If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
Here's a conversation with a guy at work who is literally scared that there are legal citizens out there with guns. And is especially scared knowing our boss and others like me conceal carry just about everywhere we go. He also really likes the idea of social healthcare and doesn't mind losing our rights so that the government can "protect" us. An anti-gun, socialist, if you will. However, I have not once called him names or even implied that his ideas are crazy or un-American. I do my best to be nice to this guy, but sometimes it's hard...
Ron Paul recently won a straw poll here in Benton County, so I emailed the link to him as he's always criticizing RP. Here's the response I got....
Quote:
All I can say is, good luck to him...he is a little crazy though. Just think, get rid of the IRS? Ok, fine, lay off over 90,000 people that work for the IRS...great idea Mr. President. That's just one of his crazy ideas. Pull out of Iraq immediately, great idea Mr. President, we'll lose all credibility in the world (more than we already have) if we do such a thing. I mean seriously, think about the things he says in today's world and you would think the same thing as the rest of the Republican party...this guy is freakin' crazy.
Quote:
Ron Paul is Crazy? No, he's just honest and nobody wants to hear it.
Letting our own brothers and sisters die and get hurt in an unjust, unnecessary war and killing innocent citizens...
...no reason for a link here
Letting our country fall into a $9.2 trillion debt that is exponentially increasing (44% of that is owed to foreigners)... http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Those things are crazy. Dr. Paul's solutions might sound whacky, as we've become complacent to these things and consider them normal, but in reality, his ideas are very good and would greatly help this country out. Everyone's talking about "change," but coming from everybody but RP, it's just a political buzz word they say to get elected. But like every other election, nothing will actually change for the good. Just the same shit with a different president.
As far as the IRS workers go, there's actually around 115,000 of them. Do you think those IRS workers care when 150,000 Americans are laid off every year? At least if the IRS workers are laid off, the economy will be getting a lot better as there will be a lot more money going around, creating more jobs for them. Besides, there's no way the government would fire all of them cold turkey without any settlement or compensation.
Besides the obvious fact that everybody's income would jump up about 25%, here's some other reasons why it doesn't bother me...
1) Releasing these workers means that the government no longer needs to pay their salaries.
2) The money saved from what would have been spent on the salaries stays in general revenue.
3) More funds in general revenue, if we hold our government accountable, means that it will help the gov't pay off our debt or the taxes can be cut.
4a) Assuming taxes are cut, the money stays in the economy.
4b) Assuming debt is paid off, that means the government saves more money by not having to pay the interest on that debt, which means they need less revenue the next year so that taxes can be cut; the money goes back into the economy, and the tax cuts on top of that leave more money in the economy.
5) That additional money in the economy creates jobs.
6) Guess who is sitting on their couch ready to fill those new jobs: the old IRS employees!
If you need a good example of what happens when there is an influx of unemployed workers, look at the post WWII era when about 15 million GIs came home. The economy readily absorbed those government workers.
As far as the war goes, of all people, I was surprised to hear that from you. The war was a mistake. We were misled and lied to in order to build support. Staying in there is only making things worse. All of our allies have pulled out almost all their soldiers, if they haven't pulled out 100%. There's a lot of news reporting that the "surge" is working, but that's not accurate. During the first 6 months of the surge, violence reached an all time high. It wasn't until late August when a cease fire was declared by the largest Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, after 50 Muslim pilgrims were slaughtered. Problem is, he only called for a 6 month cease-fire. So lets wait and see what happens here in about a month.
Either way, we were in the same situation 33 years ago, and we pulled out. Now, we have good ties with Vietnam and the communist didn't chase us home as the war mongers claimed they would. Just as the terrorists won't follow our troops home this time around.
The rest of the world doesn't want us there, so how would we lose credibility? In my opinion, pulling out now is the only way we can save face and restore our credibility.
Quote:
We'll just have to agree to disagree. You might be just as crazy, anyone can spin the numbers and facts anyway they want them.
Quote:
You're a funny guy.
If all he can do is insults, then he obviously doesn't have any ground to stand on. Sad that some people are so damn close minded. I used to half way believe in the same democrats that he is gung ho for, but after hearing RP's message, it really opened my eyes and changed my views. Maybe he'll do the same one of these days.
I do have to brag a little bit and say that I didn't let my temper get to me and didn't go back hand his ass
__________________
.
.
. Ron Paul: Making the Constitution cool again. ..
.
.
.
Jeff Cooper coined the term "Hoplophobe" to describe a person who lives in fear of an inanimate object. The Hoplophobe does not recognize that there is a living, breathing human being in possession of the inanimate object. (See: Bad Gun - Liberals attack the gun issue.) Therefore the Hoplophobe chooses to have a relationship with an inanimate object rather than with the sentient being in control of the object. Such a person is, by definition, irrational. Such a person is, by association, insane.
In our merciful culture, the insane are granted special dispensations. They are not considered responsible for their own well-being. Public money is often used to house, clothe and feed them. They are not allowed to serve on a jury. They are not allowed to vote. (And when they do manage to sneak into the voting booth, the rational among us are not surprised that they often "dimple" rather than "punch" a ballot, despite written instructions to the contrary.) They are not allowed to serve in the military, and they certainly should not be allowed to make public policy that will put their neighbors at risk of being injured or killed.
We in the RKBA community have spent countless hours and dollars attempting to educate the Hoplophobes. This is hopeless. It cannot be done. These poor folks have a condition known to the medical specialty of neurology as "anosognosia." That is: they don't know, and they don't know that they don't know. A sure sign of such a deplorable condition is that when education is attempted, the Hoplophobe responds with anger.
So, I recommend that we finally give up on educating these unfortunates. Let us instead shift our efforts to controlling them and disenfranchising them. They must be treated like the mentally retarded who are allowed to make only limited decisions in the world of "grownups."
Hoplophobes don't like to be angry, because it frightens them to be angry. So, our attack on them should be one of frontal assault.
Let us boldly call them what they are: socially retarded children who, when left alone to participate in the making of public policy, are getting people killed. It is time for us to start taking them on directly. We have simply been "too nice" to these social retards. The worst that will happen when these people are confronted directly is that they will cry and run away, trembling and calling us names as they run.
Politically correct witnesses to our frontal assault will doubtlessly call us ugly names and tell us we are being "cruel." And that, my friends, is the exact moment when we win the debate, because that is when we turn and point to a homicidal shooter, like the one recently captured in Massachusetts, and we say:
"No, DAMN YOU, HE is the cruel one! HE is the one who shot the sheep, some of them in the back as they frantically scrambled for their lives because they had nothing with which to fight back! HE is the one that no one shot down while he was fumbling to change magazines or reload his shotgun!"
Yes. It is time we came out of our own little closets and began telling our fellow citizens:
"Any man (or woman) among you who is physically able and yet who does not learn to shoot and carry a defensive weapon at ALL times, is a deadbeat who deserves...DESERVES...whatever comes your way."
****Dr. Rogers is a psychiatrist practicing in Tyler, TX. He is a member of the KABA Board of Directors and he is the Director of Doctors For Sensible Gun Laws: Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
Posts: 1,562
Casino Cash: $10997
Sportbike: black 954RR, black 06 636
His thoughts aren't all that outragous, I'm sure there are a lot of people that think the same he does about those two specific RP issues.
You hear on the news of lay offs and a possible recession, you don't want to lay off the IRS. I get that. There are also a lot of people that think pulling out immediately isn't the best idea.
He didn't say anything that wacko and I think you are doing the right thing by not getting in his face or saying something offensive to him. If you want convince a pussy that he's being a pussy, you probably aren't going to intimidate or scare him 'tough'.
I've heard a lot dumber things, at least the guy gives a rat's ass apparently. As for the social medicine/right to carry, I won't get involved and my stance is pretty clear towards your thinking.
__________________ "You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."- Abraham Lincoln
Here's a conversation with a guy at work who is literally scared that there are legal citizens out there with guns. And is especially scared knowing our boss and others like me conceal carry just about everywhere we go. He also really likes the idea of social healthcare and doesn't mind losing our rights so that the government can "protect" us. An anti-gun, socialist, if you will. However, I have not once called him names or even implied that his ideas are crazy or un-American. I do my best to be nice to this guy, but sometimes it's hard...
If all he can do is insults, then he obviously doesn't have any ground to stand on. Sad that some people are so damn close minded. I used to half way believe in the same democrats that he is gung ho for, but after hearing RP's message, it really opened my eyes and changed my views. Maybe he'll do the same one of these days.
So what you have here is an anti-gun liberal who is in favor of the War in Iraq? So he's actually wrong about everything? No wonder he doesn't get Ron Paul.
It is entirely futile to argue with such people in private. Sometimes it is worthwhile in public, so that his ideas can be exposed for what they are, and better ideas aired for consideration.
But if no one but him is reading/hearing your discussions, you are entirely wasting your time.
PhilB
__________________
'93 Ducati Monster 900
155,000 miles (so far)
Nonintervention was a great foreign policy 200 years ago. But our founding fathers didn't have to worry about a single bomb taking out hundreds of thousands of people or missiles that could hit anywhere in the United States.
Nonintervention was a great foreign policy 200 years ago. But our founding fathers didn't have to worry about a single bomb taking out hundreds of thousands of people or missiles that could hit anywhere in the United States.
And we wouldn't have to worry about that much either if we didn't spend so much time and energy meddling in everyone else's affairs. Yes, we should track real threats, and act in slef-defense when necessary. But I defy you to demonstrate how being the world's policeman has been successful in having to worry *less* about such bombs and missiles, instead of *more*. We've created and sustained more instability with our realpolitik games than we have prevented, and armed and supported an awful lot of people in the process that would better have been left to fester (Saddam among those). We need to intervene when we are being actually threatened, and not otherwise.
PhilB
__________________
'93 Ducati Monster 900
155,000 miles (so far)
I was with the guy until he smeared the Republican party in 1 broad stroke.
Paul has some excellent ideas but some go too far.
I've seen him numerous times on TV and he dodges how he pays for anything after totally erasing major means of revenue collection.
Getting rid of DOE is great but the FBI?
It does not matter, he loses my vote with the Iraq pullout alone so the rest is moot I suppose.
Like the newly elected Dems in congress, he's full of shit. When you take office you quickly realize what got you elected can't always be delivered when you take a closer look.
Make no mistake, I like many of his ideas but several are ridiculous.
Posts: 8,309
Casino Cash: $12033
Sportbike: Katana - For the man who has nothing to prove
Quote:
Originally Posted by troth281
Nonintervention was a great foreign policy 200 years ago. But our founding fathers didn't have to worry about a single bomb taking out hundreds of thousands of people or missiles that could hit anywhere in the United States.
Sometimes it's hard to be nice to others...
