Wright - Page 9 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #**121** 05-05-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgburg

I seem to recall that our State's Congressional Twinkie, Russ "Bite Me" Feingold, was the only one to give GWB and all the other Congressional Twinkies the 'bird' and go against the war...

Wasn't he suppose to be the next "Democratic Darling" for President?

Where's all that "principle" now? Behind the guy that took it in the chin for his 100% faith of not believing the Prez and ALL of Congress?

It's all about gettin' into the WH...that's all it is...

Feingold has less charm and presence than Kerry. Won't happen.

Medmech · #**122** 05-05-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

OK, now I think i understand. So you are saying those senators or congressmen are supported by and support big oil and big farm corps?

Tom W

Almost all Wall Street fund managers are liberal, the big business conservatives are the middle man.

Never forget who really runs America.

Medmech · #**123** 05-05-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

But we don't know the entire question. What was between the words "to" and "ban"? And did the phrase "state legislation" refer to any particular bill? If so, what did that bill say?

EDIT: The Google found the original questionaire for me. Here it is: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2.html The copy is illegible in places, but there do not appear to be any words between "to" and "ban".

So, the only question I have is whether he was referring to any specific state legislation. I'm sure we will get an opportunity to hear him explain that answer. Maybe he will say that he was young and foolish when he gave it.

You shouldn't try so hard to support the position that is in your head, the facts at hand are much easier to substantiate.

Knightrider966 · #**124** 05-05-2008, 04:49 PM

"Second Amendment creates an individual right ... he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures and to take those benefits away from those deemed unfit to carry a firearm!"

WOW!!! Who gets to make that decision for us? Osama? Er, Obama?

You are right Howitzer! When Obama/Osama was asked if the government was tha statutory authority that had the responsibility to restrict or ban the sale, manufacture or ownership of guns and ammunition his response was "Yes, Absolutely!

Lord, protect us from the Libocrites and help us save this Republic!

Honus · #**125** 05-05-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

You shouldn't try so hard to support the position that is in your head, the facts at hand are much easier to substantiate.

And you shouldn't make assumptions about what position is in my head. As for Obama's views on the 2d Amendment, I don't have a position. His statement that the 2d Amendment confers an individual right seems inconsistent with his answer to that questionnaire. Maybe he realized that the position on the questionnaire was going to be tough to defend, so he decided he really should have a different position. Or maybe he's changed his mind. Or maybe he can reconcile his various comments in a way that never occurred to me.

How about yourself? You keeping a pretty open mind about Obama?

Medmech · #**126** 05-05-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

How about yourself? You keeping a pretty open mind about Obama?

Yes, I check the facts. Unfortunatly for Obama facts show me that he's not my kind of guy, but I'm all ears if he changes his position(s) and his actions prove it.

Knightrider966 · #**127** 05-05-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

This is actually a really good post. It's got soul. Yet it also needs a few adjustments.
You are very well right, with the evolving situation on this soil and the spread of communist behaviour and centralized patterns of doing big business. That's exactly what is happening.

Big government, big business and millions of likewise dependents. The only significant difference:

Over there they called it 'Communism', over here they call it 'Capitalism'. Same thing different name for it.

So, you still worry about, what one 'leftwing liberal' wants to take from another 'rightwing liberal'?

No need to worry, it's all going to wash out in the end.

The US learning a lesson? I doubt it. Once again, same difference. Somewhere else they call it 'Garden of Eden', here they call it 'American Dream'.

Your description of "libs" is very acurate as well, which means those big-business-libs, thriving on everybody's mandatory contribution, are perfectly included in club.

Well, not quite! You see when you pay people to stay poor by creating a welfare state and giving them unlimted access to the teat, you create a second class generation of welfare recipients who put back nothing, unlike business owners like me who will in turn hire more people and create a work force producing products everyone needs and creating more income which in turn puts more money BACK in to the treasury!

A couple of major differences between communism and capitolism. Communism takes what you have and gives it away with no return on investment required, therefore no economic growth is involved or expected.
Capitolism expects and DEMANDS you to generate more of what you created and SHARES that with those willing to WORK for it.

Do you know why a welfare recipient cannot find a paycheck? Because it's under their workboots!

The American Dream is working for your own wealth, not by being robbed by your government who gives your money away to those who contribute and put back nothing, especially jobs and earnings potential.

The American Dream is learning to stand on your own two feet and shout out that you can achieve as long as the liberal parasites get off your back and quit sucking your blood like leeches and giving your money to those who pop out more kids for a bigger welfare check!

Knightrider966 · #**128** 05-05-2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

Yes, I check the facts. Unfortunatly for Obama facts show me that he's not my kind of guy, but I'm all ears if he changes his position(s) and his actions prove it.

I'm all ears when he walk the walk and not just talks the talk. So far he's only voted "present" 143 times in the Senate, which tells me he is not fighting the good fight, just protecting his own position.

Great point man!

t walgamuth · #**129** 05-05-2008, 07:20 PM

I don't think what we have qualifies remotely as a welfare state.

Its really hard to get and stay on welfare these days.

We might have a pretty good welfare state for big corporations though!

Tom W

Botnst · #**130** 05-05-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I don't think what we have qualifies remotely as a welfare state.

Its really hard to get and stay on welfare these days.

We might have a pretty good welfare state for big corporations though!

Tom W

I have never been quite sure what the phrase, "corporate welfare" means. I know what it means on a personal level -- taking money from the taxpayer and giving to a non-productive individual. How does that work with corporations -- you mean like farm subsidies? I'm all for letting the free market rule in farming as it should in everything else.

MS Fowler · #**131** 05-05-2008, 10:25 PM

True capitalism is tough. There are losers as well as winners.

t walgamuth · #**132** 05-05-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I have never been quite sure what the phrase, "corporate welfare" means. I know what it means on a personal level -- taking money from the taxpayer and giving to a non-productive individual. How does that work with corporations -- you mean like farm subsidies? I'm all for letting the free market rule in farming as it should in everything else.

Tobacco subsidies, oil subsidies (I am not sure what there is here but I suspect there are some.)

Tom W

t walgamuth · #**133** 05-05-2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

And you shouldn't make assumptions about what position is in my head. As for Obama's views on the 2d Amendment, I don't have a position. His statement that the 2d Amendment confers an individual right seems inconsistent with his answer to that questionnaire. Maybe he realized that the position on the questionnaire was going to be tough to defend, so he decided he really should have a different position. Or maybe he's changed his mind. Or maybe he can reconcile his various comments in a way that never occurred to me.

How about yourself? You keeping a pretty open mind about Obama?

If he has the positions on gun control that are described here, I believe that would render him unelectable in the general election. There are a whole lot of blue collar democrats that are very fond of their guns. They will vote R if they believe their guns are in jeapordy (whether they are or not really does not matter). I think what a president thinks about gun control probably does not matter a whole lot. I think congress would not allow the present situation to change much.

I am not a gun afficianado but I believe it is our right to have guns and I believe it is a very important right.

Tom W

Botnst · #**134** 05-05-2008, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Tobacco subsidies, oil subsidies (I am not sure what there is here but I suspect there are some.)

Tom W

Tobacco subsidies come under agriculture, to which I have already made reference to a preferred elimination.

I have never had an oil subsidy and would be interested in receiving one.

B

Medmech · #**135** 05-05-2008, 11:14 PM

Do industry specific accelerated deprecation of pipelines count?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7066