Gun issue keeps rural voters away from Dems
- Thread starter kengrubb
- Start date
- Status
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
SIOP said:
After he left office and after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's as well.
The poison pill amendment that a Democrat controlled House committee attached to the 1986 FOPA is well known here and the reasons the bill was signed despite that are also well documented. A quick search on "1986 FOPA" here will show we gained a lot more than we lost with that bill - though it still puzzles me why people blame Reagan for the poison pill amendment that Democrats attached to the bill.
Actually the ban on imported barrels and such was put in place during the Clinton Administration - it was the Bush Administration who opened up the exception for "repair or replacement parts" until that exception was closed by a legal opinion that it was at odds with law Congress had passed.
I didn't realize the John McCain represented the entire Republican party these days. If the Republicans are "pushing" this bill as you claim, then how is it we don't have any bill like that despite a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican White House?
The Republicans aren't any different? Would the AWB have expired if the Democrats had their way? How would that whole UN Small Arms Conference have played out? The Republicans may not be as great as everybody would like them to be; but they have done all kinds of things on guns. In fact, about the only way I could see anybody make the claim you just did with a straight face is if they were one of those people who wants so much change so fast that they simply aren't capable of appreciating or seeing incremental change.
As to whether rural voters would vote for the Dems if not for the gun issue, I think a good argument can be made for it. Several in my family grew up as Democrats, are still registered as Democrats and are particularly annoyed with what they see as an uneven playing field for free market capitalism that unduly favors large corporations. Yet they still vote Republican more often than not. If you could convince them that the Dems did actually favor free market capitalism and guns, I think they would switch in a heartbeat. The real problem the Dems have right now is that the leadership doesn't support either of those things and spends all its time trying to figure out how to fool people into voting for them despite that.
LightningJoe
Member
Undoubtedly, the issue of private gun ownership helps the Republicans. In the football game of national elections and of local elections to national office, it's probably more of a field goal than a touchdown, but many a game is won by the kicker.
edwardyoung
Member
I think anything that keeps someone from voting Democrat is a good thing.
TCB in TN
Member
Hugh???????
So much wrong with this post it pains me to even read it. I will just stay away from the abortion issue, not worth the effort.
First of all whatever percentage of republicans are fighting against protecting the borders, it is minor in comparison to the # of dems. While some Republicans are wrong, just about all of the dems are wrong on this issue!
As for Tax cuts, all the Government has done is go from taking an utterly obscene percentage of wealthy peoples money to a merely obscene percentage. Excuse my souther grammer, but IT AIN"T the government money to begin with. Taking a little from everyone to help run the nation is one thing, but when such a large percentage of the taxes are taken from such a small percentage of the populace then something is wrong. BTW in the real world you can't get a tax cut, if you ain't paying taxes!
As for outsourcing, well I personally don't want to end up paying 3 times what a product is worth to pay a union tow moter driver $30 an hour. And don't tell me it isn't happening, because I just quit a fortune 500 company last year and can give way to many examples of it. When a flipping "cheap economy" car is costing $15000 there is a problem. As for moving corporate to Bermuda, well if the taxes here weren't so high, they wouldn't want or need to move!
Steals elections? Get real, how many Democrats voters aren't even citizens or in many cases even alive? All that happened was that actual election law was followed. Novel idea hugh? But as for trying to steal elections the dems have been proven to try to keep the military votes out, and have tried or invented about every dirty trick in the book.
As for the war, well just be glad its happening over there. I have friends and family over there as we speak and even if you don't understand why they are there.......... THEY DO! Keeping the enemy focused there keeps many of them from coming here! Other important issues involved but we will keep it simple for now.
As for physical conservative, well you are right the bunch in charge sure aren't that, but look at the alternative. The dems are talking about how stingy the Republicans are in just about everything and yet are blasting them for spending to much money. No that isn't the way to go. Sadly enough it is a case of having to chose the lesser of two evils. It don't go down to easy, but it beats what could have been otherwise.
So much wrong with this post it pains me to even read it. I will just stay away from the abortion issue, not worth the effort.
First of all whatever percentage of republicans are fighting against protecting the borders, it is minor in comparison to the # of dems. While some Republicans are wrong, just about all of the dems are wrong on this issue!
As for Tax cuts, all the Government has done is go from taking an utterly obscene percentage of wealthy peoples money to a merely obscene percentage. Excuse my souther grammer, but IT AIN"T the government money to begin with. Taking a little from everyone to help run the nation is one thing, but when such a large percentage of the taxes are taken from such a small percentage of the populace then something is wrong. BTW in the real world you can't get a tax cut, if you ain't paying taxes!
As for outsourcing, well I personally don't want to end up paying 3 times what a product is worth to pay a union tow moter driver $30 an hour. And don't tell me it isn't happening, because I just quit a fortune 500 company last year and can give way to many examples of it. When a flipping "cheap economy" car is costing $15000 there is a problem. As for moving corporate to Bermuda, well if the taxes here weren't so high, they wouldn't want or need to move!
Steals elections? Get real, how many Democrats voters aren't even citizens or in many cases even alive? All that happened was that actual election law was followed. Novel idea hugh? But as for trying to steal elections the dems have been proven to try to keep the military votes out, and have tried or invented about every dirty trick in the book.
As for the war, well just be glad its happening over there. I have friends and family over there as we speak and even if you don't understand why they are there.......... THEY DO! Keeping the enemy focused there keeps many of them from coming here! Other important issues involved but we will keep it simple for now.
As for physical conservative, well you are right the bunch in charge sure aren't that, but look at the alternative. The dems are talking about how stingy the Republicans are in just about everything and yet are blasting them for spending to much money. No that isn't the way to go. Sadly enough it is a case of having to chose the lesser of two evils. It don't go down to easy, but it beats what could have been otherwise.
TCB in TN
Member
DCR
Sorry to have offended you, but I worked for a well known automotive industry F500 company for 16years. The last 9 split between Software implementations and Inventory Control Manager for a 130 million a year facility. Like or not like it. That is what I did, quite successfully I might add. I did that until I tired of corporate life and decided to follow my passion and work with kids. As for my quantum leaps of logic, why don't you help me out. Explain to me, with all your wisdom where I went so wrong.
Sorry to have offended you, but I worked for a well known automotive industry F500 company for 16years. The last 9 split between Software implementations and Inventory Control Manager for a 130 million a year facility. Like or not like it. That is what I did, quite successfully I might add. I did that until I tired of corporate life and decided to follow my passion and work with kids. As for my quantum leaps of logic, why don't you help me out. Explain to me, with all your wisdom where I went so wrong.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
Don't y'all try to get on Briscoe now. While I disagree with much of what he said, he postulated that the issues which concern Rural voters are something neither side is doing anything about.
Whats more, have none of you ever heard of Pat Buchanan? He is an arch- Conservative. Extreme Conservative. (To me a scary Conservative because i hold many libertarian beliefs). But, he is for trade protectionism, and against illegal immigration, and many people in this country don't think it is right that the Chinese can use slave labour to undercut wages while they get most favoured nation status (a Communist country using slave labour is just providing the cheapest product at the best price, come on, do any of you really believe that?
As to the illegal issue, well it has been well hashed here, and many on this board (especially many mods) don't want to hear about it (which is part of why my posting is down from what it was on this site).
Is this a gun board?
Yes.
But there are other issues that must be addressed because they effect the 2A issue.
Niether Dems nor Reps really are supporting many important issues even though they could make someone the President in a landslide. Why is that?
You're asking whether Democrats changing their stance on guns will help in rural areas?
Only if they also decide to kill NAFTA, sanction China, use protectionism to help American industry, and labour, and start giving illegals the boot.
They do all of that, and change their stance on guns, and they can get some rural support.
Whats more, have none of you ever heard of Pat Buchanan? He is an arch- Conservative. Extreme Conservative. (To me a scary Conservative because i hold many libertarian beliefs). But, he is for trade protectionism, and against illegal immigration, and many people in this country don't think it is right that the Chinese can use slave labour to undercut wages while they get most favoured nation status (a Communist country using slave labour is just providing the cheapest product at the best price, come on, do any of you really believe that?
As to the illegal issue, well it has been well hashed here, and many on this board (especially many mods) don't want to hear about it (which is part of why my posting is down from what it was on this site).
Is this a gun board?
Yes.
But there are other issues that must be addressed because they effect the 2A issue.
Niether Dems nor Reps really are supporting many important issues even though they could make someone the President in a landslide. Why is that?
You're asking whether Democrats changing their stance on guns will help in rural areas?
Only if they also decide to kill NAFTA, sanction China, use protectionism to help American industry, and labour, and start giving illegals the boot.
They do all of that, and change their stance on guns, and they can get some rural support.
xd9fan
Member
about the only thing the GOP has left is the 'vote for us , cause if you dont the other pro-govt party will win'
About as uninspiring as the 'anti-bush' voters
Where is the less Govt platform again? Where is the Pro-gun platform?
About as uninspiring as the 'anti-bush' voters
Where is the less Govt platform again? Where is the Pro-gun platform?
mrmeval
Member
Dems are slightly worse then Reps
I will never vote for anyone who ever votes for or implements gun control and I'll never again vote for anyone who fails to remove it at every opportunity afforded them.
I will never vote for anyone who ever votes for or implements gun control and I'll never again vote for anyone who fails to remove it at every opportunity afforded them.
Sorry, but I think you'll find Mr. Reagan's actions happened BEFORE his Alzheimer's.
And the fact is that he was the one that banned the machineguns. He signed the bill. Doesn't matter who added the provision or what you think we might have gained in the process, the fact is he did it.
And again, your grasp of history is shaky. The first importation ban occurred in 1989. Last time I checked my history books, Bush the first was the president in 1989. And the fact that a later legal opinion might have closed Bush the second's actions don't change the fact that he imposed them in the first place, now does it?
I didn't say McCain represented the entire Republican party. The fact of the matter is that he is pushing it, and he is a Republican. And there is a companion bill in the House, sponsored by Democrats.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
SIOP said:
It doesn't matter whether we gained something if all you are concerned about is making a questionable argument that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats on gun rights. If you are actually concerned about whether there is a difference between those two groups, then who proposed the amendment and the tradeoffs we got for signing it ARE important.
My grasp of history is fine. How is your grasp of reading comprehension?
We were discussing the ban that the Clinton administration implemented on barrels and other imported parts to support Congressional legislation also passed during that administration (around 92 IIRC). GWB lifted this restriction for "repair or replacement" parts only in 2000 until a legal opinion in 2004 determined this violated the earlier Congressional law.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is with this argument. What GWB did has no effect on what Bush I did - which is why I didn't argue that. GWB complied with the law as expressed by Congress and interpreted the law as loosely as possible until told to do otherwise.
Which is fine if your only point is to argue semantics on the Internet. If you actually care about how it affects RKBA, then the fact that McCain's position is a minority in the Republican party and a majority in the Democratic party is relevant to the discussion.
Steve 48
Member
I would not vote for a Democrat even if I liked them. They are not the democratic party of Truman and JFK. They lean too far left of center and some stay on the "fringe" of society. Steve 48
Ralph G. Briscoe
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 56
<<First of all whatever percentage of republicans are fighting against protecting the borders, it is minor in comparison to the # of dems. While some Republicans are wrong, just about all of the dems are wrong on this issue!>>
This is your opinion offered as fact and sounds like what we hear on Fox or Rush...neither of which are objective sources though we may often agree with them. The fact is Bush and his corporate friends want amnesty. Real conservatives like Buchanan want to enforce our laws.
Prominent Dem Rom Emmanuel says congress should vote to enforce the findings of the 911 commission which include tough border security and a crackdown on illegals...that's going to be the Democratic position officially.
John Edwards says we need to do "whatever it takes" to secure our borders and crackdown on Employers who hire illegals. Most environmentalists are opposed to anything which increases our population and puts more stress on the environment. It's not a simple "liberal vs conservative" thing...few issues are. For example, Howard Dean has always opposed broad national gun legislation pointing out that what might be OK in Manhattan would make no sense in Montana...he favors local and state govts. making the decisions.
<<As for Tax cuts, all the Government has done is go from taking an utterly obscene percentage of wealthy peoples money to a merely obscene percentage. Excuse my souther grammer, but IT AIN"T the government money to begin with. Taking a little from everyone to help run the nation is one thing, but when such a large percentage of the taxes are taken from such a small percentage of the populace then something is wrong. BTW in the real world you can't get a tax cut, if you ain't paying taxes!>>
You might read Bartlett and Steele's "America, who really pays the taxes."
It provides a history of the income tax and an analysis of where the tax burden has fallen historically and it's effects or non-effects on the economy.
When federal taxes are cut, federal assistance to state and local governments are cut and regressive taxes, like the sales tax, are raised to make up the difference with the result that often the middle class end up paying a higher rate in total taxes than Bill Gates and Paris Hilton.
The 1950's and early 60's were the best of economic times in my memory. The middle class grew and prospered and were taxed much less than today. They had money to spend which meant the rich got a hell of a lot richer. The income tax was highly graduated then with serious incentives for investment in labor and equipment. The top rate was 91%!...lowered to 75% in the early 60's.
It's not the government's money, but it's the government's highway system you move you products on, the government's army that protects you and your international trading partners. It provides and enforces patent and copyright protection among other laws and regulation which make it possible for you to do business profitably. You benefit handsomely from those government services. The rich control the government these days..you might consider higher taxes the rent they pay on congress,
or their expression of gratitude that their kids don't have to enlist for Iraq in order to afford college. You might also read the bible which describes gluttony as one of the seven deadly sins. Government spending, properly directed, creates a sense of opportunity and hope among the less fortunate which reduces social tension and the likelihood that the poor might someday exercise their second amendment rights by rising up and taking all your expensive toys away.
<<As for outsourcing, well I personally don't want to end up paying 3 times what a product is worth to pay a union tow moter driver $30 an hour. And don't tell me it isn't happening, because I just quit a fortune 500 company last year and can give way to many examples of it. When a flipping "cheap economy" car is costing $15000 there is a problem. As for moving corporate to Bermuda, well if the taxes here weren't so high, they wouldn't want or need to move!>>
I personally don't want to continue subsidizing the buildup of the Communist Chinese military while destroying middle class families in this country. I also have a small problem with enriching foreign companies who employ what amounts to slave labor. BTW, I am a union member. Many conservatives are union members. It ain't all black and white brother.
<<Steals elections? Get real, how many Democrats voters aren't even citizens or in many cases even alive? All that happened was that actual election law was followed. Novel idea hugh? But as for trying to steal elections the dems have been proven to try to keep the military votes out, and have tried or invented about every dirty trick in the book.>>
If you seek out some credible sources you'll learn that Gore won Florida in 2000...no doubt. Also you might google "Diebold" and Ohio 2004.
<<As for the war, well just be glad its happening over there. I have friends and family over there as we speak and even if you don't understand why they are there.......... THEY DO! Keeping the enemy focused there keeps many of them from coming here! Other important issues involved but we will keep it simple for now.>>
The canard that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is simply uninformed nonsense recycled from the Vietnam era. I'll play along and say that I'd personally LOVE to "fight them over here." I mean that's the dream of every red-blooded American gun owner...I've got a .223 and a thousand rounds of ammo I've love to burn on some Al Quaeda ass! We could defeat them over here in about 3 days. We could stay in Iraq 30 years with no change, just a lot more dead Americans. We could probably have won over there had W listened to Colin Powell instead of Dick CHeney, Rummy etc. and gone in with overwhelming force. I'm afraid that war is lost and Bush is to blame. I have several friends with kids over there and it breaks my heart. According to a recent poll, 70% of the troops think we should come home in a year. Funny how the only folks in Washington who still want to "stay the course" have never served in combat.
<<As for physical conservative, well you are right the bunch in charge sure aren't that, but look at the alternative. The dems are talking about how stingy the Republicans are in just about everything and yet are blasting them for spending to much money. No that isn't the way to go. Sadly enough it is a case of having to chose the lesser of two evils. It don't go down to easy, but it beats what could have been otherwise.>>
Being a "Fiscal conservative" simply means keeping a balanced budget.
Clinton for example was a fiscal conservative, a moderate on most social issues, a liberal on assault weapons, and one horny bastard. Bush is a fiscal liberal/radical, ditto on immigration, a social reactionary and one dumb bastard. Clinton had to raise taxes modestly in order to balance the budget and pay down the debt. We got the best stock market in history and
all economic classes prospered. In our current situation, short term greed (tax cuts for millionaires) has exploded the national debt, put us in hock to CHina, and if allowed to continue will hurt everybody--notice those interest rates going up, ARM payments going up, people starting to lose their McMansions? When the real estate market collapses we will all be in deep **** for a long time. Bush's response will no doubt be another tax cut. God help us...
This is your opinion offered as fact and sounds like what we hear on Fox or Rush...neither of which are objective sources though we may often agree with them. The fact is Bush and his corporate friends want amnesty. Real conservatives like Buchanan want to enforce our laws.
Prominent Dem Rom Emmanuel says congress should vote to enforce the findings of the 911 commission which include tough border security and a crackdown on illegals...that's going to be the Democratic position officially.
John Edwards says we need to do "whatever it takes" to secure our borders and crackdown on Employers who hire illegals. Most environmentalists are opposed to anything which increases our population and puts more stress on the environment. It's not a simple "liberal vs conservative" thing...few issues are. For example, Howard Dean has always opposed broad national gun legislation pointing out that what might be OK in Manhattan would make no sense in Montana...he favors local and state govts. making the decisions.
<<As for Tax cuts, all the Government has done is go from taking an utterly obscene percentage of wealthy peoples money to a merely obscene percentage. Excuse my souther grammer, but IT AIN"T the government money to begin with. Taking a little from everyone to help run the nation is one thing, but when such a large percentage of the taxes are taken from such a small percentage of the populace then something is wrong. BTW in the real world you can't get a tax cut, if you ain't paying taxes!>>
You might read Bartlett and Steele's "America, who really pays the taxes."
It provides a history of the income tax and an analysis of where the tax burden has fallen historically and it's effects or non-effects on the economy.
When federal taxes are cut, federal assistance to state and local governments are cut and regressive taxes, like the sales tax, are raised to make up the difference with the result that often the middle class end up paying a higher rate in total taxes than Bill Gates and Paris Hilton.
The 1950's and early 60's were the best of economic times in my memory. The middle class grew and prospered and were taxed much less than today. They had money to spend which meant the rich got a hell of a lot richer. The income tax was highly graduated then with serious incentives for investment in labor and equipment. The top rate was 91%!...lowered to 75% in the early 60's.
It's not the government's money, but it's the government's highway system you move you products on, the government's army that protects you and your international trading partners. It provides and enforces patent and copyright protection among other laws and regulation which make it possible for you to do business profitably. You benefit handsomely from those government services. The rich control the government these days..you might consider higher taxes the rent they pay on congress,
or their expression of gratitude that their kids don't have to enlist for Iraq in order to afford college. You might also read the bible which describes gluttony as one of the seven deadly sins. Government spending, properly directed, creates a sense of opportunity and hope among the less fortunate which reduces social tension and the likelihood that the poor might someday exercise their second amendment rights by rising up and taking all your expensive toys away.
<<As for outsourcing, well I personally don't want to end up paying 3 times what a product is worth to pay a union tow moter driver $30 an hour. And don't tell me it isn't happening, because I just quit a fortune 500 company last year and can give way to many examples of it. When a flipping "cheap economy" car is costing $15000 there is a problem. As for moving corporate to Bermuda, well if the taxes here weren't so high, they wouldn't want or need to move!>>
I personally don't want to continue subsidizing the buildup of the Communist Chinese military while destroying middle class families in this country. I also have a small problem with enriching foreign companies who employ what amounts to slave labor. BTW, I am a union member. Many conservatives are union members. It ain't all black and white brother.
<<Steals elections? Get real, how many Democrats voters aren't even citizens or in many cases even alive? All that happened was that actual election law was followed. Novel idea hugh? But as for trying to steal elections the dems have been proven to try to keep the military votes out, and have tried or invented about every dirty trick in the book.>>
If you seek out some credible sources you'll learn that Gore won Florida in 2000...no doubt. Also you might google "Diebold" and Ohio 2004.
<<As for the war, well just be glad its happening over there. I have friends and family over there as we speak and even if you don't understand why they are there.......... THEY DO! Keeping the enemy focused there keeps many of them from coming here! Other important issues involved but we will keep it simple for now.>>
The canard that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is simply uninformed nonsense recycled from the Vietnam era. I'll play along and say that I'd personally LOVE to "fight them over here." I mean that's the dream of every red-blooded American gun owner...I've got a .223 and a thousand rounds of ammo I've love to burn on some Al Quaeda ass! We could defeat them over here in about 3 days. We could stay in Iraq 30 years with no change, just a lot more dead Americans. We could probably have won over there had W listened to Colin Powell instead of Dick CHeney, Rummy etc. and gone in with overwhelming force. I'm afraid that war is lost and Bush is to blame. I have several friends with kids over there and it breaks my heart. According to a recent poll, 70% of the troops think we should come home in a year. Funny how the only folks in Washington who still want to "stay the course" have never served in combat.
<<As for physical conservative, well you are right the bunch in charge sure aren't that, but look at the alternative. The dems are talking about how stingy the Republicans are in just about everything and yet are blasting them for spending to much money. No that isn't the way to go. Sadly enough it is a case of having to chose the lesser of two evils. It don't go down to easy, but it beats what could have been otherwise.>>
Being a "Fiscal conservative" simply means keeping a balanced budget.
Clinton for example was a fiscal conservative, a moderate on most social issues, a liberal on assault weapons, and one horny bastard. Bush is a fiscal liberal/radical, ditto on immigration, a social reactionary and one dumb bastard. Clinton had to raise taxes modestly in order to balance the budget and pay down the debt. We got the best stock market in history and
all economic classes prospered. In our current situation, short term greed (tax cuts for millionaires) has exploded the national debt, put us in hock to CHina, and if allowed to continue will hurt everybody--notice those interest rates going up, ARM payments going up, people starting to lose their McMansions? When the real estate market collapses we will all be in deep **** for a long time. Bush's response will no doubt be another tax cut. God help us...
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
What Briscoe said.
The dot-com bubble?!?
That wasn't the most prosperous time in history as much as it was the most successful pyramid scheme in history. It wasn't Clinton's fault, nor does he deserve any credit for it.
Yeah, not like in the old days, when only 6% of the American population could even VOTE...
This is a gem:
Credible sources mean what, exactly? Like this one? http://archive.Democrats.com/display.cfm?id=248
I'm sure that's a lot more credible than the partisan Republican writings that state the opposite...
Oh yeah, John Edwards, who also said, "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
Dude, you're giving the Republicans nothing but ammunition here with this silliness. You sound like, well, most partisan Democrats these days.
BTW I'm not a Republican, and a lot of similar statements from their side of the aisle make me cringe as much as your post here does, because it reminds me of the incredible ignorance -- generally with the desire to believe that one's "side" is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong -- of our voting public all around.
cuchulainn
Member
Interesting, we've got a self-proclaimed conservative whose spiel reads like the DNC's talking points.
- "Government spending, properly directed, creates a sense of opportunity and hope among the less fortunate which reduces social tension"
- "pay down the debt"
- "tax cuts for millionaires"
- "If you seek out some credible sources you'll learn that Gore won Florida in 2000"
- "Bush and his corporate friends"
- "incentives for investment in labor and equipmnent"
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
Look folks, in view of what can get rural voters to vote for Democrats, I totally agree with Briscoe.
Even though I disagree with plenty of what he said.
They got a lot of work to do, and guns are but a part of it. Problem is, many Traditional Conservatives sound more like what it'll take.
Even though I disagree with plenty of what he said.
They got a lot of work to do, and guns are but a part of it. Problem is, many Traditional Conservatives sound more like what it'll take.
Ralph G. Briscoe
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 56
<<Banning international trade is somehow fiscally conservative because you want the government to force me to pay higher prices so that your own job to be protected?>>
Nowhere did I suggest "banning international trade," but regulating it intelligently would be a good thing--it would be good to use trade policy to discourage the Chinese from building the world's largest war machine, and
to discourage companies from using child labor for a couple of examples.
So, you're more concerned about being able to pay $3 instead of $5 for a T-shirt at Walmart than me being able to feed my family? Nice guy.
Like most men, I will feed my family one way or another. If there were no jobs and I had to knock you over the head and steal all your stuff so be it. If I got caught and sent to jail the taxpayers would be paying $100,000 a year to keep me there. Wouldn't it have been easier, and cheaper, to just pay a couple more bucks for that T shirt? Think about it...and don't accuse me of making a threat--that was just a hypothetical example of the possible effects of globalization.
<<I mean, you have a right to believe that socialism is a good idea, but calling it fiscal conservatism is disingenuous.>>
There you go again--"socialism?" Might consider buying a dictionary.
Protecting American jobs is not socialism...protectionism, nationalism yes.
Socialism is where the government owns the means of production.
Fascism is where the producers control the government (which is where we're headed).
__________________
Nowhere did I suggest "banning international trade," but regulating it intelligently would be a good thing--it would be good to use trade policy to discourage the Chinese from building the world's largest war machine, and
to discourage companies from using child labor for a couple of examples.
So, you're more concerned about being able to pay $3 instead of $5 for a T-shirt at Walmart than me being able to feed my family? Nice guy.
Like most men, I will feed my family one way or another. If there were no jobs and I had to knock you over the head and steal all your stuff so be it. If I got caught and sent to jail the taxpayers would be paying $100,000 a year to keep me there. Wouldn't it have been easier, and cheaper, to just pay a couple more bucks for that T shirt? Think about it...and don't accuse me of making a threat--that was just a hypothetical example of the possible effects of globalization.
<<I mean, you have a right to believe that socialism is a good idea, but calling it fiscal conservatism is disingenuous.>>
There you go again--"socialism?" Might consider buying a dictionary.
Protecting American jobs is not socialism...protectionism, nationalism yes.
Socialism is where the government owns the means of production.
Fascism is where the producers control the government (which is where we're headed).
__________________
And if I'd planned to use that $2 for food for my kids?
I couldn't care less if you think I'm "nice." I think you are a thief. Whatever.
Problem with populist nationalists like yourself is that you have no idea how economics works. Protectionism doesn't lead to a better domestic job market. Who decides what's protected, anyway?
Production is a terrible sin, I know. We don't need to have anything produced.
Getting back to the orgional post
If all American voters would do a little research and find out for themselves what each candidate really stands for we would all be better off. The fact is that most voters base their votes on info gained from the media, or they will vote the way their friends vote, or some other nonsense like that.
I have good friends of mine that said that they were going to vote for a certain candidate and when I asked them why…they didn’t know. I ask them where their candidate stood on certain issues…don’t know (or they would give me some off the wall answer that sounded like they got that answer from some twisted media person.
Please people find out where each candidate stands and vote accordingly, Democrat or republican or independent.
If all American voters would do a little research and find out for themselves what each candidate really stands for we would all be better off. The fact is that most voters base their votes on info gained from the media, or they will vote the way their friends vote, or some other nonsense like that.
I have good friends of mine that said that they were going to vote for a certain candidate and when I asked them why…they didn’t know. I ask them where their candidate stood on certain issues…don’t know (or they would give me some off the wall answer that sounded like they got that answer from some twisted media person.
Please people find out where each candidate stands and vote accordingly, Democrat or republican or independent.
- Status
