GlockTalk.com
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 10-11-2010, 13:37   #1101
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,296


__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010, 17:54   #1102
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,564
Blog Entries: 1
CA just passed its budget finally. Yep, October for a budget that was for this year so it's about a year late. Oh well.

1Bil in cuts for social programs (i.e. welfare). Advocates for the poor are up in arms about it. Screw them. If they care about the poor, they can give their own money to the poor. You don't help the poor by taxing the rich to the point that the rich don't create wealth anymore for society. Then everyone is poor. How hard is that to understand?

I've never gotten a job from a poor person. I have never seen poor people push commerce along on any big scale. I have not seen poor people be the engine of industrialization and progress. Not to put down the poor, but they are not the ones that moving us along. Let the rich do their thing, trickle down economics is way better than drag everyone down poverty.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010, 18:24   #1103
emt1581
Curious Member
 
emt1581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 28,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
CA just passed its budget finally. Yep, October for a budget that was for this year so it's about a year late. Oh well.

1Bil in cuts for social programs (i.e. welfare). Advocates for the poor are up in arms about it. Screw them. If they care about the poor, they can give their own money to the poor. You don't help the poor by taxing the rich to the point that the rich don't create wealth anymore for society. Then everyone is poor. How hard is that to understand?

I've never gotten a job from a poor person. I have never seen poor people push commerce along on any big scale. I have not seen poor people be the engine of industrialization and progress. Not to put down the poor, but they are not the ones that moving us along. Let the rich do their thing, trickle down economics is way better than drag everyone down poverty.
Now that the cuts have been made I'm curious what the results will be past just the initial upset by the advocates. Will there be rioting? Will lazy low lifes be forced out of their (read: taxpayers') homes? Or will it be business as usual with some type of bail out down the road?

I guess we'll play the waiting game for now...

-Emt1581
emt1581 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010, 20:28   #1104
tc556guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 4,774
Send a message via ICQ to tc556guy Send a message via Yahoo to tc556guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntinfool View Post
That's funny TC most of us who are in the know have a problem with all of these.

Besides not being allowed in the Constitution they are ineffecient to say the least and corrupt by most standards.

~HF~
You're welcome to your opinion.
__________________
*Post contains personal opinion and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
tc556guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010, 22:55   #1105
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,564
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by emt1581 View Post
Now that the cuts have been made I'm curious what the results will be past just the initial upset by the advocates. Will there be rioting? Will lazy low lifes be forced out of their (read: taxpayers') homes? Or will it be business as usual with some type of bail out down the road?

I guess we'll play the waiting game for now...

-Emt1581
Well, it will be fine for a while until it starts hitting them in the face when they realize they can't live the ghetto-fabulous lifestyle anymore, then the riots will start happening as soon as they have an excuse, like a sports team victory or any policeman arresting someone in their neighborhood.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010, 23:28   #1106
emt1581
Curious Member
 
emt1581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 28,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
Well, it will be fine for a while until it starts hitting them in the face when they realize they can't live the ghetto-fabulous lifestyle anymore, then the riots will start happening as soon as they have an excuse, like a sports team victory or any policeman arresting someone in their neighborhood.
I guess the duration of the rioting is what has me curious.

Is it going to be a short term 1 or 2 day riot that might make the news in passing like a police chase in LA every other day....

or...

Will said rioting make the rioting in Greece/Europe look like a day at the beach?

Furthermore, will the media even cover it if it gets nasty? Seems like a few things have been conveniently left out of the news recently. One or two I wouldn't have known about if it wasn't posted online in a forum.

Again, if this is as significant a cut as it seems, I think only time will tell how extreme the ghetto dwellers get. These people don't know anything other than to solve problems by getting loud and (randomly) violent without much of a plan. Most don't have any relevant or marketable job skills because they haven't needed to work in a few generations.

In any case, I hope other states follow suit ASAP!

-Emt1581
emt1581 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2010, 23:33   #1107
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,564
Blog Entries: 1
Depends on how the election goes in 3 weeks. If we keep the same socialists in Sacramento and we vote in Jerry Brown, then expect the budget to be revised right away to give back more to the dregs and jetsam and flotsam of society. The generous government that gives to those who don't earn it knows no bounds.

We will be taxed to death to provide for those who won't provide for themselves. Then you will see more exodus from the state. In the last few years, CA has been a net emigrant state, with more people leaving than coming, even when you add in the illegals... who are also leaving more than before thanks to the tanking economy.

I'm stuck since all my licenses and certifications are from CA and I am too old to start over in another state. That's what happens when you get to that certain stage when you have achieved enough to be comfortable and have to think twice about just leaving it all behind.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 01:48   #1108
kirgi08
Silver Membership
Watcher.
 
kirgi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Acme proving grounds.
Posts: 28,149
Blog Entries: 1


I wish I could say just "G.O.O.D" my friend.'08.
__________________
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

If you look like food,You will be eaten.

Rip Chad.You will be missed.
kirgi08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 07:13   #1109
UneasyRider
C.D.B.
 
UneasyRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by tc556guy View Post
Interstate commerce, for much of that.
Food? Seriously? You have issues with the Feds regulating food safety? Why?
No one is discriminating based on income.
National Parks? You have some problem with national parks? You're simply showing the extent of your fringe thinking.

We'll never agree. Just accept it. But please don't think that any measureable number of Americans agree with your views.
It's not always that they do as much as it's NOT in the constitution:

Most of our laws come from the interstate commerce act. If corn is needed to make automobile fuel and the government deems it not to be eaten, they have precedent under the interstate commerce act and can do it even if you grow it on your own land and never sell it. Where is the interstate commerce there you might ask? Well there is none but let's not get picky.

Descriminating based on income? Goes both ways. The income tax is tiered so some people pay 40% and some get paid 40% depending on how much they own. Government fees? Why so I pay the same highway toll (tax) as Bill Gates?

What you are up against here are people who want the contstitution changed before you create laws that are not compatible with it so that they can live under laws that do not violate the constitution, which many have sworn to defend, as opposed to living under laws that violate the constitution.

So trying to defend what is "legal" but unconstitutional will not get you far here. It would be like us asking you to show us where abotion is in the constitution. It's not there. Like murder, the constitution is not about these kind of crimes they are the province of the states. You can change the constitution and be ok with it, but unless you change the constitution and make it legal it bothers a lot of people.
__________________
"Freedom ain't Free" Ted Nugent at the House of Blues in Orlando.

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle,
UneasyRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 08:03   #1110
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,296


Quote:
Originally Posted by UneasyRider View Post
It's not always that they do as much as it's NOT in the constitution:

Most of our laws come from the interstate commerce act. If corn is needed to make automobile fuel and the government deems it not to be eaten, they have precedent under the interstate commerce act and can do it even if you grow it on your own land and never sell it. Where is the interstate commerce there you might ask? Well there is none but let's not get picky.

Descriminating based on income? Goes both ways. The income tax is tiered so some people pay 40% and some get paid 40% depending on how much they own. Government fees? Why so I pay the same highway toll (tax) as Bill Gates?

What you are up against here are people who want the contstitution changed before you create laws that are not compatible with it so that they can live under laws that do not violate the constitution, which many have sworn to defend, as opposed to living under laws that violate the constitution.

So trying to defend what is "legal" but unconstitutional will not get you far here. It would be like us asking you to show us where abotion is in the constitution. It's not there. Like murder, the constitution is not about these kind of crimes they are the province of the states. You can change the constitution and be ok with it, but unless you change the constitution and make it legal it bothers a lot of people.
You're kinda peeing in the wind. He hasn't read the COTUS. His views are evidence of that.

He prefers majority rule, which runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Yet he's sworn to uphold it. Chilling irony indeed.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 08:24   #1111
Huntinfool
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Huntinfool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
You're kinda peeing in the wind. He hasn't read the COTUS. His views are evidence of that.

He prefers majority rule, which runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Yet he's sworn to uphold it. Chilling irony indeed.
And yet he believes the majority of the people are with himon this as if it mattered!

Quote:
TC556guy said, "You're simply showing the extent of your fringe thinking.

We'll never agree. Just accept it. But please don't think that any measureable number of Americans agree with your views.
Hogwash the man lives in a bubble of democratic socialism i.e. Marxism!

~HF~
__________________
~MOLON LABE~
Yesterday is Wood, Tomorrow is Ashes,
Only Today Does the Fire Burn Brightly

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Huntinfool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 10:12   #1112
UneasyRider
C.D.B.
 
UneasyRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
You're kinda peeing in the wind. He hasn't read the COTUS. His views are evidence of that.

He prefers majority rule, which runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Yet he's sworn to uphold it. Chilling irony indeed.
You're probably right CF, but some day he may remember this when they make the ownership of sugar illegal after national dental care has to pay for the repair of his teeth and the government is trying to save a buck or two.
__________________
"Freedom ain't Free" Ted Nugent at the House of Blues in Orlando.

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle,
UneasyRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 10:18   #1113
emt1581
Curious Member
 
emt1581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 28,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tc556guy View Post
You're welcome to your opinion.
Opinion?? Do you think there are a ton of silent masses that are waiting to speak up and agree with you?

You've been challenged so many times in this thread alone just to state ANY conservative views you hold and have failed to do so. This "I could list them but what would be the point" garbage got old quick!

I know that even if you were to come out and admit you're a socialist, it goes against GT policy/rules to curse and insult you for it...so please feel free to do so without fear. Otherwise, either support yourself somehow or leave the thread!

-Emt1581
emt1581 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 10:27   #1114
quake
Senior Member
 
quake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 8,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by tc556guy View Post
...Not in favor of the universal healthcare. Social Security and Medicare..go ahead and debate these programs all you want at this point, but both programs have far too many supporters to ever see either program altered to any meaningful degree.
Historically speaking, at one time or another the same could be said of slavery, the Klan, the Spanish Inquisition, and radical Islam. Doesn't make them moral or ethical; and in the case of the case of universal (ie, government) healthcare, it's also illegal.

The constitution is the limiting framework upon which all other federal laws must be based in order for those new laws to be legal.

Think of a Monopoly game - the rules on the underside of the box lid are its 'constitution'; any modifications to those rules, in order to be valid, have to be agreed to and incorporated into game play. With the US Constitution, there are means laid out in the constitution itself for accomplishing that very thing; ways to amend or modify the rules. The problem is, legislators are making rules that violate that existing framework WITHOUT going to the trouble of modifying the framework rules.

There are legal ways to achieve these same agenda items (even though they're agenda items that I personally don't like), but even though it could be done legally, politicians aren't willing to show the backbone necessary to do so. They prefer to ignore the framework rules; because the framework rules (unless modified, as could be done) blatantly say that any authority not specifically given to the fed govt is reserved to the states individually. To ignore the rules is the way of the thief and the coward, and that's the road many (if not most) of our politicians have taken.

That's my whole perspective on it - either live by the rules or change the rules. But thieves and cowards prefer to ignore the rules. Whether the topic is universal healthcare, border security, or whatever the political hot-potato of the moment, the principle is the same. People with spines work to either enforce the rules or change the rules. Thieves and cowards ignore the rules.

BTW - thieves and cowards are scumbags, you know.
__________________
"The best a man can hope for is a chance to prove that the good lord didn't make a mistake putting him here in the first place." - Will Sonnett

"Only problem with women my own age, is they're so damn old." - my dad at 89...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
quake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 10:43   #1115
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,296


Quote:
Originally Posted by quake View Post
The problem is, legislators are making rules that violate that existing framework WITHOUT going to the trouble of modifying the framework rules.

They prefer to ignore the framework rules; because the framework rules (unless modified, as could be done) blatantly say that any authority not specifically given to the fed govt is reserved to the states individually.

To ignore the rules is the way of the thief and the coward, and that's the road many (if not most) of our politicians have taken.
I think its a little worse than that, Quake. Each time they get away with ignoring the rules it sets precedent for them to ignore them again.....and the snowball grows.

National Parks are one of my favorite examples because they are exceedingly popular and widely loved by liberals and conservatives alike. But nowhere in the COTUS does it provide for the Federal government to own large swaths of land in the states. Just because it is popular does not mean it should be acceptable. And vice versa.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 12:14   #1116
quake
Senior Member
 
quake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 8,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I think its a little worse than that, Quake. Each time they get away with ignoring the rules it sets precedent for them to ignore them again.....and the snowball grows.

National Parks are one of my favorite examples because they are exceedingly popular and widely loved by liberals and conservatives alike. But nowhere in the COTUS does it provide for the Federal government to own large swaths of land in the states. Just because it is popular does not mean it should be acceptable. And vice versa.
Agree completely; that's my point. Nowhere does the cotus allow for a lot of the crap that politicians have done to our nation. Parks, healthcare, regulating our toilets & showerheads, whatever. But rather than either live with the rules as laid out or changing them, they ignore them since it's expedient and popular.

That's the tactic of tyrants & socialists; or as I said earlier, thieves & cowards.
__________________
"The best a man can hope for is a chance to prove that the good lord didn't make a mistake putting him here in the first place." - Will Sonnett

"Only problem with women my own age, is they're so damn old." - my dad at 89...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
quake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 13:16   #1117
Carry16
Senior Member
 
Carry16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SW Missouri
Posts: 606
If you're close to retirement age things may be better than you think. I have a retired LA LEO who moved in just south of me a couple years back. I'm sure he bought his home here for what would have been a down payment in southern California.....at least it was a couple years back. I retired from the Chicago area and they direct deposit my pensions in the bank each month SW Missouri is a great place to retire, but not too hot for making your fortune. The low cost of living and quality of life far exceeds that which I left in Chicago. My annual real estate taxes alone would have been close to $10,000 back in Illinois, but I have a bigger home here with acres of land instead of a 60x120 lot and pay under $2,000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
I'm stuck since all my licenses and certifications are from CA and I am too old to start over in another state. That's what happens when you get to that certain stage when you have achieved enough to be comfortable and have to think twice about just leaving it all behind.
Carry16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 22:09   #1118
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,296


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carry16 View Post
If you're close to retirement age things may be better than you think. I have a retired LA LEO who moved in just south of me a couple years back. I'm sure he bought his home here for what would have been a down payment in southern California.....at least it was a couple years back. I retired from the Chicago area and they direct deposit my pensions in the bank each month SW Missouri is a great place to retire, but not too hot for making your fortune. The low cost of living and quality of life far exceeds that which I left in Chicago. My annual real estate taxes alone would have been close to $10,000 back in Illinois, but I have a bigger home here with acres of land instead of a 60x120 lot and pay under $2,000.
Be wary of a government pension.

I'm sure yours is rock solid. Just sayin.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 22:11   #1119
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,296


Quote:
Originally Posted by quake View Post
Agree completely; that's my point. Nowhere does the cotus allow for a lot of the crap that politicians have done to our nation. Parks, healthcare, regulating our toilets & showerheads, whatever. But rather than either live with the rules as laid out or changing them, they ignore them since it's expedient and popular.

That's the tactic of tyrants & socialists; or as I said earlier, thieves & cowards.
My personal make-me-so-friggin-mad issue.

Get the government outta my bathroom!
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2010, 17:14   #1120
emt1581
Curious Member
 
emt1581's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 28,140
I know it's been said that Europeans will riot at the drop of a hat...but if you look at some areas of the US...the same can be said. Typically it either involves low socio-economics or sporting events...sometimes both.

But if Europeans are rioting when the government talks about raising the retirement age or cutting funding for certain programs, can we expect the same here?

So far Obama's/Congress' decisions have been to the benefit of the ghetto-dwellers and the middle/upper classes aren't known for rioting. But again, once the tables turn here... why WOULDN'T the same rioting happen?

-Emt1581
emt1581 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply


Tags
tc tucked tail and ran, tcguy is a socialist
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 20:42.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,169
361 Members
808 Guests

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