Posts Made By: Tony Aguire

Timothy McDougall said:

Obama: "Nothing to see here folks, nothing at all...move along, move along." :S

David Cotterell said:

Recent events brought this to mind: Of course a huge "IF" is involved. A thought experiment let's say.

What country on Earth, past or present, might one move to if one wanted to have: minimal government, unencumbered and un regulated free enterprise, as little socialistic policy as possible (no labour unions, work for welfare, low minimum wage, low taxes etc.), an overall morality/ethos/modus operandi that is firmly rooted in religious thought, strictly and severely limited immigration and so on and so forth?

Is there such a place? WAS there such a place? Would any of the august denizens of this forum fantasize, at least, about such a country????

Dave

Herb York said:

http://www.usdebtclock.org

Enjoy your "victory"

Rob Wiederrich said:

Washington has over 8.5% and it is a tragedy. Plus I have never seen the number of houses up for sale in my area. Just along a mile long road I travel there were over 22 homes up for sale. An alarming number, since more folks are unemployed and who can no longer afford their homes. Sell them or foreclose. 8O I have 2 friends who have had their homes on the market for over 2 years and nothing. The comp numbers are rising and the value is dropping. Almost everybody is under water on their homes.

Alan French said:

"It all makes sense now, gay marriage and marijuana being legalized in Washington State on the same day. Leviticus 20:13: If a man lays with another man he should be stoned. We were just interpreting it wrong."

david elosser said:

[quote] "...The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.

There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt - are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.

During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself..."

Okay who said that? Romney? Ryan? Gingrich? Reagan? Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Glen Beck? Sean Hannity? Richard Davis?

Take a look:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/

David E

Jim Johnson said:

I don't think much of the UN but I think some conservatives (especially the religious right) and libertarians go overboard with their fear and paranoia of the UN. The gun treaty crap that gets emailed from time to time is one example. The latest is the vote against signing the UN treaty on disabilities. It was negotiated by George I and supported by many conservatives including Bob Dole who made a wheelchair visit to support the vote. The US led the world wih the first comprehensive disability act so we should be happy that the rest of the world is following us. Do guys like Rand really believe the treaty will have any teeth? It's a symbolic act. Even Russia and China signed it and they, like us, will never surrender any sovereignty to the UN. We have always done things the way we want to regardless of world opinion.

We have been at odds with the UN for so long and even more so lately. If it goes against us we withhold our dues. We should either sh*t or get off the pot.

Jim J

Greg Shaffer said:

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals.


Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... [COLOR="Red"]it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit[/COLOR]. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

I LIKE IT!!! How about you?

Herbert York said:

Too little too late.

http://www.usdebtclock.org