PDA

View Full Version : Where are all the Pro-Obama guys that said he wouldn't take our guns?


GMONEY
02-26-2009, 8:26 PM
We will start taking apologies now! I bet you are kicking yourself too... On top of all the other crap this guy is loading on our future generations...

Hopi
02-26-2009, 8:35 PM
link to legislation or bill?

RobG
02-26-2009, 9:09 PM
While I am NO BH0 supporter, who's guns have been taken?

Dr Rockso
02-26-2009, 9:17 PM
BHO's real stimulus plan is to scare everyone into buying lots and lots of guns.

yellowfin
02-26-2009, 9:18 PM
While I am NO BH0 supporter, who's guns have been taken?
Indirectly, lots, as some stuff I was planning to buy has doubled in price so I can only buy half as many of them at a time. :(

EVILFORCE
02-26-2009, 9:19 PM
OMFG. Still dont want to believe it? He said it will take place in his first 100 days. We will have a New and Improved Assault Weapon Bill before long. One that is permanent. I must leave now. This will piss me off.

Hans Gruber
02-26-2009, 9:21 PM
He said it will take place in his first 100 days.

We can be diligent and proactive without making things up. The hysteria in here has truly reached epic proportions.

lioneaglegriffin
02-26-2009, 9:38 PM
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

:willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly: :willy_nilly:

BB63Squid
02-26-2009, 9:40 PM
I wouldn't know if they responded anyways. That's the beauty of the Ignore feature.

lioneaglegriffin
02-26-2009, 9:41 PM
so......... should i put on pot off tea on when the feds drop by pick up my guns?

Oh, there not comming?

Why not?

Time isn't right?

well wake me when something happens. :sleeping:

IN THE MEANTIME STFU!

kilword
02-26-2009, 9:41 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

jkcerda
02-26-2009, 9:42 PM
here you go, password is hbh


http://www.huntingbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?t=5088

Grakken
02-26-2009, 9:44 PM
ahhh, whats the point of posting the link

goober
02-26-2009, 9:47 PM
We can be diligent and proactive without making things up. The hysteria in here has truly reached epic proportions.
this

hawk1
02-26-2009, 9:55 PM
so......... should i put on pot off tea on when the feds drop by pick up my guns?

Oh, there not comming?

Why not?

Time isn't right?

well wake me when something happens. :sleeping:

IN THE MEANTIME STFU!

Stick your nose up in a bit deeper...:thumbsup:

lioneaglegriffin
02-26-2009, 9:57 PM
Stick your nose up in a bit deeper...:thumbsup:

it actually starts to smell better when you do, you should try it. :p

ohsmily
02-26-2009, 10:02 PM
We will start taking apologies now! I bet you are kicking yourself too... On top of all the other crap this guy is loading on our future generations...

WTH are you going on about? Is this about Holder again? The guy who isn't the president and isn't someone can pass or vote for a particular bill? Nice work.... :rolleyes:

BTW, I didn't vote for Bo nor do I agree with anything he has to say. I just like to be a realist and not an alarmist Chicken Little.

ohsmily
02-26-2009, 10:04 PM
OMFG. Still dont want to believe it? He said it will take place in his first 100 days. We will have a New and Improved Assault Weapon Bill before long. One that is permanent. I must leave now. This will piss me off.

Want to bet? I bet you that a new permanent assault weapons bill will not be enacted within 100 days of his presidency. I have a $100.00 on it. You want to take me up on the bet?

Swiss
02-26-2009, 10:04 PM
Hell, I voted for Obama and it sure wasn't because I thought he'd go easy on guns. There are a lot of other things at stake and he appears to be the best man for the job. So I hope he does his job well in getting us back on track in innumerable other ways; meanwhile, I continue to write all my reps, as always, telling them to lay off gun owners and protect our RKBA.

IMO, that's the best way forward. You disagree? I'll respect your opinion until you get nasty about it.

ps: in case it's not obvious, I'm not apologizing

Heatseeker
02-26-2009, 10:07 PM
Last time I checked, any AW ban must first go through Congress.

Until then, I plan on keeping my cool and keep buying up all I can afford.

jkcerda
02-26-2009, 10:07 PM
Hell, I voted for Obama and it sure wasn't because I thought he'd go easy on guns. There are a lot of other things at stake and he appears to be the best man for the job. So I hope he does his job well in getting us back on track in innumerable other ways; meanwhile, I continue to write all my reps, as always, telling them to lay off gun owners and protect our RKBA.

IMO, that's the best way forward. You disagree? I'll respect your opinion until you get nasty about it.

ps: in case it's not obvious, I'm not apologizing

can you honestly tell me you are happy with the decisions the man has made so far?

change?

what change?

jkcerda
02-26-2009, 10:09 PM
Last time I checked, any AW ban must first go through Congress.

Until then, I plan on keeping my cool and keep buying up all I can afford.

its a democratic controlled congress, ban is not that far off

ohsmily
02-26-2009, 10:10 PM
its a democratic controlled congress, ban is not that far off

:rolleyes:

jkcerda
02-26-2009, 10:12 PM
:rolleyes:

ok, care to comment or just post smileys?

383green
02-26-2009, 10:25 PM
Did I make it in before the lock? :whistling:

Ok, but seriously, I don't like the guy or anything he stands for, but I don't see any point in asking for apologies from his supporters for his gun-grabbing until after he grabs some guns. Folks who say "SEE! I TOLD YOU SO!" before he actually does what they said he'd do just make themselves look... oh, never mind, I don't want to be banned over something so silly.

berto
02-26-2009, 10:30 PM
Maybe they're digging holes where they'll hide their guns.

Maybe they're not freaking out because of something the AG said about a bill that doesn't yet exist.

Heatseeker
02-26-2009, 10:34 PM
...

Maybe they're not freaking out because of something the AG said about a bill that doesn't yet exist.
+1 on that.

TRICKSTER
02-26-2009, 10:38 PM
We will start taking apologies now! I bet you are kicking yourself too... On top of all the other crap this guy is loading on our future generations...

LEAVE THE PRO-OBAMA GUYS ALONE.
If it wasn't for them, I wouldn't be able to stop making my house payments and use the mortgage money to buy guns and ammo. Now that I know that Obama will make the rest of you pay my mortgage, I can put that money to better use. Guns and ammo.:thumbsup:

Glock22Fan
02-26-2009, 10:39 PM
can you honestly tell me you are happy with the decisions the man has made so far?

change?

what change?

So far it sounds just as I expected, let's spend trillions and take it all from very rich people - and let's spend a lot of it on things that will keep my party in power forever.

Just what I expected from a blatent socialist with no real experience.

Reduce the budget deficit? don't make me laugh.

jkcerda
02-26-2009, 10:44 PM
Maybe they're digging holes where they'll hide their guns.

Maybe they're not freaking out because of something the AG said about a bill that doesn't yet exist.

+1 on that.

true, I was surprised to see the guy talking about it,,,,or maybe it just slipped and it will get introduced when you least expect it, after all, Pelosi just came out & said it was NOT going to happen,,,,and we all know we can trust a Democrathttp://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd250/jkcerda/banghead.gifhttp://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd250/jkcerda/crazy.gifhttp://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd250/jkcerda/doh.gifhttp://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd250/jkcerda/pukey.gif

MudCamper
02-26-2009, 10:46 PM
Want to bet? I bet you that a new permanent assault weapons bill will not be enacted within 100 days of his presidency. I have a $100.00 on it. You want to take me up on the bet?

Funny. I've been offering my personal friends a similar bet - $1000 or an AR rifle that no AW ban will pass in the next 4 years. No takers.

As for Holder, the Wicked Witch of the West herself already contradicted him and said there will be no ban (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=157738).

deldgeetar
02-26-2009, 10:49 PM
Hell, I voted for Obama and it sure wasn't because I thought he'd go easy on guns. There are a lot of other things at stake and he appears to be the best man for the job. So I hope he does his job well in getting us back on track in innumerable other ways; meanwhile, I continue to write all my reps, as always, telling them to lay off gun owners and protect our RKBA.

IMO, that's the best way forward. You disagree? I'll respect your opinion until you get nasty about it.

ps: in case it's not obvious, I'm not apologizing

"Best man for the job." He's signed off on well over $1 trillion in unneccessary discretionary spending in a phony "stimulus" package and an omnibus bill. In 30 damn days! How can you possibly argue he's doing anything remotely close to a "good job"?

The speed the Democrat congress is moving at is alarming to say the least. If they want a new AWB, it will come quickly, before we can resist it. You can continue to bury your head in the sand and insist that nothing will happen, but who thought we would spend over $1 trillion for NOTHING in 30 days a month ago? America is being transformed into something foreign before our eyes. WAKE THE HELL UP.

jkcerda
02-26-2009, 10:50 PM
Funny. I've been offering my personal friends a similar bet - $1000 or an AR rifle that no AW ban will pass in the next 4 years. No takers.

too broke to take the offer, do you believe he wont try anything to limit our rights as well?

MudCamper
02-26-2009, 10:54 PM
too broke to take the offer, do you believe he wont try anything to limit our rights as well?

I believe that with Heller, federal gun control measures stand little chance to pass, as most would get struck down if they did. Will any be proposed? Yes. By Obama? No.

Swiss
02-26-2009, 11:00 PM
I repeat: I sure as heck didn't vote for him on his pro-gun stance so forget the head-in-the-sand speech. Per my previous post, I'll fight the anti-gun stance as actively as I can with the tools available to me. As for the rest, that's your opinion buddy and you're certainly entitled to it.


"Best man for the job." He's signed off on well over $1 trillion in unneccessary discretionary spending in a phony "stimulus" package and an omnibus bill. In 30 damn days! How can you possibly argue he's doing anything remotely close to a "good job"?

The speed the Democrat congress is moving at is alarming to say the least. If they want a new AWB, it will come quickly, before we can resist it. You can continue to bury your head in the sand and insist that nothing will happen, but who thought we would spend over $1 trillion for NOTHING in 30 days a month ago? America is being transformed into something foreign before our eyes. WAKE THE HELL UP.

Cru Jones
02-26-2009, 11:05 PM
Seriously, they are all liars. Barry O. is a liar (already broken several campaign promises), Pelosi is a liar, Reid is a liar, Holder is a liar. Why do we spend so much time on threads trying to make heads or tails of what a bunch of liars say?

what2be
02-26-2009, 11:10 PM
Want to bet? I bet you that a new permanent assault weapons bill will not be enacted within 100 days of his presidency. I have a $100.00 on it. You want to take me up on the bet?

Ill back you on that bet at 5x odds. Thats right, bet me $100 that they will pass a AW bill within the 100 days of his presidency, and Ill pay $500 if i lose.

I gave the same offer to my republican gun loving friends, and nobody bit, and I said the 1st year, not the first 100 days.

Reminds me of when Obama got elected, my friend called me up, told me I better stock up on ammo, they were gonna outlaw it soon, and I would never be able to buy ammo again. Then last week, he backtracked and said we will still be able to buy it, Its just going to get taxed 500%, like tobacco.

I cant wait for next month for his next good story.

I guess when your so mad your party lost, you just listen to all the naysayers and keep spreading the fud.

TRICKSTER
02-26-2009, 11:12 PM
Seriously, they are all liars. Barry O. is a liar (already broken several campaign promises), Pelosi is a liar, Reid is a liar, Holder is a liar. Why do we spend so much time on threads trying to make heads or tails of what a bunch of liars say?

Because they are the best people for the job. Just like our California elected officials. Don't ask me why they are the best people for the job, I can't give you an answer. I know that it isn't logical, but it just feels so damm good voting for them and thats all that matters.:D

hoffmang
02-26-2009, 11:15 PM
1. Obama is not good for our side, but he's a smart enough politician to know he has to be careful on our issue.

2. I saw Nancy Pelosi take Holder's foot out of Obama's mouth. I never thought I'd see the day that Nancy Pelosi spoke a direct quote I've heard out of Wayne LaPierre's mouth - but today was that day. Anyone else notice that Holder's justice department is defending the new National Parks carry ban relaxation?

3. However, we do need to be very wary of this administration. All I ask is that we skip Obama Derangement Syndrome and attack when he does bring forth the nasty laws and regulations that are not an AWB but are infringements of the RKBA.

-Gene

dwa
02-26-2009, 11:29 PM
So far it sounds just as I expected, let's spend trillions and take it all from very rich people - and let's spend a lot of it on things that will keep my party in power forever.

Just what I expected from a blatent socialist with no real experience.

Reduce the budget deficit? don't make me laugh.

i mean that might work but very rich people aren't a renewable resource you'd think a guy as green as obama wouldn't try to clear cut the upper class

Fantasma
02-26-2009, 11:30 PM
We will start taking apologies now! I bet you are kicking yourself too... On top of all the other crap this guy is loading on our future generations...

My guns are still here, he took yours already?

I will apologize when they come and take some..:43:

giarcpnw
02-26-2009, 11:44 PM
I like how people bash Obama in the first 4 weeks of his presidency when all he's trying to do is save the damn ship Bush left sinking. Give the guy a chance will ya. He's saving jobs and trying to save your house.

Tell me what Bush did worth a s**t in 8 YEARS that's notable except take away Habeus Corpus and rights to privacy under the "Patriot Act" AND get us in a ridiculous war for no reason.

All Politicians lie and change their plans. I'm sure even Washington did. At least Obama is trying to help most of us with tax breaks and better education and health care for our kids. Unless i'm the only one on this board who makes under 250K, how do YOU propose it get's paid for? Tax the rich bastards. I'm all for it.

I like guns.(to keep this response relevant)

TRICKSTER
02-26-2009, 11:57 PM
And people wonder how it is that California has so many gun owners and yet has such screwed up gun laws. The people get the government they deserve.

ggreen144
02-27-2009, 12:03 AM
Is that why a lot of companies are getting multimillion dollar bailouts while I'm getting a 600 dollar check? CEO's can only make $500,000 dollars a years from companies that are collecting bailout money. How will they ever get by. These truly are tough times.

The assault weapons ban makes no sense. Clinton passed it the first time to protect us Americans from the evil weapons that only warlords and terrorists carry. Somehow this fantastic piece of legislation was allowed to sunset. Amazingly, citizens didn't take to the streets and mow each other down for taking their parking spot at bingo night. As a matter of fact, gun related crime rates actually went down.

Now it is our duty to protect the citizens of Mexico from the evils of these terrible weapons. Wait... what??? I guess the Mexican drug cartel will just have to go featureless from now on. Give me a break.

Never mind the fact this completely goes against our 2nd Amendment rights, it is time to stop wasting time with this 'feel good' 'warm and fuzzy' legislation when our country is in a world of hurt.

BigDogatPlay
02-27-2009, 12:16 AM
1. Obama is not good for our side, but he's a smart enough politician to know he has to be careful on our issue.

2. I saw Nancy Pelosi take Holder's foot out of Obama's mouth. I never thought I'd see the day that Nancy Pelosi spoke a direct quote I've heard out of Wayne LaPierre's mouth - but today was that day. Anyone else notice that Holder's justice department is defending the new National Parks carry ban relaxation?

3. However, we do need to be very wary of this administration. All I ask is that we skip Obama Derangement Syndrome and attack when he does bring forth the nasty laws and regulations that are not an AWB but are infringements of the RKBA.

-Gene

+1 all the way through. Well said.

Madame Speaker, and Leader Reid who clammed up when asked for comment on Holder's verbal diarrhea, understands that they lost control of the Congress in 1994 in part due to their passing the federal AWB. There are a hell of a lot of new Democrat house members from moderate to strongly conservative districts who would be shown the door in 2010 if they passed any kind of an AWB. And Madame Speaker doesn't want to lose control, hence her speakership, again.

Right now, because of a lot of good people like those here, truly draconian federal "gun control" laws are tantamount to walking on the BART tracks... you either get electrocuted or get hit by a train for supporting them. Weneed to keep the pressure on those Democrats who are potentially vulnerable and the Republicans who are weak kneed.

They will try. Maybe not a full on AWB, but they'll try. I'd expect once the midterms in 2010 are past, assuming Barack's "stimulus programs" haven't devolved us into economic depression (which would destroy his presidency), they will feel their Wheaties and maybe give it a try.

escon1
02-27-2009, 1:41 AM
Anybody that thinks that Obama is here to help is an idiot.

pullnshoot25
02-27-2009, 2:04 AM
so......... should i put on pot off tea on when the feds drop by pick up my guns?

Oh, there not comming?

Why not?

Time isn't right?

well wake me when something happens. :sleeping:

IN THE MEANTIME STFU!

The whole tea thing is what the Brits did when the Constables came 'round, HAHA!

luchador768
02-27-2009, 2:07 AM
I am new to Cal Guns, and I am amazed and shocked at what I am reading in this thread. People are actually posting that they will be worried AFTER the so-called AW ban is passed! I was pissed at first, but now, I am baffled. The bill is coming, sooner rather than later, and getting "worried" after it is law is an impressive bit of reasoning. This president is anti-gun, anti-military, and an enemy of the second ammendment, make no mistake. His voting record, and own words make that clear. Calling out the pro-Obama voters is not going to help this issue now.

luchador768
02-27-2009, 2:14 AM
My guns are still here, he took yours already?

I will apologize when they come and take some..:43:


wow...that's like trying to lock your car door after it has been stolen.

TRICKSTER
02-27-2009, 2:42 AM
wow...that's like trying to lock your car door after it has been stolen.
Welcome to the Obama Nation, this is now a logic free zone.:eek:

gcvt
02-27-2009, 2:57 AM
New Federal firearms ban = I seriously doubt it.

Ridiculous new taxes & regs = I seriously fear it.

TheDM
02-27-2009, 4:05 AM
WTH are you going on about? Is this about Holder again? The guy who isn't the president and isn't someone can pass or vote for a particular bill? Nice work.... :rolleyes:

BTW, I didn't vote for Bo nor do I agree with anything he has to say. I just like to be a realist and not an alarmist Chicken Little.

You're right, nothing to worry about, he's just the guy in charge of one the departments that will be enforcing whatever might become.

Nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, everything will be fine, move along, go back to grazing.

Publius
02-27-2009, 6:34 AM
I like how people bash Obama in the first 4 weeks of his presidency when all he's trying to do is save the damn ship Bush left sinking.

Bush started the ship sinking by spending money like a drunken sailor and encouraging people to buy houses they couldn't afford. Obama was determined to save the ship. So he sat down at his presidential desk, chugged down a bottle of rum, and whipped out his checkbook. And encouraged everyone to stay in the houses they can't afford. THAT'll turn things around! :D

AEC1
02-27-2009, 7:37 AM
LEAVE THE PRO-OBAMA GUYS ALONE.
If it wasn't for them, I wouldn't be able to stop making my house payments and use the mortgage money to buy guns and ammo. Now that I know that Obama will make the rest of you pay my mortgage, I can put that money to better use. Guns and ammo.:thumbsup:

SCORE!!!

live2offroad
02-27-2009, 8:08 AM
Wow, another thread full of bipartisan assumptions. How original! There needs to be a single "They are coming for our Guns" master thread, then all this can go in one place..


:thumbsup:

-Peter

.454
02-27-2009, 8:15 AM
And people wonder how it is that California has so many gun owners and yet has such screwed up gun laws. The people get the government they deserve.

+100

Blows your mind, isn't it?

They're like chicken voting for Colonel Sanders then having serious talks about how they can sabotage the old man deep fryer.

TRICKSTER
02-27-2009, 8:24 AM
Bush started the ship sinking by spending money like a drunken sailor and encouraging people to buy houses they couldn't afford. Obama was determined to save the ship. So he sat down at his presidential desk, chugged down a bottle of rum, and whipped out his checkbook. And encouraged everyone to stay in the houses they can't afford. THAT'll turn things around! :D

Yes Bush was spending like a drunken sailor, but the housing mess started with Carter and the Community Housing Act. Then in the 1990’s, encouraged by the Clinton administration as a means of advancing homeownership, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started buying sub prime loans. Bush tried to stop all of this mess in 2004. Congress conducted dozens of hearing but Democrats defended Fannie Mae and denied that a problem existed.

In 2005 Republicans, let by John McCain, called for the reform of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and President Bush proposed a bill to tighten regulation of the institution. The bill to tighten regulation over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was introduced in Congress in January 2005 but Democrats lead by Barney Frank blocked it.

Bush screwed up a lot of things, but this housing mess is was not one of them.

JSTONE
02-27-2009, 8:24 AM
It is beyond me how anyone could vote for obama when they had the chance to vote for John Mccain.I'm not saying John Mccain is perfect,but he is a man of honor,a man that loves his country more than himself.He his a man that was willing to die rather than leave his fellow servicemen behind.We all have the right to vote for who we want.But if you think a man like obama is more qualified to lead this country than a man like John Mccain,I doubt you really care about your guns or your country as much as you say you do.

.454
02-27-2009, 8:33 AM
Bush screwed up a lot of things, but this housing mess is was one of them.

Let's not forget if there is something called the Heller decision standing between our guns and the gun-grabbing Democrat douches like Feisntein, Schumer & others, then Bush deserves our appreciation for that. The two judges that tipped the balance of justice in our favor were appointed by Bush, not by Kerry or Gore.

Anybody wanna guess what the SCOTUS decision in Heller vs DC would have been if Kerry or Gore would have appointed another two Ginsburg style justices?

.454
02-27-2009, 8:37 AM
Bush started the ship sinking by spending money like a drunken sailor and encouraging people to buy houses they couldn't afford. Obama was determined to save the ship. So he sat down at his presidential desk, chugged down a bottle of rum, and whipped out his checkbook. And encouraged everyone to stay in the houses they can't afford. THAT'll turn things around! :D

Ahem!

_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en

TRICKSTER
02-27-2009, 8:41 AM
Let's not forget if there is something called the Heller decision standing between our guns and the gun-grabbing Democrat douches like Feisntein, Schumer & others, then Bush deserves our appreciation for that. The two judges that tipped the balance of justice in our favor were appointed by Bush, not by Kerry or Gore.

Anybody wanna guess what the SCOTUS decision in Heller vs DC would have been if Kerry or Gore would have appointed another two Ginsburg style justices?

Oops, that should have said,
"Bush screwed up a lot of things, but this housing mess is was not one of them".
Thanks for pointing that out. It has been corrected.:shrug:

Table Rock Arms
02-27-2009, 8:41 AM
Good news is that our economy is tanking fast enough that we may be in total chaos before they get a chance to take our guns. Bad news is that if it doesn't well be too busy bickering back and forth about the whole thing to do anything about it. Guess I'll be stocking up on Vaseline as well.

Ryan

.454
02-27-2009, 8:56 AM
Oops, that should have said,
"Bush screwed up a lot of things, but this housing mess is was not one of them".
Thanks for pointing that out. It has been corrected.:shrug:

Bush screwed up failing to secure the borders and pushing for that brilliant idea of McCain called "Immigration Reform"
Other than that, he did a pretty decent job: he let the Clinton AWB expire, appointed 2 conservative pro-gun justices, toppled Saddam and the Taliban and freed a couple dozen million people in the process, kept this country terrorist attack free for 7 years, inherited the Clinton dot.com bubble / 9/11 economc downturn and just in a few short years made it run like a Swiss watch.
No matter what people suffering from the BDS syndrome are spewing right now, I believe the history will be gentle to Dubya.

Glock22Fan
02-27-2009, 9:01 AM
Even if Obama had been the perfect gun candidate, I wouldn't have voted for him because all the rest of him is empty socialist rhetoric. Pity that's fooled so many people.

You think Bush (and the Democratic Congress) ruined the country? Boy, will I have news for you within the next few years. Indeed, the way he's started it qill be the next few months.

Publius
02-27-2009, 9:20 AM
Yes Bush was spending like a drunken sailor, but the housing mess started with Carter and the Community Housing Act. Then in the 1990’s, encouraged by the Clinton administration as a means of advancing homeownership, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started buying sub prime loans. Bush tried to stop all of this mess in 2004. Congress conducted dozens of hearing but Democrats defended Fannie Mae and denied that a problem existed.

Ahem!

I'm not saying the housing situation was all Bush's fault (it's true that Carter, Clinton, and Congressional Democrats were even worse on the issue), but he had his own reasons for encouraging unqualified buyers to get into homes they couldn't afford. See, for example:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

There's plenty of blame to go around for the housing fiasco. My main point it's silly to say that Obama needs to save the sinking ship because his philosophy is the same one that made the ship start sinking: keep low income people with bad credit in homes they can't afford.

SgtBulldog
02-27-2009, 9:40 AM
It is beyond me how anyone could vote for obama when they had the chance to vote for John Mccain.I'm not saying John Mccain is perfect,but he is a man of honor,a man that loves his country more than himself.He his a man that was willing to die rather than leave his fellow servicemen behind.We all have the right to vote for who we want.But if you think a man like obama is more qualified to lead this country than a man like John Mccain,I doubt you really care about your guns or your country as much as you say you do.

Ahh, questioning the patriotism of the ones who disagree with you politically. The true mark of an American!

ohsmily
02-27-2009, 9:43 AM
I am new to Cal Guns, and I am amazed and shocked at what I am reading in this thread. People are actually posting that they will be worried AFTER the so-called AW ban is passed! I was pissed at first, but now, I am baffled. The bill is coming, sooner rather than later, and getting "worried" after it is law is an impressive bit of reasoning. This president is anti-gun, anti-military, and an enemy of the second ammendment, make no mistake. His voting record, and own words make that clear. Calling out the pro-Obama voters is not going to help this issue now.

Just you and people like you keep saying, doesn't make it so. Be vigilant, but be smart.

hoffmang
02-27-2009, 10:07 AM
People are actually posting that they will be worried AFTER the so-called AW ban is passed!

No one here is saying you should worry after its passed. What you are hearing those of us who watch these things very closely is that you shouldn't worry until a bill is actually introduced. Speculating about something that doesn't exist is like discussing the merits of unicorns versus fairies...

Also, introduction doesn't mean a bill will go anywhere. Just look at HR-45. It's moribund. It might get life and if it does, then we go on the offensive.

The other side would really like it if we spent our political will and effort on the stuff that doesn't have a chance of passing so that people are worn out when they do get around to the stuff that can pass and we should actively oppose.

Don't fall for the enemy's feints. It's a trap.

-Gene

trashman
02-27-2009, 10:17 AM
The other side would really like it if we spent our political will and effort on the stuff that doesn't have a chance of passing so that people are worn out when they do get around to the stuff that can pass and we should actively oppose.

Don't fall for the enemy's feints. It's a trap.


This, exactly. The cost-barrier-to-entry of introducing a bill in Congress is very, very, low. Especially if you don't expect it to pass and you don't spend any time recruiting votes for it.

It's important to trust the NRA-ILA and "plugged-in" folks like Bill and Gene -- they watch this stuff very, very closely and will let everybody know when it's time work the phones/faxes/mailings.

--Neill

Agustav
02-27-2009, 11:13 AM
Seriously, they are all liars. Barry O. is a liar (already broken several campaign promises), Pelosi is a liar, Reid is a liar, Holder is a liar. Why do we spend so much time on threads trying to make heads or tails of what a bunch of liars say?

Politicians have to lie... It's part of their job description! Regardless of political parties... So, I don't think we need to single out Democrats.

jkcerda
02-27-2009, 11:39 AM
Politicians have to lie... It's part of their job description! Regardless of political parties... So, I don't think we need to single out Democrats.

I can acttually agree with this, JSM did his own gun control thing:eek:

DedEye
02-27-2009, 12:09 PM
I will bet just about anything against the Chicken Littles that a ban won't be passed in the first 100 days, or the first year.

If you're SO CONVINCED that Obama is going to take your guns anyway, how about you put them up to a wager?

I've got plenty of nice things that I'm sure you'd just love to take to prove me wrong and yourself right, it just requires the testicular fortitude to lose what you've got if you're wrong.

yellowfin
02-27-2009, 12:11 PM
^ Who can afford to lose both ways? I can't.

DedEye
02-27-2009, 12:26 PM
^ Who can afford to lose both ways? I can't.

Cavtrooper and Booshanky had such a bet. Cav's rationale was "he's going to lose it anyway."

If you honestly believe a ban is coming and you're going to lose it anyway, why NOT wager a gun or 3?

tcrpe
02-27-2009, 12:27 PM
Give the guy a chance will ya.

No.

JSTONE
02-27-2009, 1:17 PM
Ahh, questioning the patriotism of the ones who disagree with you politically. The true mark of an American!
you're right,after cooling down I realize the last part of my statement was not fair,and I apologize for that.I'm just a proud American and I don't like the direction my country is going in right now.

Cru Jones
02-27-2009, 1:24 PM
Politicians have to lie... It's part of their job description! Regardless of political parties... So, I don't think we need to single out Democrats.

I agree 100%. It just so happens that they are the liars in the spotlight at this moment. I've said it before... voting records are far more telling of a politicians intentions than the words coming out of their mouths. Unfortunately nobody really paid attention to that this past election.

7x57
02-27-2009, 1:50 PM
It's important to trust the NRA-ILA and "plugged-in" folks like Bill and Gene -- they watch this stuff very, very closely and will let everybody know when it's time work the phones/faxes/mailings.


Well, then, I gather the word on the street for stuff like HR45 is that talking it up only gives it credibility. I hadn't thought about that before, but apparently there is a threshold below which it's actually more productive to ignore bills than get vocal about opposing them.

And that's why I try to listen to the people who have done this stuff for a long time.

7x57

luchador768
02-27-2009, 3:51 PM
No one here is saying you should worry after its passed. What you are hearing those of us who watch these things very closely is that you shouldn't worry until a bill is actually introduced. Speculating about something that doesn't exist is like discussing the merits of unicorns versus fairies...

Also, introduction doesn't mean a bill will go anywhere. Just look at HR-45. It's moribund. It might get life and if it does, then we go on the offensive.

The other side would really like it if we spent our political will and effort on the stuff that doesn't have a chance of passing so that people are worn out when they do get around to the stuff that can pass and we should actively oppose.

Don't fall for the enemy's feints. It's a trap.

-Gene


Gene, I have a ton of respect for you and everything you guys are doing for California gun owners. Thank you.
Peter

BadFish
02-27-2009, 6:44 PM
I like how people bash Obama in the first 4 weeks of his presidency when all he's trying to do is save the damn ship Bush left sinking. Give the guy a chance will ya. He's saving jobs and trying to save your house.

I wasn't going to get into this thread but what you just said really bothered me. Enough with he just walked in to this mess. Congress was also as much to blame as the President was. Obama was a congressmen was he not? so he didnt inherent this problem, he is just the manager of it now.

lioneaglegriffin
02-27-2009, 6:46 PM
The whole tea thing is what the Brits did when the Constables came 'round, HAHA!

good eye. ;)

but seriously guys all your doing is making people stampede and panic buy. everytime a gunstore worker says "we don't have that gun in stock" a fairy dies..... :p

radioburning
02-27-2009, 8:48 PM
What pisses me off is that Holder mentions an AWB, and we as a community do absolutely nothing about it but point fingers at a relatively small minority of other gun owners. Where's the public outrage? Why didn't 2 tons of mail end up on Holders doorstep yesterday for talking about taking away our rights? Politicians should be extremely hesitant to ever even think of an AWB due to the sh&^storm it would cause from gunners, but they're not scared. Why would they be?

Falkirk
02-27-2009, 9:18 PM
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/02/26/ldt.tucker.second.amend.cnn

Intimid8tor
02-27-2009, 10:14 PM
I like how people bash Obama in the first 4 weeks of his presidency when all he's trying to do is save the damn ship Bush left sinking. Give the guy a chance will ya. He's saving jobs and trying to save your house.

I like guns to, but do you really believe that load of crap you ust spewed out of your keyboard. He's not saving crap. He's moving us further down the socialist path as quick as he can. Don't forget, he is part of the problem. He's a Senator and voted on all the other crap that took place. Actually he didn't really vote on anything because all he did for the last two years (his only term) was campaign.

Let me be clear, I'm not thrilled with the republicans or W either. But, don't sit here and tell us that he is the almighty one trying to save us. He is saddling us with more debt and keeping people in houses they can't afford. I am vested in the housing market and stand to lose a lot of money as the prices keep going down, but keeping people in houses they can't afford does not help anyone.

He's not trying to save my house. I'm paying my mortgage so I won't get crap. I don't want anything. I committed to paying the mortgage and that is my responsibility. No one should be bailed out. Let the market correct and we can move forward. Prolong it and who knows when it will end.

The last "great one" that came was Hitler. Look where that got us.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-27-2009, 10:20 PM
Name calling and impuning the intelligence or motives of one another isn't a smart use of our time/energy. Until legislation is introduced, people should expend their energy getting involved with their local NRA or other organization and promote the sport. That way, you can be more prepared should legislation be introduced AND have fun while your at it. Win/win situation.

7x57
02-28-2009, 12:07 AM
IGive the guy a chance will ya. He's saving jobs and trying to save your house.


The scariest sentence in the English language: "we're from the government and we're here to help."

Do *not* try to help. Do not fix things. Step away from that checkbook. Put down the credit card and no one gets hurt.

Sometimes, trying to help is the most damaging thing of all.

7x57

oscarred
02-28-2009, 1:21 AM
While I am NO BH0 supporter, who's guns have been taken?

He just took office 2 months ago! Give him some time.

rhess595
02-28-2009, 1:39 AM
Anybody that thinks that Obama is here to help is an idiot.
And anyone who thinks that Bush and Co's tax break and spend, and stupid foreign policy didn't trash the America built by hard working people over the past 300 years is stupid beyond belief.

grammaton76
02-28-2009, 2:04 AM
good eye. ;)

but seriously guys all your doing is making people stampede and panic buy. everytime a gunstore worker says "we don't have that gun in stock" a fairy dies..... :p

How many folks had a wake-up call during the LA riots when they realized they NEEDED a gun, and couldn't get it?

I'm all for stampeding and panic buying. I've got no personal gain to make out of it, but if there were no scarcity, it would tell me that people are asleep and still in some lunatic state of denial that things are bad.

The sheer volume of sales, and the huge number of new gun owners that are being formed by this panic, creates a truly huge number of new potentially 2A-oriented voters.

Non gun owners are VERY unlikely to vote pro-gun.

New gun owners are at the very least going to THINK about it. Where it falls upon us at this point is to reach out to the newbies and try to help them wake up to the reality that the politicans really DO want to take their guns away... and that it's not too late to do something about it.

tonelar
02-28-2009, 2:36 AM
Non gun owners are VERY unlikely to vote pro-gun.

New gun owners are at the very least going to THINK about it. Where it falls upon us at this point is to reach out to the newbies and try to help them wake up to the reality that the politicans really DO want to take their guns away... and that it's not too late to do something about it.

Well said, grammaton76.

We need to take new gun owners and potential gun owners shooting.

TRICKSTER
02-28-2009, 2:37 AM
And anyone who thinks that Bush and Co's tax break and spend, and stupid foreign policy didn't trash the America built by hard working people over the past 300 years is stupid beyond belief.

Bush isn't in office anymore, get over it. It's time to stop living in the past and deal with the person who is in office and try to keep him from screwing it up even more.
Can't do anything about what Bush did in the past, but using Bush's screw ups to make excuses for Obama wasting even more money and destroying our way of life is self destructive. I can see it now, Obama tries to push through some anti-gun law and the first thing some people here will do when Obama is criticized is point out something Bush did.
How free is a society that depends on the government for food, housing, and healthcare? I for one do not want or need to be a government slave.
Anyone who believes that the way to save America, a country built by hard working people, is to take money from those people and giving it to people who have been irresponsible, is.... well, you said it already.

berman1969
02-28-2009, 7:42 AM
can you honestly tell me you are happy with the decisions the man has made so far?

change?

what change?how many years of screw ups is he trying to fix??? how long has he been in office? give him a min you gave 8 years to a fool who all but ruined our country!!!!

tenpercentfirearms
02-28-2009, 7:50 AM
This thread is funny. I really wish some of you would stop using logic and reasoning to dispell these panic rumors. You are decreasing my bottom line.

Honestly, the only thing gun owners need to worry about right now, is running out of guns and ammo. The panic induced shortages are real. The price of guns and ammo are higher. That is the largest threat to your Second Amendment rights at this time.

However as grammaton76 states, how can so many new shooters coming into the fold be a bad thing? Well it can be a bad thing if these people don't understand they have an obligation to stand up for their rights and fight any new legislation. It is sad how many of these panic buyers are buying guns before they are banned. Banned? Like hell. I would rather spend my money on supporting the NRA to make sure they don't get banned rather than already accept defeat.

Worst case scenario if they ban all guns and come looking for them, many people have dozens of guns and arming the entire nation really wouldn't be that hard.

TheDM
02-28-2009, 7:54 AM
how many years of screw ups is he trying to fix??? how long has he been in office? give him a min you gave 8 years to a fool who all but ruined our country!!!!

The only people who have ruined this country are the voters. We have been ruining it since day one, as have all civilizations since the creation of any government with the best of intentions. No one intends to create a monster, it happens over time. We loose our rights one by one, each sounding a like a good idea at the time for some specific made up over-exaggerated reason. The average lifespan of any government statistically is about 365 years. Rome made it 2000 years. Things move faster now.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." -- Edmund Burke

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -- George Bernard Shaw

"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
-- John Adams

And most importantly referencing the recent porkulus bill and other good intentioned flops:



They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson

And lastly:

Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.
James Madison

Meplat
02-28-2009, 10:26 AM
Obama will be a one term president. I agree with almost nothing the man stands for, but he makes slick willy look like sandpaper. But, no one could overcome the problems this country is facing in the next four years. No one could possibly deal with the pidgins of the printing press that will be coming home to roost on Americas fiscal perch.

Cypren
02-28-2009, 3:22 PM
Obama will be a one term president. I agree with almost nothing the man stands for, but he makes slick willy look like sandpaper. But, no one could overcome the problems this country is facing in the next four years. No one could possibly deal with the pidgins of the printing press that will be coming home to roost on Americas fiscal perch.

You may underestimate the power of a fully complicit press who will fall on their collective swords to make sure that nobody ever gets a suggestion that Obama could have made things worse into the national debate. (That would be racist!) Things might turn around eventually, but for now at least the press are quite happy to sell the line that this was entirely Bush's fault, that Hayek and Friedman were consigned to the dustbin of history and Keynes emerged triumphant, and that the Messiah (with his disciples Saint Nancy and Saint Harry) saved us from total collapse. And people seem to be buying it.

Gator Monroe
02-28-2009, 3:39 PM
how many years of screw ups is he trying to fix??? how long has he been in office? give him a min you gave 8 years to a fool who all but ruined our country!!!!

Spoken by someone who sounds like a person who has never fired a Firearm (Even a Daisy BBgun)?:confused:

lrdchivalry
02-28-2009, 4:17 PM
how many years of screw ups is he trying to fix??? how long has he been in office? give him a min you gave 8 years to a fool who all but ruined our country!!!!

I find it funny that you think that the current president who is going to raise your taxes, does not believe you have the right to defend yourself, has the highest spending of any president in U.S. history and is anti-gun and therefore anti-constitution is better then Bush.

Why should anyone give him a minute? If he is doing something people do not agree with then we have every right to criticize him no matter how long he has been in office.

Why should I give him a minute when he has publicly stated that our military cannot be trusted to defend the homeland and therefore wants to create a national security force that is just as well trained and equipped as the military, especially when there is no need, unless he has an ulterior motive? A man who has already spent a million dollars to keep his records sealed so people who believe he is inelegible to be president cannot determine if he is eligible or not. A man who voted for a law that would allow YOU to be prosecuted for defending yourself with a firearm in your own home.

Last I knew the president worked for the American people and as his boss I have every right to question his policies no matter how long he has been in office.

I seem to recall the housing crisis being caused by Democrats which Obama happens to be a party member. Funny.. The house and Senate were/are controlled by the Democrats while Bush was in office but their stupid policies that led to the housing meltdown are somehow Bush's fault.

Stop drinking the cool-aid!

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 10:28 AM
Wow! I don't remember hatred like this since the civil rights movement in the 60's. Why do I get the impression if President Obama gave every American an AW that some of the people on this forum would complain that they got an AR when they wanted an AK.

So much FUD it is hard to know where to begin. You say President Obama's economic package will not work. You may be right. His political future depends on his turning the economy around. No turn around -- new president in 2012. So I do not believe he will deal with gun control until at least 2012, if ever.

I keep hearing him called a liberal or a socialist or a communist. Not true. He is actually a centrist. I know you will howl with derision, but it is true. Wait and see, wait and see.

:hide:

TheDM
03-01-2009, 10:41 AM
Wow! I don't remember hatred like this since the civil rights movement in the 60's. Why do I get the impression if President Obama gave every American an AW that some of the people on this forum would complain that they got an AR when they wanted an AK.

So much FUD it is hard to know where to begin. You say President Obama's economic package will not work. You may be right. His political future depends on his turning the economy around. No turn around -- new president in 2012. So I do not believe he will deal with gun control until at least 2012, if ever.

I keep hearing him called a liberal or a socialist or a communist. Not true. He is actually a centrist. I know you will howl with derision, but it is true. Wait and see, wait and see.

:hide:

Paragraph by paragraph:

Gave us? How can he "give" us anything? Give us more Chinese paid debt? Our Country needs to do what it's citizen's are doing, quit spending and try to get caught up on debt. All of us that have jobs are doing that. All that don't have jobs are in bankruptcy proceedings and starting over. Soon, interest rates will be double digit, and so will finance rates. We are doing CPR on a dead person, you can't keep up a bubble without air and more soap, it will only stretch so far. The economy is out of soap but Congress isn't out of air, it still won't work.

As for gun control, IMHO, and I personally believe this, Eric Holder's comment was a test to see how we would re-act. They are all hoping that "WE" are too busy to care. They found out we aren't. When someone like Pelosi makes a statement like that, you might as well hear the 6th angel blow the trumpet.

A Centrist? Wow, come on! I almost fell out of my chair! Socialized medicine, Tax free money back, an instant change in the tax with holding tables, closing Quantamo with no place to put them? Blowing another trillion dollars on pork, and then the next day telling us government spending is out of hand and we have to cut the deficit in half by his fourth year?! Now is this the old deficit or the new record deficit?

It's not that he's worse or better than Bush, he is the same as Bush, it's just that his agenda is 180 degrees. We are going to spend half the money he blows on undoing what Bush did, then another half changing everything over to benefit poor underprivileged folks.

We are all going to be taxed into slavery, this is it folks.

And it has nothing to with racial uprising, when I see incompetence, and unconstitutionalism I point it out. Just as I did with Bush. It has to do with "Common Sense", hear that Thomas Paine!? COMMON SENSE, we DO remember!

This country needs an Enema.

Swiss
03-01-2009, 11:44 AM
Wow, with all the hatred spewing forth in this thread, it makes me glad I'm a gun owner because clearly there's no room for reasoning and compromise with those "model citizens".

Those of you who are slamming others, either left or right, need to sit back, take a deep breath, and have a little faith that the other half of this country is not so different than you. Yeah, there are extremists on either side but here's your chance to not be one of them. Conduct yourselves with integrity and respect your fellow citizens, especially in this forum where we're all gun owners.

Glock22Fan
03-01-2009, 12:05 PM
and have a little faith that the other half of this country is not so different than you.

This is true, they are not different, they are just deluded by the smoke and mirrors. All will become clear soon. I just hope it won't be too late.

Gunaria
03-01-2009, 12:08 PM
They are the ones selling you the guns right now trying to make a fast buck.:thumbsup:

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 1:39 PM
Wow! I don't remember hatred like this since the civil rights movement in the 60's.

Why do I get the impression that you just threw out the race card?

Why do I get the impression if President Obama gave every American an AW that some of the people on this forum would complain that they got an AR when they wanted an AK.

His voting record and anti-gun associations show that your above statement is nothing but BS.

So much FUD it is hard to know where to begin. You say President Obama's economic package will not work. You may be right. His political future depends on his turning the economy around. No turn around -- new president in 2012. So I do not believe he will deal with gun control until at least 2012, if ever.

Really? I don't see how spending trillions of dollars on pork, which by the way includes billions for an organization (ACORN) that is under investigation for voter fraud is going to help our economy. You don't think he will get to gun control? Well his democratically control house has already started the war on our 2A rights and I have yet to hear him state that he would veto any law that would infringe on our constitutional rights.

I keep hearing him called a liberal or a socialist or a communist. Not true. He is actually a centrist.

His on record statements and laws he signed prove differently, even members of Congress call him the most liberal Senator in the Senate.

sorensen440
03-01-2009, 1:52 PM
There pretty much all still here actually
who do you not see now that you saw posting before ?

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 2:13 PM
Why do I get the impression that you just threw out the race card?

You betcha! Because I can't imagine how you could hate someone who has been in office such a short time without race as a factor! What else do you base your hatred on?

Really? I don't see how spending trillions of dollars on pork, which by the way includes billions for an organization (ACORN) that is under investigation for voter fraud is going to help our economy. You don't think he will get to gun control? Well his democratically control house has already started the war on our 2A rights and I have yet to hear him state that he would veto any law that would infringe on our constitutional rights.

ACORN is not mentioned in the bill unless you live on the wingnut planet FUD!

His on record statements and laws he signed prove differently, even members of Congress call him the most liberal Senator in the Senate.

Oh! I believe everything a member of Congress says especially people like Michelle Bachman who should be committed to the funny farm. [/I]

:kest:

gravedigger
03-01-2009, 2:25 PM
Tax the rich bastards. I'm all for it.

giarcpnw ... please answer this question for me, so I can determine your level of understanding regarding taxes.

I have just over 500 MILLION dollars in CASH in 15,000 safety deposit boxes in banks all around the country. The money draws no interest, and the money is not invested in anything. It just sits in those 15,000 safety deposit boxes, wrapped in rubber bands until I need it. It is all cash. It is almost entirely made up of $100 bills, although each box has a small amount of smaller bills. I take out what I consider to be small amounts of cash each month to pay my normal bills and to buy food and such, and to pay for the rental of the safety deposit boxes, my home, auto and health insurance and other monthly expenses. I figure that I have enough cash on hand to handle any personal expense I might encounter for the rest of my life. When I die, the remainder of the cash will be donated to the church. I am 50 years old, and if my relatives are any indication, I should drop dead of a heart attack in my late 60s, but I take care of myself so I expect I will live to be 90. Therefore, I figure I need enough cash on hand to make it through the next 40 years.

Question: Clearly, as I qualify under your definition of "rich bastard," How much do you believe I should be required to pay in taxes for the year 2009?

I await your response.

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 2:34 PM
Paragraph by paragraph:

Gave us? How can he "give" us anything? Give us more Chinese paid debt? Our Country needs to do what it's citizen's are doing, quit spending and try to get caught up on debt. All of us that have jobs are doing that. All that don't have jobs are in bankruptcy proceedings and starting over. Soon, interest rates will be double digit, and so will finance rates. We are doing CPR on a dead person, you can't keep up a bubble without air and more soap, it will only stretch so far. The economy is out of soap but Congress isn't out of air, it still won't work.

The primary reason the economy is out of soap is that George Bush charged two wars on our credit card!

As for gun control, IMHO, and I personally believe this, Eric Holder's comment was a test to see how we would re-act. They are all hoping that "WE" are too busy to care. They found out we aren't. When someone like Pelosi makes a statement like that, you might as well hear the 6th angel blow the trumpet.

You can choose to run around yelling the sky is falling the sky is falling! if you want. If there is a bill introduced in Congress I will stand with you and so will Nancy Pelosi!

A Centrist? Wow, come on! I almost fell out of my chair! Socialized medicine, Tax free money back, an instant change in the tax with holding tables, closing Quantamo with no place to put them? Blowing another trillion dollars on pork, and then the next day telling us government spending is out of hand and we have to cut the deficit in half by his fourth year?! Now is this the old deficit or the new record deficit?

What do you mean by socialized medicine? Who do you think pays for medical treatment of people who can't afford insurance today?

"Tax free money" Do the rich pay taxes? Hell no! You and I subsidize them. Do you want to keep sending your money to the rich? Maybe you are more compassionate than I am. I believe in personal responsibility.

Guantanmo -- where do we put Bin Laden's driver? Maybe he could drive George Bush around. The gang that couldn't shoot straight could not capture my 90 year old grandmother.

It's not that he's worse or better than Bush, he is the same as Bush, it's just that his agenda is 180 degrees. We are going to spend half the money he blows on undoing what Bush did, then another half changing everything over to benefit poor underprivileged folks.

I don't think he is listening into your phone conversations nor looking at what you are reading from the library. Oh wait, maybe he will throw you into jail for 7 years without charges. Yep sounds like freedom to me.

We are all going to be taxed into slavery, this is it folks.

You make over $250,00 a year. My heart bleeds for you. How do you live on that?

And it has nothing to with racial uprising, when I see incompetence, and unconstitutionalism I point it out. Just as I did with Bush. It has to do with "Common Sense", hear that Thomas Paine!? COMMON SENSE, we DO remember!

Name one thing Bush did right!

This country needs an Enema.

I agree!


:fud:

Fate
03-01-2009, 3:17 PM
Cavtrooper and Booshanky had such a bet. Cav's rationale was "he's going to lose it anyway."Did that ever get paid off or did one of them crab-walk?

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 3:29 PM
:kest:

I see.. If someone disagrees with Obama based on his policies and actions then it must be because he is black, even though race was never mentioned. For you to make such an assumption without knowing anything about those who disagrees with him is in itself a racist remark.

Admit it you are the one who is the racist.

I disagree with his policies. I disagree with his view that I have no right to defend myself with a firearm, even in my own home. I disagree with his view that the military cannot be trusted to defend the homeland and that is why he wants to create a national security force that is just as well trained and equipped as the military when it is not necessary. I disagree with the his idea that if someone works hard and becomes prosperous, that person must give up that hard earned money and give it to someone who just wants to live on everyone elses dime. I disagree with his and other democratic leaders who feel that only their views should be heard and their attempts to squash other peoples rights to free speach with the so-called fairness doctrine.

Even if ACORN is not mentioned in the bill the fact that he has spent more in the first month in office then any other president in history and then claims that it somehow is going to help the economy is ludicrus. You do not spend $20 to save $1. I also noticed that you conveniently avoid the fact that he is anti 2A and has played a major role is denying Americans their 2A rights.

I see the double standard. If a republican states something you don't like they should be commited yet if a democrat says something I disagree with then I am to ignore it or get labeled a racist. Typical liberal strategy. Cannot argue on facts so they resort to calling people racists to silence an opposing point of view.

Dr Rockso
03-01-2009, 3:29 PM
Did that ever get paid off or did one of them crab-walk?
Cav made good, Boo got a 1911 out of it.

Hoop
03-01-2009, 3:42 PM
Did that ever get paid off or did one of them crab-walk?

If you're talking about their gun bet, Cav went through with it.

Swiss
03-01-2009, 3:45 PM
You're playing pretty fast and loose with the facts yourself. Everything you dislike about Obama's policies you've taken and presented as an extreme and without context. If you're going to argue facts then you need to thoroughly present BOTH sides of the issue and then explain, in objective terms quite different from your previous diatribes, why you think it's wrong.

I suspect you don't have the patience or even the complete knowledge to do so, and I doubt many in this forum would even care. This is not meant to single you out since the same applies to the more liberal posters in this forum...although they've generally been less strident.

BTW, I took the poster's reference to the '60s to be about the general civil unrest during that time, not about race.


I see the double standard. If a republican states something you don't like they should be commited yet if a democrat says something I disagree with then I am to ignore it or get labeled a racist. Typical liberal strategy. Cannot argue on facts so they resort to name calling to silence an opposing point of view.

Hoop
03-01-2009, 3:48 PM
The panic induced shortages are real. The price of guns and ammo are higher. That is the largest threat to your Second Amendment rights at this time.


This.

I know plenty of people who aren't NRA members, don't vote, yet are looking to buy firearms out of fear they will be banned.

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 3:54 PM
I see.. If someone disagrees with Obama based on his policies and actions then it must be because he is black, even though race was never mentioned. For you to make such an assumption without knowing anything about those who disagrees with him is in itself a racist remark.

You betcha! Please feel free to hate someone for no reason based on nothing!

Admit it you are the one who is the racist.

Where do you live on planet wingnut?

I disagree with his policies. I disagree with his view that I have no right to defend myself with a firearm, even in my own home. I disagree with his view that the military cannot be trusted to defend the homeland and that is why he wants to create a national security force that is just as well trained and equipped as the military when it is not necessary. I disagree with the his idea that if someone works hard and becomes prosperous, that person must give up that hard earned money and give it to someone who just wants to live on everyone elses dime. I disagree with his and other democratic leaders who feel that only their views should be heard and their attempts to squash other peoples rights to free speach with the so-called fairness doctrine.

Those are not his policies, those are your interpretations (kind word) based on his policies. Please learn to spell it will make your arguments seem more intelligent. Speech is not spelled speach.

Even if ACORN is not mentioned in the bill the fact that he has spent more in the first month in office then any other president in history and then claims that it somehow is going to help the economy is ludicrus. You do not spend $20 to save $1. I also noticed that you conveniently avoid the fact that he is anti 2A and has played a major role is denying Americans their 2A rights.

What does the amount spent have anything to do with ACORN. In logic this is known as a non sequitur.

I see the double standard. If a republican states something you don't like they should be commited yet if a democrat says something I disagree with then I am to ignore it or get labeled a racist. Typical liberal strategy. Cannot argue on facts so they resort to calling people racists to silence an opposing point of view.

If they do something wrong then I can do something wrong Makes sense to me.

:owned:

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 4:21 PM
You're playing pretty fast and loose with the facts yourself. Everything you dislike about Obama's policies you've taken and presented as an extreme and without context.


On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama

http://www.nraila.org/images/acro.gif (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/2008Obamafactsht.pdf)
Print PDF version The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.
But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17</B>
FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
<DIV style1><DIV align=center>

TheDM
03-01-2009, 4:38 PM
The primary reason the economy is out of soap is that George Bush charged two wars on our credit card!


You can choose to run around yelling the sky is falling the sky is falling! if you want. If there is a bill introduced in Congress I will stand with you and so will Nancy Pelosi!

What do you mean by socialized medicine? Who do you think pays for medical treatment of people who can't afford insurance today?

"Tax free money" Do the rich pay taxes? Hell no! You and I subsidize them. Do you want to keep sending your money to the rich? Maybe you are more compassionate than I am. I believe in personal responsibility.

Guantanmo -- where do we put Bin Laden's driver? Maybe he could drive George Bush around. The gang that couldn't shoot straight could not capture my 90 year old grandmother.


I don't think he is listening into your phone conversations nor looking at what you are reading from the library. Oh wait, maybe he will throw you into jail for 7 years without charges. Yep sounds like freedom to me.


You make over $250,00 a year. My heart bleeds for you. How do you live on that?


Name one thing Bush did right!

This country needs an Enema.

I agree!:fud:


Again, I will respond to you paragraph by paragraph, and show you how to use the quote feature.

You said : The primary reason the economy is out of soap is that George Bush charged two wars on our credit card!

Firstly, I never said Bush didn't suck. He did, he took away half my constitutional rights, and Obama is after the rest. Secondly, it's not the primary reason. The primary reason are the Gas prices, which threw everyone living on the edge into a negative cash balance, which made them not buy more, which made them get laid off.

You said: You can choose to run around yelling the sky is falling the sky is falling! if you want. If there is a bill introduced in Congress I will stand with you and so will Nancy Pelosi!

I'm not saying it, I'm seeing it, look around. You live in a state with over 10% unemployment. The sky isn't falling, but the stock market is. Obama personally believes the 2nd is about hunting and sportsmanship, those are his words not mine. You just wait. It will happen if he and his administration feels he can get away with it. You really should read more. Holder did that or was told to do that because he is appointed. It was a litmus strip.

You said: What do you mean by socialized medicine? Who do you think pays for medical treatment of people who can't afford insurance today?

I mean what I said, were going to subsidize 65% of Cobra, like anyone without a job can afford even 35% of Cobra. And to answer your question, we all do, through higher prices on everything with regards to health care. But when the rest of their program goes through, we'll all be paying for everyone's health care, with the government running it,and they WILL screw it up. I'm a vet, I know how well the government runs health care, if you can even call that care!

You said: "Tax free money" Do the rich pay taxes? Hell no! You and I subsidize them. Do you want to keep sending your money to the rich? Maybe you are more compassionate than I am. I believe in personal responsibility.

B.S they don't pay taxes. They pay what we pay, plus. Just because an individual didn't succeed in life doesn't mean everyone else should pay for it. That is called communism. If I had my way, everyone would pay the same percentage, period. You need to do some math. It's called Free enterprise. One day, I hope to make enough for you to hate me. I may already. Pretend you make 300,000 and look at the tax tables, they pay plenty.

You said: Guantanmo -- where do we put Bin Laden's driver? Maybe he could drive George Bush around. The gang that couldn't shoot straight could not capture my 90 year old grandmother.

They should have been executed during the battle to begin with. If they were there, they meant us harm. At least the original batch from Afghanistan anyways. But no one, and I say NO ONE should be incarcerated against the rules of the Constitution if apprehended from a civilian environment, I.E. not from a battlefield.

You said: I don't think he is listening into your phone conversations nor looking at what you are reading from the library. Oh wait, maybe he will throw you into jail for 7 years without charges. Yep sounds like freedom to me.

Oh, yes they are, My sister lives in Norway, but is a U.S. citizen, but that call get's monitored, or did you not read about that in the news. We have no freedom, you just try anything funny and you'll be labeled as a terrorist. It's been happening for a few years now already, abuse of the Patriot act, big shock there.

You said: You make over $250,00 a year. My heart bleeds for you. How do you live on that?

I don't, but if I did, I sure as anything deserve it, because I played the game right, that's the bonus, just like you don't have to pay into Social Security for anything over 50,000 because you're never getting more than that out of it. Anyone that figured out how to make that much wins. That dosen't mean they owe it to you or anyone else for being a success.

70 years ago, we didn't have income tax, it was temporary, just like the PATRIOT ACT!

You said: Name one thing Bush did right!

I say, NOTHING!

The bracket quote bracket thing, goes around what I say, not what YOU say.

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 4:41 PM
Nice FUD where do I buy your stuff? In the commercial sales forum?
Source?
Fox News?
Planet wingnut?
If I had a warehouse of guns to sell this is exactly what I would say. Can I have a percentage of your commission?

:fud:

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 4:44 PM
:owned:

As I have pointed out you cannot argue on facts so you revert to personal attacks.

I noticed your afraid to admit your the racist here. I have given reasons for disagreeing with his policies and you dodge them by calling them nothing.


On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama

http://www.nraila.org/images/acro.gif (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/2008Obamafactsht.pdf)
Print PDF version The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.
But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17</B>
FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

Here are the sources for the above information.

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219))
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html))
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217))
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: `Common Sense Regulation` On Gun Owners` Rights," ABC News` "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html))
5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.
6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama`s Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php))
7. “Candidates` gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html))
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.
9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml))
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html))
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html))
14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement).)</SPAN>
15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm) and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm)) Oct 21, 2004.
16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.
17. United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006 and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.
18. Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf (http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 5:03 PM
BTW, I took the poster's reference to the '60s to be about the general civil unrest during that time, not about race.

His quote to me when I asked if he was throwing the race card out there.

"You betcha! Because I can't imagine how you could hate someone who has been in office such a short time without race as a factor! What else do you base your hatred on?"

He admits to using the race card.

postal16
03-01-2009, 5:09 PM
You know, I think BHO is going to be a really bad thing for this country...and if you want to call me a racist, go ahead, but I am only critisizing the his white half!

Seriously, time will tell what the damage is going to be in regards to our impending surrender of Iraq, the release of the Club Gitmo guys and the Dems Trillion Dollar gamble.

Race has nothing to do with it...there are plenty of Black politicians that I believe would be excellant POTUS. Racism will be dead and gone in this country when we stop throwing the race card down everytime someone disagrees with a non-white (or half-white)

Swiss
03-01-2009, 5:11 PM
Well in that case I agree with you, he did play the race card.

But you've gone and schmeared one-sided NRA propaganda all over my screen. Who's gonna clean this mess up?! :laugh:

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 5:13 PM
Again, I will respond to you paragraph by paragraph, and show you how to use the quote feature.

You said : The primary reason the economy is out of soap is that George Bush charged two wars on our credit card!

Firstly, I never said Bush didn't suck. He did, he took away half my constitutional rights, and Obama is after the rest. Secondly, it's not the primary reason. The primary reason are the Gas prices, which threw everyone living on the edge into a negative cash balance, which made them not buy more, which made them get laid off.

You said: You can choose to run around yelling the sky is falling the sky is falling! if you want. If there is a bill introduced in Congress I will stand with you and so will Nancy Pelosi!

I'm not saying it, I'm seeing it, look around. You live in a state with over 10% unemployment. The sky isn't falling, but the stock market is. Obama personally believes the 2nd is about hunting and sportsmanship, those are his words not mine. You just wait. It will happen if he and his administration feels he can get away with it. You really should read more. Holder did that or was told to do that because he is appointed. It was a litmus strip.

You said: What do you mean by socialized medicine? Who do you think pays for medical treatment of people who can't afford insurance today?

I mean what I said, were going to subsidize 65% of Cobra, like anyone without a job can afford even 35% of Cobra. And to answer your question, we all do, through higher prices on everything with regards to health care. But when the rest of their program goes through, we'll all be paying for everyone's health care, with the government running it,and they WILL screw it up. I'm a vet, I know how well the government runs health care, if you can even call that care!

You said: "Tax free money" Do the rich pay taxes? Hell no! You and I subsidize them. Do you want to keep sending your money to the rich? Maybe you are more compassionate than I am. I believe in personal responsibility.

B.S they don't pay taxes. They pay what we pay, plus. Just because an individual didn't succeed in life doesn't mean everyone else should pay for it. That is called communism. If I had my way, everyone would pay the same percentage, period. You need to do some math. It's called Free enterprise. One day, I hope to make enough for you to hate me. I may already. Pretend you make 300,000 and look at the tax tables, they pay plenty.

You said: Guantanmo -- where do we put Bin Laden's driver? Maybe he could drive George Bush around. The gang that couldn't shoot straight could not capture my 90 year old grandmother.

They should have been executed during the battle to begin with. If they were there, they meant us harm. At least the original batch from Afghanistan anyways. But no one, and I say NO ONE should be incarcerated against the rules of the Constitution if apprehended from a civilian environment, I.E. not from a battlefield.

You said: I don't think he is listening into your phone conversations nor looking at what you are reading from the library. Oh wait, maybe he will throw you into jail for 7 years without charges. Yep sounds like freedom to me.

Oh, yes they are, My sister lives in Norway, but is a U.S. citizen, but that call get's monitored, or did you not read about that in the news. We have no freedom, you just try anything funny and you'll be labeled as a terrorist. It's been happening for a few years now already, abuse of the Patriot act, big shock there.

You said: You make over $250,00 a year. My heart bleeds for you. How do you live on that?

I don't, but if I did, I sure as anything deserve it, because I played the game right, that's the bonus, just like you don't have to pay into Social Security for anything over 50,000 because you're never getting more than that out of it. Anyone that figured out how to make that much wins. That dosen't mean they owe it to you or anyone else for being a success.

70 years ago, we didn't have income tax, it was temporary, just like the PATRIOT ACT!

You said: Name one thing Bush did right!

I say, NOTHING!

The bracket quote bracket thing, goes around what I say, not what YOU say.

Thank you for helping me use the quote feature, Unfortunately I believe your post missed a few paragraphs in your paragraph by paragraph response.

Racism aside how could you hate President Obama so much when he has had less than two months in office? Please explain.

What does unemployment have to do with 2A rights? Non sequiter!

Actually the government does a pretty good job with Medicare. You like the insurance companies better? I am a vet too.

The rich do not pay taxes except on the planet wingnut.

You and I agree Bush did nothing right!
:bofud:

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 5:20 PM
Well in that case I agree with you, he did play the race card.

But you've gone and schmeared one-sided NRA propaganda all over my screen. Who's gonna clean this mess up?! :laugh:

Can't blame the NRA for bringing out the truth. Sources of the info were provided in a later post.

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 5:27 PM
As I have pointed out you cannot argue on facts so you revert to personal attacks.

I noticed your afraid to admit your the racist here. I have given reasons for disagreeing with his policies and you dodge them by calling them nothing.


On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama

http://www.nraila.org/images/acro.gif (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/2008Obamafactsht.pdf)
Print PDF version The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.
But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17</B>
FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

Here are the sources for the above information.

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219))
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html))
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217))
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: `Common Sense Regulation` On Gun Owners` Rights," ABC News` "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html))
5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.
6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama`s Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php))
7. “Candidates` gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html))
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.
9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml))
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html))
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html))
14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement).)</SPAN>
15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm) and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm)) Oct 21, 2004.
16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.
17. United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006 and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.
18. Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf (http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).

You are correct. I admit it. I am a racist. Even though President Obama has been in office only a month an a half I hate him. I listen to Rush Limbaugh every day. I play "Barak the Magic Negro" on my ipod and I shoot guns. You have overwhelmed me with your footnotes. I:King: give up. I will sell my house and move to planet wingnut tomorrow. You have found me out please forgive me.

TheDM
03-01-2009, 5:33 PM
Thank you for helping me use the quote feature, Unfortunately I believe your post missed a few paragraphs in your paragraph by paragraph response.

Racism aside how could you hate President Obama so much when he has had less than two months in office? Please explain.

What does unemployment have to do with 2A rights? Non sequiter!

Actually the government does a pretty good job with Medicare. You like the insurance companies better? I am a vet too.

The rich do not pay taxes except on the planet wingnut.

You and I agree Bush did nothing right!
:bofud:

#1 No I didn't and it has nothing to do with Racism, wth are you talking about with the racism comment?

The porkulus bill.

#2 Nothing, really, I did get a little off there, but look at the guys web page for pete's sake. sheesh. The sky is falling though.

#3 NO it doesn't what little old lady has enough cash to cover the first 3600 in prescription costs? My wife is disabled, but I keep her on my policy one, because I can afford it, and two because she has a chronic disease, and medicare will not pay for the latest treatments or medicines available. So, no they do not do a good job. If my wife's DR says she's needs a drug, she needs it, that is what he's there for. The government can not tell me what she needs and what she doesn't need medically, and get used to it, because that is Exactly what government health care will be like.

#4 before you go off on the rich not paying taxes, you really honestly need to run through the numbers scenario I suggested. Open up your tax software, put in 300,000 on your earnings and see what they pay. Then figure out what kind of house a 300,000 per yr earner might have and figure up the taxes on that. I really can't believe you think rich people don't pay taxes. And where I grew up, 50k a year is rich. So it really is very subject to perception.

And loose the childish icons if you are going to have an adult conversation.

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 5:38 PM
You are correct. I admit it. I am a racist.

Finally an admission.

Model X
03-01-2009, 5:38 PM
The rich do not pay taxes except on the planet wingnut.

You realize that if people in the lower tax brackets set aside some money to invest in the stock market and then held those securities for over a year that any gains would be tax free to them dont you?

Its a different, FAR RISKIER, way to make money. Why shouldn't they be taxed at lower rates? After all capital losses can only offset capital gains and up to $3000 of ordinary income per year.

The lower the risk, the less the rewards, and that seems to reflect upon the capital gains tax structure.

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 5:41 PM
Finally an admission.

Ah yes you work for fox news don't you?

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 5:48 PM
#1 No I didn't and it has nothing to do with Racism, wth are you talking about with the racism comment?

He believes that if you don't agree with Obama your a racist.

#3 NO it doesn't what little old lady has enough cash to cover the first 3600 in prescription costs? My wife is disabled, but I keep her on my policy one, because I can afford it, and two because she has a chronic disease, and medicare will not pay for the latest treatments or medicines available. So, no they do not do a good job. If my wife's DR says she's needs a drug, she needs it, that is what he's there for. The government can not tell me what she needs and what she doesn't need medically, and get used to it, because that is Exactly what government health care will be like.

That is why people who live in countries with socialized medicine come here to get treatment.

#4 before you go off on the rich not paying taxes, you really honestly need to run through the numbers scenario I suggested. Open up your tax software, put in 300,000 on your earnings and see what they pay. Then figure out what kind of house a 300,000 per yr earner might have and figure up the taxes on that. I really can't believe you think rich people don't pay taxes. And where I grew up, 50k a year is rich. So it really is very subject to perception.

According to wikipedia:
In 2007, the richest 5% of Americans paid over half of federal income taxes.[28] (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/#cite_note-bab-27) The top 1% of income earners pay 25% of total income taxes.[29] (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/#cite_note-28) Forty percent of Americans pay no federal incomes tax at all although it is the government's largest revenue source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#cite_note-bab-27

The International Tribune ran an article in 2007 that stated:
Recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office of U.S. tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent.
At the very top of the income distribution, the CBO reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/tax.php


And loose the childish icons if you are going to have an adult conversation.

I agree.

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 5:49 PM
What else could I be living between Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren.

:nuke:

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 5:52 PM
Ah yes you work for fox news don't you?

I don't need to work for fox news to expose a phony such as yourself.

rabagley
03-01-2009, 5:55 PM
Okay, so swiss didn't provide specifics, he just made a general claim. Here are some specifics.

I disagree with his view that I have no right to defend myself with a firearm, even in my own home.

Fair enough, he has a pretty consistent anti-gun record.

I disagree with his view that the military cannot be trusted to defend the homeland and that is why he wants to create a national security force that is just as well trained and equipped as the military when it is not necessary.

This is nonsense of the first order. The "security force" that you're talking about was a campaign point about radically expanding civil service programs like the Peace Corps and Americorps so that they were as well funded as the military.

Rush Limbaugh wants you to think that expanding Peace Corps funding means that the Peace Corps will be brought home, given guns instead of shovels, and start using a uniform (preferably a brown shirt). This is Rush's fantasy about what Obama said. It's not what Obama said.

I disagree with the his idea that if someone works hard and becomes prosperous, that person must give up that hard earned money and give it to someone who just wants to live on everyone elses dime.

The smart wealthy person votes for the poor to receive a sinecure so that the poor have too much to lose to consider rising up and unseating the wealthy by force.

Your statement leaves out any possibility that a wealthy person can earn another penny without that penny being taken and handed to someone who doesn't deserve it. You've framed your statement to be extreme in two ways. First, you imply that all of the additional money earned by the wealthy is taxed away, and second, that any recipient of that money is an undeserving freeloader.

Let's take the second point first: you're afraid of welfare money going to people who don't "deserve" it. Are there any possible recipients of welfare who might be deserving? Really? None? A part of how our economic system works is that it's very difficult to fall all the way down to zero. There are various safety nets intended to help a hard worker who is permanently injured or a stay-at-home mother who is widowed or... from becoming completely destitute. These sorts of policies stabilize the whole society by helping those people get back on their feet without turning them into desperate criminals or worse. I do agree that the various entitlement systems should improve how they exclude freeloaders, but the assertion that they only serve freeloaders is wrong.

The other issue is that the wealthy are not asked to give up "[all of] that hard earned money", but a fraction of that hard earned money. I'm guessing that you may actually prefer the Libertarian ideal of near-anarchy and no taxes. If so, good luck to you. That's not how this country works, nor is it likely to ever change back to such a state, no matter which of the two parties is making policy.

I disagree with his and other democratic leaders who feel that only their views should be heard and their attempts to squash other peoples rights to free speach with the so-called fairness doctrine.

I agree that the "fairness doctrine" is utter nonsense, but aside from the fact that it's completely unconstitutional, here's what the Obama campaign had to say about it:

Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.

So pretty much a complete and total non-issue IMHO.

Even if ACORN is not mentioned in the bill the fact that he has spent more in the first month in office then any other president in history and then claims that it somehow is going to help the economy is ludicrus. You do not spend $20 to save $1.

Your last sentence is a non-sequitur and does not support the assertion made in the previous sentence. IMHO, a deep recession demands government spending to prevent further erosion of employment. Cutting taxes isn't going to do squat about the 650k people who lost their jobs last month.

If the government takes $20 as debt and pays that out as someone's salary who otherwise wouldn't have a job today, that $20 is now helping solve two critical problems, putting that person to work, and stabilizing the economy. Good idea says me.

I also noticed that you conveniently avoid the fact that he is anti 2A and has played a major role is denying Americans their 2A rights.

He voted for anti-gun laws and labeled himself an anti while in Chicago. No argument there. Biden is also an anti with a long record. Eric Holder is also an anti and has already tested the water with a few remarks.

Here's the thing: none of those individuals can pass laws. And the group that can pass laws seems to be very uninterested in passing gun control legislation right now. No telling how that interest will change in the future, but for now, the AWB appears to be a non-starter.

I see the double standard. If a republican states something you don't like they should be commited yet if a democrat says something I disagree with then I am to ignore it or get labeled a racist. Typical liberal strategy. Cannot argue on facts so they resort to calling people racists to silence an opposing point of view.

It's not clear what you're responding to here. Maybe the editor doesn't let me see that far back in the topic. I'm a registered Republican who didn't vote for Obama or McCain, but from my seat: Bush was incompetent, while Cheney and the neo-cons were criminally wrong, and personally, I'm hoping for war crimes charges against the whole lot of them. Obama's efforts may or may not solve the crisis, but his actions so far are based on solid economic theory, which puts him more than a step ahead of his immediate predecessors and dozens of steps ahead of the "just say no" Republican leaders who still desperately need a plan of their own.

The foundations of the current economic crisis were laid down in Bush I and the Clinton administrations with the banking deregulations that were passed then. But it took the utterly incompetent Bush II appointment of Christopher Cox to the SEC and the astonishingly bad decision making of Alan Greenspan to turn a worrying trend into the potential apocalypse we're looking at today. Obama has been in office for just over a month. He's doing his best based on everything he knows.

Am I an uncritical cheerleader of Obama? No. My complaints about Obama:

He said he would end the ban on stem-cell research funding, so where is the executive order?
He objected to the encroachments on civil liberties by W. in the name of fighting terrorists. Then why is the DOJ still using the "state secrets" argument to suppress lawsuits by US citizens who were spied on? When do we actually see a rollback of the powers claimed by the executive?
He said he would get us out of Iraq. Why will 50k troops be left in Iraq in 2011?
Afghanistan is a military/political tar pit with almost impossible logistics and a population that correctly assumes part of our mission is to shut down poppy profits. There is no good outcome for Afghanistan.
He stepped on it with his remarks about what he would do in Pakistan and the ongoing airstrikes that may or may not be causing civilian casualties are turning an ally into an enemy.


But as for some of his other proposals: his upheaval of the current medical insurance nightmare? Fixing some of the huge problems with medicare? Tearing down cold war procurement projects at the pentagon? Getting the US on track to limit carbon emissions? Fixing some of the pending disasters in national infrastructure? Hell yeah!

The big complaints I have about the Obama administration so far is where he's not doing enough of what he promised. Also, one thing the Republicans have an opportunity to do is to keep track of spending and do their best to attack waste in the implementation of the stimulus bill. If they do a good job of this effort, and succeed in forcing transparency into government spending at all levels, they could be a real force for keeping the growing government lean and more effective. I hope so, anyway.

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 5:59 PM
He believes that if you don't agree with Obama your a racist.

That is why people who live in countries with socialized medicine come here to get treatment.

According to wikipedia:
In 2007, the richest 5% of Americans paid over half of federal income taxes.[28] (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/#cite_note-bab-27) The top 1% of income earners pay 25% of total income taxes.[29] (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/#cite_note-28) Forty percent of Americans pay no federal incomes tax at all although it is the government's largest revenue source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#cite_note-bab-27

The International Tribune ran an article in 2007 that stated:
Recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office of U.S. tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent.
At the very top of the income distribution, the CBO reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/tax.php

I agree.

You mean to tell me that Bill Gates pays 31 percent of his income to the Federal government. That is terrible. Get real buddy! Hell, I pay almost 31 percent of my income to the government.

TheDM
03-01-2009, 6:05 PM
You mean to tell me that Bill Gates pays 31 percent of his income to the Federal government. That is terrible. Get real buddy! Hell, I pay almost 31 percent of my income to the government.

We all pay a lot more than that if you add it up. It's crazy, and increasing the deficit will only make it far far worse.

Think about it, look at your check.

Okay, fair enough you say, we get services for this, we get our country defended. All good. We even get a small retirement fund if we are too dumb to make one ourselves. Even an "in case your almost dead" health care plan.

Great.

But then...........

You buy a house, you never own it, you pay taxes on it till you die. Oh we have to pay for the streets... and the sewers...

Isn't that in my water bill, isn't that why I pay the gas tax?

Oh, what about the tax on your vehicle?

What about the tax on smokes, booze, sales tax on everything you buy?!

It's totally out of hand, when does it end? Not when you die, there is inheritance tax.

The government gets 5% tax on your income from your employer before you or social security ever see's it. It's called payroll tax.

So add up what you pay, everything you pay, and add 5% to it. Then if your rich, make that 15% into 28% or more, and it keeps going up.

How about the casino's were supposed to solve our educational budget problems, what ever happened to that money for schools?

Sheesh. We had a revolution for less than that.

How many times to I have to pay for the same thing?

Now, I pay my taxes the keep the banks I owe money to solvent, so I'm paying them twice too.

rayra
03-01-2009, 6:16 PM
Wow! I don't remember hatred like this since the civil rights movement in the 60's. Why do I get the impression if President Obama gave every American an AW that some of the people on this forum would complain that they got an AR when they wanted an AK.

So much FUD it is hard to know where to begin. You say President Obama's economic package will not work. You may be right. His political future depends on his turning the economy around. No turn around -- new president in 2012. So I do not believe he will deal with gun control until at least 2012, if ever.

I keep hearing him called a liberal or a socialist or a communist. Not true. He is actually a centrist. I know you will howl with derision, but it is true. Wait and see, wait and see.

:hide:
Delusional. A man that can sit for YEARS through the anti-America Black-Liberation-Theology sermons or Reverend Wright, who can have as a bff / mentor / associate a domestic terrorist like William Ayers. A CENTRIST?? (shakes head). Nobody can be THIS stupid. Not even Useful Idiots, as Lenin termed them. I can only surmise that such obfuscation is deliberate and malicious. Deliberately attempting to hold the wool over people's eyes, even at this late date as every Obama Administation policy statement, executive order, and political appointee sets about cementing massive government intrustion into our lives, massive governmental control of industries and sectors, and PUNISHES success and the successful in this nation.
NO ONE with a shred of honesty and information and grasp of history can look at these events and honestly call him 'centrist'.
You are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how foolish or dishonest it might be, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. Empirical facts. Things like history. As Obama repeats every Depression-cementing idea that FDR and his fellow Keynesian fools implemented. As Obama sets about putting forward an utterly specious 'Cap and trade' system to DELIBERATELY bankrupt our principal energy industry - and you and me, with the shooting prices that will result for EVERYTHING we utilize.
Just unfathomable. Unconscionable. Intolerable.

Swiss
03-01-2009, 6:19 PM
Great post, rabagley!

glockwise2000
03-01-2009, 6:22 PM
here you go, password is hbh


http://www.huntingbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?t=5088

geez. thanks for the non-working link.

TheDM
03-01-2009, 6:28 PM
Worked for me (shrug)

AlliedArmory
03-01-2009, 6:49 PM
link to legislation or bill?


+1..

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 7:37 PM
We all pay a lot more than that if you add it up. It's crazy, and increasing the deficit will only make it far far worse.

Think about it, look at your check.

Okay, fair enough you say, we get services for this, we get our country defended. All good. We even get a small retirement fund if we are too dumb to make one ourselves. Even an "in case your almost dead" health care plan.

Great.

But then...........

You buy a house, you never own it, you pay taxes on it till you die. Oh we have to pay for the streets... and the sewers...

Isn't that in my water bill, isn't that why I pay the gas tax?

Oh, what about the tax on your vehicle?

What about the tax on smokes, booze, sales tax on everything you buy?!

It's totally out of hand, when does it end? Not when you die, there is inheritance tax.

The government gets 5% tax on your income from your employer before you or social security ever see's it. It's called payroll tax.

So add up what you pay, everything you pay, and add 5% to it. Then if your rich, make that 15% into 28% or more, and it keeps going up.

How about the casino's were supposed to solve our educational budget problems, what ever happened to that money for schools?

Sheesh. We had a revolution for less than that.

How many times to I have to pay for the same thing?

Now, I pay my taxes the keep the banks I owe money to solvent, so I'm paying them twice too.

Might I suggest perhaps that is because you are subsidizing the rich.

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 7:40 PM
Delusional. A man that can sit for YEARS through the anti-America Black-Liberation-Theology sermons or Reverend Wright, who can have as a bff / mentor / associate a domestic terrorist like William Ayers. A CENTRIST?? (shakes head). Nobody can be THIS stupid. Not even Useful Idiots, as Lenin termed them. I can only surmise that such obfuscation is deliberate and malicious. Deliberately attempting to hold the wool over people's eyes, even at this late date as every Obama Administation policy statement, executive order, and political appointee sets about cementing massive government intrustion into our lives, massive governmental control of industries and sectors, and PUNISHES success and the successful in this nation.
NO ONE with a shred of honesty and information and grasp of history can look at these events and honestly call him 'centrist'.
You are entitled to your own opinion, no matter how foolish or dishonest it might be, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. Empirical facts. Things like history. As Obama repeats every Depression-cementing idea that FDR and his fellow Keynesian fools implemented. As Obama sets about putting forward an utterly specious 'Cap and trade' system to DELIBERATELY bankrupt our principal energy industry - and you and me, with the shooting prices that will result for EVERYTHING we utilize.
Just unfathomable. Unconscionable. Intolerable.

Perhaps the view from the far right might be a bit different from the view of average Americans.

Maybe the Gyrenes view things differently from the Army.

TheDM
03-01-2009, 7:42 PM
Might I suggest perhaps that is because you are subsidizing the rich.

I'm not subsidizing the rich, I'm subsidizing the poor. In my country, if you don't work, you wouldn't eat, natural selection does the rest. That's the way I was raised.

Tough if it's mean, life is mean.

You could suggest that, but it wouldn't be accurate, more accurately we are subsidizing a large overburdened government who for the most part have lazy employees that you can not get rid of and can not get to work. I was a government contractor for 10 years, the federal employees are the laziest group of "not my job", worthless, bureaucratic people on the planet. Most of them are like the "B" ship folks from Hitchhikers Guide.

Keep screwing with the well off, and no one will ever have a job, Jobs and industry will be built somewhere else because it is more profitable in another country. Ohhh,..... Wait a minute, that's the way it is NOW!

Are you really that short sighted? If you want socialism, just say it.

Take away the only motivation to excel, and you break everything.

I think you really need to stop wasting time telling people they don't know what they are talking about and do a little self examination. You've really bought into this the rich evil people are the reason I'm not happy B.S a little too blindly.

Did you open your tax program, did you look at a tax table? I think graduated tax is B.S. anyways, and your not happy with them paying 31%, but then you say they don't pay any.

Make up your mind, either they pay 31 or they don't pay anything.

WE AREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING TAXES!

How did the country make it the first 125 years without it?

GrayWolf09
03-01-2009, 7:54 PM
When Bill Gates tax rate is the same as mine then I believe something is very, very wrong.

So nobody has explained to me how they can hate President Obama so much after only a month and a half in office, I will assume it is racism.

What does a house cost on planet wingnut?:bofud:

TheDM
03-01-2009, 8:02 PM
When Bill Gates tax rate is the same as mine then I believe something is very, very wrong.

So nobody has explained to me how they can hate President Obama so much after only a month and a half in office, I will assume it is racism.

What does a house cost on planet wingnut?:bofud:

Graduated tax is B.S. A fair share, is a fair share. Everyone should pay 15%, actually everyone should pay NOTHING as it was designed.

I'll tell you one more time, he should have vetoed that stimulus bill and told them to do it right. Blowing a trillion dollars as a guess and people being upset about it is not racist. Especially to prop up institutions that the tax payers are paying money to with no accountability.

Come on man. Jeez. And I'll assume that you are one of those people that makes up racism when there is none.

When this country crumbles, think of me and what was said here.

Why do you care what a house costs there? Obama will make Mr Gates buy you one.

You are just being unreasonable.

Intimid8tor
03-01-2009, 8:07 PM
When Bill Gates tax rate is the same as mine then I believe something is very, very wrong.

So nobody has explained to me how they can hate President Obama so much after only a month and a half in office, I will assume it is racism.

What does a house cost on planet wingnut?:bofud:

Why shouldn't gate's tax rate be the same as yours? Are we not equal? He came up with something we all wish we could have invented, just like Steve Jobs of Apple and all the other people that invented something or built a business.

Why do I dislike Obama. First, I don't dislike him as a person. I don't know him as a person. I dislike him as the President because he is a socialist at heart and is moving this country towards socialism at a quicker rate than before. He does it under the guise of protection, safety and security, just as Bush did with the Patriot Act. Universal healthcare is not a reality without being in a socialist country. It will come, they won't call it socialism. They'll give it some other name with the help of the MSM and most of the country will buy off on it.

Make no mistake, most of our politicians are socialists at heart and are moving the country in that direction.

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 8:18 PM
This is nonsense of the first order. The "security force" that you're talking about was a campaign point about radically expanding civil service programs like the Peace Corps and Americorps so that they were as well funded as the military.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)

If he was referring to the peace corp/americorp then there should be no reason for his statement above.


Rush Limbaugh wants you to think that expanding Peace Corps funding means that the Peace Corps will be brought home, given guns instead of shovels, and start using a uniform (preferably a brown shirt). This is Rush's fantasy about what Obama said. It's not what Obama said.

Again if that was Obama's intent then there should have been no reason for his above statement and rush is not the only one concerned.



Let's take the second point first: you're afraid of welfare money going to people who don't "deserve" it. Are there any possible recipients of welfare who might be deserving? Really? None? A part of how our economic system works is that it's very difficult to fall all the way down to zero. There are various safety nets intended to help a hard worker who is permanently injured or a stay-at-home mother who is widowed or... from becoming completely destitute. These sorts of policies stabilize the whole society by helping those people get back on their feet without turning them into desperate criminals or worse.

I grew up watching career welfare families who did not work, refused to work because they didn't need to, the government took care of them so by their own admission they refused to work, I have even seen them have additional children just to increase their welfare check. These same people drove better cars, had more food and complete medical/dental care then the hard working families that lived in the area.

I do agree that the various entitlement systems should improve how they exclude freeloaders, but the assertion that they only serve freeloaders is wrong.

I agree it needs revamping and it's hard not to think it only helps freeloaders when there was a point in time when I needed help and was refused by the system.

The other issue is that the wealthy are not asked to give up "[all of] that hard earned money", but a fraction of that hard earned money. I'm guessing that you may actually prefer the Libertarian ideal of near-anarchy and no taxes. If so, good luck to you. That's not how this country works, nor is it likely to ever change back to such a state, no matter which of the two parties is making policy.

More then a small portion of that hard earned money. They already pay the majority of taxes and now are being told they need to pay more.

According to wikipedia:
In 2007, the richest 5% of Americans paid over half of federal income taxes.[28] (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/#cite_note-bab-27) The top 1% of income earners pay 25% of total income taxes.[29] (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/#cite_note-28) Forty percent of Americans pay no federal incomes tax at all although it is the government's largest revenue source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...te_note-bab-27

The International Tribune ran an article in 2007 that stated:
Recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office of U.S. tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent.
At the very top of the income distribution, the CBO reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/tax.php



If the government takes $20 as debt and pays that out as someone's salary who otherwise wouldn't have a job today, that $20 is now helping solve two critical problems, putting that person to work, and stabilizing the economy. Good idea says me.

The same can be said if a person retains that $20 in their pocket and goes out a spends it along with millions of other people, therefore creating an increase in business and therefore, a need to hire people (creating jobs) and helps stabilize the economy.

He voted for anti-gun laws and labeled himself an anti while in Chicago. No argument there. Biden is also an anti with a long record. Eric Holder is also an anti and has already tested the water with a few remarks.

Here's the thing: none of those individuals can pass laws. And the group that can pass laws seems to be very uninterested in passing gun control legislation right now. No telling how that interest will change in the future, but for now, the AWB appears to be a non-starter.

You forget about the federal firearm/ammunition license law they are working on, the federal AW bill that was drawn up last year. Just because they are not looking at it right this minute does not mean it doesn't pose a threat to our constitutional rights.



The foundations of the current economic crisis were laid down in Bush I and the Clinton administrations with the banking deregulations that were passed then. But it took the utterly incompetent Bush II appointment of Christopher Cox to the SEC and the astonishingly bad decision making of Alan Greenspan to turn a worrying trend into the potential apocalypse we're looking at today. Obama has been in office for just over a month. He's doing his best based on everything he knows.

And some of those people that were involved and made millions are now working for the current administration, that does not sound like a good business practice to help the economy.

Also, one thing the Republicans have an opportunity to do is to keep track of spending and do their best to attack waste in the implementation of the stimulus bill. If they do a good job of this effort, and succeed in forcing transparency into government spending at all levels, they could be a real force for keeping the growing government lean and more effective. I hope so, anyway.

Agreed

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 8:24 PM
So nobody has explained to me how they can hate President Obama so much after only a month and a half in office, I will assume it is racism.


It has been explained to you by more then one person, however you refuse to listen. Since you have already admitted to being a racist on this forum, all the examples of why people disagree with Obama will not matter and fall on your deaf ears.

lioneaglegriffin
03-01-2009, 9:38 PM
Jezus fringe guys commin out of the wood work, i thought Kes would have destroyed this thread with his CGN Deathstar by now. Oh well. When you guys are done knife fighting thru a screen donate to the CGF you'll feel better ;).

AKman
03-01-2009, 9:48 PM
Amazing. Only 1/3 through Obama's first 100 days and all heck breaks loose. I can't wait to read this thread after his first 100 days. Then again, Calguns will probably have been banned by then, and reading anything other than something from the approved reading list will be forbidden, comrade.

rabagley
03-01-2009, 9:58 PM
Thanks for a thoughtful and deliberate response.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)

If he was referring to the peace corp/americorp then there should be no reason for his statement above.

And yet, that's exactly the context in which he made the statement, and exactly the kind of spending increase Obama hopes to make real. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html He's written about this part of his plans multiple times and the only reason I can think of for him to have used those words is a lack of cynicism about how they would be interpreted.

More then a small portion of that hard earned money. They already pay the majority of taxes and now are being told they need to pay more.

According to wikipedia:
In 2007, the richest 5% of Americans paid over half of federal income taxes.[28] (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/#cite_note-bab-27) The top 1% of income earners pay 25% of total income taxes.[29] (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/#cite_note-28) Forty percent of Americans pay no federal incomes tax at all although it is the government's largest revenue source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...te_note-bab-27

The International Tribune ran an article in 2007 that stated:
Recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office of U.S. tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent.
At the very top of the income distribution, the CBO reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/tax.php

The wikipedia links are broken, but I don't question your numbers. The subject we were talking about was anyone paying taxes that went to entitlement programs, not whether the taxes were equal, fair, representative, helpful or harmful to investment, or anything else. If we're going to have a society where people are kept from falling all the way to the zero (among other things), then there will be taxes to redistribute wealth.

The Republicans squawk about it, but they put forward budgets with much the same entitlement programs as the Democrats. All of our political leadership votes for entitlement programs funded mostly by proportional personal income taxes. They fret and whine about how proportional and how high, but they all vote for them at the end of the day.

The same can be said if a person retains that $20 in their pocket and goes out a spends it along with millions of other people, therefore creating an increase in business and therefore, a need to hire people (creating jobs) and helps stabilize the economy.

Well, if it were 2005, I wouldn't argue with you. That's obviously right. But here in 2009, if I had another $20 not taken by taxes, that's going straight into savings or paying off the credit cards. My wife and I have a ten minute discussion before we order Papa John's these days. Spending $20 on two delivered pizzas is a big deal to us now, and we're both still employed making good money. There are a lot of people living closer to the edge or with worse debt situations, and no amount of reducing their taxes is going to increase their spending.

You forget about the federal firearm/ammunition license law they are working on, the federal AW bill that was drawn up last year. Just because they are not looking at it right this minute does not mean it doesn't pose a threat to our constitutional rights.

I have no doubt that Obama, Biden, and Holder are drafting these bills. They're constantly being proposed in Congress. If they appear to have a chance to make it out of committee and have any traction, we'll do our best to convince Boxer, Feinstein, and Waxman (in my case) of the merits of civilian firearms ownership.

Fat lot of influence we'll have, though. We live in the wrong State for the Senate and I live in the wrong Congressional district. Some part of me really wishes I still lived in Texas.

Swiss
03-01-2009, 10:22 PM
Jezus fringe guys commin out of the wood work, i thought Kes would have destroyed this thread with his CGN Deathstar by now. Oh well. When you guys are done knife fighting thru a screen donate to the CGF you'll feel better ;).

Well I'm glad Kestryll hasn't killed it because lrdchivalry is at last having a rational and civil discussion with rabagley. Now if only GrayWolf09 will refrain from needling we can sing Kumbaya.

Good night everyone!

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 11:44 PM
And yet, that's exactly the context in which he made the statement, and exactly the kind of spending increase Obama hopes to make real. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html He's written about this part of his plans multiple times and the only reason I can think of for him to have used those words is a lack of cynicism about how they would be interpreted.

Again if he was only talking about the peace corp/americorp there would be no reason for the statement to be made.

An article from worldnetdaily also shows a concern for that statement
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=69601

There would be no reason for organizations such as the peace corp and others listed in the link you provided to be involved in the security of this nation and receive equal funding for that purpose.



The wikipedia links are broken, but I don't question your numbers. The subject we were talking about was anyone paying taxes that went to entitlement programs, not whether the taxes were equal, fair, representative, helpful or harmful to investment, or anything else. If we're going to have a society where people are kept from falling all the way to the zero (among other things), then there will be taxes to redistribute wealth.

Isn't welfare an entitlement program? As you put it to keep people from falling all the way to zero? Doen't our tax dollars pay for that? His $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes). Isn't that an entitlement? You do not make enough money to pay taxes yet we will give you a tax refund anyway.


Here is the wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Well, if it were 2005, I wouldn't argue with you. That's obviously right. But here in 2009, if I had another $20 not taken by taxes, that's going straight into savings or paying off the credit cards. My wife and I have a ten minute discussion before we order Papa John's these days. Spending $20 on two delivered pizzas is a big deal to us now, and we're both still employed making good money. There are a lot of people living closer to the edge or with worse debt situations, and no amount of reducing their taxes is going to increase their spending.

I would have to disagree. People with more money in their pockets will spend that money. One of the problems is that we are taxed way to much. We pay an income tax, sales tax, a tax for investing and hell even a tax for the privilege of dying. Not only do I get taxed on my income from the federal government I get taxed again at the state level.



I have no doubt that Obama, Biden, and Holder are drafting these bills. They're constantly being proposed in Congress. If they appear to have a chance to make it out of committee and have any traction, we'll do our best to convince Boxer, Feinstein, and Waxman (in my case) of the merits of civilian firearms ownership.

I do not believe Boxer or Feinstein would care. Feinstein has a CCW yet believes that the average citizen should not be able to defend themselves.

Fat lot of influence we'll have, though. We live in the wrong State for the Senate and I live in the wrong Congressional district. Some part of me really wishes I still lived in Texas.

I here you but it wouldn't matter where you live if the dems and Obama get their anti-gun laws passed.

lrdchivalry
03-01-2009, 11:55 PM
Well I'm glad Kestryll hasn't killed it because lrdchivalry is at last having a rational and civil discussion with rabagley. Now if only GrayWolf09 will refrain from needling we can sing Kumbaya.

Good night everyone!

I have always been having a rational civil discussion with rabagley.

As for greywolf's needling. Just shows he cannot argue on facts and has to resort to insults and name calling which in my experience is the typical tactic by most libs I know.

Good night as well.

lioneaglegriffin
03-02-2009, 12:09 AM
Well I'm glad Kestryll hasn't killed it because lrdchivalry is at last having a rational and civil discussion with rabagley. Now if only GrayWolf09 will refrain from needling we can sing Kumbaya.

Good night everyone!

right kumbaya. The song may be easy to play but the mood it represents not so much. Libs and Conservs will be peashooting at each other on this site till it goes down. "I told you so" threads (like this one) are sure to pop up in the future.

TheBundo
03-02-2009, 12:10 AM
Obama needs to be permanently exiled to Cuba, I think he will be very happy there.

It's a good time. They're going to have a Presidential opening soon

ilbob
03-02-2009, 6:49 AM
probably lining up for their freebies.

GrayWolf09
03-02-2009, 7:39 AM
I apologize for the intemprateness of my remarks.

wernst
03-02-2009, 12:18 PM
In response to the original question:

Though I am very unhappy about President Obama's apparent lack of support of the Second Amendment, I am generally much happier about his support for nearly all of the other Amendments compared to his predecessor or his alternative.

No candidate is ever going to be completely in lock-step with all my beliefs on every issue, but I found Obama's to be more in-sync with most of my belief's than Bush Jr. or McCain overall.

In other words (and I know this is going to be unpopular here, but so be it), there's more to America than just the Second Amendment.

(...ducks for cover...)

-Warr

lioneaglegriffin
03-02-2009, 5:10 PM
In response to the original question:

Though I am very unhappy about President Obama's apparent lack of support of the Second Amendment, I am generally much happier about his support for nearly all of the other Amendments compared to his predecessor or his alternative.

No candidate is ever going to be completely in lock-step with all my beliefs on every issue, but I found Obama's to be more in-sync with most of my belief's than Bush Jr. or McCain overall.

In other words (and I know this is going to be unpopular here, but so be it), there's more to America than just the Second Amendment.

(...ducks for cover...)

-Warr

just a tip, remember the difference between cover and concealment. ;)

yes not all pols will agree with you on everthing, dream candidates don't come along very often. My state Senator got C rating from the NRA i says to me self, meh good enough for a democrat in CA (when everyone else has F's). if your a liberal there is no reason to vote for a conservative just because he promised to protect the 2A, when you disagree with them on everything else.

nat
03-02-2009, 7:33 PM
This is why people voted for Obama. I find this totally unacceptable.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/02/national/w142837S66.DTL&tsp=1

If the Democrats stay away from gun control and the economy turns around, I call it good. At least we have people that care about more rights than just one.

.............The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence gathering. In that memo, he said the government's interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.
.................

TheDM
03-02-2009, 7:37 PM
This is why people voted for Obama. I find this totally unacceptable.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/02/national/w142837S66.DTL&tsp=1

If the Democrats stay away from gun control and the economy turns around, I call it good. At least we have people that care about more rights than just one.

Yup that's awful about Bush and the Constitution. I've ranted on it more than once. But IMHO, as long as I have the 2nd, I can get the other 9 back.

rayra
03-03-2009, 3:56 AM
GrayWolf09's assertion that blanket opposition to the Annointed one can only be a manifestation of racism is pretty blatantly nothing but trolling.
And there's more than enough real issues to deal with without this little pos deliberately baiting people.

colossians323
03-03-2009, 5:56 AM
don't know why you guys all have your panties in a bunch. Remember, only government can get us out of this!:rolleyes:

If any of you believe this crap, you might as well hand over your arms now.
To rely on the government to take care of you is akin to having them wipe your butt after you go potty!

lioneaglegriffin
03-03-2009, 11:27 AM
don't know why you guys all have your panties in a bunch. Remember, only government can get us out of this!:rolleyes:

If any of you believe this crap, you might as well hand over your arms now.
To rely on the government to take care of you is akin to having them wipe your butt after you go potty!

Thanks for the lesson President Reagan. But in case you hadn't noticed liberals don't believe that.