• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tentative agreement reached on tax cuts


uh an untenured professor from a college I have never heard of doesn't disprove that lots of people in the north knew how to shoot well. where were the top marksmen in national competitions hailing from back then?

while many of the shooting matches did not become organized until after the war, the hotbeds were places like Creedmore NY, Camp Perry and Vandalia Ohio

the most renowned gunsmiths were in the NY-Connecticut valley where Colt, Remington, Winchester, Henry were founded. shooting contests thrived in the areas where gun makers and gunsmiths flourished. Can you name me a major arms manufacturer in the south prior to or within 50 years of the civil war?
 
people like you aren't going to last long in gunfights with people like me

About 300,000 Southerners felt the same way and they are lying in graves today and the South is still part of the Union. You are the better sharp shooter but you couldn't handle the M4 better than me and at the distance we'd probably be fighting that's all that would matter. Lets not even get into what the M2 Browning would do to you and your wife while you are trying to be snipers in an urban combat situation.

P.S. Lets also not forget, only 46% of U.S. soldiers identify themselves with the Republican Party.
 
About 300,000 Southerners felt the same way and they are lying in graves today and the South is still part of the Union. You are the better sharp shooter but you couldn't handle the M4 better than me and at the distance we'd probably be fighting that's all that would matter. Lets not even get into what the M2 Browning would do to you and your wife while you are trying to be snipers in an urban combat situation.

P.S. Lets also not forget, only 46% of U.S. soldiers identify themselves with the Republican Party.

don't bet your life on your claims. You really don't know much about anything. you gonna haul an M2 browning by yourself when someone is lining you up with a Barrett through a 16X NIghtforce scope? LOL. You can make a head shot at 800 meters in a 15 MPH crosswind? Sure you can. You ought to spend some time up at camp perry with people like J David Tubbs, MId Tompkins and his family. Or my old US Jr Team mate and roommate at the OTC Mike Anti. Big liberals they are not
 
don't bet your life on your claims. You really don't know much about anything. you gonna haul an M2 browning by yourself when someone is lining you up with a Barrett through a 16X NIghtforce scope? LOL. You can make a head shot at 800 meters in a 15 MPH crosswind? Sure you can. You ought to spend some time up at camp perry with people like J David Tubbs, MId Tompkins and his family. Or my old US Jr Team mate and roommate at the OTC Mike Anti. Big liberals they are not

800 meters? Most battlefield kills take place within 300 meters. I guess competition shooters really know nothing about warfare. This might educate you a little bit.

"Following the end of World War II, the U.S. Army conducted a number of studies of what happened in the war and how it was actually fought. Several things were learned which applied directly to personal weapon design. Perhaps most important, research found that most combat casualties caused by small-arms fire took place at short range. So the long range and accuracy of the standard rifle was, in a real sense, wasted. Second, the research found that aiming was not a major factor in causing casualties. Instead, the number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.[16] Third, psychological studies found that many riflemen (as much as 2/3) never fired their weapons at the enemy. By contrast, those soldiers equipped with rapid-fire weapons (submachine guns and the early assault rifles) were far more likely to actually use their weapons in battle.[17] This combination of factors led to the conclusion that a fairly short-range weapon capable of rapid fire would be the most effective general purpose weapon for infantry." Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
800 meters? Most battlefield kills take place within 300 meters. I guess competition shooters really know nothing about warfare. This might educate you a little bit.

"Following the end of World War II, the U.S. Army conducted a number of studies of what happened in the war and how it was actually fought. Several things were learned which applied directly to personal weapon design. Perhaps most important, research found that most combat casualties caused by small-arms fire took place at short range. So the long range and accuracy of the standard rifle was, in a real sense, wasted. Second, the research found that aiming was not a major factor in causing casualties. Instead, the number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.[16] Third, psychological studies found that many riflemen (as much as 2/3) never fired their weapons at the enemy. By contrast, those soldiers equipped with rapid-fire weapons (submachine guns and the early assault rifles) were far more likely to actually use their weapons in battle.[17] This combination of factors led to the conclusion that a fairly short-range weapon capable of rapid fire would be the most effective general purpose weapon for infantry." Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL you are still talking about conventional warfare vs civil insurrection or rebellion. How many "assault weapons" have you actually fired? Owned? How many swat teams or entry teams have you trained?
 
How many "assault weapons" have you actually fired? Owned? How many swat teams or entry teams have you trained?

Remember, this is a debate on warfare/insurrection, not a penis measuring contest. Put your d*ck back in your pants.
 
Remember, this is a debate on warfare/insurrection, not a penis measuring contest. Put your d*ck back in your pants.

Nice concession your argument has been castrated. I am still waiting for an answer concerning your "expertise"
 
Nice concession your argument has been castrated. I am still waiting for an answer concerning your "expertise"

How has my argument been castrated? Because I want to stick to the debate instead getting into a personal exchange about gun credentials? Those type of back and forth dick measuring competitions never lead to anything but mods kicking both parties out of a thread. If you must know I was U.S. Army Military Police. 709th Military Police Bn. MOS 95B10 "66-68". Got out and went into law enforcement. Became interested in the carbines and assault rifles again when I thought about trying to make SWAT. Bought a Bushmaster M4-Type Carbine and started taking every reputable tactical carbine course I could find in my state to sharpen my skills. Never gave up my passion for the pistol and eventually took the classes and got the NRA law enforcement firearm certification. Had a kid and gave up on the SWAT idea. Now I teach firearms classes every once in a while.

Now lets stick to the debate at hand and not derail this thread even farther than it already has been derailed.
 
How has my argument been castrated? Because I want to stick to the debate instead getting into a personal exchange about gun credentials? Those type of back and forth dick measuring competitions never lead to anything but mods kicking both parties out of a thread. If you must know I was U.S. Army Military Police. 709th Military Police Bn. MOS 95B10 "66-68". Got out and went into law enforcement. Became interested in the carbines and assault rifles again when I thought about trying to make SWAT. Bought a Bushmaster M4-Type Carbine and started taking every reputable tactical carbine course I could find in my state to sharpen my skills. Never gave up my passion for the pistol and eventually took the classes and got the NRA law enforcement firearm certification. Had a kid and gave up on the SWAT idea. Now I teach firearms classes every once in a while.

Now lets stick to the debate at hand and not derail this thread even farther than it already has been derailed.

Bushmaster? Get a RRA or a Lewis Machine Tool or a Noveseke if you can afford it. You sound like one of my buddies. John Benner of TDI

thank you for your service
 
About 300,000 Southerners felt the same way and they are lying in graves today and the South is still part of the Union. You are the better sharp shooter but you couldn't handle the M4 better than me and at the distance we'd probably be fighting that's all that would matter. Lets not even get into what the M2 Browning would do to you and your wife while you are trying to be snipers in an urban combat situation.

P.S. Lets also not forget, only 46% of U.S. soldiers identify themselves with the Republican Party.

Where do you get your numbers from? Confederate battled deaths were around 94,000

While you're at it, you can show us how many U.S. soldiers identify themselves as Democrats and/or Liberals.
 
This thread was about tax cuts, remember ?

Kandahar wrote :

"There is no reason that Obama needed to be so weak on this issue. He was in a stronger position than the Republicans politically (Democrats control half of Congress and the White House...and until January, ALL of Congress and the White House). He was in a stronger position than the Republicans structurally (the bill was going to expire in the absence of action, which would have been less acceptable to the Republicans than the Democrats). And he was even on the side of public opinion (the majority of voters didn't want to see tax cuts for the rich extended).

I can only draw two conclusions: A) Obama is incompetent and doesn't know how to negotiate, or B) he actually agrees with the Republicans about tax cuts for the rich. I'm not sure which conclusion pisses me off more."


Republicans had the high ground. They had nothing to lose. At worst the super rich folks they suck up to (if not are bribed by) would simply not get richer (Boo hoo). Quite tolerable.
Obama, on the other hand, had a lot to lose. The working poor would have gotten tax increases, and the unemployed would have suddenly found themselves with no income in a dead job market. Millions of people would be evicted from homes and other nightmares.
You can't deal effectively when the people you're dealing with (McConnell, Boehner, et al Republicans) are bunch of conscienceless, hostage-taking thugs, with no concern for the American people. They ought to be hung for treason.
 
This thread was about tax cuts, remember ?

Kandahar wrote :

"There is no reason that Obama needed to be so weak on this issue. He was in a stronger position than the Republicans politically (Democrats control half of Congress and the White House...and until January, ALL of Congress and the White House). He was in a stronger position than the Republicans structurally (the bill was going to expire in the absence of action, which would have been less acceptable to the Republicans than the Democrats). And he was even on the side of public opinion (the majority of voters didn't want to see tax cuts for the rich extended).

I can only draw two conclusions: A) Obama is incompetent and doesn't know how to negotiate, or B) he actually agrees with the Republicans about tax cuts for the rich. I'm not sure which conclusion pisses me off more."


Republicans had the high ground. They had nothing to lose. At worst the super rich folks they suck up to (if not are bribed by) would simply not get richer (Boo hoo). Quite tolerable.
Obama, on the other hand, had a lot to lose. The working poor would have gotten tax increases, and the unemployed would have suddenly found themselves with no income in a dead job market. Millions of people would be evicted from homes and other nightmares.
You can't deal effectively when the people you're dealing with (McConnell, Boehner, et al Republicans) are bunch of conscienceless, hostage-taking thugs, with no concern for the American people. They ought to be hung for treason.

Oh no here come the comparisons to mass murderers D:

I don't see how this deal was surprising at all... what exactly has Obama/the Democrats done to make you think they make an effort to fight anyway? Almost everything they've caved on...
 
Oh no here come the comparisons to mass murderers D:

I don't see how this deal was surprising at all... what exactly has Obama/the Democrats done to make you think they make an effort to fight anyway? Almost everything they've caved on...

Only thing surprising is it still being called a "deal". Extortion would be a more fitting description.
 
Only thing surprising is it still being called a "deal". Extortion would be a more fitting description.

Not really, the Obama administration serves the same corporate interests, the financial community contributed to him over McCain because they viewed him as being easier to influence. If the Dems really wanted they could do just about anything. The Republicans aren't blocking anything, it's an excuse so they can serve the same interests.
 
Last edited:
How has my argument been castrated? Because I want to stick to the debate instead getting into a personal exchange about gun credentials? Those type of back and forth dick measuring competitions never lead to anything but mods kicking both parties out of a thread. If you must know I was U.S. Army Military Police. 709th Military Police Bn. MOS 95B10 "66-68". Got out and went into law enforcement. Became interested in the carbines and assault rifles again when I thought about trying to make SWAT. Bought a Bushmaster M4-Type Carbine and started taking every reputable tactical carbine course I could find in my state to sharpen my skills. Never gave up my passion for the pistol and eventually took the classes and got the NRA law enforcement firearm certification. Had a kid and gave up on the SWAT idea. Now I teach firearms classes every once in a while.

Now lets stick to the debate at hand and not derail this thread even farther than it already has been derailed.


Like whom? I'm curious.
 
Not really, the Obama administration serves the same corporate interests, the financial community contributed to him over McCain because they viewed him as being easier to influence. If the Dems really wanted they could do just about anything. The Republicans aren't blocking anything, it's an excuse so they can serve the same interests.

Sounds like you're dreaming.
 
Sounds like you're dreaming.

Look at the campaign contributions. Individuals who work for banks overwhelmingly give more to Democrats. The individuals in Goldman Sachs gave over 3x as much to Obama as they did to McCain in the 08' election.

In terms of outcomes... take healthcare for example. The public was largely opposed to the bill passed, but large segments of national and state population were in favor of the public option. The Democrats had the House, Senate and Presidency. It was not politically impossible by any means, if the Democrats got together and did what the public wanted, to pass a proper, substantial healthcare bill. Instead they passed a watered down piece of nothing that I, and most of the US, opposes. And in return they got exactly 0 Republican votes.

Take financial matters. The Democrats voted 172-63 in the house for the bailouts. Financial "reform" was laughable. There were surely some great things in it, but on the whole it didn't solve the problem at its core, something that isn't politically impossible to do, or at least attempt. Then there's this deal. The tax cuts were certainly not guaranteed. Even if you agree that he should have passed them at all, there's no doubt he made a horrible deal. He could have gotten a significant amount more than he did (if it passes Congress, which it probably will). His deficit commission recommended slashing top income rates below what Bush proposed.

Then there's the military. The Obama administration increased military spending, increase troop numbers in Afghanistan, continued both wars, pushed for tighter sanctions against Iran, continued to use veto powers in the UN, etc, etc. On top of this, his justice department fought the Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right of Habeas Corpus (the cornerstone of the American justice system), they haven't even bothered repealing don't ask don't tell, even though they still have majorities and even some Republican support, as well as the support of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Secretary, etc, etc, and the vast majority of soldiers saying that a repeal would have little-no effect on short term personal readiness, etc, etc.

His Attorney General, Eric Holder is considering charging Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917, income inequality continues to skyrocket, real wages continue to decrease, he invites lobbyists to the white house for a little chat and he maintains the US policy on Israel/Palestine.

He does, however, act like the Republicans have his hands tied on all these things, a defining feature.

If you want other examples I'd be glad to provide them.
 
Look at the campaign contributions. Individuals who work for banks overwhelmingly give more to Democrats. The individuals in Goldman Sachs gave over 3x as much to Obama as they did to McCain in the 08' election.

In terms of outcomes... take healthcare for example. The public was largely opposed to the bill passed, but large segments of national and state population were in favor of the public option. The Democrats had the House, Senate and Presidency. It was not politically impossible by any means, if the Democrats got together and did what the public wanted, to pass a proper, substantial healthcare bill. Instead they passed a watered down piece of nothing that I, and most of the US, opposes. And in return they got exactly 0 Republican votes.

Take financial matters. The Democrats voted 172-63 in the house for the bailouts. Financial "reform" was laughable. There were surely some great things in it, but on the whole it didn't solve the problem at its core, something that isn't politically impossible to do, or at least attempt. Then there's this deal. The tax cuts were certainly not guaranteed. Even if you agree that he should have passed them at all, there's no doubt he made a horrible deal. He could have gotten a significant amount more than he did (if it passes Congress, which it probably will). His deficit commission recommended slashing top income rates below what Bush proposed.

Then there's the military. The Obama administration increased military spending, increase troop numbers in Afghanistan, continued both wars, pushed for tighter sanctions against Iran, continued to use veto powers in the UN, etc, etc. On top of this, his justice department fought the Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right of Habeas Corpus (the cornerstone of the American justice system), they haven't even bothered repealing don't ask don't tell, even though they still have majorities and even some Republican support, as well as the support of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Secretary, etc, etc, and the vast majority of soldiers saying that a repeal would have little-no effect on short term personal readiness, etc, etc.

His Attorney General, Eric Holder is considering charging Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917, income inequality continues to skyrocket, real wages continue to decrease, he invites lobbyists to the white house for a little chat and he maintains the US policy on Israel/Palestine.

He does, however, act like the Republicans have his hands tied on all these things, a defining feature.

If you want other examples I'd be glad to provide them.

No, I've seen enough black is white, white is black, cold is hot and hot is cold, from you. I'm 65 years old. I've been hearing BS talk for a long time. Sure don't need more of it, much less a filibuster.
 
No, I've seen enough black is white, white is black, cold is hot and hot is cold, from you. I'm 65 years old. I've been hearing BS talk for a long time. Sure don't need more of it, much less a filibuster.

I sure liked the part where you didn't address anything I brought up.
 
Rather, you just dismissed it. Don't worry, I understand that some people aren't up to a proper discussion.

No problem, I won't bother you again.

You didn't bother me, "partner". I get foolish people trying to snow me with their ill-conceived spins all the time. You're just another one on a long list. If you want to go after Obama, as it appears you do, fine, but do it on solid ground. You're not doing to get anywhere trying to BS people into believing that Obama didn't want the public option (for instance). He was coerced out of it by Republicans. Everybody knows that.

OK. Here's a plan for you to go after Obama - where he's really in the wrong, and therefore very vulnerable.

1. Immigration - This is an underrated, but really massive issue. While 15-20 Americans are unemployed chronically, and Obama blabs about created jobs, he's allowing 8 million jobs to be tied up with illegal aliens. Instead of going after these invaders, he openly started a policy to only go after those illegals with criminal records. Then, he (and his pals) has the audacity to "brag" about having deported 400,000 illegals in 2009 (more than Bush did).
Seeing as how Bush was the best friend illegal aliens ever had, topping him isn't saying much. Point is, 400,000/yer is equivalent to doing next to nothing. It's about 3%. That's leaving 97% of the problem untouched.
If I was President, I'd have 90% of the 12 million (or whatever the number is) illegals out of here in one month.
Also, Obama hasn't lessened the issuance of work visas. Last I heard, there were still over 150,000 of these being granted a month (= @ 2 million/year). Why ? When you have so much unemployment, these jobs should be going to unemployed Americans, not foreigners. Many of the jobs are in high tech. There's no labor shortage there. As the Director of NSBE (National Society of Black Engineers) has said, when you have a labor shortage, wages go up. But they haven't been up. They've been very down. Reason ? Because the foreigners will work for less, same as the illegal aliens. Obama should be all over this issue, and he (and our braindead MSM) hasn't.
Even his boast of going after the employers isn't too strong. In the Yamato Engine Specialists case in Bellingham, WA, his US prosecutors gave wrist slaps to the owners of the company who were convicted for violating IRCA (knowingly hiring illegal aliens), and even had the gall to praise them. For what ? Breaking the law ? Sheeesh.
If all that isn't enough, Obama's sparkling choice for Secretary of Homeland Security, Other Planet Janet (Napalitano) had the Yamato illegal aliens personally bused over to CIS, to get work permits so they could (and did) go right back to work at "their" jobs.
And don't forget Obama's attack on Arizona's SB1070 as well as his knucklehead Attorney General Eric Holder, who demanded that the law be rescinded, and when asked by Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) if he had read the law (only 12 pages), Holder admitted he had not. LOL.

There's your attack on Obama, and there's plenty more I could say on this, but I don't have all day to sit here and type.

Lastly, Obama is also vulnerable on Islamization (AKA Stealth Jihad), terrorism, international relations, gun control, race-based affirmative action, political "correctness", et al. These are the issues ripe for the taking for Obama bashers, not health care or tax cuts for the rich, both of which he has been supported by the majority of Americans.
 
Last edited:
Not really, the Obama administration serves the same corporate interests, the financial community contributed to him over McCain because they viewed him as being easier to influence. If the Dems really wanted they could do just about anything. The Republicans aren't blocking anything, it's an excuse so they can serve the same interests.

Regarding the last sentence, ask around, and see how many people you can find to agree with you on that. If you can find one, let us know.
 
Back
Top Bottom