|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 28, 2013 3:47:41 GMT -6
nope. there is NO reason to discuss poverty, or anything else. the simple FACT is that there is NO societal or environmental cause of crime. the ONLY cause of crime is the inherent worthlessness of the individual. in order to make a rational claim that poverty causes crime, you have to prove that ALL, or at least a majority, of poor people become criminals. such a claim is obviously specious on its face. if being poor had a relation to crime, the crime rate should be lower in the big cities, where there is plenty of assistance for the poor, than it is in rural areas, where there is virtually no help. of course, the exact opposite is true. the crime rate in harlem is ten times the crime rate in appalachia. it is demographics that determines the amount of crime. I do agree with you that poverty should be no excuse for individuals to commit crimes. I think the other thing not discussed is a sense of community. Kids who are poor and come from bad homes and have no good role models in their lives are more at risk then kids who are merely poor. Maybe the assistance poor people need is more then money. Judge Clarence Thomas had his grandfather as a kid. He probably had a loving family even though they were poor. Barack Obama had his mother and grandmother I believe. that is partially true. of course, it is still the individual's choice. they can join the police athletic league or ymca for a sense of community, rather than joining a gang. it is dependent on the character and intelligence of each kid. they can listen to bill cosby and alvin poussaint, and be a decent person, or they can listen to jesse jackson and al sharpton, and be a totally worthless piece of shyt.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 28, 2013 8:43:45 GMT -6
Geography all too often is destiny. Native Americans geography was " CHOOSEN" for them.........They had no choice, many live in proverty ( not all tribes though) that is all too true, and they were given the worst geography. all you need to know about illegal aliens, you can find out from the american indian. still, it would not have been quite so bad if the treaties and promises had been kept. there is no excuse for the conditions at pine ridge, for example. the government has failed miserably in fulfilling it's obligations to the indians. the gaming act was supposed to have helped the situation. unfortunately, the government once again abrogated it's responsibility and allowed the states to have a measure of control over it, which is obviously unconscionable. indian tribes are sovereign nations, accountable ONLY to the federal government, not any state Of course not all Native Americans will agree, as far as illegal aliens in todays age, I believe & many feel we are losing our country the 2nd time. A massive flow of low skill * immigration is pushing poverty levels up. At the same time low skill pay's little in taxes ( sometimes no tax) and recieve high levels of Gov benefits & services at the same time. America today is making the same mistake, mass immigration an uncontolled influx, . Also I should mention Native Americans were "Naturalized" & granted citizenship by the U.S Gov in 1924 !!!
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Feb 28, 2013 22:27:22 GMT -6
But some, perhaps most, will. And then there are the police. If revolution or insurrection comes, the police, in all their various flavors, will be the enemy. Who pays them? I am pragmatic, I think since he constitution is a living document it is up to reasonable interpretation by the courts. No, you're not pragmatic. You're dangerous. To see the Constitution as a "living document" is to adopt the language of our leftist brethren, who see it as an impediment to acting their agenda. A "living document" is really no Constitution at all. In Heller v. D.C., the current relevant case (2008), the boldface above was held to be a "prefatory clause," with no effect on the second part. "Who is the militia? It is the people!" ~ George Mason Like the Minutemen? So much for your purported refusal above, hmmmm? Now we see the result of your interpretation of the Constitution as a "living document." I see people enjoying shooting them at my range all the time. I'm not really a fan of the AR type weapons; I carried the M-16 in VN and think it (and similar weapons) are Mickey Mouse pieces of crap. But when and if (and I hope never to see the day) the revolution comes, I'd want those rising up against an oppressive government to be approximately as well-armed as the oppressors, and the ARs certainly fit that bill. I find it funny how people believe in this invisible "boogy man," that they will have to become loyal subjects to such as a dictator and that he is going to roll to your front door in tank. You are more likely to die in this country because you lost your job get sick and no longer have health coverage, not some fictitious insurrection. We are already loyal subjects to several oligarchy's and dictators in this country and have to bend over to. These being the "captains" of multi-national corporations who have the entire congress as their puppets on a string. We the middle class in this country are at the guise of these companies that convince congress to throw out huge barriers to entry for anyone trying to enter those industries. Our congress is giving out billions of dollars of your money to some of the most profitable corporations such as oil and big agra in the subsidies that they get. Anyone suggest that we take those away these, then we are destroying "jobs." We give billions of dollars and tax breaks to companies who still send work overseas so we can have $200 flat screen tv's from walmart. We are supposed to be the land of equal opportunity and a land where their are no monopolies, but we have the cable tv industry that is allowed to throttle internet speeds at unreasonable levels and they can get away with it. Those evil socialists in countries like France have more free market competition in that arena then we do. When 9/11 happened we were all told by GW that we all need to sacrifice. Who sacrificed? The members of the military and the middle class whos quality of life went down as this country spent our economy down to an oblivion. We charged an entire war, which time will tell if we get ROI on the trillions of dollars spent from our "Bank of China" credit card. We paid independent contractors Trillions, companies, like Halliburton, Becktell and Black water to do a job at 5 times the cost that was traditionally done by military personnel. We financed Blackwater to run rampant as a private military force under no rules of law no "Sacred Oath" and not subject to the UCMJ. This is the closest we ever came to a dictatorship style government at least in the guise of our oversees operations. One thing that separates the US from a dictator government is that we do not have a separate military loyal just to the president. When we had Blackwater and the cohorts Tripple Canopy, we did have a separate de-facto armed forces who's loyalty was the presidents on the front of our currency, not you or I. We paid on average $200,000 per year for a contractor to do a job that a military E-1 to E-3 type would do at a messily $17 to $23,000. The biggest contractor figured out that if they moved there corporate office from Tulsa, OK to Dubai, UAE, they now had a loophole where they owed no US tax assessment and they could avoid prosecution for some of the illicit no bid contracts that they partook in under the table. All while our economy was being drained people were still loosing jobs and the very rich were seeing their yearly incomes increase 3 fold. They made out like bandits while every one else has suffered, whether at the gas pump or by loosing the value in their homes. We have a do nothing congress who refuses to do their job because of the fear of their wealthiest constituents getting a smidgen of a tax increase. Some pragmatic bilionares like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet even pointed out that the top one percent wage earners could more than afford a reasonable tax increase. We bailed out all the industry in 2008 and 09 so the fat cat CEO's could get golden parachute retirement. I do not try to get up in the class warfare game, but it is what it is. If you think for one second a guy on wall street is your friend, well I guess I welcome a tank at my front door.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 28, 2013 22:52:43 GMT -6
I nailed it. You're a leftist. No substantive response, just ridicule. Admit it and move on.
I tremble at the thought that you hold the president's "special trust and confidence."
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 1, 2013 1:10:56 GMT -6
I nailed it. You're a leftist. No substantive response, just ridicule. Admit it and move on. I tremble at the thought that you hold the president's "special trust and confidence." No not at all, After being a participant in said conflict both as an aerial refueling pilot and armed ISR UAV's I saw the light. From 2005 to 2008 we wasted a ton of time and energy on Iraq and were no kidding ignoring Afgahnistan. I would have thought that you being a veteran of a foreign war especially VN as you say, would make you skeptical as hell and not buy into the BS lines of either side. Political parties shift with the wind. I am not left or right. That's the problem with this country. It is always Left versus Right, us versus them, Ford versus Chevy or my team versus yours. No, I look at the policies that make sense and that dictates my decisions. If I was a pure leftist as you say, then why would I be adamantly for the death penalty? I look at the issues in broad scope. I do not aimlessly sit there and wave the flag while swallowing a bunch of crap from either side. Both sides are corrupt and do not have the countries best interest at heart. I vote the lessor of the two evils. Sometimes, it is a republican and sometimes it is a democrat. I hold no specific loyalty to any one party in this country, because I believe that this is the crux of what is wrong in american politics. Before joining the AF I used to be staunch Republican I supported GW and OIF, but now I see the right as perversion of sorts. How can you be a party that subscribes to christian values, which in theory should be to protect the poor, while at the same time you scream and shout if anyone suggests putting programs in place to help them, because some rich guys taxes go up? At the same time I do not think the dems are ideal because they interfere with the private sector in a manner that inadvertently protects the big wigs and keeps them in place. Democrats have this idea that they can engineer a society to be the ideal utopia. You can call me leftist if you want to, but maybe sometimes it good to peel back the onion and realize that you have no friends from any side. I am reminded of this every time I go to gas up the car.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Mar 1, 2013 13:07:54 GMT -6
Spelling and grammar flames are generally considered the domain of the unintelligent. On the contrary, it is the continued use of poor grammar that is considered the hallmark of the uneducated and less intelligent. The general argument is that if you make a spelling/grammar flame then you its obvious you can't make any better argument, and you are not smart enough to come up with a decent insult. Why would I feel the need to insult you when you do that quite nicely yourself?
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 1, 2013 16:19:14 GMT -6
I tremble at the thought that you hold the president's "special trust and confidence." No more and no less than G Dubbya. As far as I am concerned obamas policies are a continuation of the last administration, for what its worth.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 3, 2013 4:52:36 GMT -6
that is all too true, and they were given the worst geography. all you need to know about illegal aliens, you can find out from the american indian. still, it would not have been quite so bad if the treaties and promises had been kept. there is no excuse for the conditions at pine ridge, for example. the government has failed miserably in fulfilling it's obligations to the indians. the gaming act was supposed to have helped the situation. unfortunately, the government once again abrogated it's responsibility and allowed the states to have a measure of control over it, which is obviously unconscionable. indian tribes are sovereign nations, accountable ONLY to the federal government, not any state Of course not all Native Americans will agree, as far as illegal aliens in todays age, I believe & many feel we are losing our country the 2nd time. A massive flow of low skill * immigration is pushing poverty levels up. At the same time low skill pay's little in taxes ( sometimes no tax) and recieve high levels of Gov benefits & services at the same time. America today is making the same mistake, mass immigration an uncontolled influx, . Also I should mention Native Americans were "Naturalized" & granted citizenship by the U.S Gov in 1924 !!! my primary trip is sovereignty, but of course, everything is derived from that. indian tribes are sovereign nations withing the boundaries of the united states. by removing the indians from their land, and putting them on reservations, the federal government assumed responsibility, by treaty and by statute, for the well being of all indians. the relationship between tribes and the federal government is that of a ward and his caretaker. obviously, this means that the federal government is obligated to ensure that the conditions such as are found at pine ridge, and far too many other reservations do not exist. unfortunately, the federal government has failed miserably. depending on where you live, the state has no authority over you, and therefore no responsibility. unfortunately, public law 280 allowed the government to abrogate even more of it's responsibilities by giving six states jurisdiction in six states, with the exception of three reservations. since then, ten more states have been included. in those states, what should have happened as a result, was an improvement in the situation, since those state governments should have been forced to provide whatever the federal government did not. unfortunately, such wasn't the case. yeah, i know about the indians being made american citizens. it was awfully white of the government to decide that the only true americans were citizens
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 3, 2013 10:41:35 GMT -6
Of course not all Native Americans will agree, as far as illegal aliens in todays age, I believe & many feel we are losing our country the 2nd time. A massive flow of low skill * immigration is pushing poverty levels up. At the same time low skill pay's little in taxes ( sometimes no tax) and recieve high levels of Gov benefits & services at the same time. America today is making the same mistake, mass immigration an uncontolled influx, . Also I should mention Native Americans were "Naturalized" & granted citizenship by the U.S Gov in 1924 !!! my primary trip is sovereignty, but of course, everything is derived from that. indian tribes are sovereign nations withing the boundaries of the united states. by removing the indians from their land, and putting them on reservations, the federal government assumed responsibility, by treaty and by statute, for the well being of all indians. the relationship between tribes and the federal government is that of a ward and his caretaker. obviously, this means that the federal government is obligated to ensure that the conditions such as are found at pine ridge, and far too many other reservations do not exist. unfortunately, the federal government has failed miserably. depending on where you live, the state has no authority over you, and therefore no responsibility. unfortunately, public law 280 allowed the government to abrogate even more of it's responsibilities by giving six states jurisdiction in six states, with the exception of three reservations. since then, ten more states have been included. in those states, what should have happened as a result, was an improvement in the situation, since those state governments should have been forced to provide whatever the federal government did not. unfortunately, such wasn't the case. yeah, i know about the indians being made american citizens. it was awfully white of the government to decide that the only true americans were citizens Law 280, one side process. Again w/o any Tribal consent..No choice choosen for us.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 3, 2013 11:29:07 GMT -6
my primary trip is sovereignty, but of course, everything is derived from that. indian tribes are sovereign nations withing the boundaries of the united states. by removing the indians from their land, and putting them on reservations, the federal government assumed responsibility, by treaty and by statute, for the well being of all indians. the relationship between tribes and the federal government is that of a ward and his caretaker. obviously, this means that the federal government is obligated to ensure that the conditions such as are found at pine ridge, and far too many other reservations do not exist. unfortunately, the federal government has failed miserably. depending on where you live, the state has no authority over you, and therefore no responsibility. unfortunately, public law 280 allowed the government to abrogate even more of it's responsibilities by giving six states jurisdiction in six states, with the exception of three reservations. since then, ten more states have been included. in those states, what should have happened as a result, was an improvement in the situation, since those state governments should have been forced to provide whatever the federal government did not. unfortunately, such wasn't the case. yeah, i know about the indians being made american citizens. it was awfully white of the government to decide that the only true americans were citizens Law 280, one side process. Again w/o any Tribal consent..No choice choosen for us. that has always been the case. in united states vs kagama, the supreme court said, The Indians owe no allegiance to a State within which their reservation may be established, and the State gives them no protection.” it is a simple matter of history that the u.s. has violated every treaty that they made. some of these violations weren't as egregious as others. my dad got $3500 when they built a dam on the dalles river, because the government broke the treaty allowing the indians to fish in the river as long as the sun rose in the east, and sat in the west. the dam essentially eliminated the fishing. too many other treaties have been broken with no recompense whatsoever. the trail of tears was the result of the government violating treaty between the u.s. and the cherokee nation. it is obscene
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 4, 2013 21:09:52 GMT -6
Do you even know what that means? That means that I will not participate in the act of, or make an order or obey an unlawful order that involves mounting an insurrection against the people and the lawful government of the united states, even if that order comes from your dictator as you put it. I know exactly what our oath office means, you clearly do not. Fidelity to the Constitution is what makes a US government lawful and is also what defines a lawful order. Your convulation justification for violating our oath asserts that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other Founders did not know what was meant by the Second Amendment. Byt the way, the Second Amendment is not my favorite, the Ninth is, but not by much.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 4, 2013 21:32:36 GMT -6
Do you even know what that means? That means that I will not participate in the act of, or make an order or obey an unlawful order that involves mounting an insurrection against the people and the lawful government of the united states, even if that order comes from your dictator as you put it. I know exactly what our oath office means, you clearly do not. Fidelity to the Constitution is what makes a US government lawful and is also what defines a lawful order. Your convulation justification for violating our oath asserts that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other Founders did not know what was meant by the Second Amendment. Byt the way, the Second Amendment is not my favorite, the Ninth is, but not by much. Where did I say I would violate the oath? A reasonable discourse or discussion is not violating my oath. Obviously, on an official capacity I support the interpretations of the document from the supreme court thus far. And will what ever changes in interpretations that SCOTUS makes. On practical note, I think the 2nd Amendment in its current fashion is obsolete. Does not mean I fail support what ever scope of that doc that I am required to.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Mar 5, 2013 1:29:26 GMT -6
I tremble at the thought that you hold the president's "special trust and confidence." No more and no less than G Dubbya. As far as I am concerned obamas policies are a continuation of the last administration, for what its worth. My mindset about that it it takes a long time to fix 8 years worth of crap that we went through with Dubya, so we shouldn't expect miracles.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 5, 2013 21:16:31 GMT -6
No more and no less than G Dubbya. As far as I am concerned obamas policies are a continuation of the last administration, for what its worth. My mindset about that it it takes a long time to fix 8 years worth of crap that we went through with Dubya, so we shouldn't expect miracles. Too bad Gongress wasn't in session for those 8 yeaars.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 5, 2013 21:24:11 GMT -6
My mindset about that it it takes a long time to fix 8 years worth of crap that we went through with Dubya, so we shouldn't expect miracles. His presidency is more than half over. When exactly does the "fixing" begin?
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Mar 6, 2013 22:14:04 GMT -6
Most likely when his term ends. I doubt even 8 years is enough to recover from Dubya's crapstorm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 19:54:41 GMT -6
Greetings. First, let me say that I have not had the opportunity to read every single prior post in this thread. I have "scanned" a good portion of them. With respect to my position on the questions posed . . .
1. I am very much in favor of the Death Penalty. Some murders are so heinous, so callous, so vicious, so predatory and/or so disgusting that anything less than the Death Penalty for someone convicted of such a crime totally diminishes the value and respect to which the murderer(s) innocent victim(s) are entitled that it is a crime to impose any lesser penalty. Frankly, someone who rapes and subsequently brutally bludgeons to death a six year old little girl deserves to be hacked to death slowly and torturously rather than getting an innocuous little needle. But, since I don't want to get into a "cruel and unusual punishment" discussion, I guess the needle will have to suffice. Child murderers, serial killers, terrorists, murderers who engage in torture----the list goes on and on---but any individual convicted of one of these heinous crimes should be sentenced to death and executed within a reasonable time after his/her conviction.
Anyone who says that it is better to let 100 guilty people (in this instance, murderers), than to execute one innocent person is not thinking clearly. Don't get me wrong: it is terrible to execute an innocent person and every effort should be made to avoid that, but if murderers are freed there is a substantial chance that they will murder other innocent individuals. Even if they are imprisoned---WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE---they can escape and murder, they can murder prison guards, doctors, nurses and/or other prison personnel or they can murder other prisoners---which, in some cases, is a good thing.
If you are truly Anti-Death Penalty, then, had you had the opportunity, you would NOT have executed Hitler, Bin Laden, Stalin, Mao, Eichmann, Manson, Ted Bundy and countless other scumbags. Sorry, but that is disgustingly IMMORAL.
2. I am PRO LIFE. I don't care how people try to rationalize it, but a fetus is a nascent human being. People on the Left constantly talk about protecting the poor and the downtrodden---those who cannot protect themselves. But who is more helpless than a fetus? You lefties don't want scurrilous. convicted murderers to die, but you blithely talk about a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body. Sorry, but a fetus is not analagous to ANY part of a woman's body. If you take a DNA samples from one woman they will be identical whether the part sampled comes from her hair, her liver, her left middle toe or her esophogus. Yet her fetus will have its own DNA. He/she is another individual. I think the reason the term "fetus" is used is to obfuscate the fact that it is a nascent human being.
3. I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment. I've heard different figures bantered about, but I believe there are something like 20,000 state and Federal gun-control laws. And people think we need more? Read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". He contends that in an average year in the U.S., guns are used in self defense 2,500,000----that's two and half million----times. Suppose the figure were only half that. It's still extraordinary. Rapists usually rely on two facts: (1) most women are smaller than they are---often, considerably smaller and (2) women are unarmed. Just brandishing a gun probably would run off most would-be rapists. But, if necessary, doesn't a woman carrying a concealed weapon stand a much greater chance of protecting herself? Ditto, if homeowners were armed. Don't get me wrong: people should be trained in how to use the weapons, but there's no question that having a gun will provide a lot more protection than calling 911 and waiting for the cops to arrive.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 7, 2013 22:29:04 GMT -6
Most likely when his term ends. I doubt even 8 years is enough to recover from Dubya's crapstorm. But he was going to fix everything at once, and hasn't done so. What's up with that? Was he lying, or is he incompetent?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 8, 2013 3:38:22 GMT -6
Most likely when his term ends. I doubt even 8 years is enough to recover from Dubya's crapstorm. But he was going to fix everything at once, and hasn't done so. What's up with that? Was he lying, or is he incompetent? where the hell have you been? he started out trying to fix things. unfortunately, there are these imbecilic fools in congress called republicans. republicans do not care about the american people, so, they obstructed every program that obama put forward to make america a better country. these republican nutjobs obstructed every bill to create jobs that obama presented. as bad as it is going to be for a lot of people, the sequester is a good thing in the long run. the people know that it is the republican idiots who caused the problems, and will get rid of them in 2014. in his final two years, obama will be able to get the programs passed to help the real americans
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 8, 2013 7:32:42 GMT -6
where the hell have you been? Same old same old. You can't read? Would it be fair to say, then, that he failed to understand that working with congress is one of the most important thing a president does, and that there might be some opposition? JFK said "politics is the art of the possible." I see his inability to persuade and gather his opposition into the fold as a large failure. And he's spent almost $6 trillion dollars that we don't have. We agree. We as a nation don't have a revenue problem-we have a spending problem. We're completely capable of leaving within our means if we choose to do so. You mean, much like 2010? And which of us aren't "real" Americans?
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 8, 2013 15:03:03 GMT -6
I used to be a staunch Republican, I used to believe in Newt's contract for America. Back then the republican party were responsible and pragmatic. Now the party has been hijacked by these "Tea Baggers." They refuse to pass their own legislation that they crafted, only because they don't want Obama to get the credit. Some of that legislation were measures to help out of work veterans. Then we see the first time in history Mitch McConnell filibustering his own bill, WTF The right talks about how individual Americans need to be more responsible with their affairs. I don't disagree one bit with that. But at the same time they talk about individual responsibility, they do not hold the same standards for major corporations, such as the banks. Why is it, that when a major company makes irresponsible decisions and run themselves into the ground, they get bailed out? There CEO's are not held accountable, in fact in most cases CEO's get rewarded with over bloated severance packages, while us the tax payer are footing the bill. Granted the dems are no angels in this as well, they supported this nonsense also. At the same time they refuse to raise taxes on the very rich that they bailed out in some cases. True conservative policy is supposed to be limited government. No government interference on business and commerce is supposed to be the right ideology. The idea that government should step in and save a business is the antithesis of true right wing policy. They will only save your business if it is "TOO BIG TO FAIL." When is a business too big to fail? But the tea baggers and their lobbyist, have convinced that its the jobs. Hmmm, government needs to step in to save jobs... That sounds a lot like left wing socialist policy, doesn't it? If my business fails, will be backed up by the Tea Party? Probably not because I am not backed by the Wall Street fat cats, and their pooled lobbying power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 12:58:29 GMT -6
I used to be a staunch Republican, I used to believe in Newt's contract for America. Back then the republican party were responsible and pragmatic. Now the party has been hijacked by these "Tea Baggers." They refuse to pass their own legislation that they crafted, only because they don't want Obama to get the credit. Some of that legislation were measures to help out of work veterans. Then we see the first time in history Mitch McConnell filibustering his own bill, WTF The right talks about how individual Americans need to be more responsible with their affairs. I don't disagree one bit with that. But at the same time they talk about individual responsibility, they do not hold the same standards for major corporations, such as the banks. Why is it, that when a major company makes irresponsible decisions and run themselves into the ground, they get bailed out? There CEO's are not held accountable, in fact in most cases CEO's get rewarded with over bloated severance packages, while us the tax payer are footing the bill. Granted the dems are no angels in this as well, they supported this nonsense also. At the same time they refuse to raise taxes on the very rich that they bailed out in some cases. True conservative policy is supposed to be limited government. No government interference on business and commerce is supposed to be the right ideology. The idea that government should step in and save a business is the antithesis of true right wing policy. They will only save your business if it is "TOO BIG TO FAIL." When is a business too big to fail? But the tea baggers and their lobbyist, have convinced that its the jobs. Hmmm, government needs to step in to save jobs... That sounds a lot like left wing socialist policy, doesn't it? If my business fails, will be backed up by the Tea Party? Probably not because I am not backed by the Wall Street fat cats, and their pooled lobbying power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 13:39:13 GMT -6
Starbux: I'm not quite sure where to begin with you. I need to find you initial post in this thread. I'm curious to know where you currently stand on the Death Penalty, Gun Control and the Abortion/Pro Life Issues.
With respect to your current post, above, I find the term "Tea Baggers" despicable. I assume you know what it means, but in the event that you don't---as well as for others who may not know----Wikipedia defines it thusly: "To tea bag is a slang term for the sexual act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a willing sexual partner for pleasure or onto the face or head of another person. The name of the practice, when it is done in a repeated in-and-out motion, is derived from its passing resemblance to the dipping of a tea bag into a cup of hot water as a method of brewing tea," Although there are other possible meanings, people who make disparaging references to those who adhere to Tea Party values generally intend to demean them by referring to the Wikipedia definition cited, above.
Ironically, the party evolved from a sentiment you seem to be in accord with, tow wit, the fact that while the Democrats were profligate spenders who believed that the bigger the government, the better the government and who were blind to the facts that (1) rich people pay a grossly disproportionate amount of all taxes, (2) Obama's spending programs not only have swelled the Deficit and the overall Debt without achieving ANY significant gain and (3) in a horrible economy, cutting taxes---not raising them---will generate economic growth and, concommittantly,a growth in tax revenues. (See JFK, Reagan for examples). Notwithstanding the worthlessness of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party lacked cajones and was simply a version of Democrats "Light". Instead of standing up to the Democrats and showing the total lack of efficacy of the Democratic approach, the Republicans were too worried about being called "insensitive" and so either mimicked the Democrats or kept their mouths shut. Not much of a way to wub elections---particularly in an era when the Press leans overwhelmingly Leftist and seldom even bothers to criticize Obama.
The Tea Party was essentially a grassroots movement of everyday individuals who wanted a forum to air their views. They ran a number of campaigns in the 2010 election and, for the most part, were extremely successful---notwithstanding some mockery and some made-up claims of racism from the Leftist Press.
I'm probably every bit as opposed to "corporate welfare" as you are, Starbux. But, guess what? The biggest purveyor of corporate welfare is Obama. Take GE (General Electric). I don't have enough time right now to look up the details, but about a year ago, they earned something like $17 Billion----and paid virtually no taxes. How did they do it? They bought or otherwise acquired a bunch of tax credits. The name of the CEO of GE escapes me, but he held---and perhaps still does hold---a position in the Obama administration. He supported Obama. And lest you unduly conclude that he and GE are some sort of aberration, what about Billionaires like George Soros, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, all of whom supported Obama. IMO, Soros was slanderous in some of his criticisms of Bush, calling hm a Nazi and making other unsupportable and totally over-the-top statements.
You make some sort of vague reference to the Housing Bust and seem to attribute it to Wall Street. The Housing Bust never would have----neve could have---happened with the Legislation that was relentlessly pushed by the Democrats. Pressure was brought to bear on the banks to lend to poor people who were poor credit risks. Those banks that didn't acquiesce were thwarted if they attempted to engage in merger activity or otherwise pressured. No downpayment loans were made to people who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being able to repay them. It was an instant recipe for failure. And all this, my friend, was the Democrats doings.
When you talk about "limited government" and how the ideals thereof were violated by those who helped to bail out the Banks and the Wall Street fat cats, please provide a list of Tea Party members or advocates who were guilty of this phenomenon. Take your time. I don't know if you can come up with ANY.
You mindlessly rip the Tea Party and yet they are the only ones who espouse the values you profess to admire.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 11, 2013 14:59:13 GMT -6
I'm with the new guy on this.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 11, 2013 20:02:56 GMT -6
I'm with the new guy on this. Joe: Starbux is spoofing you with comm chatter. I post on a number of different political bulletin boards. His spiel "I used to be a staunch Repulican blah blah blah..." Is fairly common there. It's never taken seriously, as it should not be here, because it's so transparent. On the political boards, we call them "false flag posters." Don't kid yourself. He's a leftist and probably always has been, but he's a leftist who has read Alinksy's "Rules for Radicals."
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 12, 2013 8:53:20 GMT -6
I guess I failed to communicate this along the way but here it goes again. I have NO, NONE, ZERO allegiance to any political party in this country.
@californian Ironically I still am a registered republican on my Bernalillo County Voters card. In NM you have to belong to party, I have not bothered to switch, because I do not care about the affiliation with them or the Dems.
@hangemhigh Hopefully my past posts and the statement below my post should be an idea of where I stand on the DP issue. I am pro death penalty. I hate criminals with a passion, I side with the right on this issue. I do not believe in lefts philosophy of giving hard core thugs a second chance. I am agnostic about the gun issue. I think people should be allowed to arm themselves, but I do not see the point of needing an assault rifle, other than some remote ranchers on the border. The idea that you need to arm up so you can take over the government sounds ridiculous, that seems to be the justification for them, other than its my 2nd amendment right. Another Irony is that I have a Yugoslavian SKS that a friend convinced me to buy. So far I have had no utility for such a weapon. I have de-militarized it, and am trying to figure out how to sell it so it does not fall into the wrong hands ending up being used in a crime. For me the appropriate home defense weapon is a Mossburg shotgun.
As for abortion, that is another point I am not passionate about. I do see some utility in controlling poverty with it. My mind it makes sense to not bring a child into the world with parents that can not afford it. One less mouth to feed and one less dollar of your taxes going to pay for WIC and other services for child healthcare, school etc. Not too mention a kid born out of poverty is more likely to be a future criminal.
So I hope that clears up any confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 12, 2013 9:09:04 GMT -6
I guess I failed to communicate this along the way but here it goes again. I have NO, NONE, ZERO allegiance to any political party in this country. Uh huh. No confusion here.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 12, 2013 9:37:39 GMT -6
I guess I failed to communicate this along the way but here it goes again. I have NO, NONE, ZERO allegiance to any political party in this country. @californian Ironically I still am a registered republican on my Bernalillo County Voters card. In NM you have to belong to party, I have not bothered to switch, because I do not care about the affiliation with them or the Dems. @hangemhigh Hopefully my past posts and the statement below my post should be an idea of where I stand on the DP issue. I am pro death penalty. I hate criminals with a passion, I side with the right on this issue. I do not believe in lefts philosophy of giving hard core thugs a second chance. I am agnostic about the gun issue. I think people should be allowed to arm themselves, but I do not see the point of needing an assault rifle, other than some remote ranchers on the border. The idea that you need to arm up so you can take over the government sounds ridiculous, that seems to be the justification for them, other than its my 2nd amendment right. Another Irony is that I have a Yugoslavian SKS that a friend convinced me to buy. So far I have had no utility for such a weapon. I have de-militarized it, and am trying to figure out how to sell it so it does not fall into the wrong hands ending up being used in a crime. For me the appropriate home defense weapon is a Mossburg shotgun. As for abortion, that is another point I am not passionate about. I do see some utility in controlling poverty with it. My mind it makes sense to not bring a child into the world with parents that can not afford it. One less mouth to feed and one less dollar of your taxes going to pay for WIC and other services for child healthcare, school etc. Not too mention a kid born out of poverty is more likely to be a future criminal. So I hope that clears up any confusion. I believe there are many more logical humane ways to prevent/control poverty myself, also poverty and crime do not always go hand in hand to begin with. Actually many who are poor believe in God, & honesty not the power of money.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 12, 2013 18:59:46 GMT -6
I'm with the new guy on this. Joe: Starbux is spoofing you with comm chatter. I post on a number of different political bulletin boards. His spiel "I used to be a staunch Repulican blah blah blah..." Is fairly common there. It's never taken seriously, as it should not be here, because it's so transparent. On the political boards, we call them "false flag posters." Don't kid yourself. He's a leftist and probably always has been, but he's a leftist who has read Alinksy's "Rules for Radicals." Thanks for the course correction Bob, but I was talking about the other new guy - Hangemhigh As far as Starbux is concerned, he is Honky in another disguise. Entertaining, but supremely wrong on all points.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 12, 2013 19:05:35 GMT -6
As an aside, have I mentioned in the past 24 hours how much I love my new revolver? This morning was trash day or actually dogs in the trash day. No animals were physically harmed in the defense of my trashcans, but they did have the crap scared out of them - literally. So did my neighbors, they were so scared I had shot or would shot their dogs they were calling my mother to apologize hoping mom could calm me down. They know Janet and I feel the same way.
|
|