THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[Hawk]

If you support race discrimination in the private sector (like YOU do) I will call you a racist.

If you want all illegal HARD drugs made legal, I don't think that is a good idea and I stand by that.

If you don't want regulations on polution (cap and trade) because money is more important to you I will call you selfish.

You are quite welcome to disagree with any social program within our capitalistic economic system. I will follow with an explanation of why I disagree with you.

You call someone who favors freedom and liberty a racist. I call you a government Nazi and I stand by that.

How will I make money if regulations on pollution done away with? That makes no sense, as usual for you. I am against the federal govt making the regulations. State and local regulations are Constitutional.

Joe, allowing race discrimination in the private sector while calling it "freedom" is asinine...Dense

[Hawk]

Bill, where have you EVER ONCE proved that I lied? Besides in your fantasy world.

When Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted for a 300% tax on guns and ammo. Basically it would have made it impossible for a middle class person to buy a gun or afford the ammo if it was passed.

That's a lie Joe. That is why I called you a liar. There is no record of such a vote. And when corrected you continued to lie about it. so Joe, YOU are a liar.

EDIT: to add evidence of the lies with the following quote that Joe made AFTER I showed him that there is NO record of such a vote:

It was a 500% tax on guns, I was wrong. Thanks for reminding me of how much your god wanted to tax our guns, making it impossible for only average income people to buy one.

Perhaps Joe, in your cult "fantasy" world where you call race discrimination "freedom" lies are facts ? You not only lied, you doubled down on the lie. Like Limbaugh, tell a lie big enough and often enough and people will believe it. Joe, are you just gullible ?

FULL ANSWER

We’ve received a number of queries since the beginning of the year from readers wanting to know if President Obama is planning to raise the federal tax on firearms ammunition by 500 percent. Since it is now 11 percent of the sales price, such an increase would amount to adding 55 percent to that rate, putting it at 66 percent of the sales price. Claims of such tax increases have been repeated frequently on Web sites promoting gun rights and circulated by numerous chain e-mails. But there is no indication that the president is pursuing this.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the National Rifle Association claimed that Obama would "increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent" as a part of what it called "Obama’s 10-Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment." That was a mailer distributed to the organization’s members as part of an advertising campaign, which we said at the time "distorts Obama’s position on gun control beyond recognition." Regarding the ammo tax claim, we said then that Obama hadn’t pressed for any such tax as a U.S. senator and was not proposing one as a presidential candidate.

Now we can report that Obama has proposed no such tax since becoming president. And we find no evidence that he or his administration has any plans to do so. Though it is often repeated and widely believed by gun owners, this tax claim is a myth.

Blast From the Past

As we noted in our article "NRA Targets Obama," the NRA’s claim that Obama plans a 500 percent tax increase on ammunition was based solely on a nearly decade-old article from the Chicago Defender newspaper.

That Dec. 13, 1999, article from former Defender staff writer Chinta Strausberg, headlined "Obama unveils federal gun bill," reported that then-Illinois state Sen. Obama, who was running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed "to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] – weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." According to Strausberg’s report, Obama made the proposal at an "anti-gun rally," where he proposed a host of other gun control policies.

We found no record of Obama introducing legislation to this effect while in the Illinois state Senate, or in the U.S. Senate. Now, after further research, we can find no record of the president, or any other administration official, saying that an increase in the ammunition tax is part of his current agenda either. So, thus far, an awkwardly worded sentence from an article written almost 10 years ago is the only support for the claim that Obama wants to raise the federal ammo tax.

No Bill in Congress

A search of the Library of Congress’ THOMAS Web site, returned 11 results (as of June 22) for pending legislation that mentions "ammunition." And none of the bills that have been introduced during this legislative session have proposed an increase on the federal ammunition tax.

Further, the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, which collects the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (currently 11 percent of the sale price on ammunition and firearms other than pistols and revolvers), also says they are unaware of any plans by the administration to raise the ammunition tax. Tax and Trade Bureau spokesman Art Resnick told us in a telephone interview that the agency does "not have knowledge of any proposal like that."
_________________

[Hawk]

Bill, I don't see how your "mistaken assumptions" are any different than Joe's.

That is the point I was trying to make.

The correct answer to a question that you really don't know the answer to is:

I DON'T KNOW!

Once you understand this and live it, you will begin to know that you don't know a lot of things that you thought you knew.

Joe presented a lie as a fact. And when corrected he continued with the lie. See the post above.

So the point you tried to make is wrong. What I did is nothing like what Joe did.

I thought the answer was EPA so I wrote EPA. Damn are you obsessive compulsive or what. I made a fucking mistake and I stood corrected and the answer was irrelevant to the points I was making.

Once YOU understand that no one is perfect, People can make mistakes, that it is a virtue to admit to a mistake, you will begin to mature on a social level.

[lonewolf]

Bill, I don't see how your "mistaken assumptions" are any different than Joe's.

That is the point I was trying to make.

The correct answer to a question that you really don't know the answer to is:

I DON'T KNOW!

Once you understand this and live it, you will begin to know that you don't know a lot of things that you thought you knew.

Joe presented a lie as a fact. And when corrected he continued with the lie. See the post above.

So the point you tried to make is wrong. What I did is nothing like what Joe did.

I thought the answer was EPA so I wrote EPA. Damn are you obsessive compulsive or what. I made a fucking mistake and I stood corrected and the answer was irrelevant to the points I was making.

Once YOU understand that no one is perfect, People can make mistakes, that it is a virtue to admit to a mistake, you will begin to mature on a social level.

Its OK for you to be mislead by an urban myth or left-wing chronicle, but not Joe?

This isn't about me being right or wrong, Bill. Its about me telling you flat out right here and right now that your shit stinks just as bad as everyone elses...and maybe even a little worse.

How can you argue with any credibility for the necessity of a large federal government when you have absolutely no fucking clue what they do down there in DC? Its not your fault....there are so many redundant departments.

Mature on a social level? To that, I put my nose right up to yours and give you a big resounding FUCK YOU BILL and the horse you rode in on!

[Hawk]

Bill, I don't see how your "mistaken assumptions" are any different than Joe's.

That is the point I was trying to make.

The correct answer to a question that you really don't know the answer to is:

I DON'T KNOW!

Once you understand this and live it, you will begin to know that you don't know a lot of things that you thought you knew.

Joe presented a lie as a fact. And when corrected he continued with the lie. See the post above.

So the point you tried to make is wrong. What I did is nothing like what Joe did.

I thought the answer was EPA so I wrote EPA. Damn are you obsessive compulsive or what. I made a fucking mistake and I stood corrected and the answer was irrelevant to the points I was making.

Once YOU understand that no one is perfect, People can make mistakes, that it is a virtue to admit to a mistake, you will begin to mature on a social level.

Its OK for you to be mislead by an urban myth or left-wing chronicle, but not Joe?

This isn't about me being right or wrong, Bill. Its about me telling you flat out right here and right now that your shit stinks just as bad as everyone elses...and maybe even a little worse.

How can you argue with any credibility for the necessity of a large federal government when you have absolutely no fucking clue what they do down there in DC? Its not your fault....there are so many redundant departments.

Mature on a social level? To that, I put my nose right up to yours and give you a big resounding FUCK YOU BILL and the horse your rode in on!

Tell me Jeff, what was the difference between Joe and I when presented with the facts ? I thanked you. Joe doubled down. BIG difference. So look at the big picture relative to maturity.

I have no problem if you or anyone else disagrees with my opinions. As I have explained to you many times, the laws and the government grew out of necessity. Redundancy, yeah eliminate it.

Just because you have an incredible intellect, it has nothing to do with common sense. 50 EPA's instead of one ? Yeah right. 50 FDAs instead of one ? Yeah right. 50 ____fill in the blank? Yeah right. That clearly shows a big lack of common sense.

You're one of the smartest people I know. But that does not make your opinions right.

Maturity? Look Jeff, I did not cry or attempt to intimidate with your egocentric remark, "Once you understand this and live it, you will begin to know that you don't know a lot of things that you thought you knew." which was clearly a blast at my intellect. Essentially you saying, I know more than you do. HA...

[songsmith]

If the federal EPA was eliminated, the individual states would oversee mining or any manufacturing. The Departments of Education, HUD, EPA, Commerce and Energy could all be eliminated at the federal level, saving 100's of Billions of dollars, and those duties would shift to the states.

As Lonewolf only just explained, the EPA does not regulate mining, the Bureau of Mining Safety does. Pay attention to your own underlings.

If all those powers of enforcement were given to states, certain states would simply change their laws to benefit those industries, a la Delaware and the credit-card industry. That's all nice-sounding, but the credit card corps OWN Delaware. I want a free country, I know that's not a priority for you. This big ideological shift to state power is completely manufactured by your talkshow heroes, and you hear what you want to hear, so I'm done with that.

Now, as to proving that mining and environmental safety would suffer if there was no regulation, the onus is on YOU to prove me wrong. If miners still die a dozen at a time, even WITH regulation that companies simply ignore, what gets in your head to make you think that wouldn't happen without regulation? If we only just got a lot of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century acid mine drainage cleaned up around here, what incredible leap of faith do you make to think that wouldn't go back to how it was? I think you WANT to go back to Black Lung, and the company store. My Great-Uncle Pete quit school in 2nd grade to pick the bony pile, and skinned mules at 12 or 13... I think you're okay with that, as long as it's not YOUR kid.

Oh, and that NRA website? Laughable. I laugh at the National Rifle Association. <--- Me, laughing. A sham organization of political operatives who really do nothing outside of getting rightwing blowhards elected. I was once a member, but it went to hell in the mid 80's, and is now a comical collection of douchebag old men who prey upon other old men. "I have a gun, and I vote." What the hell does that even mean? We should fear you because you have a gun? Nope, not gonna happen Gramps. We should fear you because you have a vote? I have one of those, too. The only good thing about the NRA is that it represents a searchable database of hard-right white men who think we're impressed by their toys. It's good to pre-identify those guys. Anyway, the NRA doesn't care about your gun rights, they want your money to put their guy in the White House, and that is ALL. That's why that article is about Big Bad O, and not gun care and safety.
You post all the right-wing hoo-hah you want, joe. It makes me giggle.
<--- Me, again.

[Banned]

I want a free country,

Really?

You love an overreaching, authoritarian, fascist government that raids an American guitar company with armed federal agents, over a Madagascar law.

[songsmith]

I want a free country,

Really?

You love an overreaching, authoritarian, fascist government that raids an American guitar company with armed federal agents, over a Madagascar law.

The "overreaching, authoritarian, fascist government" was called by a competing American guitar company. You always forget that part, don't you? If Gibson had instead called the cops on Martin, your view would still be that the gov't is at fault, for enforcing existing law. It's the Old West in your head. Joe's the law 'round these parts!
Now, I know you're all about American Exceptionalism, or rather, Joe Exceptionalism, so you don't believe in any law other than what the talkshows allow, so tell me: If we have an American law, do foreign companies have to abide by it? For instance, is it okay if Chinese companies ignore US patents, and just make whatever they want, regardless of who actually invented something? That would be true 'free market,' you know. Laws exist, in all countries, and for good reason. And if I was a cop going into a factory full of people who don't want me to know they're breaking the law, I'd want a weapon, so boo-hoo about your "gov't over-reach."

Maybe you're right. Maybe we need to get rid of the Patent Office, too, and let me steal whatever you came up with. Stop Big Government Now! Woo Hoo!! Anything you can get away with is fair business practice!

[lonewolf]

[
Just because you have an incredible intellect, it has nothing to do with common sense. 50 EPA's instead of one ? Yeah right. 50 FDAs instead of one ? Yeah right. 50 ____fill in the blank? Yeah right. That clearly shows a big lack of common sense.

You're one of the smartest people I know. But that does not make your opinions right.

See Bill, there ya go again, illustrating my point. You go off the handle, insult my common sense, and it turns out that your post plainly shows that you made yet another false assumption and that you don't have much insight into government bureaucracy in the United States. Perhaps that's why you champion it so much--you don't know any better.

Its a good thing that I am here to correct you, isn't it?

There ARE 50 EPAs (give or take and variations on names). The one that you know about is redundant and for the most part, useless. If you took away the state EPAs, nothing would ever get cleaned up or enforced.

I have an handy rule of thumb that works well for things constitutional. If it crosses state lines, the feds can regulate it. Certainly food and drugs can fall in this category and a certain level of federal oversight is justified.

BTW, my pragmatic common sense is just fine. I have the advantage of having several years of education and even more varied experience to go along with it. One of the things that I learned was the Law Of Diminishing Returns. Before I studied it, I had the false belief that efficiency comes from large numbers and central standardization. That is only true up to a point. As it turns out, Uncle Sam would make a great poster boy for the law of diminishing returns. Google it. Learn it. Live it.

[lonewolf]

As Lonewolf only just explained, the EPA does not regulate mining, the Bureau of Mining Safety does. Pay attention to your own underlings.

Underling? lol! Fuck you very much!

[Banned]

I want a free country,

Really?

You love an overreaching, authoritarian, fascist government that raids an American guitar company with armed federal agents, over a Madagascar law.

The "overreaching, authoritarian, fascist government" was called by a competing American guitar company. You always forget that part, don't you? If Gibson had instead called the cops on Martin, your view would still be that the gov't is at fault, for enforcing existing law. It's the Old West in your head. Joe's the law 'round these parts!
Now, I know you're all about American Exceptionalism, or rather, Joe Exceptionalism, so you don't believe in any law other than what the talkshows allow, so tell me: If we have an American law, do foreign companies have to abide by it? For instance, is it okay if Chinese companies ignore US patents, and just make whatever they want, regardless of who actually invented something? That would be true 'free market,' you know. Laws exist, in all countries, and for good reason. And if I was a cop going into a factory full of people who don't want me to know they're breaking the law, I'd want a weapon, so boo-hoo about your "gov't over-reach."

Maybe you're right. Maybe we need to get rid of the Patent Office, too, and let me steal whatever you came up with. Stop Big Government Now! Woo Hoo!! Anything you can get away with is fair business practice!

100% fantasy. I would be against the US government raiding any American company with armed federal agents over another country's law. I have never posted I would like Martin Guitar to be raided, that is all your fabrication. That is something you do over and over. You make up something and then criticize a person over the fabrication you dreamed up. Lower your douchery level a bit.

[lonewolf]

Maturity? Look Jeff, I did not cry or attempt to intimidate with your egocentric remark, "Once you understand this and live it, you will begin to know that you don't know a lot of things that you thought you knew." which was clearly a blast at my intellect. Essentially you saying, I know more than you do. HA...

La, la, la, You're so vain...you think that this post is about you...la la la...NOT!

Wrong again! I was implying that I have understood and lived by this and was only recommending that you do the same. Unlike you, I don't post things when I am not sure of them because I recognize that I am not sure of them.

We were not born with inherent knowledge. Assume nothing, investigate everything, verify everything.

[Hawk]

... that is all your fabrication. That is something you do over and over. You make up something and then criticize a person over the fabrication you dreamed up.

Wow Joe, that is right out of the Limbaugh / Goebles play book. You took what you often do, then accused someone else of doing it. I don't think Rush can get through 2 minutes without doing that.

[songsmith]

100% fantasy. I would be against the US government raiding any American company with armed federal agents over another country's law. I have never posted I would like Martin Guitar to be raided, that is all your fabrication. That is something you do over and over. You make up something and then criticize a person over the fabrication you dreamed up. Lower your douchery level a bit.

You completely misunderstood, or you're failing miserably AGAIN. I did not say that you want Martin to raided, now did I? Pay attention!
I said that if Martin was raided, you would still blame it on the gov't, instead of the company WHO BROKE THE LAW, because YOU ARE THE LAW. I said why not carry it one step further, since foreign laws don't apply here (to you), there is no reason for patent laws, which are gov't regulations, to apply in other countries. The entire concept zoomed far above your head. Fighting fire with fire resulted in, "...um,...whut?"
You're back to issuing your usual "you love over-reaching authoritarian fascist government" personal-attack bullshit, and we all know why.
It's all you got. <---Me.

[Hawk]

Maturity? Look Jeff, I did not cry or attempt to intimidate with your egocentric remark, "Once you understand this and live it, you will begin to know that you don't know a lot of things that you thought you knew." which was clearly a blast at my intellect. Essentially you saying, I know more than you do. HA...

La, la, la, You're so vain...you think that this post is about you...la la la...NOT!

Wrong again! I was implying that I have understood and lived by this and was only recommending that you do the same. Unlike you, I don't post things when I am not sure of them because I recognize that I am not sure of them.

We were not born with inherent knowledge. Assume nothing, investigate everything, verify everything.

Like I said Jeff, "as I understand it" was my way of inquiring. I also replied that I should have added a ? at the end instead of a .. If you don't get that it's too bad. Perhaps you need more social experience ? And my response "thank you" indicates that you answered my inquiry and I appreciated it.

If you are SO interested in your philosophy, why aren't you giving Joe your advice with the same attack ? After all, he still propagates the lie while I stood corrected. Perhaps you are his underling ? Not allowed to call him out ?

[Banned]

You have missed the whole point. You said you want a free country. What is free about American armed federal agents raiding an American company with American workers over another country and its law? You defend this action. Why, what is free about this?

[Banned]

Hey Bill, FUCK YOU. You call me a liar again and its on fuckhead.

[Hawk]

I have an handy rule of thumb that works well for things constitutional. If it crosses state lines, the feds can regulate it. Certainly food and drugs can fall in this category and a certain level of federal oversight is justified.

Oh I get it. We should live by Jeff's rules... Let's call Congress, the President and the Supreme Court and tell them Jeff has a rule.

[Hawk]

Hey Bill, FUCK YOU. You call me a liar again and its on fuckhead.

Hey man, it was you who asked me to prove it. I did as you asked.

[Banned]

Hey Bill, FUCK YOU. You call me a liar again and its on fuckhead.

Hey man, it was you who asked me to prove it. I did as you asked.

Bill, you are not understanding how much of an asshole you are.

[Hawk]

Hey Bill, FUCK YOU. You call me a liar again and its on fuckhead.

Hey man, it was you who asked me to prove it. I did as you asked.

Bill, you are not understanding how much of an asshole you are.

You put up a lie about the president of the United States. You were corrected about the lie (there is NO record of such a vote). You continue on with the lie. And you call me names for pointing that out ?

Sorry Joe, It's not my fault that you can't admit to making a mistake. Don't shoot the messanger.

And it is not me that is attempting to "bully" his way through this thread. I just pointed out the fact, there was no such vote.

[Don Hughes]

::sighs::

I was waiting for the first "f you" to come out of all of this.

Just to butt in to all of this, Bill, I don't think you're an asshole. You tuned my first piano YEARS ago (the big tall OLD black one, hell you probably don't remember it), at least I think it was you

My opinion is not based on political feelings and opinions, it is based on personal dealings with the man.

[Hawk]

::sighs::

I was waiting for the first "f you" to come out of all of this.

Just to butt in to all of this, Bill, I don't think you're an asshole. You tuned my first piano YEARS ago (the big tall OLD black one, hell you probably don't remember it), at least I think it was you

My opinion is not based on political feelings and opinions, it is based on personal dealings with the man.

Thanks man, but it's just the frustration coming out of these guys. Jeff can't understand why everyone doesn't live by his rules (He thinks he is the only one who can properly interpret the constitution) and Joe is frustrated because I point out the problems (as I see them) with his version (I have been told by a reliable source that Joe is not a good spokesman for Liberterians and he does not fully understand their concept) of Libertarianism. I'm okay with that.

[lonewolf]

I have an handy rule of thumb that works well for things constitutional. If it crosses state lines, the feds can regulate it. Certainly food and drugs can fall in this category and a certain level of federal oversight is justified.

Oh I get it. We should live by Jeff's rules... Let's call Congress, the President and the Supreme Court and tell them Jeff has a rule.

Nope, wrong again...only this time I will add: "AS USUAL." Jeff goes by Congress's rules and Congress goes by the Supreme Court's rules. Just about every piece of regulation legislation that Congress submits has a canned preamble: "

"Findings- Congress finds that--

(1) the manufacture, distribution, and importation of xxxxxxxx is inherently commercial in nature;
(2) xxxxxxxx regularly move in interstate commerce;
(3) to the extent that xxxxxxxx trafficking is intrastate in nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce;
(4) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of xxxxxxxx are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce;"

But, you didn't know that, did you? You just went off again and got all sarcastic and fell a little further into the ignorance abyss. Good thing I am here to enlighten you about such things, isn't it?

[shredder138]

Hey Bill, FUCK YOU. You call me a liar again and its on fuckhead.

Holy shit! Is Burle Ives looking for a fight. Now we're getting some entertainment!