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, 15:54   #101
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
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."
Wait. What!? You rabid Paul guys had been screaming about impending doom while wrapping yourselves in the flag.

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

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



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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
No, it's not as good as winning, but it's better than having both parties ignore you equally.

What's critical though is that the voters keep at it every election. Succumbing to the fear-mongering that gets thrown their way is a very real risk.
Third Parties don't win.
__________________
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, 16:00   #102
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
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!
Im afraid there was some misunderstanding if that's what you thought my post said. I thought I was pretty clear that all the gov't interventions in fiscal and monetary policy (ie New Deal, et al) made the problem of free spending in the early to mid 20s worse by not allowing bad decisions (aka malinvestment) to shake out of the system. WW2 did not end the Depression. The end of gov't intervention in the economy is what ended it.

Again, you can see clear parallels between that period and today's economy. The early to mid 20s would be parallel to the early to mid 2000's with loose monetary policy that led to speculative bubbles. 2008 would be akin to 1929. Now we have the same gov't and central bank intervention going on and it's making the problem worse by propping up the malinvestment instead of liquidating it and allowing the market to correct itself. The gov't and the Fed needs to get out of the way, not repeat the same bad policies that extended the GD.
__________________
"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, 16:05   #103
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
Whatever. The fact is, third parties don't win and they siphon votes.
They siphon votes from both sides so the point is moot.

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

BTW I voted for Paul in my state's primary.
Hard to be "all that" when you get 89 seconds to talk in an hour long debate broadcast. See the ABC debate in Spartanburg SC for reference. Good job on the vote though.
__________________
"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, 16:07   #104
wjv
Senior Member
 
wjv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 12,240
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.
Problem is, cutting all the small stuff DOESN'T give us any extra money. just a smaller deficit. There is no extra money to attack the other debt. We would have to find something like $1.2T or so before we started actually freeing up cash to start reducing the debt.
__________________
Bill
Pacific NW


The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken -
wjv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:12   #105
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,655
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?
What does a pragmatic libertarian intend to accomplish by voting third party? He knows that party won't win, right? The only things he can hope for are that:
  1. The Republicans lose the election, because if they win it'll just cement the fact that they don't need to implement any libertarian principles in their platform
  2. It is clear that if even a fraction of the votes that went to the third party went to the Republican party, they would have won the election.
(I'm using Republicans and libertarians here as the more relevant example, but it has played out on the Democrat side too.)

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

If I wasn't in a swing state, I'd vote Gary Johnson. Who knows, I might even do it here, depending on the outlook on election day, because if problem #1 is in the bag, #2 can be addressed.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:13   #106
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Im afraid there was some misunderstanding if that's what you thought my post said. I thought I was pretty clear that all the gov't interventions in fiscal and monetary policy (ie New Deal, et al) made the problem of free spending in the early to mid 20s worse by not allowing bad decisions (aka malinvestment) to shake out of the system. WW2 did not end the Depression. The end of gov't intervention in the economy is what ended it.

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

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

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

Last edited by douggmc; 10-04-2012 at 16:14..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:13   #107
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Do you really think that, with the Libertarians low numbers, if Romney can't beat Obama, a third party could have?

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

Quote:
The only thing Libertarians can do, at best, is take the blame for a disasterous next four years. What they will do is hang the albatross of "loser party" around the neck of every libertarian candidate running for any other office in the Country.
Im not taking blame for your bad choice of nominee. I put in a hell of a lot more work in this election season than you did so blame yourself. See my sig.

Quote:
Really folks, spend the wasted time trying to get libertarians elected to local office and help them be successful. Pick GOOD cnadidates and get more on Capitol Hill.
This is the single smartest thing Ive ever seen you post and it's exactly what is underway. If you like libertarian and conservative ideals, I can happily point you toward several good candidates for Congress that you can actively support.

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

http://www.thomasmassie.com

http://www.artforcongress.com
__________________
"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, 16:15   #108
wjv
Senior Member
 
wjv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 12,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
All I'm trying to gauge here is whether any Republicans will accept responsibility for Romney's loss and begin to think about what actions on their part would make for better results next time around.
I'm trying to figure out why all you Paulites have become Obama cheerleaders. . . As far as all of you are concerned, a Romney loss is a forgone conclusion.

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

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


The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken -
wjv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:24   #109
wjv
Senior Member
 
wjv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 12,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Obama is only guaranteed 4 more years if elected.
And in those 4 year Obama can inflict some permanent, if not fatal wound to this country by:

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

Hell, what's 4 more years. .

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

I'm not willing to take THAT CHANCE!

Romney will be answerable to the conservative base. . Who will Obama be answerable to?
__________________
Bill
Pacific NW


The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken -
wjv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:25   #110
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
What does a pragmatic libertarian intend to accomplish by voting third party? He knows that party won't win, right? The only things he can hope for are that:
  1. The Republicans lose the election, because if they win it'll just cement the fact that they don't need to implement any libertarian principles in their platform
  2. It is clear that if even a fraction of the votes that went to the third party went to the Republican party, they would have won the election.
(I'm using Republicans and libertarians here as the more relevant example, but it has played out on the Democrat side too.)

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

If I wasn't in a swing state, I'd vote Gary Johnson. Who knows, I might even do it here, depending on the outlook on election day, because if problem #1 is in the bag, #2 can be addressed.
Pragmatism.
March 2012.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

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

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

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

The time for "safe" is gone. Let Obama bring the pot to a full boil quickly, and let's see what America is made of.
__________________
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 16:25..
427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:27   #111
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
OK ... I understand your timeline better now. I did misinterpret it a bit.

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

I would agree that WW2 didn't end the depression too. I disagree with your characterization of what did. You say it was in spite of FDRs policies and government intervention ... and that only after they ended we recovered. I say it was because of it. It took awhile .. yes .. but just as the excessive laissez-faire conditions that create busts don't happen overnight, the implementation of corrective policies don't happen overnight either. It was the very policies of the FDR administration that REBUILT the middle class and lit a fire under the heart of what can be the really ONLY true driver of sustained and healthy growith ... A HEALTHY MIDDLE CLASS.
The core difference is we apparently disagree on what oversight and regulation means and how it should be applied. My version of oversight and regulation is that which is inherent to a truly free market where those that make bad decisions are allowed to fail. That unto itself is the regulation since it requires the malinvestment to be shaken out and the system reset. The banks, GM, AIG, etc would not have been "rescued" by papering over the failure with freshly printed money while waiting for the other shoe to drop, as we're doing right now. The gov't and Fed can never truly regulate or provide oversight because they are part of the system that failed. Market forces is the only true regulator and it's a good one. People run amok when they know the Fed will be there to paper over their failures and pass the inflation tax onto the common man.
__________________
"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, 16:28   #112
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
I said nothing of the sort and I don't know where you got that from

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



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

And you lost, get over it


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

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

http://www.thomasmassie.com

http://www.artforcongress.com

I work at my State level and leave others to work on their own States, you know, kinda like the Founders had in mind.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:33   #113
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
And in those 4 year Obama can inflict some permanent, if not fatal wound to this country by:

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

Hell, what's 4 more years. .

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

I'm not willing to take THAT CHANCE!

Romney will be answerable to the conservative base. . Who will Obama be answerable to?
The conservative base that is trying to elect a liberal rino gun banning big government socialized medicine man? What does he have worry about?
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:33   #114
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
They siphon votes from both sides so the point is moot.
That's true to a point. Third parties siphon more from one side than the other. For example, all thing being equal, a libertarian candidate will siphon more votes from a republican candidate than the dems. A Greenparty candidate will siphon more votes from a democrat candidate than a republican. Again, all things being equal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Hard to be "all that" when you get 89 seconds to talk in an hour long debate broadcast. See the ABC debate in Spartanburg SC for reference. Good job on the vote though.
He made a bunch of strange faces and misspoke several times on several different topics.
__________________
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, 16:35   #115
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
Wait. What!? You rabid Paul guys had been screaming about impending doom while wrapping yourselves in the flag.
I'm not a "Paul guy". I'm a libertarian. I haven't been screaming about impending doom. I've been doing the opposite, saying we'll get through this no matter who gets elected. You need to get your people straight and not be so aggresive with the pigeonholing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
Now you're lecturing me about a freer, less government centric country while you take self-righteous pride in supporting and voting for a Communist endorsed president!? OMG!!!
Yeah, that's how pragmatism works. Cool, huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
You can justify your vote all you want, but, you have no credibility.
Telling me that after you've proven that you have no idea who I am doesn't carry much weight.




Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
Nader's people didn't chicken out! They sued the DNC!
His voters chickened out. Look at his numbers in 2000 and 2004. In 2004, they succumbed to fear mongering, and had to vote for Kerry "otherwise that evil George Bush will get a second term and we'll all be doomed". Sound familiar?

Last edited by Gundude; 10-04-2012 at 16:36..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:37   #116
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
I'm not a "Paul guy". I'm a libertarian. I haven't been screaming about impending doom. I've been doing the opposite, saying we'll get through this no matter who gets elected. You need to get your people straight and not be so aggresive with the pigeonholing.

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

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




His voters chickened out. Look at his numbers in 2000 and 2004. In 2004, they succumbed to fear mongering, and had to vote for Kerry "otherwise that evil George Bush get a second term and we'll all be doomed". Sound familiar?
How long have we been sparring? About a year or so? I know you about as well as someone who posts on an internet forum.

Not a Paul guy?
Really?

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show...76&postcount=7
__________________
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, 16:41   #117
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
Pragmatism.
March 2012.
Was something in there supposed to prove my vote for Obama is a revenge vote for RP losing?

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

Last edited by Gundude; 10-04-2012 at 16:41..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:41   #118
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
And in those 4 year Obama can inflict some permanent, if not fatal wound to this country by:

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

Hell, what's 4 more years. .
This is assuming one thinks Romney's policies will ultimately be any better on such issues. I do not and that opinion is based on his record and extreme flip-flopping.

Quote:
4 more years could be the difference between this country living or dying.
Meh. Same was said in 2008 as why to vote for McCain. Im watching a slow death spiral that's mostly unrelated to which puppet-in-chief gets elected on Nov 6.

Quote:
I'm not willing to take THAT CHANCE!
That's fine. I think America has more resilience than that though.

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

I see the Republican party as being the foil to Obama getting too squirrely in the next 4 years. We will counter him much harder than his own party will. This is basic politics.
__________________
"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, 16:42   #119
Drilled
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Detroit
Posts: 1,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
This Paulite thinks Romney won the debate. The thing is, he should have. Obama is so weak on economic and monetary issues that anyone could. I still won't vote for Romney because I don't trust his record and rhetoric but he did objectively win this debate. If he didn't then he would be the worst candidate ever.

My .02 as the GTPI Paul weathervane.
You are just another vote for Obama throwing your vote away on Paul. Get over it.
__________________
“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams
Drilled is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:43   #120
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
How long have we been sparring? About a year or so? I know you about as well as someone who posts on an internet forum.

Not a Paul guy?
Really?

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show...76&postcount=7
So a reference to your own post of a couple of quotes of mine (neither of which mention Paul) grouped with a bunch of Paul guys' posts proves I'm a Paul guy?

Last edited by Gundude; 10-04-2012 at 16:44..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:44   #121
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
The conservative base that is trying to elect a liberal rino gun banning big government socialized medicine man? What does he have worry about?
Oh but you miss details deliberately. The "gun Banning" myth has been debunked and, at best, all you can do is spin it to Romney still being better than Obama.

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

It makes perfect sense. Being a believer in the free enterprise system, allowing the States to choose their method is entirely sensible. Some States will go with a winning idea, some won't. those that don't can copy from the success. Like the free enterprise system it engenders a competition of sorts to come up with a workable system rather than the Federal Government trying to slap a "one size fits all" solution to 50 States. The odds are against the Fed being successful. If a Federal solution fails EVERYBODY loses.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:47   #122
Fed Five Oh
NRA Member
 
Fed Five Oh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MO
Posts: 3,782
Seems our Super Patriots are in full melt down mode with 0bama losing the first debate.

Weird.
Fed Five Oh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:50   #123
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
That's true to a point. Third parties siphon more from one side than the other. For example, all thing being equal, a libertarian candidate will siphon more votes from a republican candidate than the dems. A Greenparty candidate will siphon more votes from a democrat candidate than a republican. Again, all things being equal.
This changes from election to election but third parties affect both parties. My gf is a registered Dem that voted for O in 2008, but she will be voting Green Party this election. Anecdotal but goes to show that neither candidate is immune from losing votes to third parties, particularly this election, with such high anti-establishment sentiment going around.

Quote:
He made a bunch of strange faces and misspoke several times on several different topics.
Strange faces and occasional misspeaking? He and his positions should be ignored in favor of the guy with good hair and scripted lines. Though Im pretty sure you are an example of the mindset of the typical voter.
__________________
"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, 16:53   #124
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Oh but you miss details deliberately. The "gun Banning" myth has been debunked
It has? I didn't see you in the thread where I show the exact wording of the MA gun ban and ask for anybody to step up and dispute it's a gun ban.

Go ahead and debunk it:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show...1445862&page=2
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 16:55   #125
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Oh but you miss details deliberately. The "gun Banning" myth has been debunked and, at best, all you can do is spin it to Romney still being better than Obama.

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

It makes perfect sense. Being a believer in the free enterprise system, allowing the States to choose their method is entirely sensible. Some States will go with a winning idea, some won't. those that don't can copy from the success. Like the free enterprise system it engenders a competition of sorts to come up with a workable system rather than the Federal Government trying to slap a "one size fits all" solution to 50 States. The odds are against the Fed being successful. If a Federal solution fails EVERYBODY loses.
You've been fed a bunch of bunk by acujeff.
Romney said that he wants to install socialized medicine through the states. Romney's idea is big government directed onto the states which is a far cry from states rights under the 10th Amendment. Nice try at spinning it though. He has also said that he would end obamacare, then he has said that he will keep parts of it, never mind all that though, he gave a good speech and you got a tingle up your leg.
Ruble Noon 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 05:41.



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


Users Currently Online: 957
284 Members
673 Guests

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