Oh those pesky assult rifles......

[SR540Beaver]

Given that Obama won't hardly rub elbows with the leadership of his own party, I'd have to say he probably isn't hyperpartisan. Narcissistic on the other hand..........

[HICO_Eagle]

Anyone who can't see the President as hyperpartisan is definitely NOT in ordinary reality -- not sure if they're in any kind of reality. Like him or hate him, you have to be intentionally blind and deaf to NOT see his hyperpartisanship. In 2009 he said "elections have consequences" and "I won, get over it" in response to requests for negotiation. This year he doubled down on his request for tax increases without naming any significant reductions in spending (reductions in preplanned growth are NOT the same) then called for "balance".

 

There aren't a lot of people reaching across the aisle from either side but denying Obama's hyperpartisanship takes a special kind of "reality".

[AZMike]

Sad but true.

[scoutingagain]

Since the "liberal" establishment is disappointed with Obama on a number of issues from not insisting on a single payer government health care system, no action on gun legislation, not committing to fully protecting Soc. Sec. and Medicare from budget negotiations and believing he has basically rolled over to satisfy the right side of the aisle I'd say "hyperpartisan" is a bit of a stretch. Sure he's certainly not a conservative Republican but "hyperpartisan" ?

 

Although I can understand that the view from 20yds past the right side goal posts would make someone on the 40 yd line appear to be hyperpartisan.

 

SA

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, sorry HICO and MikeAZ. I'm an old Reagan Republican and President Obama would be right at home with da gipper. Both would think you are nuts.

 

He ran on a platform of mild tax increases on top earners. In other words, raisin' taxes by a tiny amount on a tiny group of people, to a level that's still da lowest in the last 80 years when yeh figure in da capital gains rate reductions.

 

That's not an extreme position. It's really quite a conservative one. And then he was willing to negotiate even on that. Most of us genuine fiscal conservatives were opposed to da entire set of Bush tax cuts at the time, and would be happy to see 'em all expire (albeit gradually, timed to economic improvement rather than droppin' an unanticipated shock into a weak economy).

 

Elections do have consequences. He won, get over it.

 

But I have a bit of homework for yeh. Name any "significant reductions in spending" specified by either da House Republicans or da Romney campaign that is consistent with conservative principles and arithmetic. Remember, in da Constitution it's da Congress and especially the House that controls da purse strings, not the Executive.

 

Me thinks perhaps yeh missed where da real hyperpartisans are hidin'.

 

Beavah

 

[SR540Beaver]

Beavah: "He ran on a platform of mild tax increases on top earners. In other words, raisin' taxes by a tiny amount on a tiny group of people, to a level that's still da lowest in the last 80 years when yeh figure in da capital gains rate reductions.

 

That's not an extreme position. It's really quite a conservative one."

 

No, no it's not. It's an extreme position. If we replaced the word "wealthy" with Jew or black, I don't think the Democrats would be so hep on singling them out for special treatment. Taking something away from someone simply because they have more than someone else is immoral and unethical. For those who think it is part of the "social contract" and is the "fair" thing to do, are you letting the neighbor with an older car drive your newer car? Are you giving up an extra room to the family down the street that has a smaller and more crowded house? Perhaps you are out of personal choice. Now imagine that the mayor tells you that you have to let other people drive your car and live in your house. How would you feel about that? Would you sour to the idea of someone else being given access to your property that you worked to own? The same principle applies to taking wealth from people who can "afford" to give up some because they have more than they need. Who decides that? What gives them the power to decide that? How is it fair? If your wife has sex with you seven days a week and mine only three days a week, should I get to have sex with your wife two days a week so we equally have sex five days a week? If not, why is it OK to do the same thing with people's wealth?(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

[click23]

Has anyone ever heard of the supreme court case United States vs. Miller? While I understand there are some issues citing this case, the defendant died before the case was heard and no defense was presented and that short barreled shotguns had actually been used by the army but the government did not present that information to the court, it does offer some insight into how the federal government and the supreme court once interpreted the second amendment.

 

The governments case centered on that a short barreled shotgun was not military style weapon suitable for use in an organized militia, therefore it did not fall under the second amendment.

 

The court found that "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

 

The argument that an AR-15 or similar type firearm is a military style weapon viewed in light of the courts finding in this case only solidifies that they are covered under the second amendment.

 

As a side note the AR in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, it is an abbreviation for Armalite, the AR-15s original manufacture. This is the same company that manufactured the AR-5 and AR-7, neither of which I believe anyone would describe as an assault rifle(This message has been edited by click23)

[Beavah]

No, no it's not. It's an extreme position. If we replaced the word "wealthy" with Jew or black, I don't think the Democrats would be so hep on singling them out for special treatment. Taking something away from someone simply because they have more than someone else is immoral and unethical.

 

Yes, yes, in fact it is a conservative position. Sorry that yeh never learned that. It maintains a very low-tax regime, especially on investments.

 

If you're against da graduated income tax as a whole, then your argument is not with President Obama. Your argument is with President Teddy Roosevelt. Even in Roosevelt's time his position wasn't considered extreme, eh? But now, after 100 years, to claim that da progressive income tax is an "extreme" position is just ludicrous. It lends credence to da notion that da Tea Party Republicans just want to repeal the 20th century.

 

But let me address your moral argument, eh?

 

The fellow who is in the top 2% has a lot of wealth. Hopefully he earned it, but perhaps he inherited it, or maybe even stole it through financial manipulation. Whatever. He has a lot of stuff to defend, eh? If da terrorists were to come, his business would be a target, where Joe Schmoe's $70K house would not. His property requires more police protection and fire protection. His family is far more likely to be subject to kidnapping here or abroad for ransom. He's goin' to travel a lot more for business, usin' more FAA resources dedicated to keeping his flying safe. Da entire State Department is there to serve his overseas travel and business needs, while Joe Schmoe probably doesn't even have a passport. His business is runnin' trucks over da federal highways which require more repair than for Joe Schmoe's used Ford. He's tradin' stocks in the market, so he benefits from all of da market regulation and oversight that Joe Schmoe does not. With a bigger bank balance, he benefits more from FDIC and SIPC insurance. His business makes use of GPS and so he has hundreds of GPS units on da road benefitting 100 times more than Joe Schmoe and da TomTom he got for Christmas.

 

And to top everything off, when Mr. 2% would have lost everything in da market crash in 2008, Joe Schmoe bailed him out. He and his kids never served in da military, where Joe Schmoe and his kids have all served in order to defend da wealth of Mr. 2% against enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

Now, talk to me again about what's morally fair?

 

In Scouting, I'd like to believe that we teach good citizenship which entails that those to whom much is given, much is expected. Taxation is not taking things away from people, it's people contributing to da nation they love accordin' to the benefits they have received. It is a duty, and an honor, to contribute accordin' to da benefits we receive from this great country. In fact, it's honorable to contribute more than our fair share, just as we teach Scouts that service and generosity are honorable.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[AZMike]

"In Scouting, I'd like to believe that we teach good citizenship which entails that those to whom much is given, much is expected. Taxation is not taking things away from people, it's people contributing to da nation they love accordin' to the benefits they have received. It is a duty, and an honor, to contribute accordin' to da benefits we receive from this great country. In fact, it's honorable to contribute more than our fair share, just as we teach Scouts that service and generosity are honorable. "

 

It is honorable to choose to give alms to the poor. It's not honorable to demand that someone else's money be used for the poor, or that he should have to give more because he has more. There is no fluffy cloud in Heaven reserved for those who voted to do good with other people's money.

[Beavah]

It's not honorable to demand that someone else's money be used for the poor, or that he should have to give more because he has more.

 

Jesus said unto the rich man, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. Matthew 19:21

 

Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. 1 Timothy 6:17-19

 

or if yeh are not Christian, but from one of da other people of the book, heed ye da command of the Lord of Hosts:

 

For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land. - Deuteronomy 15:11

 

Not honorable? It is divine positive law.

 

Now, I wasn't really talkin' about da poor, eh? I was talkin' about da wealthy just payin' our fair share for all da extra services we get.

 

In America we are a community that chooses to voluntarily tax ourselves, not a bunch of isolated individuals dug into bunkers who look only to take benefits without contributin', or grouse because our neighbors believe in supportin' schools when we don't have school-aged kids anymore. We do things together.

 

When it comes to helpin' fellow Americans in need, it is right and proper and honorable to call on ourselves and our neighbors to live righteously. Because we know that we can't always be there individually to help; that it's worthwhile to have a professional social worker, a firefighter, da FEMA response team, or unemployment insurance so a proud man who lost his job doesn't have to beg.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Venividi]

 

AZMike writes:

It's not honorable to demand that someone else's money be used for the poor, or that he should have to give more because he has more

 

Mike,

I think you missed Beavah's point. Higher taxes correlate with higher services. Sure, perhaps what is visible is the person in Walmart buying food with food stamps. That is a drop in the bucket (budget?) compared with the cost of national defense. National defense is of much greater value to wealthy people, because they have more to protect. (Perhaps taxes should be paid on overall wealth rather than income?)

 

Once upon a time I picked up a scout and his Dad from a small grass airstrip near a scout camp to shuttle them to the camp. During the car ride, I asked about whether there was a charge for using the airstrip, as I didn't see any facilities for collecting money. He said no, that the airstrip was government funded. What income level to you think is the main beneficiary of this government funded facility>