Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

It should be no surprise to many of you that a major issue for me is the Federal budget/deficit/debt. Having looked at their plans I think most candidates are simply talking a big game and have no real plan to address what is probably the biggest national security issue today. Thus, I came across an article that I thought you might be interested in.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/05/news/ec ... id=Popular

"If you look at most politicians talking about cuts, they are very, very, very short on specifics with a few exceptions," said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank that advocates for smaller government.

On the hunt for specific budget cuts, DeHaven combed through the economic plans listed on each candidate's campaign website.

He came away disappointed -- with one exception.

"From a spending standpoint, there is Ron Paul and then everybody else," DeHaven said. "You have a complete budget from Paul, and not much from anybody else."

Yes, it's an analyst from the CATO Institute, but that doesn't change the fact that most candidates are talking a big game and have no actionable plan. Yes, I also realize that Congress will fight tooth and nail to avoid any real cuts, but at least a real, actionable plan is a start.

Cliff notes version for the top three:

Romney

Overall, DeHaven said Romney's specific cuts are "tiny" and "the typical small stuff."

Santorum

Santorum doesn't fare much better [compared to Romney], focusing on red-meat Republican priorities like funding cuts for the National Labor Relations Board, USAID, Planned Parenthood and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Paul

Paul's plan doesn't lack ambition. He wants to eliminate the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education.

And on his website, Paul lays out a four-year plan with budget lines for federal agencies and programs that he wants to eliminate with a high degree of specificity.

Ron Paul said it himself: He can't be elected. That's why he's putting out specifics; he's got nothing to lose and he knows it. All other candidates figure (correctly, no doubt) that if they're honest and forthright on this issue, the sheeple won't vote for them. It illuminates a sad truth: The American electorate as a whole appears to be too stupid to govern itself responsibly. Or I guess it's more likely a blend of stupidity and ignorance. We are for certain a nation of economic ignoramuses; that's for sure. Too many of us seem to think that the government can spend us into prosperity using borrowed money. Truth is, we're on the express road to hell.

dorminWS wrote:Ron Paul said it himself: He can't be elected.

Citation please. The only people saying that are those who dislike him because they would have to give up the freebies/power.

dorminWS wrote:That's why he's putting out specifics; he's got nothing to lose and he knows it.

Anywhere else but the bizarre land of DC and US politics, putting out specifics would be considered responsible governance. I get it though, the average, ignorant voter decides on the soundbite because it makes them feel good, not because of substance. Sad state of affairs.

dorminWS wrote:All other candidates figure (correctly, no doubt) that if they're honest and forthright on this issue, the sheeple won't vote for them.

Our system is based on the concept of consent of the governed/people. If that is the case then we should start voting for the worst candidate to get it over with quickly. If the results are guaranteed, why prolong it? In a way you are correct and that's exactly why I attempt to educate people. Unless the people decide they want to return to liberty and bear all the responsibilities that come with it, it's a loosing battle.

gunderwood wrote:

dorminWS wrote:Ron Paul said it himself: He can't be elected.

Citation please. The only people saying that are those who dislike him because they would have to give up the freebies/power.

....................................................................................................
You probably won't like this, but if I heard aright, Fox News reported this morning that Ron Paul said it himself; apparently in his interviews after the Iowa Caucus.
......................................................................................................

dorminWS wrote:That's why he's putting out specifics; he's got nothing to lose and he knows it.

Anywhere else but the bizarre land of DC and US politics, putting out specifics would be considered responsible governance. I get it though, the average, ignorant voter decides on the soundbite because it makes them feel good, not because of substance. Sad state of affairs.
[/quote]
........................................................................................................
It is, for a fact. The result, largely, of a couple-three generations of "dumbing-down" our schools and allowing elitist liberals to entrench in higher education and indoctrinate the too-ignorant, too-naive issue of the dumbed-down schools; who, lacking any capacity for independent thought, swallowed it all.
......................................................................................................

dorminWS wrote:All other candidates figure (correctly, no doubt) that if they're honest and forthright on this issue, the sheeple won't vote for them.

Our system is based on the concept of consent of the governed/people. If that is the case then we should start voting for the worst candidate to get it over with quickly. If the results are guaranteed, why prolong it? In a way you are correct and that's exactly why I attempt to educate people. Unless the people decide they want to return to liberty and bear all the responsibilities that come with it, it's a loosing battle.[/quote]
.....................................................................................................

Now THERE you lost me, Gunderwood. We're all gonna die, too; but that certainly doesn't mean we ought to blow out our brains and get it over with fast in MY opinion.

You don't win by surrendering. We need to do whatever is necessary to end the Obama presidency (politically, that is - I'm not advocating anything illegal) this coming November. Then we need to continue to do all we can to force a return to truly conservative, responsible government. Any electoral behavior that dilutes the republican's chances of victory in November is just another form of "destroying the villiage in order to save it".

I fear our "return to liberty", if it comes, will come by degrees. As the oldtimers say around here, "like a cat eatin' a grindstone...... one lick at a time".

dorminWS wrote:You probably won't like this, but if I heard aright, Fox News reported this morning that Ron Paul said it himself; apparently in his interviews after the Iowa Caucus.

Like has nothing to do with it. I asked for a source. Yes, Fox News has been saying it and I wouldn't put it past them to lie and say he said so, but I've Googled and can't find anything of the sort. I also can't find it on their site.

If you're going to claim something as fact, i.e. Ron Paul said he can't win, then the burden of proof is on you. I'm simply asking for a source, nothing more.

dorminWS wrote:It is, for a fact. The result, largely, of a couple-three generations of "dumbing-down" our schools and allowing elitist liberals to entrench in higher education and indoctrinate the too-ignorant, too-naive issue of the dumbed-down schools; who, lacking any capacity for independent thought, swallowed it all.

Yes, but a large portion of his supporters are young. It seems the younger generation has wised up to the lies and wants something different. It's the older generations who don't want to change things and want more of the status quo (e.g. McCain, Romney, Santorum). The public schools have been around long enough that even the oldest generation around was indoctrinated as you describe.

In any case, that's not a reason to not vote for a candidate.

dorminWS wrote:Now THERE you lost me, Gunderwood. We're all gonna die, too; but that certainly doesn't mean we ought to blow out our brains and get it over with fast in MY opinion.

I was poking fun at your sentiment which is further described in the next paragraph...

dorminWS wrote:You don't win by surrendering. We need to do whatever is necessary to end the Obama presidency (politically, that is - I'm not advocating anything illegal) this coming November. Then we need to continue to do all we can to force a return to truly conservative, responsible government. Any electoral behavior that dilutes the republican's chances of victory in November is just another form of "destroying the villiage in order to save it".

Ironic isn't it? you lambast me because I support the candidate who "can't be elected," yet I'm surrendering? I'm told that I have to support anyone with an R beside their name no matter how bad they are, yet I'm surrendering? At least be consistent.

Winning, where winning is continued restoration of American liberty (prosperity, security, etc. will follow) is what matters, not ending Obama's presidency. Replacing Obama with a R but with no substantive change in policy is not winning, it's surrendering in the most deceptive of ways. Obama is merely one in a long line of Presidents who have continually consolidated and usurped power not granted to them. Obama is the symptom, not a cause. Replace him with another "establishment" R and you'll get the same results, different flavor. Do you honestly believe that if Romney or Santorum or Gingrich are elected that ObamaCare will be 100% revoked? That TARP and bailouts will be vetoed? No, they aren't even interested in trying! A vote for them is surrender.

Yes, Paul wouldn't be able to get everything he wants as there is still too much corruption in Congress and the President is not quite a king yet (thankfully). However, better to fight than to give up before the election even happens. Disappointed in all that Tea Party change that was going to happen? FYI, it's not the Democrats who blocked real change in the Senate...your Republican leadership in the House made sure most of the Tea Party efforts went no where. It's Boehner and Cantor who surrender before the fight even started.

Do you really want to elect an R like them? Do that and just like the last year, nothing of substance will change. Sure, they talk a good game, but that's it.

dorminWS wrote:I fear our "return to liberty", if it comes, will come by degrees. As the oldtimers say around here, "like a cat eatin' a grindstone...... one lick at a time".

Yes, but why not get started now? The other two leading candidates are for more of the same...their conservatives in the original sense...status quo, static; yet that is exactly what is broken.

Hey, I'm not lambsting anyone. Just stating the facts as I percieve them. And I'm not defending or apologizing for the republicans. I'm just adapting them as the less objectionable alternative. The mere fact that I see the republicans as a lesser threat to liberty and conservative values than the Obama administration is hardly a ringing endorsement. It's scarcely better than saying they're better than Hitler, as far as I can see. I like a lot of what Ron Paul espouses. But I think some of it makes him unelectable, and it certainly make me unwilling to support him. If you want to, go right ahead. But it would be nice if you'd try not to get your panties all in so much of a wad about contrary views.

Sound bytes and impressions: When you lay your head on the pillow at night, do you see yourself in the oval office? RP: Not really. Taken by some in the media as meaning he doesn't think he can be President. http://www.indecisionforever.com/2012/0 ... president/

or it could mean he just has no imagination...or that he doesn't dream...or that he is just short sighted...or...
The problem with reading into something that short is reading too much into it.

Rest of the quote: Moran then asked him how he assessed his chances– or, rather, whether, “when you lay your head on the pillow at night, do you see yourself in the Oval Office?” “Not really,” responded the candidate, “but I think it’s a possibility. Sometimes I kid about it and say, ‘that’s sometimes the risk I take.’”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-ron-paul ... ot-really/



Does that change the dynamic of the quote any?

dorminWS wrote:Hey, I'm not lambsting anyone. Just stating the facts as I percieve them. And I'm not defending or apologizing for the republicans. I'm just adapting them as the less objectionable alternative. The mere fact that I see the republicans as a lesser threat to liberty and conservative values than the Obama administration is hardly a ringing endorsement. It's scarcely better than saying they're better than Hitler, as far as I can see. I like a lot of what Ron Paul espouses. But I think some of it makes him unelectable, and it certainly make me unwilling to support him. If you want to, go right ahead. But it would be nice if you'd try not to get your panties all in so much of a wad about contrary views.

Out of curiosity, if you inherited this piece of property, what would you do with it?



Raze or refurbish? And why?

I like the architecture, so I'd be inclined to refurbish.

Sadly, though, it looks like a bad area, so I may be inclined to sell, give away, or otherwise unload that property with a quickness.

Demolishing the building wouldn't be an option, though. I couldn't bring myself to do it.

Considering the thread, I'm guessing that you're not seeking advice on what to do with your Granddads old apartment building?

Given it's obvious condition and surroundings, I think I'd be inclined to trade it for a brushpile - - then burn the brushpile.

One of the problems with any proposed budget is that it has to get through Congress; there is no chance whatsoever that any budget that eliminates whole cabinet-level departments will get through in any form that even slightly resembles the original proposal. Congress is as corrupt as the rest of the government, so there's no way on earth they would stop the gravy train short of a complete collapse (and there are enough profoundly stupid congressmen that even then they'd probably try to keep it going).

dorminWS wrote:Hey, I'm not lambsting anyone. Just stating the facts as I percieve them. And I'm not defending or apologizing for the republicans. I'm just adapting them as the less objectionable alternative. The mere fact that I see the republicans as a lesser threat to liberty and conservative values than the Obama administration is hardly a ringing endorsement. It's scarcely better than saying they're better than Hitler, as far as I can see.

Fair enough. I was generalizing from last election cycle and suspect it will be the same this time around as there already has been plenty of that. Just consider all the "we have to support Romney because he's 'electable'" going on for months.

dorminWS wrote:I like a lot of what Ron Paul espouses. But I think some of it makes him unelectable, and it certainly make me unwilling to support him.

That's a discussion I've tried starting on here more than once, but it never happens. People don't like what they hear, but generally are completely unable to articulate why what he said is worse than the other candidates. For example, Iran and national defense.

National Defense
On national defense, Paul believes that the strategy of empire is going to bankrupt this country and already has in many ways. That's hardly the same thing as saying he hates the military, the intelligence community, etc. and wants to do away with them. In fact, the government agencies he wants to abolish he's been very vocal about to the point that other candidates (e.g. Perry) picked some of it up. The defense industry isn't one of them. Yes, he does object to the massive defense industry complex designed and supporting the strategy of empire, particularly since he believes the strategy which requires that is flawed. On national defense, Paul and his supporters believe that the #1 national security threat is bankrupting the entire country. If you do that, it doesn't matter what Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, etc. do because you won't be able to do a thing about it. Many of the war hawks love to say things about WW2 and how great this countries war making power was and while there is a bit of truth to that, it was only possible because of the enormous economic/industrial capacity of this country (and the very lucky position where we had the only factories not being bombed at the time). It's essential for national security that we remain an economic powerhouse and Paul wants to ensure that as much as possible by scaling back to a more sustainable position.

Paul believes in national defense, but simply wants to adopt a different strategy which won't bankrupt us pursing objectives which may have very little actual national security results. Interestingly, one of Paul's biggest support groups is actual military service members. He typically raises more money from that group than all the other candidates combined. Perhaps they know and understand today's military pros and cons a bit better than the average citizen?

Iran
Iran is a topic that the average citizen knows next to nothing about, except that their going to get nuked by them any day...or something like that. To even begin to do the topic of Iran justice, we would need a long thread in of itself. I'll try to summarize it.

Iran is an oppressive regime. Simply put, you don't oppress your people when you have the consent of the governed. There is a large distinction between the Iranian government and the Iranian people. Estimates are hard to come by, but the fact that they have to rig their elections to even get the theocracy desired puppet president elected should tell you something. However, the rhetoric the other candidates expose daily on Iran actually strengthens the Iranian government. Even in oppressive regimes your devil is better than someone else's. A lot of American's might not like what our governments been doing lately, but the surest way to get us to rally behind even Obama is to attack this country or threaten to do so. If another 9/11 were to happen and Obama took a strong stance against the attackers he'd win the next election easily. It really is simple, you may hate your government, but some external aggressor says they want to come in and bomb you back to the stone age for <insert reason here>, suddenly you have a change of heart. You want to weaken the Iranian government? Quit saber rattling and giving them the excuse they need to keep their populations priorities off of the significant local issues.

Second, Iranian culture is primarily Persian. That's a critical observation as it provides a way to interpret how the majority of Iranians think and how they respond. The Persians are a prideful people, quit insulting them because it won't do you any good.

Third, while attacking Iran may seem a sure bet to you, perhaps it's not. Unless you're willing to use preemptive nuclear strikes (which is monumentally stupid as it assures you loose in the long run), it's a bit tougher nut to crack. Most of Iran has the terrain of Afghanistan, but for guerrilla warfare they have far better tools and tactics than the Iraqis did. Remember all the news about how much more effective IEDs and such became with supposed Iranian weapons?

If you're worried about the Straights of Hormuz, don't be. Iran may be a net exporter of oil, but they import all of the derived products. Shutting down those straights would practically assure a domestic revolution by the ~80% of the population who's oppressed within months. The whole Iranian economy would grind to a halt..the rest of us would pay higher prices for awhile but that's all. The straights are a game. Just like NK, they do it to get us to threaten them as it helps the Iranian government maintain power. Oh look! Israel and America are going to bomb your children just because we ran a military exercise (which is all they have actually done...our politicians expand that to mean they are actually going to or planning to do so very soon).

Finally, the Iranian people are in general highly westernized. Their government tries to stop it, but they have so little actual support that even they have trouble cracking down. Trade is a powerful weapon, but not in the way we are using it. The best way to make an oppressed people dispose of the oppressors is to show them how the rest of the world lives. That's exactly why every oppressive regime, from the USSR to NK to Iran to China does their darnedest to minimize or eliminate western media and information. It's an open secret that Iranians put on Christian crosses so they can purchase and consume alcohol! How is it that a extremist Muslim government allows a small minority of Christians in their country, let's them openly practice (more or less), and even sell/purchase/consume forbidden items in Islam? How is it that they look the other way when their own citizens do it too? Ah, see #1. Sure, they crack down on conversions very hard, but even then those with connections hand out bibles on the streets. Just like China, Iran wants to be powerful economically in the region, but to do so requires you open up and that is a delicate balancing act. As a side note, China has been very smart in how they have done it, particularly in using our debt against us in that trade game. Realistically it's the only reason their still in power with how developed and open China has become.

I could go on and on, but do a bit of research and then Paul's strategy starts to make a whole lot of sense.

dorminWS wrote:If you want to, go right ahead. But it would be nice if you'd try not to get your panties all in so much of a wad about contrary views.

Come on, you should know me better than that. I only get upset when people expose rhetoric and refuse to back it up with insight, analysis, and facts.

WRW wrote:Rest of the quote: Moran then asked him how he assessed his chances– or, rather, whether, “when you lay your head on the pillow at night, do you see yourself in the Oval Office?” “Not really,” responded the candidate, “but I think it’s a possibility. Sometimes I kid about it and say, ‘that’s sometimes the risk I take.’”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-ron-paul ... ot-really/



Does that change the dynamic of the quote any?

Yes. They tried to use that to say can't, which is very different than very hard. Every candidate except Newt things that there are a lot of things to accomplish and obstacles to remove to get there, including Obama who isn't going out without a fight. Also, no candidate is getting a majority nationally yet. The second half also clearly indicates the lightheartedness of the comment, as in that's the risk you take running for the Presidency that you might actually make it. It's like the bet Kruetz has offered me concerning people liking their handouts more than limited government despite the rhetoric. That doesn't mean I don't want it or don't think it's possible, but it's also a bet I won't take. A significant amount of work, primarily education, has to take place to improve the odds.

Diomed wrote:One of the problems with any proposed budget is that it has to get through Congress; there is no chance whatsoever that any budget that eliminates whole cabinet-level departments will get through in any form that even slightly resembles the original proposal. Congress is as corrupt as the rest of the government, so there's no way on earth they would stop the gravy train short of a complete collapse (and there are enough profoundly stupid congressmen that even then they'd probably try to keep it going).

Agreed. However, while Paul as President wouldn't get everything, ok nearly everything, he has proposed the President can really move the discussion and compromise in his favor. It would take at least one if not two more election cycles like the last one to replace enough of Congress with Tea Party like candidates to get enough votes. Even then it's unlikely as it appears a lot of candidates rode the wave with sound bites, but have no actual intention of fighting. That's one objection I have to the other candidates, when the chips are down they have been more concerned about preserving their power than fighting for what is right and what they promised.

What is needed is a catchy sound byte phrase like, oh I don't know, how about "It's the unsustainable debt load, Stupid!"

Gunderwood is correct in regards to Iran.

Also Tehran is far more cosmopolitan than Riyadh, and the Persians are by and large more educated and Westernized than most of their Arab neighbors.

One thing he left out (probably because few know about it) is that the Iranians have been at war with AL-Qaedea since 1998.

After the Taliban took power in 1996, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, denounced the group as an affront to Islam, and the killing of 11 Iranian diplomats and truck drivers in 1998 almost led to an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan, which was averted by the intervention of the US and UN.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/21359 ... z1injjs8lI

The Iranians do have a right to be pissed at us, we did arm the Iraqis with the chemical weapons that were used on the Iranians.

By and large I have positive feelings for the Persian people, none for their government, so perhaps that colors my opinions. They don't deserve to be starved via sanctions or bombed via "liberation".

Gunderwood wrote:It's like the bet Kruetz has offered me concerning people liking their handouts more than limited government despite the rhetoric. That doesn't mean I don't want it or don't think it's possible, but it's also a bet I won't take. A significant amount of work, primarily education, has to take place to improve the odds.

Smart man. What people say and what they do are often contradictory. The folks will keep voting for their perks while complaining about the cost.

Thats why Big Gov isn't going anywhere, regardless of who wins in 2012. Even the unlikely President Ron Paul would be kneecapped by the Legislative and Judicial branches and get nothing he wished done.

Btw, my wife said Romney reminded her of John Kerry alot....got me thinking, she's right and they might be the same person.

Has anyone seen Kerry lately? He doesn't change masks every Republican primary does he? I'm going to need to see a picture of the two in the same room.

Kreutz wrote:
Btw, my wife said Romney reminded her of John Kerry alot....got me thinking, she's right and they might be the same person.

Mitt and Kerry do seem to share similar plastic qualities, don't they?

SHMIV wrote:

Kreutz wrote:
Btw, my wife said Romney reminded her of John Kerry alot....got me thinking, she's right and they might be the same person.

Mitt and Kerry do seem to share similar plastic qualities, don't they?