# You young guys paying attention to politics



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I know some of you young guys think I'm being a pain by including some national politics on the forum and that you find it boring but this report is the perfect reason why you need to get involved. Hunting issues are important to us all but if you don't get involved in politics now you won't be able to afford to hunt. *Read the following article, its telling you if you don't do something about this issue right now in 25 years 40% of your income will be taken to support Social security*. An that does not include other taxes! *My generation isn't going to do it we are going to screw you!*

(Washington, D.C.) Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today supported Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's diagnosis of Social Security while criticizing his proposals to diffuse the program's looming financial crisis. In a bold foray into the political arena, Greenspan proposed cutting future retirement benefits and raising the retirement age to alleviate budget deficits that will "worsen dramatically" when the baby boomers begin retiring in 2008.

"Greenspan's ideas for fixing Social Security are inadequate and will beget a cycle of benefit cuts and eligibility restrictions that will squeeze the program's payout to barely a trickle," CCAGW President Tom Schatz said. "Years of trust fund fiction and runaway spending have led to the Social Security fund shortfall."

Testifying before Congress, Greenspan said that dramatic demographic changes will place "enormous demand on our nation's resources, demands that we will almost surely be unable to meet unless action is taken." The present pay-as-you-go system transfers Social Security payroll taxes directly to beneficiaries. As the number of workers shrinks compared the number of retirees, the program will run a deficit beginning in 2018, creating the need for benefit cuts, higher taxes, or both. *Social Security and Medicare will consume 40 percent of taxable wages by 2030 if the structure of the programs remains unchanged.*

"Sadly, it takes an unelected official to bring attention to what is potentially the most devastating problem facing the nation," Schatz continued. "Meanwhile, our elected leaders either deny or completely ignore the Social Security time bomb. But higher taxes and benefit cuts are not the answer. *Only fundamental reform involving personal retirement accounts or outright privatization will offer today's workers a chance for a livable retirement income." *

Most of the public shares Greenspan's pessimistic appraisal of Social Security. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in 2002 showed that Americans' biggest financial worry is the loss of their Social Security benefits. A majority of Generation Xers expect the program to go broke before seeing a dime in benefits. However, according to the latest Gallup poll, 62 percent of voters favor individual retirement accounts (including 83 percent of younger workers), which would increase the payout for future generations without cutting benefits for current retirees.

"The public cannot afford to follow politicians into their dream world of denial," Schatz concluded. "We hope Chairman Greenspan's reality check resonates with voters, especially with younger workers who could suffer crushing tax increases in their most productive years. But cutting benefits is unnecessary when an economically feasible, politically popular alternative exists in the form of personal retirement accounts. "

Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation's largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. You ought to read their website! :******:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

No --- I think I'm younger than you ??? But the same crappola has gone on no matter which party is in there :roll: all that happens is the abuse gets shifted from one set of priorities to another :huh:

I just hope there is a opening in the senior housing center & they have cable tv - when I get there - Lakota Good Sam looks like a nice place - I could at least watch the ducks & Geese fly over :homer: Maybe escape once in a while & have a few at the sunlac bar :beer: :wink:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I have already started the retirement fund. The system is screwed and there is no way that I will see any of the money when I retire.

What can we do? We have a generation of people reaching retirement age that did not plan for retirement and believed that the system would support them.

It is hard for me to believe that when the social security system was set up, the people thought a pyramid scheme would actually work.

Should we change the retirement age? That idea will go over like a fart in church.

I wish that I could keep my social security money and use it for my own retirement instead of having my money go throught the inefficient system the government runs.

I guess I'm just gonna have to work harder to support my habits and all you old farts.


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

Isn't it sad how the government owns our a$$es.
Bush is just like Hitler.
In fact, I Think he IS Hitler!

ooPS, I better watch what I say, The patriot act allows them to shove cameras up our A$$es now to watch every move we make.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Dano2 Bush had nothing to do with Social security equating him with Hitler shows incredible ignorance of the facts

Gander grinder if social security makes you mad thats a good thing maybe you will be inspired to do something about it because there are workable solutions which your generation has to support right now.

If you want to understand even a bigger travesty consider the worst day in US history and its not 9-11

It's July 1st. The First of July. A rather major (and increasingly meaningless) holiday. July 1 st. marks the anniversary of withholding taxes from your paycheck. Withholding started on July 1, 1943. That's 60 years ago. The politicial class needed an excuse to move to the withholding, and World War II served that purpose nicely. We were told it was all about cash flow. The government didn't have the luxury of waiting to get its share of your income. Don't worry, though. We will all go back to the normal routine of paying our taxes yearly when the war is over. Again ... that was 60 years ago, and about 58 years since the end of World War II.

Why is withholding so bad? Because is effectively masks the amount of income taxes American workers pay. Tax withholding introduced a new phrase into the American lexicon: "Take home pay." 
Today the average American has no idea how much they actually make, let alone how much they pay in income taxes. Ask them what they make and they will tell you what they "take home." Ask them what they paid in taxes last year and they will tell you only what they had to pay, or how much they "got back" on April 15th.

The only time the average American is ever really aware of the impact of income taxes on their actual wages is when they are given a bonus. The boss will tell them "You're going to get a $10,000 bonus on your next paycheck." Instantly the employee creates this image of $10,000. That's 100 C-Notes! Wow! This euphoria lasts right up until the magic moment that bonus check is pulled out of the envelope. Suddenly, reality sets in. The check isn't for $10,000. It's for about $5,200! You get about one-half of what you thought was coming! TAXES! Social Security, Medicare, Federal income, state taxes!

This is an outrage that is simply not felt when those bi-weekly paychecks arrive. That's because you're conditioned - conditioned by withholding - to think only in terms of your "take home." It's as if the rest of that paycheck, *that portion seized by government,* never existed at all.

How wonderful this all is for the political class! They manage to plunder your paycheck to fund their grand vote-buying schemes, and you barely notice. July 1st is the day, folks. The day that led to the dumbing-down of the American wage earner.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

All of you young guys should read and learn about the Fair Tax bill. Remember, whether or not this concept becomes law and transforms our nation and our economy is up to you. The federal income tax will end only if you get behind the plan. Your letters can put this think on the radar screens of the Beltway crowd. Don't sit on your hands. Here's that website if you need any more information: *http://www.fairtax.org. *

Study this and educate your peers if this ever gets passed you would have to hide under a rock not to have a good job and you not some bureaucrat will decide how your money is spent


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

well, ok then.
But now lets try an get some feed back on the issue you brought up on doubling the NR upland license fee and dropping the 10 day limit for those that would like to hunt the entire season.
I think if it was made optional that would be great.
I dont think it would hurt much , because the majority just come for a week or so anyway, and will stick to the $90 , 10 day thing, but then theres a few like me that just live right across the river that wouldn't mind paying double for a little longer season.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ok Dano2 now your talking somthing that sensible and worthwhile I think the idea would be money maker for the DNR and I wouldn't mind forking up the extra money.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

At this time I hate both parties and will not vote for either. Bush is a moron and the MASSIVE deficit he keeps racking up is going to have to paid for by someone...and that someone is going to me and the rest of my generation. Supply-Side economics are retarded, sure if you shove a bunch of oats down a horse's throat there's going to be some that come out the other end for the birds to pick through and eat. That's what Bush has called economic recovery. It's the same crap Reagan pulled all the while he talked about reducing the giant bureaucracy the federal government had become when he actually increased the federal governments spending percentage of the GDP. It's the same thing Bush is doing, "reducing" government's role...i.e. pushing tax cuts while he continues to spend like he's playing with monopoly money. Great economics.

Then you have Kerry, wow talk about a steller choice of opposition. :roll: He does have some strong counterpoints to Bush but he's also in with Feinstein and Schumer. Do I want to have to worry about my second amendment rights or do I want to watch the environment be trampled? Although I don't see Kerry as a big environment guy anyways so I guess in that regard I might as well protect my personal liberties. Then again Kerry is against the nazi, er I mean patriot act so now it's a question of which civil liberties I want to lose. :roll: At least he'd take some of that money we're throwing down a rat hole overseas and use it for some decent social programs right here at home. You talk about education with Bush and his *** puckers up tighter than a snare drum but he has no problems schilling out 100's of Billions of dollars on a worthless country that will never become the "Shining Beacon of Democracy" that we've been told it will.

Either way both candidates are douche bags and I will not vote for either. I'm going to have to look into my third party choices more but I'm pretty sure I'm going to be voting liberterian. I'm just so extremely sick of the people in this country picking a side and then following everything they say. The people of this country need to wake up and realize that YOU, yourself, should be deciding and forming your own ideals...and not letting some party tell you what those ideals should be like a bunch of brain dead sheep following a corrupt shepherd who's only looking out for themselves.

OK, I'm done now and will step off my soapbox. And you wonder why the youth of this country want nothing to do with politics. Could it be because the choices we have offer us nothing?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Matt your either part of the solution or part of the problem its your choice!

A modern day cowboy has spent many days crossing the desert 
without water.

His horse has already died of thirst.

He's crawling through the sand, certain that he has breathed 
his last, when all of a sudden, he sees an object sticking out 
of the sand several yards ahead of him.

He crawls to the object, pulls it out of the sand, and 
discovers what looks to be an old briefcase.

He opens it and out pops a genie. But this is no ordinary 
genie. She is wearing an Internal Revenue Service ID badge 
and a dull gray dress. There's a calculator in her pocketbook.
She has a pencil tucked behind one ear.

"Well, cowboy," says the genie. "You know how I work. You have 
three wishes."

"I'm not falling for this," says the man. "I'm not going to 
trust an IRS auditor genie."

"What do you have to lose? You've got no transportation, and 
it looks like you're a goner anyway."

The man thinks about this for a minute, and decides that the
genie is right.

"OK, I wish I were in a lush oasis with plenty of food and 
drink."

***POOF***

The cowboy finds himself in the most beautiful oasis he has 
ever seen. And he is surrounded with jugs of wine and platters 
of delicacies.

"OK, cowpoke, what's your second wish."

"My second wish is that I were rich beyond my wildest dreams."

***POOF***

The man finds himself surrounded by treasure chests filled with 
rare gold coins and precious gems.

"OK, cowpuncher, you have just one more wish. Better make it 
a good one!"

After thinking for a few minutes, the man says.. "I wish that 
no matter where I go, beautiful women will want and need me."

***POOF***

He is turned into a tampon.

The moral of the story: If the government offers you anything, 
there's going to be a string attached.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bobm said:


> Matt your either part of the solution or part of the problem its your choice!


I agree fully. Which is why I'm voting third party this year to get away from the problem of the two lame-corrupt parties we have vying for the presidency. :wink:

I don't know if that's necessarily the solution but at least I'm not part of the problem and at least that way I'm not throwing my vote away. 8)


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Matt, I don't like the Bush and the republican recent ridiculous domestic spending anymore than you do (probably less) but I would suggest you vote Libertarian on everything but the president because Kerry will spend as bad and probably worse plus he will roll over and try to "negotiate" with the terroists which will put us all at grave risk. 
Hold your nose and vote for Bush thats what I'm going to do. A protest vote for the libertarian candidate for president is tempting but you and I both know it won't really matter unless enough conservatives do it and Kerry gets elected. Maybe Bush will get some balls about domestic spending after he doesn't have to get re-elected. 
You don't want a bunch of cowardly appeasers running our countries defense department. Syria, Iran, Korea, Al quaida, are all hoping Bush gets defeated do you want to help them? I hope not and I'm sure you don't. 
Bush did stop the highway bill because of all the pork maybe there is hope..... by the way the only reason there is corruption in government is because the American people are so politically ignorant and thats a pity. And its a challenge for your generation to change it. *Start asking your peers who their representative are and what their positions are on the issues and then ridicule them when they don't know( which most won't have a clue).* How many times do you hear people *****ing about government but when you ask them specific questions they don't know anything at all! *Remember there is no end to the thirst the government has to spend your money to keep themselves in power!*


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Here's the deal folks. Bush is simply enacting the wishes of "Americans for Tax Reform." http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20 ... s=dreyfuss This is Grover Norquist's outfit (close Bush ally) that wishes to eliminate programs like Social Security and Medicare by starving the government of the revenues it needs to run them. It's not politically feasible to announce you're going to kill these programs, so you starve the government through tax cuts for the super-rich coupled with unbridled spending. The resulting deficits make it easier to tell the public sheep (like Greenspan did last week) that cuts will need to be made.

Read this and learn. By the way, Paul Krugman is one of the world's leading economists and is a Professor of Economics at Princeton University. Like Bush, a lot of you good ol' boys are suspicious of educated Professor types, but it's difficult to argue against the points this man makes.

Maestro of Chutzpah
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 2, 2004

The traditional definition of chutzpah says it's when you murder your parents, then plead for clemency because you're an orphan. Alan Greenspan has chutzpah.

Last week Mr. Greenspan warned of the dangers posed by budget deficits. But even though the main cause of deficits is plunging revenue - the federal government's tax take is now at its lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950 - he opposes any effort to restore recent revenue losses. Instead, he supports the Bush administration's plan to make its tax cuts permanent, and calls for cuts in Social Security benefits.

Yet three years ago Mr. Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, warning that otherwise the federal government would run excessive surpluses. He assured Congress that those tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits. And last year he declined to stand in the way of another round of deficit-creating tax cuts.

But wait - it gets worse.

You see, although the rest of the government is running huge deficits - and never did run much of a surplus - the Social Security system is currently taking in much more money than it spends. Thanks to those surpluses, the program is fully financed at least through 2042. The cost of securing the program's future for many decades after that would be modest - a small fraction of the revenue that will be lost if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.

And the reason Social Security is in fairly good shape is that during the 1980's the Greenspan commission persuaded Congress to increase the payroll tax, which supports the program.

The payroll tax is regressive: it falls much more heavily on middle- and lower-income families than it does on the rich. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, families near the middle of the income distribution pay almost twice as much in payroll taxes as in income taxes. Yet people were willing to accept a regressive tax increase to sustain Social Security.

Now the joke's on them. Mr. Greenspan pushed through an increase in taxes on working Americans, generating a Social Security surplus. Then he used that surplus to argue for tax cuts that deliver very little relief to most people, but are worth a lot to those making more than $300,000 a year. And now that those tax cuts have contributed to a soaring deficit, he wants to cut Social Security benefits.

The point, of course, is that if anyone had tried to sell this package honestly - "Let's raise taxes and cut benefits for working families so we can give big tax cuts to the rich!" - voters would have been outraged. So the class warriors of the right engaged in bait-and-switch.

There are three lessons in this tale.

First, "starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario - it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.

Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants. Social Security and Medicare are the targets because that's where the money is. We might add that ideologues on the right have never given up on their hope of doing away with Social Security altogether. If Mr. Bush wins in November, we can be sure that they will move forward on privatization - the creation of personal retirement accounts. These will be sold as a way to "save" Social Security (from a nonexistent crisis), but will, in fact, undermine its finances. And that, of course, is the point.

Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system - the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical - continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.

The Bush White House has made it clear that it will destroy the careers of scientists, budget experts, intelligence operatives and even military officers who don't toe the line. But Mr. Greenspan should have been immune to such pressures, and he should have understood that the peculiarity of his position - as an unelected official who wields immense power - carries with it an obligation to stand above the fray. By using his office to promote a partisan agenda, he has betrayed his institution, and the nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/opini ... %20Krugman


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

There's absolutely no chance of me voting for Bush. There is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans when it comes to spending so that is a non-issue for me. They are both equally fiscally irresponsible. The only difference is where they spend it. At least with Kerry he'd waste more of that money here at home where it's needed compared to how Bush has wasted what will end up being close to a trillion dollars on a country that we will never get anything out of (in a positive sense at least :roll: ). Saddam was a villain but it's appearing that he wasn't a direct threat like we were made to believe. Now we get the lame excuse that at least a tyrant was removed from power. What about all the other warlords around the world that are still in power? Oh, I forgot that Bush doesn't have a personal-family vendetta against them and their countrys aren't rich in oil so the US won't do anything about them under his administration. :roll:

There is no way I'm going to be scared into voting for Bush under the false premise that if I don't terrorists are going to blow up the US. I'm so sick of hearing that crap. If anything I think he may just be creating more terrorists in the long run. The only reason why he constantly keeps 'the War on Terror' a front issue is because he has absolutely nothing to hang his hat on so he has to scare people into backing him. The economy sucks, the deficit is out of control, the rest of the world hates us, and there are a lot of issues right here at home that have been ignored. So Bob tell me exactly why again I'd want to vote Bush? In hopes that he will wake up and get some balls in regards to domestic spending? You have to be kidding me...why would I think that after four years of fiscal irresponsibility never before seen? If anything he's going to spend more once he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected. I'm not that concerned about terrorists and frankly I'm sick of that propaganda. I'd like to see the US take a step back when it comes to foreign policy. So the only way I'm not going to vote liberterian is if the race is close enough in ND that Kerry might actually win, and then I'm going to have make some serious decision making. I'm not a fan of Kerry at all but the way the current political system works in this country is that you vote for the lesser of two evils and I think that maybe Kerry. This is coming from someone who considered himself a staunch Republican until a couple years ago and who would have never dreamed of voting democrap, that's the impact Bush has made on me. Most likely Bush will easily win ND and I'll be able to help promote a third party by voting liberterian...but if the race gets close I might have to change my mind.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

*The following is a Civics lesson about how social security actually works if you study it you will be one of the few citizens of this country that actually understands social security*.
Mt Phesant the idea that social security is fully funded is a slight of hand by the congress and its both the left and the right they all show no courage, but to blame Bush is ridiculous this problem has been coming on for a long, long time. 
Essentially, anyone who is today age 50 or under can expect to pay additional taxes totaling over $5 trillion so that Uncle Sam can honor the trust fund promises. Sadly, in 2042, the drawer of paper promises will be empty,( yes that's what the fund is a drawer full of IOU's )that congress has been putting in while they spend the revenue form your paycheck on what PORK they have at the moment to but votes. *(THERE IS NO ACTUAL MONEY IN THE FUND IT IS LITERALLY A FILE CABINET IN VIRGINA FULL OF IOU's!) *AT 2042 and from that point on, promised benefits will be cut - first by 27 percent and then by ever greater amounts as Social Security's deficits grow larger. Without real reform, anyone under the age of 28 today can expect to pay 100 percent of their Social Security taxes and 100 percent of their share of the extra taxes to pay the trust fund promises only to receive about 73 percent of the benefits that Social Security has promised them.

Here is how social security will play out and how it works 

*The time period thesystem will be in surplus (today until year 2017)*

*STEP1)*Employer sends a periodic periodic check to treasury. The check includes three taxes 
A)social security withheld from all employees
B)employers share of employees social security taxes ( which is money they could pay you so its really part of yoursalary)
C)income taxes withheld from employees checks
The check is one lump sum without dishtinguishing one of the above from another

*Step 2)*Treasury add the money from the check to its general funds
*Step3) *Treasury estimates how much of the general fund came from social security taxes and notifies the SSA ( social security administration) that the amount is greater than what SSA needs to pay monthly benefits.
*Step4) *SSA tells treasury each month how much to pay in monthly benefits and how much to each person
*STEP5) *Treasury issues checks to SS recipients and notifies SSA how much is left over. ALL CASH IS LEFT IN THE TREASURIES GENERAL FUND ( this is important)
*Step6) *Periodically treasury issues special issue bonds to the SSA to put in the trust fund. Cash still remains at treasury ( these bonds are similar to IOU's telling the SSA how much additional money was collected)
*Step7 *Special issue bonds are printed on a laser printer in Parkersburg, WV office of the bureau of public debt and placed in a fireproof filling cabinet. NO CASH HAS CHANGED HANDS!!
*STEP 8) **Treasury spends remaining SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES on anything from planes to schools to repaying treasury bonds held by the public*

*Now here comes the HARD PART WHEN SOCIAL SECURITY RUNS A DEFICIT ( years 2017-2041) This is the part that's going to hurt!!!*
*STEP 1&2) *are the same as above
*Step3) *Treasury estimates how much of the general fund came from social security taxes and notifies the SSA ( social security administration). Unfortunately that the amount is now less than what SSA needs to pay monthly benefits.
*Step4) *SSA tells treasury each month how much to pay in monthly benefits and how much to each person. Since the amount that treasury is to pay is more than the amount of SS Taxes that have been collected SSA sends one of the bonds (IOU's) to the Treasury to make up the shortfall. Remember this is all accounting no cash changes hands! 

*STEP5) *Treasury issues checks to SS recipients. The difference between what it pays in benefits and what it has collected in taxes can be raised by borrowing money, collecting more income and non- social security taxes *( this means they are going to stick it to you young guys for additional taxes), *reducing other government programs *( fat chance with our PORK hungry congress)* or reducing SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. Which is what they are already laying the groundwork for!

*Step 6)* Finally we get to the big point of all this!
This process can continue only as long as the SSA has some of the bonds left ( the IOU's I mentioned above). Once they run out, SSA can only pay monthly benefits when Treasury says that it ahs collected enough Social security taxes to pay a full months benefits. Current law prohibits SSA from making a partial payment of monthly benefits. THE SYSTEM GOES BELLY UP OR YOU YOUNG GUYS WILL BE RAPED FOR TAXES TO SUPPORT IT.

*Great system huh? *Pay in all your life ( and you young guys will really have to pay a lot more),get about a 1.5 % return, die early and your heirs get nothing but a $500.00 death benefit the government gets to keep the rest. *So ask yourself how bad privatization sounds now, *most private mutual funds will average at least 10 percent ( at least in the last 100 years). So you have much more money for retirement and the money is yours to give to your children not the governments to spend on their latest pork barrel vote buying scheme!

*The idea that this is a left or right wing issue is stupid *(and people like MT Pheasant that make it out to be one are using the issue to support their agenda ) no one in congress on either side of the aisle will do anything about it until you force them to at least Bush is talking about doing something thats a first. Social Security has been considered untouchable by politicians for years even though they full understand what going to happen!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Boys and girls the issues of spending and social programs aside I look at what the voting actions and records of a person is not what thye say they will do.

Case in point was last Tuesday. Take the time and read the amendments that where added to the Gun Liablity Bill. Then look at how our Senators voted and also Kerry. Keep this information handy as Kerry needs to pick a running mate.

For those unwilling to do a little bit of education on this here is a link that backs up the old adage a pic paints a 1000 words!

http://refugeforums.com/refuge/attachment.php?s=&postid=1873249


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MAtt I'm not tring to scare you, but to think that there will not be another terrorist attack attempted is not logical. We didn't start this war, but we must finish it. We were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by forces whose goal is to destroy America's economic and political power. We have two choices: We can apologize to our enemy and change those of our policies they find objectionable, bring our soldiers home and hope terrorists won't blow up anything else in America; or we can find our enemies and defeat them. *Any choice between these two extremes simply delays the day when we will have to fight the enemy in the streets of America, rather than in a foreign land. *

This president, with the support of Congress and the overwhelming support of the people, chose to find our enemies and defeat them. Now that the war is slipping into its third year and the cost is being paid, in money and in lives, support in Congress and among the people is slipping away. Our enemies know us well. They saw us cut and run from Vietnam when the body bags mounted. ( thanks to the likes of Jane Fonda and John Kerry) They saw us let terrorists overthrow our embassy in Iran and sit helpless for more than a year, unable to rescue our people from their grip. They saw us leave Lebanon when terrorists blew up our soldiers. They saw us make big noise, but little more, after the first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center. They saw us cut and run from Mogadishu.

*Our enemies are confident that we don't have the guts to finish the fight they started. And because of people with attitudes like yours they may be right. *

Some Americans believe that war is never justified. Others believe that we should take the first option and apologize for our policies and bring our troops home. Still others believe that we should turn to the United Nations. But there is a growing number of Americans who just want to get our troops out of Iraq, with little care or thought about the consequences.

Many of these people gravitate to organizations such as A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). This international organization, with offices and staff in several major U.S. cities, springs into action whenever there is an opportunity to protest and demonstrate against the United States. Their list of coalition partners includes: Socialist Center, Athens, Attica, Greece; Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, Praha, Czech Republic; German Communist Party, Ruhr-Westfalen, Germany; Partido Comunista de la Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Bedfordshire Socialist Alliance, Luton, England; Freedom Socialist Party; Ramsey Clark - former U.S. attorney general; Green Party USA, and many other individuals and organizations who share their views.

We are in a war against terror, whether we like it or not. We must fight it at its source, or we will fight it in our cities. It will be a long war and an expensive war. If we continue to fight it at its source, we may be able to keep it from becoming as bloody as previous wars. If we cut and run, as our enemies expect us to do, they will regroup and find ways to deliver weapons deadly enough to make the death toll of Americans rise to numbers that rival those lost in other wars.

The terrorists know that the value of television and newspaper coverage they get from every bomb blast they cause far exceeds the cost of the explosives used. They are using the media very effectively, not to sell their ideology but to peddle terror in America - by proxy. And it is working, as is demonstrated by the declining support for our presence in Iraq.

The constant, organized drumbeat of the anti-war professionals, amplified by a complicit media, is clouding the reason we are at war in the first place. It's not about oil. It's not about exerting American arrogance. It's not about territory, or ruling the world - despite the claims of those who make these arguments. The war is about defending America by defeating terrorists who want to destroy this nation. 

The war must be fought on the battlefield, with bombs and bullets, but it will not be won there. It will be won only when the people who now volunteer to be fodder for the bin Ladens of the world have, and realize that they have, a better alternative. Which is why the effrot in Irag must succeed so it can be a model of what is possible for the arab world to see.

Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is a heroic effort to help provide a better alternative to those people. *If we cut and run before we accomplish this objective, we will have further fanned the flames of terror and encouraged its generals to bring the war to our shores - again.* John Kerry will cut and run!!!!!!!!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bobm said:


> We didn't start this war, but we must finish it. We were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by forces whose goal is to destroy America's economic and political power.


Looks like those forces might have already won...the deficit these "defensive" wars have put us into HAS put our economic and political power very much at risk. I never said that I thought there wouldn't be anymore attacks, eventually there almost certainly will whether or not we keep fighting these very questionable wars (and news flash, 9-11 wasn't the first terrorist attack on this country either). We're fighting these wars in the name of freedom, and yet that's what we're giving up right here at home to be safe.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree because it's obvious you're not going to change your opinion and I sure as hell am not going to change mine.

Like I said before, what we're really voting for between Kerry and Bush is not what we're going to gain, but who are we going to lose the least with. It's not a question of if we're going to lose our rights, but rather what rights we choose to lose. Democracy is the worst political system in the world...besides every other system that is. :roll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This country has been run in deficit most of the last 30 years, and as a percentage of GNP this war in nowhere near as expensive as the mainstream ( liberal ) media would have you believe. Its just politics and your news flash comment???? I gave a list of previous terrorist attacks in my post but 9-11 was here in the USA and I don't want anymore here on US soil!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

C'mon Bob, give it up. How can you sit and say that the U.S. did not start the war in Iraq?! Those with access to information don't buy it anymore.

Enough with the paranoia. Some folks are so scared of their own shadows that they believe anything. I refuse to live that way. Some folks are great at generating fear by saying things like, "Shoot them or they'll shoot us first", or "We need to keep GeorgeW or we'll have terrorists in our streets", or "Don't vote Democrat or people will be taking our guns".

Do people really lie awake at night thinking the Dems are going to knock on your door and ask for your 870? Do people really lie awake at night waiting for the next terrorist attack? I have no doubt that we will have another terrorist attack in the U.S., but it doesn't control my life. My real worry is that GeorgeW has alienated so many allies that we are on our own. My other fear is that his judgement or intelligence is so poor that he'll pull another Iraq.

Now, I've had enough of the political spin. I thought we were here to talk about North Dakota outdoors.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The "war" isn't really with Iraq its with Islamic Jihadist terrorists and at this point who started it is immaterial ( if you think 9-11 wasn't a blow, fine thats consistant with the rest of your logic) *the question has now become who is going to win it.* I definitely don't recommend sitting around worrying about terrorists attacks but Its surely not prudent to not do anything we can to prevent another ( which means don't vote Kerry in). 
* The old liberal lie that George Bush has "alienated our allies" is phony as hell and not factually based *( like many of your arguments) most of the world was with us, this everybody in the world doesn't like us BS sure makes it hard to understand why people from all these countries are trying to immigrate to America does'nt it? Even the UN passed the resolution allowing force to clean out Saddam ( you guys always like to leave that little factoid out) so the poor French and Germans who are not our allies and the Russians and Chinese who have never been our allies aren't happy, they wouldn't be happy no matter what the US does unless of course its fail at something. I guess their socialist countries just cannot get over the realization that our system is far superior to theirs. 
As to the statement the George Bush is unintelligent , lets see...masters degree from Harvard in Business and the President of the United States I'm sure accomplishment like that doesn't rise to your level of genious and stature. 
 I do see why you would want to go back to talking hunting, you're incapable of making a factual argument to support your politics, a problem common to most but not all :lol: liberals. All you have to do is not click on the threads that are about politics and you will be there, its called free will exercise it if you wish. I for one think politics are an interesting topic especially in an Election year. And I feel its important to get young people interested and involved in politics, because as I've said many times politics has more effect and influence on all of our lives than any other single interest, and politics is where all the hunting issues will ultimately be solved so interest and involvement is critical to the future of hunting!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Well Bob, you continue to resort to a tactic that you frequently use on those that disagree with you like fireball and myself. You call us "liberal" as an insult and say that we can't back up anything with factual arguments. I challenge you to re-read this string and see who lost the debate. Plain and simple, Bob, you got your A$$ kicked. The problem is, you don't even realize it.

OK, so let's end it right here. We will never agree on whether or not George's war in Iraq as justified. Therefore, besides the preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation, give us one good reason to vote for George. In other words, what has he done to deserve my vote?

Now, don't lay on the Chicken Little, "the Muslims are coming" pitch. Just give me a list to prove that things better now than before George was elected. If you can do that, I'll continue to listen to you.


----------



## Duey (Aug 15, 2003)

These lefty's will never get it. Just let it go. They've all been brain washed by that flip-flopping ******.....I mean.... Red-head, Schultz. Every argument they've made has been word for word recycled garbage from big eddie.

Bottom line, you're either for a limited government or a larger, more controlling government. There is no middle of the road.

Tim Robbins
Sean Penn
Big Daddy
Matt Jones

Nice company you guys keep!


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Bob,
NEVER GIVE UP. and don't burn yourself out cause the election is over 8 months away.
MT,
Your claim to be in center and use the New York Times as your source uke: Give me a break that is the far far left. Don't try to kid us.
ONE IMPORTANT FACT: "You can not TAX this or any other country into PROSPERITY" I think some famous Democrate said that.
Big Pa,
If you can't understand and learn from the political end of this thread start one you like. The future of hunting, fishing and gun ownership is in the political arena like it or not. I am old enough that I have started giving my guns away and enjoy fishing more now. You 20 somethings need to watch and particitpate, be proactive not reactive. 
Stay with us Bob and don't burn out :sniper: And a double AMEN to Duey
Love you man :beer:


----------



## headhunter (Oct 10, 2002)

Cheers Duey/Zogman/Bob. :beer: I'm a consverative because of these very simple obvious reasons.

I think abortion is not a "choice" ....it is WRONG. (common sense)

I believe we need a public "militia" to keep " We the people" in control.

I believe in god, and if needed , will die to defend what this country was built on...Christianity!

I believe our people are more important to protect than the rest of the world. Screw em.

I believe in Capitalism. The more you make, and the smarter business man you are, the more you should KEEP. (duuuuuuhhhhh )

If you didn't make the money, why should you get MY money. .................YOUR LIFE IS NOT MY FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People that do less.......deserve less.

If you don't like America, get the hell out and put those ridiculous signs down.........you look like an idiot. (move to China .......please!)

Did I mention Capitalism?..........

Marriage was intended for Man and Woman.... (uuuhh....duhhh,,,duuuhh no explanation needed ....) RIGHT? RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

The list goes onnn and onnn. Its the simple long list of common sense over idealistic bullsh!t. Don't you worry lefty's.....I'll have more common sense for you tomorrow to chew on. And more education too!! :wink:


----------



## headhunter (Oct 10, 2002)

P.S.

And get that gosh dam hippie look'n, save the planet stickered, SUBARU out of my way , or I'll drive over the top of it in my :

Gas guzzeling, environment hurting,four wheel drive lovin, bought and paid for, shiny , huge, big tired, fat, oversized, capitalist lov'en, freeway hoggin , who needs something "that big", 3/4 ton, gun rack toten, mud slinging, behemoth look'n , S U V. :wink:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Finally,conservatives speak out!! :beer:
:evil: Liberals can not shape the direction of this country!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Thanks guys, as a card carring member of the right wing conspirators :lol: I take great pleasure in pointing out the phony parts of the lefts positions heres todays dose........
George Bush has been president of the United States for three and one-half years. During that time, what is the single most important event that happened, not just here, but anywhere in the world? Let's state it more strongly. What one event defines the first Bush term.

Now, we may have some egocentric whiners out there who believe that the jobs they lost to some call center in India is that defining moment. Right ... it's all about them. *The correct answer, though, is the Islamic terrorist attack on New York and Washington DC.* (And Big Daddy the sky certainly fell for 3000 of our fellow citizens didn't it????) 

George Bush is the 43rd President of the Untied States. Think back. Harder if you're a Liberal Democrat, I know ... but try to think back through your life experience and the history that you managed to learn in our government schools and tell me just how many presidents out of those 43 have had a defining moment like that which occurred on 9/11. I'm not the biggest dummy out there in terms of our history, and I can only think of one other similar defining moment in the last 100 years, and that would be December 7, 1941; the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 demanded an immediate and decisive response from the president, and both Franklin Roosevelt and George Bush showed that they were up to the task.

Now Bush runs an advertisement that features fleeting images of 9/11. A shot of an American Flag flying outside at the scene of the destruction in New York, and of some firefighters. As soon as these ads hit the television screens various Democrats and Kerry supporters across the country reacted with immediate outrage.

For today's study in political absurdity we will take a look at a letter that Frank Lautenberg, The Democrat Senator from New Jersey, sent to Bush:

Dear Mr. President:
As you may know, over 700 of my constituents died in the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. .... Using images [from] the horrific and tragic event for political ends demeans and dishonors those who died and the families who lost loved ones on that day. ... I urge you to direct your campaign to immediately withdraw these advertisements."

The president of the International Association of Fire Fighters also chimed in. Harold Schaitberger said that "I'm disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters in the September 11 attacks." *Most of the newspapers and broadcast newscasts who carried Schaitberger's remarks failed to also state that Shaitberger endorsed John Kerry several months ago and is a constant fixture on the Kerry campaign trail, *usually standing behind Kerry with a huge smile on his face.

If you live in a primary state undoubtedly you've seen those television ads featuring John Kerry carrying his M-16 through the Vietnamese jungles. As you know over 50,000 people died in Vietnam. So, where is the outrage over John Kerry exploiting a tragedy that cost 50,000 American lives for his political campaign? Oh! You say that Kerry actually served in Vietnam, and that's different. *Well Bush serves in the war on terror ... as Commander in Chief in fact ... and highlighting that service as part of a reelection campaign is entirely appropriate*.

When do you think Frank Lautenberg is going to send a letter to John Kerry saying "As you know, over 3,500 of my constituents died in Vietnam. Using images from that horrific war for political ends demeans and dishonors those who died and the families who lost loved ones that day." Yeah ... hold your breath waiting for that one.

Isn't this just about as stupid as things get in a political campaign? The Democrats are trying to write a rather remarkable set of rules for this election season. They are doing so with the complete and almost unanimous support of the media. Thus far we have:

1. Inasmuch as John Kerry served in Vietnam, any negative reference to John Kerry's voting record during his 19 years in the Senate of the United States shall be deemed to be an attack on Kerry's patriotism.

2. Any images of Vietnam used in Kerry campaign commercials are not only appropriate, but serve as proof positive of John Kerry's fitness to serve the country as its president.

3. Any images of 9/11 used in Bush campaign commercials are not only inappropriate and exploitive, but shall also serve as proof positive that George Bush is unfit to serve the country as its president.

4*. Any group of people who support the reelection of George Bush shall be deemed a "special interest." Any group of people who support the campaign of John Kerry shall be deemed a "constituency."*(I especially like this bit of BS from our liberal friends)

We will anxiously await the next entry into the media campaign stylebook .. and I will certainly take pleasure in reporting same to you.
*Oh, and German shorthairs "rule" just thought I'd add that so Big Daddy can feel better because this is a hunting a hunting web site after all *:beer: God I love life and this country we are truly blessed, just wish I could convince my wife to move up there to Gods country( I'm working on it :lol: )


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Duey said:


> These lefty's will never get it. Just let it go. They've all been brain washed by that flip-flopping stupid.....I mean.... Red-head, Schultz. Every argument they've made has been word for word recycled garbage from big eddie.
> 
> Bottom line, you're either for a limited government or a larger, more controlling government. There is no middle of the road.
> 
> ...


Well, since I've never even listened to ONE of Eddie's shows I wouldn't even know if my opinions are close to his. Hell, I couldn't even tell you what station his show is on.

So I'm now labeled as a lefty huh? Ha! That's a good one. :lol: I guess my problem is that I don't conform to a parties set of ideals like yourself and most people. I have my own set of ideals and they're definitely not Democrat or Republican.

If you think voting Republican is a way of getting a limited, less controlling government you're dead wrong. It might mean paying less taxes (than under a Democrat administration :roll: ), but the role of the government increased under Reagan and now under Bush. After looking into it I was suprised to find that the Republicans actually spend WAY more than the Democraps. They just spend it in different areas.

If you are REALLY for a limited, less controlling government then perhaps you should look into voting Libertarian like myself. I value all of my rights whether they're under the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, etc. That's the problem with the current two party system, no matter what candidate you pick you're giving up more than what you gain.

You should take a look at the Libertarian party... http://www.lp.org/issues/


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I can't really find a candidate that fits my ideals. I would call myself a conservative but.....

I believe that religion has no place in government our country was fundamentally built on religious freedom not christianity, so with that said

I think abortion is a personal choice.

I think who you marry is your business if it doesn't hurt anyone whats the problem.

I do believe in Capitalism. The other option has proven itself ineffective. Some people have more motivation they should be rewarded for that.

Everyone is not created equal. We all just have the same opportunities in this country. So don't complain and ask for handouts because you squandered your opportunities.

I believe in the right to bear arms.

I like the environment and think we should protect it.

I don't like more government. People seem to be under the false pretense that we can do it better than the market can. Wrong.

So where does this all place me. Somewhere in the middle of confusion.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

It sounds like you should check out the libertarian party.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gander grinder and Matt you will never agree totally with any political party so all you can do is determine what you think is the most important issue of the time and vote accordingly thats what I do, for me that issue is national security and even though I'm ****** at the republican domestic spending I going to vote for Bush because of that issue alone. I know in my heart Kerry can't be trusted to handle this issue. Anyway gander grinder go take this test http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html maybe it will be enlightening!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If you think that congratulatory phone call from President Bush to Senator Kerry on the eve of the Democratic front-runner's coronation meant anything, you have another thing coming. The next eight months are going to bring us the most vicious campaign in our nation's history. Forget '88, '92 or even 2000. This will be one for the ages. And what a fun ride it will be.

Senator John McCain had it right yesterday, when he said on ABC's 'This Week' that "I think this is going to be probably the nastiest campaign we've ever seen." Absolutely...and there are many reasons why. The biggest reason is the left's all-consuming hatred for George W. Bush. Make no mistake: *the Democrats don't care about the safety and security of the United States of America, nor do they give a rip about taxes, jobs or health care. It's about the Bush-hating.*

The Kerry campaign will drone on and on about the deficit, health care and they'll try and use the word "reckless" as much as possible. They're also going to attempt to change the subject as often as possible when Kerry's record is discussed. Oh and remember, he served in Vietnam.

The Bush side, with the Democratic nominee chosen, will spend the next 8 months and millions of dollars exposing Kerry for what he is: a flip-flopping liberal who is soft on terrorism, and someone who wants to turn our military over to the UN to protect us. John Kerry thinks terrorism is a law enforcement problem and George Bush views them as an enemy that must be destroyed. It's no more complicated than that.

So get ready...election day is November 2nd. Nothing is sacred, nothing is off-limits. Let the games begin.

*Just in case you didn't know ..... if the Congress doesn't act to make the last rounds of tax cuts permanent, they will expire. In fact ... some of those tax cuts will start to expire this year.

If Congress doesn't act, America is facing an automatic tax increase of $2 TRILLION DOLLARS. Kiss your economic recovery goodbye.*


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The Democrats call Florida the "scene of the 2000 recount crime." That's great rhetoric that plays well in the mainstream leftist press .. but not so well with anyone with even a modest knowledge of the facts. Facts, however, don't matter to Democrats. The economy is growing, they say it's in the tank. Unemployment is down, Democrats say the jobs picture is a disaster. Facts mean nothing ... rhetoric is king.

So, there he was ... John Kerry in West Palm Beach Florida pulling one of the oldest Democratic stunts on the books. He was telling Florida's wizened citizens that George Bush wants to cut their Social Security benefits. Nothing is quite so effective at getting the wrinkled class into a complete panic than telling them that their Social Security benefits are going to be cut.  Democrats know this, and this is why Democrats have used this very same tactic in every single presidential election since the end of World War II. Funny thing though ... whenever the Republicans win, Social Security benefits do not get cut. Odd how that happens, isn't it?

But, year after year, the tactic continues. Democrats try to frighten old people. Old people vote for Democrats. An absolutely dependable cycle.

Now ... just what could happen to mess up this quadrennial Democrat scare game? One thing. If the senior citizens knew that the Republicans could NOT reduce their benefits they would be less likely to run frightened to the polls to keep their Democrat protectors in office. And just what would it take to protect these benefits from being cut by politicians? Why, if those Social Security accounts were privately owned, that's what!

That, my friends, is why John Kerry was down there in Florida yesterday promising that no matter what, he would never permit Social Security to be privatized. You see, it's not about preserving the meager retirement benefits that Social Security provides --- if, that is, you live long enough to collect them. It's about preserving the Democrats ability to frighten old folks about losing those benefits ... and the only way they can do that is if Social Security is not privatized.

Here's something else for you to remember. *A few years ago Republicans proposed a bill in Congress that would guarantee Social Security benefits to retirees. * Oh! What's that? You say that you thought those benefits were guaranteed anyway? Not so! There is no law on the books which guarantees your right to benefits. They can be take away by the congress at any time. So ... the Republicans said why not just pass a law saying that those benefits are guaranteed and can not be taken away? *Well ... guess who blocked this legislation. The Democrats, of course. * The very same politicians who are always warning old folks that Republicans are going to take away their Social Security objected to a federal law that would guarantee them. *You do understand why, don't you? It's simple. Because if those benefits were guaranteed, the Democrats could no longer frighten old folks by saying that they were going to be taken away*!


----------

