Are the Majority of Americans Closet Socialists?

[bigkahunaburger]

What healthcare plan do you propose instead of "Obamacare"?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bigkahunaburger]

And again, as I've said before, why is our military budget NEVER up for debate? Can you say colonialism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

It really is unbelievable that a bunch of DOCTORS think that our healthcare system should remain the way it is. Change is never easy, but often necessary for progress to occur.

The current system sucks. It is neither Free Market nor Single payer. ObamaCare does nothing to change that situation and makes it worse causing the system to collapse.

 

[BLADEMDA]

And again, as I've said before, why is our military budget NEVER up for debate? Can you say colonialism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Military budget should be FROZEN along with every other area of the budget. Unlike Ryan I think the vouchers should start next year.


All Social Problems should be rolled back to 2008 levels and the military budget frozen for the next 5-7 years.

Medicaid should be block granted to the states for an experimentation in a Medicaid HMO model. Perhaps, Medicaid should be joined with the VA?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Like it or not ObamaCare is the Law of the land and you must understand that law going forward. There is a slim chance that Romney wins the election by a Razor thin margin and even a slimmer chance he gets a GOP majority in the Senate.

ObamaCare is here to stay along with higher taxes, slower growth and European style socialism for the masses. Obama knows his plan eventually leads to a single payer system and the destruction of private insurance.

 

[yappy]

Yeah. It's that simple. Revisit your basic sciences before you try to delineate between a "collection of cells" and another... collection of cells.

The distinction is a false one that is used to support the false narrative spread by the liberal left. Just below the surface and you find the statist facilitated racism and eugenic views that permeate the extreme left and abortion issues.

yappy you have officially lost your mind, congrats. Because a collection of cells can actually be equated to a child that is already in existence.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJcebIEOkhY

TOUCHDOWN!!!

 

[BLADEMDA]

Abortion is a difficult topic. I struggle with this topic even as Believer in our Lord. I am uncertain as to when the fetus gets a soul but at some point the fetus acquires a heart beat and circulation.

Even if Abortion isn't Murder it is a sin and morally wrong. That said, the USA is a secular society where morality based on biblical scripture alone isn't sufficient to make something illegal.

An early abortion may not be murder but abortion on demand is wrong as we don't know when human life actually begins for certain. We do know that by the second semester the fetus has progressed in its developmet where medical science may be able to complete development. As such, Abortion after 25 weeks should be illegal in all situations as it is murder (unless the mother's life is in jeopardy due to the fetus).

Abortion before 24/25 weeks is a hot topic for debate and one that has been politicized by both sides. I would very much like to leave personal moral decisions to the individual and keep government along with religious organizations out of it. But, Abortion is the one topic where the life and liberty of the fetus plays a role in society's decision to make laws regarding this personal action.

At this time (I'm not set on this opinion) I would say that Abortion up to 6 weeks is a sinful act and morally wrong but not likely murder.
Hence, after counseling and pensive thought a woman should be permitted to terminate the pregnancy. After 6 weeks the fetus acquires more rights and termination of pregnancy should be justifiable based on health risks to the mother.

My decision for a political candidate has never revovled around this issue but I can see how those on the extreme left and extreme right use it to sway voters.

I don't like my tax dollars being used for abortion, abortion clinics or planned parenthood. I find the use of my tax money for such morally corrupt acts worse than if Obama gave my tax money for a ***** house or opened a bar for alcoholics. (I'd prefer the ***** house or alcoholic Bar over planned parenthood). Please note you are free to engage in morally corrupt acts as this is secular country but don't expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.

(One more thing don't bring up the fact that women get breast exams, cervical exam and biopsies, etc at planned parenthood. The main goal of planned parenthood is abortion and counseling for abortions. A good anology to this is if the taxpayer funded ***** house had 2 full time chiropractors working alongside the ******. These Chiropractors would be quite helpful to the customers' low back pain after their time with the ******.)

 

[deleted126335]

Abortion is a difficult topic. I struggle with this topic even as Believer in our Lord. I am uncertain as to when the fetus gets a soul but at some point the fetus acquires a heart beat and circulation.

Even if Abortion isn't Murder it is a sin and morally wrong. That said, the USA is a secular society where morality based on biblical scripture alone isn't sufficient to make something illegal.

An early abortion may not be murder but abortion on demand is wrong as we don't know when human life actually begins for certain. We do know that by the second semester the fetus has progressed in its developmet where medical science may be able to complete development. As such, Abortion after 25 weeks should be illegal in all situations as it is murder (unless the mother's life is in jeopardy due to the fetus).

Abortion before 24/25 weeks is a hot topic for debate and one that has been politicized by both sides. I would very much like to leave personal moral decisions to the individual and keep government along with religious organizations out of it. But, Abortion is the one topic where the life and liberty of the fetus plays a role in society's decision to make laws regarding this personal action.

At this time (I'm not set on this opinion) I would say that Abortion up to 6 weeks is a sinful act and morally wrong but not likely murder.
Hence, after counseling and pensive thought a woman should be permitted to terminate the pregnancy. After 6 weeks the fetus acquires more rights and termination of pregnancy should be justifiable based on health risks to the mother.

My decision for a political candidate has never revovled around this issue but I can see how those on the extreme left and extreme right use it to sway voters.

I don't like my tax dollars being used for abortion, abortion clinics or planned parenthood. I find the use of my tax money for such morally corrupt acts worse than if Obama gave my tax money for a ***** house or opened a bar for alcoholics. (I'd prefer the ***** house or alcoholic Bar over planned parenthood). Please note you are free to engage in morally corrupt acts as this is secular country but don't expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.

(One more thing don't bring up the fact that women get breast exams, cervical exam and biopsies, etc at planned parenthood. The main goal of planned parenthood is abortion and counseling for abortions. A good anology to this is if the taxpayer funded ***** house had 2 full time chiropractors working alongside the ******. These Chiropractors would be quite helpful to the customers' low back pain after their time with the ******.)

Eighty percent of Planned Parenthood health care clients in the U.S. are age 20 and older.

One in five women in the U.S. has visited a Planned Parenthood health center at least once in her life.

Our Work
Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 76 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 584,000 unintended pregnancies each year.

Planned Parenthood provides nearly 770,000 Pap tests and nearly 750,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.

Planned Parenthood provides more than four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.

 

[pgg]

Abortion is a difficult topic. I struggle with this topic even as Believer in our Lord. I am uncertain as to when the fetus gets a soul but at some point the fetus acquires a heart beat and circulation.

Even if Abortion isn't Murder it is a sin and morally wrong. That said, the USA is a secular society where morality based on biblical scripture alone isn't sufficient to make something illegal.

I don't mean to get in a debate with you over whether or not if (or when) abortion is morally acceptable and if (or when) it should be legal. I respect your opinion, even though I personally disagree and think we should be funding Planned Parenthood out the wazoo and giving out free iPhones to every teenage girl who agrees to gets a depo shot after her free abortion.


But I will offer up this thought to you, as a voting conservative who I think is caught up in the usual counterproductive GOP election-year message derailment:

You don't need to bring up abortion in the campaign. You're hurting your candidate every time you do.

Romney can win (well, maybe I should write "could have won" because the outlook is pretty grim for the guy right now) on the strength of the economy, taxes, the middle class, and even foreign policy given the last month's middle eastern ****storm.

Every time you guys open your mouth about abortion this and faith that, Obama picks up independent voters in swing states.

I don't like my tax dollars being used for abortion, abortion clinics or planned parenthood.

Do you know what activities your tax dollars can (currently) legally fund at Planned Parenthood?

If so, which of those activities (specifically) do you object to?

(One more thing don't bring up the fact that women get breast exams, cervical exam and biopsies, etc at planned parenthood. The main goal of planned parenthood is abortion and counseling for abortions. A good anology to this is if the taxpayer funded ***** house had 2 full time chiropractors working alongside the ******. These Chiropractors would be quite helpful to the customers' low back pain after their time with the ******.)

First of all, I'm appalled by the notion that the government would pay for chiropractic "treatment" in an otherwise respectable business establishment like a whorehouse. Those guys belong in strip malls sharing office space with personal injury and lawyers.

Second, you can't bring up a (bizarre) abortion-factory criticism of Planned Parenthood in a discussion and then declare that criticisms of your criticism are off limits!

I'll just leave you with a question:

Is it OK if public funds pay for the fire department response if a Planned Parenthood catches fire?

(Let's assume it's an accidental fire, and not the work of an arsonist.)

 

[BLADEMDA]

Eighty percent of Planned Parenthood health care clients in the U.S. are age 20 and older.

One in five women in the U.S. has visited a Planned Parenthood health center at least once in her life.

Our Work
Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 76 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 584,000 unintended pregnancies each year.

Planned Parenthood provides nearly 770,000 Pap tests and nearly 750,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.

Planned Parenthood provides more than four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.

Once you hire even one ***** for sexual acts the business becomes a ***** house even if its main activity is Chiropractic care.

I've got no issues with funding health clinics but abortion on demand isn't a health issue. Currently, taxpayer money is supposed to be restricted to the non abortion side of planned parenthood. I just don't believe that is the case.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I don't mean to get in a debate with you over whether or not if (or when) abortion is morally acceptable and if (or when) it should be legal. I respect your opinion, even though I personally disagree and think we should be funding Planned Parenthood out the wazoo and giving out free iPhones to every teenage girl who agrees to gets a depo shot after her free abortion.


But I will offer up this thought to you, as a voting conservative who I think is caught up in the usual counterproductive GOP election-year message derailment:

You don't need to bring up abortion in the campaign. You're hurting your candidate every time you do.

Romney can win (well, maybe I should write "could have won" because the outlook is pretty grim for the guy right now) on the strength of the economy, taxes, the middle class, and even foreign policy given the last month's middle eastern ****storm.

Every time you guys open your mouth about abortion this and faith that, Obama picks up independent voters in swing states.




Do you know what activities your tax dollars can (currently) legally fund at Planned Parenthood?

If so, which of those activities (specifically) do you object to?



First of all, I'm appalled by the notion that the government would pay for chiropractic "treatment" in an otherwise respectable business establishment like a whorehouse. Those guys belong in strip malls sharing office space with personal injury and lawyers.

Second, you can't bring up a (bizarre) abortion-factory criticism of Planned Parenthood in a discussion and then declare that criticisms of your criticism are off limits!

I'll just leave you with a question:

Is it OK if public funds pay for the fire department response if a Planned Parenthood catches fire?

(Let's assume it's an accidental fire, and not the work of an arsonist.)

Abortion is a minor issue in this campaign. It's the economy, health care, the wars and the middle east.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Abortion is a minor issue in this campaign. It's the economy, health care, the wars and the middle east.

After Obama wins re-election I'm preparing for an economic collapse and major recession/depression. I have 5,000 rounds but maybe I'll buy some more.

Unfortunately, my outlook for health care is bleak as ObamaCare takes hold in the USA. By 2016 ObamaCare will be irreversible and only a single payer system/national health care can replace it.

 

[pgg]

After Obama wins re-election I'm preparing for an economic collapse and major recession/depression. I have 5,000 rounds but maybe I'll buy some more.

I don't think we'll see the same kind of scarcity around this election that we did last time. The industry has greatly expanded production in the last 4 years. Even the Wal-Mart shelves are still full, weeks away from an impending Obama re-election. Prices are still off their peak. Even reloading components are nearly 100% in stock and prices are the same they were 2-3 years ago. Totally different than 2008.

I shoot a lot so I buy (and reload) a lot, but I can't say I really see the point to a massive stockpile. Get enough so you can keep shooting through any peri-election supply panics.

Realistically, no new federal bans or restrictions are politically tenable, so there's no need to hoard stuff for fear it'll be outlawed. That said, the shelf life is decades and the price isn't likely to decrease ever again, so if you've got the space, I suppose it's totally rational to buy up a lifetime's supply and stick it in a closet.


But besides ammo, a good question might be what else are you buying if your concern is economic collapse or depression?

 

[Docbeme]

What healthcare plan do you propose instead of "Obamacare"?

Something, anything, that actually addresses some of the serious concerns that would fall under the category of healthcare REFORM, not a piece of crap package that will cost a fortune to implement and is nothing more than universal coverage and a few trillion added to an ever growing deficit.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

But besides ammo, a good question might be what else are you buying if your concern is economic collapse or depression?

Is there anything you can't get if you've got 5,000+ rounds of ammo?

 

[pgg]

Is there anything you can't get if you've got 5,000+ rounds of ammo?

You can get shot by the guy with 5 rounds, whose stuff you're trying to steal.

 

[deleted126335]

Once you hire even one ***** for sexual acts the business becomes a ***** house even if its main activity is Chiropractic care.

I've got no issues with funding health clinics but abortion on demand isn't a health issue. Currently, taxpayer money is supposed to be restricted to the non abortion side of planned parenthood. I just don't believe that is the case.

Republicans lose so many independent voters (particularly women) over this viewpoint. I also believe that many conservatives really just pay lip service to the abortion issue till they are personally confronted with an unplanned pregnancy. Anyone who has been around medicine for while has seen a few upright conservative types who had an abortion or arranged one for their girlfriend or mistress or daughter. Some of them are the docs that we work with.

 

[alpha2agonist]

Thus the real hypocricy in the republican party, votred for dole, voted for mccain, voted for perot ( indy yes but basiclly repub) the party has moves away from me with " I am not a witch o donnell". Sorry blade you and your end of the world are insane.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Republicans lose so many independent voters (particularly women) over this viewpoint. I also believe that many conservatives really just pay lip service to the abortion issue till they are personally confronted with an unplanned pregnancy. Anyone who has been around medicine for while has seen a few upright conservative types who had an abortion or arranged one for their girlfriend or mistress or daughter. Some of them are the docs that we work with.

Are you sure this election is about abortion? Even among conservatives that issue isn't in the top 5 this election.

I do agree the support among all GOP members for an outright ban on all abortions is nowhere near 80 percent. But, abortions after 24 weeks should be banned.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Thus the real hypocricy in the republican party, votred for dole, voted for mccain, voted for perot ( indy yes but basiclly repub) the party has moves away from me with " I am not a witch o donnell". Sorry blade you and your end of the world are insane.

It isn't the end of the world; just 4 more years of misery with socialistic policies and a massive debt with slow, if any, economic growth.

 

[deleted126335]

Are you sure this election is about abortion? Even among conservatives that issue isn't in the top 5 this election.

I do agree the support among all GOP members for an outright ban on all abortions is nowhere near 80 percent. But, abortions after 24 weeks should be banned.

This is a polarizing issue. Not many people pull a lever for someone who is on the opposite side of their veiwpoint on the issue. I think that there are lots of women out there that would like to pull the lever for Romney but just can't over this issue. In a tight election this could make the difference. Everytime some jackass says something like "legitimate rape", It bleeds the republicans.

 

[pgg]

Are you sure this election is about abortion? Even among conservatives that issue isn't in the top 5 this election.

I do agree the support among all GOP members for an outright ban on all abortions is nowhere near 80 percent. But, abortions after 24 weeks should be banned.

It's about abortion as much as it's about gun control.

Which is to say, everybody KNOWS which direction the two parties lean on those two issues, even if most politicians are smart enough (or coached well enough) to avoid talking about them.

You KNOW there are a lot of Democrats (and women on both sides) who'll vote for Obama solely because of what they KNOW the Republican party wants to do about abortion, if only they could get enough votes or stack the Supreme Court the right way.

You KNOW there are a lot of Republicans who'll vote for Romney solely because of what they KNOW the Democratic party wants to do about guns, if only they could get enough votes or stack the Supreme Court the right way.

But while the Democrats aren't stupid enough to alienate swing voters by nattering on about gun control (except for the occasional "under the radar" type comments caught on open mikes), the Republicans are shouting their pet divisive issue from the rooftops. Because, as I've mentioned once or twice, they'd rather lose with style than win on substance.


Still, Romney/Ryan are worlds better than McCain/Palin, so that's something at least.

massive debt with slow, if any, economic growth.

Welcome to the next 3 decades.

 

[notbobtrustme]

this thread has gone full ******

 

[notbobtrustme]

It isn't the end of the world; just 4 more years of misery with socialistic policies and a massive debt with slow, if any, economic growth.

I don't think you even know what that word means. Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh ffs.

Obama has governed from the right of Reagan except on DADT. That is the objective fact.

Secondly, the US doesn't resemble a socialist state at all. The best examples of socialist states are the Scandinavian nations, which boast high competitiveness (higher than the US), high standard of living, great social mobility, an extremely happy population, extensive safety net, great education system and robust economic growth. If the US was a true socialist nation, we wouldn't be saddled with so many crap half-measures.

 

[BLADEMDA]

A new survey shows Mitt Romney with a commanding lead over President Barack Obama among doctors, with Obamacare helping to sway their votes.
If the election were held today, 55 percent of physicians reported they would vote for Romney while just 36 percent support Obama, according to a survey released by Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare, the third largest health care staffing company in the United States
Fifteen percent of respondents said they were switching their vote from Obama in 2008 to Romney in 2012. The top reasons cited for this change was the Affordable Care Act and the failure to address tort reform.
Leadership style, failure to follow through on campaign promises, unemployment and the general state of the economy were also factors.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/survey-doctors-choose-romney-over-obama/#ixzz288OP9Vcp

 

[BLADEMDA]

WASHINGTON — Senate leaders are closing in on a path for dealing with the "fiscal cliff" facing the country in January, opting to try to use a postelection session of Congress to reach agreement on a comprehensive deficit reduction deal rather than a short-term solution.

Senate Democrats and Republicans remain far apart on the details, and House Republicans continue to resist any discussion of tax increases. But lawmakers and aides say that a bipartisan group of senators is coalescing around an ambitious three-step process to avert a series of automatic tax increases and deep spending cuts.
First, senators would come to an agreement on a deficit reduction target — likely to be around $4 trillion over 10 years — to be reached through revenue raised by an overhaul of the tax code, savings from changes to social programs like Medicare and Social Security, and cuts to federal programs. Once the framework is approved, lawmakers would vote on expedited instructions to relevant Congressional committees to draft the details over six months to a year.
Households could face average $3,500 tax hit if Congress can't avoid 'fiscal cliff'If those efforts failed, another plan would take effect, probably a close derivative of the proposal by President Obama's fiscal commission led by Erskine B. Bowles, the Clinton White House chief of staff, and former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a Republican. Those recommendations included changes to Social Security, broad cuts in federal programs and actions that would lower tax rates over all but eliminate or pare enough deductions and credits to yield as much as $2 trillion in additional revenue.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

You can get shot by the guy with 5 rounds, whose stuff you're trying to steal.

I dunno, pgg, if a guy rocking an AR-15 with laser sight gets taken down by Joe Schmo with a 5-round revolver, maybe he wasn't supposed to survive the financial/zombie apocalypse anyhow.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I dunno, pgg, if a guy rocking an AR-15 with laser sight gets taken down by Joe Schmo with a 5-round revolver, maybe he wasn't supposed to survive the financial/zombie apocalypse anyhow.

I know you are voting for Obama but I'm hopeful just a few percentage of voters in the swing states will change their minds at vote for Romney. It could happen depending on how the debates go

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I don't think you even know what that word means. Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh ffs.

Obama has governed from the right of Reagan except on DADT. That is the objective fact.

Secondly, the US doesn't resemble a socialist state at all. The best examples of socialist states are the Scandinavian nations, which boast high competitiveness (higher than the US), high standard of living, great social mobility, an extremely happy population, extensive safety net, great education system and robust economic growth. If the US was a true socialist nation, we wouldn't be saddled with so many crap half-measures.

It gets really old. Everyone who calls Obama a "socialist" is either lying, doesn't know his politics, or doesn't know what socialism is.

 

[D P356]

.

 

[yappy]

I'm an R but I cannot get over how sheeple some conservatives are about ammo and gold. I cannot count the number of broke-old-white-guys I meet who are "getting ready" due to some sort of shadow government/fascist state that they think is ready to swoop in and destroy their way of life. They get played time and time again by the ammo and gold industry - someone is getting rich.

I think someone on here posted a link to a study that showed that conservatives tended to have over active emotional centers of their brain - or some such finding linking conservatism to fearfulness. I find that consistent with modern conservative behavior. They're so characteristic of themselves, same media, hobbies, literature, outlook, politics, life philosophy, consumer behavior, and motivations I almost am left questioning if there is any real conservative-POV or if it's a purely manufactured way of thinking.

BTW: For some more original conservative thoughts have you read Glenn Becks latest?

I don't think we'll see the same kind of scarcity around this election that we did last time. The industry has greatly expanded production in the last 4 years. Even the Wal-Mart shelves are still full, weeks away from an impending Obama re-election. Prices are still off their peak. Even reloading components are nearly 100% in stock and prices are the same they were 2-3 years ago. Totally different than 2008.

I shoot a lot so I buy (and reload) a lot, but I can't say I really see the point to a massive stockpile. Get enough so you can keep shooting through any peri-election supply panics.

Realistically, no new federal bans or restrictions are politically tenable, so there's no need to hoard stuff for fear it'll be outlawed. That said, the shelf life is decades and the price isn't likely to decrease ever again, so if you've got the space, I suppose it's totally rational to buy up a lifetime's supply and stick it in a closet.


But besides ammo, a good question might be what else are you buying if your concern is economic collapse or depression?

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[pgg]

No one really hates Canada, do they? I would guess the only anarchy caused there is by the locals, and in small volume, too. B/c they don't "occupy" the world.

People don't hate America b/c we are America, they hate us for the same reason that people don't like the police invading their privacy or telling them what to do.

With respect, this is a pretty naive line of thought.

First, it's not entirely true that "no one hates Canada" - they've had troops in Afghanistan for about as long as we have. They've been getting killed supporting our efforts there too.

Second, it's not like Canada hasn't directly benefitted from their southern neighbor's massive, advanced, forward-deployed military. Beyond security, they (and every other nation in the world) enjoys the benefits of stability, open shipping lanes, and general rule of law that we provide.


Now, I'm not arguing that we couldn't go about our role of "world cop" somewhat better, but let's not pretend that other modern non-3rd-world countries that underfund their own defense (lookin' at you Canada, Japan, most of Europe) aren't enjoying economic benefits of the half-dozen carrier groups we have deployed at any given time.

Ah, good political quote. I recall another great one...

And since you're in a quoting mood

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Churchill


**** those bitches that hate us. **** 'em right in the ear.

 

[pgg]

I'm an R but I cannot get over how sheeple some conservatives are about ammo and gold. I cannot count the number of broke-old-white-guys I meet who are "getting ready" due to some sort of shadow government/fascist state that they think is ready to swoop in and destroy their way of life. They get played time and time again by the ammo and gold industry - someone is getting rich.

I don't watch Glenn Beck, the guy is a '**** (is he even still on TV?), and I don't watch Fox News if I can help it, most of the rest of them are manipulative '**** shills too (though whatshisname Shep seems like a decent human being). But Fox News is on a lot in various hospital lounges. So I get exposed to it sometimes.

I kind of hope small exposures are building up my derp immune system.

Seems every other commercial is for investing in gold, or buying vacuum packed heirloom seeds to plant your backyard survival garden when the Obamabots burn down all the grocery stores. Oddly enough I don't remember seeing any commercials for guns though. Maybe there are laws against advertising guns the way there used to be laws against advertising hard liquor?




The whole survivalist / "prepper" movement is very weird and schizophrenic.

I do read a couple of survivalist forums occasionally, and there's really a sharp break between two types of people who post there. The signal:noise is pretty poor, much worse than a SDN politics thread but it can be interesting reading.

You've got the vocal crazy nutjobs, genuinely frothing, stockpiling guns ammo and usually nothing else, not even gold. They hope for the collapse of civilization, they start threads about which red-dot optic has the best battery life for when The End comes and 7-11 is closed forever and no new batteries are being manufactured. They've got Book of Eli fantasies, but won't joke about zombies because that silly fantasy is childish. All they need are their guns to go take whatever else they need by force.

Then there's the second group, a mostly silent majority, people who lived through Katrina or old people who were kids during WWII, who are mostly just looking for ways to take care of themselves if the government ever can't. Lots of these guys are indistinguishable from hippies in the trying-to-be-off-grid sense, lot of quiet preparation for NON-apocalyptic bad times. They store more food than ammo. They have generators to run their freezers when hurricanes knock out their power for a week. They look at the economic collapse and resulting widespread poverty and crime in Argentina, and can't come up with a non-emotional reason why the same couldn't happen here.


I lived in hurricane country for a while and had to deal with unprepared people who looked like actual zombies by about day 3, totally dependent upon someone driving up in a truck with cases of bottled water. Lots of theft. Generators that aren't bolted down generally get stolen by day 2. It takes more than just a couple missed meals for ordinary people to turn into animals, but there are quite a few who will view the event as just an excuse to go feral on day 1.

Now I live in earthquake territory and I doubt a weeklong power outage would go any differently.


The irony of it all is if we ever actually did have some major event that resulted in a period of time without rule of law, it's the gun-toting survivalists who would be screwed. The guy with 5,000 rounds of ammo and a battery-free tritium-powered scope but no food really would be shot by Joe Schmoe with his 5 round revolver when he goes out to pillage Twinkies. And if Joe doesn't get him, Joe's neighbor Bob with his deer rifle and 5 rounds left over from last hunting season will get him.

So yeah, while I think "suvivalists" as a group are dumb, and the Glenn Beck / Fox News cadre are selling a lot of fear ... you shouldn't have to be Mormon for your basement full of food to be socially acceptable.

 

[D P356]

.

 

[yappy]

I think the middle east hates because of something called "blowback". When your friends/family die as a result of another nation's military being in your country, legit or not, you're going to harbor resentment that man turn into rage.

Then there is generalized xenophobia, too. Think of how many Americans think that Islamic peoples from the middle east are vile, evil, dangerous people (I know a fair number and my network is not that ignorant or large). One only needs to read through message boards for a little bit before you read things like "bomb them all" etc. Now, that's in the US, a relatively lawful, educated, country with access to legit reading materials and knowledge.

Now imagine the xenophobia that takes place in an underdeveloped country, where we have an occupying ["christian"] force, who maybe just need someone to blame for all those 2-3rd world problems (hey we have china, right? and we're first world).

I don't think they hate us because of our freedom; but, I don't think it really matters. When I was over there, when it was time to shoot, you didn't care why or how things got to be the way they were. All that matters is we pursue our own interests as a country.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

I know you are voting for Obama but I'm hopeful just a few percentage of voters in the swing states will change their minds at vote for Romney. It could happen depending on how the debates go

I know we're on different sides of the aisle, but I believe we want essentially the same things for America.

I'll be watching the debates with a friend of mine who's a pretty staunch libertarian. Hopefully it'll be fun to watch if the moderator can get Obama and Romney to give some real answers instead of talking points. Maybe Romney will change my mind?

 

[FiremedicMike]

This thread has caused me to think/question 4 things..

1. The debt chart that Blade posted shows the steepest and greatest incline during the Bush presidency, did anyone else notice that?

2. No president will ever touch abortion, in today's climate, it's a talking point at best.

3. As for guns, Mitt Romney governed one of the most restrictive gun states in the union, then he made it worse by signing into law an assault weapons ban, why is this being ignored?

4. Since doctors are very much against Obamacare, why do they feel Romneycare is different/better?

 

[countingdays]

This thread has caused me to think/question 4 things..

1. The debt chart that Blade posted shows the steepest and greatest incline during the Bush presidency, did anyone else notice that?

2. No president will ever touch abortion, in today's climate, it's a talking point at best.

3. As for guns, Mitt Romney governed one of the most restrictive gun states in the union, then he made it worse by signing into law an assault weapons ban, why is this being ignored?

4. Since doctors are very much against Obamacare, why do they feel Romneycare is different/better?

Romneycare wasn't an unconstitutional expansion of federal power. (**** the supreme court, they wipe their asses with the constitution)

 

[pgg]

1. The debt chart that Blade posted shows the steepest and greatest incline during the Bush presidency, did anyone else notice that?

Blade's not fond of GWB, nor is he arguing that GWB was a responsible spender.

Reagan made deficit spending trendy when he led the final chapter of the "Outspend the USSR into insolvency" Cold War strategy.

And of course, "b-b-b-b-b-but Bush" is a poor defense of Obama's record.

2. No president will ever touch abortion, in today's climate, it's a talking point at best.

Exactly - at most they'll affect the legality of abortion indirectly, and at some distant point in the future, by their choice of Supreme Court Justices. Which is why it's a stupid thing for Republicans to talk about during elections. All it does is piss off voters.

3. As for guns, Mitt Romney governed one of the most restrictive gun states in the union, then he made it worse by signing into law an assault weapons ban, why is this being ignored?

Like abortion, gun control in this country will be played out in the courts, not the legislature. We know what kind of Justices Obama will appoint, because he's already appointed two - one of whom simply lied during her Senate confirmation hearing concerning 2nd Amendment issues.

We know that Romney would appoint conservative Justices and the Heller/McDonald 5-4 majority would likely remain intact.

If one were a single-issue 2A voter, voting for Obama because Romney signed a ban in MA would be ridiculous. Nose cutting, face spiting, etc.

4. Since doctors are very much against Obamacare, why do they feel Romneycare is different/better?

For starters, he hasn't proposed nationwide Romneycare.

 

[FiremedicMike]

Blade's not fond of GWB, nor is he arguing that GWB was a responsible spender.

Reagan made deficit spending trendy when he led the final chapter of the "Outspend the USSR into insolvency" Cold War strategy.

And of course, "b-b-b-b-b-but Bush" is a poor defense of Obama's record.

I didn't mean for it to be a defense of Obama, I just found it curious, especially considering the generalized "gnashing of the teeth" coming from the conservatives (not necessarily in this thread) in general. It kind of solidifies the point that this problem with spending is a bipartisan issue and not solely on Obama's back.

Exactly - at most they'll affect the legality of abortion indirectly, and at some distant point in the future, by their choice of Supreme Court Justices. Which is why it's a stupid thing for Republicans to talk about during elections. All it does is piss off voters.

Agreed

Like abortion, gun control in this country will be played out in the courts, not the legislature. We know what kind of Justices Obama will appoint, because he's already appointed two - one of whom simply lied during her Senate confirmation hearing concerning 2nd Amendment issues.

We know that Romney would appoint conservative Justices and the Heller/McDonald 5-4 majority would likely remain intact.

If one were a single-issue 2A voter, voting for Obama because Romney signed a ban in MA would be ridiculous. Nose cutting, face spiting, etc.

Maybe, maybe not. But if we're going to evaluate a candidate based on their past history, Obama has done virtually nothing with gun control, whereas Romney used his position to not only fail to repeal unnecessarily oppressive control in Mass, but also sign into effect new unnecessarily oppressive gun legislation.

For starters, he hasn't proposed nationwide Romneycare.

He has made vague statements that he will repeal Obamacare and enact his own fix. Again, all we can look at is his past history, which is Romneycare, which is virtually indistinguishable from Obamacare, and it is logical to assume that he'll either a) do nothing or b) rename Obamacare to Romneycare.


I'm certain by now that you feel I'm 100% behind Obama, but truth be told I'm more like 51% behind Obama, I'm about 0% behind Romney though. I feel he has nothing to offer this country other than rhetoric and headaches for us firefighters (he's already come out and said he would push a right to work agenda).


I actually had a bit of a political epiphany recently, because I realized I didn't really like the fact that I was leaning towards a democratic candidate. I realized that it's not that I'm not a fiscal conservative, I actually am, I'm just sick and tired of what the republicans are going after. Rather than addressing the mid to upper level managerial problems at all levels of government, as well as the unnecessary bureaucracy that exists at all levels of government (IMHO, where the REAL waste of government spending lies), but instead they go after the police, fire, teachers, and now to a lesser extent, doctors, because "those damn unions" (and now doctors) are "bleeding this country dry". I'm one of the boots in the street, I see that we are mostly barebones anymore thanks to cuts already in place, the bleeding isn't happening on our backs, it exists in all those cushy bull**** jobs that politicians (on both sides and at all levels of government) create for all their friends or campaign contributors.

Truly, it's a maddening situation.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I didn't mean for it to be a defense of Obama, I just found it curious, especially considering the generalized "gnashing of the teeth" coming from the conservatives (not necessarily in this thread) in general. It kind of solidifies the point that this problem with spending is a bipartisan issue and not solely on Obama's back.




Agreed



Maybe, maybe not. But if we're going to evaluate a candidate based on their past history, Obama has done virtually nothing with gun control, whereas Romney used his position to not only fail to repeal unnecessarily oppressive control in Mass, but also sign into effect new unnecessarily oppressive gun legislation.



He has made vague statements that he will repeal Obamacare and enact his own fix. Again, all we can look at is his past history, which is Romneycare, which is virtually indistinguishable from Obamacare, and it is logical to assume that he'll either a) do nothing or b) rename Obamacare to Romneycare.


I'm certain by now that you feel I'm 100% behind Obama, but truth be told I'm more like 51% behind Obama, I'm about 0% behind Romney though. I feel he has nothing to offer this country other than rhetoric and headaches for us firefighters (he's already come out and said he would push a right to work agenda).


I actually had a bit of a political epiphany recently, because I realized I didn't really like the fact that I was leaning towards a democratic candidate. I realized that it's not that I'm not a fiscal conservative, I actually am, I'm just sick and tired of what the republicans are going after. Rather than addressing the mid to upper level managerial problems at all levels of government, as well as the unnecessary bureaucracy that exists at all levels of government (IMHO, where the REAL waste of government spending lies), but instead they go after the police, fire, teachers, and now to a lesser extent, doctors, because "those damn unions" (and now doctors) are "bleeding this country dry". I'm one of the boots in the street, I see that we are mostly barebones anymore thanks to cuts already in place, the bleeding isn't happening on our backs, it exists in all those cushy bull**** jobs that politicians (on both sides and at all levels of government) create for all their friends or campaign contributors.

Truly, it's a maddening situation.

Vote for whomeber you believe will do better at solving our nation's problems:

1. Massive debt- Both parties caused it but Obma has made it worse. Now, who will help reign in the debt?

2. Taxes- Who will increase taxes as fairly as possible so economic growth is maintained? We need more revenue to pay our debt and entitlements. Who has a better plan "to spread the tax increases around" more fairly?

3. Entitlements- We can't afford more entitlements or social programs. We are flat broke. Who will make a token effort at holding the line on entitlement expansion? (think Paul ryan here)

4. Health Care- I like private insurance over govt. run healthcare. Who wants more of the former and less of the latter?

5. Foreign policy- This is a distant issue but one that may sway voters. Who do yo want to deal with Iran if the situation arises? (we all agree the other 2 wars are over and our troops must come home).


On all items I think Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan is the better ticket.

 

[FiremedicMike]

Vote for whomeber you believe will do better at solving our nation's problems:

1. Massive debt- Both parties caused it but Obma has made it worse. Now, who will help reign in the debt?

This one is a matter of perspective. As I said, your chart indicated that Bush did a much worse job with the debt, and it is certainly an affirmable defense to say that a chunk of Obama's debt increases were due to bailouts to fix the Bush economy. I chose to look at the evidence of the current state of our economy, imagine how it would be if the auto industries had gone under and wall street hadn't been helped (although I don't really remember if the wall street bailouts were Bush or Obama) and say that the bailouts were probably a good idea and at least marginally successful. As I said in the other thread, unemployment is going down, stocks are going up, these are indicators that we are coming back.

2. Taxes- Who will increase taxes as fairly as possible so economic growth is maintained? We need more revenue to pay our debt and entitlements. Who has a better plan "to spread the tax increases around" more fairly?

I doubt either one of them will actually change the tax code to a fair system, because I think you an I are in agreement that a flat tax is the only fair way to do it. I have no freaking clue what the rich pay in taxes, but if they are getting more tax breaks and paying a lower percentage than I am, then I fully support the idea of "taxing the rich more" (i.e. they should be paying the same percentage out of their paycheck as I am).

3. Entitlements- We can't afford more entitlements or social programs. We are flat broke. Who will make a token effort at holding the line on entitlement expansion? (think Paul ryan here)

Historically speaking, the democratic ticket "enhances social programs" and the republican ticket "enhances capitalistic interests". Both scenarios are wrought with abuse and both systems involve taking my money and giving it to someone else. The idea of investing in capitalism to "keep jobs in America" is worn out, tired, and proven false time and time again. As long as outsourcing to third world countries is cheaper, you can throw all the money you want at big business and they'll just smile and keep on keepin on. As a humanistic person, and a Christian (although I'd like to keep religion out of this debate for now), if the government is going to take my money and give it to someone, I'd rather it go to the less fortunate people in our own country than the big business moguls.

4. Health Care- I like private insurance over govt. run healthcare. Who wants more of the former and less of the latter?

I think the insurance industry is the largest problem in healthcare today (followed closely by tort issues). The fact that insurance companies are now profit driven machines that DICTATE healthcare is simply unacceptable. I don't know if Obamacare or Romneycare are the answer, but I fully feel that the current relationship between insurance and healthcare is not even close to sustainable and needs to be overhauled IMMEDIATELY.

5. Foreign policy- This is a distant issue but one that may sway voters. Who do yo want to deal with Iran if the situation arises? (we all agree the other 2 wars are over and our troops must come home).

I'm not down with the overall picture of Obama's foreign policy here lately, I'll give you that.

 

[pgg]

It kind of solidifies the point that this problem with spending is a bipartisan issue and not solely on Obama's back.

It's absolutely bipartisan, the only thing they can agree on it seems is to plow ahead with more debt.

Maybe, maybe not. But if we're going to evaluate a candidate based on their past history, Obama has done virtually nothing with gun control,

He's appointed Kagan and Sotomayor. Two very strongly anti-2A Justices who we'll have to live with for the next 20 or 30 years. I really can't overstate how bad these two people are for any 2nd Amendment related cases bound for the Supreme Court.

whereas Romney used his position to not only fail to repeal unnecessarily oppressive control in Mass, but also sign into effect new unnecessarily oppressive gun legislation.

I think he just doesn't care much, one way or another, and does what's politically expedient in this area. Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, I know. But again, all paths to meaningful gun control (actually the repeal of existing gun control) are through the Court. What matters most are appointees to that Court (and all the Federal courts that feed it with cases).

For a single issue 2A voter - and I'm not saying that I think you should be one, or that I am (though I'm close) - the choice is very easy. There is NO combination or permutation of record analysis that would favor Obama over Romney here; it's no contest.


Also, Fast & Furious. Executive privilege and Holder. Remember the guy Obama was going to put in charge of the ATF, Andrew Traver? Can you see Romney doing any of that?

Truly, it's a maddening situation.

Yes.

Though I think Romney would make a good president, even if he won't do all the things I think need to be done.

It's less maddening than 2004 (more of GWB vs Kerry), or 2008 (that McCain/Palin abomination).

 

[BLADEMDA]

Denver, Colorado (CNN) – Two-thirds of people who watched the first presidential debate think that Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the showdown, according to a nationwide poll conducted Wednesday night.
According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious

 

[deleted126335]

Denver, Colorado (CNN) – Two-thirds of people who watched the first presidential debate think that Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the showdown, according to a nationwide poll conducted Wednesday night.
According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious

Agree. But does it matter? Will it change anybody's mind on who they are going to vote for?

 

[yappy]

I was on the fence. Now i'm for Romney 100%. I loved his ideas and thought he killed it. He's a clutch player.

BTW: The way that Obama flippantly talked about cutting medicare rates to providers and hospitals by 20% (if I remember right) was sickening. In what world is that justifiable to use one minority group [physicians] as a scapegoat for a special interest group [seniors]. I don't care if Romney accused me for thinking of myself as a "victim" because I'm a student who doesn't pay federal income taxes. 20% cuts to keep seniors happy is tyrannical.

At the end of the day, socialized medicine is a false promise: that you can get all the health care you want, at a price you can afford. In reality, all governments end up doing one of two things: denying you the care you need, or spending money taxpayers don't have. America achieves the neat trick of doing both at the same time.

Agree. But does it matter? Will it change anybody's mind on who they are going to vote for?

 

[pgg]

I was on the fence. Now i'm for Romney 100%. I loved his ideas and thought he killed it. He's a clutch player.

It was a strong showing. We'll just have to see if it makes a difference in the swing state polls.

Obama looked ... passive. Like he was expecting the same doddering old McCain he faced last time. I was really surprised he looked so off his game.

I couldn't believe that the 47% comment wasn't raised once by Obama. That dagger was gift-wrapped by Romney and Obama didn't even pick it up.

 

[countingdays]

It was a strong showing. We'll just have to see if it makes a difference in the swing state polls.

Obama looked ... passive. Like he was expecting the same doddering old McCain he faced last time. I was really surprised he looked so off his game.

I couldn't believe that the 47% comment wasn't raised once by Obama. That dagger was gift-wrapped by Romney and Obama didn't even pick it up.

Obviously Romney was prepared to discuss the 47% comment and make his point more clearly. Obama didn't want to get schooled on that topic like he did on every last item they discussed in the debate.