Rod38um

I just did my part. I made a special trip to town to buy a large (not sure what it was) coffee from Starbucks. I dont even drink coffee...... I took it over and gave it my girlfriend.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/7322-former-un-ambassador-obama-will-target-gun-ownership-in-second-term Ambassador Bolton: We can understand that, as he likes to say, he’s playing the long game, and that "leading from behind" means waiting until he’s elected to a second term when he faces no further political constraints and his true agenda can come to the floor. And I believe right at the top of it is [to] increase gun control at the federal level and at the international level. ________________________________________________________________ http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-to-ban-guns/ “But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.” “Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled,” La Pierre declared.

+1

Thats Awesome....... and I love it! Good luck........ lol

Anybody who has ever paid even a little bit of attention to economics and politics knows that Paul is at least 90% right on the money in his thinking. The liberal press has for decades laughed at him and made him out to be a joke. Add all that to the fact the most people dont know shit about politics or economics and wind up voting for someone because of looks or personality or God forbid, their promises to give them free stuff. Lets face it...... Paul is not going to win a looks, personality or stuff for free contest. Therefore, I will vote for whoever the GOP puts forward as a token leader and I will put election dollars behind Tea party candidates for congress and Senate. Legislation goes thru them first, its where the real power is and where the real change must come from. No matter what you may think about the Tea Party, their core objective is smaller government and responsible spending. They are the only group dedicated to those objectives.

Well, Paul doesnt have a chance, neither does Santorum. Gingrich has a chance as he's done it before but I dont believe he will get the nomination. As you say Obama and Romney wont stop it. The way I see it is one of two ways. Either thru the Tea Party candidates elected to the congress and senate who have a proven track record thus far for standing up for responsible spending. Or...... thru a total economic collapse and rebuild which if that happens under Obama, I dont believe the opportunity of capitalism will remain....... he seems to lean toward the Fidel Castro model of equal poverty for all.

Well yea...... if you want to warp it with percentages after obama has already increased our debt by nearly 6 trillion. To put that in a bit of perspective, the largest debt ceiling increase that Bush ever asked for was 984 billion which, dont missunderstand me, was 984 billion too much. the point is that debt is accumulating at more than twice the rate under Obama than it was under bush. We are talking $49,000 of debt per second!!! I think Fox was being too kind to Obama in the article.

I'm guessing it translates to "WTF"

Debt Ceiling http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/26/senate-vote-gives-obama-option-to-raise-debt-ceiling-another-12-trillion/?test=latestnews Unemployment http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/26/weekly-jobless-benefit-claims-rise-amid-overall-downward-trend/?test=latestnews

Wise beyond your years..........

You have to wade thru the Anti 2nd spin of the articles.......... All the anti nonsense aside........ I'll be supporting Starbucks simply because the anti's dont like them. lol

My Hornady manual shows max load for 55grn bullet to be 25.5 grn of Varget The Lyman 49th manual shows the max load of 27.8 for varget. Anytime I see this kind of discrepancy, I use the lower figure and subtract 10% from it, load a few rounds and shoot them thru thru the chrono to see where I'm at. As someone else mentioned, check for signs of over pressurization. I rarely find the most accurate load anywhere near the max load....... if your looking for accuracy.

The anti`s are planning a nationwide boycott on Valentines day this year. I plan on buying a cup of coffee from them on the 14th even though I dont drink coffee. They are the only chain I know of that publicly supports the 2nd amendment. http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/23/4208271/starbucks-pro-gun-policy-prompts.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/starbucks-pro-gun-policy-prompts-gun-victims-advocate-group-to-launch-nationwide-boycott-on-valentines-day-2012-137890863.html

Oh I agree it can be done. I've done it. its a personal preference though for the thinner single stack. Its not the weight nor the actual size that bothers me, its the thickness. To me it just seems excessively thick. I started off with 1911's though. anybody starting off with a double stack may be fine. Like I said, personal preference.... but still something to consider.

In Argentinas economic collapse, any long gun was pretty much useless except for home protection. If you took one with you to try and find supplies or whatever, it just made you a target. Someone killed you there for it or followed you home so they could come back with a gang and take it later. Just something to think about......

Before you buy, think about a few things first. Are you a big guy or a small framed guy? 1)If you're on the smaller side, a double stack may not be the gun for you for carry purposes. I have never been able to get used to carrying a double stack, it feels like I'm carrying a brick around all day. The Ruger LC9 you mentioned is a single stack, one of the few on the market and actually a much better gun than the KelTec PF9. 2) What ever gun you think you may want, check holster availability. Some guns just dont have enough holsters available on the market to give you a choice for comfortable carry. If the gun you choose winds up being heavy, bulky or just uncomfortable to carry, you'll find yourself leaving it at home and that defeats the whole purpose of buying one. Buy a good gun belt with a stiffner inside, they are expensive but well worth it. They make the difference in carrying all day or not. See "The beltman" I'm one of the few who carries a 1911 on a fairly regular basis. Although its heavy, It is a single stack and has a slim profile so I can carry it easier than I can an XD, an M&P or a glock but I do not recomend one unless you shoot one on a regular basis. The aforementioned guns are pretty much point and shoot, a 1911 has a thumb safety that must be defeated and a single action trigger, both of which, if nervous, could lead to unintended consequences. The best advice I could give is if you know someone who already has a carry rig set up, ask to try it on and see how it feels. Holsters like crossbreed, desantis, Galco, fobus, they all have a different feel for different guns. I own several carry guns, I only carry two of them and I use three different holsters depending on what I'm wearing. I hope some of that rambling helps you.......

You're right in that it is an equation. Any business looking for a place to manufacture will look at several things. The number one thing is taxes and then regulation. many foreign countries have figured this out and have lowered their corporate tax to a very enticing level. They have also put all required regulation into an easy to deal with package that can be easily understood. You dont have to hire 3 law firms to guide you thru the start up period. They can license you and provide you with everything you need to know in one place. They do this because they want you to do business there. they want the byproduct of jobs. Yes high labor costs do play a part but with the automated world we live in, its not as big a part as it used to be. As a potential investor if told you I was going to take 39% percent of your profits before you dispersed them and then take another 15% when you did disperse them, Tell you that you have millions of pages of regulation you must comply with, spanning dozens of agencies but not give you a clue as to what they were or how to deal with them..... would you invest in that startup? labors cost is at least definable and negotiable. There are many companies who would love to set up manufacturing here. we have many non economic benefits that other countries dont have but you cant really put a dollar figure on those for business purposes. My point is, we live in a world market. we cant close our doors and keep our wealth here, it doesn't work that way, We have to compete and until we recognize that we will continue to get our economic ass handed to us by countries that understand it. Wages are already stagnant or falling. With fewer jobs out there, companies have their pick of employees, bring more jobs, the value of a good employee goes up. We need to look at every factor in the equation what lures business and adjust each one to a level that is more than competitive. The more that politicians can make you believe that someone is not paying their fair share, the longer it will take to recover, that gets us nowhere. we have 2 problems, a government that requires more to run than we can pay and our inability to control it.

Japan was the worst on corporate tax, they lowered theirs last year, didnt find an article to support it on quick search but this should get you in the ball park. http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/16/america-to-have-the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-april/ Regulation is a harder one to define but I'll work on it. If you insist on letting someone else dictate your wages, you are limited by their generosity, even more limited if you let a government official dictate it. Go out on your own and you dictate your wages. I'm not naming my friends on a public forum but I can assure you anyone who starts with working for someone else and then winds up with owning and operating a large construction company, multistate sign company or multiple grocery stores does not just fall into it. they worked their ass off for it. more work than I or anyone else who settles for less is willing to put into something. True and they will make money overseas more easily than will here, the difference is, you wont get any part of it if they do their business overseas. Its Very.......... uh........ funny

That link does not take into account taxes or regulation, the two most important factors. You apparently see physical work as more valuable than mental. The fact is, its always been more rewarding to work smart, not hard. Besides, every job I ever had, I agreed to the wages. I have known several millionaires over the years, none of them were born into it, they all worked their ass off for it. their life was business, day and night, 7 days a week. You can remain bitter because someone has more than you, you can vote to punish them.......... but they are the job creators and you cant get to where they are with out opportunity. They give opportunity and as long as you vote to punish them, they will give that opportunity to other country's.

Besides, creating private sector jobs kind of goes against his agenda of making everyone dependent on the government. How is he gonna get re-elected and keep us all in line if we aren't dependent on him somehow?

While we agree on many points, we also disagree on many. Statements like the one above are the classic liberal talking points designed to inflame class warfare. The shame is that this kind of rhetoric is repeated so much by liberals that many regular folks get the idea that republicans are rich, mean, greedy, hate the poor.... yada,yada,yada. Its not a matter of the rich paying less or the poor paying more. Very few rich people have a large income to tax, they have capital gains income which is income that has already been taxed by corporate tax. When the media talks about taxing the rich, they are talking about raising the corporate tax and the capital gains tax, both of which will drive business overseas and put the average guy out of work. this creates a large income gap between the rich and the poor. The consumer pays all the bills no matter what group is taxed the most. Lower taxes on the poor and raise it on the rich, prices go up and the consumer pays, lower the corporate tax and the capital gains tax and the poor man will have a job and is able to pay his taxes. If we follow the Obama plan, we tax corporations, tax their owners income again as capital gains, throw an average of 80,000 pages of new regulation a year at them and hope they move overseas and sign as many people up on government assistance as we can till everyone is dependent on an all powerful government. We all fall in an obedient line for fear of losing our subsidy. As you go thru life and you achieve more success, more income or general wealth, do get greedier or more generous? Do you really think that republicans are greedy, mean folks bent on punishing the poor or do you think maybe they just see a better way to bring everyone up to a better level? Taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive has never done anything but create common poverty. Rewarding success and productivity is the only system that has ever lifted an entire nation and given the common man clear rungs on the ladder of success in which to step on, those rungs are opportunity. Its simple, if we want jobs, we have to encourage what creates them. Business creates them. The purpose of business is to make money. Jobs are a byproduct. We have to make this country the #1 place to do business. Right now we are almost dead last on the list of best places to do business. If democrats keep shaping policy, we will remain dead last.

I agree......... funny..... I'm sure we mean two different things by this statement. lol

My previous job was filled with democrats. On most issues though, most were very conservative. However they voted democrat because they were union and the union told them that dems were for the working man and they believed it even though the policies the dems promote send the companies and the jobs the unions depend on straight overseas. Most people dont explore the issues, they listen to sound bites and then go vote. My current job must have 98% hardcore conservative slant to it. I dont know any democrats there and politics is a daily subject. It breaks all barriers there. We have military, artistic, minority, atheist, religious and every other kind of conservative you can think of. All of them get their core set of ideas from a different place and some disagree on certain issues. Its nice to have a discussion of the issues with people without it getting personal or heated which is much easier to do in person than on a forum. Anyway........ on to the next subject......

Cheech I'm not trying to ignore your last post but again everything you have written attempts to paint me as something I'm not in order to prove your point. I dont harbor any ill will toward someone for being gay. Comparing this debate to black struggles with civil rights is ridiculous. Had I been old enough at that time I would have been an MLK supporter, I was just 3 when he died. I will continue to vote my principals. I hope you do the same.

That does not really surprise me. Kinda sad actually. ahh. the "no true scottsman" fallacy... I know of several people who are gay, and christian... isn't the only requirement of a christian that they accept jesus as their personal lord and savior? As I covered before and you weren't listening; To commit a sin and ask forgiveness is not the problem. the problem is when you expect that you can just ignore that what you do on a daily basis is a sin and that God must accept your sin with no effort on your part to turn away from sin. I actually like it when a gay person tells me that they are Christian because I know how their life will end up... generally speaking. I've known several gay people over the years. You may be surprised, my best friend of several years spent many of those years as a lesbian. Our topic of Social conservative values has kind of drifted into a religious debate of my personal beliefs. It seems I am just repeating myself and as usual in a conversation with folks who have already made up their mind, you guys seem willing to jump thru any amount of hoops to keep from seeing or at least acknowledging my point. Thats ok, I expect it. But I'm not going to keep banging my head against the wall. I think what I have already written is sufficient enough for folks who may read it with an open mind to understand my point of view which has been my only motivation for participating this thread even as it drifted. I knew going in, given that you started it, that the intent was an argumentative one rather than the informational request it was hidden behind. I don't know whether either of you guys have any belief in a higher power at all. I have lived long enough to watch people go from where you are to where I am as far beliefs. The closer you get to your own mortality, the more one tends to view things with an open mind. I wish you both a long life. I say that with only good intent, please don't confuse it with sarcasm. Thanks for keeping it reasonably civil. That's unusual in the political section of this forum.