Kreutz wrote:What uncertainty? Its been very clearly communicated what the law entails and much of it is still 3 years from implementation.mamabearCali wrote: How have Obama's policies cost jobs? This is just off the top of my head.
Obamacare, or the affordable health care act, and the fear over the uncertainty that will follow,
Yep. It's those damn greedy, publicly owned companies that most people's 401K's are invested in that's killing our nation....Kreutz wrote:
People are losing jobs because payroll is the biggest expense, corporations are greedy, and desperate people are easily exploited to work as hard as two people for the pay of one. Oh, and throw in automation and foreign competition, hence, high unemployment. Likely permanently-these people are just no longer needed.
Oh yeah. He hasn't!The number of unemployed persons (13.9 million) and the unemployment rate (9.1
percent) were essentially unchanged in May. The labor force, at 153.7 million, was
little changed over the month. (See table A-1.) ( (Source: BLS)
Kreutz wrote:
Ah yes, those stimulus funds, which were a direct continuation of the Bush bailout system. Amazing how those deficits only matter when a democrat signs off on them.
This "slight" increase you speak of would be over $700 a month for my family and guess what we make FAR less than $250K. Now I don't know where you are from, but in my house that is a ton of money to be out.Kreutz wrote: If a very slight (hypothetical no less) increase in taxes really affects your outlook that much, you're probably in bad shape financially anyway.
How pray tell does a chiropractor ship his assistants off to China or a small business owner in a strip mall selling leather products--they don't. The small dairy owner can't take his cows and go to another country. They have to make do with what business is like now. If they have to make do without another assistant/associate because they don't know what medical insurance will be in a year or what their taxes will be in a year that is what they are going to do. Perhaps huge corporations can move resources around, but the American small businessman does not have that option. It is the American small businessman that is the engine of American values and a large part of our economic state.Kreutz wrote: They go to China. Though, these days the Chinese are getting uppity and want to be "paid" for working, so the new hotspots are real hellholes like Cambodia and Vietnam.
You don't get to exist well in this world without friends. We all need friends. That goes for countries as well as people. There is a saying I remember from when I was young. "Make new friends, but keep the old. One is silver and the other gold."Kreutz wrote: Wait, we have allies? Our "allies' strike me as parasites.
Can we get back on topic?Kreutz wrote:And the reason oil drilling off the Gulf had to be suspended was lax safety regs due to poor regulation. Deregulation is never the answer. Government must be able to enforce the laws to properly govern a society.
How many jobs were lost by disallowing oil rig operations, compared to all the economic harm done by that oil spilling thanks to idiotic lax regulation?
@Cody - serious about firearms? YES! Rude and insulting? YES!dems4guns wrote:Can we get back on topic?Kreutz wrote:And the reason oil drilling off the Gulf had to be suspended was lax safety regs due to poor regulation. Deregulation is never the answer. Government must be able to enforce the laws to properly govern a society.
How many jobs were lost by disallowing oil rig operations, compared to all the economic harm done by that oil spilling thanks to idiotic lax regulation?
I am not here to talk about oil drilling. I am here to talk about firearms liberalization, but it seems all you care about is being rude and insulting and distracting to the topic that started this thread.
Are you guys serious about firearms or not????
Dems4Guns
I was unaware Congress can sign things into law.mamabearCali wrote:The bailout system that was put in place by a democrat controlled congress and was voted for by guess who--our current president when he was a Senator.
At least there was an effort to spend the money domestically.Amazing how everything Obama did in congress is forgotten. However, the stimulus was not touted as another bail-out. It was said that it would keep unemployment below 8% and create millions of jobs--that did not happen now did it.
Get a new accountant, higher tax rates were only proposed for those making over 250k/year....until the Republicans tried to block the rates from going up for everyone until the defenseless rich got their cuts too. Gotta love a party that holds the middle class hostage.This "slight" increase you speak of would be over $700 a month for my family and guess what we make FAR less than $250K. Now I don't know where you are from, but in my house that is a ton of money to be out.
These are low-paying, small examples of service economy work which incidentally would not be affected by "Obamacare" or other evil programs anyway. I truly doubt a chiropractor is on the fence over hiring that 51st employee because of the government.How pray tell does a chiropractor ship his assistants off to China or a small business owner in a strip mall selling leather products--they don't. The small dairy owner can't take his cows and go to another country. They have to make do with what business is like now. If they have to make do without another assistant/associate because they don't know what medical insurance will be in a year or what their taxes will be in a year that is what they are going to do. Perhaps huge corporations can move resources around, but the American small businessman does not have that option.
I own a profitable one myself, but have no delusions of grandeur.It is the American small businessman that is the engine of American values and a large part of our economic state.
Kreutz wrote: Wait, we have allies? Our "allies' strike me as parasites.
A) I genuinely see no threat to my ability to own a gun from the federal government. If anything they are gimmicks to drive up sales, remember the recent ATF changing import rules of Saiagas which was untrue and only drove up the price?I have a question now for you. You are on a gun forum, defending a president that voted (as a state senator) to allow people defending their homes to be criminally charged, a president that has said "he is working on gun control under the radar." Do you think that he is suddenly going to change and say "no problem, I was wrong, I am now pro-2nd amendment?" I don't think so. So what do you hope to accomplish here?
Rev,Reverenddel wrote:I will remain a CONSERVATIVE as I actually work for a living, and have a family to provide for. No LIBERAL will ever work to benefit any of that, because they're too busy taking the money out of my paycheck, and giving it to a bunch of generational welfare morons who are suckling on the teet of guv'mint dependence.
Now that is over.
It's a firearms forum. I like guns. I see more threats from LIBERALS than CONSERVATIVES over gun rights. I'm not a pregnant 15 year old, so I don't have a dog in the fight over abortion. I have a strong foundation for saving my money because I know I won't be able to depend on the money stolen (I didn't ask for it to be taken, and it's FORCED, or they JAIL YOU! IE: Extortion) from my paycheck to fund a pyramid scheme SO apparent, that it makes Bernie Maddoff look like an AMATUER! My two Senators feel like slimy used car salesman, my Representative feels like a cardboard cut-out.
The only person who I feel represents my beliefs? My opinions? My train of thought?
Ted Nugent.
There ya' go.
Here this will helpReverenddel wrote:Cody,
Every time someone disagrees with you it's an "insult", and "...they don't have manners". You sir, have no concept of what an insult is, nor what manners are if you think my response was either.
I dub thee "Troll", and will no longer respond to your diatribes.
Good day.
Truth.Reverenddel wrote:I will remain a CONSERVATIVE as I actually work for a living, and have a family to provide for. No LIBERAL will ever work to benefit any of that, because they're too busy taking the money out of my paycheck, and giving it to a bunch of generational welfare morons who are suckling on the teet of guv'mint dependence.
Wrong. It is not the disagreement I call insulting. It is the INSULT that is insulting. I like disagreement because it gives us an opportunity to debate and discuss things. But we never get to that point because of the endless bad behavior, bad manners, insults and contempt. Bad behavior is bad behavior and I don't like it and will call you on it every time. That is why you won't respond anymore, because you can't handle being called on it.Taggure wrote:Reverenddel wrote:Cody,
Every time someone disagrees with you it's an "insult", and "...they don't have manners". You sir, have no concept of what an insult is, nor what manners are if you think my response was either.
I dub thee "Troll", and will no longer respond to your diatribes.
Good day.
Reverenddel wrote:And Brian goes for the insult!
As usual, as always, as normal.
Find a photo, generalize a slur, and see if someone responds.
Troll.
Careful Dems, Gat, and Kreutz... yer making OUR points FOR us!
Demographics will determine the future,and your side is old and dying. Your "points" will be barely audible as they're wheezed through an oxygen mask.More likely to be white and male than the general population, tea partyers also skew toward middle age or older. That's the tell. Most came of age in the 1960s, an era distinguished by widespread disrespect for government. In their wonder years, they learned that politics was about protesting the Establishment and shouting down the Man. No wonder they're doing that now.
Kreutz wrote:
Demographics will determine the future,and your side is old and dying. Your "points" will be barely audible as they're wheezed through an oxygen mask.
There is a huge age and number discrepancy between the two worldviews and in a democracy numbers are all that matter.
First of all your source is from the LA times---hmmm not exactly a middle of the road community do you think?Kreutz wrote:http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/24 ... -2010feb25
More likely to be white and male than the general population, tea partyers also skew toward middle age or older. That's the tell. Most came of age in the 1960s, an era distinguished by widespread disrespect for government. In their wonder years, they learned that politics was about protesting the Establishment and shouting down the Man. No wonder they're doing that now.
I have three kids, but most people my age support green energy, gay marriage, and increased government regulation; particularly in housing, education, and the environment.mamabearCali wrote:Kreutz wrote:
Demographics will determine the future,and your side is old and dying. Your "points" will be barely audible as they're wheezed through an oxygen mask.
There is a huge age and number discrepancy between the two worldviews and in a democracy numbers are all that matter.
Interesting---hmmmm I am 30 years old, my husband is 30 years old. I am a member of the tea party--and most of the people I know are at minimum sympathetic and most are part of the tea party as well--and they are all pretty similar in ages (late 20's to mid/late 30's). I can't see most of us needing oxygen masks anytime soon.
First of all your source is from the LA times---hmmm not exactly a middle of the road community do you think?Kreutz wrote:http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/24 ... -2010feb25
More likely to be white and male than the general population, tea partyers also skew toward middle age or older. That's the tell. Most came of age in the 1960s, an era distinguished by widespread disrespect for government. In their wonder years, they learned that politics was about protesting the Establishment and shouting down the Man. No wonder they're doing that now.
On the flip side I see that the members of congress that are adhering to your world view are all 60's flower child socialists that finally finding themselves in power are eager to force everyone to eat what they say we can eat, buy what they say is good for us to buy, and pay various massive taxes so that their schemes
(green this energy and that energy that really don't work in the end/imagine whirrled peas) which they have been dreaming up for decades can be brought to fruition and their buddies can be paid off.
As far as "in a democracy only numbers count" well don't let that bite you in the tail end. Most conservative friends I have that are my age have several children (usually at least 3) and are working hard to educate them apart from the liberal bastion that is our public education sector (private school/homeschool/etc). The liberal friends I have either don't have any kids, or they have precious few. The primary exceptions I know to the (0-2 child group), that democrats, are a few people I knew in high-school that dropped out and have proceeded basically become wards of the state. You might say "well how can you be sure all your kids will be continue to be conservative there will be some statistical loss there?" That is true, but consider this, my husband was raised in a liberal NY household, very very anti-gun, pro-choice the works, he is now even more conservative than me, so loss goes both ways.
Your mileage may vary of course, but this is what I have seen an experienced.
Also I have read enough of insults so if you can't be civil about the tea party/children don't reply.
Since others wish this thread to take on another tone I will not post again here beyond this.Kreutz wrote: I have three kids, but most people my age support green energy, gay marriage, and increased government regulation; particularly in housing, education, and the environment.
Its a fact most people under 30 vote democrat.
Also, the demographics I was referring to is the massively declining white birth rate. The rapidly increasing non-whites overwhelmingly favor the Democrat party, and white voters are split, so that leaves Republicans about half of old white people since the young won't ever trend Republican on a large basis.
Your ideals are simply not going to survive.
