. Are you OK with that?

concretefuzzynuts
10-29-2012, 16:26
Dude, presenting facts here will have no effect on the local nut-jobs (there are only about a dozen folk who post here). They just enjoy posting moronic links, photoshopped pics and lame avatars while preaching to each other.

Moronic link, check:

http://planetmoron.typepad.com/

Photoshopped pic, check:

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/31290515-funny-barack.jpg

And lame avatar, hey wait a minute!
<---------------------------

series1811
10-29-2012, 16:27
Also, the Communists have some good ideas that I would not discount.

Oh, yeah. This guy was a Republican for most of his life. :rofl:

cs133atom
10-29-2012, 16:28
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n317/exchangeman/TrollShow.jpg

countrygun
10-29-2012, 16:31
Dude, presenting facts here will have no effect on the local nut-jobs (there are only about a dozen folk who post here). They just enjoy posting moronic links, photoshopped pics and lame avatars while preaching to each other.

I'm in,


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

milglock707
10-29-2012, 16:32
Oh, yeah. This guy was a Republican for most of his life. :rofl:

I support their views on universal healthcare, campaign finance reform, and strong regulation of the financial industry. I do not believe in a Communist form of government though.

nmk
10-29-2012, 16:33
TL:DR: What happened to the rational folks on Glock Talk?

I think many of the intelligent folks on here are knowingly peddling some BS, but I trust it will return to normal after the election.

427
10-29-2012, 16:40
Yes, you cannot chose who will endorse you.
Yeah the person being endorsed can distance themselves from them.

Also, the Communists have some good ideas that I would not discount. Does that make me a Communist? No. Just like I am not a Nazi because I believe in roads and infrastructure improvements.

The flawed logic you are using is that since the Communist party endorsed a candidate, then that candidate is a Communist. Similar to the logic I used above, which was that the Nazis wanted improved roads, Eisenhower wanted improved roads (i.e. the Interstate system) therefore Eisenhower liked the Nazis. By that extension, Eisenhower was a democracy candidate, therefore democracy endorses Nazism. Sounds silly right?

What!? That's the silliest justification I've ever heard.

Communists agree with the policies and ideas - share a similar world view - why else would they endorse Obama?


By the way. Jenna Jameson (porn star) and Michael Lucas (porn star) support Romney. Are you OK with that?

Jameson and Lucas both realize that the election of Mittens gives them the best chance of keeping the money they earn. I have no problem with that.

Nice try, through.

hogship
10-29-2012, 16:40
Regarding "conspiracy theories" involving Barack Obama.....

.....Well, he can stop every one of them cold, by simply allowing personal and government records to be looked at.

Benghazi......

citizenship......

fast and furious......

College records.......

church affiliations.....

friendships.....

political philosophies......

......all of it can go away instantly.......if he's telling us the truth.

If he's not telling us the truth, he would do exactly what he is doing........

ooc

milglock707
10-29-2012, 16:44
Oh, yeah. This guy was a Republican for most of his life. :rofl:

I was until Romney stole the election via rigging the primary and voting machines. See http://www.politicususa.com/chuck-todd-proclaims-voting-machine-concerns-garbage-ignores-2012-election-romney-stole.html.

Just kidding, that conspiracy talk belongs to the tabloids.

My problem is that the Republican party of the 1980s, which I supported, is nothing like the Republican party now. Also, the party did not learn the economic mistakes of the 1980s and now want to repeat them.

I support Obama because he is the lesser of two evils. Also, I guess I enjoy the money I receive from the Government every month now for disability, which I received fighting for my country -- 70% disabled with implants and steady supply of heavy narcotics and medications that will likely kill me early. I am that freeloader from the 47% that Romney was talking about. I took it kind of personally.

concretefuzzynuts
10-29-2012, 16:46
My problem is that the Republican party of the 1980s, which I supported, is nothing like the Republican party now. Also, the party did not learn the economic mistakes of the 1980s and now want to repeat them.



The democratic party of the 80's is now the statist/socialist party. Are you saying that's better?

Providence
10-29-2012, 16:47
Remember when O. told Medvedev to tell Putin that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with missile defense after the U.S. presidential election? That seems like a good basis for a conspiracy theory.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 16:49
Regarding "conspiracy theories" involving Barack Obama.....

.....Well, he can stop every one of them cold, by simply allowing personal and government records to be looked at.

Benghazi......

citizenship......

fast and furious......

College records.......

church affiliations.....

friendships.....

political philosophies......

......all of it can go away instantly.......if he's telling us the truth.

If he's not telling us the truth, he would do exactly what he is doing........

ooc

And what about Romney's tax returns? Investments in companies that profited off shutting down companies and putting people out of work. I don't personally dislike Romney, I just dislike the double standard he has for himself and all others.

It's like Romney tries to forget that he is rich and hide it. He doesn't need to since we all know he is rich. Obama and Romney have more in common with one another than they do with the common man, which is OK I guess. I just ask that he be an honest elitist.

callihan_44
10-29-2012, 16:49
I was until Romney stole the election via rigging the primary and voting machines. See http://www.politicususa.com/chuck-todd-proclaims-voting-machine-concerns-garbage-ignores-2012-election-romney-stole.html.

Just kidding, that conspiracy talk belongs to the tabloids.

My problem is that the Republican party of the 1980s, which I supported, is nothing like the Republican party now. Also, the party did not learn the economic mistakes of the 1980s and now want to repeat them.

I support Obama because he is the lesser of two evils. Also, I guess I enjoy the money I receive from the Government every month now for disability, which I received fighting for my country -- 70% disabled with implants and steady supply of heavy narcotics and medications that will likely kill me early. I am that freeloader from the 47% that Romney was talking about. I took it kind of personally.

getting injured from serving your country then recieving benefits IS NOT who romney is reffering to... there is a HUGE difference in that vs some chick popping out kid after kid on welfare and food stamps :upeyes:

callihan_44
10-29-2012, 16:51
And what about Romney's tax returns? Investments in companies that profited off shutting down companies and putting people out of work. I don't personally dislike Romney, I just dislike the double standard he has for himself and all others.

It's like Romney tries to forget that he is rich and hide it. He doesn't need to since we all know he is rich. Obama and Romney have more in common with one another than they do with the common man, which is OK I guess. I just ask that he be an honest elitist.

oh good grief not this sh_!t again, I hate to break it to you but obamacare is about to ship a ton of jobs overseas...if allowed to stand that is...

milglock707
10-29-2012, 16:52
The democratic party of the 80's is now the statist/socialist party. Are you saying that's better?

No. I chalk it up to both parties pandering to the extremes of both parties. I want moderates back that actually work together.

With regards to the Obama to Putin conversation I would like to turn your attention back to Reagan and his secret talks with Gorbachev, which resulted in massive cuts to both countries nuclear arsenals. Compromise is not weakness and every President has to play the game. You win some and you lose some.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 16:54
getting injured from serving your country then recieving benefits IS NOT who romney is reffering to... there is a HUGE difference in that vs some chick popping out kid after kid on welfare and food stamps :upeyes:

Agreed. I hate those people.

However, Romney wants to limit birth control for these individuals. If anything, he should be supporting birth control for these women who cannot care for themselves, much less children.

eb07
10-29-2012, 16:54
What about Benghazi? It was just a response to video and we will prosecute the video maker... nothing to see here.

concretefuzzynuts
10-29-2012, 16:56
No. I chalk it up to both parties pandering to the extremes of both parties. I want moderates back that actually work together.


I suggest you do more research. BO is not moderate.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 16:57
oh good grief not this sh_!t again, I hate to break it to you but obamacare is about to ship a ton of jobs overseas...if allowed to stand that is...

Probably. However, then Republicans need to "work with" the Democrats and revise the system. I am not saying they didn't try. I blame the leaders of both parties for putting their own differences ahead of the common man.

Personally, I enjoy the part of Obamacare that allows children to be on their parents insurance until 26 and will give people with pre-existing conditions health insurance. I cannot believe the USA, the most successful country in the world, cannot help its own people. We give money to people everywhere in the world for healthcare, except to our own people.

427
10-29-2012, 17:02
Probably. However, then Republicans need to "work with" the Democrats and revise the system. I am not saying they didn't try. I blame the leaders of both parties for putting their own differences ahead of the common man.

Personally, I enjoy the part of Obamacare that allows children to be on their parents insurance until 26 and will give people with pre-existing conditions health insurance. I cannot believe the USA, the most successful country in the world, cannot help its own people. We give money to people everywhere in the world for healthcare, except to our own people.

There's no money to pay for this new entitlement.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 17:07
What about Benghazi? It was just a response to video and we will prosecute the video maker... nothing to see here.

I don't think anyone is defending Benghazi and the actions of the terrorists. Blaming Obama for Benghazi is like blaming Bush for 9/11. I seriously doubt Obama knew of the whole situation prior to the attack since that kind of intelligence is filtered by lesser subordinates. All Presidents face these issues and all will fail at something.

However, sending in air support would only exacerbate the situation. These men were already sacrificed to maintain good relations with Libya - probably. Does it suck? Absolutely. However, all Presidents play with people's lives like this and the President's response was probably based upon advice from his military officers.

Good men die in war and they are the heroes. Those of us that come back are not the heroes. However broken, we got to come back. Unfortunately, when you have Presidents that have never served you are bound to get these results more often.

concretefuzzynuts
10-29-2012, 17:10
However, sending in air support would only exacerbate the situation. These men were already sacrificed to maintain good relations with Libya - probably. Does it suck? Absolutely. However, all Presidents play with people's lives like this and the President's response was probably based upon advice from his military officers.

I can't believe a fellow soldier is saying this about other soldiers!

milglock707
10-29-2012, 17:10
There's no money to pay for this new entitlement.

Correct. Congress writes a check regardless if there is any money in the account.

However, I am more than willing to pay higher taxes for more services. I am also equally happy paying lower taxes and being self-reliant. I just ask that Congress makes up their mind one way or the other.

railfancwb
10-29-2012, 17:13
I cannot believe the USA, the most successful country in the world, cannot help its own people. We give money to people everywhere in the world for healthcare, except to our own people.

You have identified cause and effect. Good job!




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

oldman11
10-29-2012, 17:14
What I do see is a lot of Obama loving liberals on here trying to tell us everything is OK, and there is nothing to worry about. Some of these conspiracy theorists (as you call them) have read the history of past tyrants and their governments and are comparing that history with what is going on now in the USA. Funny thing is, all those tyrants told their people the same thing, "everything is OK and there is nothing to worry about".

427
10-29-2012, 17:14
Correct. Congress writes a check regardless if there is any money in the account.

However, I am more than willing to pay higher taxes for more services. I am also equally happy paying lower taxes and being self-reliant. I just ask that Congress makes up their mind one way or the other.

I'd rather keep the money I earn and spend it the way I want.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 17:15
I can't believe a fellow soldier is saying this about other soldiers!

I am not so naive to believe that politicians do not play with soldiers lives. They do. I was a pawn in the great game and so were they. We all knew what we signed up for and sadly that our country would never love and support us as much as we loved it. It sucks and I feel bad for their families, but we all knew that politicians would sacrifice us for their own motives.

concretefuzzynuts
10-29-2012, 17:16
I am not so naive to believe that politicians do not play with soldiers lives. They do. I was a pawn in the great game and so were they. We all knew what we signed up for and sadly that our country would never love and support us as much as we loved it. It sucks and I feel bad for their families, but we all knew that politicians would sacrifice us for their own motives.

With that defeatist attitude, it is easy to see how you surrender to socialism.

We disagree, but let me say thank you for your service.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 17:17
I'd rather keep the money I earn and spend it the way I want.

Agreed. Personally I disagree with any type of personal income tax and would rather see us tax large corporations, capital gains, stocks and dividends, and user-based fees.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 17:18
Title of the thread says it all. I don't usually post too much and am more than happy to just lurk and read the threads and comments. However, after reading some of the more recent posts (e.g. the one's supporting Trump), I am wondering if some people are off their medications.

I considered myself a Republican for most of my life but now support Obama because of what I see as the Republican party's movement toward exclusion and pandering to the crazies. The fact that there are prominent people in the Republican party still supporting Trump and his "birthed" movement is insane. Obama is clearly a citizen and there is no evidence to the contrary except for some conspiracy nuts "secret evidence" that is unobtainable.

I have worked for the government my entire life and was there when LTC Lakin disgraced his country and disobeyed a direct order to deploy (a direct order for his superior, a MOH winner, and the only one on active duty at that time). He was wrong and so are the birthers.

What happened to civil discourse about real political issues and the candidates? Why do people on this board have to bring up crazy conspiracy issues to justify their case when a discussion on the merits would work? To espouse these crazy beliefs makes your arguments ineffective and weak. Example: the reply from a former military member who stated that President Obama would never be able to get a security clearance under him because of illegal drug use and lying about it ( whomever you are, you are insane and thank you for retiring because your information is so hilariously wrong it doesn't deserve consideration). The President will receive a security clearance no matter what.

TL:DR: What happened to the rational folks on Glock Talk?

Well gee, from your post it doesn't appear that you have any room to question anyone's rationality.

Lockback
10-29-2012, 17:19
I suggest you do more research. BO is not moderate.

A "moderate" wouldn't have been endorsed by the U.S. Communist Party.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 17:20
A "moderate" wouldn't have been endorsed by the U.S. Communist Party.

Maybe he's a moderate communist? :whistling:

Lockback
10-29-2012, 17:22
Maybe he's a moderate communist? :whistling:

Yeah. He only wants to build a few hundred gulags. :rofl:

milglock707
10-29-2012, 17:22
With that defeatist attitude, it is easy to see how you surrender to socialism.

I disagree. I do not see how leaving those men to die in Benghazi is any different than a commander making the decision to not send reinforcements to a group of men he thinks would be too dangerous to save.

War is a terrible thing and people die. Why are people still surprised when they do?

Remember at the beginning of the Iraq war and the lack of up-armored HUMVEES? This was a similar situation of people asking for help and politicians (or a President) denying it. Bush caused deaths just the way Obama did, and I am sure the next President will do the same.

Also, there are many things we don't know about the situation that the President or others that may have known, which precluded helping these people.

DMaddox
10-29-2012, 17:24
I am not so naive to believe that politicians do not play with soldiers lives. They do. I was a pawn in the great game and so were they. We all knew what we signed up for and sadly that our country would never love and support us as much as we loved it. It sucks and I feel bad for their families, but we all knew that politicians would sacrifice us for their own motives.

So you are not naive, but you let yourself be "a pawn in the great game"?

Your country "would never love and support you"?

If you knew "that politicians would sacrifice you for their own motives" then why were/are you in the service?

How does the Ambassador fit into all this "sacrifice"?

Oh...and the poorly equipped military during the beginning of Bush's term was caused from Clinton cutting the defense budget.

Kablam
10-29-2012, 17:26
I don't think anyone is defending Benghazi and the actions of the terrorists. Blaming Obama for Benghazi is like blaming Bush for 9/11. I seriously doubt Obama knew of the whole situation prior to the attack since that kind of intelligence is filtered by lesser subordinates. All Presidents face these issues and all will fail at something.

However, sending in air support would only exacerbate the situation. These men were already sacrificed to maintain good relations with Libya - probably. Does it suck? Absolutely. However, all Presidents play with people's lives like this and the President's response was probably based upon advice from his military officers.

Good men die in war and they are the heroes. Those of us that come back are not the heroes. However broken, we got to come back. Unfortunately, when you have Presidents that have never served you are bound to get these results more often.

Oh my. :wow:

concretefuzzynuts
10-29-2012, 17:29
So you are not naive, but you let yourself be "a pawn in the great game"?

Your country "would never love and support you"?

If you knew "that politicians would sacrifice you for their own motives" then why were/are you in the service?

How does the Ambassador fit into all this "sacrifice"?

An Ambassador has the equivalent stature of a 4 star general. Would a 4 star be sacrificed in this circumstance?

ModGlock17
10-29-2012, 17:30
It occurs to me that you guys are arguing with a HS student, a lonely one.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 17:38
So you are not naive, but you let yourself be "a pawn in the great game"?

Your country "would never love and support you"?

If you knew "that politicians would sacrifice you for their own motives" then why were/are you in the service?

How does the Ambassador fit into all this "sacrifice"?

I loved my country and decided to serve. I was out there fighting for the people of the United States because I felt it was my duty as a citizen. Politicians be damned.

Also, I said that my country (e.g. Congress and other politicians) would never love me as much as I loved it. I knew that I could be sent to a conflict I did not believe in, or sent into a war created by politicians for their own greedy gain. I also knew I might have to give my life, but I was not so naive to think that a Congressman would give his life for mine.

Politicians argue for military intervention because many of them have never served and do not understand what it means to send men to their deaths and be responsible for that. Also. historically our veterans have had a difficult time after wars end and there are out of the service. And many times the government has been less than helpful in helping us cope with what we have seen and our injuries. I have a cousin with PTSD and various combat injuries that has been treated like crap afterwards (he was National Guard) and cannot hold a job to save his soul due to the Government dragging its feet on treating him.

As for the ambassador fitting into all of this, I have no idea. However, many members of the diplomatic corps are placed in harms way (often with nothing but a suit to stop the bullets) and do important work. I don't pretend to understand it but I do know they have a thankless and dangerous job (aka Benghazi and Iran Hostage Situation).

milglock707
10-29-2012, 17:45
An Ambassador has the equivalent stature of a 4 star general. Would a 4 star be sacrificed in this circumstance?

He is the equivalent to a four-star, but is not a general. I think the distinction is huge since there is a misconception that diplomats enjoy an immunity from hostilities. Obviously, al-Qaeda believes differently.

The head lawyer for DFAS is equivalent to a vice-admiral. Does that put him on par with a vice-admiral? Doubtful.

However, I do believe there would be more effort to save a real general than someone with an equivalent rank in these situations. The government is filled with these "equivalent general people" but they do not travel with the same types of staff that military officers do, and they often place themselves in harms way more often because they do not carry weapons.

G29Reload
10-29-2012, 17:52
We're 80% normal folk, 10% libertarian/RonPaul type nuts that have some conspiracy freak in them and lately 10% trolls from DU/Daily Kos due to the election cycle and their panicking over losing like Troll2Life or TrueTrollLife.

They'll vaporize the day after the election.:rofl:

milglock707
10-29-2012, 17:54
It occurs to me that you guys are arguing with a HS student, a lonely one.

After I got out of Walter Reed in September I have been basically bed-ridden since then, so yes, you were half-right in that I am lonely.

Unfortunately, not a young HS Student because I would be at Homecoming right now.

G29Reload
10-29-2012, 17:54
He is the equivalent to a four-star, but is not a general. I think the distinction is huge since there is a misconception that diplomats enjoy an immunity from hostilities. Obviously, al-Qaeda believes differently.

I keep seeing Clay from SoA busting in and screaming, YOU WERenT sUPPOSED TO KILL THEM!

The potential in the story about it being a MB operation, and that he was only supposed to be kidnapped in order to be exchanged later for the Blind Sheik thing is really making sense after the ridiculous number of orders to stand down when help was clearly needed.

Providence
10-29-2012, 17:58
I keep seeing Clay from SoA busting in and screaming, YOU WERenT sUPPOSED TO KILL THEM!

The potential in the story about it being a MB operation, and that he was only supposed to be kidnapped in order to be exchanged later for the Blind Sheik thing is really making sense after the ridiculous number of orders to stand down when help was clearly needed.

There you go with that conspiracy nut business! (Grin!)

milglock707
10-29-2012, 17:58
I keep seeing Clay from SoA busting in and screaming, YOU WERenT sUPPOSED TO KILL THEM!

The potential in the story about it being a MB operation, and that he was only supposed to be kidnapped in order to be exchanged later for the Blind Sheik thing is really making sense after the ridiculous number of orders to stand down when help was clearly needed.

Yeah, I am unsure what the Benghazi Incident was about as the diplomat, Christopher Stevens, seemed to be a rock star in the diplomatic services and was well-liked by everyone. I doubt we will ever know what happened but the exchange thing seems as likely an option as anything else.

Providence
10-29-2012, 18:00
Yeah, I am unsure what Benghazi was as the diplomat, Christopher Stevens, seemed to be a rock star in the diplomatic services and was well-liked by everyone. I doubt we will ever know what happened but the exchange thing seems likely.

Keep talking to us and we may change your vote! (Smile)

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 18:02
I loved my country and decided to serve. I was out there fighting for the people of the United States because I felt it was my duty as a citizen. Politicians be damned.

Also, I said that my country (e.g. Congress and other politicians) would never love me as much as I loved it. I knew that I could be sent to a conflict I did not believe in, or sent into a war created by politicians for their own greedy gain. I also knew I might have to give my life, but I was not so naive to think that a Congressman would give his life for mine.

Politicians argue for military intervention because many of them have never served and do not understand what it means to send men to their deaths and be responsible for that. Also. historically our veterans have had a difficult time after wars end and there are out of the service. And many times the government has been less than helpful in helping us cope with what we have seen and our injuries. I have a cousin with PTSD and various combat injuries that has been treated like crap afterwards (he was National Guard) and cannot hold a job to save his soul due to the Government dragging its feet on treating him.

As for the ambassador fitting into all of this, I have no idea. However, many members of the diplomatic corps are placed in harms way (often with nothing but a suit to stop the bullets) and do important work. I don't pretend to understand it but I do know they have a thankless and dangerous job (aka Benghazi and Iran Hostage Situation).

If you love your country why are you voting for someone that is trying to undermine its founding document?

milglock707
10-29-2012, 18:05
Keep talking to us and we may change your vote! (Smile)

I was last registered to vote in Illinois. Don't think my vote does anything. However, originally from Wisconsin so if I still lived there your effort would be more fruitful.

Honestly, I try to look at the candidates with as much objectivity as possible and try to discount crazy theories about them. I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Green Party and Libertarian members. All depended on the person and their views on issues important to me.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 18:08
I was last registered to vote in Illinois. Don't think my vote does anything. However, originally from Wisconsin so if I still lived there your effort would be more fruitful.

Honestly, I try to look at the candidates with as much objectivity as possible and try to discount crazy theories about them. I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Green Party and Libertarian members. All depended on the person and their views on issues important to me.

Which of Obama's views and the stances that he has taken on issues appeal to you?

milglock707
10-29-2012, 18:11
If you love your country why are you voting for someone that is trying to undermine its founding document?

I do not believe Obama is undermining the Constitution. The Constitution was undermined long before I was born due to activist judges and Congress legislating issues that really should have been constitutional amendments.

I am strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution and believe we should pass more amendments. There is a reason they are hard to pass (i.e. important issues need important and honest debates). The fact Congress (not the President) has used the Commerce Clause to run rip-shod over states' rights is ridiculous (example: drinking ages, legalization of drugs, DOMA, No Child Left Behind, etc...). However, both parties could care less and enjoy the current system rather than proposing amendments. All their talk makes for good talking points, but their actions speak louder than any of their rhetoric ever could.

G29Reload
10-29-2012, 18:11
If you love your country why are you voting for someone that is trying to undermine its founding document?

Seriously. Why?

Obama is not someone who has your back. Whether you're an ambassador dying on sovereign territory, a Border patrol Agent shot with a gun provided by obamas administration, Obama does NOT have your back. He's a punk and marxist thug. In his own class of criminal.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 18:15
Seriously. Why?

Obama is not someone who has your back. Whether you're an ambassador dying on sovereign territory, a Border patrol Agent shot with a gun provided by obamas administration, Obama does NOT have your back. He's a punk and marxist thug. In his own class of criminal.

He might have your back targeted with his kill list though. I still can't believe that he is getting away with that BS.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 18:18
Which of Obama's views and the stances that he has taken on issues appeal to you?

My primary agreement with Obama is his plan to tax the rich substantially more, rather than passing tax cuts for everyone. I agree that only through more taxation of the rich will the rest of us see any impact. The fact that Romney pays less than myself (proportionally) in taxes is outrageous.

Not all of us were born with trust funds and I find it unfair that rules for the rich are different than for us.

Also, Romney's manner of accumulation of wealth is upsetting. His takeover of KB Toys is a good example.

Romney and Bain took over KB Toys, one of the oldest toy companies in the country and one that was perfectly fine. They then forced the company to take out huge loans and pay it as dividends to Bain (and Romney). At that point KB Toys was under crushing debt and could not operate. They went bankrupt and were sold for a small sum to Toys R Us. Bain and Romney pocketed that amount as well.

TL: DR: Obama will tax the rich. Romney destroys good companies and cashes out - not a job creator in my opinion.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 18:18
I do not believe Obama is undermining the Constitution. The Constitution was undermined long before I was born due to activist judges and Congress legislating issues that really should have been constitutional amendments.

I am strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution and believe we should pass more amendments. There is a reason they are hard to pass (i.e. important issues need important and honest debates). The fact Congress (not the President) has used the Commerce Clause to run rip-shod over states' rights is ridiculous (example: drinking ages, legalization of drugs, DOMA, No Child Left Behind, etc...). However, both parties could care less and enjoy the current system rather than proposing amendments. All their talk makes for good talking points, but their actions speak louder than any of their rhetoric ever could.

Fast and Furious was all about undermining the COTUS. I'll agree with the overuse of the commerce clause but, tell me which party was using it as justification to implement socialized medicine in the US?

427
10-29-2012, 18:21
I do not believe Obama is undermining the Constitution. The Constitution was undermined long before I was born due to activist judges and Congress legislating issues that really should have been constitutional amendments.

I am strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution and believe we should pass more amendments. There is a reason they are hard to pass (i.e. important issues need important and honest debates). The fact Congress (not the President) has used the Commerce Clause to run rip-shod over states' rights is ridiculous (example: drinking ages, legalization of drugs, DOMA, No Child Left Behind, etc...). However, both parties could care less and enjoy the current system rather than proposing amendments. All their talk makes for good talking points, but their actions speak louder than any of their rhetoric ever could.
What about all 950+ plus executive orders along with his unaccountable czars? Do those actions undermine the Constitution?

Arc Angel
10-29-2012, 18:22
milglock707, no disrespect intended, but, perhaps you're too close to the problem to be able to see it clearly?

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 18:22
My primary agreement with Obama is his plan to tax the rich substantially more, rather than passing tax cuts for everyone. I agree that only through more taxation of the rich will the rest of us see any impact. The fact that Romney pays less than myself (proportionally) in taxes is outrageous.

Not all of us were born with trust funds and I find it unfair that rules for the rich are different than for us.

Also, Romney's manner of accumulation of wealth is upsetting. His takeover of KB Toys is a good example.

Romney and Bain took over KB Toys, one of the oldest toy companies in the country and one that was perfectly fine. They then forced the company to take out huge loans and pay it as dividends to Bain (and Romney). At that point KB Toys was under crushing debt and could not operate. They went bankrupt and were sold for a small sum to Toys R Us. Bain and Romney pocketed that amount as well.

TL: DR: Obama will tax the rich. Romney destroys good companies and cashes out - not a job creator in my opinion.

Pretty much what I expected.

Romney's tax rate is based on money that has already been taxed once. Do you have a 401k? Some sort of retirement plan? Do you want to pay more taxes on your retirement plan? That is what you and obama are arguing for.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 18:24
Fast and Furious was all about undermining the COTUS. I'll agree with the overuse of the commerce clause but, tell me which party was using it as justification to implement socialized medicine in the US?

Democrats. However, I agree with socialized medicine -- I just think it should have been an Amendment instead.

Remember, it was Chief Justice Roberts that upheld it.

I, along with the rest of the electorate, is what is wrong with the country. When "our" party comes into power they use the Constitution improperly to push their own agenda, and then become outraged when the other party comes to power and does the same.

If just 35% of the American public voted for a third party, we could wipe out both Democrats and Republicans and effectuate a real change. Chalk it up to "never gonna happen."

427
10-29-2012, 18:24
My primary agreement with Obama is his plan to tax the rich substantially more, rather than passing tax cuts for everyone. I agree that only through more taxation of the rich will the rest of us see any impact. The fact that Romney pays less than myself (proportionally) in taxes is outrageous.

Not all of us were born with trust funds and I find it unfair that rules for the rich are different than for us.

Also, Romney's manner of accumulation of wealth is upsetting. His takeover of KB Toys is a good example.

Romney and Bain took over KB Toys, one of the oldest toy companies in the country and one that was perfectly fine. They then forced the company to take out huge loans and pay it as dividends to Bain (and Romney). At that point KB Toys was under crushing debt and could not operate. They went bankrupt and were sold for a small sum to Toys R Us. Bain and Romney pocketed that amount as well.

TL: DR: Obama will tax the rich. Romney destroys good companies and cashes out - not a job creator in my opinion.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

427
10-29-2012, 18:27
With milglock707's views, I find it tough to believe he was ever a Republican.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 18:27
Democrats. However, I agree with socialized medicine -- I just think it should have been an Amendment instead.

Remember, it was Chief Justice Roberts that upheld it.

I, along with the rest of the electorate, is what is wrong with the country. When "our" party comes into power they use the Constitution improperly to push their own agenda, and then become outraged when the other party comes to party and does the same.

If just 35% of the American public voted for a third party, we could wipe out both Democrats and Republicans and effectuate a real change. Chalk it up to "never gonna happen."

Somehow, I am not surprised.

QNman
10-29-2012, 18:30
I suggest you do more research. BO is not moderate.

... And he doesn't "work together" with anyone who dares to disagree with him.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 18:33
... And he doesn't "work together" with anyone who dares to disagree with him.

Remember how he and the democrats worked with the republicans on healthcare reform?

Goaltender66
10-29-2012, 18:33
My primary agreement with Obama is his plan to tax the rich substantially more, rather than passing tax cuts for everyone. I agree that only through more taxation of the rich will the rest of us see any impact. The fact that Romney pays less than myself (proportionally) in taxes is outrageous.

Not all of us were born with trust funds and I find it unfair that rules for the rich are different than for us.

Also, Romney's manner of accumulation of wealth is upsetting. His takeover of KB Toys is a good example.

Romney and Bain took over KB Toys, one of the oldest toy companies in the country and one that was perfectly fine. They then forced the company to take out huge loans and pay it as dividends to Bain (and Romney). At that point KB Toys was under crushing debt and could not operate. They went bankrupt and were sold for a small sum to Toys R Us. Bain and Romney pocketed that amount as well.

TL: DR: Obama will tax the rich. Romney destroys good companies and cashes out - not a job creator in my opinion.

Must be the next shift for the talking point bots.

:upeyes:

JFrame
10-29-2012, 18:33
... And he doesn't "work together" with anyone who dares to disagree with him.

Considering that Democrats unanimously rejected his proposed budget, it looks like Obama is incapable of reaching out to his own aisle.


.

Providence
10-29-2012, 18:34
With milglock707's views, I find it tough to believe he was ever a Republican.

Democrat all the way. Sorry bro, you need to accept it. You are a democrat. You think the answer to taxes is to tax corporations, and you want the government to manage health care. Makes me wonder what you think of the second amendment.

You can like all that stuff. You're free. But you'll get no support from me. I want very limited government, very low taxes, probably a sales tax, and a free market.

QNman
10-29-2012, 18:39
I do not believe Obama is undermining the Constitution. The Constitution was undermined long before I was born due to activist judges and Congress legislating issues that really should have been constitutional amendments.

I am strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution and believe we should pass more amendments. There is a reason they are hard to pass (i.e. important issues need important and honest debates). The fact Congress (not the President) has used the Commerce Clause to run rip-shod over states' rights is ridiculous (example: drinking ages, legalization of drugs, DOMA, No Child Left Behind, etc...). However, both parties could care less and enjoy the current system rather than proposing amendments. All their talk makes for good talking points, but their actions speak louder than any of their rhetoric ever could.

Thank you for your service.

That said, please don't take this the wrong way, as I do not intend to offend but... You sound utterly confused and disorganized in your core belief system. I haven't quoted everything you've said, but you conflict yourself a lot.

Come around more often. You may swing our direction, you may not, but the conversation will help you "find yourself".

Ignore the political conspiracies if you like. It's easy to NOT open a thread.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 18:40
Pretty much what I expected.

Romney's tax rate is based on money that has already been taxed once. Do you have a 401k? Some sort of retirement plan? Do you want to pay more taxes on your retirement plan? That is what you and obama are arguing for.

I know. I have researched it thoroughly. However, it is the best plan given our present situation.

Do you want to know the real reason we are doing poorly? Three words: Federal Reserve Bank.

It should be eliminated. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Let me explain why.

The Federal Reserve Bank (the "Fed") is a private organization. Not a government entity. It "sells" our own currency back to the United States which has caused all these problems. How does this work?

US needs 100 million. They ask the Fed for it. The Fed, which has the money, sells it to the US -- for a price. In this example we will say 120 million. This is more of a loan though and US needs to pay it back in 6 months. The premise is that the economy will grow and the US will have the money to pay it back. However, if the economy does not grow as expected (or contracts) then the US does not have the money to pay so we might only have 90 million. No problem -- print more money! The Fed is happy to oblige and extend us another 100 million so we can pay the first loan off.

Keeping track? We are now down 120 million dollars! All because we paid for our own money!

The US loses and we take all the risk while the Fed and the banks make all the money (Romney is included in this bunch).

To compound this problem is the fact that banks do nothing for our economy! All other businesses are forced to do business by making items (or services) and reinvesting their profits. Not so with the banks.

Due to fractal banking the banks, like the Fed, can make money out of thin air by lending more of your money, because they only need to keep a fraction of actual deposits on hand. Force the banks to back up their deposits 100% and this problem goes away. Get rid of the Fed and have the US Treasury print and distribute the money and the national debt problem is almost fixed.

TL: DR: Get rid of the Fed, and force banks to have 100% deposits to solve our problem. Romney is a supporter of these "profiteers" and thus the only way to solve our situation is to tax him and his friends.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 18:42
Considering that Democrats unanimously rejected his proposed budget, it looks like Obama is incapable of reaching out to his own aisle.


.

This only proves the point that most people are clueless when it comes to who actually moves the country, which is their Congressmen. I remember when the debate for the budget was going on and neither side put forward a plan because they fail to seek compromises.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 18:45
I know. I have researched it thoroughly. However, it is the best plan given our present situation.

Do you want to know the real reason we are doing poorly? Three words: Federal Reserve Bank.

It should be eliminated. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Let me explain why.

The Federal Reserve Bank (the "Fed") is a private organization. Not a government entity. It "sells" our own currency back to the United States which has caused all these problems. How does this work?

US needs 100 million. They ask the Fed for it. The Fed, which has the money, sells it to the US -- for a price. In this example we will say 120 million. This is more of a loan though and US needs to pay it back in 6 months. The premise is that the economy will grow and the US will have the money to pay it back. However, if the economy does not grow as expected (or contracts) then the US does not have the money to pay so we might only have 90 million. No problem -- print more money! The Fed is happy to oblige and extend us another 100 million so we can pay the first loan off.

Keeping track? We are now down 120 million dollars! All because we paid for our own money!

The US loses and we take all the risk while the Fed and the banks make all the money (Romney is included in this bunch).

To compound this problem is the fact that banks do nothing for our economy! All other businesses are forced to do business by making items (or services) and reinvesting their profits. Not so with the banks.

Due to fractal banking the banks, like the Fed, can make money out of thin air by lending more of your money, because they only need to keep a fraction of actual deposits on hand. Force the banks to back up their deposits 100% and this problem goes away. Get rid of the Fed and have the US Treasury print and distribute the money and the national debt problem is almost fixed.

TL: DR: Get rid of the Fed, and force banks to have 100% deposits to solve our problem. Romney is a supporter of these "profiteers" and thus the only way to solve our situation is to tax him and his friends.

You'll find only agreement with me on eliminating the Fed reserve and I'll also agree that Romney and Obama are both pawns to the big banks. Look at their top donors, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 18:45
Thank you for your service.

That said, please don't take this the wrong way, as I do not intend to offend but... You sound utterly confused and disorganized in your core belief system. I haven't quoted everything you've said, but you conflict yourself a lot.

Come around more often. You may swing our direction, you may not, but the conversation will help you "find yourself".

Ignore the political conspiracies if you like. It's easy to NOT open a thread.

I understand my core beliefs. However, due to the 2-party system I am forced to choose the one I find less distasteful.

My core beliefs represent my perfect world scenario. My support for Obama comes from my pragmatic side and who, I think, will do the least amount of damage given the current political system.

Providence
10-29-2012, 18:50
This only proves the point that most people are clueless when it comes to who actually moves the country, which is their Congressmen. I remember when the debate for the budget was going on and neither side put forward a plan because they fail to seek compromises.

You've been listening to the wrong news or reading the wrong websites. The house has passed a budget every year. The senate has not passed a budget in over 3 year despite the fact that they only need 51 votes to do so. The Dims have a majority in the Senate. The president has sent a budget to the Senate, but the Senate, members of his own party, failed to pass it - with 0 votes. That's zero votes. No votes from the Dims and no votes from the Repubs.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 18:51
Democrat all the way. Sorry bro, you need to accept it. You are a democrat. You think the answer to taxes is to tax corporations, and you want the government to manage health care. Makes me wonder what you think of the second amendment.

You can like all that stuff. You're free. But you'll get no support from me. I want very limited government, very low taxes, probably a sales tax, and a free market.

I used to believe Republicans believed in limited government and low taxes as well. However, their lack of action led me to the Democrats side, because I would rather see our country more financially stable. Unfortunately, most people are greedy and want the government to provide them with everything -- therefore there is a cost. I understand that politicians will not commit to austerity measures or cut services (I mean, have you ever seen a federal agency closed once created?), therefore, higher taxes need to be imposed.

There is a huge desparity between this country's wants and needs with its ability to pay for it. If people want Obamacare then we need to pay up. Simple as that.

If there is no money in my bank account then I can't write a check, why should Congress be any different?

JFrame
10-29-2012, 18:54
This only proves the point that most people are clueless when it comes to who actually moves the country, which is their Congressmen. I remember when the debate for the budget was going on and neither side put forward a plan because they fail to seek compromises.

The only president in history to have not passed a budget -- it's beyond blaming congressmen for Obama's policies.


.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 18:55
You've been listening to the wrong news or reading the wrong websites. The house has passed a budget every year. The senate has not passed a budget in over 3 year despite the fact that they only need 51 votes to do so. The Dims have a majority in the Senate. The president has sent a budget to the Senate, but the Senate, members of his own party, failed to pass it - with 0 votes. That's zero votes. No votes from the Dims and no votes from the Repubs.

If I recall that is because there is usually some stupid thing attached to it that has nothing to do with the budget. Wasn't the repeal of DADT tied to a budget bill?

milglock707
10-29-2012, 18:59
The only president in history to have not passed a budget -- it's beyond blaming congressmen for Obama's policies.


.

The power to pass a budget is Congress and Congress' alone. The president merely provides a framework, which technically he is not required to even provide.

No budget is the fault of Congress and due to each side's inability to compromise. Both sides are to blame, which is why I would urge people to vote out the current do-nothing Congress and elect a new one. Replace them every 2 years until they get it right.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 19:02
I used to believe Republicans believed in limited government and low taxes as well. However, their lack of action led me to the Democrats side, because I would rather see our country more financially stable. Unfortunately, most people are greedy and want the government to provide them with everything -- therefore there is a cost. I understand that politicians will not commit to austerity measures or cut services (I mean, have you ever seen a federal agency closed once created?), therefore, higher taxes need to be imposed.

There is a huge desparity between this country's wants and needs with its ability to pay for it. If people want Obamacare then we need to pay up. Simple as that.

If there is no money in my bank account then I can't write a check, why should Congress be any different?

You're not going to get fiscal responsibility with either major party, and less so with democrats. Republicans are the party of big government while democrats are the party of biggest government. Nationally I choose not to support either party.
As far as taxes, I'll have to disagree. Taxes need to be lowered, some need to be eliminated. More money in the hands of the private sector spurs economic growth and less taxes is also less money in the hands of those that would enslave us with their spending although, that has never curtailed their spending. If you look at what almost all tax revenue is spent on you will see that it is spent on social programs created by democrats.

DMaddox
10-29-2012, 19:05
I used to believe Republicans believed in limited government and low taxes as well. However, their lack of action led me to the Democrats side, because I would rather see our country more financially stable. Unfortunately, most people are greedy and want the government to provide them with everything -- therefore there is a cost. I understand that politicians will not commit to austerity measures or cut services (I mean, have you ever seen a federal agency closed once created?), therefore, higher taxes need to be imposed.

There is a huge desparity between this country's wants and needs with its ability to pay for it. If people want Obamacare then we need to pay up. Simple as that.

If there is no money in my bank account then I can't write a check, why should Congress be any different?

It has been shown that the majority of people really don't want obamacare. I have nothing against rich people because rich people hire and pay money to have things done for them.

Reagan had tax cuts across the board....for everyone.....and this country had outstanding growth. Why wouldn't that work again?

milglock707
10-29-2012, 19:11
It has been shown that the majority of people really don't want obamacare. I have nothing against rich people because rich people hire and pay money to have things done for them.

Reagan had tax cuts across the board....for everyone.....and this country had outstanding growth. Why wouldn't that work again?

You have to cut government, social programs, and not be at war for lower taxes to work. The government has expanded tremendously since the 1980s and any tax cut would need to be paired with a massive reduction in government. In this environment a party would need to control Congress and the Presidency for it to work, and then you would need Congressmen willing to lose their jobs to do what is right, since the backlash would be enormous.

I put this in the pile of wishful thinking. We simply have too many expenses as a country for a tax cut, especially since we cannot pay for what we have now.

QNman
10-29-2012, 19:16
You'll find only agreement with me on eliminating the Fed reserve and I'll also agree that Romney and Obama are both pawns to the big banks. Look at their top donors, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan.

He'll find little disagreement anywhere on this point, I think. Certainly no disagreement here.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 19:18
You have to cut government, social programs, and not be at war for lower taxes to work. The government has expanded tremendously since the 1980s and any tax cut would need to be paired with a massive reduction in government. In this environment a party would need to control Congress and the Presidency for it to work, and then you would need Congressmen willing to lose their jobs to do what is right, since the backlash would be enormous.

I put this in the pile of wishful thinking. We simply have too many expenses as a country for a tax cut, especially since we cannot pay for what we have now.

Tax cuts generate more revenue for the government. It works and it has been proven to work.

Halting the expansion of government is not going to happen with either party. That has also been proven.

DMaddox
10-29-2012, 19:27
You have to cut government, social programs, and not be at war for lower taxes to work. The government has expanded tremendously since the 1980s and any tax cut would need to be paired with a massive reduction in government. In this environment a party would need to control Congress and the Presidency for it to work, and then you would need Congressmen willing to lose their jobs to do what is right, since the backlash would be enormous.

I put this in the pile of wishful thinking. We simply have too many expenses as a country for a tax cut, especially since we cannot pay for what we have now.

That is why we cannot afford obamacare. That is why we need to get people back to work so we can cut welfare and food stamps. (they won't need them if they are working)

That is why we need to slash the size of government. (except military)

That is why we need tax cuts across the board, to spur growth in the business sector, so people make more money, spend that money and create more revenue to the smaller government.

That is why we need a "fair tax" or "flat tax" implemented, so "everyone" pays taxes including the 47% that don't.

QNman
10-29-2012, 19:28
I understand my core beliefs. However, due to the 2-party system I am forced to choose the one I find less distasteful.

My core beliefs represent my perfect world scenario. My support for Obama comes from my pragmatic side and who, I think, will do the least amount of damage given the current political system.

No offense again, but... we just don't know what we don't know.

In example, you protest raising income taxes on anyone, including the rich; certainly flies in the face of Obama's plan for what he calls "revenue". Then, in the same breath, you want to increase taxes on the engine of productivity - businesses. Because effectively, the losers in your scenario are businesses. Of all stripes and sizes. No investment means no innovation. Big taxes on big business means business will struggle and cut to remain small. Want to take a guess what drives businesses? (hint: getting bigger produces bigger profits for the shareholders; also known as "the owners").

It isn't hard to remain small. It requires very little effort. If the business must remain small, it will ultimately hire fewer employees. Instead of Microsoft vs. Apple, we have MS versus Apple vs. 400 other small competitors. Anyone remember the "good old days" of computing? We've come a long way, baby.

Then you want to eliminate the Fed. So do the diehard FISCAL conservatives (myself included on this point). The Dems will NEVER support such "craziness".

You want to insure everyone - a noble cause indeed. However, INSURANCE doesn't work if you have to insure existing preconditions fully. It's like this - if home owners insurance was REQUIRED by LAW to cover "pre-existing conditions", you could theoretically call the day AFTER your house was burned to the ground to buy coverage. If that's the case, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD CARRY INSURANCE UNTIL THEY NEEDED IT?

The 26-year old thing - insurance companies can sell whatever coverage they think they can sell and make money at. INCLUDING selling YOU insurance for your 26-year old. No fed.gov needed, thanks.

Now as to being a "constructionist". Unless there is a meaning with which I am unfamiliar, this typically refers to someone who wants the law to be interpreted on a limited basis. It has nothing to do with "passing as many amendments as possible". In fact, I'd think it almost would necessitate that it be the opposite; keep the way it is.

Stick around - this could be fun for both of us. Besides, it will give you something to do while you heal.

QNman
10-29-2012, 19:32
You have to cut government, social programs, and not be at war for lower taxes to work. The government has expanded tremendously since the 1980s and any tax cut would need to be paired with a massive reduction in government. In this environment a party would need to control Congress and the Presidency for it to work, and then you would need Congressmen willing to lose their jobs to do what is right, since the backlash would be enormous.

I put this in the pile of wishful thinking. We simply have too many expenses as a country for a tax cut, especially since we cannot pay for what we have now.

Tax cuts generate more revenue for the government. It works and it has been proven to work.

Halting the expansion of government is not going to happen with either party. That has also been proven.

This. Ruble has answered this perfectly. History will back him up.

Quick - what year set the record for the total revenues into the government coffers?

A: 2007.

hogship
10-29-2012, 19:35
I disagree. I do not see how leaving those men to die in Benghazi is any different than a commander making the decision to not send reinforcements to a group of men he thinks would be too dangerous to save.


Air support could have been used, and with zero risk of losing any additional lives.

ooc

hogship
10-29-2012, 19:44
I used to believe Republicans believed in limited government and low taxes as well. However, their lack of action led me to the Democrats side, because I would rather see our country more financially stable. Unfortunately, most people are greedy and want the government to provide them with everything -- therefore there is a cost. I understand that politicians will not commit to austerity measures or cut services (I mean, have you ever seen a federal agency closed once created?), therefore, higher taxes need to be imposed.

There is a huge desparity between this country's wants and needs with its ability to pay for it. If people want Obamacare then we need to pay up. Simple as that.

If there is no money in my bank account then I can't write a check, why should Congress be any different?

If you truly believe in the things you are saying......then you are going from bad to worse in the Democratic party.

.....the Tea Party believes in the same things you do.........

:wavey:

ooc

Fred Hansen
10-29-2012, 19:54
Only exception I have seen is the Social Security Administration who have some exceptionally hard-working and efficient individuals there. Yes, you may laugh, but they run like a well-oiled machine and have always been helpful to me and my colleagues.A fan of the biggest Ponzi scheme in history you say?

Imagine my surprise. :rofl:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=228736&stc=1&d=1351562022

JFrame
10-29-2012, 19:55
The power to pass a budget is Congress and Congress' alone. The president merely provides a framework, which technically he is not required to even provide.

No budget is the fault of Congress and due to each side's inability to compromise. Both sides are to blame, which is why I would urge people to vote out the current do-nothing Congress and elect a new one. Replace them every 2 years until they get it right.


And the president is not the leader of his party, and instrumental in shaping its direction? Your capacity to absolve him of any responsibility is amusing.

There has not been a president in recent memory with the leftist ideological purity of Obama. That is his problem.


.

aircarver
10-29-2012, 19:56
Who's the new resident GTPI comedian ? .....:rofl:

.

JFrame
10-29-2012, 19:57
A fan of the biggest Ponzi scheme in history you say?

Imagine my surprise. :rofl:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=228736&stc=1&d=1351562022


I THOUGHT I recognized the "voice"... :rofl:


.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 20:03
Now as to being a "constructionist". Unless there is a meaning with which I am unfamiliar, this typically refers to someone who wants the law to be interpreted on a limited basis. It has nothing to do with "passing as many amendments as possible". In fact, I'd think it almost would necessitate that it be the opposite; keep the way it is.

Stick around - this could be fun for both of us. Besides, it will give you something to do while you heal.

Constructionist means that you follow the language of the Constitution, and does not mean you leave it intact as is. The Constitution was always designed to be a living and breathing document subject to change -- Thomas Jefferson said so himself.

Since amendments are part of the Constitution once passed, this poses no problems. However, the framers made it purposely very difficult to amend the Constitution, so your fear of having tons of amendments is unfounded.

Yes, I think I may stay as I enjoy a good debate. While I may not agree with you, I respect your right to disagree with me.

DOC44
10-29-2012, 20:11
Exodus: Inner City Blacks Fleeing Obama

Why is this happening????


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/26/Exodus-Inter-City-Blacks-Fleeing-Obama-Democrats

Doc44

milglock707
10-29-2012, 20:11
A fan of the biggest Ponzi scheme in history you say?

Imagine my surprise. :rofl:




Social Security was never meant to be a permanent measure. People liked it and (surprise, surprise) politicians punted the problem until the next election. Now 60 years later the issue remains. However, from a purely administrative perspective, the SSA gives you the most bang for your buck as it is the most efficiently run agency in the US Government.

Also, what would you do to fix and replace Social Security? Most of the money goes to people who cannot work due to age (the elderly), those that cannot find work due to a limitation (disability) and children (assists widows and widowers). I cannot think of a social program that has had such a profound and positive change in American society as social security.

Finally, I paid into the system with the understanding I would receive benefits? If you get rid of it, then what? (I know there is no separate fund).

Goaltender66
10-29-2012, 20:12
A fan of the biggest Ponzi scheme in history you say?

Imagine my surprise. :rofl:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=228736&stc=1&d=1351562022

Agreed.

DOC44
10-29-2012, 20:14
Sandy Update: New York Flooding Triggers Car Alarms

Honkers


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/29/New-York-Flooding-Triggers-Car-Alarms

Doc44

milglock707
10-29-2012, 20:16
Exodus: Inner City Blacks Fleeing Obama

Why is this happening????


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/26/Exodus-Inter-City-Blacks-Fleeing-Obama-Democrats

Doc44

If I had to guess I would say they are fleeing due to problems in their society. A lack of effective social programs, lack of education, drug issues (war on drugs), among other reasons.

I believe it was Reagan that gutted welfare and social programs for these people.

These people will always vote for the "other person" in the belief it will fix their problems. The issues in the black community are far deeper than any President could fix. It will take generations to fix their issues.

DOC44
10-29-2012, 20:18
Anderson Cooper's Daytime Talk Show Canceled After 2 Seasons

RIP

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/anderson-coopers-daytime-talk-show-384036

Doc44

Goaltender66
10-29-2012, 20:19
Sandy Update: New York Flooding Triggers Car Alarms

Honkers


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/29/New-York-Flooding-Triggers-Car-Alarms

Doc44

Per Paul Krugman, think how all this destruction will make the New York economy skyrocket. :faint:

milglock707
10-29-2012, 20:19
And the president is not the leader of his party, and instrumental in shaping its direction? Your capacity to absolve him of any responsibility is amusing.

There has not been a president in recent memory with the leftist ideological purity of Obama. That is his problem.


.

The Constitution is clear on this. I am absolving him of responsibility because he is the President, not a member of Congress.

I don't blame any prior presidents for our budget issues since Congress has, and has always had, the "power of the purse."

427
10-29-2012, 20:21
Social Security was never meant to be a permanent measure. People liked it and (surprise, surprise) politicians punted the problem until the next election. Now 60 years later the issue remains. However, from a purely administrative perspective, the SSA gives you the most bang for your buck as it is the most efficiently run agency in the US Government.

Also, what would you do to fix and replace Social Security? Most of the money goes to people who cannot work due to age (the elderly), those that cannot find work due to a limitation (disability) and children (assists widows and widowers). I cannot think of a social program that has had such a profound and positive change in American society as social security.

Finally, I paid into the system with the understanding I would receive benefits? If you get rid of it, then what? (I know there is no separate fund).

Why do you think we're 16 trillion in debt? We're broke! The money you paid in the SS is gone.

The .gov can't give something without taking from someone else. Future workers are funding SS and other entitlements now!

What part of that is difficult to understand?

JFrame
10-29-2012, 20:22
The Constitution is clear on this. I am absolving him of responsibility because he is the President, not a member of Congress.

I don't blame any prior presidents for our budget issues since Congress has, and has always had, the "power of the purse."

Right -- so the president sits in his Oval Office and never confers with the key representatives of both parties in Congress.

Noted...


.

DOC44
10-29-2012, 20:23
it rained in New York City today.

Doc44

JFrame
10-29-2012, 20:24
it rained in New York City today.

Doc44


It sure as spit is raining here.


.

countrygun
10-29-2012, 20:26
If I had to guess I would say they are fleeing due to problems in their society. A lack of effective social programs, lack of education, drug issues (war on drugs), among other reasons.

I believe it was Reagan that gutted welfare and social programs for these people.

These people will always vote for the "other person" in the belief it will fix their problems. The issues in the black community are far deeper than any President could fix. It will take generations to fix their issues.

Oh yes, if it wasn't for the "War on Drugs" they'd all be running successful 'Mom&Pop" crack stores:upeyes:

427
10-29-2012, 20:30
If I had to guess I would say they are fleeing due to problems in their society. A lack of effective social programs, lack of education, drug issues (war on drugs), among other reasons. "Their" society? Wasn't Obama preaching that there's no "their" society, just our society.

I believe it was Reagan that gutted welfare and social programs for these people. "These" people?

These people will always vote for the "other person" in the belief it will fix their problems. These people -your words- are voting for someone who promised them money and benefits along with taxing the "rich".

The issues in the black community are far deeper than any President could fix. It will take generations to fix their issues.It's seems that a number of people believed that Obama has/had a stash and that they didn't have to worry about thier bills.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 20:31
This. Ruble has answered this perfectly. History will back him up.

Quick - what year set the record for the total revenues into the government coffers?

A: 2007.

I think this is too simplistic. Cutting taxes on businesses does not automatically increase revenue.

Also, if Bush had remained in office longer he would have been hit with the recession.

It always seems that cutting taxes and allowing business free reign has led to one thing: a period of growth followed by economic free fall.

Under Clinton the financial industry was de-regulated and business allowed to flourish --- set up a recession Bush had to deal with.

Bush tried to cut taxes and give Banks a pass (remember all that mortgage fraud?) -- set up a recession for Obama.

My question is how can you fault Obama for not fixing the economy in 4 years when Romney says it himself that couldn't fix the economy for another 8 years?

milglock707
10-29-2012, 20:38
Why do you think we're 16 trillion in debt? We're broke! The money you paid in the SS is gone.

The .gov can't give something without taking from someone else. Future workers are funding SS and other entitlements now!

What part of that is difficult to understand?


I understand we are broke.

If you were broke what would you do? I suspect probably cut back all unnecessary spending out and look for extra ways to make money.

The Romney plan suggests that since we are broke the US will instead spend more, and take in less revenue. If you were broke would you tell your boss to cut your salary in the hopes he will hire others, which will make more money for him, and in turn be given to you once business picked up? This is the Romney plan.

Why, as a business, would I hire more people if you just increased my profit margins by cutting taxes and I could do the same work with less people. I have no incentive to hire or to give these workers a raise since that means less money for me.

In addition, you cut benefits now and everyone that is getting a government check is now cut off, and thus has no money to spend on anything. This leads to more closures, more people out of work, and the cycle repeats.

Look at Europe and see how long a country can borrow without falling apart. Fractal banking at its finest!

DOC44
10-29-2012, 20:39
I think this is too simplistic. Cutting taxes on businesses does not automatically increase revenue.

Also, if Bush had remained in office longer he would have been hit with the recession.

It always seems that cutting taxes and allowing business free reign has led to one thing: a period of growth followed by economic free fall.

Under Clinton the financial industry was de-regulated and business allowed to flourish --- set up a recession Bush had to deal with.

Bush tried to cut taxes and give Banks a pass (remember all that mortgage fraud?) -- set up a recession for Obama.

My question is how can you fault Obama for not fixing the economy in 4 years when Romney says it himself that couldn't fix the economy for another 8 years?


Romney has got to try to clean up the "obama rigged" economy.

Doc44

427
10-29-2012, 20:42
I think this is too simplistic. Cutting taxes on businesses does not automatically increase revenue.

Also, if Bush had remained in office longer he would have been hit with the recession.

It always seems that cutting taxes and allowing business free reign has led to one thing: a period of growth followed by economic free fall.

Under Clinton the financial industry was de-regulated and business allowed to flourish --- set up a recession Bush had to deal with.

Bush tried to cut taxes and give Banks a pass (remember all that mortgage fraud?) -- set up a recession for Obama.

My question is how can you fault Obama for not fixing the economy in 4 years when Romney says it himself that couldn't fix the economy for another 8 years?

It was the Democratic majority in Congress that got us in the ditch we're in.

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!!!

We went from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from thier Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ! (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was Financially risky for the US economy):

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac???? OBAMA
Who fought, among others the reform of Fannie and Freddie? Obama?

The Dems had the WH and both houses of Congress, and they didn't get rid of the Bush Tax cuts. They had two years and huge majorities. They knew tax hikes would kill an already slow economy.

milglock707
10-29-2012, 20:47
Right -- so the president sits in his Oval Office and never confers with the key representatives of both parties in Congress.

Noted...


.

That should be the example used, because people believe the President's power to be drastically more than it is.

If Congress did their job this mess would be fixed. However, it is easier to blame one person than to blame 535 people. I know Obama, as well as all other Presidents consult with Congress.

If the President is as powerful as people think then he should be able to enact and pass whatever legislation he or she wants. I subscribe that the majority of fault is, and will always remain, Congress.

427
10-29-2012, 20:51
I understand we are broke.

If you were broke what would you do? I suspect probably cut back all unnecessary spending out and look for extra ways to make money. The .gov has a spending problem.

The Romney plan suggests that since we are broke the US will instead spend more, and take in less revenue. If you were broke would you tell your boss to cut your salary in the hopes he will hire others, which will make more money for him, and in turn be given to you once business picked up? This is the Romney plan.That's not what it is.
What's Obama's plan? Oh that's right he hasn't/doesn't/won't have one.

Why, as a business, would I hire more people if you just increased my profit margins by cutting taxes and I could do the same work with less people. I have no incentive to hire or to give these workers a raise since that means less money for me.

In addition, you cut benefits now and everyone that is getting a government check is now cut off, and thus has no money to spend on anything. This leads to more closures, more people out of work, and the cycle repeats.What are you talking about?

Look at Europe and see how long a country can borrow without falling apart. Fractal banking at its finest!It's not the banks, it's the .gov through politicians promising their people too much with no way to fund it.

JFrame
10-29-2012, 20:56
That should be the example used, because people believe the President's power to be drastically more than it is.

If Congress did their job this mess would be fixed. However, it is easier to blame one person than to blame 535 people. I know Obama, as well as all other Presidents consult with Congress.

If the President is as powerful as people think then he should be able to enact and pass whatever legislation he or she wants. I subscribe that the majority of fault is, and will always remain, Congress.


None of that refutes the fact that he is the most ideologically pure leftist in the recent memory of the presidency, if not of all time. And that makes it tougher to govern.


.

427
10-29-2012, 20:57
That should be the example used, because people believe the President's power to be drastically more than it is.

If Congress did their job this mess would be fixed. However, it is easier to blame one person than to blame 535 people. I know Obama, as well as all other Presidents consult with Congress.

If the President is as powerful as people think then he should be able to enact and pass whatever legislation he or she wants. I subscribe that the majority of fault is, and will always remain, Congress.

The current president is side stepping congress through executive order, czars, and recess appointments.

BTW, the President is head of his party.

countrygun
10-29-2012, 21:01
Why, as a business, would I hire more people if you just increased my profit margins by cutting taxes and I could do the same work with less people. I have no incentive to hire or to give these workers a raise since that means less money for me.



Wow, just Wow. A record setting level of ignorance about both business and economics in general, all in one paragraph.


Are you over 15 years-old?

milglock707
10-29-2012, 21:03
It was the Democratic majority in Congress that got us in the ditch we're in.

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!!!

We went from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from thier Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ! (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was Financially risky for the US economy):

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac???? OBAMA
Who fought, among others the reform of Fannie and Freddie? Obama?

The Dems had the WH and both houses of Congress, and they didn't get rid of the Bush Tax cuts. They had two years and huge majorities. They knew tax hikes would kill an already slow economy.

Your timeline is correct. However, the seeds for this collapse was planted by the Congress of the 1990s when they pulled all the safe-guards from the financial system. The collapse was coming regardless, it was a matter of when, not if. The Democrats just happened to be standing when the game of musical chairs stopped.

Also, what about the LIBOR rate scandal, which undoubtedly propelled this mess.

I think you overestimate the US influence in the global economy nowadays. We are not the only superpower economy on the block. The fall of the European and Asian economies will prevent our recovery. All we can do is mitigate damage.

Businesses will not improve through tax cuts because who are they going to sell to? The Europeans? Asians? Unemployed Americans? Romney's plan to cut revenue in the face of unprecedented debt does not make logical sense.

Also, what if Romney wins and cuts taxes. Will businesses hire? Nope, they are already sitting on massive cash reserves. There is no demand from others. Also, most of these companies will pay ridiculously low taxes since they are based in other countries or can evade taxes through complicated legal means.

Also, given the amount of American companies now owned by China and others, the profits are not staying in this country. The oil they drill, is not going to the USA, its going on the market to the highest bidder (probably China) and the profits elsewhere.

The fact that most large companies do pay even a nominal rate of taxes due to tax shelters means the USA is left in the cold with regards to money.

The way I see it there are two viable options for the next President.

1. Raise taxes and collect more money
2. Work with Europe and Asia to stabilize their economies in a joint effort, cut taxes, and watch business grow.

However, since most of you hate to cooperate with the Europeans and the Asians, this is not an option.

DMaddox
10-29-2012, 21:19
I was giving this guy the benefit of doubt at first. But now, I think he is just a troll disguising himself as a service man.

I am sorry if I come across as an inconsiderate bas...., but the op has all the talking points of the DU down pat. That is not something that a person who was a republican all his life would do.

The only conspiracy nuts on this website are the DU Trolls.


I am a constitutional conservative, a Tea Party supporter, and an American. I am trying to save this country by voting for Romney. I know he is not perfect, but he is not going to "fundamentally change this country" like obama.

Goodnight.

427
10-29-2012, 21:22
Your timeline is correct. However, the seeds for this collapse was planted by the Congress of the 1990s when they pulled all the safe-guards from the financial system. The collapse was coming regardless, it was a matter of when, not if. The Democrats just happened to be standing when the game of musical chairs stopped.
Yeah, you can thank clinton and his justice dept. threatening banks if they didn't make loans.

Also, what about the LIBOR rate scandal, which undoubtedly propelled this mess.What about it?

I think you overestimate the US influence in the global economy nowadays. We are not the only superpower economy on the block. The fall of the European and Asian economies will prevent our recovery. All we can do is mitigate damage.OK?

Businesses will not improve through tax cuts because who are they going to sell to? The Europeans? Asians? Unemployed Americans? If I can keep more of my money I can spend it in the economy. I'm trying to start a business.

Romney's plan to cut revenue in the face of unprecedented debt does not make logical sense.That's OK none of your arguments make logical sense, either.

Also, what if Romney wins and cuts taxes. Will businesses hire? Nope, they are already sitting on massive cash reserves.BS, businesses are waiting to see what will happen.

There is no demand from others. Let people keep more of thier money, they will spend it. People spend money when there's tax cuts.

Also, most of these companies will pay ridiculously low taxes since they are based in other countries or can evade taxes through complicated legal means.Oh, OK.

Also, given the amount of American companies now owned by China and others, the profits are not staying in this country. The oil they drill, is not going to the USA, its going on the market to the highest bidder (probably China) and the profits elsewhere.Really?

The fact that most large companies do pay even a nominal rate of taxes due to tax shelters means the USA is left in the cold with regards to money.The US corporate tax rate is the highest in the world.

The way I see it there are two viable options for the next President.

1. Raise taxes and collect more money
2. Work with Europe and Asia to stabilize their economies in a joint effort, cut taxes, and watch business grow.
The way you see it won't work. Taxing/spending our way into prosperity isn't going to work. The spending is unsustainable. Even if we tax everyone at 100% there's not enough money to cover the debt and the unfunded liabilities.

As for working with the EU and asia, what would you have us do? Thier problems are the same as ours - too many .gov promises and no way to fund them.

However, since most of you hate to cooperate with the Europeans and the Asians, this is not an option.

See above.

QNman
10-29-2012, 21:30
Ok, two quick points, then off to bed for me.

First, cutting taxes cuts overhead. Less overhead on taxes frees money for more workers and/or other expenses. How do I know? I run a business. Trust me on this - lowering taxes on business doesn't mean we flog workers harder and pocket the difference; that's very myopic. Investing back into the business is the key to raising revenue. I know, because I've been there, done that, and got the t-shirt.

Second, tax rate does NOT equal revenue. Total tax receipts equals revenue. The sooner the left realizes this, the sooner we can raise REVENUE, not rates. Every historical precedent shows that cutting taxes increases revenues, and raising taxes decreases them. It may seem kind of backwards, but history doesn't lie.

(Sidebar: as pointed out already, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem. To use your analogy, if you are spending 20% more than you make, you don't go to your boss and ask for a 20% raise - you cut up the credit cards.)

series1811
10-30-2012, 07:21
The Constitution is clear on this. I am absolving him of responsibility because he is the President, not a member of Congress.

I don't blame any prior presidents for our budget issues since Congress has, and has always had, the "power of the purse."

A leader leads by his vested authority AND his force of personality. Do you really think soldiers will perform the same way for a commander with no leadership abilities the way they do for a commander with outstanding leadership abilities?

History proves they generally don't. It also proves that a President who is not a leader, will never be very effective. Obama will be another one who will be highlighted to prove this point in the future, right alongside Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover.

series1811
10-30-2012, 07:38
I was until Romney stole the election via rigging the primary and voting machines. See http://www.politicususa.com/chuck-todd-proclaims-voting-machine-concerns-garbage-ignores-2012-election-romney-stole.html.

Just kidding, that conspiracy talk belongs to the tabloids.

My problem is that the Republican party of the 1980s, which I supported, is nothing like the Republican party now. Also, the party did not learn the economic mistakes of the 1980s and now want to repeat them.

I support Obama because he is the lesser of two evils. Also, I guess I enjoy the money I receive from the Government every month now for disability, which I received fighting for my country -- 70% disabled with implants and steady supply of heavy narcotics and medications that will likely kill me early. I am that freeloader from the 47% that Romney was talking about. I took it kind of personally.

I'm sorry. Are you getting the idea that we don't believe you when you say you were a Republican before seeing the Obama light?




Well, if you are, you're correct. We don't.

series1811
10-30-2012, 07:39
With milglock707's views, I find it tough to believe he was ever a Republican.

No, nobody is buying that. :supergrin:

aircarver
10-30-2012, 10:12
You guys are spending waay too much effort trying to educate someone living in an alternate universe ... :upeyes:

.

TheJ
10-30-2012, 10:43
That should be the example used, because people believe the President's power to be drastically more than it is.

If Congress did their job this mess would be fixed. However, it is easier to blame one person than to blame 535 people. I know Obama, as well as all other Presidents consult with Congress.

If the President is as powerful as people think then he should be able to enact and pass whatever legislation he or she wants. I subscribe that the majority of fault is, and will always remain, Congress.
That sounds good but you do realize that the president is the leader of his party, right? The party which controlled both houses of congress for the first two years and one for the last two..

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 11:29
Not that I have seen. GT has its share of conservative gun owners, though.

aircarver
10-30-2012, 11:32
Not that I have seen. GT has its share of conservative gun owners, though.

...who actually post in the gun forums ....

.

G29Reload
10-30-2012, 11:36
Also, what if Romney wins and cuts taxes. Will businesses hire?

Yes, if Obamacare can be repealed. That's what's terrorizing business from hiring.

You really are beyond naiive if you support this joke of a president.

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 11:47
...who actually post in the gun forums ....

.

Now is there something wrong with gun owners being in GLOCKtalk and posting in the political forum? I would fully expect it. Anti-gun leftists or moderates should go somewhere else if they don't like GTPI.

milglock707
10-31-2012, 09:31
No, nobody is buying that. :supergrin:

I was a Republican until they changed. The Democrats actually used to be the party of small Government. In fact, if you believed in small government and most other aspects of Romney's platform, then you would have voted Democrat in the 1870s and 1880s.

I have never changed my views, the parties have changed theirs and the Democrats have moved toward the center, while the Republicans have moved to a laissez-faire attitude that will not work.

milglock707
10-31-2012, 09:40
Ok, two quick points, then off to bed for me.

First, cutting taxes cuts overhead. Less overhead on taxes frees money for more workers and/or other expenses. How do I know? I run a business. Trust me on this - lowering taxes on business doesn't mean we flog workers harder and pocket the difference; that's very myopic. Investing back into the business is the key to raising revenue. I know, because I've been there, done that, and got the t-shirt.

Second, tax rate does NOT equal revenue. Total tax receipts equals revenue. The sooner the left realizes this, the sooner we can raise REVENUE, not rates. Every historical precedent shows that cutting taxes increases revenues, and raising taxes decreases them. It may seem kind of backwards, but history doesn't lie.

(Sidebar: as pointed out already, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem. To use your analogy, if you are spending 20% more than you make, you don't go to your boss and ask for a 20% raise - you cut up the credit cards.)

I am sure you are a small business owner and I would agree with you. One of the problems is that you and your business are treated just like the large ones. I think Romney would change that. In fact, I like Romney's views on business creation and would support him if the election was based on this alone. My problem lies with his view on other issues.

I believe that taxing the super rich will not really effect job growth as these people are not the job creators. The major creators of jobs, in my opinion, are small businesses and the large multi-national corporations. I think you are personally getting screwed as a small business owner because you simply do not have the money to take advantage of the tax loopholes that Apple and Ford can and also have no one lobbying for you.

In my opinion, we should tax C-corporations fairly and not allow them to skip out on taxes using complex tax shelters. At the same time, the tax code needs to be revamped for S-Corps and sole proprietorships.

milglock707
10-31-2012, 09:44
I was giving this guy the benefit of doubt at first. But now, I think he is just a troll disguising himself as a service man.


Not a troll, just bored because I am bedridden now. Actual serviceman with the scars, medical records, and Walter Reed punchcards to prove it (both Walter Reeds that is). You can crap on my views all you want but I won't let you discount my service to this country, I've gone through too much to put up with your s**t.

sbhaven
10-31-2012, 10:26
I have never changed my views, the parties have changed theirs and the Democrats have moved toward the center, while the Republicans have moved to a laissez-faire attitude that will not work.
:rofl: Sorry not buying it. Absolutely NO WAY has the Democratic Party moved to the center. If anything it's the Republican Party that has moved to the center while the Democratic Party has gone full tilt far left wing Progressive.

Look at who the GOP has run for their presidential candidate for the last two presidential elections, RINO's. Both McCain and Romney are middle of the road politicians that conservatives and small government types have to keep dragging to the right. Democrats on the other hand nominated the most FAR LEFT leaning Democratic Senator in 2008 for their Presidential nominee.

Edit to add: Want proof that the Democrats haven't moved to the center? Look at the polling. If the Democrats had moved to the center (ala Bill Clinton's pivot) Obama would be crushing Romney in the polls. Even with the media oversampling Democrats in the polls, Obama comes out behind in some of them or tied in others.

rgregoryb
10-31-2012, 10:37
Not a troll, just bored because I am bedridden now. Actual serviceman with the scars, medical records, and Walter Reed punchcards to prove it (both Walter Reeds that is). You can crap on my views all you want but I won't let you discount my service to this country, I've gone through too much to put up with your s**t.

no crap on your service to the country, and thank you for that. But your views suk.........:supergrin:

milglock707
10-31-2012, 10:38
:rofl: Sorry not buying it. Absolutely NO WAY has the Democratic Party moved to the center. If anything it's the Republican Party that has moved to the center while the Democratic Party has gone full tilt far left wing Progressive.

Look at who the GOP has run for their presidential candidate for the last two presidential elections, RINO's. Both McCain and Romney are middle of the road politicians that conservatives and small government types have to keep dragging to the right. Democrats on the other hand nominated the most FAR LEFT leaning Democratic Senator in 2008 for their Presidential nominee.

Edit to add: Want proof that the Democrats haven't moved to the center? Look at the polling. If the Democrats had moved to the center (ala Bill Clinton's pivot) Obama would be crushing Romney in the polls. Even with the media oversampling Democrats the polls Obama comes out behind in some of them or tied in others.

McCain and Romney were middle of the road until they pandered to the extreme right.

I voted for McCain when he ran against Bush in the primaries because he was a moderate. Fast forward to when McCain was nominated and he had lost that.

Romney is no different. He sent the EPA to close down a power plant, implemented Obamacare (oops, I mean Romneycare -- what's the difference) and was generally a good guy. However, the Mitt who ran for governor and the Mitt who ended as Governor and eventually was the Republican nominee are not recognizable.

If McCain and Romney would have remained true to their roots they would have been President.

The country has changed and thus the middle has moved more left than right.

The religious right is a dying breed. Barry Goldwater (republican) said it best: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

I guess it really depends on what you see the middle as.

SCmasterblaster
10-31-2012, 10:55
McCain and Romney were middle of the road until they pandered to the extreme right.


The GOP candidate still needs to reach out to the middle while keeping the far right behind him.

Stubudd
10-31-2012, 11:02
Not a troll, just bored because I am bedridden now. Actual serviceman with the scars, medical records, and Walter Reed punchcards to prove it (both Walter Reeds that is). You can crap on my views all you want but I won't let you discount my service to this country, I've gone through too much to put up with your s**t.

I'm sorry to hear that. You sound like a smart fellow but i think you have lots to learn. Since you've got some time start here:

http://books.google.com/books/about/Basic_Economics_2nd_Ed.html?id=ax6dsqMdPHQC

If you have itunes, i think it's like 10 bucks. Might be a bit tedious at first but stick with it

Stubudd
10-31-2012, 11:06
I was a Republican until they changed. The Democrats actually used to be the party of small Government. In fact, if you believed in small government and most other aspects of Romney's platform, then you would have voted Democrat in the 1870s and 1880s.

I have never changed my views, the parties have changed theirs and the Democrats have moved toward the center, while the Republicans have moved to a laissez-faire attitude that will not work.

They're both moving left faster than you can even think it man. Both have blown up the size of government. Both have trampled the bill of rights. Both have spent into oblivion. Their balance sheet is so far into the red there isn't enough money in the world to pay everything they've promised. Read or listen to that book.

SCmasterblaster
10-31-2012, 11:10
One doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut to suspect that BHO has a liberal/leftst anti-gun agenda. :wow:

barbedwiresmile
10-31-2012, 11:37
GT full of conspiracy theorists? Don't make me laugh.

In fact, GT is populated by statists of such high rank that they would have taken Rome's side against Jesus.

That these same members are largely Christians speaks to the absence of any coherent political philosophy beyond the current party dictatorship paradigm.

JFrame
10-31-2012, 11:58
I'm sorry to hear that. You sound like a smart fellow but i think you have lots to learn. Since you've got some time start here:

http://books.google.com/books/about/Basic_Economics_2nd_Ed.html?id=ax6dsqMdPHQC

If you have itunes, i think it's like 10 bucks. Might be a bit tedious at first but stick with it


Very gently put, Stu... :cool:


.

SCmasterblaster
10-31-2012, 12:03
GT full of conspiracy theorists? Don't make me laugh.

In fact, GT is populated by statists of such high rank that they would have taken Rome's side against Jesus.

That these same members are largely Christians speaks to the absence of any coherent political philosophy beyond the current party dictatorship paradigm.

GT is full of conservative, pro-gun conservatives. We don't agree on everything, but we stand up together for the Second Amendment. :cool:

Phaze5ive
10-31-2012, 12:20
I don't know about nuts, but Glocktalk is just like any other group out there. When you put a bunch of like-minded individuals together, their shared inclinations get amplified. In the case of GT, it's almost the right-winged DU.

But it's still a great place to come to learn about firearms.

SCmasterblaster
10-31-2012, 12:27
I don't know about nuts, but Glocktalk is just like any other group out there. When you put a bunch of like-minded individuals together, their shared inclinations get amplified. In the case of GT, it's almost the right-winged DU.

But it's still a great place to come to learn about firearms.

A right-wing DU! :rofl:

sbhaven
10-31-2012, 13:01
In the case of GT, it's almost the right-winged DU.
With a much better web posting/thread layout to boot. :rofl: