|
Post by Raymond306 on Jun 15, 2016 10:44:20 GMT -6
Guys we are at a turning point for the republic and we are arguing about small points. We need to figure out who can win and create some change going forward. There is an old Biblical saying which goes something like: Those who are honest in the small things can be trusted with the big things. That's a rough paraphrase but I assume the basic truth of the saying can also apply to small points and small issues. If you can examine how somebody responds to a small point it can give you a reliable indicator of how that person will respond in a related, but much larger point. Or as my great-grandmother was known for saying, "Take care of your nickles and dimes and the dollars will take care of themselves." Big picture is we figure out how to embrace Trump for all his faults and hope for the best or except that the Hilderbeast will be the next president. If that happens the republic is doomed. Thats our choice. Well, yeah, but. I agree that Donald Trump is probably a better choice for president as far as we non-socialist, non-America-hating citizens are concerned. But I fear unless we are able to take the bull by the horns we're doomed at any rate, the only difference being how quickly the doom will come. I don't think Donald Trump can get this country turned around by himself. I didn't Ted Cruz could, either. Nobody can. BUT we can elect leaders who truly support getting this country going in a different direction. And by "support" I don't mean paying lip service to the concept, but actually taking to the mattresses for the long fight. While they are doing that we the people need to work at the grass roots level to help effect change. Can you say, "Article V Convention of States?"
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jun 15, 2016 16:02:45 GMT -6
Yup trump will take us there on a train, Hilderbeast on a jet plane. I'm slowly coming around to the convention of the states idea.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jun 15, 2016 23:48:53 GMT -6
I don't know what a convention would accomplish. An amendment stating that the Constitution must be enforced literally and is not to be treated like it is up for interpretation like some religious text? That is just redundant. That is why the next Supreme Court Justices are so important.
I really don't like that idea of a balanced budget amendment. That could be disastrous.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jun 16, 2016 7:18:46 GMT -6
An amendment stating that the Constitution must be enforced literally and is not to be treated like it is up for interpretation like some religious text? That is just redundant. I quite agree. Fortunately nobody in any of the state legislatures pushing for an Article V Convention has offered up such a proposed amendment so I don't think we have to worry about that. I really don't like that idea of a balanced budget amendment. That could be disastrous. Really? How so? That is why the next Supreme Court Justices are so important. I quite agree. However, we can no longer count on the Supreme Court to act constitutionally any more then we can expect the President or Congress to do so. At some point the American people, acting through the states as well as the federal ballot box, are going to have to decide how they want this country to be run. It's always been that way, however up until relatively recently the necessity of taking grassroots action hasn't been seen as being so imperative as it as been as of lately.
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jun 16, 2016 14:44:13 GMT -6
". At some point the American people, acting through the states as well as the federal ballot box, are going to have to decide how they want this country to be run. It's always been that way, however up until relatively recently the necessity of taking grassroots action hasn't been seen as being so imperative as it as been as of lately."
I fear we as a country are moving closer to 1860 than 2017.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jun 16, 2016 14:50:21 GMT -6
On the other hand, perhaps it is 1775 toward which we are moving.
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jun 16, 2016 17:37:47 GMT -6
Maybe we are headed for 1775, which I think I would prefer. I think this time around it will be blue vs red instead of blue vs gray. That's why I think 1860.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jun 16, 2016 17:42:08 GMT -6
We all know how difficult and time consuming it can be to pass a Constitutional Amendment. If September 11, 2001 and the Boxing Day Tsunami have taught us anything, it is that anything can happen without warning. Removing the Federal Government's access to credit could be disastrous in the event of a national emergency. I quite agree. However, we can no longer count on the Supreme Court to act constitutionally any more then we can expect the President or Congress to do so. If Constitutional Conservatives are put on the Court, then that is no longer a problem. It is the Court's job to enforce the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jun 16, 2016 18:58:45 GMT -6
We all know how difficult and time consuming it can be to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy. But I don't think "Ewwwww, it'll take so long" is a good enough reason not to do what needs to be done. Removing the Federal Government's access to credit could be disastrous in the event of a national emergency. I would find it hard to believe that in the case of national emergency the central government would be left with NO way to raise emergency funding.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jun 16, 2016 19:14:23 GMT -6
I would find it hard to believe that in the case of national emergency the central government would be left with NO way to raise emergency funding. They can't borrow it, so immediate tax increases and or cuts, to cover the cost, no matter how much would be needed, would be the only way.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jun 16, 2016 21:14:51 GMT -6
What do you mean "They can't borrow it."? Have you seen the Amendment? Read me the part that prohibits the Congress from borrowing in the case of a national emergency. I'll be curious to see how it's worded.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jun 16, 2016 21:47:44 GMT -6
I haven't seen it. But a balanced budget sounds to me like the Government can't spend more than it brings in. If it can run a deficit, then what is the point?
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jun 16, 2016 22:20:23 GMT -6
I'm willing to bet the business you work for operates on a budget. I know every boss I've ever had did so. The High Muckety Muck(s) creates as accurate an estimate as can be done on how much income the business will have monthly, quarterly, annually and then calculated expenses are factored in and voila, the business ends up with a budget.
Anyone with a 5th grade education knows a business that regularly spends more money than it takes in doesn't remain in business for very long. But no matter how faithful you are to the business budget shit happens, and when it does, it's time for the Muckety Muck to go to the bank and go into debt to keep the business operating. Of course, the debt must be paid back. Goes without saying in the real world.
What balanced budget advocates realize is operating in the red and increasing the debt year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year eventually HAS to lead to complete financial collapse of the country. We're right on the edge of it now. It is time to do what has to be done.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jun 16, 2016 23:33:28 GMT -6
I understand how dire this country's financial situation is Ray. So does the Government and The Fed. I'm sure you know about the whole "Quantitative Easing" thing that went on for years. Artificially increasing the money supply causes inflation. Make no mistake, a big reason for that was to create inflation.
Well that might effectively shrink the national debt, but it also diminishes the savings of millions (not everyone wants to be in the stock market). At least in the late '70 when there was high inflation, you could throw your money in a CD and earn 12%. Today you are lucky to earn over 1.5%.
The Government needs to shrink, and Congress can do that. They can do it in four years with the right President.
One way to save, stop giving away so much money in grants, then eliminate the bureaucrats that administer them.
Remember this guy?
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jun 17, 2016 7:21:12 GMT -6
There are a lot of things the government can do to get smaller. Do we really need the dept of energy,education could be returned to the states. Combine the dept of AG and interior and cut staff by 50%. That's just the low hanging fruit.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jun 17, 2016 8:22:03 GMT -6
The Government needs to shrink, and Congress can do that. They can do it in four years with the right President. I totally agree with everything you've said about quantitative easing and inflation and interest income, all of it. However, I would go so far to say Congress can do a great deal of shrinking with or without the "right president." All we need is enough Congressional representatives who take their oaths of office seriously and who are strong enough to keep faith with the voters who sent them to office. Two words: purse strings. Which leads me to Mr. Jab: There are a lot of things the government can do to get smaller. Do we really need the dept of energy,education could be returned to the states. Combine the dept of AG and interior and cut staff by 50%. That's just the low hanging fruit. There is a lot of "low hanging fruit" in the federal bureaucracy. Congress, and particularly the House, has plenty of options for downsizing including exercising their Constitutional duty for holding the purse strings by defunding, but also redefining the purview of rogue agencies. Congress can simply say, "Here is what we want you to do and here is what you will not do, and if you don't like that we can simply eliminate you."
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jun 20, 2016 17:58:47 GMT -6
So today the USC decided to not hear the appeals from NY and CT as relates their ban on AR-15's. This gives both states the green light to now enforce the laws they passed after Sandy Hook. In both states massive numbers of people chose to become felons and not register their AR 15's. It will be interesting to see if the new registration list turns into a confiscation list as now the AR is a banned weapon. I still think we are racing to a 1860 moment.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jun 21, 2016 12:18:19 GMT -6
Some observations immediately come to mind whenever gun control legislation is the subject under discussion. So today the USC decided to not hear the appeals from NY and CT as relates their ban on AR-15's. This gives both states the green light to now enforce the laws they passed after Sandy Hook. What is an AR-15? Well, if you read the various news stories reporting on some gun control legislation you quickly learn that the AR-15 is an "assault weapon." And what is an "assault weapon?" Well, it's pretty much whatever you want it to be, provided you are an anti-2nd Amendment zealot. That's because the various definitions used are so vague and broad based that the term "assault weapon" can be applied to damned near anything that fires a bullet. This can also mean cosmetics that merely make the weapon look like something that might be used by the military whether or not the actually fire power, utility, and/or lethality of the weapon has been increased. e.g. If it looks like an atom bomb, it must BE an atom bomb. In both states massive numbers of people chose to become felons and not register their AR 15's. This is actually a very key point in the gun control debate. The zealots keep saying gun control is a natural function of society to make society safe, and to illustrate that they point to various laws prohibiting ownership of a gun already in effect and already approved by nearly all citizens, such as a prohibition of convicted felons owning guns. What the zealots fail to point out is that long time gun laws such as these are based upon acts committed in the past by the prospective gun owner. Or, "We can't allow you to own a gun because of a crime you were convicted of." The difference is that now the Brady Bunch wants, not only a ban on guns for past criminal behavior, but to criminalize the ownership of guns in and of itself. It will be interesting to see if the new registration list turns into a confiscation list as now the AR is a banned weapon. History would point to this being the end purpose of registration lists. Once the authorities know where all the guns are, it makes disarming the populace a simple bureaucratic act.
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jun 21, 2016 16:54:50 GMT -6
You're correct that once they know where the guns are they can just go collect them. That might work for the first few people they raid with swat teams to collect the guns, however after that it will be game on. The cops will become the hunted and there will be way more pissed off gun owners than cops. I believe that most local rural cops will refuse to follow some beauracrats order to go round up the guns. They know that's a death sentence for some of them.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jul 3, 2016 11:48:12 GMT -6
Getting ready for the Canadian invasion? They are here to help.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 3, 2016 15:41:13 GMT -6
That guy is a real entrepreneur. I know whenever I hear some Hollywood liberal declaring: "I'm going to move to Canada if (fill in the Republican candidate's name) wins the election!"... ..and I'm always thinking, "Really? Promise? Pinkie swear? You're not just teasing us now, right?"
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 11, 2016 12:56:54 GMT -6
So Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the ancient left-wing loon on the Supreme Court was quoted in the New York Times: Really, Ruthie? Really? You're not just teasing us, are you? You promise to move to New Zealand (anywhere else will do, too) if Trump wins? Could you do us all a big favor and take Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen G. Breyer with you. And if you have room at your prospective anti-Trump sanctuary could you go ahead and take Anthony Kennedy with you too?
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jul 15, 2016 21:51:38 GMT -6
Watching this right now. It seems well produced, so I'm watching in on my PS3 on the big screen. It is from sky news.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jul 15, 2016 23:07:12 GMT -6
OK, so that was total anti Trump-propaganda.
Here is some pro-Trump propaganda
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jul 15, 2016 23:33:41 GMT -6
I am old enough to remember what Reagan did for this country. Carter was an utter disaster, the country was going to crap. Reagan scared the hell out of the establishment and the rest of the world. But he turned out to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest presidents ever (Abe Lincoln ranks up there too). This country needs a real change in direction again.
I am hopeful that Trump can lead that change.
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 16, 2016 7:59:34 GMT -6
At Indiana University I majored in Broadcast News Journalism. In over 40 years in radio broadcasting I wasn't always being paid to write and produce news stories, but I've never forgotten how, and can still do it. I could go on for hours describing what I was taught and what is apparently NOT taught to today's "journalists." But I won't. What I will say, in reference to the two videos is that depending on what words you choose to say and which images you chose to show, you can take the same raw information and tell two entirely different stories with it. I am old enough to remember what Reagan did for this country. Carter was an utter disaster, the country was going to crap. Reagan scared the hell out of the establishment and the rest of the world. But he turned out to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest presidents ever I remember it quite well too. As I've mentioned, I started out a Democrat but Jimmy Carter changed all that. The establishment is still terrified of Reagan. Note the constant drone of "The era of Reagan is dead. The era of Reagan is dead. The era of Reagan is dead. The era or Reagan...." yada yada yada. It never stops. I'm not disputing the base fact; that era is no longer here. Just LOOK at this country. But the purpose of the ruling political class mantra is to head off any attempts to recreate a Reaganesque return to that era. This country needs a real change in direction again. I am hopeful that Trump can lead that change. During the primary season the candidate that came to closest to Reagan brand of conservatism was Ted Cruz. But moving right along, This country sure as hell needs a major change in direction. I don't know if Donald Trump can do that in the way I'd prefer, but I do know Hillary Clinton will most certainly maintain our current disastrous direction.
|
|
Hagar
Contributor
Posts: 34
|
Post by Hagar on Jul 18, 2016 11:23:16 GMT -6
so your loud mouth picks a man that doesn't believe in evolution or that cigarettes kill not sure how you can vote for someone who finds this man is his best (only) person to back him up
|
|
|
Post by Raymond306 on Jul 18, 2016 11:42:41 GMT -6
Since neither evolution nor cigarettes are likely to be big issues in the national debate I'm not sure how important anyone's view on those issues might be. Of course I know the MSM will do their best to make them issue with Pence, just like the same left-wing reporters kept asking Mitt Romney about birth control, as if THAT was important 4 years ago.
My hope is that when (not "if" but "when") such an issue is brought up Mike Pence will have the courage to tell the reporter either to ask something of importance, or move along. I know Donald Trump has no problem giving nincompoop reporters the brush off.
|
|
|
Post by jab1362 on Jul 18, 2016 17:25:49 GMT -6
Reagen was the greatest president in my lifetime, I go back to Ike. His Achilles heel however was GHWB. He and Bill Clinton along with his son are NWO types and we can thank them for the era of RR is over.
Trump has made a brilliant play with Pence. 5 million evangelical Christians stayed home last time, had they voted Obama would have been a one hit wonder. If Pence can turn them out he wins in a landslide, Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell jr will rally the votes for Trump too.
The more the MSM beats on Pence the more solid trump will be come in the rust belt. The more BLM kills cops the better it will get for trump pence as the law and order candidates. The more attacks here and abroad that are inspired by the religion of peace the stronger Trump Nad Pence will get. Get ready the tsunami is coming in November.
|
|
|
Post by chrunch on Jul 18, 2016 23:34:13 GMT -6
I recorded ABC news coverage of Rudy's speech. They talked over nearly the whole thing. Wonder why.
|
|