Executive Action

[5MilesBack]

Edit to include Hootsma in the excellent posts group.

Yep. I quit posting for awhile because Hootsma responded before I could. So I'll just sit back and watch for now.

However, there is one thing I disagree on........"Being dumb is painful, as it should be". I think it's easy for dumb people to wander around aimlessly in life. I liken it to swimming up river trying to get somewhere and get something accomplished, and the entire river is filled with idiots on inner tubes floating down stream without a care in the world. I think it's more painful on those trying to get somewhere.

 

[Mike7]

Airlocksniffer...Really, I am a socialist if I hike on public land?

I am sorry, but this just sounds like more of that "You didn't build that!" bull to me.

Yes, I did build it...we built it. My taxes and your taxes built it all! We in fact own it...the lands, the roads, the mililitary, etc. This seems to be what the Preamble referred to..."provide for the common defence & promote general welfare". It is as clear as day to me what the Framers meant if one reads for themselves what they wrote, and doesn't parrot media talking points. How is it socialism to use what we own and pay to manage?

The only thing that the framers couldn't anticipate, is that we would be questioning what the meaning of the word "is" is, or "shall not be infringed", etc.

 

[Hootsma]

My point was we don't have equal arms with our military anymore so we don't need the 2nd amendment to overthrow it if needed. The Afghans didn't beat the Russians with guns, it was stinger missiles we gave them.

The Afghans held their own for quite some time. The Soviets invaded in 1979 and Wilson and Vickers didn't start supplying Stingers until 1986. That's pretty good for a bunch of 3rd world Mujahideen rebels with AKs. But, that's beside the point. The point isn't needing to be equally armed to win a battle. The point is about the threat that an armed population poses to a tyrannical government. Considering that there are 90 weapons for every 100 people in the US, that's pretty threatening to a government that wants to become tyrannical regardless of the mismatch in technological firepower. The problem with these EAs and other gun control laws, is that any progressive government knows that, given the large number of available guns, it would be futile to try to gain absolute power and become tyrannical without first disarming the populace. They also realize that a blanket order of gun confiscation would never work. So they pick and poke and prod and .... until we are the boiled frog.

Soccer moms don't know anything about guns but they see 20 round clips and ask why do we need them? There is no comeback from the NRA that sounds reasonable. Hell I can't justify it other than I hate to reload.

That's easy. I already address that here:

What size would you suggest? 10 seems to be the common compromise. So I guess the 1st ten people killed don't count. Not to mention the fact that reloading is pretty quick and easy, even with a revolver. This is arbitrary nonsense. Your dealing with the minutia of symptoms and not the actual problem/s.

There is such a thing as reasonable gun control measures but we are stuck with a line in the sand and something has to give. That will be the cliff we get pushed over.

I already addressed this one too, here:

We already have 100's of federal and 1000's of state "common sense" rules regarding gun control not to mention all the other laws which make things illegal as well. How many different ways do we have to make murder illegal before it's really illegal and makes people stop murdering? Which new law is going to be the magic one to fix everything? Again, we're looking at the symptom, not the problem. The gun is inanimate. It has no influence or control over a person. It's the person who does the killing. It's the person who is the problem. Their weapon of choice is irrelevant. If it wasn't, then there would have been no such thing as murder until the gun was invented. We aren't blindly fighting legislation, their blindly proposing legislation with hopey changey sentiments looking for anything that will stick to further their progressive agenda. Can you point to any piece of gun control legislation that's been recently proposed or can you suggest one yourself that would drastically reduce the murders in this country or would have stopped any of the recent mass murders? You can't because the gun is a symptom not the problem. Curing the symptom still leaves the underlying problem. The cities with the highest murder rates in this country are the cities with the strictest gun control. The only way we'll ever reach a compromise is when everyone gives up their 2nd amendment rights. That's the ultimate goal of the progressive left, stated many times and anything short of that is unacceptable to them. Since that's their idea of compromise, then I think I'll have to pass.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Airlocksniffer...Really, I am a socialist if I hike on public land?

Really didn't call you a socialist. I'm not one either. But lots of arguments from the right on public land, Obamacare, gun control seem to include the word socialism. Again, wasn't calling you a socialist, just asking your view on public lands that we hunt on and whether you agree with some of those talking points relating them to socialism. James Kroll, the "deer czar" of former presidential candidate Scott Walker is one example:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/which-side-of-the-fence-are-you-on/

 

[bkuuz1]

Why should we have to pay for a BG check to exercise our rights? If a BG is required, then the requirement should have to be completed within a timely manner say two hours or less and the funding should come from the special taxes we already pay on the purchase of firearms and or sporting equipment. I would also say, that if you are the holder of a CC permit then you shouldn't have to wait for a BG check. With a CC permit they already have done a BG check,finger prints and photo on file. It took me less time time buy a new car then it took for me to get cleared on a new rifle purchase the other day from the backlog. If they remove our freedoms in small steps little buy little then most people won't realize that all their freedoms are complete gone.

 

[Hootsma]

Never said I advocated for larger government. I advocate for smarter government. I rather see money spent on good schools, infrastructure, job training, etc rather than bombing brown people in the desert under the guise of 'freedom'.

Schooling shouldn't be and job training is not the responsibility of our government. How can you prefer Sanders over all the other candidates and not be an advocate for larger government. Sanders is an unabashed socialist and "Socialism", by definition, necessarily and dramatically increases the scope and size of a government. And it is the antithesis of freedom because, according to Marx, it is "a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism."

I think you and I both know those numbers are not real accurate. Many people who are now counted as employed are underemployed. Lots of people have stopped looking for work. The unemployment figures are always manipulated to make the president looks good, Dem or Repub.

That's a strawman argument. The absolute accuracy of the numbers is irrelevant to my rebuttal. It's the direction of the welfare level. I quoted this:

"Federal welfare spending has grown by 32 percent over the past four years, fattened by President Obama’s stimulus spending and swelled by a growing number of Americans whose recession-depleted incomes now qualify them for public assistance, according to numbers released Thursday."

In response to this:

I think that it's sad that our elected officials feel good about making sure the top earners in this country pay as little in taxes as possible while paying for said cuts with the decimation of positive social programs.

To rebut your red herring argument that there has been no 'decimation of positive social programs'.

The rest of these are red herrings as well:

...not everybody can just go get a better job and make more money.

Why not? People do it all the time. You have Mexicans traveling hundreds of thousands of miles, some of those miles on foot, through desert waste lands, to get a better job and create better opportunities for themselves and somehow we Americans can't seem to get out of playing the victim role. This country was built on immigrants who spent months at sea to travel to America. Some of them with just the clothes on their back who submitted themselves to indentured servitude just to improve their lot in life and financial well being. So don't tell me it can't be done. That's the participation trophy attitude response.

I don't shop there but in some parts of this country, that is all there is. So some people are forced to shop there, some people need jobs and have to work there.

Nobody is forced to shop anywhere (well, except for Obamacare). And nobody has to work there either. This is more of the participation trophy attitude.

Perhaps we should bring back child labor? How about 16 hours work days? Cool!! No need for government to stand in the way of capitalism. The market will decide!! Sorry but there needs to be some form of regulation on capitalism.

I've re-read the posts on this thread, and maybe I missed it, but nobody said anything about child labor, 16 hour work days and abolishing all regulations concerning commerce. So this ones a strawman not a red herring.

 

[airlocksniffer]

How can you prefer Sanders over all the other candidates and not be an advocate for larger government. Sanders is an unabashed socialist and "Socialism", by definition, necessarily and dramatically increases the scope and size of a government.

Really more of a social democrat but okay, if you want to believe he is part of the scary spectre of non-democratic Soviet socialism rather than something closer to Nordic socialism, go for it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/


That's fine if you don't agree with me or those positions held by Senator Sanders. It's a free country. But compared to rest of the pandering, corrupt candidates, especially Clinton, he seems like a better option. It does suck that presidential elections have come down to the lesser of two evils. If Clinton is the Dem nominee (which she probably will be), I'd probably vote for Trump for the entertainment factor.

 

[Hootsma]

If you really hate socialism in any form then you should quit coming out west to hunt on public lands.

Wow, you and your red herrings! Socialism is government ownership of EVERYTHING. How is government owning a portion of the land it governs, and providing that land for use by it's citizens, socialism?

Look, I freely admit that we are quickly heading down the road to progressivism/socialism. Without a doubt. Just look at Obamacare, Department of Education, progressive taxation, welfare, national debt, gun control agenda.... and you can easily see where we are heading. But having some land as public land for everyone's use and enjoyment is not socialism, socialistic or unconstitutional.

 

[Hootsma]

Really more of a social democrat but okay, if you want to believe he is part of the scary spectre of non-democratic Soviet socialism rather than something closer to Nordic socialism, go for it.

Can you please stop with the red herrings?! Regardless of his class of socialism, be it Soviet, North Korean, Nordic, Democratic or Martian he is still a big government guy, which is my whole point. How can you be so disgusted with the government as it is, yet still like guys like Sanders who advocate for bigger government. It absolutely boggles my mind. We can't fix our problems by bloating the government even more than it already is because the bloated government is the problem.

 

[Hootsma]

But compared to rest of the pandering, corrupt candidates, especially Clinton, he seems like a better option. It does suck that presidential elections have come down to the lesser of two evils.

It remains to be seen who will get the nominations, but this is the first time in a long time that I have hope that I won't be forced to pick between the lesser of 2 evils.

I'm curious, what specific things do you not like or disagree with about Cruz?

 

[5MilesBack]

But compared to rest of the pandering, corrupt candidates, especially Clinton, he seems like a better option.

That's not saying much. Compared to Clinton and Sanders and Obama......a chicken would be a better choice. Do you know why? Because with the chicken, probability says that it would eventually get something right. Whereas the left always gets it wrong.

 

[airlocksniffer]

We can't fix our problems by bloating the government even more than it already is because the bloated government is the problem.

No need continue the back and forth as you aren't going to change my mind or vice versa. Rather than big government being the problem, it's money in politics that is the real problem, which corrupts said government. Term limits, bans on lobbying, cooling off periods, publicly funded elections would be a good start.

 

[jmden]

Not 'rather than big government'. That is a big problem. Why would you exclude that? Big government is not a problem when we are nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt among many other big government problems?

 

[airlocksniffer]

It remains to be seen who will get the nominations, but this is the first time in a long time that I have hope that I won't be forced to pick between the lesser of 2 evils.

I'm curious, what specific things do you not like or disagree with about Cruz?

Mostly because he's not genuine. He grandstands for attention (see symbolic measures to repeal Obamacare that really just cost taxpayer money). He is very intelligent but will craft his words as to leave room to wiggle out if he sees it beneficial to Ted Cruz (yes, he's a politician). I also don't like his stance on the whole land transfer thing or the LWCF (sorry, Texas isn't a good model for public land). He also seems to miss a lot of votes in the Senate, which I take as not doing his job.

I also find it funny how the whole birther argument with Obama is not applied to Ted Cruz, a Canadian anchor-baby.

As you can probably guess, I voted for Obama but I've been pretty damn disappointed, especially with the drone program and mass surveillance.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Not 'rather than big government'. That is a big problem. Why would you exclude that? Big government is not a problem when we are nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt among many other big government problems?

I agree, super inefficient, layered bureaucracy. But corruption is the biggest issue. If we had a big government that wasn't so bought and paid for by corporations and lobbyists, it would be much better that what we have now. If we had a smaller government that was just as corrupt as we have now, it would be no different. Politicians would still be beholden to their donors.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Whereas the left always gets it wrong.

http://whovotedagainst911healthbill.tumblr.com/

 

[mtnwrunner]

One thing is for sure, we are passionate about something here on Rokslide. That's good. Thanks for keeping it civil.

Yup, I absolutely agree and I am mainly sitting back and reading the responses. Mostly due to the fact that I ain't as near as smart or eloquent as some of these posters AND I get so pissed off at this topic, I can't see straight nor could I write something that doesn't piss someone else off. It is hard for me to be civil when this seems so DAMN clear to me.
I am just going to make a couple of points.
I've seen a couple of knocks on the NRA. They are not perfect but if it were not for them and a couple of others like Gun Owners of America, well, you most likely would be defending your castle with a single shot 3 inch rifle and long range hunting would be 25 yards. One of their clichés is that only a good guy with a gun is going to stop a bad guy with a gun. Think about that----it is absolutely true.
I spent 22 years in a very large metropolitan sheriffs office and seen it all including a shitload of homicides. Ask me how many of those involved an "assault rifle?" Absolutely zero. We all know there are bad people in the world and there ALWAYS will be.
I get into a lot of discussions with anti gun folks and we have always go round and round about the issues. One of the analogies I use when it comes to the constitution, especially when it comes to the 2nd amendment, is that it is the very foundation of our country. And if you keep taking bricks out of a foundation, it eventually crumbles and there is NOTHING left.
I and you all are EXTREMELY lucky and blessed to be citizens of America.
.
Randy

 

[Hootsma]

Mostly because he's not genuine. He grandstands for attention (see symbolic measures to repeal Obamacare that really just cost taxpayer money).

I guess that's one way to look at it. Or, you could look at him as a principled patriot who stands up for what he believes in and fights for it using the legals tools provided to him by the federal government and the Constitution. Just curious... could you compare and contrast how much he cost the taxpayers with his 'grandstanding' versus how much obamacare is costing and going to cost the taxpayers?

He is very intelligent but will craft his words as to leave room to wiggle out if he sees it beneficial to Ted Cruz (yes, he's a politician).

He doesn't craft his words carefully so he can wiggle out of things. Can you point to any stances that he's flip flopped on? He crafts his words carefully because he knows that a liberal/progressive controlled media is going to distort his words and take them out of context at every opportunity they can to make him look like he is saying something he is not.

I also don't like his stance on the whole land transfer thing or the LWCF (sorry, Texas isn't a good model for public land).

I'm having a hard time figuring you out. You try to make a point by insinuating people on here are socialists for enjoying public land and then say your not really a socialist and then you criticize a guy like Ted Cruz for filing an amendment which would prohibit the government from owning more than 50% of the land within one state. Right now, the government owns 20% of the land in this nation which includes over 50% of the states of Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah. I've seen the contentious threads on here about the return of federal lands back to the states and I can definitely see the pitfalls associated with that. However, limiting the government to less than 50% ownership of any one state seems reasonable. If not, then what percentage is reasonable?
As far as the LCWF, he not against this expenditure, he wants to reform it. He wants the money in the program to be available to the large backlog of existing projects on currently owned federal lands so that they can take care of what they already own before they buy more. Does that seem unreasonable. That makes a lot of sense to me.
I guess I'm just surprised that you've made up your mind on him based on these two issues that are so far down on the list of Americans concerns. Your never going to find a candidate that agrees with you on 100% of the issues. But, if you can find some common ground on the really big issues then you've got something. I'm sorry, but these aren't really big issues.

He also seems to miss a lot of votes in the Senate, which I take as not doing his job.

As you can probably guess, I voted for Obama...

This is absolutely hilarious!!!!
Here are the percentage of missed votes by senator candidates for this past year and the website they came from:
https://www.govtrack.us/blog/2015/10/27/presidential-candidates-miss-votes/

Keep this in mind (quoted from the article): "To make it a fair comparison, because not all of the candidates have been serving the same length of time, we looked at only the votes in the last year — the time period when the candidates were running for president."

And here are the percentage of missed votes by senator candidates for the 2008 election:

Keep this in mind as well (quoted from the article): "We looked at some of the 2008 candidates during the same one-year time period that, like today, was 378 days ahead of the election."

Cruz = 20% missed votes
Obama = 29% missed votes

On the surface they both look pretty bad. Your right, they need to be doing their jobs. But, there jobs aren't simply to cast votes. Their jobs are to get bill passed or stopped to satisfy their constituency. As long as the votes they are missing are votes where it would not have changed the outcome of the vote, then what's the problem? I don't know if that's the case, because I haven't researched it, because it's not an important issue. But, you have to admit that it's pretty hypocritical of you to criticize him and list this as a reason not to vote for him, when you voted for Obama with a much worse record. While we're at it, should we compare and contrast the amount of time spent not doing their jobs and tax payer money wasted by these two guys on vacationing?

I also find it funny how the whole birther argument with Obama is not applied to Ted Cruz, a Canadian anchor-baby.

'Canadian anchor-baby' is another one of your strawman arguments. An anchor baby is a baby born on US soil to an illegal immigrant. His mother is an American citizen which makes him an American citizen regardless of his place of birth, exactly like Obama, even if he was born in Kenya (which I do not believe nor care). And, it is being applied to Cruz if you would pay any attention or bothered to take a look. This should cover all the major news networks:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen-ask-founders-n490971
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/politics/ted-cruz-eligibility-2016-elections/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen-ask-the-founders
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...adaches-for-cruz-camp-as-mccain-piles-on.html

No need continue the back and forth as you aren't going to change my mind or vice versa.

Your right, this is probably the best course of action because I've laid out reasoned, rational, factually supported arguments which clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy in some of your views and you've rebutted almost none of them and yet your still insisting on what seems like a very close minded, uniformed point of view (which, as a free American, your entitled to...for now). That's about all I can do. Good luck!

 

[Shrek]

I think many would agree that big money has undue influence on the US government and I would argue the Senate in particular. One thing that would go a long way towards cleaning up the Senate would be the repeal of the 17Th Amendment. As it stands running for the Senate takes an obscene amount of money and it takes an incredible amount of time and effort by a senator to raise it. It leads to them chasing big checks and becoming captive to those big donors. If state legislatures were choosing US senators then the senators would not be constantly raising money and would be captive to the state legislature which are much more responsive to the people and much more sophisticated in their understanding of government actions and effects. No longer could you buy a US senator because you would need to buy an entire state assembly that is much closer to the people and therefore more accountable. Unfunded mandates would no longer get through the Congress. A member of the house represents a much smaller congressional District and is much more accessible to ordinary citizens and needs less money and is less likely to bend to monetary pressure. Basically a US senator currently spends almost all their time raising money and very little time actually in their states with constituents or studying issues so they are well informed. They are totally dependent on staff and lobbyists. The revolving door between the staff position and the lobbying positions means that or senators are mostly depending on lobbyists but some of those lobbyists are currently wearing the Senate staff hat.
Bottom line is that state legislatures choosings US senators would greatly dilute the influence of big donors.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Potus in on CNN right now giving a speech on gun control in a town hall sitting. Not sure how much I can watch without throwing up................

Randy