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 10-04-2012, 11:43   #51
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensb2 View Post
Uh, uh, my dad can beat up your dad!!
Or better yet, 'I'm rubber and you're glue. Things bounce off of me and stick to you".

How are you going to just regurgitate the exact same info? You'd likely gain more credibility here if you actually attempted to defend your side of the ball in an intelligent manner, rather than do what you did.
Political Issues
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:52   #52
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
To those who are going to whine and blame libertarians and blame just about everybody else in the world on November 6, I would like to say this:

Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually win a presidential election. Till then, deal with reality.
I assume, when Romney wins you will have the grace to get lost?

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

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

If, they don't think they have what it take to change one party, how in the heck do they have the ego to think they can change the whole Country?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 12:00   #53
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
I would just add that the "low hanging" fruit you refer to is largely mathematically irrelevant too. It might make us warm and fuzzy ... and sound REALLY good to the aforementioned "low information voters" in a debate ... but it is of no real fiscal consequence. Further .. a lot of the "low hanging fruit" cutting would arguably result in disproportionate "pain".

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

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 12:01   #54
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I assume, when Romney wins you will have the grace to get lost?

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

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

If, they don't think they have what it take to change one party, how in the heck do they have the ego to think they can change the whole Country?
Well said !
ModGlock17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 12:03   #55
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I assume, when Romney wins you will have the grace to get lost?
Not likely. Dozens of country guns have come and gone in the time I've been here.

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

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

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

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

That is all. Clear now?
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 12:35   #56
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Not likely. Dozens of country guns have come and gone in the time I've been here.

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

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

That is all. Clear now?
The Libertarians were rejected by the Country as a whole and the Republican party specifically. The Primary numbers show it.

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

"You never gave me a fair chance"

"I can give you what you really want"

"You know I am really the one for you"

and my favorite

"You'll never be happy with anyone else"


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

"Stalkers"
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 12:38   #57
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
The Libertarians were rejected by the Country as a whole and the Republican party specifically. The Primary numbers show it.

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

"You never gave me a fair chance"

"I can give you what you really want"

"You know I am really the one for you"

and my favorite

"You'll never be happy with anyone else"


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

"Stalkers"
Again, there's only a little more than a month to go until we see how maturely the election results will be handled by the mature adults in this forum. I will be happy to revisit the topic then.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 12:44   #58
kensb2
pistol n00b
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Apache, OK
Posts: 1,464
If Romney loses, that'll defintely suck. The conservative middle, that could throw their support to Romney and possibly turn the tide to the right (but stick with 3rd party anyways to make whatever statement they think they're making), will most certainly be culpable in the loss. Whether or not they'll admit it. Beyond that, if we lose, then ourselves and are party shoulder a great majority of the rest of the blame.
kensb2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 12:55   #59
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensb2 View Post
If Romney loses, that'll defintely suck. The conservative middle, that could throw their support to Romney and possibly turn the tide to the right (but stick with 3rd party anyways to make whatever statement they think they're making), will most certainly be culpable in the loss. Whether or not they'll admit it. Beyond that, if we lose, then ourselves and are party shoulder a great majority of the rest of the blame.
What luck, it looks like we don't even have to wait a month.

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

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

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

Well, it applies to you too.

Last edited by Gundude; 10-04-2012 at 12:55..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 13:12   #60
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensb2 View Post
If Romney loses, that'll defintely suck. The conservative middle, that could throw their support to Romney and possibly turn the tide to the right (but stick with 3rd party anyways to make whatever statement they think they're making), will most certainly be culpable in the loss. Whether or not they'll admit it. Beyond that, if we lose, then ourselves and are party shoulder a great majority of the rest of the blame.
You know, the heck of it is here, I am a believer in quite a bit of this "Third party"s ideals but I have watched how this Country has changed, and it didn't happen overnight. My Grandfather talked to me about how he had seen the changes before he died in 1979. I watched a many of the changes he predicted were slowly implimented and I fought against them. I am just practical enough to know that pinning any hopes on just winning one office, and especially the POTUS to change things for the better is pure foolishness.

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

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

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

Forget about the Presidency for major change. Vote to get the twit out and campaign for change at every level, those are the steps that lead to a successful POTUS.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 13:17   #61
rjinaz85308
Desert Dweller
 
rjinaz85308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faulkner View Post
Just curious . . . exactly what is Obama not weak at?
He's real good at vacations


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American GI.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom..
rjinaz85308 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 13:56   #62
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by marchboom View Post
By not voting for Romney, you are supporting obama, whether you believe it or not. This election is not a game and it's not about who wins a debate. Its about whether or not we, as a nation, survive the way our founding fathers wanted it to.

We are down to 2 candidates and there just is no logical reason not to vote for Romney. obama will destroy this country.
Ive now heard this general line of rhetoric so many times that it has lost any sort of meaning to me. Let me issue my general line of rhetoric in response one more time. I don't care which nominee wins. They both suck for conservatives and both REALLY suck for libertarians.

The entire point of my OP was to agree with most people that Romney won the debate but to also point out that ANY GOP candidate should have been able to win that debate, considering the state of the economy. It tanked under a Republican president and continued tanking under a Democrat and will continue to tank under whoever wins this election. This was a "gimme" debate for Romney. Failing to win it would have secured his spot as worst nominee ever.
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:10   #63
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
The entire point of my OP was to agree with most people that Romney won the debate but to also point out that ANY GOP candidate should have been able to win that debate, considering the state of the economy. It tanked under a Republican president and continued tanking under a Democrat and will continue to tank under whoever wins this election. This was a "gimme" debate for Romney. Failing to win it would have secured his spot as worst nominee ever.
That entire argument carries over to the election itself. This is a "gimme" election for Romney. If he fails to win it, it's because he is the worst nominee ever. Republicans, especially in the early primary states, will need to determine whether voting for somebody simply because they're told he's the "electable" one is a sound strategy going forward.

Republicans will need to shoulder 100% of the blame for the loss. Will they be able to do that? Will they be able to then learn from it and fix it next time? My instinct says "no". They will blame the media, voter fraud, libertarian voters, Ron Paul, and a whole lot of others. Hopefully I'm wrong, because I want them to fix it next time.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:14   #64
Providence
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 543
I look at myself as a libertarian. I am more than willing to vote libertarian in local races and maybe even statewide races. But I cannot, with a clear conscious, vote for Gary Johnston or any other 3rd party candidate. A vote for the 3rd party candidate is a vote for Obama. The Libertarian party needs to be built from the ground up, and I believe that's happening. I don't believe the country can take another 4 years of an Obama administration. So arguments and discussions are fine, but right now we must defeat Obama!


Please vote! It's that important!
__________________
Georgia Club Member #106
Tactical Shotgun Club #58
Rimfire Club #193
Snubbie Club #18
Providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:23   #65
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Providence View Post
So arguments and discussions are fine, but right now we must defeat Obama!
The "right now" attitude is the problem, not the solution.

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

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

Let's think past the "right now" now, because we know we won't want to deal with it later.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:25   #66
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
You've obviously never dug yourself out from under a lot of debt. One of the principle Dave Ramsey teaches is the start off attacking the smaller bills, then using that money to attack the larger ones. It has nothing to do with making us warm and fuzzy. It has to do with spending within your means and cutting back wherever and whenever you can. Learning spending discipline.
Let me introduce you to some basic arithmetic ... sourced from 2010 Federal Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_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

Last edited by douggmc; 10-04-2012 at 14:36..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:26   #67
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
The "right now" attitude is the problem, not the solution.

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

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

Let's think past the "right now" now, because we know we won't want to deal with it later.
Yah, and reelecting Obama by voting third party Right Now, is sure a good plan for the future
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:29   #68
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Yah, and reelecting Obama by voting third party Right Now, is sure a good plan for the future
Im pretty sure the left is saying the same thing, except swapping Obama with Romney.

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

See how that works?
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:29   #69
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,618
Send out SOS !

The battleship Obama is listing 30degrees portside.

Jim, can you right 'er ?
ModGlock17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:32   #70
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Im pretty sure the left is saying the same thing, except swapping Obama with Romney.

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

See how that works?
Your "man" ran in the Republican Primary. He lost


See how that works?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:43   #71
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Your "man" ran in the Republican Primary. He lost


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

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

Your admonitions to the PaulBots to accept reality are going to come back at you, are you prepared?
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:47   #72
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
And "your" man is running in the general election. When he loses, are you going to see how it works yourself?

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

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

Clinton

Obama

I handled those well. More importantly, I didn't become obnoxious when my primary choice didn't win. Obviously you lack that skill.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 14:55   #73
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Carter

Clinton

Obama

I handled those well. More importantly, I didn't become obnoxious when my primary choice didn't win. Obviously you lack that skill.
Is this the part where you show an example of me being obnoxious over somebody (I presume RP) not winning, or is it the part where you say it's not worth your effort to back up your personal attacks with facts?
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:03   #74
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Im pretty sure the left is saying the same thing, except swapping Obama with Romney.

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

See how that works?
The Dems know the damage a third party candidate can do. Remember what the DNC did to the Nader campaign? They tried to keep off of the ballots in like 18 states. Nader had to file a lawsuit against them that was later dismissed.
__________________
Death twitches my ear. "Live," he says, "I am coming."
Virgil, Minor Poems

Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.
427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 15:05   #75
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,662
All I'm trying to gauge here is whether any Republicans will accept responsibility for Romney's loss and begin to think about what actions on their part would make for better results next time around.
Gundude 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 01:12.



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


Users Currently Online: 777
199 Members
578 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42