94 Camel

Respectfully, due to your opinion, I would not want you representing me. Although with Obama, there are many reasons for my lack of faith in him as a leader beside the gun issue.

You are in a rare situation. The fight statistic is enough to show that. How many parent contacts have you had where the parent has told you that their kid shouldn't have to go to school anyway? How many parent contacts have you had where the parents asked you to quit calling them? How many students have you had in your classroom that have come to high school with more than 5 criminal charges already on their record?

I would say that he is more pro health care than anti-gun, but he is anti gun. Given his own choice, citizens would not own handguns or assault weapons. I do not understand scaredy-cat stuff. Is this some sort of logical argument, or is it claiming that any of RTS statements were false?:popcorn:

Are you really trying to say that trust in our government wasn't at its peak during the early 50's? I thought you were a teacher.

I disagree. I believe the right to vote should remain the same, except that if you choose to depend on a government relief program, you should lose the right to vote. Property ownership is not the same as being self supporting. However, I do believe that people on the doll spending someone else's money have no right to decide our leadership.

It is not ridiculous. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by our founding fathers. Sorry if you like part of the Constitution ace and not others, but it applies in 2010 the same as it applied in 1789.

Simple, but very true statement.

You are forgetting about Highlands.

Got back from Ouachita in Arkansas this past week. Four of us caught 187 largemouth from 14-20 inches in six days. A lot of 3-4's with the biggest weighing in at 4 lbs 5ozs. However, no monsters, but a great week. The FLW tour was coming in behind us.

I wasn't aware that John Stewarts out of context comedic cut ups carried any weight in an intelligent debate. There are millions of people in this country who are employed and don't pay taxes. A flat tax is the only answer that is an equal share.

People on social security are recieving far more than the dividend they invested towards during their working lives.

I agree that a lack of consequence is certainly the problem.

Due to the fact that there are far more baby boomers that are collecting than Americans paying in, along with the extended life expectancy. It is in the red, and sooner or later, a generation is going to have to pay the bill. Most baby boomers will collect every dime they have paid into the account in adjusted dollars by the time they collect for 3.5 years. At least those were the figures that my Macro teacher gave my class when I was an undergrad. If you are under 30 and relying on social security, you will be in a world of hurt when you get older. Wealth redistribution is occurring due to working people's money going to the retired class. It is not a retirement solution for the young. It is instead a welfare program for the old and disabled.

It is flat unbelievable that you would seriously consider these close to the same threat as the one faced from Al Queida. For one thing, several of the loners mentioned are dead. Threat eradicated.

How is social security not wealth redistribution under its current direction?

I believe in health insurance being purchased on your own accord, and suffering the consequences if you choose not to. The problem is providing healthcare to people using other people's money. I believe that providing for yourself is the very definition of responsibility.

My coutrie's security is exrtremely important to me. Profiling is used all the time. Police profile the percentages. It is MUCH more likely that a terrorist will be of Middle Eastern descent than other nationalities. Sorry folks, that is not hate, that is simply a fact. As far as the Mc Vae statement made earlier, sure we have had domestic terrorism. However, I think world conditions mandate that we remain realistic and not politically correct.:puke:

Social security and medicare would be a good start.

Radical Ace, is definately mandating nationalized healthcare. FDR, the father of the social welfare state, didn't even begin to tred this water.

Agreed. The emancipation proclamation was as soft as it could have been under the circumstances towards slavery and the south. It should be kept in mind that had Lincoln lived, reconstruction would have also been a softer process.

Doesn't take a decade.

Once again, a ridiculous statement. I understand that you consider yourself to be a historian, so here it is. The only two presidents that could be considered more "radical" that Obama are, by far FDR, and by a slighly less margin, Jackson. It is tough to argue against the invention of total social welfare in this country with the New Deal and incidents like the Court Packing Scheme as making FDR the far most radical. Jackson falls into the category because he intentionally overstepped his executive power.

Irish born or one generation removed, YES.

Possibly the only statement of yours that I have read and agreed with fully on this post.:thumb:

It seems, with my limited experience in this forum, that there are many posters who avoid answering direct questions.:sssh: