The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

[Bill]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Good points but he has a fatal flaw in the opening. A big reason why less people are living on a dollar a day since 1970 has to be the growth in industrial China...a state planned economy. That's bit of a contradiction, no?

Not when you stop to consider that China's economic growth largely began when they started adopting capitalist economic principals. China's economy isn't a totally state planned economy in the traditional communist sense. Far from it.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Not when you stop to consider that China's economic growth largely began when they started adopting capitalist economic principals. China's economy isn't a totally state planned economy in the traditional communist sense. Far from it.

Correct, but they are headed for a fall - most notably in residential real estate.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

I saw that too and if I were Mittens I'd be having a chat with my campaign people and I'd be telling them some very un-holy things.

As election day rolled around, I couldn't help thinking how 1) Romney wasn't leading in enough swing states in any independent poll to think he was going to win, and 2) Even Rasmussen had him losing the election of you looked at their state by state polls.

There was plenty of talk of unskewed polls, even out here by Opie and huskyfan, but Mittens should have asked himself: how realistic is it to expect a Republican to outpeform a Rasmussen poll? We got our answer apparently.

From here, Romney was losing Minnesota by about 8 pts with about a month to go. With a couple weeks to go, the local left leaning paper, the star tribune, produced poll results showing Romney down by only 3pts. I laughed.

When my conservative friends asked why I was laughing...I told them it was a big snow job and it was designed to suck lots of last minute money into an unwinnable Minnesota. They said no way...the state is competitive. I laughed some more.

Predictably Romney money came flooding in...we got Romney radio ads on every station for about a week and a half. Romney ended up losing the state by 8pts. It was a good laugh.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Don't have the link handy...supposedly the Washington Post ran a story either yesterday or today saying that Obama's strategy is to stonewall any potential resolution of the spending crisis until after the 2014 elections, the thought being that they will be able to use a compliant press to demonize the Republicans so badly that the Democrats will retake the House in 2014 and he can then <strike>ruin the country to his heart's content at that time</strike> get them to pass whatever he dammed well pleases in the last two years of his term.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Don't have the link handy...supposedly the Washington Post ran a story either yesterday or today saying that Obama's strategy is to stonewall any potential resolution of the spending crisis until after the 2014 elections, the thought being that they will be able to use a compliant press to demonize the Republicans so badly that the Democrats will retake the House in 2014 and he can then <strike>ruin the country to his heart's content at that time</strike> get them to pass whatever he dammed well pleases in the last two years of his term.

Why would Obama choose to emulate the tactics of a party which has been spectacularly unsuccessful at getting people elected to Congress recently? Makes no sense.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Don't have the link handy...supposedly the Washington Post ran a story either yesterday or today saying that Obama's strategy is to stonewall any potential resolution of the spending crisis until after the 2014 elections, the thought being that they will be able to use a compliant press to demonize the Republicans so badly that the Democrats will retake the House in 2014 and he can then <strike>ruin the country to his heart's content at that time</strike> get them to pass whatever he dammed well pleases in the last two years of his term.

Why would Obama choose to shut down govt spending and risk sending his presidency into economic freefall? Limited cuts, sure. Major cuts, too much of a risk.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Why would Obama choose to shut down govt spending and risk sending his presidency into economic freefall? Limited cuts, sure. Major cuts, too much of a risk.

It's called a bluff. People do it in poker all the time. Congress just needs to have the bollocks to call him on it.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

It's called a bluff. People do it in poker all the time. Congress just needs to have the bollocks to call him on it.

Frankly, I'm not sure what would happen to the economy (very few can even have a good guess). But at this point, I wouldn't mind if they did call him on it.

 

[Rover]

From here, Romney was losing Minnesota by about 8 pts with about a month to go. With a couple weeks to go, the local left leaning paper, the star tribune, produced poll results showing Romney down by only 3pts. I laughed.

When my conservative friends asked why I was laughing...I told them it was a big snow job and it was designed to suck lots of last minute money into an unwinnable Minnesota. They said no way...the state is competitive. I laughed some more.

Predictably Romney money came flooding in...we got Romney radio ads on every station for about a week and a half. Romney ended up losing the state by 8pts. It was a good laugh.

Far be it from me to start giving advice to Republicans, but after any election loss a party needs to separate out the good people from the con men. For example, after the 2004 election, idiot Dems finally figured out that Bob Shrum is a con artist. After managing 8 losing campaigns for President mind you. The guy must have crazy interviewing skills or is good at blowing smoke up his client's rear ends, but his career was mercifully done. Ralph Nader is a con artist as well, a guy more interested in himself than advancing any greater good.

I can't tell you who in conservatives circles is only out to line their own pockets vs who's legitimately interested in the cause beyond some obvious ones (DeMint, Bachmann, etc) but the healing starts with figuring that out.

http://theweek.com/article/index/24...rms-with-george-w-bushs-disastrous-presidency

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

Frankly, I'm not sure what would happen to the economy (very few can even have a good guess). But at this point, I wouldn't mind if they did call him on it.

They did call him on one of these: the one referred to as "sequestration". The left has been using scare tactics for years to get people to believe their horse****. Whether they're making stuff up or exaggerating the truth through the means of hyperbole, they'll use any and all means to get their way. It reminds me of a four-year-old I saw in the candy aisle of the grocery store the other day who threw a fit because mommy wouldn't get him a sucker. That's not to say that the fascist right in Congress wouldn't do the same thing, of course, but it's time to tighten the purse strings and call these bluffs.

 

[Rover]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

My solution on spending is simple. States only get back what they put into the federal coffers. If conservatives are on board with reducing govt spending, I don't see the problem. So yes they'll be less support for the unproductive citizenry that makes up Mitch McConnell's constituents. A few of the military bases in Georgia will have to close as part of sequestration and perhaps the AZ based USCHO posters can do a little border patrolling themselves. My state will be getting more money of course, but that's only fair it seems to me. Only exemption I'd make is in the case of a natural disaster.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

My solution on spending is simple. States only get back what they put into the federal coffers. If conservatives are on board with reducing govt spending, I don't see the problem. So yes they'll be less support for the unproductive citizenry that makes up Mitch McConnell's constituents. A few of the military bases in Georgia will have to close as part of sequestration and perhaps the AZ based USCHO posters can do a little border patrolling themselves. My state will be getting more money of course, but that's only fair it seems to me. Only exemption I'd make is in the case of a natural disaster.

So you're not for an unbalanced distribution of collected taxes when we talk about the state level but you have no problems with different people paying different rates with different amounts of return on those collected taxes? interesting...

 

[busterman62]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

My solution on spending is simple. States only get back what they put into the federal coffers. If conservatives are on board with reducing govt spending, I don't see the problem. So yes they'll be less support for the unproductive citizenry that makes up Mitch McConnell's constituents. A few of the military bases in Georgia will have to close as part of sequestration and perhaps the AZ based USCHO posters can do a little border patrolling themselves. My state will be getting more money of course, but that's only fair it seems to me. Only exemption I'd make is in the case of a natural disaster.

Wealth redistribution on a state level: Bad
Wealth redistribution on a personal level: Good

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

They did call him on one of these: the one referred to as "sequestration". The left has been using scare tactics for years to get people to believe their horse****. Whether they're making stuff up or exaggerating the truth through the means of hyperbole, they'll use any and all means to get their way. It reminds me of a four-year-old I saw in the candy aisle of the grocery store the other day who threw a fit because mommy wouldn't get him a sucker. That's not to say that the fascist right in Congress wouldn't do the same thing, of course, but it's time to tighten the purse strings and call these bluffs.

It is time to curb spending. We can not be spending more than we take in every year. Now I was surprised and heartened at this weekend's 60 Minutes story that the entire Chinese economy may be on the verge of going in the ****ter. [video]http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50142079n[/video]. If we can just hold things together until 1.4 Billion china men get ****ed off enough, we might make it.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 2 - Amensty for Some, Miniature AR-15s for Others...

My solution on spending is simple. States only get back what they put into the federal coffers.

That's a horrible idea. Part of the point of federal taxes and spending is to account for the ways in which states' citizens' needs and states' ability to pay to meet them varies.

 

[Rover]

So you're not for an unbalanced distribution of collected taxes when we talk about the state level but you have no problems with different people paying different rates with different amounts of return on those collected taxes? interesting...

D@mn straight. Two different philosophies. On the one hand in a progressive tax system, you're collecting from people with ability to pay. Only a total idiot would advocate a 25% income tax rate on people making 10K a year for example, which is where most flat tax proposals would need to be. That's the getting the revenue part. Part II is how do you spend said revenues that you've already collected. In fairness you spend on who put the $$$ in. Think of it like a household. Husband and wife may have different incomes, but generally you spend on your household the combination of what both of you make. If the husband decides to take 30% of that budget and spend it on his mistress, there might be an objection raised.

Now before somebody starts whining about old people getting disproprionate payouts via entitlements, I'll remind you that the state with most oldies (Florida) is actually a donor state on the federal level.

 

[unofan]

My solution on spending is simple. States only get back what they put into the federal coffers. If conservatives are on board with reducing govt spending, I don't see the problem. So yes they'll be less support for the unproductive citizenry that makes up Mitch McConnell's constituents. A few of the military bases in Georgia will have to close as part of sequestration and perhaps the AZ based USCHO posters can do a little border patrolling themselves. My state will be getting more money of course, but that's only fair it seems to me. Only exemption I'd make is in the case of a natural disaster.

Which turns us into the eu. The biggest advantage the u.s. has is a united fiscal policy, which not only allows but essentially requires states to subsidize one another. Otherwise places like michigan and mississippi become our Greece's and Spain's.

Also, how do you account for things like los alamos, which we probably all agree needs to be in an isolated area for self-evident reasons.

 

[unofan]

. Now I was surprised and heartened at this weekend's 60 Minutes story that the entire Chinese economy may be on the verge of going in the ****ter. ...If we can just hold things together until 1.4 Billion china men get ****ed off enough, we might make it.

Why were you surprised? That's been apparent for awhile.

 

[unofan]

Don't have the link handy...supposedly the Washington Post ran a story either yesterday or today saying t hat Obama's strategy is to stonewall any potential resolution of the spending crisis until after the 2014 elections, the thought being that they will be able to use a compliant press to demonize the Republicans so badly that the Democrats will retake the House in 2014 and he can then <strike>ruin the country to his heart's content at that time</strike> get them to pass whatever he dammed well pleases in the last two years of his term.

But don't call him a gop shill. He's a (Fark) Independent (tm) folks. Always there with WSJ and NY Post links, but only vague references to any other media source that he heard about third hand.

Fwiw, the article in question does say he has a goal of retaking the house (no shiat, Sherlock), but the inflammatory stuff comes from the gop, primarily McConnell. Again, color me shocked.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/p...05/republicans-angry-about-obamas-2014-plans/

 

[Rover]

Which turns us into the eu. The biggest advantage the u.s. has is a united fiscal policy, which not only allows but essentially requires states to subsidize one another. Otherwise places like michigan and mississippi become our Greece's and Spain's.

Also, how do you account for things like los alamos, which we probably all agree needs to be in an isolated area for self-evident reasons.

I believe Michigan is also a donor state. While even my most vociferous righty critics out here will agree that I'm a reasonable man, I'll propose a reasonable solution. Excepting natural disasters like Katrina, how about putting cap on how much the "taker" states can get relative to their contribution? Say 101-102% or something like that. Still a fairer way to do things. I'm a little tired of my tax dollars going to support shiftless and lazy conservatives in states like KY, OK, WY, and SC who insist on electing so called anti-spending pols but are right there with their hand out collecting federal dollars.

Reminds me of the farmer inteviewed before the election saying how the country needed Romney because too many people are living off the govt. When asked if he received farm subsidies from the very same govt he blubbered that he did but he didn't think that should count.