Executive Action

Obama has sold more guns than any POTUS in history.

Bush brought us Homeland Security, the greatest expansion of government in history,and the TSA who can legally sexually assault ten year old girls.

Both to give the sheep the illusion of safety.

Two peas in the same pod. Each just attacks our rights from different angles.

Just saying :).
 
Hootsma said:
"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."
Click to expand...
Well, there was a global recession. It's not like we were cruising along just fine and Obama decided to give welfare to everybody. Somebody loses their job due to recession. People have to eat. "That is how welfare was intended to be viewed and used"


Hootsma said:
Where the heck did you get this notion from?! Ghettos have been around since this countries beginning.
Click to expand...
Of course they have. Ghettos rapidly expanded during the 80's. Sorry, pay-walled research paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/3325015/abstract

The Wikipedia article about Ghettos has a lot of info regarding the growth of ghettos. Sorry, can't find my damn free source about the growth during the Reagan years.

Hootsma said:
Why? This is the end result of the participation trophy generation. I just have to show up and I get my trophy or living wage or welfare or whatever. As a free and responsible people, we have to accept that decisions and actions, or lack there of, have consequences. If all you're willing to do is flip burgers at McDonalds and earn the minimum wage, then financially, life if going to be tough. If you work hard, are reliable, take on more responsibility, learn more skills, you can be paid more and have more options financially. The choice is ours. Nothing is guaranteed in this life. Why do you think this should be?
Click to expand...
Some people are dumb. Unfortunately those people breed. Somebody can work their ass off at McDonalds their whole life and never make enough money to escape poverty. Meanwhile, the CEO and shareholders rake in millions of dollars, people get fat and sick from eating that crap and the employees who don't make enough money have to get on welfare. Did you know Walmart is a huge contributor to the welfare state?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...t-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

How can a company like Costco pay it's workers well with good benefits and be profitable while Walmart pays their workers like shit, resulting in more people on welfare while the Waltons sit on piles of money? Some people don't have long enough bootstraps. I don't think the solution is "Let them starve".

You are obviously a smart person and I appreciate your well thought out comments. I do wish we could get past picking sides and pointing fingers in this country and work for good solutions that we can all benefit from.
 
airlocksniffer said:
Yep, don't forget Citizens United/campaign finance reform.
Click to expand...
I disagree. A corporation/union has the right to spend it's money however the share holders/members see fit and is afforded free speech rights under the 1st amendment to communicate whatever the share holders/members see fit. The problem that people have with this SC ruling is that they assume that the general voting public is a bunch of brainless zombies that lack critical thinking skills and won't do their due diligence when it comes to researching candidates and issues. They believe that by allowing these entities to throw a lot of money into campaign advertising, that these brainless zombies that can't think for themselves will automatically vote the way they are told to. And, unfortunately our public school education system is creating exactly that kind of voter. However, you can't legislate away stupidity or laziness. With freedom comes great responsibility. It's up to us do our due diligence and become responsible, informed voters. Do you buy every item that is advertised on TV? If not, why not? If not, then why would you vote for the person your being told to vote for on TV.

airlocksniffer said:
On 17a, what if the issue with that? I was under the impression it was to give states with less population more of a say in the Senate. If 17a was repealed and the shots were called by CA, NY, etc, we'd lose guns a heck of a lot faster.
Click to expand...
No. The 17th amendment didn't affect the representation of less populated states. Each state has always had 2 senators each which gave each state equal say regardless of their population. Those senators were originally elected by each states legislature, not by the states citizens. This created the checks and balances between the senate and congress and between the states and the federal government. By implementing the 17th amendment we cut out an effective means of checks/balances and limited the voice of the individual states. Here's a website that explains it better than I can:
http://www.silentbull.com/17th-amendment-bad-repeal-it/
 
I heard the father on the radio. Haven't seen the vid yet but that's probably it.

Social engineering at its finest. What used to be appalling is the new normal.
 
airlocksniffer said:
Well, there was a global recession.
Click to expand...
'Was' being the operative word. According to Obama, the recession is over and the unemployment is at 5ish% and everything is hunckey dorey. If so, then why hasn't welfare come down by 32% or even just a little bit?



airlocksniffer said:
Ghettos rapidly expanded during the 80's. Sorry, pay-walled research paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/3325015/abstract
Click to expand...
Heres all the info I could get from your link:

"This article uses 1990 census data to analyze the changes in ghetto poverty among blacks in the 1980s. Ghetto poverty among blacks increased, both in terms of the number of blacks living in ghettos and as a percentage of the black population. The black poor became increasingly isolated in ghettos, with nearly half of the black poor in metropolitan areas living in a ghetto neighborhood. The physical size of ghettos expanded rapidly, even in some metropolitan areas where the percentage of blacks living in ghettos declined. There were striking differences between regions, with the Midwest and Southwest having the largest increases in ghetto poverty while the eastern seaboard had declines."

There is no mention of Reagan or trickle down economics. And, I've highlighted the parts of the abstract that contradict your claim. That link isn't helpful.


airlocksniffer said:
Some people are dumb. Unfortunately those people breed. Somebody can work their ass off at McDonalds their whole life and never make enough money to escape poverty. Meanwhile, the CEO and shareholders rake in millions of dollars, people get fat and sick from eating that crap and the employees who don't make enough money have to get on welfare.
Click to expand...
"Dumb" as in not smart yet because of their age and experience or "dumb" because they are mentally handicapped? The mentally handicapped folks are a separate issue and aren't a large percentage of the minimum wage workforce. So, I don't think they should be included in this discussion. The "dumb" folks who are dumb because of their age and/or lack of experience have an obligation to themselves and society to educate themselves. You don't need to be a genius with an IQ of 165 to excel in the work force. The internet is free (for now) and the library is free. There's no excuse to stay stupid. Being dumb is painful, as it should be. It's motivation to not be dumb. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but here it goes...With freedom comes great responsibility. Don't like your job/pay, then learn a new skill and get a new job/more pay or take on more responsibility. It's not that difficult.

I learned a saying a long time ago that goes "It takes money to make money". I was about a month into running a business when I realized that cliche is a load of crap unless your playing the stock market. In the real business world, it doesn't take money to make money, it takes people to make money. Businesses are always looking for the ambitious folks who want to excel. If those folks do good, then the company does good, so it's in their interested to seek out those people and keep them around, usually with more money and benefits.

airlocksniffer said:
Did you know Walmart is a huge contributor to the welfare state?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...t-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/
How can a company like Costco pay it's workers well with good benefits and be profitable while Walmart pays their workers like shit, resulting in more people on welfare while the Waltons sit on piles of money? Some people don't have long enough bootstraps. I don't think the solution is "Let them starve".
Click to expand...
Yes it is! Nobody is forcing them to work at Wal-mart. Wal-mart pays what the market demands. If no one put in applications at Wal-mart because they don't pay enough, then they would be forced to pay more to attract employees. If Costco pays better, go work for Costco. Costco made a corporate decision that they don't want a bunch of minimum wage employees working for them, and it shows, and it's working for them. Wal-mart made a corporate decision to hire minimum wage employees , and it shows, and it's working for them. There is no right or wrong to it. It's just a means to an end. It's up to the individual to take responsibility for themselves and solve their own issues and make good decisions that will better their lives. That's not our federal governments job.

Why don't you start a business and hire all of these minimum wage employees and give them a hardy living wage and let us know how that works out for you?


airlocksniffer said:
You are obviously a smart person and I appreciate your well thought out comments. I do wish we could get past picking sides and pointing fingers in this country and work for good solutions that we can all benefit from.
Click to expand...
We both are smart enough to recognize the same issues in our society. The problem isn't the picking of sides, it's that your idea of 'good solutions' and mine are vastly different. I'm a small government, big freedom and bigger responsibility guy. We can't solve a lot of these issues with larger government because our bloated government is the problem.
 
The moral hazard for welfare like food stamps , housing assistance , and straight welfare payments is that it enables the Walmarts of the world to pay a less than living wage which is a really raw deal to everyone except the morally corrupt management and shareholders who exploit welfare. It creates a poverty trap for recipients who are "dependent" on the welfare state and frozen in perpetual poverty by the fear of losing benefits and facing uncertainty and depressed wages at the bottom of the wage scale*that keeps those with enough ambition to attempt to escape poverty trapped in a no mans land of wages too low to live on and the jump to a higher pay scale that does pay enough a void too big for most to jump. Ghettos really started to grow with the expansion of the welfare state under Johnson and the number of people trapped grows every time we expand the welfare state. We now have multiple generations that have no experience or role models of self sufficiency. The irony is that the war on poverty in fact results in more people impoverished and the ability of all wage earners to earn a better wage diminished by both the downward pressure it creates on all wages and the higher tax rates paid to support the subsidies that trap people in poverty and depress wages. Socialism a despicable practice that destroys every society that attempts it. If you advocate for socialism you advocate for poverty and abject hopelessness for society.
 
I'm a small government, big freedom and bigger responsibility guy

I agree with this whole heartedly
 
Just to say this, are there even any good politicians left? They're all crooked in their own way. The fact trump can make this a comedic routine while running shows how bad these politicians are.

I honestly don't know how most democrats feel taking guns away will solve the problem. Just makes criminals feel safer because no one will be a threat to shoot back
 
1hoda said:
I'll only add these brief comments to the excellent posts by 5MilesBack and jmden.
Click to expand...

Edit to include Hootsma in the excellent posts group.

We must never forget what it means to live in a constitutional republic, and not a democracy that many Americans incorrectly believe they live in. A rudimentary understanding of the differences doesn't allow room for discussion of compromising rights. As has been mentioned, the framers had the wisdom to anticipate changes might be needed and incorporated a process for that.
 
Hootsma said:
No. The 17th amendment didn't affect the representation of less populated states. Each state has always had 2 senators each which gave each state equal say regardless of their population. Those senators were originally elected by each states legislature, not by the states citizens. This created the checks and balances between the senate and congress and between the states and the federal government. By implementing the 17th amendment we cut out an effective means of checks/balances and limited the voice of the individual states. Here's a website that explains it better than I can:
http://www.silentbull.com/17th-amendment-bad-repeal-it/
Click to expand...

That link doesn't really make any sense. Senators would be more responsive to the interests of their state if legislators, rather than the people themselves elected them? The 17th Amendment doesn't grant power to the federal government and take power away from the states--it takes power away from politicians and party structures at the state level and places it in the hands of the people.

The federal government as designed by the founders was designed to be unresponsive to the will of the people. Read Madison, Federalist #10. That's why, according to the original plan of government, the people had no guarantee of influencing the government other than through their district representative--no direct election of senators, an appointed judiciary and executive branch, an electoral college. The framers designed a system of government that was rather well insulated from the popular will--a point that is often lost when we mythologize the politics that shaped our constitution.

The 17th Amendment was passed in order to give "the people" greater say in governance. The modern movement to repeal it is essentially so that the same arbitrary designation of gerrymandered voting districts keeping a certain set of interests in control of Congress and most state legislatures will influence the composition of the Senate.
 
I'd refer you to Mark Levin's excellent discussion on the 17th amendment in his book "The Liberty Amendments".
 
This is a different direction from where we've been going but I thought this was interesting. I haven't cross-referenced myself but if it is true, more antis need to be educated.
868e73f07538b5f4c927c90049f4635a.jpg
 
jmez said:
MAT, do you think the gvmt would authorize the use of atomic weapons against their own citizenry?
Click to expand...

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 NRA is a propaganda machine as is everything else. They ignore facts too and deflect issues as much as they can. Some see gun control as a slippery slope, I see if as a cliff. This is the same as hunting in that we are losing the demographic battle. The anti-gun and pro-gun sides both need the voters in the middle, and you can take a hard stand on guns but the public sees it very differently no mater how many times the NRA is on TV trying to make themselves look reasonable. 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. 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.

BTW I am a BHA member. I quit the RMEF because of their political BS too.
 
Last edited:
Hootsma said:
'Was' being the operative word. According to Obama, the recession is over and the unemployment is at 5ish% and everything is hunckey dorey. If so, then why hasn't welfare come down by 32% or even just a little bit?
Click to expand...
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.

Hootsma said:
"Dumb" as in not smart yet because of their age and experience or "dumb" because they are mentally handicapped? The mentally handicapped folks are a separate issue and aren't a large percentage of the minimum wage workforce. So, I don't think they should be included in this discussion. The "dumb" folks who are dumb because of their age and/or lack of experience have an obligation to themselves and society to educate themselves. You don't need to be a genius with an IQ of 165 to excel in the work force. The internet is free (for now) and the library is free. There's no excuse to stay stupid. Being dumb is painful, as it should be. It's motivation to not be dumb. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but here it goes...With freedom comes great responsibility. Don't like your job/pay, then learn a new skill and get a new job/more pay or take on more responsibility. It's not that difficult.
Click to expand...
Dumb is the wrong word. Some people aren't going to get to a point in their life to be a top tier (or even a middle tier) earner. Whether they aren't smart enough, live in an area with limited job opportunities, etc, not everybody can just go get a better job and make more money. Once again, people going to people. We lost so many manufacturing jobs in this country with NAFTA (Thanks Clinton), which used to be jobs that paid pretty well and you could make a decent living on. So now we have a bunch of service jobs that are really low pay (yes, they are not highly skilled jobs). Companies have shipped what used to be decent manufacturing jobs overseas so you can "Save Money, Live Better", banked the profits and created people that are by necessity dependent on social welfare. Is that the fault of one political party? I think it's just greed.

Hootsma said:
I learned a saying a long time ago that goes "It takes money to make money". I was about a month into running a business when I realized that cliche is a load of crap unless your playing the stock market. In the real business world, it doesn't take money to make money, it takes people to make money. Businesses are always looking for the ambitious folks who want to excel. If those folks do good, then the company does good, so it's in their interested to seek out those people and keep them around, usually with more money and benefits.
Click to expand...
Maybe some businesses but to take the Walmart example, they could give two shits about their low paid workers. Plenty of employee and former employee accounts of how bad it is to work there. 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.

Hootsma said:
It's just a means to an end. It's up to the individual to take responsibility for themselves and solve their own issues and make good decisions that will better their lives. That's not our federal governments job.
Click to expand...

Yep, and that end is massive profit and that really doesn't bring out the best in these very large corporations. 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.

Hootsma said:
We both are smart enough to recognize the same issues in our society. The problem isn't the picking of sides, it's that your idea of 'good solutions' and mine are vastly different. I'm a small government, big freedom and bigger responsibility guy. We can't solve a lot of these issues with larger government because our bloated government is the problem.
Click to expand...
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'. I'd like to think we live in a civilized society and that requires a government. Part of the 'social contract' idea (John Locke's Second Treatise of Government).
 
Shrek said:
If you advocate for socialism you advocate for poverty and abject hopelessness for society.
Click to expand...
Never have advocated for pure socialism but we have elements that are beneficial in our country. Social Security? National Forests? If you really hate socialism in any form then you should quit coming out west to hunt on public lands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TxLite
Does this action exist?
Replies
10
Views
644
Formidilosus
Formidilosus
S
OMR Lone Rock TI Action Question
Replies
3
Views
194
skip189
S
Mdfowlman2
Long action 6.5prc?
Replies
7
Views
201
Mdfowlman2
Mdfowlman2
K
WTS Tikka 7PRC barreled action
Replies
1
Views
340
kickemall
K
Felton
Gunworks action clearance
Replies
1
Views
786
bowhnt
B

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
363,993
Messages
3,853,712
Members
82,602
Latest member
fizz1994

Latest Articles

Back
Top