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 10-05-2012, 07:35   #161
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
STOP IT...!!! NO...NO MORE...YOU'RE KILLIN' ME! BWAHAHAHAHA!
At least Paul's statements would have been accurate and based on current economic developments. See here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
I combined these two because I think you have too. The acid test Romney used was if a program isn't worth borrowing from the Chinese to fund, it would be eliminated. PBS seems pretty clear under that formula. Obamacare definitely. Free cell phones? Yep.
Someone forgot to tell Romney that China doesn't loan us money anymore. The Chinese have barely bought any Treasury issues at auction in the last year. So either Romney was being intentionally dishonest and demagoguing the issue of federal borrowing to the ignorant masses (those evil cheating Chinese should be punished! But no seriously, hey China can we borrow a few bucks?) or he genuinely doesn't know that China doesn't loan us money anymore, which makes him ignorant of economic conditions. So which is it? Im happy that Romney won the debate, as he should have, but the notion that he has some amazing grasp of economic issues, especially compared to Ron Paul, is downright funny.

Last edited by G19G20; 10-05-2012 at 07:48..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:37   #162
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
So the rights specifically mentioned in the BOR are "special" rights, according to the Founders? They should be enforced by the feds while other, non-listed rights shouldn't? Do you believe that was the Founders' intention?
Yes, it was their intent. That is very, very obvious. Expressly stated, even (10th amendment?). I'm not sure you thought much before posting that. The specific reason for the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was that the federal government/constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights for anybody in any state, while the "rights" not mentioned are expressly left to the states to regulate.

Of course, most of the rights, like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc., amendments, did not apply to the states until after the civil war. before that, the bill of rights only prohibited the federal government from infringing on those rights. The post-Lincoln slide into an all-powerful federal government (reconstruction) is when we got the bill of rights applying to the states "through the 14th amendment."
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.

Last edited by Bren; 10-05-2012 at 07:49..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:41   #163
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fed Five Oh View Post
Seems our Super Patriots are in full melt down mode with 0bama losing the first debate.

Weird.
You noticed that too. It seems their resentment toward Romney for smoking the messiah in the primary outweighs their concern about the most liberal candidate losing. It sure seems like they wanted Barry to do better. No surprise considering what G19Gwinnie's sig line used to be, It's clear what outcome he wants.

Sour grapes on display.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 10-05-2012 at 07:48..
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:45   #164
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
No, it's completely relevant. If we're talking about liberals wanting to ban everything they don't like while conservatives simply don't buy it, you need to explain why conservatives want MJ banned. You need to realize it's not a liberal thing, it's a human thing.
In the end, it's always about the dope.
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:46   #165
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
It is time for a countrygun prediction



I will go out on a very solid limb here and I want those who disagree to PLEASE chime in so we can have your opinions preserved.


""Third parties will have one of the 2 lowest turnout percentages,(for third parties) in this election, of the last 40 years."
40 years? I think I'd bet on a bottom 20% turnout. The rabid Paul guys are only about 2%, and many of them will be voting for Barry if you can believe what they post in the Paul forums.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:48   #166
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
At least Paul's statements would have been accurate and based on current economic developments.
I'm sure Obama would have reminded him about his "statements" supporting the KKK, too.
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:49   #167
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
I'm sure Obama would have reminded him about his "statements" supporting the KKK, too.
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You noticed that too. It seems their resentment toward Romney for smoking the messiah in the primary outweighs their concern about the most liberal candidate losing. It sure seems like they wanted Barry to do better. No surprise considering what G19Gwinnie's sig line used to be, It's clear what outcome he wants.

Sour grapes on display.
Which sig line was that? Keep nominating liberals and then wondering why we keep losing? Or the one that said failing to nominate Paul, the most conservative candidate, guarantees another election loss? I know you're averse to objective truth but yeah I was hoping for the sitting President to do better. He is still in control of the country in case you forgot. I won't root for him to fail because we are all affected by his failures. Are you saying you want Obama to fail the country even more while he's President? That's not very patriotic of you, Mr. Stars and Stripes. Sounds like sour grapes....

You are right about the sour grapes sentiment being strong though. There's still a hell of a lot of Paul supporters that won't vote for Romney based solely on the shenanigans during the primaries and at the RNC. Reap what you sow and all that. The RNC was what cemented my decision that I wouldn't vote for the Mass liberal.

Last edited by G19G20; 10-05-2012 at 08:19..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 07:53   #168
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 32,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?
Come on, now -- I would say that is a bit of a straw man.

The decision on which Republican to support has been made by most.


.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 08:01   #169
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?
Didn't like to be reminded about his KKK affiliation, eh?

If you're talking about RP, he's obviously not a "fellow Republican".

Why do you support Obama by refusing to vote for Romney?

Last edited by Snowman92D; 10-05-2012 at 08:03..
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 08:06   #170
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
If you're talking about RP, he's obviously not a "fellow Republican".
Oh that's right, he doesn't hate all those evil pot smokers so he's just another liberal . Under a Paul presidency, whose door would you be able to kick down at 4am and be able to shoot their dog?

He'd kill all your drug warrior fun!

Quote:
Why do you support Obama by refusing to vote for Romney?
Because Romney is a fraud just like Obama and has done precisely zero to earn my vote. No one is entitled to my vote. I thought we were trying to get away from entitlements in this country...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFrame View Post
Come on, now -- I would say that is a bit of a straw man.
Just a little taste of nonsense I hear on this forum all the time. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Last edited by G19G20; 10-05-2012 at 08:09..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 08:35   #171
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Oh that's right, he doesn't hate all those evil pot smokers so he's just another liberal . Under a Paul presidency, whose door would you be able to kick down at 4am and be able to shoot their dog?
Now, now...don't be mean.

So...tell me again how your boy RP would have "mopped the floor" with Hussein during the debate? I'm sure the Prez would have overlooked that...ah...little matter of RP being a fanboy for the KKK. Y'think...?

Last edited by Snowman92D; 10-05-2012 at 08:35..
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:02   #172
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Yes, it was their intent. That is very, very obvious. Expressly stated, even (10th amendment?). I'm not sure you thought much before posting that. The specific reason for the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was that the federal government/constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights for anybody in any state, while the "rights" not mentioned are expressly left to the states to regulate.
Right, it was to prohibit the government from infringing, not to allow the government to regulate. The federal government has no business regulating CCW. Do you think CCW reciprocity will consist of the federal government simply telling states they can't ban CCW? Do you think it'll consist of the federal government simply telling states they must honor CCWs from other states, in all circumstances? Not on your life. It will create a federal bureaucracy to regulate CCW. If you don't believe that, you've been living on another planet. That's not what the 2nd amendment is about.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:03   #173
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Someone forgot to tell Romney that China doesn't loan us money anymore. The Chinese have barely bought any Treasury issues at auction in the last year. So either Romney was being intentionally dishonest and demagoguing the issue of federal borrowing to the ignorant masses (those evil cheating Chinese should be punished! But no seriously, hey China can we borrow a few bucks?) or he genuinely doesn't know that China doesn't loan us money anymore, which makes him ignorant of economic conditions. So which is it?
You don't fully understand the concept of rhetoric in a debate setting, do you?
__________________
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.
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:08   #174
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
In the end, it's always about the dope.
The original single issue voters.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:11   #175
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 32,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goaltender66 View Post
You don't fully understand the concept of rhetoric in a debate setting, do you?

In fact, I thought that was the case that some Ron Paul supporters were making about him -- that his ideas are so detailed and subtle, they can't be reduced to sound bites... That he actually needs, say, 30 minutes to get his profound notions across.

I don't think that would work well in a typical debate setting.


.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--
JFrame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:12   #176
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Why do you support Obama more than a fellow Republican?


Hahahaha Ron is a RINO. He supports candidates that are not republican. He wears a republican nametag only to get attention and a snowballs chance in hell if getting back to his .gov paycheck when it was beneficial to him.

I believe he meant every word he wrote in his resignation from the Republican Party, being that he is so principled and consistent, it's illustrative that he flip flopped on that.


Quote:
As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that's the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.

Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter," the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget ammendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan's urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive "lie detector" tests.

Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has "sent hither swarms" of tax gatherers "to harass our people and eat out their substance." His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the

President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan's new tax "reform" gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.

After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government's best friend.

If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.

I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.

I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
He returned to avoid unemployment and irrelevance.
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:17   #177
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
Now, now...don't be mean.

So...tell me again how your boy RP would have "mopped the floor" with Hussein during the debate? I'm sure the Prez would have overlooked that...ah...little matter of RP being a fanboy for the KKK. Y'think...?
You can't win a game if you don't even make the team. In football, he'd be the water boy, without the storybook ending.

Political Issues
Cavalry Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:30   #178
Goaltender66
NRA GoldenEagle
 
Goaltender66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the cultural penumbra of DC
Posts: 14,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Yes, it was their intent. That is very, very obvious. Expressly stated, even (10th amendment?). I'm not sure you thought much before posting that. The specific reason for the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was that the federal government/constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights for anybody in any state, while the "rights" not mentioned are expressly left to the states to regulate.

Of course, most of the rights, like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc., amendments, did not apply to the states until after the civil war. before that, the bill of rights only prohibited the federal government from infringing on those rights. The post-Lincoln slide into an all-powerful federal government (reconstruction) is when we got the bill of rights applying to the states "through the 14th amendment."
And since admittedly this is where I start going off the legal reservation with my opinion, I beg your indulgence.

To me the 2A actually seems to bind the states as well as the federal government, even without incorporation. The 2A has the simple imperative "Shall Not Be Infringed." It doesn't have the same phrasing as the 1A, which is that "Congress shall make no law...", which tells me that the Framers intended for the 1A to be a check against federal power only (meaning censorship would be a state matter, as would a religious test before holding office), but the 2A was intended to be more global.

On the other hand, the meat of my argument is mooted by McDonald v Chicago. But even with that, I don't find arguments against federally-enforced CCW reciprocity all that persuasive except on political grounds.
__________________
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.
Goaltender66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:35   #179
Snowman92D
Senior Member
 
Snowman92D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFrame View Post
In fact, I thought that was the case that some Ron Paul supporters were making about him -- that his ideas are so detailed and subtle, they can't be reduced to sound bites.
True "comprehension" only exists in RP's mind, the wellspring of every Supreme Truth...much as "perfection" is said only to exist in the mind of God.

(...and Ron Paul's, too, of course.)
Snowman92D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 09:36   #180
ModGlock17
Senior Member
 
ModGlock17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lalaland USA
Posts: 2,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman92D View Post
Now, now...don't be mean.

So...tell me again how your boy RP would have "mopped the floor" with Hussein during the debate? I'm sure the Prez would have overlooked that...ah...little matter of RP being a fanboy for the KKK. Y'think...?
Good point.

One thing people may not realize is that Romney represented all the millions of small biz people who are offended by the "You didn't built it." comment. He represented us, with experience in business. RP is not, simply put.
ModGlock17 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 22:45.




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


Users Currently Online: 816
224 Members
592 Guests

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