Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

...a mouthy lib kid!

Loved the LEAVE! part,,, should have added a descriptive noun or two !!!

"How is it this nation could become the greatest eocnomic and military power that it is?"

Well Herman, by rampant deficit spending, duh. Ya know, the thing that Republicans like him only seem to pretend to give a flying frick about when they lose a Presidential election?

Its easy to live large on debt and other peoples money after all.

This country was in truth more prosperous when it was more modest and not acting as Atlas, enmeshed in treaties and defending other nations borders whilst ignoring our own.

I'd rather live in America the great with a small debt that minds its own business than America the greatest that went broke showing off to the world, which seems to hate us regardless.

Its like spending a fortune to impress the in-laws that are always gonna hate you anyway.

Kreutz wrote: Its like spending a fortune to impress the in-laws that are always gonna hate you anyway.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't think most folks do that to impress 'em. I think they do it just to piss 'em off.

dorminWS wrote:

Kreutz wrote: Its like spending a fortune to impress the in-laws that are always gonna hate you anyway.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't think most folks do that to impress 'em. I think they do it just to piss 'em off.

Perhaps, but is it worth it when you end up getting shivved by a schizophrenic in the homeless shelter after you've gone broke?

Spoiled little $hits need a taste of reality and a good kick in the ass to go with it;;;

Both parties are to blame (for a long time now) for our debt woes. Getting back to being debt free will be a long road and will not happen in our lifetime.

While I'm no fan of us being the world police, someone has to do it. Our absence would create a vacuum that communists, terrorists, and socialists would quickly fill. Just as will happen in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we collectively put our head in the sand, we'll wake up with an invasion army on our doorstep or an economic disaster.

To the OP: good video. Sorry it was used as a means to yet again attack a Republican, but liberals take every opportunity they can.

SilentServiceVet wrote:Both parties are to blame (for a long time now) for our debt woes. Getting back to being debt free will be a long road and will not happen in our lifetime.

While I'm no fan of us being the world police, someone has to do it. Our absence would create a vacuum that communists, terrorists, and socialists would quickly fill. Just as will happen in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we collectively put our head in the sand, we'll wake up with an invasion army on our doorstep or an economic disaster.

To the OP: good video. Sorry it was used as a means to yet again attack a Republican, but liberals take every opportunity they can.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(1) We don't need to be debt-FREE to begin to realize significant benefits; we just need to get the deficit down to something sustainable. That's still going to take some doing, but it will be a smaller job than completely eliminating the deficit.

(2) looks to me like we've got socialist problem of our own right here - in the freakin' White House. But you are right. The ultimate cost of a totally non-interventionist USA would likely be high. Look what happened in Europe leading up to WWII while the US was being diligently isolationist. It is well-settled that any resistance at all probably would have backed Hitler down on Czechoslovakia.

dorminWS wrote:(1) We don't need to be debt-FREE to begin to realize significant benefits; we just need to get the deficit down to something sustainable. That's still going to take some doing, but it will be a smaller job than completely eliminating the deficit.

So always spending more than is taken in will yield significant benefits? I call BS. All spending more than you have, aka a deficit, will never put you in a better position...that's common sense. Sure with monetary expansion and such you can make things appear to be better, but that's all smoke and mirrors. It does come crashing down again and again and again. Be careful, you're starting to sound like Obama on the campaign trail, but appologizing for Romney's failure has a way of doing that!

gunderwood wrote:

dorminWS wrote:(1) We don't need to be debt-FREE to begin to realize significant benefits; we just need to get the deficit down to something sustainable. That's still going to take some doing, but it will be a smaller job than completely eliminating the deficit.

So always spending more than is taken in will yield significant benefits? I call BS. All spending more than you have, aka a deficit, will never put you in a better position...that's common sense. Sure with monetary expansion and such you can make things appear to be better, but that's all smoke and mirrors. It does come crashing down again and again and again. Be careful, you're starting to sound like Obama on the campaign trail, but appologizing for Romney's failure has a way of doing that!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Gunderwood, you need to quit reading so many of Kreutz's posts; you're beginning to adopt his style.

"So always spending more than is taken in will yield significant benefits?" is a completely unwarranted conclusion to attempt to draw from what I said; so you SHOULD call BS - but it's YOUR BS. You know damned well there is the yearly deficit and then there is the cumulative deficit. You also ought to know that a significant reduction in either will have salutary effects; particularly in world markets for US debt. Indeed, a huge part of restoring confidence in the Dollar abroad is certainly that other governments perceive that the US government has found the resolve to actually reduce the deficit significantly. My point simply was that we will see some of those benefits long before the deficit is completely eliminated; not the we shouldn’t curtail or even eventually eliminate it. So I'm calling “cheap shot”; because I think you know all that.

Or maybe you should re-read my post.

dorminWS wrote:Gunderwood, you need to quit reading so many of Kreutz's posts; you're beginning to adopt his style.

I resent this remark. None of my posts have made War and Peace look like a short read.