Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2012, 15:19   #81
TexasGlockster
Senior Member
 
TexasGlockster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Republic of TX
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by beforeobamabans View Post
The only solution to our economic mess is dramatic reductions in spending with equally dramatic reductions in taxes. Why? Government spending is stimulative, it just isn't very efficient. When you reduce it, you need to replace with a more efficient stimulus, which is putting the money back into the hands of private enterprise where it will be spent to grow businesses. Has this ever been done? Yes. Study the depression of 1920 in the wake of the progressive Wilson and the measures instituted by Coolidge that resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Romney is only slightly closer to this than Obama. His prescriptions are weak and really won't solve the country's problems. Many here think he can be a placeholder until something more conservative comes along but what will happen is, when he fails, the pendulum will swing harder to the left and there will be no chance for a true conservative reformer.
I didn't finish reading the thread so forgive me if this was addressed. You do know that virtually none of the actions taken during the 20s, 30s, or early 40s had any real impact on the economy (at least any helpful impact)? Be careful when you reference history to support a faulty conclusion. It took WW2 to get us out of the Great Depression.

On a separate note, for those of you who aren't voting because you don't like Romney: do you really think your failure to support Romney is beneficial? Make no mistake. Not voting for Romney is still a vote for Obama.
TexasGlockster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:20   #82
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
The Dems know the damage a third party candidate can do. Remember what the DNC did to the Nader campaign? They tried to keep off of the ballots in like 18 states. Nader had to file a lawsuit against them that was later dismissed.
It loses all relevance and impact when both sides are using the same fear based rhetoric, with the only difference being the names. It's a great way to wrangle the crowds into voting for more-of-the-same though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Your "man" ran in the Republican Primary. He lost


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

Last edited by G19G20; 10-04-2012 at 15:23..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:20   #83
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Let me introduce you to some basic arithmetic ... sourced from 2010 Federal Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

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

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

3) Federal revenue = 2.165 trillion

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

MATHY NO WORKY

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

From the budget ... in case visuals help you "get it":
Political Issues

Political Issues
That was very kind of you. I bet you are a whiz at Powerpoint too..
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:23   #84
Providence
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGlockster View Post
On a separate note, for those of you who aren't voting because you don't like Romney: do you really think your failure to support Romney is beneficial? Make no mistake. Not voting for Romney is still a vote for Obama.
I agree.


Please vote! It's that important!
__________________
Georgia Club Member #106
Tactical Shotgun Club #58
Rimfire Club #193
Snubbie Club #18
Providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:26   #85
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
You can answer that question yourself.

Who are you voting for?
Obama.

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

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

You really can't fathom that:
  1. A vote for Obama by a libertarian can be a pragmatic "lesser of two evils" vote
  2. A third party vote by a libertarian can actually be a reflection of a preference for that third party, and not a revenge vote from an event long past
can you?
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:26   #86
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
It loses all relevance and impact when both sides are using the same fear based rhetoric, with the only difference being the names. It's a great way to wrangle the crowds into voting for more-of-the-same though.
Whatever. The fact is, third parties don't win and they siphon votes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
As Ive said before, the only people more rabid than Paul supporters are Paul haters. You have a serious case of the Paul Derangement Syndrome. And for the record, RP would have torn Obama apart last night by bringing up real issues like the Fed monetizing federal gov't debt and inflation and all the other issues that neither Mitt nor Obama will talk about.
Umm, I remember seeing Paul in the Primary debates and he wasn't all that.

BTW I voted for Paul in my state's primary.
__________________
Death twitches my ear. "Live," he says, "I am coming."
Virgil, Minor Poems

Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.

Last edited by 427; 10-04-2012 at 15:29..
427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:29   #87
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by beforeobamabans View Post
The only solution to our economic mess is dramatic reductions in spending with equally dramatic reductions in taxes. Why? Government spending is stimulative, it just isn't very efficient. When you reduce it, you need to replace with a more efficient stimulus, which is putting the money back into the hands of private enterprise where it will be spent to grow businesses. Has this ever been done? Yes. Study the depression of 1920 in the wake of the progressive Wilson and the measures instituted by Coolidge that resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Romney is only slightly closer to this than Obama. His prescriptions are weak and really won't solve the country's problems. Many here think he can be a placeholder until something more conservative comes along but what will happen is, when he fails, the pendulum will swing harder to the left and there will be no chance for a true conservative reformer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGlockster View Post
I didn't finish reading the thread so forgive me if this was addressed. You do know that virtually none of the actions taken during the 20s, 30s, or early 40s had any real impact on the economy (at least any helpful impact)? Be careful when you reference history to support a faulty conclusion. It took WW2 to get us out of the Great Depression.

On a separate note, for those of you who aren't voting because you don't like Romney: do you really think your failure to support Romney is beneficial? Make no mistake. Not voting for Romney is still a vote for Obama.
Agreed. Further the "dramatic reductions in taxes" in early 1920s ( http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213 ) that you cite and attribute to the roaring 20s ended in ... what? Hint .. started 29/30 Sound familiar? Examine the tax rates during that time frame vs. what we started doing in Reagan years and you'll see a parallel.
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:29   #88
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
It loses all relevance and impact when both sides are using the same fear based rhetoric, with the only difference being the names. It's a great way to wrangle the crowds into voting for more-of-the-same though.
Do you really think that, with the Libertarians low numbers, if Romney can't beat Obama, a third party could have?

I mean you seriously think that?

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

Really folks, spend the wasted time trying to get libertarians elected to local office and help them be successful. Pick GOOD cnadidates and get more on Capitol Hill. No matter what YOU think a large number of of the folks still look at Romney as "conservative". If he wins he would certainly be better than 4 more of Obama. Take some of the credit for it. Losing the election outright is going to get you NO credit with the voters, all you can do, as I said, is be in position to catch the blame and damage the party's reputation. Take the small victories and create a winning record.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:30   #89
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
That was very kind of you. I bet you are a whiz at Powerpoint too..
Weak dude ... weeeeaaaak.
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:31   #90
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Obama.

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

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

You really can't fathom that:
  1. A vote for Obama by a libertarian can be a pragmatic "lesser of two evils" vote
  2. A third party vote by a libertarian can actually be a reflection of a preference for that third party, and not a revenge vote from an event long past
can you?
I get number 2 and have seriously considered it myself. However, how can ANYONE that wants limited/less/smaller government/Liberty vote for Obama and claim it's pragmatic?
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:32   #91
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Weak dude ... weeeeaaaak.

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

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:33   #92
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Obama.

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

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

You really can't fathom that:
  1. A vote for Obama by a libertarian can be a pragmatic "lesser of two evils" vote
  2. A third party vote by a libertarian can actually be a reflection of a preference for that third party, and not a revenge vote from an event long past
can you?
Based on what you've said in the past, I don't buy your premise(s).
__________________
Death twitches my ear. "Live," he says, "I am coming."
Virgil, Minor Poems

Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.

Last edited by 427; 10-04-2012 at 15:34..
427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:34   #93
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasGlockster View Post
I didn't finish reading the thread so forgive me if this was addressed. You do know that virtually none of the actions taken during the 20s, 30s, or early 40s had any real impact on the economy (at least any helpful impact)? Be careful when you reference history to support a faulty conclusion. It took WW2 to get us out of the Great Depression.
Or maybe the fact that the feds STOPPED doing the stuff they were doing in the 20s, 30s, and 40s got us out of the Depression? All WW2 did was send gov't spending and borrowing through the roof and institute inflation in order to set a "new normal" and saddle the next generations with the war debt. The ending of the constant gov't interventions in the financial markets and monetary policies was what ended the Depression. We're seeing it playing out nearly identically right now. The more the gov't does to "fix it", the worse the situation becomes. The only way to resolve the issues to to let the market work and liquidate the bad debt, let failed companies fail (banks, eg), and stop trusting the Ivory Tower folks to be smart enough to actually "fix" anything.

Quote:
On a separate note, for those of you who aren't voting because you don't like Romney: do you really think your failure to support Romney is beneficial? Make no mistake. Not voting for Romney is still a vote for Obama.
Blah blah. It's beneficial in that my principles stay intact and maybe the GOP will realize that nominating liberals only guarantees more loses. Btw, I don't depend on gov't for my existence, good or bad, so I have little stake in the outcome of who wins the election as it stands now. That's one of the biggest appeals of conservatism to me. Small gov't generally means letting me take care of myself. Neither Mitt nor Barack offer this appeal.
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:38   #94
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
What would you have me say/do if Mittens looses?
Why, thanks for asking!

Off the top of my head:

"Damn, we sure screwed the pooch that time around. How on earth did we lose that? Next time, instead of worrying so much about which guy can beat the scary Democrat, and getting all bent out of shape over cries of impending doom, I'll think a little more about which guy would best work towards my vision of a freer, less government-centric country."
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:38   #95
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Obama.

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

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

You really can't fathom that:
  1. A vote for Obama by a libertarian can be a pragmatic "lesser of two evils" vote
  2. A third party vote by a libertarian can actually be a reflection of a preference for that third party, and not a revenge vote from an event long past
can you?
I have no problem fathoming your being wrong. No problem at all. It is nice to know however that your support for a third party, which is parasiting the Republicans, comes from the position of an Obama voter who wants Obama reelected. Confirms what I thought. No he certainly isn't the "lesser of two evils" but that shows more liberal than conservative in the "Libertarian" view.

I can understand that people want to reflect their preference, to make themselves feel better without accomplishing anything. Happens all the time.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:39   #96
AtlantaR6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Not at all what I'm saying. He got "knocked flat" based primarily on "feel good" types of analysis IMO (e.g., level of energy, aggressiveness, etc.) Romney won the battle for "low information" voters who vote based on stupid **** ... in other words.
He had 2 minutes to answer a question! If he went more detailed no one would understand in 2 minutes Wtf he was talking about.

You have 2 minutes to tell me how a Glock works and I've never heard of a gun. Are you going to talk about gunpowder, spark, and lead, or get into the mechanics of the striker pin hits the primer, the slide ejects the shell, and the feed ramp works?
AtlantaR6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:43   #97
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by beforeobamabans View Post
the GOP really blew an opportunity to change things in a major way.
And why is that? Because they don't want to change things in a major way perhaps? I would say yes. They got their rino nominated, he gave a good speech and the republicans have tingles running up their legs today but, never forget how the republicans stood in the way of the TEA party getting anything accomplished. The republican establishment is only against obama's form of big government while they fully embrace their own version of big government.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:43   #98
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Or maybe the fact that the feds STOPPED doing the stuff they were doing in the 20s, 30s, and 40s got us out of the Depression? ... The ending of the constant gov't interventions in the financial markets and monetary policies was what ended the Depression. We're seeing it playing out nearly identically right now. The more the gov't does to "fix it", the worse the situation becomes. The only way to resolve the issues to to let the market work and liquidate the bad debt, let failed companies fail (banks, eg), and stop trusting the Ivory Tower folks to be smart enough to actually "fix" anything.
With all due respect ... are you in a bizarro fact world?

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

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

Political Issues
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:45   #99
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
Whatever. The fact is, third parties don't win and they siphon votes.
That's an acceptable second-place prize, provided their voters keep at it and don't chicken out like the Nader people did last time around. If the party who loses because of them knows they're going to lose again because of them, that party has to adjust to them in some way.

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

What's critical though is that the voters keep at it every election. Succumbing to the fear-mongering that gets thrown their way is a very real risk.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:48   #100
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
I get number 2 and have seriously considered it myself. However, how can ANYONE that wants limited/less/smaller government/Liberty vote for Obama and claim it's pragmatic?
Ive seen the argument before and there is a pragmatic strategy if one chooses to exercise it, depending on individual ideology.

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

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

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

Last edited by G19G20; 10-04-2012 at 15:49..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:27.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 575
124 Members
451 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31