close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Romney won the debate - but

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by G19G20, Oct 4, 2012.

  1. I didn't finish reading the thread so forgive me if this was addressed. You do know that virtually none of the actions taken during the 20s, 30s, or early 40s had any real impact on the economy (at least any helpful impact)? Be careful when you reference history to support a faulty conclusion. It took WW2 to get us out of the Great Depression.

    On a separate note, for those of you who aren't voting because you don't like Romney: do you really think your failure to support Romney is beneficial? Make no mistake. Not voting for Romney is still a vote for Obama.
     
  2. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    It loses all relevance and impact when both sides are using the same fear based rhetoric, with the only difference being the names. It's a great way to wrangle the crowds into voting for more-of-the-same though.

    As Ive said before, the only people more rabid than Paul supporters are Paul haters. You have a serious case of the Paul Derangement Syndrome. And for the record, RP would have torn Obama apart last night by bringing up real issues like the Fed monetizing federal gov't debt and inflation and all the other issues that neither Mitt nor Obama will talk about.
     

    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012

  3. whoflungdo

    whoflungdo

    8,412
    134
    Jul 15, 2008
    MS
    That was very kind of you. I bet you are a whiz at Powerpoint too..:wavey:
     
  4. Providence

    Providence

    555
    2
    Feb 5, 2011
    Woodstock, GA
    I agree.


    Please vote! It's that important!
     
  5. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,451
    499
    Mar 7, 2003
    Obama.

    Ohhh, I see what you did there. A person's vote in itself is obnoxious if it's not the same as yours. You got me :upeyes:

    You still think any non-Romney vote by a libertarian is some kind of tantrum or revenge for RP losing, don't you?

    You really can't fathom that:
    1. A vote for Obama by a libertarian can be a pragmatic "lesser of two evils" vote
    2. A third party vote by a libertarian can actually be a reflection of a preference for that third party, and not a revenge vote from an event long past
    can you?
     
  6. 427

    427

    6,997
    0
    Nov 23, 2009
    KUMSC
    Whatever. The fact is, third parties don't win and they siphon votes.


    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  7. douggmc

    douggmc

    1,851
    9
    Feb 23, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    Agreed. Further the "dramatic reductions in taxes" in early 1920s ( http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 ) that you cite and attribute to the roaring 20s ended in ... what? Hint .. started 29/30 :) Sound familiar? Examine the tax rates during that time frame vs. what we started doing in Reagan years and you'll see a parallel.
     
  8. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    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?

    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.

    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. No matter what YOU think a large number of of the folks still look at Romney as "conservative". If he wins he would certainly be better than 4 more of Obama. Take some of the credit for it. Losing the election outright is going to get you NO credit with the voters, all you can do, as I said, is be in position to catch the blame and damage the party's reputation. Take the small victories and create a winning record.
     
  9. douggmc

    douggmc

    1,851
    9
    Feb 23, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    Weak dude ... weeeeaaaak. :yawn:
     
  10. whoflungdo

    whoflungdo

    8,412
    134
    Jul 15, 2008
    MS
    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?
     
  11. whoflungdo

    whoflungdo

    8,412
    134
    Jul 15, 2008
    MS

    Thank you for caring enough to respond to my weeeaaakk retort. Maybe you can teach me some of your verbal jujitsu.:supergrin:
     
  12. 427

    427

    6,997
    0
    Nov 23, 2009
    KUMSC
    Based on what you've said in the past, I don't buy your premise(s).
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  13. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    Or maybe the fact that the feds STOPPED doing the stuff they were doing in the 20s, 30s, and 40s got us out of the Depression? All WW2 did was send gov't spending and borrowing through the roof and institute inflation in order to set a "new normal" and saddle the next generations with the war debt. The ending of the constant gov't interventions in the financial markets and monetary policies was what ended the Depression. We're seeing it playing out nearly identically right now. The more the gov't does to "fix it", the worse the situation becomes. The only way to resolve the issues to to let the market work and liquidate the bad debt, let failed companies fail (banks, eg), and stop trusting the Ivory Tower folks to be smart enough to actually "fix" anything.

    Blah blah. It's beneficial in that my principles stay intact and maybe the GOP will realize that nominating liberals only guarantees more loses. Btw, I don't depend on gov't for my existence, good or bad, so I have little stake in the outcome of who wins the election as it stands now. That's one of the biggest appeals of conservatism to me. Small gov't generally means letting me take care of myself. Neither Mitt nor Barack offer this appeal.
     
  14. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,451
    499
    Mar 7, 2003
    Why, thanks for asking! :cheers:

    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."
     
  15. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    I have no problem fathoming your being wrong. No problem at all. It is nice to know however that your support for a third party, which is parasiting the Republicans, comes from the position of an Obama voter who wants Obama reelected. Confirms what I thought. No he certainly isn't the "lesser of two evils" but that shows more liberal than conservative in the "Libertarian" view.

    I can understand that people want to reflect their preference, to make themselves feel better without accomplishing anything. Happens all the time.
     
  16. AtlantaR6

    AtlantaR6

    299
    0
    Jul 29, 2004
    He had 2 minutes to answer a question! If he went more detailed no one would understand in 2 minutes Wtf he was talking about.

    You have 2 minutes to tell me how a Glock works and I've never heard of a gun. Are you going to talk about gunpowder, spark, and lead, or get into the mechanics of the striker pin hits the primer, the slide ejects the shell, and the feed ramp works?
     
  17. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    And why is that? Because they don't want to change things in a major way perhaps? I would say yes. They got their rino nominated, he gave a good speech and the republicans have tingles running up their legs today but, never forget how the republicans stood in the way of the TEA party getting anything accomplished. The republican establishment is only against obama's form of big government while they fully embrace their own version of big government.
     
  18. douggmc

    douggmc

    1,851
    9
    Feb 23, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    With all due respect ... are you in a bizarro fact world? :wavey:

    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! :faint:

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,451
    499
    Mar 7, 2003
    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.

    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.
     
  20. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    Ive seen the argument before and there is a pragmatic strategy if one chooses to exercise it, depending on individual ideology.

    Obama is only guaranteed 4 more years if elected. Republicans continue to fiercely counter his agenda and resist sliding further to the left. Then, a more conservative and hopefully a liberty minded Republican can then run in 2016, such as Rand Paul or another up-and-comer.

    If Romney wins then it's 4 years of him likely pushing a similar agenda to Obama's (on large scale issues), moving the party itself further to the left and still have no primary challenge in 2016, even if Romney turns out be horrible. You'll still be expected to fall in line behind him in 2016. The Dems can put up their terrible "anybody but Romney" candidate (Hillary?) and possibly win. If Romney wins a second term despite this, liberty minded Republicans are left to wait until 2020(!) to try to field another candidate. By then, who knows how much of this country will even be left intact to fight over. Will conservatism even exist by 2020 with guys like Romney and Obama as the choices in 2012?

    In this context, a vote for Obama can be a strategic vote for anyone that's tired of the current status quo of bad nominees with little differences and little respect for the Constitution. It's not the strategy I'm following but it is a strategy worth understanding, particularly if you're not happy with either party.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012