RobertNashville

Ive been so damn depressed about Tuesday that I almost forgot all about this...if folks want to meet tonight I'm up for it; I didn't bring any firearms or ammo with me aside from my carry pieces but we can always meet and get to know each other a bit. Thursday of next week works for me as well. Post here if you want to meet tonight and we'll make it happen!

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352395008' post='841851'] Gun grab? No. GOP controled House of Representatives would block any such legislation, before it could get to O's desk. Bipartisan bickering, which will take us off the financial cliff? Yes. [/quote]No "gun grab" but plenty of negative "gun consequences" as others have suggested. Take us off the financial cliff? Seriously??? I could count with less than both hand the number of politicians in WDC that might be willing to make the hard choices necessary to prevent economic collapse and it's going to take a hell of a lot more than that...will they keep the merry-go-round going for a while? Sure; but without drastic changes that 98% of the population and 99.9% of Washington doesn't have the stomach for there is no avoiding what is coming.

I wasn't sure where/what forum would be best to place this in...I thought about the Survival forum but thought perhaps this one was more appropriate. I also am cautious to suggest a book I haven't read myself yet (although I have made a good stab at it) but I think, given the election results of this past Tuesday, this may be worth the risk. David Crawford, author of "Lights Out" and whom I've had the pleasure of meeting has a new book out called "Collision Course"; the premise of which is a financial/economic meltdown. Frankly, that is exactly what I think we are heading for and especially so now that Obama will retain the Presidency. Anyway, just thought I'd throw it out there as I've liked the book so far and because I think it could well be relevant to where we are and where we are heading.

[quote name='Steelharp' timestamp='1352298101' post='840965'] Ladies and gentlemen, we have a bingo. [/quote]Yeah...and how many people here said that wasn't enough of a problem and that they were going to vote for Johnson, or Ron Paul or Flippo The Clown anyway??? Elections have consequences...we'll be feeling some of those consequences for a VERY long time.

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1352397831' post='841886'] It won't go anywhere, except by a bastardization of the Constitution. According to the vote, our house is divided, pretty evenly. If the Senate goes along with this, there will be some serious problems in our country, and I think you know what. He can do this, but the military will not be on his side. The people will not be on the Senate's side. People like Corker and Alexander would be crucified if they voted for this. Others would, too. There are a few Democrats the same way. I don't see Obama having a strong second term, except by Executive Order, and that will not work very well for him, for very long. I don't say he won't try, though. [/quote]You obviously still have [i]some[/i] faith in these clowns that I have lost.

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352395953' post='841862'] No, I think it means this: McCain was a more attractive candidate to the core GOP constituency than Romney was. If you could not get behind the candidate, you typically do not go out to vote for him...[/quote] First of all I don't agree that Mitt was less attractive to the GOP constituency than McCain...you certainly may fell that way but I just don't see the evidence to back up the opinion. I would suggest that McCain wasn't even half as good of a candidate or as good on policy positions as Romney was. My God...EVERYBODY was complaining about McCain last time around as not being "conservative" and on and on (all of which was true) and even I had to hold my nose to be able to vote for him; he was horrible on virtually any policy position you could name and he would have been a horrible president (although I'd still rather have him than an America hating socialist like we have now). Mitt was not my first choice but I do believe he was probably the best candidate the Republicans have run since Reagan and I believe he would have been a truly good President. Second, I don't understand and frankly, don't want to understand why anyone who claims to give a #### about this country won't even go the polls and vote for [u][i][b]SOMEONE[/b][/i][/u] if they cared enough to vote in 2008; that's the part I find truly perplexing no matter how much they may have hated Mitt.

Yeah...you'll keep being ignored. You will [i][b]NEVER[/b][/i] get the perfect candidate....let me repeat that...[i][b]YOU WILL NEVER GET THE PERFECT CANDIDATE[/b][/i]. Your "third-party" vote will always be wasted [i][b]and will never give you the results you claim you want[/b][/i]. But that's okay...you can ignore me and everyone who doesn't agree with you and keep doing what you are doing...maybe one day you will get that chocolate cake our of the oven.

Sad part is, if I've heard correctly; there were 13 million fewer voters overall this election than in 2008; Obummer received 10 Million fewer votes this year than in 2008 and Romney got 3 Million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. That means if those who voted for McCain last time around had voted for Mitt he would have won the election. As I said in another thread, I can understand someone not liking Mitt and voting for a third-party or write-in...I get that...I don't get how anyone who cared enough to show up for an truly uninspiring candidate like McCain in 2008 won't even bother to go to the polls this time around. I guess a lot of people truly just don't give a damn.

[b][i][color=#ff0000]I think this guy gets it.[/color][/i][/b] [size=5][font=times new roman,times,serif][i][b]THIRD-PARTY PIPE DREAMS[/b][/i]: I saw a Facebook post that argued that all the presidents on Mount Rushmore were third party guys. This can hardly be true for George Washington who had no party affiliation. Political parties were in their infancy when Thomas Jefferson was elected. It seems a new party was being started every election cycle. Jefferson belonged to the Democratic-Republican Party that he organized along with James Madison in 1791. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and dominated American politics from 1800 to the 1820s. The Republican Party, founded in 1854, was strictly a northern party that had success broader than the presidency. “[I]t enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities, by 1858, in nearly every Northern state.” Try getting conservative evangelicals, libertarians, and various factions within the Republican Party to get a new party started. Do you recall that during the primary season that as each Republican candidate bit the dust, their supporters made it clear that they would not vote for one of the other guys. If there’s one thing liberals can count on. Their supporters will stick with them through thick and thin. Look what happened to Todd Akin when he slipped up on a question about rape and abortion. Desertion and derision from enough Republicans that he lost the election. No matter how bad it got for Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat Senate nominee in Massachusetts, the Democrats never deserted her. They stuck with her through thick and thin. She’s now a senator. Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ticket, but he had national name and political recognition. He had been elected President in 1904 and had been a Vice-President before that, having become president after William McKinley was assassinated. In the 1916 election, however, Roosevelt supported the Republicans. How many people has the Constitution Party gotten elected? One. In 2006, Rick Jore of Montana was the first candidate elected to a state-level office. Good enough until the Constitution Party of Montana disaffiliated itself from the national party a short time before the election. These third parties are an embarrassment. Even so, I’m supposed to vote for a third-party guy out of “principle.” The Constitution Party’s 2012 presidential nominee was Virgil Goode. Goode had a long history of electoral experience. He served as a member of the United States House of Representatives representing the 5th congressional district of Virginia from 1997 to 2009 as a Democrat. In 2000 he switched to the Republican Party. Then he lost his seat in the 2008 election to a Democrat. Goode then joined the Constitution Party. Mr. Goode is probably a very nice man, but he had no business running for president. Goode received 98,755 votes nationwide. In reality, America’s problem is not political parties; it’s the people. They want what government has to offer. Until the people change, we will not see an appreciable change in politics.[/font][/size] [color=black][font=Times New Roman","serif][size=3][url="http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/third-party-pipe-dreams/#ixzz2BeOl5I9j"][color=#003399]http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/third-party-pipe-dreams/#ixzz2BeOl5I9j[/color][/url][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='stick1' timestamp='1352392719' post='841820'] Lets hope that civil war can evolve from this election, Greece ,France ,Ireland many European nations have had violent unrest over similar things. Let hope we can do it right.[/quote] Oh yeah...let's wish for civil war...that's a great idea. If a person has [u][b][i]ANYONE[/i][/b][/u] living in this country they give a damn about; how can such a person wish for something like civil war.

[quote name='Clod Stomper' timestamp='1352385935' post='841757'] Don't think it would be possible. The Feds aren't going to leave ANYONE alone no matter how isolated they are. Must tax 'em. Can't sell food (to each other) without USDA inspection. Heaven forbid they dam a creek to run a mill. Only way to escape will be outside the borders. [/quote]Once things get bad the Feds won't have time to worry about anything but trying to maintain order in the larger cities so a small group away from all that may well be able to do what they need to do and live the way they want to live.

[quote name='gregintenn' timestamp='1352389188' post='841787']...We had the choice of two liberals...If we're going to have a lib president, I don't know why anyone would prefer a lib Republican over a lib Democrat. At least the Dem isn't trying to pretend he is something he isn't. [/quote] Wow am I tired of hearing that "we had a choice of two liberals"...I swear if GW himself were alive and running and not "conservative" enough for someone they would chime in with that statement. I'd take a TRUE and COMPLETE liberal of either party any day, who has morals, values and who actually likes the country, over anyone of any party without those attributes.

[quote name='Moped' timestamp='1352332058' post='841432'] Nothing is going to happen, unless there is some sort of economic meltdown. I think there is a chance that it could happen, but if not, we will all be voting in the next Presidential election in 2016. [/quote]I hold two bachelor degrees in Accounting and Public Finance and a Master's as well but basic math tells me that a financial meltdown is inevitable. I won't be stupid enough to try and predict "when" but no one and no country can continue to spend nearly 150% of what it takes in and survive...no amount of manipulating the numbers can or will change that...no amount of additional taxation or even confiscation of all wealth can change that. We are going to have some severe pain to go through; Romney may (MAY) have been able to avert it but I doubt it and Obama and the current Congress sure as hell won't.

[quote name='ThePunisher' timestamp='1352166917' post='839738'] Obama probably couldn't get 10% of the military vote, and he knows it. [/quote]While completely immaterial at this point, he got Colin Powell's support. What a horses ass/turncoat that guy proved to be...thank God HE didn't run for president.

Funny...I thought there were no differences between Romney and Obama and especially on firearms related/gun control issues since Romney was the ONLY one of the two candidates who had signed an assault weapons ban. Maybe I'm wrong and of course, we'll never know, but I doubt Romney would be going this direction. Oh well...if you can't beat them (and apparently we can't) we might as well join them so I hope they make all future gun manufacturer and sales illegal because that's going to make what I have (not that I admit to having any) worth a hell of a lot on the black market.

[quote name='Lester Weevils' timestamp='1352355497' post='841685'] I don't think Obama is a better prez than GWB. But also don't think GWB was a better prez than Obama. It is a difficult thing to decide which sucks least. Kinda like trying to decide which is least painful-- a kidney stone, an infected erupted tooth, or a herniated disc? [/quote]It's not difficult for me at all, GWB wasn't a socialists at heart; he would have NEVER let four Americans die while watching it on TV and done NOTHING to stop it. Further, I believe, at the end of the day, he was an honest man who truly loved and wanted the best for the United States...I can say NONE of those things about Obama. "Policies" are important but, at least for me, honesty, integrity and a true love of country are at least as important.

There is nothing wring with the "system" we have...we will never have better candidates to chose from unless better candidates run...that's not a function of the parties (two or four or twelve) nor is it a problem with the electoral college (thank God we HAVE an electoral college rather than electing on popular vote. As much as some want to make him out to be, Romney just wasn't that bad but you know, when you have six or eight candidates running for the same spot it's usually going to be the one who is the most "middle of the road" who is going to get the nod because all the ones who are a bit "out there" are usually just going to split a finite number of votes among many candidates. I don't pretend to have answers here but I haven't heard anyone else with any either, be it here or from those who are supposed to be the "experts" on such things.

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1352333429' post='841458'] It was directed specifically as Sam1, your post crept in while I was typing. I was under the impression that we had come to an understanding on where we were each coming from. If you want to include yourself in that group, feel free. No sweat off my nose, we have radically different worldviews that only occasionally appear superficially similar.[/quote] We're good – I just wasn't sure

Several phrases come to mind but I think I'll refrain.

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1352332771' post='841447'] It seems like I have repeated this until I am blue in the face and folks like you just refuse to get it. Romney was never going to get my vote, nor the vote of any real Libertarian. Whenever you vote your conscience you are not throwing the vote away, no matter how impossible it is for your chosen candidate to win. Romney was a terrible candidate who was on the wrong side of all of the civil liberty issues I was concerned with. From the NDAA, to the drone wars, Gitmo, drug laws and the Patriot Act Romney had the same stance as Obama on all these issues. Why on earth would I vote for him? [/quote]if by "folks like you" you mean me then I don't get the purpose of your post or you clearly don't understand mine. Edit: if you weren't referring to me then never mind.

At least according to Phil Valentine (I haven't checked his figures yet), Romney got fewer votes than McCain did in '08 meaning it appears that a lot of Republicans/conservatives/independents, etc. didn't show up (not that they voted for Johnson or some other candidate, they were simply missing in action). I can understand people not being thrilled with Romany...I can understand why someone might vote for Johnson or a write-it (even though I don't agree with doing so) but I don't know that I can understand how those who would bother to vote for McCain, a decidedly uninspiring candidate four years ago, would not even bother to go to the polls this cycle to at least vote for [i][u]somebody[/u][/i].

[quote name='jtmaze' timestamp='1352326481' post='841365']...To address the baby boomer comment, my father is a 66 year old man who still works because he can. This Friday he is meeting me at Lowes to get lumber to build a wheelchair ramp for his sister in law who has gotten Lou Gehrig's disease and can't get in and out of her house. He owes no one and still gives without reward. I can never down this generation.[/quote] Your father sounds like a great guy but anecdotal accounts don't change the simply truth that is is MY generation (Baby Boomers) who are the most responsible for where this country is right now. I still work too even though I actually "retired" last January 1st...I have never really planned to not work until I am truly unable to do so. I've never taken a dime from the government (except when I was on active duty anyway) and I pay more taxes than most people...I've been a conservative my entire life. I didn't personally put us here but my generation absolutely did.

[quote name='SWJewellTN' timestamp='1352325116' post='841348'] I disagree: King Ding-a-ling got the vote of women, blacks, and illegals. Without them Romney would have been president elect. [/quote]Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to the election...seen ThePunisher's post above.

[quote name='ThePunisher' timestamp='1352259759' post='840662'] Get ready for the all out assault of the 2nd Amendment. It's gonna start quicker than everyone thinks. Also higher taxes starting January, and higher energy prices the next 4 years. These three issues will be enough to create riots in the country. [/quote]I think so too. I'm set as far as firearms go (not that I admit owning any) and in fact, I think I'm going to sell one or two safe queens and use the funds to buy ammo and a few other things I still need for when the economy collapses (the good thing about that is that even if the economy doesn't collapse I can still use the stuff). I just hope that someday the country will be rebuilt IAW what our founders intended...too bad I'll certainly be long gone before it happens. Sorry to all you 40-somethings and younger...my generation really screwed you over big time.

[quote name='JAB' timestamp='1352241907' post='840368']I have to honestly say that I don't see what the big deal is about a deep fried turkey. I've had them and they weren't all that, as far as I am concerned. Certainly not worth the hassle, to me. I'll take a turkey (or turkey breast) brined and then slow smoked on my smoker over a deep fried one any day of the week and twice on Sunday. For that matter, if only for the difference in hassle, etc. I'd just cook it in the oven before I'd fool with deep frying it.[/quote] I concur. I had a smoker prepared turkey a few weeks ago...it was fabulous. That said, I actually prefer a well prepared roasted turkey to deep fried but to each his own.