How bad do you think it will be?

[Guest Astra900]

Obama is hated with a passion in my little community. My little community doesn't equal a pile of beans in this election. Odds do seem to favor Obama.

So just how bad do you THINK he will be. Facts not necessary, tin foil hat theory is welcome.

I'm not sure, but I can see Obama unleashing the BATFE like a chained up Pit Bull. Giving them the authority they have already usurped to begin with, making their practices truly legal for a change. THen come the days of the door to door knocking. "We'd like to see all the guns on this list." followed by "We know you have them, we have been keeping records of all gun transfers for years, these have your name on them, we want to se them." Followed finally by "Come with us....."

I wonder how many will be foolish enough to TRY to make a stand? I wonder how many will be wise and say "come on in, if you can find them, you can have them" Good offense, good defense The best way to avoid a punch, is to not be there when the guy swings at you.

IF you haven't already, start thinking about it!

[Guest canynracer]

I definatley think he will be looking for "quick wins" take care of the low lying fruit to keep his left folks hapy...yes, he will have his hands full, but he is going to be looking for ways to show "Change" so that he has a record in four years...

I think he's comin, and guns/ammo are easy wins to regulate.

[molonlabetn]

I expect that guns are a low enough priority to the next administration that it will be a bit before they get to it... Nobody's coming to knock on your door anytime next year, I'd venture to say.

But, based on the 'Best Defense is a Good Offense' premise... decisive resistance should occur before that knock on the door, actually.

Not being there would be more like 'living to fight another day'.

Either way. I hope everyone chooses to meet whatever comes on their own terms.

[Smith]

I really see Obama as a less effective Jimmy Carter. He owes so many people and has such little political clout, I doubt he'll get anything done. Dems are not know for efficiency in government once in power. They are good at getting in power but start to in fight (Republicans as well).

Billiary had a Dem congress, judicial, and executive control and Hillary care failed miserably as did several other projects and he was a skilled politician. Obama will be comletley ineffective as a President even with congress.

[Guest Astra900]

Okay;)

If it's unlikely for a domestic physical threat; what about economy wise? Do you really think his socialist BS will keep us afloat or will we all be eating potatoes and calling each other comrade? I bet his share the wealth garbage means taking from me and you and giving it to some lazy useless f()@k that won't work. You know he can't touch rich peoples' money, they will have him killed. That only leaves us, because the lower class have nothing but a gov check to take anyway.

He may not turn the "dogs" on us directly, but I think he will put us in a state of disorder that the "dogs" will be set loose anyway. Hope ya'll got a garden spot and some heirloom seeds!

[creeky]

"How bad do you think it will be?"

Pretty much "Dogs and cats... living together."

[Smith]

Okay;)

If it's unlikely for a domestic physical threat; what about economy wise? Do you really think his socialist BS will keep us afloat or will we all be eating potatoes and calling each other comrade? I bet his share the wealth garbage means taking from me and you and giving it to some lazy useless f()@k that won't work. You know he can't touch rich peoples' money, they will have him killed. That only leaves us, because the lower class have nothing but a gov check to take anyway.

He may not turn the "dogs" on us directly, but I think he will put us in a state of disorder that the "dogs" will be set loose anyway. Hope ya'll got a garden spot and some heirloom seeds!

You are absolutely right. "Rich" people don't have their money sitting around in checking or savings accounts. They are in tax shelter and investments that have no tax liability or little to no liability. They use leverage on their invested money as living expenditures. The only taxes that can be collected are on payroll and income that most middle class Americans make in the form of salaries etc. Again, "rich" people don't get a huge paycheck that can be taxed (most of the time) instead it is in the form of stock options, benefits, expense type stuff. Example - I agree to work for 500k per year but I am paid only 100k in "salary". The rest is paid as housing, car, travel, stock, etc. all those are tax write offs.

The only "rich" people by Obama's definition and tax structure will be middle class America that makes a paycheck.

BTW - think Carter. 22% interest rates, astronomical inflation, true GDP recession, debt, etc. Of course this will all be blamed on Bush's policies that were just so bad the Messiah couldn't fix all the damage.

[chipperi]

I will fly my flag upside down as we will truly be a nation in distress. Having a person of questionable citizenship, who has radical ties, who has ties to the PLO, who's wife is as racist as they they come, who has no regard for our constitution, who is nothing more than an inexperienced punk, and who is two faced and lies more than most politicians.

Oh yea were screwed.

[Oh Shoot]

It doesn't matter who is prez.

The population/resources has tipped to the point that an inevitable world wide slide has begun. It's really an environmental problem, but will be translated as an economic one.

The present financial mess may or may not be the beginning of Truly Bad Times, but that is the way it will happen eventually.

- OS

[Guest nraforlife]

How bad will it be? Good question. I think that we are going to leave our children a cesspool if we are not careful.

[saintsfanbrian]

I think our children already have a cesspool. Unfortunately it will be their children that MIGHT be able to clean it up.

[Guest Astra900]

It doesn't matter who is prez.

The population/resources has tipped to the point that an inevitable world wide slide has begun. It's really an environmental problem, but will be translated as an economic one.

The present financial mess may or may not be the beginning of Truly Bad Times, but that is the way it will happen eventually.

- OS

+1

Don't matter who wins, we lose.

What did you say Iron Maiden??? Oh yeah RUN TO THE HILLS!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!

[Smith]

You guys have lost it. Will it be bad? Yeah, is it the end of the world as we know it? NO! We survived Carter, this will be similar IMO.

Did the world recover from 911? Yes.

The Great Depression? Yes.

Did we recover from WWI & II? Yes.

Have we recovered from every other world crisis know to man? Yes.

In fact, in most cases we continue to build and advance because/in spite of these kind of circumstances. Will things be forever changed? Of course they will. That is just life and the human existence.

"There is nothing new under the sun."

Loosen up the tin foil. The blood is not flowing to your brains anymore.

[Guest Dean_JC78]

I could go on for hours on it but simply put I believe the time will be used to enact socalist programs that we will never be able to get rid of, socialist judges to courts, and make changes to things to help stack the deck even more in favor of the DNC.

[Oh Shoot]

....

"There is nothing new under the sun."...

Yes, there is.

What's new, is almost 7 billion of us on the planet.

A growing number that will crash, really CRASH, at some point.

- OS

[Smith]

Yes, there is.

What's new, is almost 7 billion of us on the planet.

A growing number that will crash, really CRASH, at some point.

- OS

A couple of references for you.

1729 - Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"

Walter Williams http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams022499.asp

Population control nonsense (JWR) ----(http://www.jewishworldreview.com) MULTIBILLIONAIRE TED TURNER, Jane Fonda's husband, told last week's 27th annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA): "We have to defeat those congressmen and senators who are standing in the way of progress. We've got to win the next election."

Turner, founder of CNN and vice chairman of Time-Warner Inc., was sounding the alarm that something must be done about overpopulation. This father of five said we could achieve the "ideal" world population of 2 billion people, as opposed to today's 6 billion, "if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years."

How did Turner arrive at the ideal population? He learned it from his mentor, professor Paul Erlich, author of the 1968 best-seller, "The Population Bomb."

In that book, Erlich predicted major food shortages in the United States, and by "the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Erlich forecasted the starvation of 65 million Americans between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Erlich saw England in a more desperate situation, saying, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

Idiots like Erlich and organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the State Department's Agency for International Development and NFPRHA constantly sound nonsense warnings about how overpopulation produces disaster and poverty. There is absolutely no relationship between high populations, disaster and poverty.

Population control idiots might consider Zaire's meager population density of 39 people per square mile to be ideal while Hong Kong's population density of 247,501 people per square mile is problematic. Hong Kong is 6,000 times more crowded than Zaire. Yet Hong Kong's per capita income is $8,260 while Zaire, the world's poorest country, has a per capita income of less than $200.

Planet Earth is loaded with room. We could put the world's entire population into the United States. Doing so would make our population density 1,531 people per square mile. That's a far lower population density than what now exists in New York (11,440), Los Angeles (9,126) and Houston (7,512). The entire U.S. population could move to Texas and each family of four would enjoy 2.9 acres of land. If the entire world's population moved to Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, each family of four would enjoy nine-tenths of an acre of land.

So-called overpopulation problems are really a result of socialistic government practices that reduce the capacity of people to educate, clothe, house and feed themselves. Poor countries are rife with agricultural restrictions, export and import controls, restrictive licensing and price controls, not to mention gross human rights abuses that encourage their most productive people to emigrate. The most promising anti-poverty tool for poor people and poor countries is personal liberty.

But let's get back to the population-control gang and ask: Suppose the rest of us don't feel like adopting a one-child policy, then what? The elite's answer will be to use brute government force, like China does, to impose a one-child policy. You say: "Williams, what would make you say that? Just ask, who are the heroes of America's liberals, including Ted Turner's wife, Jane Fonda? They are some of history's most despicable blood thirsty tyrants, like Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin and Castro.

Don't forget that it was the 1960s campus liberals who marched around singing the praises of Mao, Lenin and Ho Chi Min. The difference between now and then is that many of these liberals have moved up to become congressmen, senators, presidents, college professors and government workers

[Oh Shoot]

A couple of references for you....

I know, there have been many premature predictions...but it really IS an inevitable situation; the debate is only as to when. You can't overdrive the planet forever. The "acres per person" isn't really valid argument; it takes MANY acres to support one person's lifestyle anymore. And most of the acres on earth are very supportive of anything, human-wise.

And it's not just about food supply, although that might be enough.

Matter of fact, water issues might come into play first.

Or fuel.

Doesn't really matter where the spiral starts, the economic situation will be the real kicker.

Put it simply: if we have a depression like in the 30's, US would lose a third of its population within 5 years. At least. It won't be my father's breadline this time.

Similarly in the rest of the world, probably worse in many parts.

Could take another 50-75 years. Could be right around the corner.

On that cheery note....

- OS

[Smith]

Every time production can't keep up with the population there is an inevitability... usually war. Those wars tend to thin the population pretty good. Gloomy I know, but call it "market" correction.

[Oh Shoot]

Every time production can't keep up with the population there is an inevitability... usually war. Those wars tend to thin the population pretty good. Gloomy I know, but call it "market" correction.

Yeah, but the next thinning will be MUCH more severe than any war has yet managed. Socio-economic breakdown will account for a lot, and then you get the biblical baddies as a result of that.

Point is, who is elected president in 2008 is the least of our worries in the overall picture. Matter of fact, these two guys are so traditionally politically mainstream GOP/DEM that they hardly matter. Same ol two party status quo. Nothing "maverick" on either side.

- OS

[clarky07]

speaking of carter - Let's Party Like It's 1976....

[wjh2657]

I think we may be in a panic over nothing. OBama will push for urban gun control, but I think current (and future) Supreme Court has already tempered the issue of handgun ownership with the Heller decision. Too many manufacturers and merchants will fight the raising of prices on ammo to make it very popular. While everybody is running around worried that "all" Democrats are anti-gun, be aware that most Southern Democrats are very Pro-gun. Carry is a state issue, supported by many Supreme Court decisions, and I really believe it will stay a state issue. NYC types may need to worry, but I don't really believe it is going to be an issue in Tennessee. I can see Shelby County/Memphis getting huffy about HCPs but I don't see much support for restrictive HCP legislation in small town and rural TN and the Tennessee law prohibits municipalities from over riding the state law.

The McCain group BTW was also selling the anti-gun issue with minority groups when they weren't on camera. It is primarily a political ploy to get the minority and momma vote. I agree with some others on this forum that this is going to be a bickering government with little cooperation betwee USSC, Congress and Executive branch. Guns area is a political hot potato and I don't think these guys have the where-with-all to take on public dissent. Ther will be some things pass that we don't like, but I am not burying my guns yet!

p.s.

Pray nothing happens to President involving the use of a firearm (re: Two of our "good old boys last week") as this would cook our goose nationally for gun ownership (shades of Brady!) We have got to keep OBama alive if we want to keep our guns. Remember Republicans are not as much our "buddies" as they would like you to believe either.