Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

With all this talk about "Free Food" and housing I just want folks to remember what it was like in Communist Russia (USSR) and Democratic Deutschland Republic (DDR) under Socialist and Communist rule that everyone has a Job, House, and Food.

Here is a URL that will show you where Socialism got the USSR and the DDR in the 1980's

http://www.kcmeesha.com/2010/02/20/behi ... hortages/#

Russian Bread Lines in Vladivostok, USSR





The Michenzani apartment blocks in Stone Town, once the pride of East German development cooperation with Zanzibar, have turned into an area of urban decay.

And for thos that were too young to remember why Socialism failed here is a link for you



They believed that all were equal just that some were more equal then others. There was and still is a reason why people come to the U.S. and it sure is not for a Socialist style of Government

Just another link
The Failure of Socialism and Lessons for America, Part 1& 2

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0393b.asp

Reverenddel wrote:People, we're ice skating up hill. Kreutz has his belief, he's unwilling, or unable to vary, to accept Good sense, Valid Historical Proof, and Logical Deductive Reasoning. Just agree to disagree, and let him sit in his own process.

His compassion will be his undoing. His empathy will be his downfall.

For in the end? Those drowning pull down those who swim to rescue... And you cannot save all the kittens.

This is true but you have to consider those that aren't evolved in the debate. When I first started really forming an opinion on things I read arguments just like this to form my opinion.

Here's a video a relative of mine recorded:

TheGodfather wrote:When you say that you barely graduated high school, was History one of your weak points by any chance?

I barely showed up, I had no weak subjects. Big difference.

You are seriously disputing this country started as the Massachusetts Bay Company? You sure you didnt flunk history?

gunderwood wrote: IIRC, you work for yourself so that amount technically includes your benefits right as an employer would pay medical/401k/etc. on top of normal wages? Unless you get benefits above and beyond that from an employer, around NOVA that's just a bit above average.

I live in Roanoke. We are very comfortable here. Incidentally I only pay 7k/year for my families quite good medical insurance, another 1k for excellent dental, and I really dont pay much in taxes. Also of note my income pre-recession was exactly twice as high (for some reason healthcare got hit later).

I don't think you will be getting any interviews from the WSJ or can quit working anytime soon.

I think i do good for a guy that works in his pajamas and only has a bachelors degree. Not all of us can have our Senator daddies get us a CEO position ya know.

The GI bill is a benefit of employment which really isn't any different from a company providing health care or a car or a retirement package. Others have the opportunities, no one is standing in their way to do what they wish (expect the socialists of course). If they want to join the military and serve they will too have the ability to use the GI bill. That's a far cry from free food, health care, and a house. It's just the government fulfilling their employment contract just like a company who also has a education package must (most do around here).

No, its another entitlement program. I paid $1200 into it and got I think $24,000 back. You know anyone else with contracts like that?

Opportunity doesn't mean free or without sacrifice to accomplish. When you legislate what I can and can not do you are restricting my liberty and opportunities, not promoting them.

All governments legislate,

You apparently don't understand the concept of this country. The people who came here from Europe did so to flee such slavery (it took many forms). They did choose freedom over comforts. Over and over again we made that choice. It's amazing how fast we subdued most of the continent after throwing off the British yoke, but it certainly wasn't because we expected an easy life where everything was provided to us. No, we went despite the hardships.

I understand the concept quite well-it all boils down to economics, not "liberty".

You also apparently don't understand freedom and rights since you are equating it with anarchy. Our government was only to secure our rights from those who would take them by force and to provide an third party arbitrator when disputes arose. We created a national defense to secure them from outsiders, we have LE/justice system to secure them from each other, and we have the Bill of Rights to put the government on notice it can not legally violate them either.

Yes, societies restrict actions to some extend or at least provide consequences for those actions. However, liberty is freedom of action so long as your actions aren't denying that same freedom to others. A free society is not anarchy. That's hardly an illusion.

How can one have absolute freedom without anarchy? I am not denying the illusory day to day "freedm" we all have to go about our business by and large. Never was.

I'm talking true freedom. You can never truly be free unless you have no constraints, no hesitations. This is why I accept the idea of freedom is just that-an abstract idea unworkable in reality.

Consumption is what the government wants to replace the ideals which founded this country with. Its a distraction to the encroaching slavery. Isn't that exactly what you want? We'll trade you a house (consumption) in exchange for your liberty? We'll give you free stuff if you just give up a bit more freedom?

I would not equate the Doctrine of Consumption with government, but rather corporations.

All you socialists are offering is consumption in exchange for liberty...after all it is better to be fed and a slave than hungry and free, right?

Feel free to live in the woods and be free, cold, and hungry. I'll pay my taxes and enjoy civilization.

Kreutz wrote:You are seriously disputing this country started as the Massachusetts Bay Company? You sure you didnt flunk history?

You fell for the revisionist propaganda of the north. The Virginia Company of London got the English going in North America. The Massachusetts Bay Company was formed a couple of decades later.

The colonization of North America by English-speaking peoples was driven initially by lust for gold before changing over to lust for tobacco (which was, in a way, also lust for gold).

Kreutz wrote:

gunderwood wrote: IIRC, you work for yourself so that amount technically includes your benefits right as an employer would pay medical/401k/etc. on top of normal wages? Unless you get benefits above and beyond that from an employer, around NOVA that's just a bit above average.

I live in Roanoke. We are very comfortable here. Incidentally I only pay 7k/year for my families quite good medical insurance, another 1k for excellent dental, and I really dont pay much in taxes. Also of note my income pre-recession was exactly twice as high (for some reason healthcare got hit later).

I don't think you will be getting any interviews from the WSJ or can quit working anytime soon.

I think i do good for a guy that works in his pajamas and only has a bachelors degree. Not all of us can have our Senator daddies get us a CEO position ya know.

The GI bill is a benefit of employment which really isn't any different from a company providing health care or a car or a retirement package. Others have the opportunities, no one is standing in their way to do what they wish (expect the socialists of course). If they want to join the military and serve they will too have the ability to use the GI bill. That's a far cry from free food, health care, and a house. It's just the government fulfilling their employment contract just like a company who also has a education package must (most do around here).

No, its another entitlement program. I paid $1200 into it and got I think $24,000 back. You know anyone else with contracts like that?

Opportunity doesn't mean free or without sacrifice to accomplish. When you legislate what I can and can not do you are restricting my liberty and opportunities, not promoting them.

All governments legislate,

You apparently don't understand the concept of this country. The people who came here from Europe did so to flee such slavery (it took many forms). They did choose freedom over comforts. Over and over again we made that choice. It's amazing how fast we subdued most of the continent after throwing off the British yoke, but it certainly wasn't because we expected an easy life where everything was provided to us. No, we went despite the hardships.

I understand the concept quite well-it all boils down to economics, not "liberty".

You also apparently don't understand freedom and rights since you are equating it with anarchy. Our government was only to secure our rights from those who would take them by force and to provide an third party arbitrator when disputes arose. We created a national defense to secure them from outsiders, we have LE/justice system to secure them from each other, and we have the Bill of Rights to put the government on notice it can not legally violate them either.

Yes, societies restrict actions to some extend or at least provide consequences for those actions. However, liberty is freedom of action so long as your actions aren't denying that same freedom to others. A free society is not anarchy. That's hardly an illusion.

How can one have absolute freedom without anarchy? I am not denying the illusory day to day "freedm" we all have to go about our business by and large. Never was.

I'm talking true freedom. You can never truly be free unless you have no constraints, no hesitations. This is why I accept the idea of freedom is just that-an abstract idea unworkable in reality.

Consumption is what the government wants to replace the ideals which founded this country with. Its a distraction to the encroaching slavery. Isn't that exactly what you want? We'll trade you a house (consumption) in exchange for your liberty? We'll give you free stuff if you just give up a bit more freedom?

I would not equate the Doctrine of Consumption with government, but rather corporations.

All you socialists are offering is consumption in exchange for liberty...after all it is better to be fed and a slave than hungry and free, right?

Feel free to live in the woods and be free, cold, and hungry. I'll pay my taxes and enjoy civilization.

And burn your little pinch of incense to Ceasar in subserviance .

Man you are missing the point. Down through history big government has tried to get more power, how? by bribing the little people with heath care, with gladitorial games, with lotterys,
with all the things that are "fun" in life. What they are doing is taking away your choice, because freedom=choice. The choice to pick what car you want, the choice to pick the gun you want, the choice to work without anyone's permission,(read government liscense) the choice to go out on the highways and byways and search for work with out permission for the government , the choice to do what YOU want without government meddling. Is this way of life harder than what you want?

Feel free to live in the wood and be free, cold, and hungry. I'll pay my taxes and enjoy civilization.

Yes, but that is the price to pay to have freedom/choice because some of us dont want to "bow the knee", "to burn the little pinch of incense", to look to the government for handouts.
I want to be able to choose my own way without interference from anyone but god Almighty.

PS. where ever I said choice you can say freedom.

"You are seriously disputing this country started as the Massachusetts Bay Company? You sure you didnt flunk history?"

No, but you did. This country was officially started with the SUCCESSFUL JAMESTOWN VIRGINIA COLONY in 1607!

MBC wasn't started till 1624.

JAMESTOWN is the cradle of this country, not Plymouth Rock. They just had better marketing. Consider the first "capital" of this country was in WILLIAMSBURG.

Try going there sometimes, it's actually a good learning experience about people who in the House of Burgesses said "No, we don't want your protection because the cost is too high." To which King George III locked it down, and then dissolved it...

Kreutz wrote:Feel free to live in the woods and be free, cold, and hungry. I'll pay my taxes and enjoy civilization.

We the people create civilization, not the government. Freedom and liberty are not the anti-thesis of civilization as the socialist propaganda would have you believe. Capitalism, as is socialism, is just one way to order economic civilization and IMHO is the best way. I believe that liberty is the best ordering mechanism for all aspects of civilization and historically it has created the greatest wealth for all. Socialism on the other hand has destroy far more than it has created.

Seriously, that's the best you can do? I think at this point the logic flow charts says I win?

jim100 wrote:

Feel free to live in the wood and be free, cold, and hungry. I'll pay my taxes and enjoy civilization.

Yes, but that is the price to pay to have freedom/choice because some of us dont want to "bow the knee", "to burn the little pinch of incense", to look to the government for handouts.
I want to be able to choose my own way without interference from anyone but god Almighty.

PS. where ever I said choice you can say freedom.

There is a big difference between saying that it is better to be free even when it is difficult and saying that freedom leads to those things. The only thing which would present that choice to you is tyranny of the government. The very think Kruetz is proposing is exactly the gun which will eventually be put to your head and demand compliance (hopefully figuratively only, but those guys have a bad track record).

Furthermore, let's assume that you were offered such a choice and could leave freely at some unknown date in the future (you could join Wylde and break off some states). I'd put good money on that in several generations the socialist states would be in utter collapse like every attempt before it, while those poor cold, hungry, freedom lovers would be living it large off the profit of their labor. Able men would flock to such a place (and they did here) and they, not the government, would make it great.

gunderwood wrote:

jim100 wrote:

Feel free to live in the wood and be free, cold, and hungry. I'll pay my taxes and enjoy civilization.

Yes, but that is the price to pay to have freedom/choice because some of us dont want to "bow the knee", "to burn the little pinch of incense", to look to the government for handouts.
I want to be able to choose my own way without interference from anyone but god Almighty.

PS. where ever I said choice you can say freedom.

There is a big difference between saying that it is better to be free even when it is difficult and saying that freedom leads to those things. The only thing which would present that choice to you is tyranny of the government. The very think Kruetz is proposing is exactly the gun which will eventually be put to your head and demand compliance (hopefully figuratively only, but those guys have a bad track record).

Furthermore, let's assume that you were offered such a choice and could leave freely at some unknown date in the future (you could join Wylde and break off some states). I'd put good money on that in several generations the socialist states would be in utter collapse like every attempt before it, while those poor cold, hungry, freedom lovers would be living it large off the profit of their labor. Able men would flock to such a place (and they did here) and they, not the government, would make it great.

What I was saying is in this current situation, right now,today. I have no problem with having all of today's luxuries,but, not at the price of giving away my god given freedoms, at some point you have to say "social security is nice but it just not worth the freedoms that will be taken away by my taking it" that is all that I am saying.

to your 2d paragraph, +1.

_____I have learned several thingies in my years of living, reading, learning and fooling about on the series of tubes we call the interwebs. A working theory I have developed essentially posits that liberalism/socialism is a sort of hybrid between a mental illness but more rather a cult/crutch for the intellectually disadvantaged and emotionally driven.

To wit:
_____There are two very common types of specimen one encounters. The most common will largely swim in friendly waters (Democrat Underground) in which doctrine can be learned and elementary parroting can begin, to great fanfare and encouragement from the other useful idiocracy. These people are largely cowards and possess a frightful deficiency of independent thought and are almost completely devoid of the courage of conviction present in most people who express themselves voluntarily. They are contemptible, and they are scum. They form the bulk of the masses who both provide power to those who would use it selfishly and end up passively surrendering to the despair filled life they helped create.

_____These are the people who endlessly trumpet the celebration of tolerance and then shout down opposing viewpoints and mandate diversity whilst banishing the promotion of people who are not amongst the flavor of the month special interest group (today it's minorities, women, muzzies, undocumented democrats). They suck and they should redouble their knowledge gathering and contemplation efforts and simultaneously retrench from their proclamations that serve only to put their wrongheadedness on parade.


_____The second type is far less common in numbers, but possibly more familiar to us here. They are the textual version of the palistinian muzzie ghetto goblins who somehow place themselves in front of a well armed professional military/police force armed with only stones and mean spirits. Some call them trolls, but I don't think ithat is as accurate as it could be. They are much more complex, invested and mature than that. Essentially what takes place is someone attempts to enter an environment that is quite clearly unfriendly to them. The purpose is not to entertainment, nor to enlighten, debate, convert, but rather simply a more self-focused benefit of proving (why is that so necessary?) to oneself how strongly you hold your beliefs.
_____A tangential benefit is to try to find the slowest amongst the herd of your opposition; i.e. who makes the basest argument or resorts to lower discourse like slurs or "hate speech." Anything that confirms preconceived notions will do, like using bumper sticker slogans or talking points. The goal here is to gain a feeling of intellectual superiority. You will notice the similarity in goals, even though the medium changes. There is some respect to be given here for the bravery of intentionally placing oneself outside of those he claims to find reprehensible, but remember this is all from the safety of one's keyboard so it is both free and with very little at risk.

_____An example of a brave act by Kreutz was his stating that he barely completed high school. It was also a self-serving attempt at earning kudos for learning things by his own independent study, of course. When faced with overwhelming numbers, he likely sees this as a way of increasing his payout from "fighting the good fight" against us conservative knuckle dragging cave neo/cons who are tools of "the man/the rich."

Enjoy your puter experiences, friends, dinner is over for me. It is time to begin draining my homebrew rations in earnest.

Kreutz wrote:Feel free to live in the woods and be free, cold, and hungry. I'll pay my taxes and enjoy civilization.

I think that's how this country got it's start - cold and hungry - but free. Worked then - I don't mind going that route again. It's been proven to be effective against the alternative.

CCFan wrote:

Kreutz wrote:Feel free to live in the woods and be free, cold, and hungry. I'll pay my taxes and enjoy civilization.

I think that's how this country got it's start - cold and hungry - but free. Worked then - I don't mind going that route again. It's been proven to be effective against the alternative.

+1

@ Kreutz

You are correct, I have never gone to sleep hungry. Want to know why? It's not because I or my parents had a ton of money. It is because when I was growing up, my dad did what he had to do. He worked hard, long hours. He made his self so valuable to his employer, the thought of letting him go never crossed their minds.

My dad instilled that same work ethic in me and my siblings. Because of this, my children have never gone to bed hungry either.

Yes, it must seriously suck to go hungry. I wouldn't know. But there is a simple cure, it's called WORK!

There are jobs out there. It may not be something that an individual wants to do, or pay as much as they would like, but you do what you have to do. Even if it means working two, three, or more minimum wage jobs at a time.

There is no substitute for EARNING your way. Each individual does earn what they get. If you don't work, guess what? YOU DON'T EAT!

It's really that simple!

Tweaker, there were a lot of big words in there, we aren't but humble pirates....

I very much enjoyed your breakdown. I have never heard it put that way but it makes perfect sense. I applaud your analysis.

Tweaker wrote:_____I have learned several thingies in my years of living, reading, learning and fooling about on the series of tubes we call the interwebs. A working theory I have developed essentially posits that liberalism/socialism is a sort of hybrid between a mental illness but more rather a cult/crutch for the intellectually disadvantaged and emotionally driven.

To wit:
_____There are two very common types of specimen one encounters. The most common will largely swim in friendly waters (Democrat Underground) in which doctrine can be learned and elementary parroting can begin, to great fanfare and encouragement from the other useful idiocracy. These people are largely cowards and possess a frightful deficiency of independent thought and are almost completely devoid of the courage of conviction present in most people who express themselves voluntarily. They are contemptible, and they are scum. They form the bulk of the masses who both provide power to those who would use it selfishly and end up passively surrendering to the despair filled life they helped create.

_____These are the people who endlessly trumpet the celebration of tolerance and then shout down opposing viewpoints and mandate diversity whilst banishing the promotion of people who are not amongst the flavor of the month special interest group (today it's minorities, women, muzzies, undocumented democrats). They suck and they should redouble their knowledge gathering and contemplation efforts and simultaneously retrench from their proclamations that serve only to put their wrongheadedness on parade.


_____The second type is far less common in numbers, but possibly more familiar to us here. They are the textual version of the palistinian muzzie ghetto goblins who somehow place themselves in front of a well armed professional military/police force armed with only stones and mean spirits. Some call them trolls, but I don't think ithat is as accurate as it could be. They are much more complex, invested and mature than that. Essentially what takes place is someone attempts to enter an environment that is quite clearly unfriendly to them. The purpose is not to entertainment, nor to enlighten, debate, convert, but rather simply a more self-focused benefit of proving (why is that so necessary?) to oneself how strongly you hold your beliefs.
_____A tangential benefit is to try to find the slowest amongst the herd of your opposition; i.e. who makes the basest argument or resorts to lower discourse like slurs or "hate speech." Anything that confirms preconceived notions will do, like using bumper sticker slogans or talking points. The goal here is to gain a feeling of intellectual superiority. You will notice the similarity in goals, even though the medium changes. There is some respect to be given here for the bravery of intentionally placing oneself outside of those he claims to find reprehensible, but remember this is all from the safety of one's keyboard so it is both free and with very little at risk.

_____An example of a brave act by Kreutz was his stating that he barely completed high school. It was also a self-serving attempt at earning kudos for learning things by his own independent study, of course. When faced with overwhelming numbers, he likely sees this as a way of increasing his payout from "fighting the good fight" against us conservative knuckle dragging cave neo/cons who are tools of "the man/the rich."

Enjoy your puter experiences, friends, dinner is over for me. It is time to begin draining my homebrew rations in earnest.

+1

Kreutz wrote:
Feel free to live in the woods and be free, cold, and hungry. I'll pay my taxes and enjoy civilization.

Kreutz attempts to perpetuate the myth that proponents of liberty are anarchists. I am growing weary of this non sequitur from the liberal quarters. Government is like salt. In small amounts, it can improve some things, and is even necessary for one's health. Any more than the minimum required, however, will ruin everything and eventually kill you. I am happy to pay my taxes to support the necessary functions of government, but I don't think tax laws should be designed to penalize people for success, nor should they attempt to control behavior (like our current complex scheme of deductions and credits). If government is properly limited in scope, taxes need not be oppressive.

wpoppert wrote:

Kreutz wrote:
Feel free to live in the woods and be free, cold, and hungry. I'll pay my taxes and enjoy civilization.

Kreutz attempts to perpetuate the myth that proponents of liberty are anarchists. I am growing weary of this non sequitur from the liberal quarters. Government is like salt. In small amounts, it can improve some things, and is even necessary for one's health. Any more than the minimum required, however, will ruin everything and eventually kill you. I am happy to pay my taxes to support the necessary functions of government, but I don't think tax laws should be designed to penalize people for success, nor should they attempt to control behavior (like our current complex scheme of deductions and credits). If government is properly limited in scope, taxes need not be oppressive.

+1

Exactly.

Edit: That's a pretty good analogy, I may just have to barrow it.