A liberal finally gets it; considers buying a gun.

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Mordis wrote:

As for liberal economics, it has yet to work, 2trillion in liberal spending and the economy is still tanking, yep sounds like good economics to me. Racking up a defict that will bankrupt us and saddle my kids and grandkids with massive debt is such a great thing.

/rant off

So what was it called when Reagan did it first?

Reagan didn't increase spending exponentially while trying to raise taxes. His answer to the problem was to cut taxes, and reduce the scope of government. His policies not only brought about the beginning of a huge economic recovery, it also brought about the end of the Soviet Union, ending the cold war.

Are you old enough to remember the fall of of the Soviet Union from the view of an adult who lived with the threat of global thermo-nuclear war on a daily basis?

Do you remember the fall of the BerlinWall after years of people dieing just for the chance to get across to the free side?

Are you old enough to remember the disaster that was left by Jimmy Carter? An economy that was far worse than what we are seeing today.

Socialism has failed to improve the living standards everywhere that it has been tried.

You really do need to learn abouthistory a little more before you comment on it.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Arguing with a liberal about gun control is like washing a pig.  Its a waste of time and only annoys the pig.

Your assertion has no merit, and even less value.

I have tried arguing with dead set liberals enough to know that what he says is true........the ones who will listen aren't really dead set and usually can be brought to see how foolish the ideas they are spouting really are.  The idea of lawful self defense just doesn't fit into the big government, forced redistribution of wealth platform most liberals spout.  Some can be turned when you show just how foolish their ideas are, but most are so hard headed and dead set on their socialist utopia that they refuse to see anything beyond what they believe is right.

So, are you talking about socialists, or liberals?

Guys, I live in San Francisco. Do you really think you hang out with more liberals than I do?

I hate to make appeals to authority, but I have some idea what I'm talking about on the simple issue of arguing with liberals.

And the ones you meet on the internet don't count. The only non-gun-owner who goes out of his way to debate gun control on the internet is someone who already believes in gun control, and is already a shill for gun-control (like HankT). The rest don't care enough to debate it on the internet, generally speaking. Obviously we gun owners have a personal stake in the issue, so we are inclined to discuss guns anyway.

At any rate, not all liberals are "socialists" (nor are all socialists anti-gun, for that matter), and as someone who lives "amongst them" and in "their" culture, I feel confident asserting that, especially with young adults, liberalism is a part of their culture and is the political representation of their very American desire to be free from outside meddling (only they tend worry about things like government getting into religion by declaring what "marriage" is for everyone, rather than gun control). Their desire for "big government" is a misguided manifestation of their pertinent realization of the power of corporatism, yet their failure to recognize the full extent of the significance of the "state" in the corporatist/statist equation and their resulting misplaced faith in the regulatory capacity of government is quite similar to the misguided faith placed by some on the right in the likes of the DEA (like the BATFE, but for everyone/everything else), or our unconstitutionally-behaving border patrol.

Most (self-declared) liberals I know want to stop the militarization of police (end no-knock raids, etc.), end the drug war, restore the Fourth Amendment to its full function, eliminate government intrusion into our privacy, etc. These are tasks liberty needs to accomplish.

Finally, most liberals I personally know can be debated with over issues like gun control. And progress can be made, as they often haven't studied the issue in-depth, by pointing out the parallels with, say, the war on drugs (incidentally, is that a tack you personally try very often when you all debate liberals in real day-to-day life?), and forcing them to make the connection between government's excessive-yet-ineffectual War on Drugs and its similar War on Guns.

If anything, I have an easier time convincing some of my liberal friends about OC than we do many-a CCer. No, you won't convince them to love scary "assault weapons" in a single conversation, but then again, how many supposedly "pro-gun" folks on this forum still support all kinds of "common sense" gun control, like right-licensing or arbitrary alcohol limits (when existing result-oriented aggression prohibitions are sufficient)?

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Mordis wrote:

As for liberal economics, it has yet to work, 2trillion in liberal spending and the economy is still tanking, yep sounds like good economics to me. Racking up a defict that will bankrupt us and saddle my kids and grandkids with massive debt is such a great thing.

/rant off

So what was it called when Reagan did it first?

It wasn't called liberal economics/liberal spending then because Reagan didn't do that.  Reagan clearly wanted to balance the budget, but considered defeating the Soviets the higher priority.  Some here may not be old enough to remember what a serious threat the "Cold War" was; I am.  He had to get the economy out of the horrible Carter-years' morass, and needed to lower tax rates to do it.  But he had a democrat congress (both houses) to deal with, so he had to settle for half a loaf.  If he'd had a Republican congress, he would have gotten closer to balancing the budget, but that didn't happen.  For one, he wanted to get the "Welfare-for-life" monkey off our backs, but the Dems would have none of it.  That took the next Republican congress.  So we got a win in the Cold War, a robust economy, a sense of renewed pride and well-being, but not a balanced budget.  We'd have had the latter if Reagan had gotten his way, but he gave us a hell of a lot more than we EVER would have gotten if Carter had won in '80.  Does anyone here over the age of 55 honestly think we'd be doing better now if we'd had 4 more years of Jimmah's Excellent Adventures, followed by Mondale, followed by Dukakis, followed by Clinton, etc., etc.?  The very thought should frighten any student of our recent history.

There's always the current big scare. I'm sure Bush "wanted" to balance the budget, too. And I'm sure Obama will follow suit in "wanting" to balance the budget, for that matter. :quirky

Libertarian analysis (the best kind):
Murray N. Rothbard: The Reagan Phenomenon
Murray N. Rothbard: The Myths of Reaganomics (I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it)

(Two great articles.)

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post



Gordie wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Mordis wrote:

As for liberal economics, it has yet to work, 2trillion in liberal spending and the economy is still tanking, yep sounds like good economics to me. Racking up a defict that will bankrupt us and saddle my kids and grandkids with massive debt is such a great thing.

/rant off

So what was it called when Reagan did it first?

Reagan didn't increase spending exponentially while trying to raise taxes. His answer to the problem was to cut taxes, and reduce the scope of government.

I think you mean increase spending exponentially AND cut taxes. Great combo, that is. :quirky

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Dutch Uncle wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Mordis wrote:

As for liberal economics, it has yet to work, 2trillion in liberal spending and the economy is still tanking, yep sounds like good economics to me. Racking up a defict that will bankrupt us and saddle my kids and grandkids with massive debt is such a great thing.

/rant off

So what was it called when Reagan did it first?

It wasn't called liberal economics/liberal spending then because Reagan didn't do that. Reagan clearly wanted to balance the budget, but considered defeating the Soviets the higher priority. Some here may not be old enough to remember what a serious threat the "Cold War" was; I am. He had to get the economy out of the horrible Carter-years' morass, and needed to lower tax rates to do it. But he had a democrat congress (both houses) to deal with, so he had to settle for half a loaf. If he'd had a Republican congress, he would have gotten closer to balancing the budget, but that didn't happen. For one, he wanted to get the "Welfare-for-life" monkey off our backs, but the Dems would have none of it. That took the next Republican congress. So we got a win in the Cold War, a robust economy, a sense of renewed pride and well-being, but not a balanced budget. We'd have had the latter if Reagan had gotten his way, but he gave us a hell of a lot more than we EVER would have gotten if Carter had won in '80. Does anyone here over the age of 55 honestly think we'd be doing better now if we'd had 4 more years of Jimmah's Excellent Adventures, followed by Mondale, followed by Dukakis, followed by Clinton, etc., etc.? The very thought should frighten any student of our recent history.

There's always the current big scare. I'm sure Bush "wanted" to balance the budget, too. And I'm sure Obama will follow suit in "wanting" to balance the budget, for that matter. :quirky

Libertarian analysis (the best kind):
Murray N. Rothbard: The Reagan Phenomenon
Murray N. Rothbard: The Myths of Reaganomics (I come to bury Reaganomics, not to praise it)

(Two great articles.)

Omg... do I agree with the libertarians on something economic?? I need to see a therapist.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Mordis wrote:

As for liberal economics, it has yet to work, 2trillion in liberal spending and the economy is still tanking, yep sounds like good economics to me. Racking up a defict that will bankrupt us and saddle my kids and grandkids with massive debt is such a great thing.

/rant off

So what was it called when Reagan did it first?

Reagan didn't increase spending exponentially while trying to raise taxes. His answer to the problem was to cut taxes, and reduce the scope of government.

I think you mean increase spending exponentially AND cut taxes. Great combo, that is. :quirky

I was contrasting him with Obama, who is trying to raise spending exponentially while raising taxes. As your chart shows, spending did increase, andas those of us who were there know, Reagan did cut taxes.

I notice that there is no information on the current administration. Lets take a look at what has happened in the last 6 months and then compare. Obama has proposed more spending than all 43 presidents before him combined. Not even amentionabout keepingthe budget balanced.

I also notice that you once again fail to answer simple questions, and instead divert the subject away to something else. Are youold enough to remember the things that I mentioned? I am, as are many others here.

I was serving this nation during those times. I remember discussing the fact that our squadron's aircraft had a 10 minute life expectancy in combat. That means that our entire squadron was expected to survive not more than 4 hours. Live with that for a while, and see how it changes your thinking (not just you, but me and anyone else as well, it will change you). All combat exorcises included the use of chemical weapons and usually ended with a "nuclear black", "Good job on the war boys, butyou all just got vaporized."

By the way, did you know that revenues increased during the Reagan and Bush tax cuts?

Can you show me where tax increases have increased revenue over the long term?

Can you show where the economy has ever recovered from a recession while taxes were increased?

Can you show where government spending (aside from funding a war)has ever pulled the economy from a recession?

If you are not old enough to remember 13%+ inflation, a high of 907 on the DOW, 20%+ interest rates for people with good credit, and a weakened nation because of defense cuts, then get ready, because some of these things are on their way back.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

I was contrasting him with Obama, who is trying to raise spending exponentially while raising taxes.

Citiation needed. So far he's CUT taxes. Have you checked your pay stub in the last few months?

That's the last I'll cater to you. Now, stop strawmaning about Obama. I never said I liked or was in support of his spending, in fact I've talked against it on numerous occasions. He has NOTHING to do with my comment about Reagan. You're strawmaning like no other.

 

[Il_Duce]

imported post

I worked myself up a tax bracket

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

I was contrasting him with Obama, who is trying to raise spending exponentially while raising taxes.

Citiation needed. So far he's CUT taxes. Have you checked your pay stub in the last few months?

That's the last I'll cater to you. Now, stop strawmaning about Obama. I never said I liked or was in support of his spending, in fact I've talked against it on numerous occasions. He has NOTHING to do with my comment about Reagan. You're strawmaning like no other.

Withholding is not taxes. Unless the underlying tax rates decreased, lowering withholding only reduced the pre-paid portion of a person's tax bill. Not a good measure.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Gordie wrote:

I was contrasting him with Obama, who is trying to raise spending exponentially while raising taxes.

Citiation needed. So far he's CUT taxes. Have you checked your pay stub in the last few months?

That's the last I'll cater to you. Now, stop strawmaning about Obama. I never said I liked or was in support of his spending, in fact I've talked against it on numerous occasions. He has NOTHING to do with my comment about Reagan. You're strawmaning like no other.

Withholding is not taxes. Unless the underlying tax rates decreased, lowering withholding only reduced the pre-paid portion of a person's tax bill. Not a good measure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29314485/

Call it whatever you want, your yearly after-tax income will be higher this year.


Even if it's not a tax bracket cut, it's a far cry from the tax INCREASE Gordie is claiming, and that's the bottom line point.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Well whaddaya know. This is about the THIRD thread that has been hijacked by the Connecticut Conspiracy and tuurned into an argument about freaking TAXES. We COULD be talking about how to win over the Type One (everyday nonhardcore) antis, but no. One guy from Connecticut starts picking until he hits a nerve and then steers the thread off to Whatsthisgottodowithopencarrryatall land. I was going to make a comment germaine to the OP, but the rudder done been torpedoed off the Bismark. :banghead:

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Well whaddaya know. This is about the THIRD thread that has been hijacked by the Connecticut Conspiracy and tuurned into an argument about freaking TAXES. We COULD be talking about how to win over the Type One (everyday nonhardcore) antis, but no. One guy from Connecticut starts picking until he hits a nerve and then steers the thread off to Whatsthisgottodowithopencarrryatall land. I was going to make a comment germaine to the OP, but the rudder done been torpedoed off the Bismark. :banghead:

The thread went off-topic right here:

Dispatcher wrote:

"A liberal is a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet." That's what they say...

Brainless partisan hacks strike again. Until the majority of this community hops off the "zomg evil liberalzzz!!!" wagon, this cause continues going where it has been since it started -no where (backwards is more like it). Grow up and realize that this isn't about evil "liberals" andheaven sent "conservatives," it's about the right to keep and bear arms, and a common, pro-gun cause. Political ideology doesn't matter. When you keep harping on the "zomg evil liberals" fiddle, you turn off and distance a large group of people that this cause NEEDS (I covered this before in the why aren't their more pro-2A blacks thread). You also support the negative stereotype that the antis play on very hard.

When this community can drop it's hardliner, extremist attitude is when it'll finally make progress.

And what do you think I have to gain by "derailing" threads? Do you realize I own guns too? Do you realize I'm a stakeholder in the 2A cause? Do you realize that your (as well asthat of many others)stupidity and piss-poor, stereotype enforcing example of what a pro-2A person is HAS a direct effect on me? Let me ask you something, where has the extreme-right, hardliner attitude taken this cause in the last 100 years? Are we more free or less free than we were 100 years ago? How about 50 years ago? Is our freedom trending down or up? I'll give you a clue, it's going DOWN, hard. The success of this cause looks like a one year chart of the DJIA.Sure, it has its small wins, but in the grand scheme of things,we're losing, badly. Something isn't working, and that somethingis people like you.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

I don't know about the rest of you guys but I have had just about enough of this supercilious snarky smartmouth. Where the HELL does he get off calling people "stupid"??

And what in SAM HILL DOES THE TAX RATE HAVE TO DO WITH AN ANTI WHO SAW THE LIGHT??? What little success this thread may have contributed to our understanding of how to deal with the antis went down the drain just as soon as Mister I-Am So-Goddamned-Much-Smarter-Than-You-Idiots-Don't-You-Know-I-Am-Moses decided to start sniping. AND THEN he says he steers the thread toward tax policy (of all things and it seems to be his fave subject) IN ORDER TO FURTHER THE MOVEMENT.

What I cannot understand is why ANYBODY responds directly. Notice I am NOT mentioning this pest by name. Here's my recommendation: When he starts up, begin your next post with a quote from him, then type: "Shaddap". THEN go ahead and write on the op or at least ON TOPIC and maybe we can keep this menace from having us all yakking about the damned tax rate instead of how to further the movement he claims to want to "help".

Unwatch Topic.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you guys but I have had just about enough of this supercilious snarky smartmouth. Where the HELL does he get off calling people "stupid"??

And what in SAM HILL DOES THE TAX RATE HAVE TO DO WITH AN ANTI WHO SAW THE LIGHT??? What little success this thread may have contributed to our understanding of how to deal with the antis went down the drain just as soon as Mister I-Am So-Goddamned-Much-Smarter-Than-You-Idiots-Don't-You-Know-I-Am-Moses decided to start sniping. AND THEN he says he steers the thread toward tax policy (of all things and it seems to be his fave subject) IN ORDER TO FURTHER THE MOVEMENT.

What I cannot understand is why ANYBODY responds directly. Notice I am NOT mentioning this pest by name. Here's my recommendation: When he starts up, begin your next post with a quote from him, then type: "Shaddap". THEN go ahead and write on the op or at least ON TOPIC and maybe we can keep this menace from having us all yakking about the damned tax rate instead of how to further the movement he claims to want to "help".

Unwatch Topic.

As usual, the point of my postseems to have gonea mile over your head.

 

[Il_Duce]

imported post

Great contribution, Alex. Really furthered the discussion you're complaining about being disrupted.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

imported post

Now that we've beaten to death the point that most people can't be easily pigeon-holed or stereotyped as liberal/conservative, I'd like to move on and make another point about the article.

Robin described herself as a "typical liberal" in most respects, but she too denied that she was a pure stereotype. In particular, she said that unlike almost all her friends, she never accepted the notion that criminals are just victims of society and need to be given special dispensation. "I never excuse crime because of the bad guy's race, creed, age, sex or daddy being a meanie". Perhaps this is one of the characteristics most likely to lead an anti into becoming a 2nd Amendment supporter. The abstract concerns about freedom, preventing government tyranny, proper interpretation of the founding fathers pales in the face of personally being a victim of crime.

In my own experience in fact, the only times I've been able to "get through" to antis is when they have been, or nearly been, victims of serious crime. Debating, arguing, harassing them with boatloads of facts and logic usually goes nowhere. The audio I posted under "True Tales of Self Defense" about the recent 911 tape is more likely to win converts than any polished argument by John Lott.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

It's too bad she couldn't save her family.

Even better is the audio that starts off NatGeo's "Guns in America", which features a woman calling the police because her stalker had finally decided to break in. While we're listening, he comes into her room. She demands he leaves, tells him she's armed, then fires, probably saving her life.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:

In my own experience in fact, the only times I've been able to "get through" to antis is when they have been, or nearly been, victims of serious crime. Debating, arguing, harassing them with boatloads of facts and logic usually goes nowhere. The audio I posted under "True Tales of Self Defense" about the recent 911 tape is more likely to win converts than any polished argument by John Lott.

You hit the nail on the head. Experience is the best, and often the only, teacher. Don't think it doesn't work both ways though. The antis won't budge until they get mugged. The "freedom has risks," free-for-all crowd won't budge until a loved one is killed by a drunk driver. Unfortunately, in both cases, that point of eye opening comes too late.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Il_Duce wrote:

I know many people who call themselves conservative who are anti gun. Vehemently.

It is NOT a liberal/conservative divide.

Correct. It's an individualistic/authoritarian divide. There is no person more abhorrent than one who believes he is entitled to use the power of the state to compel your conduct.

Let's all stay the f- out of each others' business.

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Il_Duce wrote:

I know many people who call themselves conservative who are anti gun. Vehemently.

It is NOT a liberal/conservative divide.

Correct. It's an individualistic/authoritarian divide. There is no person more abhorrent than one who believes he is entitled to use the power of the state to compel your conduct.

Let's all stay the f- out of each others' business.

I like the Libertarian approach, too. "Keep the government out of my business (and her uterus)"... The government should be as small as possible and should serve the people, not have the people serving the government.

I've found that most (maybe not all) liberals firmly believe the government knows what is best for you and think "bigger is better". There are a few conservatives that are equally guilty of "Big Government".