Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bill G on November 11, 2008 at 6:18

Change! Gil Lawton, Change.

This is the order that I think that the change will occur. Remember, by some members of this forum I am just an un edjucated man with a spelling problem and far right ideas but this is my thread so here is my 2 cents. It is simple, and some people will argue with this and that this is his plan.

Take in consideration he is about to band talk radio...our only true form of reliable media. He already controls the main stream media...and hew owes them, They help put him there

1) He will Legalize Latino's and other illegal alliance, but he will do this so slick and smooth. It will be done in a way that if we say anything about it we will be considered racist and not politically correct. (He owes it to them they put him there with AZ, FL, and NM)

2) He will Socialize this economy through Mass unionization of work force (He owes it to them they help put him there ( PA )

3) Then in his second term when he has control of the majority vote with the latino, african american and the Unions that will not leave his side for anything in the world because of the benifits he will have created for them through Legalizing them, Well Fare, and Unionization....Then he will try to fullfill his final destiney....and that is the reason this thread is so popular and has over 230 comments and climbing....he will Go after our democracy, our life style and our constitution.

He said it straight up....he didnt lie to us america CHANGE!!!!!!! He said his plan for change will take 2 Terms and I have explained to you his Plan of CHANGE and the order he will impliment them.

Excuse my spelling and Grammer there are some members that like to put me down for that.

BILL G

Permalink Reply by MJC on November 11, 2008 at 7:09

There are some here who have drank the Obama kool-aid. What I see is the consistent mindset of "what is he going to do for my pocketbook?" There is more to America and our great Constitution (which is built upon Christian values) than our pocketbooks. Obama and his leftist policies will tear down America as we know it.
A few of these which come to mind are socialized medicine where you will have to wait indefinitely for medical care. The quality of medical care for the average citizen will deteriorate dramatically. Higher taxes. Yes, taxes will increase. Somebody is going to have to pay for the windfall profits taxes he will impose on the oil companies and his leftist social programs. It's always the consumer. Hmmm, I wonder if it will have an impact on the taxes we pay on royalties and lease bonuses? His close associations with known terrorists, white collar criminals and criminal politicians such as the Fannie/Freddie gang. His sitting on the Joyce Foundation's board and giving out hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-gun groups. Voting in favor of anti-gun measures that will ban ALL handguns and semi-automatic firearms. A 500% tax on all ammunition. Bans on any ammunition that can wound or is high-powered and on and on. Gun control will also be a part of his national healthcare scheme. Stem cell research. Doesn't that require killing babies? Speaking of killing babies, he is in full support of unrestricted tax payer funded abortion. The fairness doctrine. Now we're talking about restricting the only part of the Bill of Rights the libs seem to recognize. Oh, and by the way, Christian radio is considered hate speech by the left. I wonder what the role of his national security force is going to be? Sounds like a Nazi group that will oversee the masses. He will stack the Supreme court and the lower courts with liberal appointees who will legislate from the bench. These are only a few issues on a very long list. This man is a monster. I wonder if you Obama supporters are like minded?

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 11, 2008 at 7:17

The sad part of socialism is the loss of individual freedoms.

Permalink Reply by MJC on November 11, 2008 at 7:46

PG,
I agree. The burden of freedom is heavy and the leftists do not like the responsibility that comes with it.

"Unless a man has the talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, "to be free of freedom."
Eric Hoffer -- The True Believer


The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life. -- Teddy Roosevelt

Permalink Reply by Duncan McGehee on November 11, 2008 at 11:05

apparently the kool-aids kids have had their way with you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry4...

It’s been almost 6 months since Obama suggested that people cling to guns because they are bitter, a.k.a. “bitter-gate,” but he is still plagued by questions about his position on gun control. At a town hall meeting today, a voter told Obama that there are rumors that he is going to take away guns. “People love hunting,” the man told Obama.

Obama said he is aware that the issue is being “peddled again and again,” but he assured the crowd that he will not take away guns that are legally obtained.

“I believe in the Second Amendment, and if you are a law-abiding gun owner, you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration!”

Obama said his support for gun safety measures – such as background checks- does not mean that he opposes all gun ownership.

“Now, the NRA sometimes... their general attitude is look, we don’t want anything, and if you even breathe the word ‘gun control’ or ‘gun safety,’ then you must want to take away everybody’s guns. Well, that’s just not true,” he said adding that illegal guns are his concern, not those used for sportsmanship.

He also keenly noted that even if he intended to take away guns, he would not have the power to do so as president. “I couldn’t get it done. I don’t have the votes in Congress.”

As he wrapped up his rather lengthy explanation, Obama urged the crowd to look at his policies on the economy and health care rather than gun control.

“This can’t be the reason not to vote for me,” Obama said, “Because your guns... we’re not going to mess with them... spread the word with your friends.”

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081106203454AAP4nYy

500% tax on all ammunition -
It was actually a increase BY 500% not TO 500% making the total tax around 50%. (500% means 5 times the current rate).

Permalink Reply by Duncan McGehee on November 11, 2008 at 11:17

NRA Ads Are Off Target About Obama and Guns

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2...

Wednesday, September 24, 2008; Page A04

"Now I learn that Barack Obama supports a huge new tax on my guns and ammo."

-- Karl Rusch, National Rifle Association "Hunter" video, Sept. 22



The National Rifle Association has opened fire on Barack Obama for allegedly supporting a "huge new tax" on gun owners. The charge is contained in a series of new television ads attacking the Democratic presidential candidate for his "anti-gun" stance. While it is clear that Obama is no friend of the NRA, the tax charge rests on very flimsy evidence. There are other problems with the ads as well.

THE FACTS


The NRA video shows a Virginia hunter and Iraq war veteran, Karl Rusch, complaining about the high cost of gasoline and accusing Obama of planning a "huge new tax" on "guns and ammo."

"Where is this guy from?" Rusch asks. "He's probably never been hunting a day in his life."


The video cites a decade-old clip from a Chicago newspaper to support its claim that Obama favors a huge new gun tax. The December 13, 1999, article in the Chicago Defender said that Obama, then an Illinois state senator, supported a "500 percent" increase in the federal tax on the sale of "weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths."

It is unclear from the article exactly what weapons would have been covered by the proposed tax. Most of the article deals with proposals by Obama to "increase the penalties on gun runners who are flooding Chicago's streets with illegal weapons." Even if Obama did support a big tax increase on the sale of certain types of assault weapons back in 1999, that is hardly evidence that he will move as president to tax the "guns and ammo" most commonly used by hunters such as Rusch.

The NRA video also accuses Obama of voting "to ban virtually all deer-hunting ammunition" and supporting "a ban on shotguns and rifles most of us use for hunting." The deer-hunting claim is based on Obama's support for an unsuccessful Senate amendment by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would have expanded the definition of "armor-piercing" ammunition. The other claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.

Contrary to Rusch's claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at "virtually all deer-hunting ammunition." Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would "not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles," a point contested by the NRA.

Rusch did not respond to a telephone message requesting comment.

THE PINOCCHIO TEST


While it is true that Obama favors tighter gun laws, it is a huge stretch to argue that he wants to take away the guns and ammunition most commonly used by hunters. The claim that he favors "a huge new tax on guns and ammo" rests on a confusingly worded nine-year-old newspaper article that has little relevance for Obama's platform as a presidential candidate. The NRA misfires on this one.


THREE PINOCCHIOS:

Significant factual errors.

Permalink Reply by Bill G on November 11, 2008 at 11:59

If you think this guy has are 2nd amendment in his best interest you need to go back to your left wing hand book and take another look!

Permalink Reply by Duncan McGehee on November 11, 2008 at 12:28

I don't have a left wing hand book, but do have more than 10 guns and I'm not worried about him taking them. This hysteria is all about getting the gullible to buy more guns. Apparently it worked. Sales are through the roof.

Same thing went down when Clinton was elected. Gun manufacturers sales exploded. It's all designed to scare people into increasing the gun companies profits.

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on November 11, 2008 at 12:33

Yea , that weapons ban of Clintons was a myth as well. They used it to see how forgetful and stupid people really are.

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on November 11, 2008 at 11:28

Duncan,
Please correct me if I am looking at this wrong. But the way I understood what you just said about the increase in tax on ammunition would work like this:
if a box of ammo costs $20.00
say if tax was 10% = 2.00
total cost of $22.00

After the increse on ammo tax:
box of ammo $20.00
new tax 10.00
total cost of $30.00

Sorry Duncan, He isn't the gun owners friend.
Why would he raise this tax this much? I believe because he truly doesn't like gun ownership, but admittedly knows he may not be able to increase gun control.
He said "Because your guns...we're not going to mess with them...spread the word to your friends."
BUT MAYBE IF I MAKE AMMUNITION SO EXPENSIVE, YOU CAN'T USE THEM.
ha ha ha US DUMBBUTTS - IF WE OWN GUNS WE MUST REALLY BE STUPID (he thinks)

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on November 11, 2008 at 15:57

KB,
Not getting into that. Just responding to what Dunkin Mcfee said. Or Duncan McGeHee said.

Permalink Reply by Duncan McGehee on November 11, 2008 at 12:20

Your guess is as good as mine. I can see it being $10 for the new tax and I could see it being $3 for the new tax. Everything I've read on this has been very murky.

I'm not to worried about this anyway. I'll get my reloading equipment out and start reloading again. The price of the bullets are through the roof anyway and have been for several years. The problem is getting the primers I want. Hard to find Remington 209s (I think that's the primer number I use) anymore.

Obama has been consistant; from what I've read, on handguns used to kill people, but then look at NYC's handgun policy. Pretty tough. Personally all the glocks and handguns of that ilk are useless to me. I prefer the 22, but do have a TC Contender with .35 Rem Mag barrel and .222 barrel. Both single shot and very accurate.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• …
• 27
• Next ›
• Page