[glocktecher]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

Or anywhere else, for that matter. Obama's "anti-gun activity" is a perception, not a fact. HH

So you do believe what he is saying, or you think he is a liar?

Can't be both.

[RicoGordo]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

This shows you really don't know anything about the economy except for long term mean reversion.

Policies have a very large effect on the economy and Romney being elected would have helped the economy a lot. The thing keeping the economy depressed right now is obamacare (for the most part)

During the Clinton era the economy was "good" because of his horrible policies that let anybody, regardless of credit, grab a mortgage on property worth more than they can afford. That prompted tons of mortgages which in turn led to tons of hiring and spending related to that. The economy was plunging already when he was still in office btw.

Also, his lending changes is what caused the housing bubble. Without having to have crap securities banks would not have had to repackage and sell the tranches.

Revisionist bullcrap. Remember Bush and the "ownership society"? He continued and expanded on this. They both did it.

Amazing how people will bend over to blame the other side, but give their own side a pass for the same thing.

[RicoGordo]

Originally Posted by glocktecher

First, "progressive" is just a relabel for commie, marxist, blame America first, kill live babies out of the womb thanks to a botched abortion, anyone can marry anyone or anything they like philosophy. "Progressive" has no connection to the traditional Dems like JFK. Today, JFK would be spit on by people like you more than they did Romney. Traditional Dems believed in Individual Rights WITH Indvidual Responsibilities. The last part has been deleted by the "Progressives".

Second, this shop owner (AND HE DID BUILD THAT BUSINESS) is saying he does not want to do business with people whose goal is to destroy his business, which is what you are unwittingly trying to do.

So just move along with the other bed wetters.

"Blah blah blah blah words mean what I say blah blah disagree and you are a communist blah blah."

Seriously, why do you care what two consenting people do in private? Are you going to send me to prison for kissing my wife below her waistline?

[amorican88]

Luckily, there are hundreds if not thousands more that will gladly take your money.

[greentriple]

Originally Posted by RicoGordo

"Blah blah blah blah words mean what I say blah blah disagree and you are a communist blah blah."

Seriously, why do you care what two consenting people do in private? Are you going to send me to prison for kissing my wife below her waistline?

Your wife let's you do that? Mine stopped after the "I Do"

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by glocktecher

So you do believe what he is saying, or you think he is a liar?

Can't be both.

Actually, I think Obama is delusional. HH

[greentriple]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

Actually, I think Obama is delusional. HH

Hmm, if so than clearly a legal means of removal from office exists.

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.
Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.

[kirgi08]

[M2 Carbine]

And you will pass on the chance to convert an anti-gunner, but actually increase the emotional stance against firearms.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

In past years I have converted a number of anti-gun people to "our side". Most all went on to buy guns and even get their carry license.

But I have no interest in offering aid of any kind or having any dealings with obama supporters.
I especially wouldn't teach one to shoot.

The fact is I have an extremely low opinion of anyone that voted for that *******, twice.

[kirgi08]

[Airborne Infantryman]

Store owner can do whatever the **** he pleases. Customers can decide where they want to shop. I have a striking suspicion that he won't lose much business, if any, because of it.

As for all the political bull**** - I'm on the verge of suck-starting a ****ing M203 because its redundant.

[roger123]

Originally Posted by Kevinr20

How many gun owners/buyers do you know voted for Obama?

My dad.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by Kevinr20

How many gun owners/buyers do you know voted for Obama?

62 million people voted for Obama, in a country with 70-80 million gun owners. Please tell me you don't HONESTLY think that all the gun owners in the country voted the other way.

Contrary to this board's obviously skewed* perspectives, guns are truly not that high of a priority for most voters, be them on the left OR the right.




*BTW, that's not a criticism. This is a gun board. I would expect gun issues to be a higher priority. If you were on a pick-up truck forum, they'd likely be saying "How many truck owners do you think really voted for him??" The point being, just because it seems like the be-all-end-all issue that it appears to be when viewed through the GlockTalk prism.

[raven11]

Originally Posted by Airborne Infantryman

As for all the political bull**** - I'm on the verge of suck-starting a ****ing M203 because its redundant.

suicide brief 2100h next Friday

[janice6]

Can't wait for the ACLU to go to court to force the gun store to sell pistols to liberals.

I don't need a policy difference of opinion to hate politicians.

[oldman11]

Originally Posted by janice6

Can't wait for the ACLU to go to court to force the gun store to sell pistols to liberals.

I don't need a policy difference of opinion to hate politicians.

Good post Jan. I didn't think about that, but I surely wouldn't be surprised.

[Airborne Infantryman]

Originally Posted by raven11

suicide brief 2100h next Friday

I'll be signed out on PCS leave.

[Paul53]

Originally Posted by Anglin_AZ

Well I hate to say it but some of us pro gun folk are some ignorant fools. AZ came out to be a purple state this last election while at the same time one of the most progressive gun rights sates in the nation.

I went to the gun show a few weekends ago in Glendale and it seemed to be an Obama hate fest and when I asked what has he has done to limit guns rights most stood with a blank stare. And the one guy that told me about the UN treaty couldn't find an answer when I asked what treaty has ever stripped rights or given additional rights to our citizenry.

Nothing to add. Just seemed like it should get posted more than once. Thanks Anglin!

[Tarkio]

Originally Posted by greentriple

Look, I agree with you the economy sucks and it sucked worse when Obama came into office. I don't think either man would have a real significant effect on the future of the economy, it has historically righted and wronged itself, with few exceptions (Bill Clinton era). O represents change and I am a strong believer that change is what makes this nation great. Stagnant conservative ideas do nothing to grow our nation. You can't alienate women, minorities, the poor and anyone who is not upper middle class and white and expect to represent this country. It ain't 1950. If republicans are able to open their tent and really include more than what they expound now I have no issue voting for an elephant. You can't try and outlaw a woman's right to choose are peoples right to marry people of the same gender and represent the majority in this nation. You can't decide that the bible is the "only" word of God or that there is a God and then dictate your politics on dogma and expect to represent a religiously diverse nation. That is why I voted for Obama.

You sir are the epitome of an Obama voter/supporter.

You are easily induced to believe whatever garbage is fed to you.

You claim the economy rights itself without regard to leadership or government involvement and then later espouse a belief/support of the Keynesian theory of economics. You can't have it both ways no matter how tantalizing it is to do so.

It's also obvious that you have little appreciation of how the real economy works. You may have taken courses in economics, but theory and academia are typically quite different from the real world of business and economics.

Let me say one final thing about O. You may see him as an agent of change and think that change is a positive thing. A couple things I learned after being involved in business for myself and with hundreds of other independent businessmen over the past 20 years: change for the sake of change is nothing if not absolute foolishness; change without clear idea and plan for what and where you are wanting to go, is puerile and the embodiment of immature idealism. To support O because he represents change is not logical. Unless he, and you, for that matter, truly understand the root of the problem and have an idea of where to go from here to resolve and improve the situation, then there's an equal chance that change is going to take you from the pan to the fire. And in O's case, his track record proves he doesn't understand the root of the problem and definitely doesn't understand how to get out of this.

[greentriple]

Originally Posted by Tarkio

You sir are the epitome of an Obama voter/supporter.

You are easily induced to believe whatever garbage is fed to you.

You claim the economy rights itself without regard to leadership or government involvement and then later espouse a belief/support of the Keynesian theory of economics. You can't have it both ways no matter how tantalizing it is to do so.

It's also obvious that you have little appreciation of how the real economy works. You may have taken courses in economics, but theory and academia are typically quite different from the real world of business and economics.

Let me say one final thing about O. You may see him as an agent of change and think that change is a positive thing. A couple things I learned after being involved in business for myself and with hundreds of other independent businessmen over the past 20 years: change for the sake of change is nothing if not absolute foolishness; change without clear idea and plan for what and where you are wanting to go, is puerile and the embodiment of immature idealism. To support O because he represents change is not logical. Unless he, and you, for that matter, truly understand the root of the problem and have an idea of where to go from here to resolve and improve the situation, then there's an equal chance that change is going to take you from the pan to the fire. And in O's case, his track record proves he doesn't understand the root of the problem and definitely doesn't understand how to get out of this.

Clearly you only pick and choose from what I type to give yourself a soapbox. But, if you'd read and comprehended what I was writing rather than simply attacking you'd have saved your fingers. I don't claim to be an economist, nor do I think a class or two in school make me an expert. Nor do I think sitting around with like minded people gives me knowledge or perspective as your post obviously indicates you do. Change for change sake is not why I voted for O, if you read my post carefully you'll see his beliefs, or at least as compared to the republican alternative best reflect mine on how we treat each other and who we as Americans are.

Say good night Gracie....


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Tarkio]

Originally Posted by greentriple

Clearly you only pick and choose from what I type to give yourself a soapbox. But, if you'd read and comprehended what I was writing rather than simply attacking you'd have saved your fingers. I don't claim to be an economist, nor do I think a class or two in school make me an expert. Nor do I think sitting around with like minded people gives me knowledge or perspective as your post obviously indicates you do. Change for change sake is not why I voted for O, if you read my post carefully you'll see his beliefs, or at least as compared to the republican alternative best reflect mine on how we treat each other and who we as Americans are.

Say good night Gracie....


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

No, I simply hit the highest of many points in which you failed. I will touch on a few others as well now.

You stated that most bad economies will right themselves and later state the Keynesian theory that recoveries are driven by government spending because no one else is willing to step up to the plate. Stating those 2 things are about as polar opposite in economic theory that you can get.

I don't sit around with like-minded people to create my understanding and knowledge of finance, economics and business. My knowledge has come from real-world experience where my butt and that of my family's is on the line every week. There's no one there to take care of me and my family but myself. I can't get my work done, my clients dont pay and there's no employer to pay me regardless of what I do or don't do. So, don't cast aspersions on me, belittling me by implying I simply sit around with drooling neanderthals to reinforce my misguided beliefs. If you want to discuss economics etc., fine let's discuss economics. But don't come back later after you step in it and run for cover by saying, "well, I'm not an economist..." When you do that, it becomes incredibly transparent that you have no idea of which you speak.

You state:

Change for change sake is not why I voted for O

And, that I should read your posts. Which I did, including the following:

O represents change and I am a strong believer that change is what makes this nation great. Stagnant conservative ideas do nothing to grow our nation.

You are having a little trouble keeping your story straight.One would think an educated person such as yourself, could do a better job keeping your STORY straight.

Again, I know if feels good to emote, but this is a big-boy world where decisions such as elections have real-world consequences. When we are facing serious, dire economic times, feelings and emotions have no place in decision-making.

Your statement about government spending to take place of private industry when they are to afraid to step into the market brings to light a point I started to make earlier, but there was so much ground to cover that I, to use your words, decided to save my fingers. I've no delusions about changing your mind. But I cannot allow this drivel to go completely unopposed. Let me ask you a serious question. Why do you think business-people are scared and sitting on the sidelines? If you had ever been in a serious management position where you were responsible for making very profound (read that as big bucks involved) decisions, you would know that the best manager is one that gets the most accomplished with the absolute least amount of risk. IOW, where I think administratively O and his ilk have failed is that they feel they are the only cure to that which ills us. When reality is, the best thing they could have done is lay the groundwork to convince all those holding cash on the sidelines to step into the market with the money they are holding. Let private industry to stimulate the economy with private funds. Do not take from me and others, filter that through the inefficiencies and corruption of government, and have some sorry bureaucrats with no business experience to determine where to spend the funds to try and stimulate the economy.

Imagine the flood of capital into the economy if capital gains were zeroed out or dropped to 5 - 7.5%. Do you have any idea how much money would cascade into the market? Now a lot of these class-warfarelords would absolutely wet the bed if you suggest this, but you are getting done what needs to be done, without any additional confiscatory tax practices.

As to your social concerns, show me where a Republican has done any serious damage to any of these social groups? Do they pat their heads, rubs their backs, tell them that whatever they want to do is fine in order to affirm these peoples' personal choices? No. But they also don't remove any real rights. So much of what is being demanded by special-interest groups is simply attempts to get Daddy (aka the government) to tell them that no matter what they choose to do, Daddy supports them. Most of the republicans that the left claims to be a threat to everyone's rights, might personally disagree with some social choices/activities/lifestyles etc., but there is no large-scale effort to curb or make illegal these choices etc. The republican I hoped would be entering the WH is a big boy who knows how to prioritize and fix problems, like the economy. You don't deal with a burning home by weeding the garden. You deal with the big items and move on.

Finally, if the federal government is emasculated by the continued crushing economic woes, do you think Daddy (federal government) would be able to placate and cater to all these social groups? It's time to quit all this bed-wetting about hurting peoples' feelings and get to work fixing the fricken economy. It's time to make tough decisions and stop wasting time worrying about these petty issues. As I tell my elementary-aged children, toughen up buttercup. Stop looking for affirmations and a pat on the head and start worrying and working on the real issues at hand.

Oh, and one other thing, don't call me Gracie.

[TACLOAD]

Originally Posted by Anglin_AZ

Well I hate to say it but some of us pro gun folk are some ignorant fools. AZ came out to be a purple state this last election while at the same time one of the most progressive gun rights sates in the nation.

I went to the gun show a few weekends ago in Glendale and it seemed to be an Obama hate fest and when I asked what has he has done to limit guns rights most stood with a blank stare. And the one guy that told me about the UN treaty couldn't find an answer when I asked what treaty has ever stripped rights or given additional rights to our citizenry.

Great post!

[Tarkio]

Originally Posted by Anglin_AZ

Well I hate to say it but some of us pro gun folk are some ignorant fools. AZ came out to be a purple state this last election while at the same time one of the most progressive gun rights sates in the nation.

I went to the gun show a few weekends ago in Glendale and it seemed to be an Obama hate fest and when I asked what has he has done to limit guns rights most stood with a blank stare. And the one guy that told me about the UN treaty couldn't find an answer when I asked what treaty has ever stripped rights or given additional rights to our citizenry.

Simple, look at his supreme court appointments and that will tell you what he is likely to appoint in the future. We are a heartbeat away from having decisions such as Heller overturned and the "RKBA" no longer being interpreted as an individual right.

[fnfalman]

Originally Posted by Airborne Infantryman

As for all the political bull**** - I'm on the verge of suck-starting a ****ing M203 because its redundant.

If you can get your mouth to cover the M203's muzzle then you're in the wrong line of business. I heard that Vivid Video is paying quite well.

[RicoGordo]

Originally Posted by greentriple

Your wife let's you do that? Mine stopped after the "I Do"

Eh? Most women love that. Ask her for directions -- that is the only way to be a good lover, unless you have ESP!