Tea Party, Medicare scooters and Sacred Cows [Archive]

cowbilly

October 04, 2010, 19:35

So should we require testing for the right/priviledge of voting? There is really no fix, at least not one people are willing to do.

I say you should have to fill out a Form 1, get fingerprinted, get a CLEO signoff and pay a $200 tax per election. That ought to do it, the ones that don't care won't bother.

Another solution may be to require 4-6 years honorable military service to vote.

While I'm on the military: I wish I had a dime everytime "flower power Jaunni" calls for massive cuts in a military that is barely strong enough to do what we are doing now. We're parking tanks and artillery by the minute, you know, the stuff we'll need for the next war and all.

Cut pay for Senators and Congressmen by 40%, make them pay for their healthcare like Reservists and National Guardsmen do. They should also have the same retirement as the military, nothing more. End SS effective now for all 21 years old and younger effective immediately. Cut BATFE out all together. Cut the EPA, Dept of Justice, and Dept of ED by 50%. End the IRS and go to a national sales tax. Welfare and unemployment need to be there but limited in time as this is a failure in our own morals, people don't help one another as they used too.

Juanni, be sure you opt out of your SS entitlements that would be a good start too (set the example). Still not sure what you stand for as you complain about everything.

Military spending should be maintained for peacetime if it ever comes (we still have men in combat for those of you not keeping track). Current force is fine if no war. Keep NASA and restore it to what it was. Uncle Sugar needs to get out of the rest.

JasonB

October 04, 2010, 19:44

Originally posted by cowbilly

While I'm on the military: I wish I had a dime everytime "flower power Jaunni" calls for massive cuts in a military that is barely strong enough to do what we are doing now. We're parking tanks and artillery by the minute, you know, the stuff we'll need for the next war and all.

That is funny. Ever read "War is a Racket"? I doubt things have become more noble since that time.

juanni

October 04, 2010, 23:31

Originally posted by JasonB

That is funny. Ever read "War is a Racket"? I doubt things have become more noble since that time.

Yes it is. In a sad sort of way. :sad:

And yes cowbilly I would like to opt out of SS. Where do I sign up so they stop the deductions and return my cash. :wink:

...............juanni

TheJokker

October 05, 2010, 06:55

Originally posted by juanni

Who are YOU of all people to call Rolling Stone "leftist"?
You support Big Govt, Big Bailouts,,,,,,, and the candidates that voted for BOTH. :confused:

The article points out many of the facts of the tea party members conflicting claims and goal, who cares who wrote it?

...............juanni

wrong... i oppose liberal democrats and unlike you i am committed to action. you are big bag of hot air who is all talk and no walk.

how will political change? tell us juanni... if you really want it to happen there has to be a process. there must be a road map. educate us. everybody who wants smaller government and supports the electoral process is wrong so what can we do? what is the entire country missing?

martin35

October 05, 2010, 07:07

SocSec was not a bad idea as originally proposed and passed but letting government manage it was a bad idea from the start. A savings plan for old age should be part of every citizens obligation.
It is my contention we all get what we deserve in almost every case individually and collectively as a people,,,our tears of contrition and recrimination not withstanding, only death, lack of effort and or complacent ignorance hinder success of peoples progress, government today can fix none of those for the masses, only for the select few.

Munster30

October 05, 2010, 08:20

Ever been to a rally Juanni? The RR piece is akin to the story of the 3 blind men describing an elephant, only the author is a single blind guy with an obviously prescribed narrative and what he writes fits into the mold he wants to put it in.
Rolling Stone just gave your guy Obama the biggest wettest toungue bath any of the media have so far, bet you enjoyed that one too.

juanni

October 05, 2010, 08:28

Originally posted by TheJokker

how will political change? tell us juanni... if you really want it to happen there has to be a process. there must be a road map. educate us. everybody who wants smaller government and supports the electoral process is wrong so what can we do? what is the entire country missing?

Simple, stop doing everything you have done your whole life.

Get some principles and start assisting, supporting and voting for principled candidates that actually support small limited govt, the open, free market, personal liberty and responsiblity and the Constitution instead of party candidates hacks that won't do any of that and are destroying America election cycle after election cycle, new program after new program, deficit budget after deficit budget and new power grab after new power grab.

Stop supporting evil, thinking you are defeating evil, because you are not.
Stop the denial.

..............juanni

juanni

October 05, 2010, 08:32

Originally posted by Munster30
Ever been to a rally Juanni? The RR piece is akin to the story of the 3 blind men describing an elephant, only the author is a single blind guy with an obviously prescribed narrative and what he writes fits into the mold he wants to put it in.
Rolling Stone just gave your guy Obama the biggest wettest toungue bath any of the media have so far, bet you enjoyed that one too.

You Munster you seem incapable of answering a simple question.

I will try again,
Where are the Tea Party leaders or organizations proposals for seriously slashing govt?

You would like us to believe that the author, because he writes for Rolling Stone ignored and excluded ALL the cuts that Tea Partiers demand.

So stop blabbing about R.S, Obama, and "the wettest toungue baths" and SHOW US all the slashing.

still waiting................

.................juanni

cowbilly

October 05, 2010, 09:50

No Juanni, you pay your tax, just don't apply for SS. Like I said, lead by example you crazy crusader.

War is often a racket when your goals are not defined. The true aim of a war is to preserve yourself (country), forward your (country's) ideals and destroy the enemy as quickly as possible. Politicians tend to drag out wars for personal benefit. As a Soldier I hate war with all of my heart but it comes with wearing the uniform and is sometimes necessary.

One more juanni, back when you were creating all those jobs, did you ever panic and fire everybody?:tongue:

Just askin' since you have that panic "cut everything" mantra.:devil:

juanni

October 05, 2010, 10:35

Originally posted by cowbilly
No Juanni, you pay your tax, just don't apply for SS. Like I said, lead by example you crazy crusader.

Right, I should continue paying into SS and then don't apply for benefits. :rolleyes:

Better yet, I should send in twice what I own on FED taxes. ;)
Might as well give my all property and possessions away too.

You are full of great ideas cowbilly, here is mine.

Small govt, small spending, small taxes, stop all the international meddling, open free markets and let the ambitious and the economy prosper.

Public and corporate welfare queens can go bankrupt or get productive, (except for the truely disabled).

..............juanni

Pistolwiz

October 05, 2010, 10:57

Originally posted by juanni

Simple, stop doing everything you have done your whole life.

Get some principles and start assisting, supporting and voting for principled candidates that actually support small limited govt, the open, free market, personal liberty and responsiblity and the Constitution instead of party candidates hacks that won't do any of that and are destroying America election cycle after election cycle, new program after new program, deficit budget after deficit budget and new power grab after new power grab.

Stop supporting evil, thinking you are defeating evil, because you are not.
Stop the denial.

..............juanni

Juanni........ You are one of the most conservative folks here.

And you seek the truth of a matter. I admire your long time stance here at the files. Keep wearing them away.

I'm sure you've convinced many lurkers that visit here of the facts.

Remember you are talking to many flatearthers Juanni. They won't change the way they think no matter how much fact is brought to light and proven.

They inhabit the L&R, D v R, Fascism v Commies, etc.... false paradigm their masters provide.

The Catholic church provided the false paradigm for that kinda folk way back when.

They won't think out of the box provided for them. They will hold on to a belief over fact almost every time.

Denial is their silent mantra........

And Gawd only knows how many times they stamp their feet on certain parts of the constitution while holding up the virtues of another.

;)

juanni

October 05, 2010, 13:16

Originally posted by Pistolwiz

Juanni........ You are one of the most conservative folks here.

And you seek the truth of a matter. I admire your long time stance here at the files. Keep wearing them away.

I'm sure you've convinced many lurkers that visit here of the facts.

Thanks!!!! :beer: :beer: :beer:

................juanni

longhair51

October 05, 2010, 13:51

Originally posted by juanni
Small govt, small spending, small taxes, stop all the international meddling, open free markets and let the ambitious and the economy prosper.

Public and corporate welfare queens can go bankrupt or get productive, (except for the truly disabled).
Although I don't think we disagree too much, I find your ideas too broad and vague. To illustrate, I made a post on another thread where I listed specific items that I think we should do. I can't remember them all, but some were to: eliminate the depts of education, batfe, federal reserve ect. I would also mandate competitive bidding without minority or small business set asides(if their good enough, they will be able to compete). Take back the congress. We will make the rules of legislative process. As has been mentioned before I would set congressional pay by way of a true citizens board, and let them join social security or opt out and pay for their own retirement. Not every govt agency needs their own swat team or security force. If security is needed we have U.S. Marshall's

That is about all I can remember right now except for an across the board cut of 20-30% for a start. This includes everyone and every dept, except perhaps the truly disabled.

It is easy to propose ideals. Politicians propose ideals, I would like to see specifics

cowbilly

October 05, 2010, 14:11

Don't be fooled, Juanni is no conservative, his posts zigzag from bleeding heart liberal to anarchy, it is America and he can do that all day for as long as he wants, no issues with that, just read his posts.

He'll get his SS check when it is time, complainig about the system as he cashes it. Again, lead by example Juanni.

I'll be 40 soon, I will not have SS, it will crash and burn by the the time I'm old enough but I will continue to pay the tax as it supports those on it now that is my minor sacrifice.

juanni

October 05, 2010, 14:58

Originally posted by longhair51

Although I don't think we disagree too much, I find your ideas too broad and vague. To illustrate, I made a post on another thread where I listed specific items that I think we should do. I can't remember them all, but some were to: eliminate the depts of education, batfe, federal reserve ect. I would also mandate competitive bidding without minority or small business set asides(if their good enough, they will be able to compete). Take back the congress. We will make the rules of legislative process. As has been mentioned before I would set congressional pay by way of a true citizens board, and let them join social security or opt out and pay for their own retirement. Not every govt agency needs their own swat team or security force. If security is needed we have U.S. Marshall's

That is about all I can remember right now except for an across the board cut of 20-30% for a start. This includes everyone and every dept, except perhaps the truly disabled.

It is easy to propose ideals. Politicians propose ideals, I would like to see specifics

We currently borrow over 40 cents of every dollar we spend.

The Tea Partiers and their leaders say they want.
Small Govt and lower taxes.
So govt spending must be cut by 40% just to be revenue neutral,,, let alone if you want lower taxes.

So where are all the Tea Party proposals to cut 40% or more????

NOWHERE, that is why to date the party is nothing but a bad joke.

My quickie proposals.
End the FED
End the bailouts, liquidate the insolvent, prosecute and clawback the taxpayer cash.
End SS, Medicare, etc
End the wars, end the foreign bases, cut defense by 50%.
End dept of Ed and all the welfare aimed at public education which has ONLY driven up costs.
Same for the medical industry, people will start taking care of their health (obesity, diabeties etc) when the welfare ends.
End Fannie and Freddie.
End the drug wars.
Flat tax, or tariff tax and no IRS,,,, whatever something simple and FAIR with 0 deductions beyond basic poverty income. If you want to have 20 kids great, but no tax break.
End corporate taxes BUT allow zero political influence. No lobbying, no donations, no nothing.

That is approaching 40%, later we can talk lowering taxes.

.................juanni

juanni

October 05, 2010, 15:04

Originally posted by cowbilly
Don't be fooled, Juanni is no conservative, his posts zigzag from bleeding heart liberal to anarchy, it is America and he can do that all day for as long as he wants, no issues with that, just read his posts.

You equate "bleeding heart liberal" with someone who doesn't think we should be world wide warmongering with no real achievable objectives on borrowed money. :rolleyes:

...................juanni

cowbilly

October 05, 2010, 15:24

You mantra shows again Juanni.

You assume much.

juanni

October 05, 2010, 15:50

Originally posted by cowbilly
You mantra shows again Juanni.

You assume much.

Oh?
Pony up the posts where I display my "bleeding heart liberal" qualifications. :p

...........waiting

.............juanni

JasonB

October 05, 2010, 16:46

Originally posted by cowbilly

War is often a racket when your goals are not defined. The true aim of a war is to preserve yourself (country), forward your (country's) ideals and destroy the enemy as quickly as possible. Politicians tend to drag out wars for personal benefit. As a Soldier I hate war with all of my heart but it comes with wearing the uniform and is sometimes necessary.

According to the person who wrote "War is a Racket":

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

cowbilly

October 05, 2010, 19:18

Anyone interested, just do a search for posts by juanni. The vast majority are political in nature. A good many are about Iraq and Afghanistan, most are against the war and armchair quarterbacking after the fact (it is a free country, no problem with it what so ever).

Juanni, let us start with you definition of a warmonger. What do you consider a warmonger? Someone who believes the terrorists who brought down the towers and hit the pentagon with hijacked commercial planes should pay with their lives? I guess I am one if that is your definition, but having been there I can honestly say I hate war more than you.

Your views on the military are very liberal. Most of your posts pertaining to the military suggest a weak one. In fact, most of your posts on military action reflect democratic talking points when referencing Iraq and overseas bases. In general, you are not very supportive and some of the things you type are things the enemy says. Your posts on the military also reflect an isolationist view of the world. The world is an unfair place and we have military and economic enemies working against our dollar/economy as we type. You like to ignore this fact and pretend there are no enemies.

Remember your post about the military beheading the enemy? One in particular was a slap in the face to any Soldier. It would sound great on Al Jazeera.

You anarchist side insists on doing away with this department or that federal intanty instantly, most of which would create an instant socio-economic collapse of our country. I want a smaller government too, one that does not waste money and is out of the education business but there is a place for a federal government and some programs are necessary. We can't just come to a sudden stop you should know this as a business owner.

JasonB, I don't disagree that war is often a racket. I'm a vet and still serving, I understand it well. But what about everybodys sacred war, WWII? Did that have any purpose other than money? How about the US Civil War? Revolutionary War? That one book does not make one enlightened on matters of the world, it is one of tens of thousands. The rich will always benefit more so than others in most any situation. Which one is worth fighting for, Capitalism, socialism, communism or a monarchy? You have to pick a side at some point. There are times when you can't just walk away.

Back to the military. Chance favors the prepared. If you want peace then prepare for war. Nothing wrong with being strong as strength is easily understood.

juanni

October 05, 2010, 19:50

JasonB

October 05, 2010, 20:54

Originally posted by cowbilly

JasonB, I don't disagree that war is often a racket. I'm a vet and still serving, I understand it well. But what about everybodys sacred war, WWII? Did that have any purpose other than money? How about the US Civil War? Revolutionary War? That one book does not make one enlightened on matters of the world, it is one of tens of thousands. The rich will always benefit more so than others in most any situation. Which one is worth fighting for, Capitalism, socialism, communism or a monarchy? You have to pick a side at some point. There are times when you can't just walk away.

Maybe the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Since then they seem to be somewhat bogus.

Since you mention a certain section of society is benefitting from government subsidies per the choice of fights to get in to, which one of these are you fighting for?

"Which one is worth fighting for, ..........., socialism, communism or a monarchy?"

cowbilly

October 05, 2010, 21:30

JasonB, my posts show my colors, what is yours?

Juanni, it is the best I have time for. You accused the military of beheading, don't crawfish.

Your post history is somewhat anti republican and recently anti tea party. You seldom point out democratic defencies though they have run the country basically for the last 50 years minus a few years here and there. Again the evidence is in your posts. The only form of conservitism I see is some in economic realm.

Only a liberal mindset would suggest cutting the military when men are in the field fighting, half of them gaurdsmen and reservist because the active component is not large enough to handle the task. Almost every post you make calls for cuts in the military in a time of war (for some of us at least). It would take awhile to list the rest, those interested should look at your posts.

You complain about SS but you will take it as you propose a few posts up. This nation needs some leadership so how about we start setting the example in our own yards. The war is no sweat off your brow that is why you speak so flippantly about it. The few who stand up and try to affect change on the conservative side you blast.

I like you jaunni but sometimes I smell hypocrite in your posts. All the jobs you produced, the class warfare posts, the anti military themes, the Democratic Iraq/Afghanistan theme, something just ain't right to claim the title conservative.

Cult of personality is more like it. :p

Now do your worst.

JasonB

October 05, 2010, 22:27

Originally posted by cowbilly
JasonB, my posts show my colors, what is yours?
\

libertarian

So which of the remaining 3 options you listed are you or are you something else?

"Which one is worth fighting for, ............., socialism, communism or a monarchy?"

JasonB

October 05, 2010, 22:29

Originally posted by cowbilly

Only a liberal mindset would suggest cutting the military when men are in the field fighting, half of them gaurdsmen and reservist because the active component is not large enough to handle the task. Almost every post you make calls for cuts in the military in a time of war (for some of us at least). It would take awhile to list the rest, those interested should look at your posts.

Actually, a liberal mindset has always been portrayed as not wanting to live within one's means and wanting everyone else to provide the means.

juanni

October 06, 2010, 06:30

Originally posted by cowbilly

Juanni, it is the best I have time for. You accused the military of beheading, don't crawfish.

Your post history is somewhat anti republican and recently anti tea party. You seldom point out democratic defencies though they have run the country basically for the last 50 years minus a few years here and there. Again the evidence is in your posts. The only form of conservitism I see is some in economic realm.

Please review what I wrote.
I said it was a dumb idea when a poster here suggested that was the way to win the war.

And a few weeks later when the news story broke about someone doing it, again I said it was a dumb idea.

Sorry, but your memory is fuzzy.

While reviewing, please see Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and the last 50 years of congress and the senate.
The fantasy of the republican lack of responsibity and guilt is wrong.

...................juanni

TheJokker

October 06, 2010, 07:01

Originally posted by juanni

Simple, stop doing everything you have done your whole life.

Get some principles and start assisting, supporting and voting for principled candidates that actually support small limited govt, the open, free market, personal liberty and responsiblity and the Constitution instead of party candidates hacks that won't do any of that and are destroying America election cycle after election cycle, new program after new program, deficit budget after deficit budget and new power grab after new power grab.

Stop supporting evil, thinking you are defeating evil, because you are not.
Stop the denial.

..............juanni

big talk now that there is a tea party and the political tide is turning towards traditional reform. where were you two years ago when radical socialists were on the verge of taking over the government and impose their will on america? too pure to take part and oppose the greater evil. even now you are disparaging the reform efforts whose values you "claim" to support.

all talk and no walk, yesterday and today. forever on the sidelines, never "in" the game. too good to participate or too lazy?!

JasonB

October 06, 2010, 18:16

Originally posted by cowbilly

Your post history is somewhat anti republican and recently anti tea party. You seldom point out democratic defencies though they have run the country basically for the last 50 years minus a few years here and there. Again the evidence is in your posts. The only form of conservitism I see is some in economic realm.

Well not exactly. I remember listening to people like Limbaugh in the 1990's and a frequent bitch was the supreme Court followed by a spiel for the republican party, the problem being that the supreme Court decisions they were bitching about were from courts primarily appointed by republicans.

juanni

October 06, 2010, 19:03

Originally posted by TheJokker

big talk now that there is a tea party and the political tide is turning towards traditional reform. where were you two years ago when radical socialists were on the verge of taking over the government and impose their will on america? too pure to take part and oppose the greater evil. even now you are disparaging the reform efforts whose values you "claim" to support.

all talk and no walk, yesterday and today. forever on the sidelines, never "in" the game. too good to participate or too lazy?!

Start at the top of this thread, and then read down.:)

My point is the Tea Party claims it wants smaller govt and less spending, BUT that they really don't want smaller govt and less spending.

If you have any links of Tea Party leaders or organizations ACTUALLY demanding cuts in SS, Medicare or Defense please post them otherwise they are just full of bull, like yourself. ;)

..............juanni

cowbilly

October 06, 2010, 20:52

JasonB, you support legalization of drugs? I checked into the libertarians and found some stuff I could not stand for, some good stuff is there but some things are a little too much for me. Libertarians get liberals elected for the time being, and strategically I can not support that now. The term liberal has changed in meaning over the last 40 years or so. Your liberal judges on the Supreme Court come primarly from Democrats. The last two liberals seated could not be stopped, not enough conservatives. Congress and the Senate make the laws, the democrats have led this branch for the majority of the last 100 years.

As for my colors, capitalism is the closest thing to freedom, maybe the worst form of government but it beats the alternative hands down.

Juanni, your on the wrong thread this is an earlier one. You also have some wonderful comments on Vietnam too. You know, regarding the liberals favorite enemy, the military establishment. My memory is pretty good but thanks for the concern.

Your mantra is also showing again, you must be out of ammo. Your posts condemn you, your last post is telling. When has a politician not been full of bull anyway? No one requires anything of them, morals and standards are going away and increasingly men in this country are no longer men.

You have to push your local politician, they will all sit until you influence them. Republicans are your best bet for now.

Change happens in steps. Sudden change results in anarchy and collapse, I want to preserve this nation for as long as possible. No party is perfect, tea party has its flaws but it beats what we have. It is up to the people to affect change, we can't hope politicians will just do it by themselves, they will have to be pushed. Lead by example, start in your own yard.

One thing is for sure, a hundred years from now our differences won't matter to any of us.
:bigangel:

JasonB

October 06, 2010, 21:47

Originally posted by cowbilly
JasonB, you support legalization of drugs? I checked into the libertarians and found some stuff I could not stand for, some good stuff is there but some things are a little too much for me. Libertarians get liberals elected for the time being, and strategically I can not support that now. The term liberal has changed in meaning over the last 40 years or so. Your liberal judges on the Supreme Court come primarly from Democrats. The last two liberals seated could not be stopped, not enough conservatives. Congress and the Senate make the laws, the democrats have led this branch for the majority of the last 100 years.

As for my colors, capitalism is the closest thing to freedom, maybe the worst form of government but it beats the alternative hands down.

Juanni, your on the wrong thread this is an earlier one. You also have some wonderful comments on Vietnam too. You know, regarding the liberals favorite enemy, the military establishment. My memory is pretty good but thanks for the concern.

Your mantra is also showing again, you must be out of ammo. Your posts condemn you, your last post is telling. When has a politician not been full of bull anyway? No one requires anything of them, morals and standards are going away and increasingly men in this country are no longer men.

You have to push your local politician, they will all sit until you influence them. Republicans are your best bet for now.

Change happens in steps. Sudden change results in anarchy and collapse, I want to preserve this nation for as long as possible. No party is perfect, tea party has its flaws but it beats what we have. It is up to the people to affect change, we can't hope politicians will just do it by themselves, they will have to be pushed. Lead by example, start in your own yard.

One thing is for sure, a hundred years from now our differences won't matter to any of us.
:bigangel:

Yes, drugs should be decriminalized. The war on drugs has been as big of a failure as the war on alcohol. Would you like to see a return to prohibition? Actually, the ingestion of alcohol has been proven to make people violent while the same cannot be said of drugs. The violence related to the drug trade is due to it's being illegal and of course we know the same held true during prohibition. Do you like all of the offshoot controls that have been implemented via the failed war on drugs?

We haven't had capitalism in your lifetime or mine. Unless you are pushing 100 years old you likely never even met anyone who lived in this country when capitalism was practiced and I am not even sure about that time frame giving capitalism a chance. I almost cannot believe you would even attempt that dodge considering the bailout beginning in 2008 weren't that long ago, but after seeing how liberals/conservatives operate I guess it isn't that surprising.

Liberals and conservatives have been defined a lot further back than 1970 and they are cut from the same cloth.

mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf

"Your liberal judges on the Supreme Court come primarly from Democrats. The last two liberals seated could not be stopped, not enough conservatives. "

So 7 non-liberal judges (according to you) could not out vote 2 liberal judges?

and then we have this:

Democrat nominated supreme Court justices since 1961:

Byron White - 1962
Arthur Goldberg - 1962
Abe Fortas - 1965
Thurgood Marshall – 1967
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 1993
Stephen Breyer - 1994
Sonia Sotomayor - 2009
Elena Kagan - 2010

Republican nominated supreme Court justices since 1953:

Earl Warren - 1953 (Chief Justice)
John Marshall Harlan II - 1954
William J. Brennan - 1956
Charles Evans Whittaker - 1957
Potter Stewart - 1958
Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice - 1969
Harry Andrew Blackmun - 1970
Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. - 1972
William Rehnquist - 1972
John Paul Stevens - 1975
Sandra Day O'Connor – 1981
William Rehnquist – Chief Justice, 1986 (an associate justice since 1972)
Antonin Scalia – 1986
Anthony M. Kennedy – 1988
David Souter – 1990
Clarence Thomas – 1991
Samuel Alito - 2006
John G. Roberts Chief Justice - 2005

See a problem there?

When you had republicans in control of the senate, house, & presidency with a an (R) appointed supreme Court majority, how many anti-gun laws got repealed? Did we get any socialized medicine around 2003? Get a further infringement on self loading firearms say around the summer of 2005? Tell me how a republican gun ban is better than a democrat one? Tell me how republican socialized medicine is better?

martin35

October 06, 2010, 22:03

The political era of a presiding President is not accurately described by his party affiliation, but by the presiding Congressional majorities party affiliation.

JasonB

October 07, 2010, 05:50

Originally posted by martin35
The political era of a presiding President is not accurately described by his party affiliation, but by the presiding Congressional majorities party affiliation.

And of course you are saying that to save face considering the check and balance power those presidents with little (R)'s after their names had via their signature, their bully pulpit, and nominations never checked nor balanced anything.

TheJokker

October 07, 2010, 06:55

Originally posted by JasonB

And of course you are saying that to save face considering the check and balance power those presidents with little (R)'s after their names had via their signature, their bully pulpit, and nominations never checked nor balanced anything.

no. he is saying you are distorting the argument by over-simplification. when you over-simplify and make illogical conclusions you say crazy things. you sound exactly like a socialist attacking conservatives...

if you quack like a socialist must you not be a socialist?

TheJokker

October 07, 2010, 07:01

Originally posted by juanni

Start at the top of this thread, and then read down.:)

My point is the Tea Party claims it wants smaller govt and less spending, BUT that they really don't want smaller govt and less spending.

If you have any links of Tea Party leaders or organizations ACTUALLY demanding cuts in SS, Medicare or Defense please post them otherwise they are just full of bull, like yourself. ;)

..............juanni

and you are making my point...

you are against everything. you are against the republicans. you are against the tea party. nobody meets your standards so you don't have to support anybody and you are free to criticize everybody. there is no solution only despair. you have no vision of a roadmap to fixing america's problems. nothing...

if america rejects the tea party or the republicans than the democrats are free to rule the country.

here's the result of a five second google search:

http://bigpeace.com/jcarafano/2010/10/06/the-left-still-doesnt-get-the-tea-parties/ The Left Still Doesn’t Get the Tea Parties

First, nobody tells the Tea Parties what to do. Quite the opposite. They are disparate groups composed of disparate individuals–amateur activists, soccer moms, small-business owners, you name it–who are fed up with being told what to think. What unites them is the desire for limited government, responsible spending and the preservation of individual freedoms.

Second, it is a huge mistake to conflate how the Tea Parties think about national security with how libertarians (fine fellows though they are) view the issue. Many Tea Party activists would lustily cheer Reagan’s motto of “peace through strength.” Some of their most treasured pin-ups–Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Jim DeMint, to name just three–are as hawkish as they come.
Recently, I spoke at a First Coast Tea Party event in Jacksonville, FL. A couple of hundred folks showed up. None seemed pleased with the news President Obama is cutting corners on defense.

Note to Washington: Maybe, just maybe, the grassroots Tea Party movement and established conservative leaders like Kristol, Brooks, and Feulner are worked up about all the talk of gutting defense because they think it’s a colossally bad idea. Sometimes, you know, the simple, obvious and common-sense answer really is the correct one.
he's talking about you juanni: the left

juanni

October 07, 2010, 07:39

Originally posted by TheJokker

you are against everything. you are against the republicans. you are against the tea party. nobody meets your standards so you don't have to support anybody and you are free to criticize everybody. there is no solution only despair. you have no vision of a roadmap to fixing america's problems. nothing...

Nah, just against phoney conservatives that talk about wanting small govt, but never disclose how they will achieve it, or deliver when the have the ability.
Do we really need more years of empty promises?
Do you ever learn?

Still waiting (44 replies later) for somebody to support all the talk of smaller govt and lower taxes by the Tea Party with some documented proposals of substance, instead of lip service.
Anybody????? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

.................juanni

martin35

October 07, 2010, 08:10

The legislative process is fixed with limits for sponsoring and introducing legislation for argument before voted passage or defeat, Presidents can do none of those things, they can only approve or disprove/veto. A Presidents effectiveness is supposed to be gauged on his ability to lead a legislative body with public statements for policy desired or reviled.
"Dead on arrival" was a favorite quote for a Liberal majority leadership for years when referring to laws introduced for Congressional consideration which were supported by some Presidents, that has not been the case since 2009.
I do agree that all recent Presidents until Obama were politically seduced into some lousy legislation where the inevitable rape appeared to have produced a degree of consent. Obama's "successes" were equally the Congresses "successes", Obama's turn to be legislatively rolled and politically buggered looks eminent, I think that has been true for all our history, in many ways Frankenstein was a creative but destructive success ugly as he was, we have to deal with the monsters we make,,, to that end you really should do as I want you to,,,, vote your informed current convictions as that seems to perpetuate our eternal dilemma.
The stew we are in is the only stew we have,,, so we gotta eat it. Watch what you put in your stew.

Anybody????? .................juanni
If we can't fix the world on these Forums the world can't be fixed.
Keep complaining juanni that's what you and most of us are good at.

chet

October 07, 2010, 08:27

Originally posted by cowbilly
JasonB, you support legalization of drugs? I checked into the libertarians and found some stuff I could not stand for, some good stuff is there but some things are a little too much for me.

You might enjoy reading "What It Means to Be A Libertarian - A Personal Interpretation" by Charles Murray (the dude who helped write "The Bell Curve")

There is a huge difference between subscribing to libertarian ideals in a broad sense and being a member of the big (L)ibertarian Party.

For example, I generally agree with many libertarian principles but disagree with total legalization of all drugs (I propose ending federal authority and allowing states to regulate drugs and/or ban the most dangerous. Billions for enforcement? Nah. End welfare and 99% of the drug problem goes away.)

Abortion? I despise it. Human life begins at conception but most Big L Libertarians would heartily disagree.

Defense? Most Big L's want half or less of the current spending with little to no foreign intervention. In my open, that would work great if we were Luxembourg, but we ain't. Many little l libertarians would like to see a robust CIA handle issues like OBL in AFG and AQIA. We'd also like to see a defense industry and their pet politicians held to account. Wastefull programs like LCS, LPD 17, B-70 (anyone remember that?), etc ought to end in criminal prosecution. The lobbying system should be erased - corporations aren't entitled to free political speech.

It goes on. But the Republicans (as a party) are so far left and so entrenched, the Tea Party is already showing signs of caving to their pressure. Palin is the poster child for this - old guard Republicans desperately trying to rebrand themselves with a pretty (but not philosophical) face and dive right into the middle of a movement that is simply seeking "change"We've seen it happen on the far left.

Originally posted by cowbilly

Libertarians get liberals elected for the time being, and strategically I can not support that now.

As long as America believes that they can only handle two choices (with hardly a shade of practical difference between them), then we will continue to slide into oligarchy. It will be principled people, not parties, that bring us back from the abyss.

308bolt

October 07, 2010, 08:32

juanni

October 07, 2010, 09:01

Originally posted by 308bolt

Documented proposals would indicate what exactly?

How Tea Partiers will slash 40% plus off federal spending so they can have the lower taxes they demand. ;)

Is it too much to ask what the plan is? :(

..............juanni

308bolt

October 07, 2010, 09:36

Originally posted by juanni

How Tea Partiers will slash 40% plus off federal spending so they can have the lower taxes they demand. ;)

Is it too much to ask what the plan is? :(

..............juanni

Who said they'll slash 40% off of fed spending?
As far as I know they don't have a spokesperson.

juanni

October 07, 2010, 10:41

Originally posted by 308bolt

Who said they'll slash 40% off of fed spending?
As far as I know they don't have a spokesperson.

Yes I know it is a movement not a party. :)
We seem to be going in circles here.
How can you have lower taxes without cutting spending, when we now spend 40% more than taxes bring in?

But none of the organizations that call themselves Tea Party or any individuals recognised as being part of the movement, Palin, Bachman, Armey etc have ever (to my knowledge) spelled out how to reduce the govt in size and spending.

Here is Armey's Freedomworks

The Issue
Waste, fraud, and abuse are rampant in the federal budgets from year to year. Rather than return the surplus tax dollars to taxpayers, the monies continue to be left in Washington to pay for bloated federal government programs.

The FreedomWorks Position
Government is too big and spends too much of our money. A strong and vibrant free market economy - free from burdensome taxation and regulation - offers the best hope for creating opportunity and improving the quality of life for every American.

Great! but I don't find any cutting proposals on their site.

So does anyone know the mystery of how to not have a "Government is too big and spends too much of our money" without cutting?

.............juanni

Nick H.

October 07, 2010, 11:01

Here is the problem. Politicians don't want to offend anyone. Everyone wants to end waste, fraud, "bloated government", so the politicians like to say they will do that. But when it comes to specific cuts, as soon as you open your mouth, you will lose votes.

This is just one of the problems confronting our country. As the quality of voters declines, the quality of politicians elected will follow. I fear it is too late to fix it now.

chet

October 07, 2010, 12:20

Originally posted by juanni

Still waiting (44 replies later) for somebody to support all the talk of smaller govt and lower taxes by the Tea Party with some documented proposals of substance, instead of lip service.
Anybody????? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

.................juanni

Really? Are you simply waiting on Fox commentators to pipe up or do you willfully ignore the plethora or random tea party activists publishing their own stuff (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/02/06/blueprint-of-a-tea-party-platform.html) orthe actual Boston Tea Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party_(political_party)) which predates a lot of the other stuff out there and has a pretty definite platform with a lot of specific published ideas with actual, real live people running for real live offices (and has a lot more in common with Libertarians and Ron Paul than "populist conservatism").

I realize that Fox is portraying the tea party as Palin's gift to the GOP but the reality is there is actually some thinking going on in the core of it. For a political scientist and the concerned citizen, it is an exciting period in American politics. Don't dismiss it out of hand.

martin35

October 07, 2010, 13:11

To me the Tea Party is a very loosely organized coalition of disenchanted moderates and conservatives that is a defacto 3rd party, the TP will have to develop a appealing platform and become legitimately chartered to remain a political entity with a useful life, that is usually the beginning of the bargained moderation of the original intent.
Political disenchantment is too Americanized to be potty trained.
Every human endeavor is born to die, maybe 3 parties will result in a survival of the fittest contest and one party will have to die or like a 1st cousin's offspring become a moronic bore.

308bolt

October 07, 2010, 14:14

Originally posted by juanni

So does anyone know the mystery of how to not have a "Government is too big and spends too much of our money" without cutting?

.............juanni

Cutting what?

SS, Medicare and a lot of the other programs can stay in place.

Cut 60% of the gov employees and their interminable retirement benefits and you'll cut gov, expenses and the intrusions into our lives.

chet

October 07, 2010, 15:33

Originally posted by 308bolt

SS, Medicare and a lot of the other programs can stay in place.

Cut 60% of the gov employees and their interminable retirement benefits and you'll cut gov, expenses and the intrusions into our lives.

Nothing like throwing yourself into an open punji pit, huh.

Like most modern milque-toast "conservatives", you advocate socialism as long as it is fiscally responsible socialism. Check.

You can't really decry govt "expenses and intrusions" on the one hand and then say "forcefully take my money and give me a really crappy retirement and medical plan." on the other.

Don't worry, not many other voters get it either and politicians are more than willing to entertain your inconsistencies.

308bolt

October 07, 2010, 15:49

Originally posted by chet

Nothing like throwing yourself into an open punji pit, huh.

Like most modern milque-toast "conservatives", you advocate socialism as long as it is fiscally responsible socialism. Check.

You can't really decry govt "expenses and intrusions" on the one hand and then say "forcefully take my money and give me a really crappy retirement and medical plan." on the other.

Don't worry, not many other voters get it either and politicians are more than willing to entertain your inconsistencies.

Get yourself a copy of reading skills for dummies.
You seriously need to hone your comprehension skills.
Talk about "not getting it".
I didn't advocate a damned thing.
I mentioned how we can cut gov and expenses at the same time without cutting the programs that many think they need.

The way you jumped on that you've got me wondering.
You on the government payroll?

cowbilly

October 07, 2010, 16:10

JasonB, so lets just make murder and theft legal and it will go away too. You have to have some form of standards. The line has to be drawn somewhere. This is why all these social problems are erupting in this country. I want illegal drugs hard to get, I don't want my kids having any easier access, same for alcohol. Look how many have been killed by drunk drivers since the legalization of alcohol, same for dugs. If you've lost a loved one to either, you would change your tune.

Democrats prior to the 1960s were not as anti gun nor as liberal minded. No one pushed the Republicans hard enough to overturn any gun laws and they lost power quickly. Though the AW ban did go away despite democratic efforts to renew it.

Our best justices on the court are conservative appointees, they are the ones that are holding the line for us.

Your benefiting from capitalism now. Granted not it a pure form but there is no other system as good.

Third party is a great idea when we get conservatives in control, right now we need to get the liberals out at all costs.

The 3rd party is why we had Clinton and his first term with the AW ban and all his wonderful ideas. We don't need that 3rd party just yet.

Long term planning is required with a good strategy to get back to the constitution.

chet

October 07, 2010, 16:17

Originally posted by cowbilly

The 3rd party is why we had Clinton and his first term with the AW ban and all his wonderful ideas. We don't need that 3rd party just yet.

You think Bush wouldn't have signed 94AWB ? Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all supported the AWB in 94 and now.

cowbilly

October 07, 2010, 18:14

I don't think it would have come up, even with a democratic President, house and senate it just barely passed. Remember, VP Al Gore came in and cast the deciding vote/tie breaking vote, that vote would not have been there.

As gun gunowners, history shows you'll have an easier time with conservatives than you will with liberals. Both will sail you down the river but Republicans will at least entertain the idea of gun rights, liberal Democrats will not.

JasonB

October 07, 2010, 20:08

Originally posted by cowbilly
I don't think it would have come up, even with a democratic President, house and senate it just barely passed. Remember, VP Al Gore came in and cast the deciding vote/tie breaking vote, that vote would not have been there.

As gun gunowners, history shows you'll have an easier time with conservatives than you will with liberals. Both will sail you down the river but Republicans will at least entertain the idea of gun rights, liberal Democrats will not.

He says as we sit looking at a website largely dedicated to avoiding the perils and pitfalls of the 1989 semi-auto ban stuck on us by George Bush the Elder with a further nail in the FAL coffin from his son, George Bush the Younger, in 2005.

JasonB

October 07, 2010, 20:11

Originally posted by TheJokker

no. he is saying you are distorting the argument by over-simplification. when you over-simplify and make illogical conclusions you say crazy things. you sound exactly like a socialist attacking conservatives...

if you quack like a socialist must you not be a socialist?

I won't even say nice try. You voted for McCain who voted for the bailouts, correct? And the 2003 socialized medicine law? I didn't vote for anyone who supported those acts of socialism. Do you really want to play the "who's a socialist" game?

chet

October 07, 2010, 22:10

Originally posted by cowbilly
I don't think it would have come up, even with a democratic President, house and senate it just barely passed. Remember, VP Al Gore came in and cast the deciding vote/tie breaking vote, that vote would not have been there.

Why would it have not come up?

Originally posted by cowbilly

As gun gunowners, history shows you'll have an easier time with conservatives than you will with liberals. Both will sail you down the river but Republicans will at least entertain the idea of gun rights, liberal Democrats will not.

So you'd rather be screwed over by a lying politician than a truthful politician? I don't get that.

jeffrey

October 07, 2010, 22:33

Interesting thread. If I may stick in one small but central fact that makes some of these posts nothing but claptrap.

The fact, right out of Econ 101, is this...

Lower marginal tax rates, ie "tax cuts", or if you're a pinhead, "tax cuts for the rich",

invariably - that means ALWAYS - lead to increased tax revenue to the government. Might be

counterintuitive to the undereducated or willfully ignorant (read Democrat), but true. Look it up.

Lower tax rates lead to increased employment and increased taxable economic activity. Thus more

collected by the govt.

So, when someone asks, "How can you have lower taxes without cutting spending?" you know that

they are either uneducated, or believe in using tax policy to achieve redistribution or some leftist

version of "fairness": not simply to raise revenue for necessary government expenses.

Ever notice how the Democrats always want to know how tax cuts will be "paid for" or "afforded"?

They really are that dumb.

martin35

October 07, 2010, 22:55

I think the plan is when all the money is given the poor the poor will start hiring.

chet

October 07, 2010, 23:04

Originally posted by cowbilly
Democrats prior to the 1960s were not as anti gun

Holy cow. You are only off by a hundred years and change.

Democrats developed almost all the bedrock state and local gun control we have now beginning in the South immediately after the Civil War primarily under the Jim Crow banner not the Socialist banner of today. The morons were so conceited, they never actually figured that law enforcement would ever apply those laws to WHITE folks, as well.

It took the Democrats up north another 40 years to gain power and start implementing their own gun control. Once again, it was about protecting those who feared guns - this time white Irish criminals who despised someone actually whipping a piece out when the micks robbed them. Tim Sullivan and the Tammany Hall Democrats got New York's Sullivan Act passed making unlicensed concealed carry illegal in 1911. The convenience was the crooks literally controlled the licensing in New York from then on.

Democrats have a LONG and storied history with gun control. It is all about disarming the weak.

BTW- how's this for Jim Crow/Democrat Irony:

North Carolina requires residents to obtain a pistol purchase permit for each pistol you buy. It's five bucks and it's SHERIFF discretion. (Guess how many black folks got pistol purchase permits from a white sheriff back in the day?)

Today, only 16 of 100 NC counties limit the amount of permits you can buy in a given period. The worst is Edgecombe county which limits you to 2 pistol permits a YEAR. The fact that Edgecombe is also 60% black is no accident, it's just Jim Crow. (Of course, the irony is that Edgecombe today has a democrat black sheriff who is still willingly enforcing whitey massa's rules keeping the brotha's down by law.)

chet

October 07, 2010, 23:19

Originally posted by 308bolt

I mentioned how we can cut gov and expenses at the same time without cutting the programs that many think they need.

Unpossible. Reduce workforce by 60%? Then you must reduce workLOAD by a comparable amount, which means gutting most of the socialist programs in place now. Unless you think the remaining 40% are somehow going to become more efficient after you take away their retirement.

But, just so we are clear, can you give us a yes/no:

Do you think SS/Medicaid/Medicare/Unemployment is socialist?

and

Do you think those programs should be dismantled?

bakerjw

October 08, 2010, 05:36

Medicare has a 76 trillion dollar liability as I checked usdebtclock.org.

If anyone has the balls to try to fix our financial woes then that will need to be addressed. BUT even suggesting cuts to medicare will guarantee not being elected or the loss of the next election.

All we are going to get from the GOP or the TES partiers is lip service. Neither will take any meaningful steps to move us toward resolving the issue at hand.

Only if everything totally collapses can we have a chance at getting things put right again someday. Unfortunately there are those in charge that IMHO want to collapse everything to build it up as they see fit. Of course Cloward Piven comes to mind.

JasonB

October 08, 2010, 06:12

Originally posted by cowbilly
JasonB, so lets just make murder and theft legal and it will go away too. You have to have some form of standards. The line has to be drawn somewhere. This is why all these social problems are erupting in this country. I want illegal drugs hard to get, I don't want my kids having any easier access, same for alcohol. Look how many have been killed by drunk drivers since the legalization of alcohol, same for dugs. If you've lost a loved one to either, you would change your tune.

Democrats prior to the 1960s were not as anti gun nor as liberal minded. No one pushed the Republicans hard enough to overturn any gun laws and they lost power quickly. Though the AW ban did go away despite democratic efforts to renew it.

Our best justices on the court are conservative appointees, they are the ones that are holding the line for us.

Your benefiting from capitalism now. Granted not it a pure form but there is no other system as good.

Third party is a great idea when we get conservatives in control, right now we need to get the liberals out at all costs.

The 3rd party is why we had Clinton and his first term with the AW ban and all his wonderful ideas. We don't need that 3rd party just yet.

Long term planning is required with a good strategy to get back to the constitution.

Murder and theft have victims, someone getting a buzz in and of itself does not. Much like my owning a firearm does not equate to me robbing a liquor store or shooting a person down who is not trying to harm me. Quite telling that you are using the same type of argument as a liberal in their open quest to ban firearms. See how much conservatives and liberals are alike?

In a way I would like to see a return to prohibition just to see how many hypocrites end up in a shoot out a few weeks later in an attempt to get their hands to stop shaking. Other than that, it was a flop and would be again for the most part.

So you want the government to raise your kids? I bet you say no, but here you are wanting them to babysit and/or make up for your deficiencies as a parent. You need to teach them to avoid doing wrong, not have wrong kept away from them. The one is admireable, the other is half assed.

Read that book and look at the results of the last century for what conservatives do. Just like liberals.

Clinton's ban is gone, but we still have the conservative Bush families ban. How you liking the substandard US made parts on your FAL or have you refrained since your conservative leaders are opposed to them as the weapons of criminals?

Considering you stated 2 liberal justices controlled the outcome of the court votes your conservative justices must have been completely useless. No wonder you have such funny ideas on success and failure.

TheJokker

October 08, 2010, 06:58

Originally posted by juanni

Nah, just against phoney conservatives that talk about wanting small govt, but never disclose how they will achieve it, or deliver when the have the ability.
Do we really need more years of empty promises?
Do you ever learn?

Still waiting (44 replies later) for somebody to support all the talk of smaller govt and lower taxes by the Tea Party with some documented proposals of substance, instead of lip service.
Anybody????? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

.................juanni everybody is a phony conservative to you. you are still dodging my question about how to achieve a smaller government. you won't support the major opposition party to the democrats and you won't support a rising political movement who's values appear to match the values you "claim" to have. you only will support a non-existent perfect conservative that doesn't (never will) exist.

the tea party is a grassroots decentralized movement. there "is" no centralized platform. you will need to look at each individual tea party candidate to understand their personal agendas. paul ryan of wisconsin has presented a plan to phase out mediacare and medicaid. it's not perfect but it is a beginning.

the tea party is in its infancy. it appears the republicans will gain control of the house but there will be a stalemate in the senate and obama will remain president. realistically we can only hope the tea party will stymie further socialist initiatives and possible defund others. the socialists will put up a fight it will take a decade or more to replace socialists judges who will place obstacles in the path of reform. it is crazy to demand it will happen overnight

from my point of view you are the poster boy for phony conservatives. you attack every viable conservative and give real avowed socialists a pass and control of the government. nobody is conservative enough because you are not a conservative.

TheJokker

October 08, 2010, 07:03

Originally posted by JasonB

I won't even say nice try. You voted for McCain who voted for the bailouts, correct? And the 2003 socialized medicine law? I didn't vote for anyone who supported those acts of socialism. Do you really want to play the "who's a socialist" game?
i voted for mccain to oppose obama. mccain pledged to freeze govenment spending. if you will not support the lesser evil you "will" have to endure the far, far greater evil.

your choice is not to pick the perfect candidate (because they do not exist) but to pick the better candidate. if maccain was not good enough you should be pleased with obama? obama is what you "logic" (?) gave america...

chet

October 08, 2010, 07:51

Originally posted by TheJokker

i voted for mccain to oppose obama. mccain pledged to freeze govenment spending. if you will not support the lesser evil you "will" have to endure the far, far greater evil.

Did McCain's entire voting record as a politician lead you to believe that he felt govt spending should be frozen or was it just his campaign promises that convenced you?:?

308bolt

October 08, 2010, 08:26

Originally posted by chet

Unpossible. Reduce workforce by 60%? Then you must reduce workLOAD by a comparable amount, which means gutting most of the socialist programs in place now. Unless you think the remaining 40% are somehow going to become more efficient after you take away their retirement.

But, just so we are clear, can you give us a yes/no:

Do you think SS/Medicaid/Medicare/Unemployment is socialist?

and

Do you think those programs should be dismantled?

Reduce the workload?
Bullshit.
Most government employed desk sitters are filling space to make their particular bureaucracy look more important so to justify more funding.
There is no such thing as a static bureau, it's expand or get the budget cut.
Forty percent working at a normal person's capacity can easily do the work.

Unless you think the remaining 40% are somehow going to become more efficient after you take away their retirement. But, just so we are clear, can you give us a yes/no:

Just to be clear, you didn't get that one either.
Cut 60% of the gov positions and you don't pay for 60% of retirements.

Whether I think that SS/Medicaid/Medicare/Unemployment are socialist and should be dismantled is meaningless.
They won't be.
Over half the population is relying on these programs.
No one who promotes their dissolution will get voted into office.

Now I have a question for you.
Do you have any solutions or do you just misinterpret what others write and ask pointless questions?

308bolt

October 08, 2010, 08:28

Originally posted by TheJokker

if you will not support the lesser evil you "will" have to endure the far, far greater evil.

When you support evil you will endure evil indefinitely.

juanni

October 08, 2010, 08:51

Originally posted by jeffrey
Interesting thread. If I may stick in one small but central fact that makes some of these posts nothing but claptrap.

.......................

So, when someone asks, "How can you have lower taxes without cutting spending?" you know that

..........................

They really are that dumb.

Yes, we know that there is a diminishing return of taxation vs crippling the economy, but you can't have BIG Govt without BIG taxes.

Right now our govt is 40% bigger than our tax revenue.
Do you think cutting taxes without cutting govt will make that better? :wink:

...................juanni

juanni

October 08, 2010, 08:58

Originally posted by chet

Did McCain's entire voting record as a politician lead you to believe that he felt govt spending should be frozen or was it just his campaign promises that convenced you?:?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

In Jokkers religion McCain became a diety when nominated and hence forth nothing should be questioned, especially the scripture of his campaign promises :)

...................juanni

juanni

October 08, 2010, 09:03

Originally posted by JasonB

I won't even say nice try. You voted for McCain who voted for the bailouts, correct? And the 2003 socialized medicine law? I didn't vote for anyone who supported those acts of socialism. Do you really want to play the "who's a socialist" game?

Jokker not only voted for McCain, but he also supported TARP and McCain's vote for it to save the U.S. :uhoh:

Once again Jokker, Obama and ever bigger govt are on the same page.

.............juanni

juanni

October 08, 2010, 09:23

Originally posted by chet

Really? Are you simply waiting on Fox commentators to pipe up or do you willfully ignore the plethora or random tea party activists publishing their own stuff (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/02/06/blueprint-of-a-tea-party-platform.html) orthe actual Boston Tea Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party_(political_party)) which predates a lot of the other stuff out there and has a pretty definite platform with a lot of specific published ideas with actual, real live people running for real live offices (and has a lot more in common with Libertarians and Ron Paul than "populist conservatism").

I realize that Fox is portraying the tea party as Palin's gift to the GOP but the reality is there is actually some thinking going on in the core of it. For a political scientist and the concerned citizen, it is an exciting period in American politics. Don't dismiss it out of hand.

Thanks Chet!
No don't watch TV or FOX.

The first link you provided was from a Tea Party individual with his "ideas" and I haven't seen any of that mirrored by the Tea Party collective.

The 2nd was basically a Ron Paul splinter group that right off wants a smaller miltary presence in the world, don't see that mirrored in the Tea Party collective either.

Look for example at the Delaware's Tea Party star. At her unfiltered website.
http://christine2010.com/issues

Nowhere is there anything on her website about slashing govt, instead the usual non commital claptrap about supporting jobs, business and gettin' terrorists etc... :sad:
No mention even of No More Bailouts. Wasn't that a big component of Tea Party outrage?

Like I stated in post #1, I like the Tea Party outrage but I don't see them actually doing much different after being elected.

.............juanni

308bolt

October 08, 2010, 09:50

Originally posted by juanni

Like I stated in post #1, I like the Tea Party outrage but I don't see them actually doing much different after being elected.

.............juanni

It's yet to be seen.
If fiscal conservancy and Constitutionality are made popular again by voting out the old guard, we may have a chance.

The Tea Party wants to co-opt the Republican Party and the Republican Party want to co-opt the Tea Party.
It's a matter of who co-opts who.
I'm rooting for the Tea Party but it ain't over till it's over.

cowbilly

October 08, 2010, 10:02

JasonB, drugs and alcohol are different in the fact that they change your decision making process, you do things you would not do normally when under the influence. Guns do not make you do anything (maybe increase conficence in some) but they chemically don't change all aspects of your thought process. Your comparison of drug/alcohol prohibition to gun control is silly and not a good arguement at all.

Drugs and alcohol are not constitutionally protected either.

Alcohol and drugs do not produce victims? How about the users and all affected?How about the crime emmitting from the use, many thefts and murders are the result of substance abuse.

You have to have standards. We lower them as a nation every other year it seems. Look at our public schools, a 65 is a D in most now, grades are relative however.

Chet, so you would rather have democrats passing gun laws left and right simply because they are truthful?

Munster30

October 08, 2010, 10:11

Originally posted by 308bolt

It's yet to be seen.
If fiscal conservancy and Constitutionality are made popular again by voting out the old guard, we may have a chance.

The Tea Party wants to co-opt the Republican Party and the Republican Party want to co-opt the Tea Party.
It's a matter of who co-opts who.
I'm rooting for the Tea Party but it ain't over till it's over. +1

ThunderGod

October 08, 2010, 11:14

Actually, cowbilly, you've got your head buried... somewhere.

You cannot legislate away human nature. There are countries where drug possession brings the death penalty; people still use them.

Gee, people steal to fund their habits? Say it ain't so. Could it be because the drugs are illegal in the first place, causing the price to be artificially high and the quality dubious and inconsistent? Could it also be because drug-testing keeps otherwise functional users from getting, and keeping, higher paying jobs? Funny, they don't/can't test for alcoholism...

The vast majority of Federal gun-control laws in the USA stem from Prohibition and the War on Drugs. FedGov has used fear of violence and drug-war statistics to back-up their "reasoning" for violating the 2nd Amendment from the beginning. So, comparing drug laws and gun laws is not only proper, it's a required consideration in the argument.

BTW, it's YOUR ****** job to teach YOUR kids not to use drugs or alcohol, as well as any other moral issues; unless, you really feel the need for Uncle Nanny to do it for you?

chet

October 08, 2010, 12:32

Originally posted by cowbilly

Chet, so you would rather have democrats passing gun laws left and right simply because they are truthful?

No, I would rather deal with politicians left, right, and purple who are intellectually honest. What good have I achieved if I continually vote for candidates who have no record of supporting my ideals but "entertain" me on the campaign trail with flowery speeches and empty promises?

I take it you don't see the long term benefit to consistently voting for candidates who not only verbally agree with your ideals but are intelectually honest about it but have no chance of winning the current election. Believe me, there is massive value there.

chet

October 08, 2010, 13:06

Originally posted by 308bolt

Reduce the workload?
Bullshit.
Most government employed desk sitters are filling space to make their particular bureaucracy look more important so to justify more funding.
Their is no such thing as a static bureau, it's expand or get the budget cut.
Forty percent working at a normal person's capacity can easily do the work.

I guess pragmatism is more difficult to master than ranting. Expecting the remain 40% to somehow "get it together" and work better within the SAME STINKING BUREAUCRACY shows us what level you operate on. Do you run your own business that way?

Originally posted by 308bolt

Just to be clear, you didn't get that one either.
Cut 60% of the gov positions and you don't pay for 60% of retirements.

Oh I get your premise. I just think you are a bit deluded on what the actual dollar figure of that 60% in manpower savings is versus the actual dollar figure of the outgoing entitlements year in and year out.

Originally posted by 308bolt

Whether I think that SS/Medicaid/Medicare/Unemployment are socialist and should be dismantled is meaningless.
They won't be.
Over half the population is relying on these programs.
No one who promotes their dissolution will get voted into office.

So, I guess intellectual honesty is too much to ask from you then. They were simple questions. You deflected. Politicianism 101: You pass.

Originally posted by 308bolt

Now I have a question for you.
Do you have any solutions or do you just misinterpret what others write and ask pointless questions?

And now you have the audacity of hope to ask me to provide you with the honesty you were unwilling to give. Well, ok.

Here's my master plan:
1. Dismantle every single federal entitlement program that operates on an involuntary participation basis and/or sends out more money to a person than he or she has put in. You can add up all the programs but that would easily cover all of welfare, SS, medicare/caid etc right of the bat.

2, Return the money taken from taxpayers by these socialist programs as soon as possible.

3. Reduce the income tax code to a flat tax. Legislate balanced budgeting. Outlaw deficits. Return surpluses immediately.

4. Repeal all federal gun control laws.

5. Dismantle the lobby industry in DC. Criminalize pork barrel politics. Criminalize acceptance of ANY personal gift by a politician from anyone outside their immediate family.

6. Pull out of the UN. Eliminate foreign aid.

7. Pull out of NATO.

8. Dismantle the Fed Reserve.

9. Dismantle all federal regulatory and safety agencies.

10. Dismantle the DOE and all quasi philanthropic federal programs and agencies.

11. Dismantle homeland sec/TSA and repeal the Patriot Act.

I could go on but even though a lot of Americans may tacitly agree with most of these points, they will never vote for a candidate that stands on this platform because they think he won't win or they can't stand the thought of actually having to take care of themselves. Instead, they'll vote for "the lesser or two evils" and allow the slow boil calabash of America to continue.

308bolt

October 08, 2010, 15:48

Originally posted by chet

I guess pragmatism is more difficult to master than ranting. Expecting the remain 40% to somehow "get it together" and work better within the SAME STINKING BUREAUCRACY shows us what level you operate on. Do you run your own business that way?

So you believe that loading a bureaucracy with people who do nothing is a better solution?
You really are a government worker, aren't you?

Oh I get your premise. I just think you are a bit deluded on what the actual dollar figure of that 60% in manpower savings is versus the actual dollar figure of the outgoing entitlements year in and year out.

Really, enlighten me.
Quote those figures including the cost of the ongoing medical and retirement benefits plus the benefit of smaller, busier bureaucracies having less time to invent new programs and too busy to screw with people for nothing better than to enhance their own careers.

Being a realist I know that it's more likely to get the general public to go along with cutbacks of federal employees than it is for programs they've paid into or been taxed half to death to support.

So, I guess intellectual honesty is too much to ask from you then. They were simple questions. You deflected. Politicianism 101: You pass.

Your right the question is simple.
So simple in fact that it's not worth answering for the reason I stated.
If you were "intellectually honest" with even yourself, you'd realize the question was pointless.
You score high marks in pointless Bullshit 101.

And now you have the audacity of hope to ask me to provide you with the honesty you were unwilling to give. Well, ok.

Here's my master plan:
1. Dismantle every single federal entitlement program that operates on an involuntary participation basis and/or sends out more money to a person than he or she has put in. You can add up all the programs but that would easily cover all of welfare, SS, medicare/caid etc right of the bat.

2, Return the money taken from taxpayers by these socialist programs as soon as possible.

3. Reduce the income tax code to a flat tax. Legislate balanced budgeting. Outlaw deficits. Return surpluses immediately.

4. Repeal all federal gun control laws.

5. Dismantle the lobby industry in DC. Criminalize pork barrel politics. Criminalize acceptance of ANY personal gift by a politician from anyone outside their immediate family.

6. Pull out of the UN. Eliminate foreign aid.

7. Pull out of NATO.

8. Dismantle the Fed Reserve.

9. Dismantle all federal regulatory and safety agencies.

10. Dismantle the DOE and all quasi philanthropic federal programs and agencies.

11. Dismantle homeland sec/TSA and repeal the Patriot Act.

That's not a plan it's a shopping list and it's not even original.
A plan includes a method of accomplishing goals.

I could go on but even though a lot of Americans may tacitly agree with most of these points, they will never vote for a candidate that stands on this platform because they think he won't win or they can't stand the thought of actually having to take care of themselves. Instead, they'll vote for "the lesser or two evils" and allow the slow boil calabash of America to continue.

Since you admit that you have no plan, as no one will vote into office politicians who would so radically change the government role, it's idle speculation.

Fantasy, pointless.

I agree with you on one point,"pragmatism is more difficult to master than ranting".
You've got the ranting down quite well.

Do you have any practical solutions?

JasonB

October 08, 2010, 16:10

Originally posted by chet

Tim Sullivan and the Tammany Hall Democrats got New York's Sullivan Act passed making unlicensed concealed carry illegal in 1911. The convenience was the crooks literally controlled the licensing in New York from then on.

Tim Sullivan was lobbied by organized crime groups because their business ventures were being curtailed by armed citizens. Best I can recall he was declared insane in 1913 as well.

JasonB

October 08, 2010, 16:12

Originally posted by TheJokker

i voted for mccain to oppose obama. mccain pledged to freeze govenment spending. if you will not support the lesser evil you "will" have to endure the far, far greater evil.

your choice is not to pick the perfect candidate (because they do not exist) but to pick the better candidate. if maccain was not good enough you should be pleased with obama? obama is what you "logic" (?) gave america...

Once again, not a nice try at twisting. You voted for a man who backed socialized health care and just out and out socialized reallocation of wealth. You should be happy with Obama.

JasonB

October 08, 2010, 16:17

Originally posted by ThunderGod

Gee, people steal to fund their habits? Say it ain't so. Could it be because the drugs are illegal in the first place, causing the price to be artificially high and the quality dubious and inconsistent?

You know, that could be another cute one if we could reinstate prohibition for another couple of years. The hypocrites who didn't get wiped out in shootouts trying to get their booze fix could once again experience the joys of blindness after managing to acquire their product from someone who was lacking in the distilling art. Haven't seen much news of that happening since they took it out of the back woods and in to a controlled environment.

JasonB

October 08, 2010, 16:22

Originally posted by cowbilly
JasonB, drugs and alcohol are different in the fact that they change your decision making process, you do things you would not do normally when under the influence. Guns do not make you do anything (maybe increase conficence in some) but they chemically don't change all aspects of your thought process. Your comparison of drug/alcohol prohibition to gun control is silly and not a good arguement at all.

Drugs and alcohol are not constitutionally protected either.

Alcohol and drugs do not produce victims? How about the users and all affected?How about the crime emmitting from the use, many thefts and murders are the result of substance abuse.

You have to have standards. We lower them as a nation every other year it seems. Look at our public schools, a 65 is a D in most now, grades are relative however.

Chet, so you would rather have democrats passing gun laws left and right simply because they are truthful?

Alcohol has been proven to make you violent, drugs haven't. You haven't learned yet, so I am sure you will dispute this and I will once again nail you to the wall.

By your logic you are in favor of banning firearms because they can be misused. NRA member I would guess?

Show me where the US Constitution says the federal government can control drugs and alcohol? The rebuttal should be funny.

I am talking to you and you think I am not able to see standards are declining?

JasonB

October 08, 2010, 16:54

Originally posted by ThunderGod

BTW, it's YOUR ****** job to teach YOUR kids not to use drugs or alcohol, as well as any other moral issues; unless, you really feel the need for Uncle Nanny to do it for you?

From a very moral man who was vehemently opposed to imbibing:

"Young men must not expect to escape contact with evil, but must learn not to be contaminated by it. That virtue that is worth but little that requires constant watching and removal from temptation."

chet

October 08, 2010, 18:49

Originally posted by 308bolt

So you believe that loading a bureaucracy with people who do nothing is a better solution?

No, I proposed ending the programs AND getting rid of the agency that administered it. You ignored that.

Originally posted by 308bolt

Really, enlighten me.
Quote those figures including the cost of the ongoing medical and retirement benefits plus the benefit of smaller, busier bureaucracies

I think you mean "minus the benefit" but regardless, be enlightened:

SS/MED accounted for 39% of the 2009 Federal budget outlay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget) or 1354 Billion dollars. That's outgoing entitlements. The OMB doesn't produce a dollar figure for total non military manpower costs in federal employment that I could find. Since you asked me for it, it's obvious you have no idea either. But, in the interest of running out your idea, I did a little googling and found that ]THIS GUY (http://universityandstate.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/the-annual-cost-of-us-federal-government-civilian-employees/) took a good mathematical swag at it this year and came up with 259 Billion for 2010. According to your "whack 60%" plan, we'd save about 155 billion dollars. So, "leaving the programs" as you suggested and cutting the employees would reduce the the total outlay by just over 10%. Check the link. The same guy calculated that if you FIRED EVERY FEDGOV EMPLOYEE, including El Presidente et al, the deficit would still grow 20 to 25% per year. Talk about pyrrhic victory, Don Quixote!

Come on, man. Fire 60% of the govt to save 10% of the outlay. Do you really think that makes sense or are you that crazy?

Originally posted by 308bolt

having less time to invent new programs and too busy to screw with people for nothing better than to enhance their own careers.

Never mind. You are that crazy. By your logic, Congress doesn't create programs; agencies just birth themselves some new programs in the executive branch by some leviathonic evolutionary process. Govt goo to full blown agency in one generation without the aid of legislation! Miraculous!
Even if you believe this nonsense, why would you want to make the "people screwers" busier? Wouldn't they just screw us more and re-spawn? :D

Originally posted by 308bolt

Being a realist I know that it's more likely to get the general public to go along with cutbacks of federal employees than it is for programs they've paid into or been taxed half to death to support.

More of the "lesser of two evils" type defeatism that characterizes today's modern Republicans.

Originally posted by 308bolt

Your right the question is simple.
So simple in fact that it's not worth answering

Geez, just answer the questions. It's just a discussion on economics and politics. I guess your defeatism is really genuine. Just admit it, luke warm socialism is ok with you, as long as the deficit stays within reason. Why can't Republicans say what they mean?

Originally posted by 308bolt

Since you admit that you have no plan, as no one will vote into office politicians who would so radically change the government role, it's idle speculation.......Fantasy, pointless.......Do you have any practical solutions?

You asked for a plan. I gave you what you asked for in a bit more detail than you were willing to do. You are right - these ideas are not original. Originality is not a prerequisite for good governance last I checked. BTW, there are millions of people that subscribe to many libertarian ideals like these and several presidential candidates have run on them. I bet even you could name one if you try real hard. Did they win? No. But when the other two parties wreck things bad enough, they will. Sheeple generally vote just like mommy and daddy up to the point their bellies are empty and their beds are cold. Just like you.

BTW, how many candidates endorsed the 60%ChopandGo plan? Did you decide which 60% you wanted to cut or do they draw straws?:biggrin:

cowbilly

October 08, 2010, 19:23

JasonB, no need for insults, it reflects poorly upon you.

Meth will give you sudden burst of energy, often aggression is the result, users will get violent, talk to law enforcement, they will give you some good first hand evidence. The problem with drug users is they do not know what they are doing and they can't control themselves, they are unpredictable. If you want that as a right, walking around and hitting it openly on the streets, then that is on you. I want no part of it.

Firearms are constitutionally protected, drug/alcohol use/abuse is not. Your premis that my logic supports gun control makes no sense in the face of the constitution. I believe there are things that should be prohibited, none of them are in our Constitution.

Once more: You do not have a right to get high. You do have a right to own a firearm. Where in the constitution does it say the government can't regulate?
The people supported drug regulation when it became a problem. Do I agree with locking some kid up for a doobie for 4-6 years on the taxpayer dime? Not at all, the laws have flaws but full legalization is a step too far.

Start to petitition your representative to add an amendment for the right to get wasted if it is that important to you. I'm going to stick to the 2nd Amendment and hopefully we can remove some of those restrictions emplaced on it.

I hammer my kids daily on right and wrong, it is a never ending lesson in this world. This "do whatever makes you happy, anything goes stuff" makes it difficult. I don't rely on a nanny state for my kids education, and I don't want a drug head on my corner exercising his "meth" rights either.

308bolt

October 08, 2010, 19:45

Originally posted by chet

No, I proposed ending the programs AND getting rid of the agency that administered it. You ignored that.

I think you mean "minus the benefit" but regardless, be enlightened:

SS/MED accounted for 39% of the 2009 Federal budget outlay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget) or 1354 Billion dollars. That's outgoing entitlements. The OMB doesn't produce a dollar figure for total non military manpower costs in federal employment that I could find. Since you asked me for it, it's obvious you have no idea either. But, in the interest of running out your idea, I did a little googling and found that ]THIS GUY (http://universityandstate.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/the-annual-cost-of-us-federal-government-civilian-employees/) took a good mathematical swag at it this year and came up with 259 Billion for 2010. According to your "whack 60%" plan, we'd save about 155 billion dollars. So, "leaving the programs" as you suggested and cutting the employees would reduce the the total outlay by just over 10%. Check the link. The same guy calculated that if you FIRED EVERY FEDGOV EMPLOYEE, including El Presidente et al, the deficit would still grow 20 to 25% per year. Talk about pyrrhic victory, Don Quixote!

Come on, man. Fire 60% of the govt to save 10% of the outlay. Do you really think that makes sense or are you that crazy?

Never mind. You are that crazy. By your logic, Congress doesn't create programs; agencies just birth themselves some new programs in the executive branch by some leviathonic evolutionary process. Govt goo to full blown agency in one generation without the aid of legislation! Miraculous!
Even if you believe this nonsense, why would you want to make the "people screwers" busier? Wouldn't they just screw us more and re-spawn? :D

More of the "lesser of two evils" type defeatism that characterizes today's modern Republicans.

Geez, just answer the questions. It's just a discussion on economics and politics. I guess your defeatism is really genuine. Just admit it, luke warm socialism is ok with you, as long as the deficit stays within reason. Why can't Republicans say what they mean?

You asked for a plan. I gave you what you asked for in a bit more detail than you were willing to do. You are right - these ideas are not original. Originality is not a prerequisite for good governance last I checked. BTW, there are millions of people that subscribe to many libertarian ideals like these and several presidential candidates have run on them. I bet even you could name one if you try real hard. Did they win? No. But when the other two parties wreck things bad enough, they will. Sheeple generally vote just like mommy and daddy up to the point their bellies are empty and their beds are cold. Just like you.

BTW, how many candidates endorsed the 60%ChopandGo plan? Did you decide which 60% you wanted to cut or do they draw straws?:biggrin:

As I said you have no plan.
You have a wish list with no proposals to implement it.
The likelihood of anyone successfully running a campaign based on your wish list is less then slight, but I will wager that the majority of the "conservatives" including Libertarians, run on downsizing the gov in 2012.

As for my "plan", it's not a plan and unlike your wish list, wasn't intended to be but was in answer to Juanni's question of how social programs could still exist and budget reduced.

As to your source for figures, very incomplete,civilian employees only, no military and the concurrent savings of downsizing same and no USPS employees, none of the other savings that go hand in hand with reducing the expenditures of bureaucracies and nothing addressing the ongoing retirement benefits to the individuals and their families.
Wild Ass Guess yes, Scientific no.

You like to ramble on about how others vote and why.
You make a mistake in assuming my party affiliation.
I voted "no evil" in the last election.
You figure it out.

JasonB

October 08, 2010, 20:35

Originally posted by cowbilly
JasonB, no need for insults, it reflects poorly upon you.

Meth will give you sudden burst of energy, often aggression is the result, users will get violent, talk to law enforcement, they will give you some good first hand evidence. The problem with drug users is they do not know what they are doing and they can't control themselves, they are unpredictable. If you want that as a right, walking around and hitting it openly on the streets, then that is on you. I want no part of it.

Firearms are constitutionally protected, drug/alcohol use/abuse is not. Your premis that my logic supports gun control makes no sense in the face of the constitution. I believe there are things that should be prohibited, none of them are in our Constitution.

Once more: You do not have a right to get high. You do have a right to own a firearm. Where in the constitution does it say the government can't regulate?
The people supported drug regulation when it became a problem. Do I agree with locking some kid up for a doobie for 4-6 years on the taxpayer dime? Not at all, the laws have flaws but full legalization is a step too far.

Start to petitition your representative to add an amendment for the right to get wasted if it is that important to you. I'm going to stick to the 2nd Amendment and hopefully we can remove some of those restrictions emplaced on it.

I hammer my kids daily on right and wrong, it is a never ending lesson in this world. This "do whatever makes you happy, anything goes stuff" makes it difficult. I don't rely on a nanny state for my kids education, and I don't want a drug head on my corner exercising his "meth" rights either.

Alcohol causes people to be violent, drugs do not. Simple as that.

Firearms aren't Constitutionally protected. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution recognize that rights simply exist. It lists some specifically, such as the right to bear arms, but in the 9th amendment it says that simply because a right is not enumerated does not mean the right does not exist. The 10th amendment goes further in to that and indicates only the powers specifically listed in the Consitution as being delegated to the federal government are legit. Once again, please indicate where specifically it is mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government has the power to determine what you may and may not consume.

You say you aren't depending on a nanny state to raise your kids, but then you keep pointing out exactly how you are in fact in favor of a nanny state to fill in where you fail.

chet

October 08, 2010, 21:24

Ok bolt. Stamp your feet and demand what? Full blown legislation copies and footnotes apparently. Then refuse to answer simple questions and advocate wild, plainly illogical ideas. Some guys react badly to their own inconsistencies.

Dude, I have no idea who you would consider a "no evil" candidate but good luck with it.

martin35

October 08, 2010, 21:32

Alcohol causes people to be violent, drugs do not. Simple as that.
A statement of pure ignorance, a mouthed brain fart. Criminals use PCP, Meth and various other drugs to enhance or diminish their inhibitions and give them the courage they normally lack most drugs are taken willingly by morally weak people, many steal to obtain drugs.
Most (millions) laws are not mentioned in the Constitution but are tested and allowed by our courts as necessary to the well being of the public/society at large.
Cutting government Employees will reduce some of the outlay of tax monies but Government has a contract with those employees that allows retirement benefits that will replace the wage for work.
Even FDR said words to the effect "we have to get people off the dole and back to work for the economy to work" (I paraphrase),, of course he said that to a people who wanted to work and were bewildered and shamed by their circumstance. Most government work can be said to be a dole to some degree, compensation to many in excess of services received and often at counter purposes.
I once took in a dog that came up to my place I fed and petted him for some months, one day I guess he woke up cranky and bite me, so I shot him, it just seemed the thing to do.

JasonB

October 08, 2010, 22:32

The judges are in on the racket so basically a rubber stamp. Every now and then they have to pooh pooh one to keep up appearances.

Sorry, but alcohol makes you violent and drugs do not. People who are on drugs may be violent due to the illegal nature of what they are doing, but to say drugs make people violent is like saying stereos make people violent because they might be part of a theft/fence ring. Notice the government studies that support this. They are of course ignored much like their studies that show firearms owners are sociopaths so I fgure these are accurate as well.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/145534.htm

Psychoactive Substances and Violence
January 1994
Psychoactive Substances and Violence discusses research on the links connecting violence to alcohol and illegal psychoactive drugs and evaluations of interventions to prevent violence related to these substances. Research has uncovered strong correlations between violence and psycho-active substances, including alcohol and illegal drugs, but the underlying relationships differ by type of drug. The links between violence and psychoactive substances involve broad social and economic forces, the settings in which people obtain and consume the substances, and biological processes that underlie all human behavior. Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug marketing.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/psycho.txt

"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the
only one whose consumption has been shown to
commonly increase aggression. After large doses
of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain
individuals may experience violent outbursts,
probably because of preexisting psychosis.
Research is needed on the pharmacological effects
of crack, which enters the brain more directly
than cocaine used in other forms.

o Alcohol drinking and violence are linked through
pharmacological effects on behavior, through
expectations that heavy drinking and violence go
together in certain settings, and through patterns
of binge drinking and fighting that sometimes
develop in adolescence."

"Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily
through drug marketing: disputes among rival
distributors, arguments and robberies involving
buyers and sellers, property crimes committed to
raise drug money and, more speculatively, social
and economic interactions between the illegal
markets and the surrounding communities."

308bolt

October 09, 2010, 07:52

Originally posted by chet
Ok bolt. Stamp your feet and demand what? Full blown legislation copies and footnotes apparently. Then refuse to answer simple questions and advocate wild, plainly illogical ideas. Some guys react badly to their own inconsistencies.

Dude, I have no idea who you would consider a "no evil" candidate but good luck with it.

I'm not stamping my feet and demanding anything.
You mistake my apathy towards your diatribe for anger.

I merely pointed out that your single source of information doesn't adequately address my idea for reducing expenditures.

You keep bringing up that question.
Do you really expect me to feel chagrined for not answering your self-evident question because it derailed your talking points.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.
Most notably the one where I asked if you have any practical solutions.

Would you like to talk about illogical ideas?
Do you think your wish list is achievable?
After this country falls apart it might be but of course then it will be too late to implement.
Great ideology but absolutely no way to accomplish it.

I reiterate, you have no plan, only a wish list and even that's not your own.

TheJokker

October 09, 2010, 08:01

Originally posted by 308bolt
Since you admit that you have no plan, as no one will vote into office politicians who would so radically change the government role, it's idle speculation.

Fantasy, pointless.

I agree with you on one point,"pragmatism is more difficult to master than ranting".

You've got the ranting down quite well.

Do you have any practical solutions?

like: "form a majority with similarly minded people"? "if you are unhappy with your choices pick better ones through the primary process but oppose socialism in unity"? you rejected this approach two years ago. are you coming onboard?

308bolt

October 09, 2010, 08:09

Originally posted by TheJokker

like: "form a majority with similarly minded people"? "if you are unhappy with your choices pick better ones through the primary process but oppose socialism in unity"? you rejected this approach two years ago. are you coming onboard?

Unfortunately the Republican party is not comprised of similarly minded people who oppose socialism in unity.
The Tea Party may change that or the Tea Party may change.
The long term results of the coming election should be most revealing.
The nominations in the next, even more so.

308bolt

October 09, 2010, 08:26

Originally posted by JasonB

Sorry, but alcohol makes you violent and drugs do not.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Till you've had some up close and personal contact with these people you won't.
How people react to these stimuli is dependent on the individuals psychological makeup.
It's subjective rather than objective.
I've met both mellow drunks and violent druggies.
I never met a pot smoker who got violent while partaking but then they're usually to busy with Cheeto quest.

I find it funny that you, of all people, quote government studies to make your point.

cowbilly

October 09, 2010, 10:13

JasonB, you are like Jaunni in that your assumptions are substituted for fact. You know nothing about me though you speak as you know everything. Coy jabs and insults don't carry the day nor does it help the case for the Libertarian party.

If you want the right to illegal drugs (currently) then go petition your rep, that is how you do it. Your arguement on this thread has hit a brick wall and is dead.

(Jason B wrote: The first 10 amendments to the Constitution recognize that rights simply exist. It lists some specifically, such as the right to bear arms, but in the 9th amendment it says that simply because a right is not enumerated does not mean the right does not exist. The 10th amendment goes further in to that and indicates only the powers specifically listed in the Consitution as being delegated to the federal government are legit. Once again, please indicate where specifically it is mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government has the power to determine what you may and may not consume.)

I believe you answered your own question on government regulation, nor does it say a right to get high exists. Both Federal and state laws deal with possesion and distribution, not consumption (States have acceptable levels of intoxication, that is as close as it gets and States have that right). You can drink bleach if you want to, you can inject, snort, huff whatever you want to as well.

I'll agree to disagree. Hopefully you are as extreme when it comes the 2nd Amendment, I'll use that as common ground.

JasonB

October 09, 2010, 11:01

Originally posted by 308bolt

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Till you've had some up close and personal contact with these people you won't.
How people react to these stimuli is dependent on the individuals psychological makeup.
It's subjective rather than objective.
I've met both mellow drunks and violent druggies.
I never met a pot smoker who got violent while partaking but then they're usually to busy with Cheeto quest.

I find it funny that you, of all people, quote government studies to make your point.

I am quoting a government study that is being ignored by the government because it does not conform to their agenda. You know, like the ones they do from time to time that prove your interest in FAL's is not an indicator you are psychotic. Of course those studies get ignored and we keep on getting painted as nut jobs just one hiccup away from being mass murderers.

One thing to keep in mind on the druggies is the origin of their drugs. As you noted, pot smokers are passive to the point of being annoying. Most drugs are cooked up by people who have no idea what they are doing so there are impurities. From what I have read on countries where drugs are decriminalized and drug users are able to buy products that are made by people in labs not garages the problems they don't have the problems we have. It is like the comment I made earlier on alcoholics going blind. That just doesn't happen anymore, but it likely would be if the distillers were having to look over their shoulder out in the barn or the woods like it used to be.

JasonB

October 09, 2010, 11:06

Originally posted by cowbilly
JasonB, you are like Jaunni in that your assumptions are substituted for fact. You know nothing about me though you speak as you know everything. Coy jabs and insults don't carry the day nor does it help the case for the Libertarian party.

If you want the right to illegal drugs (currently) then go petition your rep, that is how you do it. Your arguement on this thread has hit a brick wall and is dead.

(Jason B wrote: The first 10 amendments to the Constitution recognize that rights simply exist. It lists some specifically, such as the right to bear arms, but in the 9th amendment it says that simply because a right is not enumerated does not mean the right does not exist. The 10th amendment goes further in to that and indicates only the powers specifically listed in the Consitution as being delegated to the federal government are legit. Once again, please indicate where specifically it is mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government has the power to determine what you may and may not consume.)

I believe you answered your own question on government regulation, nor does it say a right to get high exists. Both Federal and state laws deal with possesion and distribution, not consumption (States have acceptable levels of intoxication, that is as close as it gets and States have that right). You can drink bleach if you want to, you can inject, snort, huff whatever you want to as well.

I'll agree to disagree. Hopefully you are as extreme when it comes the 2nd Amendment, I'll use that as common ground.

Once again, what part of this do you not get?

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Translation, just because it isn't written down doesn't mean you do not have a right to consume what you want.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now, where does it say in the constitution government has authority to dictate what you may and may not ingest? You are aware that your desire for them to dictate what you can consume also means they have the authority to dictate what you must consume. Do you really like that?

longhair51

October 10, 2010, 12:52

Originally posted by juanni
End SS, Medicare, etc
End Fannie and Freddie.

Please explain. Do you mean the phasing out of these programs, as in no more loans after xx date? No more withholding for people younger than xx after xx date? Or to completely stop these programs(ie. stopping existing loan guarantees, SS, Medicare, and medicade pmts) as of xx date?

davedude

October 10, 2010, 20:36

I cheer on the Tea Party talk of smaller govt, cutting taxes etc.... But then when they get to specifics, no cutting SS, Medicare or the military. Ummm... what is left that will yield big savings and lower taxes?? Matt Taibbi has a funny read that points out the conflict. Tea Party ..............juanni

juanni dude--- tea party proposals include balanced budget stuff. All your pet peeves would be dealt with under that.

For just about everything tea party you can go to this link:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/

Matt Taibbi hates the tea party with a passion. Figures you would post a link to his lies.

Rolling Stone supports democrat criminality.

Dave Dude

juanni

October 10, 2010, 23:02

Originally posted by longhair51

End SS, Medicare, etc
End Fannie and Freddie.

Please explain. Do you mean the phasing out of these programs, as in no more loans after xx date? No more withholding for people younger than xx after xx date? Or to completely stop these programs(ie. stopping existing loan guarantees, SS, Medicare, and medicade pmts) as of xx date?

No more contributing, refund the contributions, yeah I know the govt doesn't have the $$$ and would be a mess.

Liquidate Fannie and Freddie, clawback the looting.
End govt backed everything, mortagages, student loans, everything.

..............juanni

TheJokker

October 11, 2010, 06:43

Originally posted by 308bolt

Unfortunately the Republican party is not comprised of similarly minded people who oppose socialism in unity.
The Tea Party may change that or the Tea Party may change.
The long term results of the coming election should be most revealing.
The nominations in the next, even more so.

similar does not mean "the same" only similar. it is more similar than dissimilar but you are correct: the tea party is increasing that similarity.

TheJokker

October 11, 2010, 06:54

Originally posted by davedude

juanni dude--- tea party proposals include balanced budget stuff. All your pet peeves would be dealt with under that.

For just about everything tea party you can go to this link:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/

Matt Taibbi hates the tea party with a passion. Figures you would post a link to his lies.

Rolling Stone supports democrat criminality.

Dave Dude

notice how juanni claims to be a conservative and everybody else is a "phony conservative" yet he hates the republican party and disparages the tea party, is anti-business (burn the banks and corporations!), supports the raising of taxes, and the slashing of the military budget.

JasonB

October 11, 2010, 07:29

He may be a leftist, but the problem is conservatives and liberals started out the same and now basically elect candidates who do the same things.

As far as banks and businesses go, corporate welfare(and/or it's other name political capitalism) is still welfare and they were getting it long before the 1930's version came about.

JasonB

October 11, 2010, 07:30

Originally posted by TheJokker

similar does not mean "the same" only similar. it is more similar than dissimilar but you are correct: the tea party is increasing that similarity.

Expound on the virtues of a punch in the mouth versus a knee to the groin please.

juanni

October 11, 2010, 08:48

Originally posted by TheJokker

notice how juanni claims to be a conservative and everybody else is a "phony conservative" yet he hates the republican party and disparages the tea party, is anti-business (burn the banks and corporations!), supports the raising of taxes, and the slashing of the military budget.

Really, where did I ever say burn the banks and corps? :rolleyes:
Or raise taxes??

End the welfare and crony capitalism, and most of your beloved banks would be gone.

Cut spending and we eventually can cut taxes.

.............juanni

JasonB

October 11, 2010, 13:20

Originally posted by juanni

End the welfare and crony capitalism, and most of your beloved banks would be gone.

THERE! You did it again! What you just said is nothing other than calling for the destruction of banks and businesses. ;)

308bolt

October 11, 2010, 18:49

Originally posted by JasonB

I am quoting a government study that is being ignored by the government because it does not conform to their agenda.

Though our tendency is to believe it does, the fact that the government is ignoring the study doesn't make it accurate.

One thing to keep in mind on the druggies is the origin of their drugs. As you noted, pot smokers are passive to the point of being annoying. Most drugs are cooked up by people who have no idea what they are doing so there are impurities. From what I have read on countries where drugs are decriminalized and drug users are able to buy products that are made by people in labs not garages the problems they don't have the problems we have. It is like the comment I made earlier on alcoholics going blind. That just doesn't happen anymore, but it likely would be if the distillers were having to look over their shoulder out in the barn or the woods like it used to be.

Though I see your point and even agree to a certain extent, I still reject the notion that the only thing wrong with drugs are the impurities and that alcohol makes one violent.

I've met plenty of alcoholics that didn't have a mean bone in their body.
In fact most alcoholics I've run across have been non-violent.
Sometimes obnoxious but non-violent none the less.

I've met druggies that literally would beat up old ladies in order to get another fix.
It's arguable that the lack of drugs or even the anticipation of a lack of drugs caused the violence but had they not taken drugs these problems would not have occured.

From one of your quoted studies:

After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis.

As I said before, subjective not objective.

The very same thing is true about alcohol.

BTW: I agree with your stance against the Fed controlling drugs or alcohol.
Simply put, they have no authority to do so.
I disagree with the Fed having any power over what one does to their own body.

The Fed on the other hand has a personal interest in protecting stupid people because if they run out of idiots they wouldn't stay in power.

TheJokker

October 12, 2010, 06:54

Originally posted by JasonB

Expound on the virtues of a punch in the mouth versus a knee to the groin please.

in order to advance a conservative agenda you "have" to create a majority. if you fail to create that majority than the other side (i.e. obama, pelosi, socialists) gets to advance their agenda.

it seems as though you are arguing for individual freedoms. should individuals be free to gather and create communities and live and raise their children according to principles they all share?

part of being human means living with the tribe and adhering to the social norms of the tribe.

TheJokker

October 12, 2010, 06:57

Originally posted by juanni

Really, where did I ever say burn the banks and corps? :rolleyes:
Or raise taxes??

End the welfare and crony capitalism, and most of your beloved banks would be gone.

Cut spending and we eventually can cut taxes.

.............juanni

face it juanni you are "not" a conservative; more like a moderate liberal. you and others should form a democratic tea party and de-radicalize the democratic party.

juanni

October 12, 2010, 08:00

Originally posted by TheJokker

face it juanni you are "not" a conservative; more like a moderate liberal. you and others should form a democratic tea party and de-radicalize the democratic party.

Hey Jokker, what happened to proving that I stated "burn the banks and corps"? :rolleyes:
Your desperation is showing.

And as a guy that publically supported Bush, McCain, the FED, TARP and in general Big Govt/ Big Spending/Big Bailouts YOU are hardly qualified to point out who is a conservative and who isn't. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

..................juanni

juanni

October 12, 2010, 08:07

Originally posted by TheJokker

in order to advance a conservative agenda you "have" to create a majority. if you fail to create that majority than the other side (i.e. obama, pelosi, socialists) gets to advance their agenda.

Conservatives will never have a majority for any duration of time IF they repeatedly show that they have no conservative principles and refuse to act when they have the power.

Promises and excuses only go so far.

................juanni

308bolt

October 12, 2010, 08:47

Originally posted by TheJokker

face it juanni you are "not" a conservative;

Near as I can tell juanni is a centrist.
He tries to look at the truth of what's happening with the two parties, rather than put faith in their rhetoric.
Democrats occupy the position of moderate, Republicans that of conservatives, Independents are centrists.

Rock on juanni http://www.falfiles.com/forums/icons/icon14.gif

davedude

October 12, 2010, 12:35

notice how juanni claims to be a conservative and everybody else is a "phony conservative" yet he hates the republican party and disparages the tea party, is anti-business (burn the banks and corporations!), supports the raising of taxes, and the slashing of the military budget.

I spotted juanni's constant attacks on the right long ago. The sneaky dog uses a cover that has many here fooled.

Dave Dude

maxhush

October 12, 2010, 14:57

I think something we see ignored all too often (usually by those on SS, Medicare, etc. now) is the whole aspect of what happens if we do nothing and continue SS, Medicare (and by extension Obcare), Fannie, and Freddie? They collapse at some point in the future (and the way the accelerator has been trod upon recently, the not all that distant future). So there won't be any reduced benefits or benefits frozen with no cost of living increases, or planned phase-out, there just will not be anything. Nothing. Gone. Abruptly. The choices stink, but they exist for now (although it may well already be far too late to do anything effective without being voted out for it), later they will not, and those (still alive) who knowingly contributed to selling and perpetuating this mess deserve their "reward".

308bolt

October 12, 2010, 17:09

Originally posted by davedude

I spotted juanni's constant attacks on the right long ago. The sneaky dog uses a cover that has many here fooled.

Dave Dude

There's lots a stuff on the right that needs attacking.
In particular talkin' the talk but not walkin' the walk where conservative values are concerned.

Don't worry dude the rest of us handle the attacks on the left just fine. :)

TheJokker

October 13, 2010, 06:49

Originally posted by juanni

Hey Jokker, what happened to proving that I stated "burn the banks and corps"? :rolleyes:
Your desperation is showing.

And as a guy that publically supported Bush, McCain, the FED, TARP and in general Big Govt/ Big Spending/Big Bailouts YOU are hardly qualified to point out who is a conservative and who isn't. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

..................juanni

no quotation marks were used. it was my own summary of past juanni statements. you have an anti-bank/anti-corporation/anti-capitialism bias as exposed by jasonb...

i opposed obama while you opposed mccain. obama is clearly big/govt yet you still bash his opposition. you are politically schzoid...

Originally posted by juanni

Conservatives will never have a majority for any duration of time IF they repeatedly show that they have no conservative principles and refuse to act when they have the power.

Promises and excuses only go so far.
as a non-conservative moderate liberal you are not qualified to judge what is conservative.

conservatives need more than control of the house to have power. they need more than control of the house and the executive branch as in the bush years to have power. they will need control of the house, senate, presidency for several election cycles and replace liberal judges so they can also control the judicary. it will take years to put out all the liberals.

TheJokker

October 13, 2010, 06:56

Originally posted by 308bolt

Near as I can tell juanni is a centrist.
He tries to look at the truth of what's happening with the two parties, rather than put faith in their rhetoric.
Democrats occupy the position of moderate, Republicans that of conservatives, Independents are centrists.

Rock on juanni http://www.falfiles.com/forums/icons/icon14.gif

rock on to a guy that is so confused that he doesn't even know where he stands on the political spectrum? he slams banks and corporations and than denies he slams banks and corporations? juanni is like a mad dog howling at the moon. but than again you are all about a long-term plan when you rejected that notion two short years ago...

shlomo

October 13, 2010, 07:52

Originally posted by TheJokker

rock on to a guy that is so confused that he doesn't even know where he stands on the political spectrum?

It ain't juanni who doesn't know where juanni stands.

It's the guy who thinks the "spectrum" is a line, instead of a loop where extreme right and left meet.

308bolt

October 13, 2010, 08:04

Originally posted by TheJokker

rock on to a guy that is so confused that he doesn't even know where he stands on the political spectrum? he slams banks and corporations and than denies he slams banks and corporations? juanni is like a mad dog howling at the moon. but than again you are all about a long-term plan when you rejected that notion two short years ago...

I've no doubt that life is simpler when you just believe the party line and ignore the contradictions between what's said and what's done, as you do.
Jim Jones would have welcomed you into his fold.

There was no long term plan two years ago and your Church of the Republican party doesn't have one yet.

The only thing coming close to a long term plan came from actual conservatives like Ron Paul who have put their efforts towards forming a conservative coalition.
Two years ago both you and your church rejected him and others as being too radical.
Have you suddenly seen the light?

Your hindsight is formidable.

shlomo

October 13, 2010, 08:07

Originally posted by 308bolt

Jim Jones would have welcomed you into his fold.

He woulda been the guy makin' 'em drink at gunpoint.

308bolt

October 13, 2010, 08:17

Originally posted by shlomo

He woulda been the guy makin' 'em drink at gunpoint.

.....and then wondered where where all of Jone's supporters had gone and why no one new was joining up.

shlomo

October 13, 2010, 08:20

Well, at least they had formed a consensus.

308bolt

October 13, 2010, 08:37

Originally posted by shlomo
Well, at least they had formed a consensus.

:rofl: :bow:

juanni

October 13, 2010, 10:30

Originally posted by 308bolt

Have you suddenly seen the light?

Thats not "the light", it is the glint off of Jokkers GOP issued plastic Kool Aid cup. :p

............juanni

juanni

October 13, 2010, 10:51

Originally posted by TheJokker

you have an anti-bank/anti-corporation/anti-capitialism bias as exposed by jasonb...

i opposed obama while you opposed mccain. obama is clearly big/govt yet you still bash his opposition. you are politically schzoid...

I am a free market capitalist, and oppose crony capitalism, the public bailing out the corrupt, the fraudulent and the insolvent, and insider access to political power to favor a few market insiders over everyone else laws and "discount window access at ZERO interest and the FED's manipulation and saving of "their" reckless bankers by financially extracting it out of the hide of savers and the prudent.

You call that "anti-bank/anti-corporation/anti-capitialism" I call it anti WELFARE and theft against the taxpayers and anyone who owns a dollar.

I opposed Obama and McCain, both of which voted for TARP and both of which are hacks for those same few market insiders that Bush, Paulson, Bwarney Frank and the rest of that anti free market trash bailed out and have protected from serious fraud investigation and PROSECUTION.

Yes YOU, Obama, Bernake, Lil Timmy, Chris Dodd and Bwarney Franks are in the same bed servicing the same interests, sorry but that doesn't sound like something I want to engage in. :uhoh:

................juanni

shlomo

October 13, 2010, 10:54

But...but... you don't love the Republican offering. That makes you a liberal.

Well, to some anyway.

brunop

October 13, 2010, 14:23

Originally posted by chet

As long as America believes that they can only handle two choices (with hardly a shade of practical difference between them), then we will continue to slide into oligarchy. It will be principled people, not parties, that bring us back from the abyss.

NAILED. IT. DOWN.

This is it, folks. Chet hammers it home.

And Juanni has made a bunch of good points that people here aren't actually responding to:

Cowbilly - I like your commitment, and I appreciate your service. My little brother is in, and he joined for the same reason I suspect you did: do the right thing, protect America, promote Freedom. JasonB & Juanni aren't saying we don't need a strong military - in fact, you might argue that their position would create a stronger, more nimble, more healthy military. Think of it this way: is Bruce Lee a more fearsome opponent, or is it Ray Lewis? I'm pretty sure Ray would KILL Bruce Lee. Now what if Ray Lewis had to carry 500 lbs of gear while fighting? Who is a more formidable foe now? The US military is stretched all over the globe. Assets are all over the globe. And, most importantly, the US is NOT SAFER now. The blood, time, equipment, and money have NOT gotten the results we (you, my brother, me) want - but it isn't because of the soldiers. It is because the politicians are deploying honest, courageous, hard-working ass-kickers into political morasses. And they are doing it ON PURPOSE. It worked in Viet Nam, and it is working now. It is because we (the FED/Euro Central Bank/IMF) loan money to BOTH sides of wars around the world. BOTH SIDES. It is because we (the US Mil Complex) sells fighters to Iran AND Iraq for their war. Those people don't trust us. The Afghanis we are 'freeing'? They're afraid we're going to cut and run like we did last time. They are (correctly) thinking that they are pawns in someone else's game. They know that you are meaning well, and they appreciate the schools, water, infrastructure, and blood, but they think it is short-lived, and that they need to sort for themselves and the long run (after you are gone). Meanwhile, the US's southern border isn't a border. The things you and my brother are fighting to prevent happening, are happening - under our very noses.

I think Juanni is saying that we need a stronger, more righteous military. He's not talking about the soldiers. He's talking about the politicians who run the show.

It is NOT liberal, leftist, etc. to want a military that is not spread all over the globe. In fact, it is ENTIRELY LEFTIST to want a military empire in 100 different nations on earth (like it is now). It is NOT AN ACCIDENT that the CIA chiefs have been recruited off of Wall Street since the CIA's inception. It is NOT AN ACCIDENT that politicians, bankers, and mil-complex execs ARE THE SAME PEOPLE. War is good business for everyone in that system. The book these guys are referencing is written by Smedley Butler - a two time MOH winner. Dude KNOWS what he is talking about; he lived it, and he accused himself of being a "strongman" for corporate interests around the globe.

The major problem here is that the Republicans and Neo-Conservatives have co-opted the 'God, Country, Family' meme and held it up against the Godless Commie-loving Lefties as a way to obscure the fact that they are THE SAME PEOPLE.

JasonB says you haven't lived under capitalism, and I could see where you react negatively to this. Truth is that all of us have lived 'little 'c' capitalism - this is the Russian immigrant becoming a drywall contractor in America. Mexican immigrants opening up their own restaurants. Juanni being a consultant of some sort. Whatever. Big 'C' Capitalism (the placement and control of capital) is not little 'c' capitalism, as they are buying tax breaks by giving money gifts to congressmen, buying legal favors, hurting smaller competitors through legal influences, etc. And most of all, they are Fascist if they are working with or under control of the government (it is what they are doing). What is the difference between Fascism and Socialism? I can't find any appreciable difference. You know that Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party? You know that Rockefeller influenced congress to repeal certain laws so that he could invest in the Soviet Union in SUPPORT of the Socialist revolution? He wasn't the only Capitalist to do so.

I think you have a healthy appreciation that you and Juanni see things differently, and you are right when you say that the differences won't matter in 100 years. I think that Juanni is more on your side than you think.

Peace.

JasonB

October 13, 2010, 19:05

Originally posted by TheJokker

no quotation marks were used. it was my own summary of past juanni statements. you have an anti-bank/anti-corporation/anti-capitialism bias as exposed by jasonb...

THANK YOU FOR PIPING UP!!!!!!! I didn't expose shit on juanni!! I was making fun of you and yours for claiming you are against socialism yet you obviously are in favor of mercantilism/political capitalism/corporate welfare which is nothing short of socialism by way of subsidizing those who can't. Been going on a lot longer than the downward slanting welfare you might oppose, but just as insidious. What kind of 5, 10, 20, 50 year plan do you support, Marxist?? :rofl:

Here are some more eloquent commentaries on the socialism you support:

http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/what/

"The rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes, many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by acts of Congress."
Andrew Jackson (1830) Cited by Charles Sellers, The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America 1815-1846. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 62

"Many key businessmen articulated a conscious policy favoring the intervention of the naitonal government into the economy . . . important businesmen did not, on the whole, regard politics as a necessary evil, but as an important part of their larger position in society."
Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism. New York: The Free Press, 1963, p.5.

"Capitalism's biggest political enemies are not the firebrand trade unionists spewing vitriol against the system but the executives in pin-striped suits extolling the virtues of competitive markets with every breath while attempting to extinguish them with every action."
Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales, Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists. New York: Crown Business, 2003, p. 276.

http://mises.org/daily/2317

"As common as it is to speak of "robber barons," most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html

"What Is Corporate Welfare?

It seems as if everyone is opposed to corporate welfare. The problem is that not everyone defines it in the same way. Corporate welfare should be carefully defined as any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries. That includes programs that provide direct grants to businesses, programs that provide research and other services for industries, and programs that provide subsidized loans or insurance to companies.

There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the federal budget today, with annual expenditures of roughly $75 billion. Terminating those programs could save taxpayers more than $400 billion over the next five years."

...there also exists another alliance — at first glance a strange one, a surprising one—but if you think about it, in fact, one which is well-grounded and easy to understand. This is the alliance between our Communist leaders and your capitalists. This alliance is not new. The very famous Armand Hammer, who is flourishing here today, laid the basis for this when he made the first exploratory trip into Russia, still in Lenin's time, in the very first years of the Revolution.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

longhair51

October 13, 2010, 20:06

Originally posted by juanni
Right, I should continue paying into SS and then don't apply for benefits. :rolleyes:

..............juanni
What is the difference when you pay in and don't get your money back, and all of the people that payed in for years that are currently on SS suddenly have their checks stopped. That is what would happen if we eliminated SS, as you advocate.

davedude

October 13, 2010, 20:27

But...but... you don't love the Republican offering. That makes you a liberal.

hey shlomo dude, did you believe barak hussien obama when he said he would not raise your taxes?

I find it interesting all this assumption in the truth of juanni's words.

You can if you want, it is a free country.

Dave Dude

davedude

October 13, 2010, 20:41

There's lots a stuff on the right that needs attacking. In particular talkin' the talk but not walkin' the walk where conservative values are concerned.
Don't worry dude the rest of us handle the attacks on the left just fine.

No argument from me there dude! That's kinda the Captain Obvious statement of the day. ;)

My sum of the juanni equation presented here is net liberal which means (to me) no honor and no truth.

Dave Dude

shlomo

October 13, 2010, 20:53

Originally posted by davedude

hey shlomo dude, did you believe barak hussien obama when he said he would not raise your taxes?

I find it interesting all this assumption in the truth of juanni's words.

You can if you want, it is a free country.

Dave Dude

I didn't and don't believe ANYTHING either "side" says. They lie for a living.

Whatever you may like or dislike about juanni's worldview, it is closer to being right than the Jokker's (sic) characterization of his politics. By a mile.

JMO.

TheJokker

October 14, 2010, 06:59

america has rejected the notion that the republicans and democrats are the same based upon the experience of the last two years. america understands that liberal socialists must be opposed and a majority must be formed to stop them. america can see that the answers for america are best represented by the conservative principles contained within the republican party and has chosen to reform that party to best address the future through the primary process.

that describes the tea party and is exactly what i have been posting for years. 308bolt has been calling for a plan. there it is. there it has always been. all you knuckleheads who have rejected it in the past can watch it unfold on election day...

shlomo

October 14, 2010, 07:04

308bolt

October 14, 2010, 08:18

Originally posted by TheJokker
america has rejected the notion that the republicans and democrats are the same based upon the experience of the last two years. america understands that liberal socialists must be opposed and a majority must be formed to stop them. america can see that the answers for america are best represented by the conservative principles contained within the republican party and has chosen to reform that party to best address the future through the primary process.

that describes the tea party and is exactly what i have been posting for years. 308bolt has been calling for a plan. there it is. there it has always been. all you knuckleheads who have rejected it in the past can watch it unfold on election day...

Conservative principles are not "contained" within the Republican party.
They may be described by the rhetoric in the Republican party but that party rejected those principles long ago.

The Tea Party is not a Republican enterprise.
The Tea Party is home to Democratic party moderates, Independents and Republican conservatives.
With luck it will be successful in undermining and co-opting the current Republican party and forcing it kicking and screaming back to it's own principles.

The Tea Party is not a Republican plan but it just might save the Republican party.
Unless the current Republican RINO leadership manages to co-opt the Tea Party (and they are trying hard to do so) we may have a chance at reversing the current trend toward socialism.

What you've been posting for years has been "vote the lesser of two evils" but evil nonetheless.
That's the very thought process that put us in the position we are today.

It seems your plan was to create such an intolerable atmosphere in Washington that other people would finally get together (form a coalition) and try to mitigate the damage.

The Republican party may end up being a beneficiary of that coalition but it was quite content with where the party was going before people got fed up with all their bullshit.

juanni

October 14, 2010, 09:09

davedude

October 14, 2010, 21:48

I didn't and don't believe ANYTHING either "side" says. They lie for a living. Whatever you may like or dislike about juanni's worldview, it is closer to being right than the Jokker's (sic) characterization of his politics. By a mile. JMO.

IMO juanni's worldview is just boilerplate thrown out to cover an attack, is not his core politics and Jokker's assessment of juanni is basically spot on, although Joker gives juanni a bit more credit than I would.

Amusing to me is how posters here pile-on Joker's posts, working hard in an attempt to manufacture flaws when I find very few, if any. All the anti-Jokker crowd can do is nit-pick in between the lines because Jokker's posts are general in nature.

In particular the assumption that Jokker supports criminality of any kind, be it financial or political reeks of desperation and I am wondering why?

Dave Dude

juanni

October 14, 2010, 22:41

Originally posted by davedude

In particular the assumption that Jokker supports criminality of any kind, be it financial or political reeks of desperation and I am wondering why?

Dave Dude

What is to wonder about?

Whenever, a point is made about the fraudulent practices (ex: Dave you have heard of Foreclosuregate, MERS?) of the banking industry Jokker proclaims that it nothing but an attack upon an upstanding industry that propeled mankind out of the middle ages. :uhoh:

Ditto for the FED.

Jokkers supports the status quo of crony capitalism, bailouts and big spending.

Now why exactly do YOU consider that positive?

...................juanni

juanni

October 14, 2010, 22:51

Originally posted by longhair51

What is the difference when you pay in and don't get your money back, and all of the people that payed in for years that are currently on SS suddenly have their checks stopped. That is what would happen if we eliminated SS, as you advocate.

Huh?

from post #109
No more contributing, refund the contributions, yeah I know the govt doesn't have the $$$ and would be a mess.

Their checks are going to stop anyway.
Either that or be inflated away to a pittance.

It is going to be a disaster any which way. That is what happens when the govt makes ponzi scheme promises that it can't keep and spends all the money and then some.

So the less promises, the less meddling, the less nanny state, the better.

..............juanni

shlomo

October 15, 2010, 06:39

Originally posted by davedude

IMO juanni's worldview is just boilerplate thrown out to cover an attack, is not his core politics and Jokker's assessment of juanni is basically spot on, although Joker gives juanni a bit more credit than I would.

Amusing to me is how posters here pile-on Joker's posts, working hard in an attempt to manufacture flaws when I find very few, if any. All the anti-Jokker crowd can do is nit-pick in between the lines because Jokker's posts are general in nature.

In particular the assumption that Jokker supports criminality of any kind, be it financial or political reeks of desperation and I am wondering why?

Dave Dude

I suppose that the most neutral reply I can make is that you are entitled to your opinions like everyone else.

Here's hoping that your perspicacity improves in the future.:beer:

TheJokker

October 15, 2010, 06:46

Originally posted by davedude

In particular the assumption that Jokker supports criminality of any kind, be it financial or political reeks of desperation and I am wondering why?

Dave Dude

it's simple dave...

because my arguments are factual, logical and correct "they" must manufacture a flaw.

some (a few) republicans are crooks (etc.) becomes all republicans are crooks therefore thejokker supports crooks.

shlomo in particular is king of the circle-jerks. to say he "never" contributes anything meaningful is only a slight exaggeration. if he were to state a real opinion he would be vulnerable to criticism so he avoids any intellectual commitment. in short he is a "pussy"... a "****"...

TheJokker

October 15, 2010, 07:01

Originally posted by 308bolt

Conservative principles are not "contained" within the Republican party.
They may be described by the rhetoric in the Republican party but that party rejected those principles long ago.

The Tea Party is not a Republican enterprise.
The Tea Party is home to Democratic party moderates, Independents and Republican conservatives.
With luck it will be successful in undermining and co-opting the current Republican party and forcing it kicking and screaming back to it's own principles.

The Tea Party is not a Republican plan but it just might save the Republican party.
Unless the current Republican RINO leadership manages to co-opt the Tea Party (and they are trying hard to do so) we may have a chance at reversing the current trend toward socialism.

What you've been posting for years has been "vote the lesser of two evils" but evil nonetheless.
That's the very thought process that put us in the position we are today.

It seems your plan was to create such an intolerable atmosphere in Washington that other people would finally get together (form a coalition) and try to mitigate the damage.

The Republican party may end up being a beneficiary of that coalition but it was quite content with where the party was going before people got fed up with all their bullshit.
you are big on plans; reveal yours...

make sure it is different from my own:

support the best (conservative) candidate available. deny the majority to socialist democrats. if you are unhappy with the choices available use the primary process to improve the field.

the republican party is not make up of politicians it is made up of people. "we" are the party. if "we" are unhappy with the party it is our own fault. if "we" are unhappy with the politicians it is our own fault. too many people regard washington dc as some sort of television show we watch at home. too many people are passive bystanders. passive aggressive anger.

the tea party may be made up of persons who formally considered themselves democrats or independents but they are becoming republicans in the process.

one more of my predictions i made several years ago is coming true: as liberalism loses it message the republican party will become more conservative and liberal republicans will replace radical democrats in the democratic party. in florida marco rubio, the tea party candidate i support, is surging in the polls. meeks the democratic challenger is dropping out of the race leaving liberal republican charlie christ as the "liberal" alternative.

shlomo

October 15, 2010, 07:29

308bolt

October 15, 2010, 08:59

Originally posted by TheJokker

you are big on plans; reveal yours...

make sure it is different from my own:

I thought my "plan" was obvious, even to you.
I don't vote party and I do vote my conscience.
I cast my vote or donate to, the person I judge to be the best to fill the office, based on their past history.

the tea party may be made up of persons who formally considered themselves democrats or independents but they are becoming republicans in the process.

Wishful thinking on your part.
If we're lucky the republican party will become part of the Tea Party but even if it doesn't, the moderates and independents will remain moderates and independents.
They won't be assimilated into the republican collective.

one more of my predictions i made several years ago is coming true: as liberalism loses it message the republican party will become more conservative and liberal republicans will replace radical democrats in the democratic party.

You advocate a one party system?
Why am I not surprised?

Nevarwinter

October 15, 2010, 13:40

Vague is the word tossed around by folks who look to make internet win points from anonymous posters who may not have all the answers.

Fact is that there are many avenues that have been suggested by the "Tea party" to take, but there is nothing in stone simply because the TEA party is NOT a political party. It is a genuinely grass roots movement which is a taxpayer backlash.

For too long there have been too many people afraid of what this or that group might think. Taxpayers have had to be good little slaves and take whatever the all-knowing bureaucrats in Washington think is good for us.

Too many people are quick to jump on the leftist meme that TEA partiers say, "cut gubmint but don't touch medicare". Yes, this was said by one TEA party member (an older woman).

However, the stark reality is that the avenues that the elected officials can go are numerous and won't even touch certain things.

1. Auditing all non-discretionary spending. Find and eliminate waste/fraud/abuse in the systems.

Example: Recently (today, in fact) we learned that there was a bunch of "mobsters" that have bilked the medicare system out of 168 million dollars so far. This is hardly an isolated incident. Miami is rife with questionable store-fronts selling prosthetic limbs and other medical supplies for ridiculous charge-backs to the government.

There is an estimated 80 billion in medicare fraud. That's the ESTIMATE! 80 billion dollars in medicare alone.

2. Repeal of the 17th Amendment.

While this one seems impossible and would be as unpopular as all hell, it's a very real possibility as several TEA party candidates have run on this platform and won their primaries. This puts power of the Senate back into the hands of the State and takes it away from the special interests in Washington. Fact is that if a voter is responsible and puts forward, the best candidate from his or her state for the Governor to elect, then the power moves back to the respective state.

Obviously this leaves open the same fraud as special interests will simply move into that state for bribes. However, you cannot discount the fact that there is corruption in the process we have now (read: Blago).

So which system is better if they both had problems? The one that pulls power away from Washington DC. Period.

3. Auditing the Stimulus, TARP, and the FED

This mainly speaks for itself. Where is our money going, where did it go, who did it fund? Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money. If no work can be produced by the audit, you prosecute every mofo guilty of it.

Example: Hillary Clinton owed 5.9 Million dollars to a firm that helped her during her campaign. She couldn't pay. In a total frenzy of coincidence (which is common with this administration), they company got a contract for $6 million dollars worth of work through the Stimulus. Totally a coincidence, right?

4. My favorite idea that i've seen passed around is taken from Federalist No. 57

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.

In short: No more golden endless pensions for political offices, no more private exclusive health care, no more armed guards, you are a person, not a king.

5. No taxpayer funded organization is allowed to use taxpayer money for political donations.

Target: Public Sector Unions. These organizations subsist wholly on taxpayer dollars then they donate these dollars to politicians, who then vote in favor of union benefits, who then donate more money.

This eliminates a major area of political corruption.

These are 5 off the top of my head.

Personally, i'm all for a good dose of isolationism while we fix our country internally.

The funniest part of these arguments is that from the left, you see whining and railing on about the money we spend on the military, while social programs are 4.6 times more costly to run than the military. Yes, you heard a fact... For every one dollar spent on the US military, there are 5 spent on social programs (that apparently work...right? There are no more poor people thanks to the War on Poverty...right? Right? *crickets*)

There isn't a single person here that can say they would object to Government helping the truly needy. It's all the scumbag wastrels out there that we hate supporting. Some folks truly need a helping hand, others are just defrauding the system.

Nevarwinter

October 15, 2010, 13:52

Oh, here are a couple that can be accomplished right now.

1. Amtrak. This is a hole we are throwing money into. Amtrak cost the US taxpayer 20 BILLION last year. Put it up for sale and let a real company get in there and turn a profit. I know it goes against the whole "central planning" unicorn and rainbow dream where transportation can be cut off at the whim of the tyrant, but it's a 20 billion dollar hole that needs to be plugged somehow.

2. Postal Service. Targeting public sector unions, especially within the post office, will help begin to streamline this organization. How many billions is the post office costing us every year? The normal Government answer is to throw more money at it and hope it gets fixed, but it's been done for a decade or longer now and it hasn't worked.

wileycsg

October 15, 2010, 18:15

Originally posted by TheJokker

it's simple dave...

because my arguments are factual, logical and correct "they" must manufacture a flaw.

some (a few) republicans are crooks (etc.) becomes all republicans are crooks therefore thejokker supports crooks.

shlomo in particular is king of the circle-jerks. to say he "never" contributes anything meaningful is only a slight exaggeration. if he were to state a real opinion he would be vulnerable to criticism so he avoids any intellectual commitment. in short he is a "pussy"... a "****"...

OK guys, it's all over! He's discovered the plan. The jokker figured out that everyone despises his posts because he is an intellectual genius that makes the rest of us poor dummies envy his superior thought process. Only fellow intellectual and master of logic davedude wouldn't go along with the dastardly plan.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Now,back to reality. "the fool" has never used facts, doesn't have the slightest understanding of logic and is willing to lie, cheat and steal to support the GOP. He is only capable of reducing things to a few simple mantras that he chants when cornered. He longs for the good old days when he could post, "Isn't George Bush dreamy." and someone like munster30 would give him a pat on the head and a +1. Those days are gone. Now we can only watch as he slips a little further everyday into insanity. His rave towards shlomo shows this and his total lack of class.

JasonB

October 16, 2010, 13:42

Originally posted by TheJokker

you are big on plans; reveal yours...

make sure it is different from my own:

support the best (conservative) candidate available. deny the majority to socialist democrats. if you are unhappy with the choices available use the primary process to improve the field.

the republican party is not make up of politicians it is made up of people. "we" are the party. if "we" are unhappy with the party it is our own fault. if "we" are unhappy with the politicians it is our own fault. too many people regard washington dc as some sort of television show we watch at home. too many people are passive bystanders. passive aggressive anger.

the tea party may be made up of persons who formally considered themselves democrats or independents but they are becoming republicans in the process.

one more of my predictions i made several years ago is coming true: as liberalism loses it message the republican party will become more conservative and liberal republicans will replace radical democrats in the democratic party. in florida marco rubio, the tea party candidate i support, is surging in the polls. meeks the democratic challenger is dropping out of the race leaving liberal republican charlie christ as the "liberal" alternative.

Start picking decent people in the primaries. In most case republicans only want someone who is the same as the (D), only with an (R) after their name. When you get your liberal/conservative (truly, there is no real difference) out of the primaries as usual quit whining and trying to brow beat people in to entitlement voting for your desired liberal/conservative (ie., socialist) candidate with an (R).

Oh, and stop supporting corporate welfare/political capitalism/mercantilism. If you get off that bandwagon you might not be so willing to throw away your vote on what the (R) voters typically puke up out of the primaries.

JasonB

October 16, 2010, 13:46

Originally posted by Nevarwinter
Vague is the word tossed around by folks who look to make internet win points from anonymous posters who may not have all the answers.

Fact is that there are many avenues that have been suggested by the "Tea party" to take, but there is nothing in stone simply because the TEA party is NOT a political party. It is a genuinely grass roots movement which is a taxpayer backlash.

For too long there have been too many people afraid of what this or that group might think. Taxpayers have had to be good little slaves and take whatever the all-knowing bureaucrats in Washington think is good for us.

Too many people are quick to jump on the leftist meme that TEA partiers say, "cut gubmint but don't touch medicare". Yes, this was said by one TEA party member (an older woman).

However, the stark reality is that the avenues that the elected officials can go are numerous and won't even touch certain things.

1. Auditing all non-discretionary spending. Find and eliminate waste/fraud/abuse in the systems.

Example: Recently (today, in fact) we learned that there was a bunch of "mobsters" that have bilked the medicare system out of 168 million dollars so far. This is hardly an isolated incident. Miami is rife with questionable store-fronts selling prosthetic limbs and other medical supplies for ridiculous charge-backs to the government.

There is an estimated 80 billion in medicare fraud. That's the ESTIMATE! 80 billion dollars in medicare alone.

2. Repeal of the 17th Amendment.

While this one seems impossible and would be as unpopular as all hell, it's a very real possibility as several TEA party candidates have run on this platform and won their primaries. This puts power of the Senate back into the hands of the State and takes it away from the special interests in Washington. Fact is that if a voter is responsible and puts forward, the best candidate from his or her state for the Governor to elect, then the power moves back to the respective state.

Obviously this leaves open the same fraud as special interests will simply move into that state for bribes. However, you cannot discount the fact that there is corruption in the process we have now (read: Blago).

So which system is better if they both had problems? The one that pulls power away from Washington DC. Period.

3. Auditing the Stimulus, TARP, and the FED

This mainly speaks for itself. Where is our money going, where did it go, who did it fund? Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money. If no work can be produced by the audit, you prosecute every mofo guilty of it.

Example: Hillary Clinton owed 5.9 Million dollars to a firm that helped her during her campaign. She couldn't pay. In a total frenzy of coincidence (which is common with this administration), they company got a contract for $6 million dollars worth of work through the Stimulus. Totally a coincidence, right?

4. My favorite idea that i've seen passed around is taken from Federalist No. 57

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.

In short: No more golden endless pensions for political offices, no more private exclusive health care, no more armed guards, you are a person, not a king.

5. No taxpayer funded organization is allowed to use taxpayer money for political donations.

Target: Public Sector Unions. These organizations subsist wholly on taxpayer dollars then they donate these dollars to politicians, who then vote in favor of union benefits, who then donate more money.

This eliminates a major area of political corruption.

These are 5 off the top of my head.

Personally, i'm all for a good dose of isolationism while we fix our country internally.

The funniest part of these arguments is that from the left, you see whining and railing on about the money we spend on the military, while social programs are 4.6 times more costly to run than the military. Yes, you heard a fact... For every one dollar spent on the US military, there are 5 spent on social programs (that apparently work...right? There are no more poor people thanks to the War on Poverty...right? Right? *crickets*)

There isn't a single person here that can say they would object to Government helping the truly needy. It's all the scumbag wastrels out there that we hate supporting. Some folks truly need a helping hand, others are just defrauding the system.

The Tea Party sounds suspiciously like republicans back in the 1990's who bitched about a wide variety of things, but when they got control of the senate/house/white house they were happy as hogs in slop even though the things they bitched about were continuing on full speed ahead. Considering the first call for tea party'ists came on 19 January 2009 I have to make a best guess that we have those 1990 era republicans having to operate under a front name so we can get more of the same that happened between 2001-2006 when they were euphoric.

Nevarwinter

October 18, 2010, 09:21

Originally posted by JasonB

The Tea Party sounds suspiciously like republicans back in the 1990's who bitched about a wide variety of things, but when they got control of the senate/house/white house they were happy as hogs in slop even though the things they bitched about were continuing on full speed ahead. Considering the first call for tea party'ists came on 19 January 2009 I have to make a best guess that we have those 1990 era republicans having to operate under a front name so we can get more of the same that happened between 2001-2006 when they were euphoric.

That's a mildly ill-informed take on things.

the "first" TEA party started in 2007 in a money bomb event for Dr. Ron Paul. The Campaign for Liberty started it.

Slowly, the message spread. Bush Admin passed TARP and riled up not only the libertarians, but other small business owners/fiscal conservatives as well. Think back to news about Senators and Representatives getting Tea bags mailed to them and summoning police cuz they wer' skeered'.

The first TEA party was held late in 2008 in Seattle, Washington (totally not a Red state).

Then in the rant heard round the world, Rick Santelli called for a TEA party in 2009 after the O admin tossed the idea of bailing out mortgage holders who couldn't pay their bills.

So, with that bit of history out of the way, let's take a look at the other side of the coin. How many status-quo/moderate/wishy-washy Republicans have been ousted this year alone? (if you say zero, then you're privy to bizarro-world info i'm not )

What you've done is attempt to equate the TEA party of today with the Republicans of yesteryear, which is far from the case. The TEA party can't get them all in one election cycle, but one by one, they'll be ousted.

You have the Libertarians to thank for the uprising. Libertarians and the Ron Paul followers (wrong word there...sorry) have done more for the base of the movement than anything any Republican has done. They're just riding the coat tails. As a matter of fact, there was a poll out that showed over 44% of people identified themselves as Libertarian when it was explained.

This is also why you don't see social issues in the TEA party movement. It's irrelevant in the face of far more pressing fiscal problems.

Time will tell whether or not the electorate will continue with the beatings of those in power who abused it. However, as I look around forums, blogs, and other, it appears that it's only started.

308bolt

October 18, 2010, 10:04

Originally posted by Nevarwinter

Time will tell whether or not the electorate will continue with the beatings of those in power who abused it. However, as I look around forums, blogs, and other, it appears that it's only started.

If the Tea Party candidates do as well as it seems they will and the republican party fails in it's hijack attempt, we'll have a chance.

Originally posted by Nevarwinter

the "first" TEA party started in 2007 in a money bomb event for Dr. Ron Paul. The Campaign for Liberty started it.

That "money bomb" event may have contributed to the inception of the Tea Party but it wasn't meant for that purpose.
It was a fund raiser for Ron Paul's presidential bid.
Re-writing history is a tactic of the Ds and Rs.
The true beginning of Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty" came when he dropped out of the race and used the contributions he had accumulated for his presidential bid to begin promoting conservative candidates.

Nevarwinter

October 18, 2010, 15:16

Originally posted by 308bolt

That "money bomb" event may have contributed to the inception of the Tea Party but it wasn't meant for that purpose.
It was a fund raiser for Ron Paul's presidential bid.
Re-writing history is a tactic of the Ds and Rs.
The true beginning of Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty" came when he dropped out of the race and used the contributions he had accumulated for his presidential bid to begin promoting conservative candidates.

I should have clarified, sorry. The first time in modern TEA party history the term "TEA party" was used was for that event.

That comes from the CFL. I'm totally not into revisionist history. Forgiveness for coming off that way.

:bow:

Nevarwinter

October 18, 2010, 15:20

Oh, and as to the Republican party hijacking, because it isn't on television doesn't mean that folks don't look back at ol' GW with starry eyes (well, in some instances, they do).

Libertarians are doing a fantastic job of unearthing what's happening underground.

The general consensus is that if the TEA party does in fact become a political party, it is the R's that will become the "third" party.

JasonB

October 18, 2010, 17:00

Originally posted by Nevarwinter

That's a mildly ill-informed take on things.

the "first" TEA party started in 2007 in a money bomb event for Dr. Ron Paul. The Campaign for Liberty started it.

Slowly, the message spread. Bush Admin passed TARP and riled up not only the libertarians, but other small business owners/fiscal conservatives as well. Think back to news about Senators and Representatives getting Tea bags mailed to them and summoning police cuz they wer' skeered'.

The first TEA party was held late in 2008 in Seattle, Washington (totally not a Red state).

Then in the rant heard round the world, Rick Santelli called for a TEA party in 2009 after the O admin tossed the idea of bailing out mortgage holders who couldn't pay their bills.

So, with that bit of history out of the way, let's take a look at the other side of the coin. How many status-quo/moderate/wishy-washy Republicans have been ousted this year alone? (if you say zero, then you're privy to bizarro-world info i'm not )

What you've done is attempt to equate the TEA party of today with the Republicans of yesteryear, which is far from the case. The TEA party can't get them all in one election cycle, but one by one, they'll be ousted.

You have the Libertarians to thank for the uprising. Libertarians and the Ron Paul followers (wrong word there...sorry) have done more for the base of the movement than anything any Republican has done. They're just riding the coat tails. As a matter of fact, there was a poll out that showed over 44% of people identified themselves as Libertarian when it was explained.

This is also why you don't see social issues in the TEA party movement. It's irrelevant in the face of far more pressing fiscal problems.

Time will tell whether or not the electorate will continue with the beatings of those in power who abused it. However, as I look around forums, blogs, and other, it appears that it's only started.

Having a fund raiser on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party has little to do with the Tea Party that came along later. Now if the people who are in the Tea Party events started raising hell a few years earlier I might buy it, but the fact is they didn't.

Oh, and I hope you are right, but I have seen the spiel one too many times to discount it.

Temp

October 18, 2010, 17:23

Originally posted by cowbilly
Anyone interested, just do a search for posts by juanni. The vast majority are political in nature. A good many are about Iraq and Afghanistan, most are against the war and armchair quarterbacking after the fact (it is a free country, no problem with it what so ever).

Juanni, let us start with you definition of a warmonger. What do you consider a warmonger? Someone who believes the terrorists who brought down the towers and hit the pentagon with hijacked commercial planes should pay with their lives? I guess I am one if that is your definition, but having been there I can honestly say I hate war more than you.

Your views on the military are very liberal. Most of your posts pertaining to the military suggest a weak one. In fact, most of your posts on military action reflect democratic talking points when referencing Iraq and overseas bases. In general, you are not very supportive and some of the things you type are things the enemy says. Your posts on the military also reflect an isolationist view of the world. The world is an unfair place and we have military and economic enemies working against our dollar/economy as we type. You like to ignore this fact and pretend there are no enemies.

Remember your post about the military beheading the enemy? One in particular was a slap in the face to any Soldier. It would sound great on Al Jazeera.

You anarchist side insists on doing away with this department or that federal intanty instantly, most of which would create an instant socio-economic collapse of our country. I want a smaller government too, one that does not waste money and is out of the education business but there is a place for a federal government and some programs are necessary. We can't just come to a sudden stop you should know this as a business owner.

JasonB, I don't disagree that war is often a racket. I'm a vet and still serving, I understand it well. But what about everybodys sacred war, WWII? Did that have any purpose other than money? How about the US Civil War? Revolutionary War? That one book does not make one enlightened on matters of the world, it is one of tens of thousands. The rich will always benefit more so than others in most any situation. Which one is worth fighting for, Capitalism, socialism, communism or a monarchy? You have to pick a side at some point. There are times when you can't just walk away.

Back to the military. Chance favors the prepared. If you want peace then prepare for war. Nothing wrong with being strong as strength is easily understood.

Google "War is the Health of the State"