RobertNashville

FIFY. You know; doing that kind of thing is really irritating...what you quoted is not what I said and you damn well know it. Whether it's done as a joke or for whatever purpose, I'm surprised the admins allow it.

What I think is perfectly acceptable is when Congress follows the rules of their body that flow out of the Constitution. I suspect that if Madison or Jefferson wanted to preclude even the possibility of a bill being introduced regarding a particular subject(s) they would have put it in the Constitution somewhere; but maybe I'm just being silly.   So keep making your snide insults by likening me to Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Corker and Alexander or whoever...I've come to expect them from Libertarians/libertarians when I don't fall down and genuflict at their special political insight. However, until you can show me in the Constitution why that bill could not be introduced, let alone voted on and defeated, your argument has no substance (which is probably why you resort to insults).   Enjoy your bear.  :cheers:

It does matter, certainly not as much as it should and most certainly not as much as I would like it to matter but it does matter...it's a party taking less than 1% of the vote in 2012 that doesn't matter.   If folks want to vote for the Libertarians, the Greens, the "Roger Rabbit party" or whatever that's fine. It's folks thinking that doing so is actually accomplishing something is rather funny.

Your position?  You can assume any position you wish but it won't change anything.   I don't really care if you think it's "acceptable" or not. Please show me in the Constitution or rules of Congress that say a bill introduced in Congress (Senate or House) regarding your "natural laws" is verboten? Unless you can point to such a clause in the Constitution/relevant document then it doesn't matter what your position is because a legitimate bill was introduced according to the law of the land, was sent to the floor and then defeated...call that meaningless...call that anything you want; I'll call that a WIN.

 If I recall correctly, you are Libertarian aren't you? Tell you what, I say recall all our military and put them on the southern border (after they've taken back all the land on OUR side of the border that the drug lords now have control of) and then close our border and stop the invasion. Oh wait, Libertarians believe in "open borders" don't they. I guess I just don't understand how it's possible to have any sovereign territory with a policy of open borders. :rofl:   Debt? If you mean the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that added to the national debt that cost is nothing compared to the other stuff the government is spending money on...if you are worried about debt there are dozens if not hundreds of government expenditures that need your concern long before the cost of the wars. More importantly, anyone truly concerned about the debt this country is in maybe shouldn't have been so eager let Obama remain in office for a second term rather then vote for a candidate that could win...you want to talk about debt...well...you anin't seen nothing yet. I don't claim that Romney would have been a cure for our spending but I damn sure know that Obama is the disease.

Assuming he can, so what? How exactly does that change anything?  :screwy:

Hell, Mike...all the third-parties in 2012 combined didn't even quite get 1% of the vote!  I guess they really showed those wrascally Republicans didn't they! ;)   I suppose however, that, if in each election cycle, these meaningless third parties garner a few more votes, in about 1,000 years they may be getting enough votes to actually get attention.   :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl: 

Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds to me as if you contacted him for the primary purpose of getting a rise out of him; if so, how would you expect him or anyone to react?  If I post something for sale it's no one's business how much I paid for it. If they don't like my price then they should move on or inquire if I'm wiling to negotiate...anyone calls me just to accuse me of doing something underhanded would probably get a similar or worse response from me than this fellow gave you.   -----------   While I'm still on my soapbox (directed at no one in particular let me just say that all these threads about people "hording ammo" and  complaints about them "just buying it to resell it" are getting really ridiculous; remembrances of small children crying on long plane rides come to mind as an apt analogy.   If people want to buy ammunition at whatever price they want to pay what the hell is the problem? It's their money and they can spend it any damn way they please. If someone else doesn't want to pay the prices being asked then fine, DON'T BUY THE AMMO; wait for a better deal or whatever...dozens of threads and hundreds of posts complaining about it isn't going to change anything..

I understand perfectly, thank you very much and you really don't have to get your panties in a wad and not so vaguely insult me by asserting that I'm a Republican (which I haven't been for more years than you've been old enough to vote) and therefore a statist just because I don't agree with your "superior insight" (perhaps insulting people is just your way of eliciting their support for your way of political thought?  :screwy:).   The bill needed to be voted to the floor so it could be defeated...I highly suspect, although I don't have time to do so right now, that similar procedural things have been done by our founding fathers since the earliest days of our nation; but I suppose you would probably call them statists too!    But that's okay; if you want to hate on Corker and Alexander for actually doing something right for once or hate on me for that matter, I won't stand in your way.   :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  

On this issue I think you are just looking for another reason be pissed at Alexander and Corker...they actually did the right thing (with both votes) on that one proving, once a gain, the old adage that even a blind squirrel will find a nut now and then.   If you really want to be pissed, I would suggest that your angst would be better spend directed toward the wonderful senators who introduced the bill they had to vote down.

  I don't know about your proposed rate of exchange but I am absolutely convinced that (assuming nothing else happens first) the U.S. economy will collapse under the weight of the socialist government pays for everything utopia that both parties are working to create.  When that happens...when Average Joe Citizen realizes that our "money" is worthless only things of real value to someone (ammunition, food, skills, etc.) will actually be worth something and will then take the place of our phoney money.   The only reason we haven't already gone the way of Greece is because of the size of our economy compared to Greece and because so far, the rest of the world is too afraid to do what they know they should do which is abandon the U.S. dollar as a medium of exchange (since, other than perception, the dollar is worthless).  Sooner or later, it's going to catch up with us...no economy, no matter how large, can continue to spend nearly 150% of its revenues (not to mention the many, many trillions$ of "entitlement obligations" we don't even count as part of our debt).   What is happening in Detroit (and is ready to happen in many other large cities) is just in microcosm what the U.S. federal government is facing...the only thing propping up the fed now is their printing presses.   And you know what, if I'm totally and completely wrong, most of that stuff (food, ammunition, etc.) is still valuable and usable, if not usable for the prepper who bought it then his family or neighbors...none of it need to go waste. ;)

I'm curious; how much ammunition does one person have to have to be hording ammunition?   A thousand rounds per caliber? five thousand?   And does it matter "how and when" they bought the ammunition; by that I mean, if you have 20,000 rounds of .223 that you bought a couple hundred rounds at a time over a few yeas is does that negate the label of hording?   Not trying to start an argument here..just wondering what factors people take into consideration.

Oh I'm sure they'll do that too although likely by the time they do whatever you have in those accounts will have been so wiped out by inflation you likely won't notice or care.

I actually thought about mentioning the tax issue as well.

I know what you are saying but I can't help but point out that if you really think you own a mortgaged house or a financed car just stop making payments for three or four months and I'll bet you'll find out otherwise.  ;)   Until you actually have a clear title in your hand and you don't owe anyone money for it you don't really own it; you just have permission to use it.  ;)

Well I'm sure these folks are doing all of that...just like I"m sure everyone who buys stuff over the internet without getting charged TN sales taxes are self-reporting that and sending their money into the state.  ;)

The only thing that will stop people from buying ammunition to resell at an inflated price is when people stop buying at the inflated price; bitching and moaning about it isn't going to change a thing...it's simple capitalism.   This situation should, among other things, tell folks that they need a good supply of ammunition bought over time so that when market fluctuations like this happen they aren't caught off guard.  It's no different than someone who goes to the grocery every night on their way home so that they can buy what they are going to have for dinner that night; have a supply so that when they predict a 1/16 inch of snow you don't have to rush to Kroger's just to make sure you have some milk and bread in the house.

Very well said.   Just be advised, that for some folks, "property rights" are the holy grail of rights even to the point that property rights trumps all others and will ignore all else.  The truth is that ALL rights are equal and exist, not consecutively but concurrently and one right should never be allowed to just trump another (which is exactly what happens when someone repeats the "property rights" mantra.

Totally ignores my point which had nothing to do with what the government can or can't do (they are happy to violate the Constitution daily so why would I care about that anyway).   I now return you to your previous discussion as it's obvious no one is getting what I was getting at...I'll take the blame for that so all is well.  Have a nice day.

That's fine...totally ignores my point but whatever.

I understand...pretty much agree with you Lester...I guess where I start to get "confused" is that for me, I don't and am not sure I can separate my political views from my societal views from my views about God and the relationship between God and man. My belief in God...my "Christianity" is part of who I am and impacts, sometimes very greatly impacts, what I believe about many things, including the proper role of government.   Part of the reason I believe in a small, fiscally responsible government is my Christian faith because I know, from the Bible, how God views debt and living beyond your means (He doesn't like it). :)

I'm not talking about "civil rights"...just natural rights as noted and supposedly protected by the bill of rights. There was, or at least should have been no reason/need for the civil rights act to protect such rights as freedom of religion, speech, thought, political philosophy, etc. etc. but that aside, the issue I was trying to get to above was that if this apartment complex suddenly told all its renters, for example, that they could no longer own a copy of the Qur'an I would bet that the outcry against the complex would be thunderous yet deny renters their right to keep arms and nary a peep from anyone, even on TGO.  :shrug:

I wonder...what would happen if this same apartment complex suddenly dictated that no one could practice their religion (have a bible or any religious icon in their home) or dictated what political party they belonged to denied them being able to read certain material?   Does a lessor have the right to deny you any basic natural right like practicing your religion or do they only have the right to stop you from keeping arms?   Are some natural rights more important than others/more subject to infringement?   To be clear, I think this IS a matter of contract law but I think it's worth considering how this would go were the apartment complex trying to deny their renters any other basic right.  

At the risk of straying from your excellent post a bit, Lester, let me ask...   When people (society) showed at least some respected Christian values (rather than hostility and denigration)...when we had such things as blue laws...when, as a society, we weren't afraid to call "sin", SIN...when we weren't afraid to mention "Gog" in schools and in all other public gatherings...when we celebrated "Christmas" and "Easter" (rather than the "holidays" and "spring break")...when there was such as thing as "shame" (rather than defiance and anger) when someone did something wrong and was caught in the act; were things in this country better than they are now or worse? For me, I'd gladly return to the days of and just prior to my breathing air even if things were a little too "Victorian" for some folks.   I don't hold myself out as any sort of perfect Christian; I haven't attended church on a regular basis for years but I'm still a "Christian"...I still believe in God and Jesus and I still at least try to live a moral, "Christian" life but am I a "social conservative"?  I'm a conservative who happens to believe that we have social issues that need to be addressed (although perhaps not as many or not in the same way as other conservatives might think/want)...I also think we have fiscal, and regulatory and many other issues that need to be addressed but am I a social conservative or just a conservative?  If I'm a social conservative and the Tea Party should chase me away in favor of a particular class of Democrats am I supposed to just stay home and not be involved any more (kind of like the libertarians)? :)   I didn't and don't consider the choice we had if 2012 as between "bad" and equally "bad"...while Mit Romney was not by first choice to head the ticket, I had no problem casting my vote for him because more important to me than individual "issues" was that I believe the Mit was a good person with a working moral compass who would actually try to do what he felt was "RIGHT" for the country (even if I didn't happen to agree with him).  Of course, he wasn't good enough for many of my libertarian friends so they either stayed home or voted for a candidate that had zero chance of winning so we remain stuck with the America hating, Constitution hating, socialist, tin-plated dictator want-a-be who wants to and just about has fundamentally transformed America.   Perhaps if libertarians would be a little more flexible they would understand that working with the Tea Party to support conservative candidates would be better than just taking their marbles and going off into the corner?  Unfortunately, I suspect that unless the Republicans run a "perfect libertarian" candidate, libertarians will never be satisfied with the Republican Party or their candidate.

You know, none of this is really about habitual DUIs...pick out just about any "problem" we have today and it all comes back to the same thing which is the morally bankrupt society we are becoming.   Knowing the difference between right and wrong or having any moral center at all, respect for other people, believing that YOU are responsible for YOU (rather than some government bureaucrat or program), no appreciation for the value (and I don't mean money) in work and doing a job well, the belief that someone owes you something just because you haven't yet assumed room temperature, thinking that laws and rules only apply if someone is watching, the dissertation of the traditional family as  something to strive for, flushing babies down the toilote if you decide having the child would be to much of a bother. I could go on an on.   I know we've always had our problems...a part of society that simply didn't or weren't willing to play by the rules...but it seems to be almost at epidemic levels today.   When I look at the problems we face as a country today, sometimes I don't even think we deserve to save the country; just let it fall apart and hope that whoever is left alive will do a better job than we did.