Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description


Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Slug71, Oct 21, 2013.

  1. Slug71


    Mar 7, 2010
    Oregon - U.S.A
  2. Chronos


    Nov 26, 2007
    Hasn't he heard? Interest rates will never, ever rise again to their historical averages -- that means we can borrow forever!!!

  3. Slug71


    Mar 7, 2010
    Oregon - U.S.A
    I bet a few liberals have quite the headache now after seeing this on their beloved media. More confused than ever.
  4. They know what the issues are, they don't care!
  5. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    Jun 20, 2002
    Wow! Talk about talking in circles? Basically he wants Obummer to assume the dictator role! Go full retard Socialist. As POTUS he can't create the Infrastucture bank. Congress would have to approve it. Cause he would be circumventing the IRS and bring the rapat money in untaxed. Like we'd trust that criminal with all that money unchecked! Not!:steamed:
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2013
  6. aircarver

    aircarver Ride Continues Silver Member

    For starters, he ain't your 'president' ....

    ... he's a communist who wants to destroy the U S as we knew it.


  7. czsmithGT


    Jan 8, 2004
  8. JBnTX

    JBnTX Bible Thumper

    Aug 28, 2008
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2013
  9. callihan_44

    callihan_44 INFIDEL

    Aug 19, 2010
    im not sure if he is advocating obama go full dictator or what, but i agree about the corruption... the parties care more about retaining power than doing the right thing. Im sorry but amnesty-and obamacare is NOT the right thing for this country.
  10. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    I think this guy just came to the realization that a lot of thinking people have finally come to. That our political system is so broken, that it is incapable of repairing itself, or of being repaired by the voters.

    So now what?
  11. For a start, the myth that democracy is the best form of government needs to be exposed to the light of day. The idea that one person (the eighth voter out of fifteen otherwise equally divided people) should decide for all fifteen is ludicrous.

    As Mr Heinlein put it:

    Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something.

    Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  12. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    Jan 24, 2011
    I simply do not buy the whole "congress is bought" line. Surely money as an impact but the truth is that financial resources are NOT nearly as easy to convert into political resources as most people believe. And this is proven over and over again.

    If it was then Kerry would have beaten George Bush, Romney would have beaten Obama and the NRA might as well fold up shop becasue Bloomberg alone is worth many many billions and could very easily outspend the NRA without blinking.

    Oh, and for a very recent example the recall elections in CO where the DNC, Bloomberg and other antigun folks out spent the pro gun side TEN times and both incumbent anti-gun politicians still lost.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2013
  13. Gundude


    Mar 7, 2003
    Maybe, but it's the conversion of political resources to financial that's more of a problem. Once the politicians are elected, they're using their political resources to enrich themselves (by making law based not on what their constituents want nor what's good for their district or the country, but instead based on what those paying them want). They are being bought. That was the guy's point. Not that they're buying their office, but that they themselves are being bought by others.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2013
  14. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    Jan 24, 2011
    I still don't think it is anywhere near as many claim.

    You hear the claims all the time about the reason "common sense" gun control can't get through congress is because the NRA a "owns" so many.. Those (and many claims just like it) are obviously verifiably false. As I pointed out, the antigun side has VASTLY greater financial resources. It's not even close when it comes to financial resources.. Yet the NRA has as much power as it does because of a myriad of other reasons not the least of which is real influence over how people actually vote.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2013
  15. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    When you talk about Presidential elections, or something like the CO initiative, the sides are fairly evenly matched in campaign contributions and funding. Where your argument breaks down, is in more one sided contests, like when someone attempts to oust an incumbent, who has been raking in campaign cash for favors for two to six, or more years. Who is the only person who is going to be able to compete against that? Only somebody who has somebody with big money backing and controlling them.

    Mr. Smith goes to Washington is a fairy tale these days.
  16. ked


    Feb 12, 2007
  17. RickD

    RickD Pro-Open Curry Millennium Member

    Sep 26, 1999
    This is not his first rant.

    Google "Dylan Ratigan Rant." :upeyes:

    He's a leftist populist, generally, with a business degree.
  18. czsmithGT


    Jan 8, 2004
    Unfortunately, you are laboring under a misconception.

    He said we owe SEVENTY TRILLION DOLLARS. not 17 trillion. He is talking about all the unfunded liabilities, not just the crap you see on the phony "debt clock".

    The clip was from a show he did in August of 2011.
  19. DonGlock26


    Jan 18, 2001
    That and Obamacare falling flat on its face. :faint:

    I know a rabid progressive and she was all "Obamacare this and Obamacare that". Well lately, she has been a quiet as a church mouse.

    Last edited: Oct 23, 2013
  20. TheJ

    TheJ NRA Life Member Lifetime Member

    Jan 24, 2011
    My point is certainly not that money has no effect or that there is no corruption. It's merely that, contrary to the often parroted popular belief, economic resources are not nearly as easily converted to political resources as most believe or would have others believe.

    Notice that especially in local contests unions have often had more political power than the far greater economic resourced companies they work. That is another example of how the political resource equation is obviously about far more than mere finance.

    What I think many do not realize is that having people believe that wealth or income inequality will inevitably lead to a break down of democracy is among the central reasoning for redistributive and social-justice policies. It also in part why there is such a push back by liberals in legally treating corporations (made up people) as people... Because they see that as leading to a break down of democracy. If you read Friedrich Hayek (author of the Inequality Road to Serfdom), he uses similar slippery-slope logic that thrives in the thought of contemporary egalitarian liberals. You see it in the pages of academic journals and in the editorials in newspapers. There is more than one road to serfdom and, according to the liberals, an excess of income/wealth inequality sets us on one of them. If you convince everyone that money directly translates to political power than it is much easier to sell redistributive policies to most folks.

    Edit: Also the presidential elections and CO recalls were cases where the sides were NOT matched. That was my point... that even though some political candidates vastly out financed the other they still lost.
    In CO the two INCUMBENT Democrat politicians (one being the CO Senate President) in heavily Democrat precincts OUTSPENT their Republican challengers by 6-10 TIMES and yet they both still lost.
    In the presidential elections Romney and his wife were many times more wealthy than Obama not just during the campaign but for many many years. He ran for president for years! With all that financial resources and years of campaigning he certainly should have carried far far more political weight into the election if financial resources were easily converted to political resources.. Similar story for John (Heinz) Kerry and his wife were vastly more wealthy than George Bush and his wife yet similar outcome to the Obama/Romney campaign...

    The story plays out over and over agin. Yes of course money plays a role in getting organized and messages out but you simply can not escape the fact that financial resources are NOT very easily converted to political resources. Money is but one part of the equation of politics.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2013