Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment The Plot thickens......

<a href="WWW.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com." target="_blank">one you should look at</a>

It always amazes me when I read or hear that people actually think that the government can create jobs or, for that matter, make anything. No president will ever be able to change the job market. There is one reason and one reason only why certain jobs are leaving America: Those goods and/or services cost less to produce overseas. This is a economic process that has been going on since the beginning of recorded history and is called "comparative advantage" by economists. The idea is that economic well being (over the long-run) is best served when economies produce only those things they can efficiently and don't produce things they can't. The downside is that in the short run there is pain in the form of job losses, etc. We have been going through this almost since the beginning. What do you think happened to the hundreds of thousands of blacksmiths that we had around 1900? Some got other jobs. Some retired. Some refused to adapt and became poor. This is an aspect of life no government will ever change.

This garbage that the Democratic pols are spreading about job losses is the worst kind of pandering. They know they will never do anything about it. Furthermore they secretly don't want to because to punish companies for moving certain work overseas will have the result of not allowing the economy to evolve which will harm the economy even more, which will kill them politically.

The above is not far right, far left, or anything else. It is the truth-something in very short supply these days. Class warfare for short term political gain is, sadly, not lacking.

Mauser,
You don't think that corporations are sendig jobs overseas due to the 860 BILLION dollars they spend per year in maintaining compliance with government regulations? That equates to about 22.4% of the cost of doing business in the US (almost $5.00 per hour worked). I would think that if we can reduce that to less than 15% many of those jobs would stay here, better yet get it below 5%.

Is any party actually going to make this burden go away, not any of the major parties.

Bob

Gunny, I agree with you. Government regulations and taxes add greatly to the cost of doing biz in the US. These costs contribute to the "comparative advantage" reason for the loss of jobs.

This makes the claim that somehow the govt can or should do something about it hilarious. The only thing govt can do to help people get back to work is get out of the way of business.

Gunny,

Democrats, by and large, don't understand the basics of business and employment. They still haven't figured out that people don't start a business to hire people, they start a business to make money. IF the business grows to the point where they no longer can keep up with it themselves THEN they hire people. IF they continue to make a reasonable profit they continue to employ people. IF they can't continue to make a reasonable profit because of GOVENMENT regulations, increased taxes or GOVERNMENT mandated higher wages then their employees will get laid off or their jobs shifted somewhere else to the point where they can again make a reasonable profit. Republicans understand all of that, although many of them do tend to forget it from time to time. That's probably why many of the most effective Democrats are in politics and most of the most effective Republicans remain in business. For the most part we've been lucky that those Democrats in politics manage their political domains about as well as they would a business. If they ever actually got efficient we'd really have problems!

Skidrow,
I think you are confusing "Republicans and Democrats" with "Conservatives and Politicians." I believe this because if most Republicans honestly understood what you said than the majority of these regulations would be fought tooth and nail in Congress and never be enacted, the rest would be repealed as soon as a Republican majority (like we've had for 3 years) was in place.

It makes very little difference what major party a person belongs to, the vast majority of the 535 members have no backbone (right or left) and desire only to be reelected. So they spend federal money on BS projects that only help a few or enact laws that cost more in regulation and lost productivity than they would ever save in an effort to look like they are doing something for their constituents.

Politics is just that; "poli" from the Greek word for "many" and "tics" from "tiny bloodsuckers."

Bob

BTW, if the most effective Republicans are in business than we should be voting for the second best?

Gunny,



For the most part Dems are politicians and to not quite that same extent Repubs are conservatives. If that wasn't true about Republicans a concealed carry law never would have seen the light of day in your legislature and if it wasn't true about the Dems you'd have had a concealed carry law this year. As it is one of your Dems changed his yes vote for a nay vote in the name of "party unity" rather than sound policy and sold both you and his integrity down the river.



Dems controlled both houses of Congress for over 40 years and even after regaining control of both houses the Republican majority has been too thin to get much of anything done without playing "lets make a deal." Then you have those east coast Republicans who seem to feel they've been left out and the next thing you know the Dems control the Senate again.



Most Republicans know that holding political office is about as satisfying as banging your head against a brick wall so they keep their corner high rise offices instead of becoming a candidate for the next hack job by the liberal media. Come'n Gunny, which would you rather be, the president of a major Fortune 500 company with all the perks or the POTUS and end up a stationary target for every "journalist" in the country with an axe to grind?







Because in most cases, even the second best is light years ahead of anyone the Dems can come up with. I'd much rather vote for someone who could understand a logical argument than someone who could "feel my pain."





"Brewed to perfection it tastes so good, satisfies completely like good beers should...." You'll have to come up with your own music.

The problem is they are both politicians. If all Republicans were conservatives your later comment, "Then you have those east coast Republicans who seem to feel they've been left out ..." wouldn't have to be made. And after that you can look at the current RINO's who control the party (neocons) and it should be painfully obvious that "Republican = Conservative" is going the way of the dodo. Don't even start the "Party Unity" comment, no President in modern times has used more coersion on members of the party than the one currently in office, and this to support things like FTAA, additional spending ($500 Billion in the red this year), and it will continue for his illegal amnesty plan.



Regarding our Concealed Carry vote, it wouldn't have gone through 5 years ago with Tommy Thompson as Governor. My take is that if Dave Zien wasn't involved it would have stood a better chance.





Democrats may have controlled the Congress for long, but not with a large enough majority to get things done without SIGNIFICANT Republican assistance. Had the Republicans fought things that are clearly outside the purview of the federal government we wouldn't have many of them. And, don't try to say that such Republicans would not have been reelected, look at who gets and stays in Congress...





I don't know, ask the Bush's, they've been both so it can't be that bad. Once I have been both come back and ask me, I would have an answer, right now either looks better than what I am.





This is my quote, it just got out of order...



Compassionate Conservatism... enough said.









... Better quality, smoothness you'll agree. Point Special Beer.



mmm... great stuff <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ultra Conservative, the type who dont care about anyone but their own riches. Religious nuts like Jerry Fallwell, who try to impose their regilous beliefs on others.

That definition could only have come from a Kalifornian <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />- but really that is a bit off base. Certainly religion comes into play but personal wealth is not prerequisite.

That definition came from a farm boy, I care less what your definition is.

Come on Gunny, while for the most part there's some truth to what you say, you're shading the facts and you know it. For instance:



Wasn't talking about a vote that never took place when Tommy Thompson was governor. At issue is a situation where a concealed carry law was within on vote of over riding the governor's veto and becomming law and one Democrat changed his vote from yea to nea to sustain the veto. After the vote he freely admited that the content of the bill had nothing to do with him changing his vote. He stated that he changed his vote not on the merits of the bill but purely and simply to sustain the governor's veto for a show of party unity. It also had nothing to do with Dave Zien although without him the bill probably never would have gotten as far as it did.

As far as the Democrats needing SIGNIFICANT Republican assistance to get things done when they controlled congress you need to do a little reasurch. During the period of Democrat control prior to the Republicans taking control in '94 the Democrats always has significantly larger marjoritys in both houses than the Republicans have ever enjoyed since '94. They didn't need Republican assistance for a simple majority vote and in the Senate for most of that time they didn't even need Republican votes for cloture. You might want to check out the facts behind your assertions. Check the numbers for most of the '50s, the '60, the '70s and the '80s. As far as a choice between being the president of a Fortune 500 company and POTUS goes, you're waffling and you know it. Since its an opinion question as are the rest of the points, you can't be wrong but then neither can I.

We may agree about Point but I'm not sure that I don't prefer Grain Belt or Leinenkugle. Rhinelander wasn't bad either until they went out of business in the late '60s and poured the remaining product in the river. I did enjoy the Point commercials while listening to the Milwaukee Braves Baseball Network though.

Skidrow,
Agreed, the CCW issue never came to a vote with Thompson as Governor, but it would not have passed then either. Given that a co-sponsor of the bill changed his vote (regardless of party) it does look rather bad, but you must also admit that the timing was pretty bad. Doyle is a known opponent to even private firearms ownership and backed numerous attempts by Milwaukee and Madison to impinge upon even that.

Significant assistance need not come from votes in the chambers, if we look back we've had Republican Presidents in 12 of the last 20 years, what happened to the veto? Force the Liberals to get a 2/3 majority. Doyle did it in WI and he won, on principle, not compromise. Nope, instead we get an Executive Order to the ATF to stop importation of certain "Assault Weapons" and high capacity magazines, an order that is overlapped by the 94 AWB and won't be rescinded with the (possible) sunset of the AWB. So, given George W. Bush's statement about the AWB, do you think he will rescind his father's EO?

Dave Zien is an idiot. Granted he is Marine combat vet from Vietnam, but an idoit nonetheless, at least in my experience. A few years ago he was the Guest of Honor at our Birtday Ball and I will never say a good word about him. 'Nuff said.

I'm not waffling. The assertation was that good Republicans (I read that to mean real conservatives) stay out of politics. If that is true than it just goes toward my point of current republicans being more "moderate" than the bulk of the constituents. If that is the case why are you voting for them?

Which would I rather be, a private citizen of course, neither part of the Fortune 500 nor the government.

My first Company Commander was TJ (Jake) Leinenkugel (current CEO of the beer co.), needless to say Family Day was a blast. As an aside my first I&I 1stSgt was KE Marine (no BS, that was his real name, Kenneth E Marine) and is pictured with his brother in the Time-Life series on Vietnam.

Bob

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying to some degree. I'm not saying nor do I ever recall saying that I support Bush. What I've been saying and will continue to say is that I'm against whomever the Democrat candidate will be. While that may be defacto support for Bush the intention is to keep the Democrat candidate out, not necessarily to keep Bush in. If there were a viable third option I'd seriously consider supporting it but I just don't see one. Still don't see where, how, why EOs have the force of law outside the boundrys of DC either but I don't have the BUCKs to try to get it before the Supremes and damn little faith in the outcome even if I could.

Zien may well be an idiot. I've never met the man and you have so I'll defer to your closer knowledge. That still doesn't change the fact that while Doyle may have stood on principle with his veto the Democrat member (whose name escapes me at the moment) who sustained it by changing his vote "to promote party unity" instead of voting his conscience reminds me of something you might get stuck to the sole of your shoe when stepping off the sidewalk into the gutter to cross the street. And I'm not talking about gum.



Don't know that I said ALL the good Republicans stay out of politics. Believe what I said was many or most. Since there ARE Republicans in politics what you sometimes get are the best of the best and conversely you also get the mediocre. In either event I'd prefer the Republican to most Democrats since while the Republican may not get much done for me I feel certain the the Democrat would get a lot done to me. I don't know that Bush will do all that much to protect my right recognized by the Second Amendment but I do know that whomever the Democrat candidate is he'll do his level best to infringe on it and make matters worse than they already are. Given the choice between being ignored and harrassed I'll take ignored every time. A vote for the opponent of your enemy is a vote against your enemy, not necessarily for his opponent.

Interesting connection to the Leinenkugle Brewery. I wonder if either you or Jake could tell me where the "Big Eddy Springs" are. I've never been able to find them when I've been in that area. Drank a lot of his family's product during the beer strike. Remember that?

Skid,
At one time you said you supported 3rd Party candidates so I know your mind is open. If you've decided to vote the "lesser of two evils" I can't say anything that will stop you, nor will I try. Personally I think some tension between the parties (one in the Executive and one having majority in the Legislature) is a good thing. Really, what did Clinton do to your gun rights once the 94 election was over? Secondly, look at the lack of real intelligent debate over bills in this Congress, either the Republicans are coercing their party or the Democrats are trying to use the filibuster.

Also, remember that the Republicans went from 3rd party to holding the presidency in less than 20 years. Maybe there is something to voting for the outsider after all.



A very Asian (Sun Tzu) way of thinking, but perhaps flawed. First, if they are ignoring you then they are listening to the squeeky wheel, and you aren't it. Second, if you continue to support the opponent of your enemy eventually the oppenent believes you to be a friend and assumes you will support him.

Bob

You seem to forget that after the '94 elections Clinton's party lost control of both houses of Congress. Had the Democrats remained in control of Congress I seriously doubt we'd have any but the most minimal access to firearms and that increased regulation and confiscation would have become the order of the day. Remember Diane Feinstine and the statement she made after the passage of the "Assault Weapons" ban that if she could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate she would have gone for confiscation? Once the precedent of confiscation has been set each following instance becomes easier and more acceptable. Look at what has already happened in California and NY city. What Clinton did to my gun rights in the first two years of his administration was quite enough, thank you very much. I see no need to experience a Kerry administration work with similiar energy to promote his version of "protecting" my 2nd Amendment rights.

As it stands now its looking more and more like Kerry will be the Democrat candidate. What I would really like to know Bob, since you feel so strongly that Bush shouldn't have a second term, is what is it about Kerry, or any other liberal Democrat that you're so enamored with that you want him to become President? You know that there are only going to be two viable candidates, Bush and his Democrat opponent, so what is it that is so appealing to you about having Kerry, or any other liberal Democrat, become the POTUS? Its pretty simple Bob, either Bush wins or the Democrat candidate does. What makes the only viable alternative to Bush so appealing to you?

As far as a third party gaining the Presidency in 20 years, I seriously doubt that's going to happen. The Liberatarians have been trying a lot longer than that and they aren't even close. Even if there was a chance of that happening I don't feel the need to be harrassed for 20 years just to find that even if it does happen then it will be too late to undo the damage done by the Kerrys, Deans, Pelosis, Kennedys et al.

What's wrong with Asia? Singha, OB, San Migel and 33 weren't all that bad either.

Your first sentence is my point. With one party in the White House and one with a majority in Congress (no matter how slight) there is enough tension, post 94 anti-firearm bills are proof of this. As for Kerry, see my response below.


Both Kerry and Bush are known quantities. Kerry has been a mediocre Senator at best, he has supported many liberal bills, but not one bill he sponsored has been passed (even during the Clinton years). Bush on the other hand has shown scant regard for the base of those who elected him (except the religious right). The 2nd Amendment is not a stand alone item, it is locked with the rest of the document. It can't truly stand without the 1st (Campaign Finance Reform), 4th (Patriot Act), or 6th (Illegal Detention).

What do I like about Kerry, nothing. What do I like about Bush, nothing. What difference does it make to me, not much. Hopefully there will be enough disagreement between Congress and the White House that bill which impinges upon our freedoms will be hotly contested by the opposing party and simply die. The best evidence we have of that is the post 94 Clinton Presidency. Right now that tension is lacking and things that never should have passed have.



The Libertarians haven't had a rallying point like slavery. Marijuana, pornography and guns don't make good rallying points. Once that rallying point comes out there will be a serious shakeup of the system again. And any damage can be undone. No law is truly permanent, it can be cnanged/removed, the Constitution can be amended and as a last resort we can go the way of the founders.

Had you asked Capt. Washington in 1764 if he thought the colonies would break from England within 20 years what would his answer be? If you asked President Jefferson in 1805 if Virgiania would secede from the Union within 60 years what would his answer have been? I am not, nor do I believe the Libertarian Party is, suggesting armed revolt (if they were I wouldn't read a word they said), but it's not unheard of.

We've been telling people for years that the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting, that if they could restrict a right they were supposed to secure, other rights would follow. Yet it wasn't gun-grabbers that have taken the first big strides in limiting rights they didn't grant and therefore can't take. The party we all thought would be for smaller government and less intrusion has done just the opposite for 3 years, should we give them another 4?


There's nothing wrong with Asia, in fact that was meant as a compliment. Most people fail to look long-term, voting against your enemy by proxy is an Asian concept, not a Western one. Latrobe 33, my favorite non-German beer <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> .

Actually, while you may believe it can't stand alone, ultimately it can enforce them all. Sure there are the naysayers who will say you can't defeat a modern military equipped as well as ours without equal equipment but I'm sure you are as familiar as I am with the ten to one rule. Perhaps its time to chuck it all and "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war." The saddest thing about the country of my birth is that even though all that remains is a pale shadow of what once was there's still no place better to leave it for. Even amoung the ruins of its former grandeur its still the brightest beacon on this darkening earth. Its a shame that we could have sunk so low and still be the best there is.