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, 10:52   #41
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
Unfortunately it takes time to turn things around. The Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that if Paul was elected, he would cut the budget in half on the first day and all would be fine.

But it doesn't work like that. When you dig a deep hole over several decades, it can take a long long time to climb out of that hole.

A person can run up thousands in CC debt in a short period of time. But it might take years to pay off that debt. The USA is in the same situation. We don't have any free (discretionary) money to "pay down" the debt.

Even cutting spending is a difficult task because of legal obligation that were incurred with that spending. Sure there is some low hanging fruit (PBS, Grants to study the sex life of the fruit fly). But the serious money will require total restructuring of programs such as SS and medicare, which no one has the guts to do. Especially Congress! And the President can't accomplish those types of changes without Congress. . .
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".

Last edited by douggmc; 10-04-2012 at 10:54..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:53   #42
Glock30Eric
.45 ACP
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Southern Maryland
Posts: 3,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
Unfortunately it takes time to turn things around. The Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that if Paul was elected, he would cut the budget in half on the first day and all would be fine.

But it doesn't work like that. When you dig a deep hole over several decades, it can take a long long time to climb out of that hole.

A person can run up thousands in CC debt in a short period of time. But it might take years to pay off that debt. The USA is in the same situation. We don't have any free (discretionary) money to "pay down" the debt.

Even cutting spending is a difficult task because of legal obligation that were incurred with that spending. Sure there is some low hanging fruit (PBS, Grants to study the sex life of the fruit fly). But the serious money will require total restructuring of programs such as SS and medicare, which no one has the guts to do. Especially Congress! And the President can't accomplish those types of changes without Congress. . .
Absolutely right on spot. The legislative branch of US is our weakest link. They could have easily denied/overrun everything that Obama, Bush, Clinton, Carter have done to America. They didn't and they have allowed it to happen in form as a representative for us.

Ron Paul as President and to replace majority of people in the legislative branch could make a big different in the path where we are heading to.

We could slow down Obama or Romney if we appoint right people in the legislative branch. I don't think that would ever happens.
Glock30Eric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:55   #43
wjv
Senior Member
 
wjv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 12,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock30Eric View Post
You are feeding to that system: Only Obama of Romney will be the next President. You are trashing the US Constitution and you are feeding to that crap. Sorry that truth is more painful for you.
Right now only Obama or Romney will be the next President. And that NOT TRASHING THE CONSTITUTION!

Trashing the Constitution is the Ron Paul supporters who's party:

- Failed to get a viable campaign organization
- Failed to get a viable candidate
- Failed to get any substantial vote in the primary
- Failed to get a candidate on the ballot

But now think their guy was somehow cheated and should be on the ballot anyway.

I would happily vote for a conservative third party candidate who got on the ballot via the CONSTITUTIONAL methods.

It can be done. Ross Perot almost did it, till he backed out.

You complain about the Rs and the Ds, but the Ls have their own set of problems that are stopping them from becoming mainstream. Maybe people don't want a foreign policy that says "withdraw from the rest of the world", or a drug policy that says "make it all legal". And what's Paul's view on immigration?

If you want to place blame, look at the people that the Ls are putting up as THEIR candidates.

Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually get someone on the ballot. Till then, deal with reality. Obama or Romney will be the next President. Voting for a "snowball in hell chance of winning" candidate doesn't improve the situation, and it doesn't make a statement that anybody will bother listening to.
__________________
Bill
Pacific NW


The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken -

Last edited by wjv; 10-04-2012 at 10:58..
wjv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 10:58   #44
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,730
Silly but still funny ...
Political Issues
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:13   #45
beforeobamabans
FYPM
 
beforeobamabans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Crossroads of America
Posts: 5,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
Fair point, though I have heard it in other venues than GTPI. Regardless, I apologize for being overbroad.

The thing is, I don't know that a major change *can* be made given the facts on the ground.
Hey, no need to apologize, this is the Internet!

You're probably right that only gradualism will be acceptable to the masses but we can always hope for more, can't we?
__________________
G17, G26, G30SF, Gen4 G23

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." Ben Franklin
beforeobamabans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:15   #46
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
I appreciate and share some of your disenfranchisement with wasteful spending and bureaucratic crap. Your anecdote about the passport is spot on. I would say that I don't agree specifically with your D. of Ed. opinion though.

With that said though, both of those things (like doing away with the ~250 million dollar funding/year to "Big Bird") won't do SQUAT to our budget issues. It is simply mathematically impossible. You alluded to "bennies" though ... and I'll assume you mean SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Now THAT is the big bucket of spending that is meaningful ... along with DoD.

ONLY these two areas (entitlements and DoD) make up between 2/3 and 3/4 of our budget. We could cut the the rest of expenditures (25 - 30 of spending), and leave entitlements and DoD as is ... and STILL be running a deficit. So ... while it feels good to complain about D. of Ed., passports, and "Big Bird" ... it is nothing more than an illusion and meaningless.

I'm of the opinion that we need to:
a) Drastically cut DoD. Call me crazy ... but I'd be OK with a budget that doubles the next highest country's instead of one that is more than the next 5 combined. We could cut DoD spending by 50% and still be 2x more than the next country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures I'm ex-Military FWIW. I believe in appropriate use of military force and in peace through power ... i.e., walk softly and carry a big stick. But the MiC in this country is ridiculous and the false patriotic propaganda pushed by so many to perpetuate it "discusting" We need smart DoD spending. Not quantity over quality.

b) Means test SS. Sorry ... if you don't need it, you don't get it. In other words, on a scale based on net worth/income ... you index down the eligibility to receive SS benefits. This sucks ... I know. Somebody is gonna feel pain in some manner or another ... no way around it.

c) Raise SS eligibility age based on a scientific lifespan index assessment that is adjusted periodically. Dropping dead at 67 a couple years after you retire is not as common as it used to be. Thank Medicare! Nor can can we expect to retire at 62 (unless you've smartly self-funded your retirement) when we expect to live to 90+. So ... need to account for longer lifespans.

d) Return tax brackets to those during mid-90s. We are disingenuous to only take a spending cut approach to solve our problems. Hey .. after all ... a top bracket of 39% is way better than what we had during those wonderful booming 1950s we always refer to .. right? Those great days of economic growth and thriving middle class? Cough .. cough: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213
I dunno...I can't imagine keeping the Department of Education at the expense of the US Military.

That said, raising the retirement age is certainly a given, and Romney said as much in at least one primary debate. I don't know where we got the idea that when you're 65 you should automatically qualify for a life of leisure at least partially paid from the public dole, but there we go. And there's a valid point about means testing, but even there I see a political problem. In essence, means testing involves even more income redistribution in an already redistributive program. That makes it harder to scale down.

If it were me, I'd restructure the program thusly:

1) Stop requiring the SSA to invest collected fund in US Treasuries. This kind of accounting sleight-of-hand is what's complicating everything to begin with.

2) Come up with an age limit for inclusion in the current system. In other words, tell everyone who is 60+ "hey, you will continue to participate in SS as planned. Create another age tranche (say, 40-59) and offer up a choice: "we will repay to you every penny you've ever paid for Social Security, with which you may make tax-deferred investments in a 401(k) vehicle of your choosing, or just take the money and put it in a savings account." Expensive? Sure, but not as expensive as paying those people benefits for 25 years.

3) If you're under 40, gradually shift FICA contributions from the SS system to private investment vehicles, percentages weighted by age (younger have a higher % paid into SS, older have higher % into private investments) until the outstanding obligations are all paid off.

Theoretically we'd get to a point where we'd reimburse the younger folks for money paid into SS and we could end the program. There are certainly issues involved in this, but again at least it's a blueprint for a way out of this mess.

Inre military spending, the main conversation isn't that we have a large military but what we need it *for*. The reality is that we live in an unstable world where we are a target. I don't think Fortress America is a realistic concept, not any longer.

There are also some big problems with military cuts. Say for instance we decide we aren't going to buy any more tanks. Leaving aside the implications of shutting those factories down (unemployment, etc), what happens when we suddenly *need* a bunch of tanks? Our defense industry is full of brilliant people but it still takes a significant amount of time to spin up production of a tank. Specialized tooling needs to be put into place, qualified people need to be hired and trained, materials need to be procured, etc etc. And no contractor is going to let all of that capital sit idle.

Another factor is that of innovation. Continued spending into R&D feeds innovation that won't happen if we just continue a maintenance level of spending.

So yeah, military spending can be wasteful, and indeed I think it's inherently so (you were in the military and you've probably seen this firsthand). My suggestion is to look at the implications on the other side of the ledger...what risks do we face if we do not have a ready force with at least a somewhat active industry behind it?

Inre tax brackets, a 39% bracket is not a pro-growth tax rate. Clintonistas like to tout mid-90s tax rates as evidence of some kind of economic necessity, but I don't believe that's a valid argument. Remember, Clinton's tax rates were elevated from Reagan's tax rates and were also retroactive. If the goal is to gain revenue to help pay for Obama's spending spree, to me it seems far better to structure the tax code to encourage growth, which means lowering rates and removing deductions from the IRC. Increasing economic activity has the side effect of increasing tax revenue since the tax base has expanded. I don't think the tax base will expand with a 39% top marginal rate.
__________________
The US Air Force has started including tax protester literature in the emergency supplies of their aircraft. If the plane crashes in a remote area, the crew is instructed to read the pamphlets and Goalie will be along shortly to rebut them.

Last edited by Goaltender66; 10-04-2012 at 11:16..
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:18   #47
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
Put somebody better up and maybe your party will actually get someone on the ballot. Till then, deal with reality.
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.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:36   #48
marchboom
Senior Member
 
marchboom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,879
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.
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.
__________________
NRA Life Member
VHA
NHRA
The obama administration and the democrat party...the ultimate in domestic corruption and dedicated to the destruction of the United States.
marchboom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:40   #49
kensb2
pistol n00b
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Apache, OK
Posts: 1,464
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.
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.
kensb2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:41   #50
JMag
Senior Member
 
JMag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA:Love it or leave!
Posts: 11,098


What Romney showed last night was that he was not (nor Obama) the caricature the MSM has created and he has the tools to get the job done. Anyone refusing to recognize that is simply not wanting to admit the obvious or simply incapable of it.
__________________
JMag
"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
Sir Winston Churchill
JMag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2012, 11:43   #51
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,900
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: 6,403
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: 2,625
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: 6,900
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: 6,900
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: 6,900
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

 
  
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 04:33.




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


Users Currently Online: 762
178 Members
584 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42