Thoughts on the State of the Union

2/13/2013 11:04:30 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	Watching all those clapping "Jack in the Box" people popping up and down over and over makes me want to play "Whack a Mole" with a big wooden mallet! Aslo, would somebody please explain to me how restricting the Second Ammendment gun rights of responsible law abiding citizens would protect Hadiya Pendleton from being shot and killed a mile from Obama's Chicago home by the incomprehensibly stupid Chicago gang members Michael Ward and Kenneth Williams that irresponsibly and completely irrationally "mistook" her for a rival gang member? How is attacking responsible and rational law abiding people going to accomplish that? The entire address was filled with misconceptions, half-truths, senseless rhetoric, optimistic mental meanderings, and outright lies and deceptions. How is it that Obama expects any rational person with a scrap of common sense to take him seriously? Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
2/14/2013 10:30:07 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	See the fact check under the Rubio response post.
2/14/2013 10:43:54 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	how are my 2nd amendment gun rights being restricted? keeping in mind that even antonin scalia, arguably the most conservative justice ever to serve on the court, opined in heller that 'no right is absolute' and that restricting arms that are 'dangerous and unusual' is perfectly in compliance with the 2nd amendment.
2/14/2013 11:06:41 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	OK, and freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. So to keep you entertined for a while please define "dangerous and unusual". There is nothing "dangerous and unusual" in firearms available for sale across the counter in any gun store in America today. Granted, all firearms are dangerous as are a lot of other inantimate objects. What makes them "unusual"? Define that for us.
2/14/2013 11:20:56 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from 58dpilot: OK, and freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. So to keep you entertined for a while please define "dangerous and unusual". There is nothing "dangerous and unusual" in firearms available for sale across the counter in any gun store in America today. Granted, all firearms are dangerous as are a lot of other inantimate objects. What makes them "unusual"? Define that for us. you'll have to ask scalia that question? his words, not mine. but my guess is that when he commented, 'Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons' he was refering to the the muskets and pistols in use by the common citizen at the time the 2nd amendment was written and that military weapons used today do not meet that criteria.
2/14/2013 11:33:14 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	Quote from jrbogie1949: you'll have to ask scalia that question? his words, not mine. but my guess is that when he commented, 'Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons' he was refering to the the muskets and pistols in use by the common citizen at the time the 2nd amendment was written and that military weapons used today do not meet that criteria. Well it is true that you ban buy muzzle leoading firearms, both rifles and pistols including mulitple shot revolvers, on the internet and have them deilvered through the mail if you provide evidence that you are at least 18 years old. That has to do with firearms laws, and nothing to do with the second ammendment. Lets try to stay on tipic here so now back to the subject: Obmas State of the Union Address: I see it as nothing more than a repeat of what he has been promoting all along and it is not by any stretch of the imagination a reflection of the "State of the Union" (see the line by line fact check under the Rubio post). Obama used the opportunity to make aother progressive liberal campaign statement of dogma describing the wish list in his quest to fundamentally redefine America and begin it's conversion from a Republic with a democraticform of government to a full Socialist Democracy.
2/14/2013 11:51:02 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	you made at least part of the topic the 2nd amendment in YOUR op.
2/14/2013 11:53:52 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	how would obama convert our representative form of government to a socialist democracy?? would that not require a constitutional amendment???
2/14/2013 12:35:09 PM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	Quote from jrbogie1949: how would obama convert our representative form of government to a socialist democracy?? would that not require a constitutional amendment??? Officially yes, it would. However it is easy to argue that there are many, many things government is invovled in or does that are patently unconstitutional. The fact that something isn't constitutional or violates the constitution does not prevent the government or leaders in it from doing it. Case in point is Obama's recess appointments of people to the National Labor Relations board. Though ruled unconstitutional by a federal court those people are still in those positions and the Obama administration has no plans to comply with the ruling of that court and instead plans an appeal to the supreme court. Regardless, in the absence of a final ruling by the Supreme Court these people are still in a position to control and influence commerce and labor issues. True, if the supreme court upholds the lower court's ruling all those rulings will be declared null and void and the positions vacated. Regardless they will have still created inifluences that even though they are in violation of the constitution will take years to address and correct, and many never will. The courts are going to be bogged down for years hearing each of these indivivdual cases, many of which will probably be appealed again to the supreme court. It is much more difficult to undo do a crime than to prevent it in the first place. It is a widespread and common tactic used effectively by progressive socialists to slowly change and influence things regardless of constitutional protections. They may lose a lot of it it but some will stick. When Obama issues executive orders he knows that many violate any number of laws. He is unconcerned because he knows some of them will stick. When pursuing an agenda rather than choose precisely targeted issues that are certain to fail upon consideration by lawmakers they shoot a barrage. That makes cleaning up all the damage so time consuming and difficult that it is not possible to get all of it. That is how they advance an agenda one tiny peice at a time until in the end the original product is indistiguishable in the outcomes.
2/15/2013 9:52:29 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	there's nothing untoward about appealing the ruling on the appointments. somebody has to be in those positions until all appeals on the matter have been exhausted. prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court as well but gays still cannot be married in california pending appeal to the supremes. [Edited 2/15/2013 9:53:43 AM ]
2/15/2013 10:18:06 PM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	Quote from jrbogie1949: there's nothing untoward about appealing the ruling on the appointments. somebody has to be in those positions until all appeals on the matter have been exhausted. prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court as well but gays still cannot be married in california pending appeal to the supremes. That is the problem isn't it? Until I got to college I thought vetting by the supreme court was automatic. Well, it isn't. It allows anyone to do anything until they are called out on it. I see that as a problem. The court should be part of the vetting process of any new law automatically. It should pass their muster before it is enacated. It is easier to prevent a crime than to clean it up.
2/16/2013 9:32:07 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	the problem with your idea of the court vetting is the small matter of 'separation of powers.'
2/16/2013 10:02:37 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	Quote from jrbogie1949: the problem with your idea of the court vetting is the small matter of 'separation of powers.' I understand that. Regardless, it is a problem.
2/16/2013 10:22:06 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	Case in point: "Obamacare" was sold as one thing and affirmed by the court as another. Had people known it was a "tax" I doubt it it would have passed. By camoflage, intentional or not, it managed to survive. Now people are beginning to see it's real impacts and a large majority of people don't like it. It is now known that it will definitely raise everyone's health care insurance costs by a significant amount and not improve the health care system at all. A very scary aspect is that one can not opt out. It is something no one can escape. It compels people to do something and pay for it whether they want to or not, or pay a penatly. Imagine the outrage if military conscription were made mandatory for everyone upon reaching age 18. The basic concept is the same. Not unlike Medicare that was supposed to cost something like 11 billion over 10 years and wound up costing over 120 billion it's real cost and other effects are yet to be discovered. One thing is certain, it's going to cost much, much more than it's proponents accounting tricks predict. There is truth in the statement that it will "have to pass so we can see what's in it"! It is a perfect example of something that can get sweezed through where cleaning up the damage is going to very expensive and hard to do. And there is the problem. Regardless of which side of the fence one sits on we cannot trust our politicians. We can't trust them to tell the truth, nor can we tust them to do the right thing. The same goes for government bureaucrats. The more we have of both the worse things get.
2/16/2013 11:13:16 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	the court gets about eight thousand petitions every year and has the time to hear oral arguments only on about eighty. where would they find the time to vett every law that congress or the state legislatures debate not to mention local government laws such as the d.c. handgun ban or the dover school district trying to disguise creationism as intelligent design. i would agree that the court should have waited until someone had been harmed by the obama care mandate but i think it was arguments from people like you who wanted the act stopped in it's tracks that prompted them to act. so in this case you got what you wanted. nobody had been harmed by the mandate but the court vetted it anyway and still you b*tch because they ruled differently than you would have liked.
2/16/2013 12:37:42 PM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	talk about big government. i wonder how many government employess would need hiring if every law or statute had to be vetted by judges. yeow!!!
2/16/2013 7:53:41 PM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	Quote from jrbogie1949: talk about big government. i wonder how many government employess would need hiring if every law or statute had to be vetted by judges. yeow!!! The average salary of a federal employee is $77,000 a year and they have benefits that would make anyone jealous. For what? To screw with the rest of us? I think that there is a big problem here. We can do easily with a lot less of them.
2/16/2013 10:17:11 PM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	how do we vett every law and statute with fewer judges than we have now? [Edited 2/16/2013 10:18:09 PM ]
2/17/2013 10:56:18 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	I don't know. Maybe Congress needs to focus on making fundamental law and ignore the trivia? I think we have a new law named after every new disability, hard luck case or tragic event that has happened over the last 50 years. We have laws for cripples, women, minorities, murdered children, haters, people with various disabilites that probably 80% of the population quaifies for in one way or another and the list goes on. Maybe we need fewer laws and much simpler ones? When you think about it there are special laws, priviledges, and benefits for everyone except healthy, single, white, employed, productive males. There ougta be a law!
2/17/2013 11:13:25 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	Quote from 58dpilot: I don't know. happens often that folks piss and moan about government and when asked about a solution reply, 'i don't know.'
2/17/2013 11:27:02 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	That is because it is not possible for any person to wade through the millions of pages of laws, rules, regulations, mandates, codes, and executive orders that make up the system that governs us. Sometimes something is complex and broken enough that it is best to just let it fail or simply do away with it and start over.
2/17/2013 11:43:48 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	so you understand that vetting every law or statute for constitutionality is an impossible task but you think it should be done anyway??? you're sounding more the independent every day. a far right wing conservative suggesting a far left wing notion that we need bigger government even though it would be impossible to make a difference.
2/17/2013 11:49:41 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	No. What I'm saying is that the way we are doing it isn't working very well. There isn't a lot to be done about it because it has become too complex and too many people have become dependent on government largess. Things have a way of balancing, though. Badly flawed systems and methods are doomed to eventual failure and this one is. This big old freight train of a govenment is speeding towards a bottomless chasm. The country had been so divided that no one is going to work together to fix the fact that the bridge is out. It is only a matter of time.
2/17/2013 12:28:49 PM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	still, you suggested that all laws be vetted knowing it to be impossible.
2/17/2013 2:05:10 PM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	It merely reflects the fact that the system as it has evovled has become impossible. Much of it is a mindset that people have been fed by the benevolence of their goverment at every level. It is like collecting income taxes from just more than half of us (47% don't actually pay any income tax, they get more back than they pay in) and using the money however they decide to benefit whomever they please, mostly themselves by "buying votes" with it from those they have subjugated to them using the coersion of social programs.
2/17/2013 6:08:23 PM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
jrbogie1949 Ventura, CA 68, joined Mar. 2009	you see the system as impossible. i see that it works as it was designed to work and as a result there is no better place in the world where i'd choose to live. but then i'm not one to whine whever something doesn't go exactly the way i like.
2/18/2013 9:16:36 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	It doesn't really matter much at this point as it will resolve itself in due time. Whatever benefits are perceived in Obama's universal social programs will be more than wiped out when the shit hits the fan and our economy sinks under the weight of unsustainable debt. This is true of all Obama’s economic initiatives. They will all come to nothing and worse if we don’t tackle the one big monster looming on the horizon, our debt. Obama is taking us down the road to ruin. About all we can hope for it that the "obstructionists" on the other side can continue to hold him and his destructive aspirations off and that we get a real leader that doesn't suffer from the mental disorder that is progressive liberalism next time around, if by then it isn't already too late....perhaps someone smart like Dr. Ben Carson, MD?
2/18/2013 10:40:25 AM	Thoughts on the State of the Union
58dpilot Springdale, AR 62, joined May. 2012	Obama and his followers blame the recent recession on greedy financial corporations, deregulation, and capitalism resulting in market failures rather than on the true causes, bad government regulations and monetary policies. Business didn't fail us, government did. Business creates value and makes a profit and that is good. As it grows and prospers it creates new jobs for more people and everyone benefits. Profits ultimately create all growth, capital, and prosperity. Profit in busness is created through voluntary exchange, not through government redistribution and the exploitation of people or mandatory transfer and sharing of wealth as progressive liberals like Obama would have us believe. Intellectuals hate business and successful business people that they see as less intelligent but somehow more successful and prosperous than themselves. Therein lies part of the pathology of the mental disorder inherent in progressive liberal thinkers. The aspect that seals it as a form of insanity is that they continue to believe that repeating the same loftily rediculous failed policies over and over will eventually result in different outcomes. Progressive liberal thinking is the very definition of intellectual failure. It may be fine in theory, but it is doomed to failure in practice. Therein lies the greatest danger to America and our way of life and it is a path that leads to doom. Stay tuned....after printing over 2 trillion dollars out of thin air to pay for their experiments since 2007, inflation will catch up and reality will set in. The parallels with the failure of the Weimar Republic and eventual takeover by the National Soicalist Party in Germany are revealing. The quickestpath to taking control is to create a crisis, polarize and divide the people, disarm them, make them dependent on "leadership" in government for their very sustenance, and ultimately sieze complete control. History seems to repeat itself. Who wins? The very intellectual elites that are incapable of creating welth or anything of true tangible value on their own. Everyone else loses.

over 40 listcrawler

craigslist atlanta hookups