To my friends, the protest voters....

[VoiceofReason]

...the important term is "replace him"...if we don't get him out, all is lost...a skunk makes a bad guest in your sleeping bag...but compared to a rattlesnake, it ain't so bad...

Too late. It won’t matter who is elected or reelected. There will be a depression (not recession) and Washington can do absolutely nothing to stop it. There are too many things wrong and the “economic stimulus” just postponed the drop. Both parties are to blame and people have just sat around and blamed the other party instead of working together to solve the problem. The time to do something is long past and a number of administrations ago. I believe the U.S. will survive the depression and even be better for it.

Do you believe that the U.S. will be better for the loss of firearms rights that will certainly follow an Obama reelection?

I don’t think there will be time for the administration to worry about ramming through firearms legislation. At that point I don’t think people would pay attention to it any way. They will just do what they need to do to put food on the table.

[boba]

Certainly follow? Despite the hysteria, I think Gov. Romney was the one who signed a salty weapon ban.

[The Annoyed Man]

...the important term is "replace him"...if we don't get him out, all is lost...a skunk makes a bad guest in your sleeping bag...but compared to a rattlesnake, it ain't so bad...

Too late. It won’t matter who is elected or reelected. There will be a depression (not recession) and Washington can do absolutely nothing to stop it. There are too many things wrong and the “economic stimulus” just postponed the drop. Both parties are to blame and people have just sat around and blamed the other party instead of working together to solve the problem. The time to do something is long past and a number of administrations ago. I believe the U.S. will survive the depression and even be better for it.

Do you believe that the U.S. will be better for the loss of firearms rights that will certainly follow an Obama reelection?

I don’t think there will be time for the administration to worry about ramming through firearms legislation. At that point I don’t think people would pay attention to it any way. They will just do what they need to do to put food on the table.

You didn't answer whether the U.S. would be better, and I disagree completely with you, and think that your viewpoint is dangerously short sighted. Democrats have four policy areas they will want to ram through, either by legislation and/or presidential directive: consolidation of healthcare and other economic control; consolidation of information technologies control; consolidation of freedom of movement controls; and consolidation of firearms controls.

Two of the four conservative voting justices (Thomas and Scalia) are close to retirement some time in the next 4-5 years, as well as the independent swing voting Kennedy. Two of the four liberal justices (Breyer and Ginsburg) will probably retire in the next 4-5 years. If Obama is reelected, that's as many as 4-5 justices he'll have an opportunity to nominate, and he has the Senate majority required to approve those nominations (the House does not vote on these things). We know from his nominations of Sotomayor and Kagan exactly what kind of Constitution-murdering justices he'll nominate. We could potentially wind up with a 7-2 liberal majority on the Court who will be serving for the next 30 years. Those justices will support EVERY. SINGLE. THING. that Obama and the democrats try to ram down our throats.......

.....but you're not worried about it? Really?

[Lambda Force]

I have plenty of paracord.

[The Annoyed Man]

I have plenty of paracord.

Beans and bullets might be necessary.

[RoyGBiv]

Tried to post this before the edit... Hopefully it's still relevant.

Staying at home is a bad idea. That doesn't send the same message as a strong showing by a 3rd party candidate.

When I hear things like this I put it in the same category as far-right and far-left rhetoric. "If the candidate doesn't pass this or that litmus test then I'm not voting for him/her". I'd (very respectfully) encourage you to look in the mirror and ask yourself whether or not you're being equally idealistic here.

in 2010 the Tea Party helped orchestrate one of the strongest political "messages" I've seen in my lifetime, effectively slamming the brakes on the Socialist steamroller that was the Democratic majority in both Houses. Did we see any lightbulbs go on in the Oval Office? The message was more than clear, but the reaction was just a deeper entrenchment, more blame and greater division. Somehow, still today, spending nearly a million dollars on a 2010 Las Vegas GSA meeting is still George Bush's fault.

In my opinion, the notion of "sending a message" to this President is futile. He is a divider, not a leader.

I vote no to the snake and no to the rabid skunk. If you vote differently, don't complain when you get bit.

1. Either the snake or the rabbit WILL be the next President. This is a FACT. A vote for anyone other than the snake or rabbit is a cop out, IMO. One might feel better not voting for either the snake or the rabbit, but that alternate candidate vote will have been wasted, except to the extent one might feel better about oneself for not voting for a candidate whom one did not like. A vote for a candidate with no serious chance of winning is like buying a lottery ticket and quitting your job before the numbers are drawn.

2. I believe that voting for a candidate with no real chance of winning is equal to not voting at all and similarly invalidates a voters "right to complain". YMMV

3. Making an adult decision sometimes involves choosing the lesser of two evils. When your mom served you peas and broccoli you might get away with asking for ice cream. Today's menu is Snake or Skunk. You can still vote for ice cream, but you're gonna get Snake or Skunk regardless. If you have a preference between those two, even a slight preference, even though neither one is what you actually want, you'd be wise to not waste your vote on ice cream. Welcome to adulthood.

[Lambda Force]

If the Republicans want to beat Obama, they should nominate someone who is a clear alternative to Obama, rather than someone who shares many of his policy positions. The end of video says something the Republican leadership really needs to hear, and hear from the Adult perspective, not Child or Parent.

If Obama is re-elected it won't be because the Democrats brought out the vote, it will be because the Republicans and their candidate failed to bring out the vote.

Obama can't win the election but the Republicans can lose it. Don't waste your nomination GOP. And welcome to adulthood.

[donniet]

If the Republicans want to beat Obama, they should nominate someone who is a clear alternative to Obama, rather than someone who shares many of his policy positions. The end of video says something the Republican leadership really needs to hear, and hear from the Adult perspective, not Child or Parent.

If Obama is re-elected it won't be because the Democrats brought out the vote, it will be because the Republicans and their candidate failed to bring out the vote.

Obama can't win the election but the Republicans can lose it. Don't waste your nomination GOP. And welcome to adulthood.

Truely spoken. However, without a cystal ball, it does seem the GOP candidate has pretty much been chosen. I pray we all cast our vote wisely. Voice of Reason believes we may be so preoccupied with putting food on the table, we do not notice what the administration is doing in the next term. If that's true, which I can't rule out. I believe we are in deep danger and could lose our sovereignty to the UN. Most likely to begin with the UN small arms treaty.

[speedsix]

Tried to post this before the edit... Hopefully it's still relevant.

Staying at home is a bad idea. That doesn't send the same message as a strong showing by a 3rd party candidate.

When I hear things like this I put it in the same category as far-right and far-left rhetoric. "If the candidate doesn't pass this or that litmus test then I'm not voting for him/her". I'd (very respectfully) encourage you to look in the mirror and ask yourself whether or not you're being equally idealistic here.

in 2010 the Tea Party helped orchestrate one of the strongest political "messages" I've seen in my lifetime, effectively slamming the brakes on the Socialist steamroller that was the Democratic majority in both Houses. Did we see any lightbulbs go on in the Oval Office? The message was more than clear, but the reaction was just a deeper entrenchment, more blame and greater division. Somehow, still today, spending nearly a million dollars on a 2010 Las Vegas GSA meeting is still George Bush's fault.

In my opinion, the notion of "sending a message" to this President is futile. He is a divider, not a leader.

I vote no to the snake and no to the rabid skunk. If you vote differently, don't complain when you get bit.

1. Either the snake or the rabbit WILL be the next President. This is a FACT. A vote for anyone other than the snake or rabbit is a cop out, IMO. One might feel better not voting for either the snake or the rabbit, but that alternate candidate vote will have been wasted, except to the extent one might feel better about oneself for not voting for a candidate whom one did not like. A vote for a candidate with no serious chance of winning is like buying a lottery ticket and quitting your job before the numbers are drawn.

2. I believe that voting for a candidate with no real chance of winning is equal to not voting at all and similarly invalidates a voters "right to complain". YMMV

3. Making an adult decision sometimes involves choosing the lesser of two evils. When your mom served you peas and broccoli you might get away with asking for ice cream. Today's menu is Snake or Skunk. You can still vote for ice cream, but you're gonna get Snake or Skunk regardless. If you have a preference between those two, even a slight preference, even though neither one is what you actually want, you'd be wise to not waste your vote on ice cream. Welcome to adulthood.

RABBIT???? I understand...it's the day...

[VoiceofReason]

...the important term is "replace him"...if we don't get him out, all is lost...a skunk makes a bad guest in your sleeping bag...but compared to a rattlesnake, it ain't so bad...

Too late. It won’t matter who is elected or reelected. There will be a depression (not recession) and Washington can do absolutely nothing to stop it. There are too many things wrong and the “economic stimulus” just postponed the drop. Both parties are to blame and people have just sat around and blamed the other party instead of working together to solve the problem. The time to do something is long past and a number of administrations ago. I believe the U.S. will survive the depression and even be better for it.

Do you believe that the U.S. will be better for the loss of firearms rights that will certainly follow an Obama reelection?

I don’t think there will be time for the administration to worry about ramming through firearms legislation. At that point I don’t think people would pay attention to it any way. They will just do what they need to do to put food on the table.

You didn't answer whether the U.S. would be better, and I disagree completely with you, and think that your viewpoint is dangerously short sighted. Democrats have four policy areas they will want to ram through, either by legislation and/or presidential directive: consolidation of healthcare and other economic control; consolidation of information technologies control; consolidation of freedom of movement controls; and consolidation of firearms controls.

Two of the four conservative voting justices (Thomas and Scalia) are close to retirement some time in the next 4-5 years, as well as the independent swing voting Kennedy. Two of the four liberal justices (Breyer and Ginsburg) will probably retire in the next 4-5 years. If Obama is reelected, that's as many as 4-5 justices he'll have an opportunity to nominate, and he has the Senate majority required to approve those nominations (the House does not vote on these things). We know from his nominations of Sotomayor and Kagan exactly what kind of Constitution-murdering justices he'll nominate. We could potentially wind up with a 7-2 liberal majority on the Court who will be serving for the next 30 years. Those justices will support EVERY. SINGLE. THING. that Obama and the democrats try to ram down our throats.......

.....but you're not worried about it? Really?

I stated in my post “I believe the U.S. will survive the depression and even be better for it.”

The government is inefficient. That $800,000.00 the GSA blew is just a drop in the bucket to what I have seen them waste. Read what is underlined, read it again, think about it.

We are paying for two wars or was it three? We are spending billions rebuilding Iran and Afghanistan trying to get their political and economic systems working again. We are shelling out foreign aid to other countries, many that don’t need it when working people in this country are being sent home from the hospitals because they don’t have insurance.

People bought houses they couldn’t afford figuring to sell them at a profit before the higher interest rate kicked in. Banks made the loans without even proof of income. We now produce next to nothing in this country (information technology does not feed people).

Bernie Madoff, Health South, Enron, WorldCom, Allen Stanford, and people were convinced to put part of their retirement into the stock market. “You will retire rich at 55”. I know some people that cannot retire.

Both parties are to blame and the screeching voices blaming someone else keep getting louder. This country is becoming so polarized it can barely function. At this point we would need a president that can walk on water to head off what is coming, and I don’t see that in the cards.

To answer your question, yes I believe the country will be better. We have some hard times ahead but it might just make the American people reevaluate their priorities and values. And it won’t be just the U.S. When the U.S. sneezes the rest of the world catches cold.

One last item, if we do have a depression, I believe gun legislation will be so far down the list of priorities with whoever is president and would divide the country even more, it probably won’t even be considered.

Edited to add: TAM, I think even the idiots in government realize that to attempt the things you say (consolidation of information technologies control; consolidation of freedom of movement controls; and consolidation of firearms controls) could trigger civil strife. By the way, I liked your other avatar better.

Rant finished.

[The Annoyed Man]

If the Republicans want to beat Obama, they should nominate someone who is a clear alternative to Obama, rather than someone who shares many of his policy positions. The end of video says something the Republican leadership really needs to hear, and hear from the Adult perspective, not Child or Parent.

If Obama is re-elected it won't be because the Democrats brought out the vote, it will be because the Republicans and their candidate failed to bring out the vote.

Obama can't win the election but the Republicans can lose it. Don't waste your nomination GOP. And welcome to adulthood.

You know, the GOP can lead you to water, but they can't make you drink it. You have to be adult enough to do it. If you prefer to be thirsty, that's on you. That's what will happen when you throw your vote away for someone besides the GOP nominee. You'll be thirsty for another 4 years minimum. And when they come for your guns, and you refused to do something to prevent it by voting for NOT-Obama, that will be on you too. Welcome to adulthood.

[The Annoyed Man]

By the way, I liked your other avatar better.

Rant finished.

Yeah, I think I agree. This is an old one I was trying out. I'm going back to the other one.

BTW, I'm not disagreeing so much about a depression. We're nearly there anyway. But Roosevelt did use the last big depression to ram through socialist policies. He even tried to pack the court by raising the numbers of justices to as many as 15 (source) in order to put his desired changes beyond the reach of constitutional challenge litigation or Congressional repeal. Fortunately, Congress put the kibosh on that. In any case, it isn't just about financial collapse. Obama WILL replace every justice he can with Sotomayor/Kagan clones. He WILL try to ram through radical socialist changes, backed up by his court, and his REASON will be (as Roosevelt's was) that these changes will be necessary to A) rescue the nation from financial collapse; and B) to give the middle and lower classes a "new deal" which will be financed by the rich.

Yes, a depression may teach Americans something about learning to live within their means, but it will also provide Obama a plausible (although terribly wrong) pretext to seize control over ever larger segments of the economy. So I contend that the nation will actually be irrevocably damaged by Obama's reelection, including a permanent loss of gun rights.

[chasfm11]

Yes, a depression may teach Americans something about learning to live within their means, but it will also provide Obama a plausible (although terribly wrong) pretext to seize control over ever larger segments of the economy. So I contend that the nation will actually be irrevocably damaged by Obama's reelection, including a permanent loss of gun rights.

There is a willingness to work around the Constitutional barriers with the current administration that is down right scary. There are enough Congressman who also feel that the Constitution is an impediment to getting things done and have said so in public. Depending on what happens to Congress as a result of the election, I have no doubts of about further and vigorous efforts to take over of Information Technology. TSA has already set all of the precedents required.

I agree with our loss of gun rights under a 2nd Obama term. It will not happen through legislation because it doesn't have to. DHS already has consolidated enough power to pull it off under the covers. If you think ammo is scarce now, just wait. A Senate that will ratify a UN treaty banning guns is another alternative but that would be too visible. The EPA lead ban, already tried a couple of times before might also work the next time.

[Purplehood]

I didn't vote for little Bush and I didn't vote for Obama.

I did vote for McCain despite his having caved-in to Bush in 2001. Before that I thought he was on par with Ron Paul in the integrity and consistency beauty-categories.

I am going to have to vote for whatever garbage the Republican-party feeds me this November.

[Diesel42]

What Purplehood said.

BTW, thanks TAM the old avitar is much better.

Happy Trails! N