The GOP Plan » Forum Post by Mumblefratz

You are correct about the "calmness and confidence", but it really doesn't apply to real world scenarios. You seem to have the impression that carrying a concealed weapon is about jumping at the first chance to shoot, and that is completely incorrect.

The only time you can draw and/or fire a weapon is if you are in fear for your or someone elses life, or to stop a forcible felony from happening.

Now say you are in a bank, and two guys walk in armed.

I don't care if the bank gets robbed, the FDIC will return the money in 24 hours. However, what if one of these model citizens decides to take everyone in the back and start executing witnesses. Martial arts won't help you in that scenario. Do you become another victim, or do you fight back?

I have to agree that these situations you describe are precisely what I would consider proper use.

It's also not the case that it's my impression that everyone that carries a concealed weapon "is about jumping at the first chance to shoot", but I do wonder if everyone that has a permit to carry a concealed weapon has the requiste self control to not play hero in a situation that doesn't necessarily warrant it.

I guess it all boils down to what kind of training and qualifications does someone need to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I'm sure you know more about it than I do. Are you totally convinced that such requirements are sufficient to keep the immature and reckless from getting such a permit? If the answer is yes then fine, but if not then doesn't that concern you?

That's pretty much all I have to say about the matter because I do fully support the rights of individuals to own guns and to use them as long as it's done so legally plus I don't think more gun laws would do much to limit their illegal use. But I do think we should close the gun show loophole.

This is actually an excellent point. Of course, it supports the exact opposite of your position, but who cares?

Have you ever taken a basic economics course? Taxes are always a negative factor in any economy, piling more on in an economy already struggling is not a good idea.

More importantly, increasing taxes doesn't generate the increase in revenue one would think. The taxes noticably slow the economy, meaning the taxes take a bigger bite out of a smaller pie. You might end up just above or just below break-even, but you will not see a huge increase in revenue.

If the GOP has realistic alternative plans then I would be willing to at least look at them. As far as I can tell all they are doing is trying to water down everything they can so in the end they can vote against it. In other words pure obstructionism.

Funny, in 2006, then brand new speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment on what the Democrats plan was and she replied, "to stop him" [Bush]. So for the next 3 years, nothing at all was done. It was complete gridlock. I guess obstructionism is fine for me but not for thee. The funny part is that while you blame Republicans for obstructionism, you fail to mention that Republicans are a totally irrelevant minority. If Democrats were all unified on the Obama/Reid/Pelosi vision for America, they could ram whatever they want through with a filibuster proof majority. The simple truth, which you fail to acknowledge is that Obama's policies are far too radical even for many Democrats.

Have you ever taken a basic economics course? Taxes are always a negative factor in any economy, piling more on in an economy already struggling is not a good idea.

Have you? First of all, all these blanket generalizeations would sound pretty strange coming from an actual economist, who knows that no system operates in a vacuum and pure random chance (to say nothing of outside factors) can always push things in another direction. Also, think about this: the money you get from taxes doesn't just disappear (usually). It is reenvested into the economy in the form of government projects and services. These projects create jobs, and demand for supplies/services. These are the sorts of things that run economies. Besides: those precious soldiers and cops have to be payed somehow.

Small government would start with the ridding the system of the majority of social programs designed to "give free stuff" to people. Welfare and the like. It would also abolish the federal education system, and put the states in charge of it.

You aren't the only one that feels that way and I'm not the only one that disagrees with you.

There's no real point in arguing these two positions because neither is intrinsically right or wrong. They are simply different *opinions* about the role of government.

I do think it's fairly extreme to include the school system with welfare. I would also assume that you would favor the elimination of social security and medicare as well.

Of course I (and many like me) have an entirely different opinion of government and that includes the idea that government should provide a social safety net. So to me things like social security, medicare, public schooling and even universal healthcare are things that the government should provide along with provisions for defense of the nation.

There is no fact you can state that *proves* my opinion to be wrong just as there is no fact that I can state that *proves* your opinion to be wrong. These are value judgements as to what governmental (i.e. common) resources should be spent on.

No one I know is a true anarchist that believes we should have no government and everyone believes that there is some level of taxes required for government to work. All we are really arguing about is what the level (and distribution) of taxes should be and what are the priorities on which those taxes should be spent. Generally the way it breaks down is that liberals believe that money should be used to help the least fortunate of our citizens and conservatives believe that money should primarily go to large corporations (particularly defense corporations) and to wage war.

I don't expect to convince conservatives that they are wrong and that liberals are right, just as they should not expect to convince me of the opposite.

What I would like to convince conservatives is that the liberal view of the role of government is not an intrinsically evil or stupid way of looking at things and that given the premise that the role of government includes providing a social safety net that things like Medicare, Social Security, Public Education and universal healthcare are as reasonable as the need for a standing army.

If Democrats were all unified on the Obama/Reid/Pelosi vision for America, they could ram whatever they want through with a filibuster proof majority.

That is correct and I do believe that we will indeed get to that point in time for health insurance reform including a strong public option with perhaps a state opt-out by Christmas.

The simple truth, which you fail to acknowledge is that Obama's policies are far too radical even for many Democrats.

I fail to acknowledge it because I believe it not to be true. The reason that not all democrats are in step with the public option for example is not because the idea is too radical, after all it is strongly favored by close to 2 to 1 by the American people, but because there are many democrats that are just as beholding to health insurance lobbyists as the republicans are. But don't worry I do believe that we will get there in time for Christmas.

it is strongly favored by close to 2 to 1 by the American people

I would like to see this statistic, where it came from, and who they sampled.

Scoutdog

reply 33

If you are worried about a "big brother scenario", then you better look at the party in charge. Conservatives want small government, not the beast Obama and democrats are creating.Oh dear..... not THIS again....... would someone PLEASE, just this once, actually DEFINE what "small government" actually is?! I understand the principal of lassiez-fiatre and all that stuff, but I have yet to hear a coherent answer on how to actually put it into practice.....

How about this, small government = limited goverment. Like what this country is suposed to have. Im a states right kind of person. The FEDERAL governemnt should be very limited. Most of the laws should be let up to the states, and even that should be very limited.

The US is crazy about passing laws. Here is an example.

Drunk driving: Why the heck are there laws specifically about this?

Its agianst for failure to control, weave, swerve, and what have you. It also agianst the law to kill someone. Basically everythign you could do wrong while driving drunk is already a crime. So why do we need another crime that encompasses those things? WE DONT.

The GOP is not conservative, so knock them all you want. I said it, The GOP is not far enough to the right for me. God forbid I want a limited government and I want people to be responcible for themselves.

Scoutdog

reply 54

First of all, all these blanket generalizeations would sound pretty strange coming from an actual economist, who knows that no system operates in a vacuum and pure random chance (to say nothing of outside factors) can always push things in another direction. Also, think about this: the money you get from taxes doesn't just disappear (usually). It is reenvested into the economy in the form of government projects and services. These projects create jobs, and demand for supplies/services. These are the sorts of things that run economies. Besides: those precious soldiers and cops have to be payed somehow.

No, the money doesn't disappear. But before the government can spend the money, first it has to remove the money from the economy. Government spending doesn't do anything with money besides moving it from one sector to another.

Government spending doesn't do anything with money besides moving it from one sector to another.

And isn't that what an economy is? Moving money from one sector to another, hmm?

How about this, small government = limited goverment. Like what this country is suposed to have. Im a states right kind of person. The FEDERAL governemnt should be very limited. Most of the laws should be let up to the states, and even that should be very limited.

You might want to take a trip to Somalia. They have a very "limited" government over there.... none of those bothersome laws, that's for sure.

I figured I would add this to the discussion, because it not worth the time trying to coninve people who dont agree even in the face of truth.

Cant figure out how to embed it, so here is a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

Anthony R

reply 53

The simple truth, which you fail to acknowledge is that Obama's policies are far too radical even for many Democrats.

Frankly, all this stuff about whether the left works or the right works is rediculous. I'll admit I'm hardly moderate (I consider myself pretty far left) but ultimately when people argue left vs. right they ultimately argue about tools. Government and the market are social tools... they are satellites of society and society shouldn't really revolve around them, but they are both necessary part of society. It seems the right these days is trying to completely cut the government out, which to me is like boasting the hammer and forsaking the nail.

I've never in my life seen such moronity, paranoia, posturing and lack of reason in debates as at this time (not necessarily at this forum). I'd hardly call anything a debate anymore. No one's mind ever changes, for one thing. Everyone thinks that they're "realists", which is itself an absurd and dangerous thing to call yourself. Funny thing is, I'm hardly seeing any realism at all from realists when they say that the government should be pared down to the military and virtually nothing else. When has such small government ever been viable on any kind realistic scale? What's the historical precedent for that except for the Wild West?

So, when someone says that Obama's extreme, I only need to point out some of the rhetoric from the right trying to entirely marginalize the role of the government, basically claiming that government intervention is a slippery slope to tyranny. Truth is, the country is so far to the right it's pretty much lost any sense of balance. Or, at least, that particular minority is very vocal.

Scoutdog

reply 60

You might want to take a trip to Somalia. They have a very "limited" government over there.... none of those bothersome laws, that's for sure.

Somolia is a anarchic wasteland without any government. Unless you seriously mean the Transitional Federal Government, of course. :/

And really, I support stripping down the federal government more. Give states more governing power instead. ^_^

Somolia is a anarchic wasteland without any government.

Exactly.

Scoutdog, no one here is suggesting that there shouldn't be any government. Us fans of small government just think the current federal government is too big and too powerful for our own good.

it is strongly favored by close to 2 to 1 by the American people

I would like to see this statistic, where it came from, and who they sampled.

Always happy to supply data so that it can be ignored. [e classic]

[/e]

Here's the article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html.

Here's a link to the poll http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html.

The results were 65% favoring the public option versus 26% opposed and 9% no opinion.

Cant figure out how to embed it, so here is a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

They interviewed the most informed Obama supporters that they could find. Yeah right.

This is completely duplicitous and disingenuous. Be sure to look both those words up because I'm sure you don't know what they mean.

I generally dismiss CBS/NYT/Wash Post as bogus and skewed. Those organizations have proven themselves to be dishonest in the past. This poll doesn't even show sample data so theres no real way to know how they reached this conclusion. Just recently, Washington Post conducted a totally skewed and dishonest poll with only 20% of Republicans sampled. They then turned that around to read "only 20% indentify as Republicans." Its just rediculous. How can anyone believe anything from an organization like CBS after the Bush AWOL story complete with with forged documents?

alway

reply 35

Yep, Republicans are against big government... Well, as long as they are not the ones in the government that is. Then they feel free to disregard that "goddamned peice of paper" known as the Constitution and do whatever they please.

That always seems to be the point. They never say boo about spending money if it's a defense contractor or a war. They didn't say boo when Bush spent $700 billion bailing out the banks but they cried crocodile tears when Obama spent about 1/20th of that amount bailing out the auto companies. They're all about paying down the debt except when giving tax cuts to the richest 1% of all Americans.

The bottom line is that when they are in power they're fine with running up as big a tab as possible as long as it fits with their priorities but as soon as the democrats take over and have to spend to get us out of the worst depression since the Great Depression that they got us into then, Oh No, we need to start paying down the debt.

Hypocrites.

I generally dismiss CBS/NYT/Wash Post as bogus and skewed. Those organizations have proven themselves to be dishonest in the past. This poll doesn't even show sample data so theres no real way to know how they reached this conclusion. Just recently, Washington Post conducted a totally skewed and dishonest poll with only 20% of Republicans sampled. They then turned that around to read "only 20% indentify as Republicans." Its just rediculous. How can anyone believe anything from an organization like CBS after the Bush AWOL story complete with with forged documents?

Of course you do. As I said, I'm happy to provide you data to ignore.

I generally dismiss CBS/NYT/Wash Post as bogus and skewed.

Admit it. There is no data that I could have supplied that you would accept so what really was your point asking for it?

It could have been a poll of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter listeners and if it gave you an answer you didn't like you would still find fault with it.

I have no problem with that, as I said I fully expected you to deny the information. However in the future don't ask me to waste my time providing you with sources of information that you would never accept no matter what the source.

Mumblefratz

reply 71

I have no problem with that, as I said I fully expected you to deny the information. However in the future don't ask me to waste my time providing you with information that you would never accept no matter what the source.

You clearly see the discussion of opposing opinions as a waste of time. Why must you state it as if, by wasting your time, you are doing a personal favor for your opponents?

Admit it. There is no data that I could have supplied that you would accept so what really was your point asking for it?

You showed me the source, I looked at it and fully considered it. There was no professional polling data listed, only poll results from news organizations who have skewed polls and have posted dishonest and fabricated stories in the past.

It could have been a poll of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter listeners and if it gave you an answer you didn't like you would still find fault with it.

You jump to conclusions. I'm not really a big fan of Coulter. She comes off as being high on Cocaine or flying on something and I find her style to be an irritant, as for Rush I do like him, but at times, have been borderline furious with some of his opinions.

and you are right actually, I wouldn't rely on a poll that was conducted with just a sampling of Limbaugh/Coulter audiences cause that wouldn't provide a very accurate result. It would be far too partisan a demographic.