Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/8/2010 8:34:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2010 8:35:32 PM EDT by TexasDoubleTap]
A recent marijuana thread got me to thinking. Apparently vast parts of Arfcom have shifted from "dope is the devil and to be destroyed at all costs" to "dope is draining our resources and is a relatively victimless crime, we should decriminalize it and make more efficient use of our resources"

This shift interests me because when you really think about it, it makes logistical sense to the average folks, but from an administrator viewpoint it sounds like "I want less resources and money from the Government".

Here is where this theory merges with Obama's agenda and why it makes perfect sense.

If we as a nation actually go bankrupt and have to start cutting funding, it will lead to more liberty, more self reliance, and less government.

Obama and crew have spent enough money to buy every home in this nation outright just to keep the ball rolling, just to keep the boot of government firmly planted on the neck of it's citizens.

He has no intention of saving the economy for any other reason than to fatten the income of the states and governments so that they can continue to pass or DEEM more and more restrictive legislation.

All of us free market guys have been gnashing our teeth thinking that he's trying to borrow us into a Socialistic Utopia, when in reality, he's just fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quo and keep us from sliding back into personal responsibility and limited government.

Sure he's added ObamaCare, but that was more of a Union Pension Bailout than anything else. The legacy debt is what is dragging down the states, with that debt now outsourced to the Feds with every taxpayer in the country picking up the tab the Unions are now basically solvent and as such cities and states will have more free capital in their budgets to increase the leverage of that boot on your neck.

Why would he end two wars back to back? Well, to bring the billions spent on them back into his coffers so he can dole it out and maintain status quo.

He's not an evil genius, he's a bitter clinger, he's just clinging to hold on to what we've got.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 8:37:35 PM EDT
You're right about it in the aspect that if we go bankrupt, we will not be able to borrow, so if democrats ever get back into power, they won't be able to borrow and spend us into huge deficits.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 8:41:34 PM EDT
A lot of people consider the path we're on a good thing for the exact reasons you stated. Personally, I'd like to see America turned around, the national debt eliminated, etc. but that's probably just a fairy tale. Vast civil unrest, the collapse of our economy, etc. may open the door for Communism or Fascism, as in the Weimar Republic, rather than the return of America to its roots.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 8:46:37 PM EDT
Don't get me wrong, I think he has some super socialistic tendencies and ideals, but he hasn't been able to stave off the threat of backsliding long enough to push through all his bullshit.

The other side of this issue is easily argued as well. He's trying to kill the economy so he can enact massive government programs that enslave us all. I just don't think that he or his cohorts are the least bit capable of it.

George Bush kicked off the firestorm of the TEA Parties with TARP. Obama is stuck in the same rut, keep spending, extending and pretending, or let it self correct and risk losing control over some subjects and states as they shake off wasteful spending.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 9:24:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TexasDoubleTap:
Don't get me wrong, I think he has some super socialistic tendencies and ideals, but he hasn't been able to stave off the threat of backsliding long enough to push through all his bullshit.

The other side of this issue is easily argued as well. He's trying to kill the economy so he can enact massive government programs that enslave us all. I just don't think that he or his cohorts are the least bit capable of it.

George Bush kicked off the firestorm of the TEA Parties with TARP. Obama is stuck in the same rut, keep spending, extending and pretending, or let it self correct and risk losing control over some subjects and states as they shake off wasteful spending.


There is no TEA Party. There is no Tea Party. The 'tea' in tea party refers to the drink made from the leaves of a plant. It is not an acronym or abbreviation.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 9:34:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2010 9:34:32 PM EDT by Venkman]
He's a communist fuck.

Little mundane things no longer need discussing.

The fact that all his policies only ruin things further should be what is talked about.

Not how many vacations he's been on.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 10:52:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By TexasDoubleTap:
Don't get me wrong, I think he has some super socialistic tendencies and ideals, but he hasn't been able to stave off the threat of backsliding long enough to push through all his bullshit.

The other side of this issue is easily argued as well. He's trying to kill the economy so he can enact massive government programs that enslave us all. I just don't think that he or his cohorts are the least bit capable of it.

George Bush kicked off the firestorm of the TEA Parties with TARP. Obama is stuck in the same rut, keep spending, extending and pretending, or let it self correct and risk losing control over some subjects and states as they shake off wasteful spending.


There is no TEA Party. There is no Tea Party. The 'tea' in tea party refers to the drink made from the leaves of a plant. It is not an acronym or abbreviation.


Notice I said TEA Parties as in plural. There most certainly is a Tea Party movement. The Republicans are doing all they can to co-opt it or derail it, but the candidates backed by the Tea Parties are kicking ass and taking names. It is an acronym and it is a leaf used to make a drink. I've seen it go either way. TEA = Taxed Enough Already or Tea as in Americans having a grassroot uprising like the one that lead to the Boston Tea Party that kicked off the revolution and lead to our freedom.

The Tea Parties existed without the name, but the name and with it the grassroots movement that caught fire came into being on February 19th 2009 when Rick Santelli went apeshit on live T.V. condemning the bail outs and called for a new Boston Tea Party. He announced a Chicago Tea Party in July, he would be the organizer.

Rick Santelli's unscripted rant went viral among capitalists, libertarians, and Constitutional conservatives. The Tea Parties had a name, and a common ideology. Constitutional Freedom, Limited Government, fair taxes, and a free market.

There is no Tea Party, even though some folks claim there is. It is an ideology of what this country has been, should be, and WILL become again.

Those people referred to as Tea Party Candidates are simply those candidates who actually stand for freedom and not towing the Republican Party line. So far the Republicans have backed the wrong candidate quite a few times.

People are sick of the bullshit from both sides.

I see you are from Texas. Maybe I'll see you at a rally one day.
Top Top