ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The Conservative/Libertarian appreciation thread

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 10:17 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 26 2013, 7:55 am

>When I last purchased ammo, everyone agreed that Obama is currently the best gun seller in American. He should get the Gun-Seller of theYear Award.
Yep - I see this sign a lot at different firearms shops and shows:



 


The problem is... it's raised prices a lot!

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 10:19 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 26 2013, 7:58 am

>

>What's sad is that some people around here have made fun of me because I have been warning that countries in the EU would begin confiscating money from the people because of socialistic problems caused by the government.  - BamBam

>You're in good company with Peter Schiff. I'd rather have a firm foundation in economics and be laughted at than those who'll be blindsided in the collapse to come.

>
I know I'm not alone.  I remember when the EU was created and I just shook my head...


The problem is that those that are blindsided affect those of us that understand economics.


 


Just like our stock market - I fully expect that with all this QE∞, we're going to hit multiple highs and get the Dow above 15K.... yet another stock bubble that has to burst due to no real growth in the economy to support it.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 10:24 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 26 2013, 8:05 am

>The issue might remain for the Navy or it might be null and void. Consider, for example, that the Army/Navy tempts individuals into service by offering them favoritism, such as college services.
I don't see that as favoritism - it's equivalent to a work benefit, like any other company provides.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 10:27 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 26 2013, 8:05 am

>If the Founding Fathers realized that a standing army was necessary, then why didn't they amend the Constitution to properly provide the country with the so-called "necessity"? One would think the Founding Fathers would be aware of their own creation and the protocols contained therein to amend it. But then again, I concede some of the Founding Fathers made for poor Presidents.
I think that the biggest reason our Founders didn't want a standing army was due to what the British army did to the colonies.  They didn't want to even appear close to that.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 26 2013, 10:30 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 26 2013, 9:59 am

>

>Almost sounds similar to the Constitutional Convention where promises were made to get rid of slavery over time.  (But we all know what happened to those promises.)

>Economic reality is different from political wishful thinking. As you know too well, the U.S. has fallen short on many issues too which the Federalists promised safeguards. Slavery is but one issue among many where both sides failed. 

>
Absolutely true... but I often wonder if it was just yet another political promise that they never had the intention of fulfilling.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 9:41 am

I don't see that as favoritism - it's equivalent to a work benefit, like any other company provides. - BamBam


Unlike private companies, where beneffits are drawn from savings that result from voluntary transactions in the market, government benefits are obtained from taxation, which is an involuntary transaction. While taxation itself is Constitutional, applying those taxes to benefits that are unconstitutional, such as education, is illegal at worse and a moral hazard at best.


A simple alternative is to end unconstitutional programs and apply a fraction of those funds to the pay of those serving in the Navy. It amounts to competitive pay, which Marines could spend on education or anything else, without creating the unnecessary risk of moral hazard. 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 9:48 am

...but I often wonder if it was just yet another political promise that they never had the intention of fulfilling. -  BamBam


You're certainly right to doubt and treat all political promises with skeptism. I would never encourage otherwise.


I'm aggrivating that the South wasn't permitted to end slavery on its own terms, as the North accomplished for itself.


I also find it fascinating, however, that Jefferson Davis encouraged a trial system for the punishment of slaves on his plantation.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 10:03 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 21 2013, 8:45 pm

>

>Your friendships are irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care how many *insert minority group* friends you have. It doesn't validate your defense and just makes you sound like more of a bigot.

>Than what is the basis of your accusation for calling me homophobic? What evidence did I offer you? Is homophobia determinant upon support of DA/DT? By that logic, I'm tocophobic since I'm in agreement with my company's policy to not take pregrant women caving. Remember, you made the accusation, which was irrelevant to the discussion. I will admit I should've ignored it. 

>Because people are their own property:

"My view is that a person's body is their property and he/she can do with their property as desired, so long as one does not violate the non-aggression principle."

>You're ignoring the principle of contracts at the expense of private property. Contracts provide for the exchange of private property within voluntary associations. If the principle of a contract is undermined or damaged than so too will the principle of private property. If an offending party can ignore the terms of a contract without consequence, than private property is unduly obtained and the contract-abider has been turned into a slave for the transgressor.

>The Federal Government is the biggest contract holder of them all and Northern Factions, prior and post Civil War, violated the Constitution. First, (as Jefferson Davis indicates in his Farewell Address to Congress) by nullifying the Fugitive Slave Clause, which was an agreed upon provision in the Constitution; and secondly, by forcing involuntary association and war upon Southern States. The 13th Amendment is ironic, because the Union supposedly fought a war to "end slavery", yet forced the Southern States into an unwanted association under a government from which they withdrew their consent. Add to that, the Union claimed the Southern States couldn't secede, but once defeated, the Union claimed the Southern States wouldn't be let back into the Union (an acknowledgement that they left) unless these States ratified the 13th Amendment. I don't find a viable contract to be based on coercion, involuntary association, and threats to deny representation.

>Furthermore, when the Government is permitted to violate its public contract, then political entrepreneurs will appeal to the Government, as an arbitrator of disputes, to release them from private contracts without consequence to themselves, but with undue burden to the other party. Such favoritism permits rampant theft and redistribution of wealth in favor of the political entrepreneurs. 

>


1. Yes, because you have yet to give one valid reason for why DA/DT should remain in place. Your entire defense so far has been based upon the implausibility of government reinstating conscription and your personal belief that it is okay for the military to discriminate against homosexuals simply for being homosexuals.

2. And you're contradicting your "libertarian" beliefs. People are their own property. Contracts mean nothing if the "property" involved is another human being.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Mar. 28 2013, 11:06 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Mar. 27 2013, 9:41 am

>

>I don't see that as favoritism - it's equivalent to a work benefit, like any other company provides. - BamBam

>Unlike private companies, where beneffits are drawn from savings that result from voluntary transactions in the market, government benefits are obtained from taxation, which is an involuntary transaction. While taxation itself is Constitutional, applying those taxes to benefits that are unconstitutional, such as education, is illegal at worse and a moral hazard at best.

>A simple alternative is to end unconstitutional programs and apply a fraction of those funds to the pay of those serving in the Navy. It amounts to competitive pay, which Marines could spend on education or anything else, without creating the unnecessary risk of moral hazard. 

>
I'm not too sure I follow here... benefits are just another form of compensation and take many forms, including pay, vacation, medical care (if you want to call it that), etc.  I doubt that your saying that members of the military shouldn't be compensated just because the money comes from taxation.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Apr. 02 2013, 2:17 pm

Regarding Obama and firearms...


Seriously, this happened in 09 and it happens again. I work for a firearms dealer and know that there is that wonderful illusion of scarcity going on, preying on the fears of the uniformed that the government will try and steal our guns away, that they are hoarding ammo so we don't have any, etc...etc...


Sorry, I don't buy it. Obama may be against guns, but so was Clinton, Carter and several other political figures. Thankfully, the market will respond to the demand, and things will right themselves as the market adjusts.


So, while we can thank Obama for the wonderful increase in sales, its hardly new, and will just be another footnote in a year.


There is no denying that there is a right to bear arms in the Constitution of the United States and there is no means for the government to just take them away with enough court battles and lawsuits to bankrupt the Justice Department

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Apr. 02 2013, 4:23 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Apr. 02 2013, 2:17 pm

>

>Regarding Obama and firearms...

>Seriously, this happened in 09 and it happens again. I work for a firearms dealer and know that there is that wonderful illusion of scarcity going on, preying on the fears of the uniformed that the government will try and steal our guns away, that they are hoarding ammo so we don't have any, etc...etc...

>Sorry, I don't buy it. Obama may be against guns, but so was Clinton, Carter and several other political figures. Thankfully, the market will respond to the demand, and things will right themselves as the market adjusts.

>So, while we can thank Obama for the wonderful increase in sales, its hardly new, and will just be another footnote in a year.

>There is no denying that there is a right to bear arms in the Constitution of the United States and there is no means for the government to just take them away with enough court battles and lawsuits to bankrupt the Justice Department

>
I do agree that the current scarcity is due to fear, but I think it's well placed based on all the laws the ProRegressives are passing making it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to purchase arms.  Remember when Obama got re-elected?  One of the very first things he did was come out and put his support behind a UN treaty that directly conflicts with the US Constitution.  (And that doesn't count all the other attacks he's done.)  Thankfully the Senate doesn't look like they'll approvie it.


I happened to be at one of the local FFLs over the weekend and they didn't have a single "scary" gun in stock and didn't have any .223, .40, .45, .22, .308, rounds or powder or other items that would normally be in stock (and they didn't know when they'll get them in.)


 


As for bankrupting the DoJ... that just means bankrupting the taxpayer.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum