Republicans turning into anarchists?
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=180170
Printed Date: 06 April 2026 at 3:35am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Republicans turning into anarchists?
Posted By: Tolgak
Subject: Republicans turning into anarchists?
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 1:21am
|
Ever since the election, I've noticed a steady shift of Republicans' views on the other forums that I both participate and lurk on. I never thought I would see the words "the government is our enemy" out of anyone's thoughts until I overheard a few conversations in the real world and participated in some on the internet. What's the deal? I get that Republicans are often self-proclaimed anti-Federalists... but now, more than ever, I'm hearing them talk of revolting and saying that governments are evil and all this other hoohah. Spare me the ambiguity: Do you they really hate big government or are they just really pissy that Obama won? ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: JohnnyHopper
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 1:43am
|
I've always been pissy about big gubment and wasn't a fan of most of what Bush created in DC. Obama winning did not change what I think about the dirtbags in washington. Government isn't always the enemy, but they rarely give you the warm fuzzies. I would prefer if they stayed far away and never took any interest in me (good or bad) since so many of their little minions act like hall monitors with guns. Anarchy has nothing to do with any conservative ideals and even though I'm a bonified wackadoo, I don't see or feel the need to revolt. ------------- My shoes of peace have steel toes. |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 5:44am
|
By the same token, most liberals who were very anti-government have softened their tone or turned about face since Obama was elected. I think its just a case of good 'ol political partisanship :) ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 7:50am
|
Look at your history. My family helped found this great country. (one of my ancestors signed the declaration of independence, we have fought in EVERY war or conflict since the beginning). This country was founded because people were tired of paying HUGE amounts of their income in taxes.
It was also founded so that people could choose to have the freedom of religion.
Both of these ideals have been trampled by our government.
Do you realize that you pay over HALF your income in taxes. And now that the government is about to spend
$1,000,000,000,000.00
Do you seriously think that your tax burden will go down?
Ever?
Look at history, we now have to have 2 incomes in order to live "normally"... Hmm, thats good for families...
Because 1 of those incomes is going to TAXES!
Ever heard of the Boston Tea party?
Well, instead of tea. EVERYTHING is being OVERTAXED, and I didn't even bring up what government has done with religion.
So, yes, a revolt is coming.
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 8:29am
|
Actually it wasn't founded because people didn't want to pay taxes. They didn't want to be taxed without having a say. "No taxation without representation" Just saying... Oh and btw. The "freedom of religion" nonsense. People have a freedom of religion. "the citizens of Plymouth were fleeing religious persecution and searching for a place to worship their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God - God as they saw fit" Which is allowed now... ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 8:59am
|
Again, FE you really need a better accountant if you're paying over half your income in taxes. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 9:20am
|
And you need to wake up...
Look, your tax return is only a small part of what you pay in taxes. Obviously schools don't teach stuff about this, but it is fact.
Look at a gallon of gas.
how much tax do you pay on that?
Uh, Oh, I hear your brain creaking...
Well, here in Ohio I pay $0.464 of every gallon on tax.
But, there is more tax there too. What about the company that brought the fuel to the station. They pay taxes to get it there... So that gallon of fuel is being double taxed.
But, wait, someone had to get the oil turned into gas... And guess what, the refinery paid taxes too. (remember the government taxes almost everything, as many times as they can) So that gallon of gas is now triple taxed.
Oh, wait, someone had to ship that oil to the refinery... Do shipping companies pay tax?
Yup, Quadruple taxed for your gallon of gas.
But, Free, someone had to get the oil out of the ground...
yup. your gallon of gas just passed the quintuple tax.
But, how did they know where to drill. Well, they had to explore. And that isn't taxed...
Wrong. They tax the guy exploring for the oil.
sextuple taxes. on your gallon of fuel.
So how much tax are you actually paying on that gallon of gas?
You don't know, because it is so convoluted that no one thinks about it... They just pay, and don't realize how much tax they are paying.
You want to be really frustrated about how much taxes go into something. Look at the cost medicine vs what it costs to manufacture it... Taxes are a big part of that increase in cost.
You don't pay just your income tax, you pay tax on EVERYTHING you buy.
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 9:40am
|
You say you pay $.464 on a gallon of gas then proceed to list taxes that other people pay on transactions they profit from.
Whine moar. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 9:46am
|
post facts "moar"...
You tried (unsuccessfully) to dispute my claim that we pay over half our income in taxes. I proved you wrong, and I'm whining...
Lrn mor.
|
Posted By: NiQ-Toto
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 9:48am
|
The fact is FE, the tax you pay is 46.4 cents. The other companies are paying INCOME taxes on the money they make from doing what they do, find/refine/ship gasoline. A service they are being paid to do.
Are you saying only end users of products should have to pay taxes? Cause thats a good way to screw a lot of things up... ------------- ///AMG What? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 9:53am
|
No, I'm saying that if everyone figured out the rediculous amount of taxes we pay in America, we would revolt.
Like the boston tea party...
|
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 10:01am
Are you sure about that...?
Tax burdens go up and down all the time. We are nowhere near an all-time high.
Yeah, that's pretty much completely inconsistent with history. As recently as the 60s, for instance, tax rates were significantly higher than now, and dual-income households were rare. The dual-income phenomenon is a bit more complex.
I have - but I am thinking you may not understand exactly what that was all about.
------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
FreeEnterprise wrote:Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 10:04am
Correct. The gas tax is an end-use tax, and is not added at every step. In general, consumption taxes in the US are end-use taxes, unlike countries with VAT systems where intermediate steps can also be taxed.
------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 12:23pm
|
F.E. does make a good point though, about taxes not just being on the tax-portion of your pay stub. Mind you, not all of the taxes are federal taxes. Sales tax, alcohol taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, phone taxes, etc etc. They do add up and people in the under $75,000 tax bracket who live within their means probably do wind up paying close to half of their gross in various taxes. And yes, while government spending does have some to do with the anti-federal sentiment floating around out there, it isn't the only reason for the anti-Obama Administration flare up you're seeing.
Sure, the hard core conservatives such as F.E. and many others had their minds made up prior to the election, but now more moderate minds are starting to take notice of what is going on in DC and thinking that a big mistake was made. After proposing a transparent and outsider-based presidency, Obama has attempted to fill his cabinet with Washington insiders who don't have the greatest track records when it comes to legal issues. When the people that you "stand behind 100%" start removing themselves from the nomination process due to some rather embarrassing questions being asked, well, perhaps you aren't making the best decisions. Due to the vetting process being so disrupted by bad choices, Obama is going to have a very tough time keeping his first 100 days from stalling on him. If he can't get more finished than what he already has, he's going to start losing face with his supporters. The man promised too much and now isn't going to be able to deliver on his promises. How is that different from any other politician? It's not. But the fact of the matter is that his supporters bought into the whole "I'm not like these other guys" spiel hook, line, and sinker. What's really pissing off the conservative end of the spectrum right now are the preliminary steps being taken to provide the federal government and the various cabinet members with broad powers to interfere in the lives of the individual and the states. Since there's been talk of H.R.45 on here recently, I'll use that as an example. H.R.45 gives almost complete power of firearms approval to the Attorney General. That means that one man is given the authority to say what firearms are legal to own in the US and which ones are not. Furthermore, it gives one man the ability to establish whatever guidelines he pleases when it comes to compliance with the law. At no point in this process is anyone able to step in and say that the provisions made are unreasonable. It would only be in the case of an appeal reaching SCOTUS that any unreasonable measures could be axed. That is a very long, expensive, and life-shattering process. Giving one man sole control over any individual rights in this country goes completely against what the founding fathers fought for. There's a reason that we have a system of checks and balances in place, and that is to keep any branch of government, let alone any individual, from having complete power over our liberties. However, the last administration and now THIS administration have been whittling away at the system for their own gains. The talk of resisting the gov't is mainly just that, talk. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see mass demonstrations within the next year of gun owners and anti-federalists. There are already plans in the works for a "million gun-owner march" next year which is being headed up by the GOA and possibly the NRA. The biggest form of resistance we would see this time around will be the "losing" or "selling" of privately owned firearms should H.R.45 come to pass. Some of the real whack-jobs may try to go all Ruby Ridge on the federal gov't should H.R.45 come to pass, but enough gun owners in the US understand what is at stake after seeing what happened in the UK: We're rapidly headed in the same direction that the UK is. To a "nanny state" where the rights of the individual are no longer valid. Our ancestors fought to keep the government out of our private lives. Guns are just one of the many issues at hand and one of the most visible. There are many, many other reasons, from taxes to the sense of class warfare that is becoming more prevalent, that keep the anti-federalists going strong in this country and gaining more support each and every day. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 1:29pm
Certainly. Anybody who thinks their taxes are only income-based isn't paying attention.
Surely the irony of this isn't lost on you.
Don't know much about HR 45. Looks interesting; I'll have to do some reading.
You made me laugh. Also, you should expect the revocation of your NRA membership in the mail by next week. Few things make my eyes roll faster than "from my cold, dead hands."
And I think most Americans are concerned about this. But I have hope, because Americans are not British. Americans have an entirely different starting point in terms of the role of government. And while the "government interference line" ebbs and flows, the basic principles of individual freedom are far stronger here, both socially and legally, than in any European country.
I have faith.
------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 2:24pm
Of course it isn't and I think I mentioned the fact that the previous administration did it as well and set us up for this kind of thing. Bush certainly wasn't the greatest president, far from it, and the mucking about in the rights of the individual and stripping of certain guaranteed freedoms was something I never could support. Are there certain sections of the Patriot Act that were useful? You bet your ass there are! But did the powers it gave the government and individual federal officials need to be there? Not so much. There were much better ways to go about the whole deal but the opportunists and those who wished to be seen as being "proactive" rushed the sucker through under the guise of the "war on terror." So, yes, I realize the irony of it. But the fact of the matter is that Obama and the rest of the newly elected Dems were the loudest when it came to denouncing such actions and the power it gave individuals in government. Of course, when they got here, all they did was latch on to the allure of their new found powers and it will only be a matter of time before they too abuse them. Obama and his cabinet are no King Solomon and Court.
Believe me, it's scary when you think of the implications. I've no doubt that the originator thinks he is merely helping law enforcement keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people, but when ignorant people write ignorant laws, bad things happen. That's my biggest problem with gun legislation in the US. So many people who introduce bills on the subject have no clue what they are talking about and never research the matter. H.R.45 supposedly creates a clearinghouse on gun related accidents, deaths, and crimes. The only difference between it and the ATF and FBI's joint statistics clearinghouse is that the new clearinghouse would also have a database of every gun owner and what firearms they own. What purpose does this serve? How is somebody's life proactively protected by this?
I'm not a member of the NRA. I've considered it many times, but the cost/benefit ratio isn't good enough for me at this juncture. Do I support them a lot of the time? You bet I do! Have they made some major gaffes in the past that make me facepalm? Ohhh yeah. As for "cold, dead hands" that's reactionary rhetoric. Smart people realize that martyrdom is a last resort. I will say that the US Govt is going to have a very tough time rounding up guns should it come down to that. They will all mysteriously be "lost" "stolen" "sold and I can't remember his/her name" or otherwise disposed of by their owners. The fact of the matter is that whatever legislation is put in place today, 4-8 years down the road it can, and will be reversed. Honestly, I'd like to see something screwball happen with H.R.45 or some other such legislation that nullifies the FOPA-86 which would, in turn, nullify the Hughes Ammendment. Sure, you'd have a registry of gun owners and their firearms, but it'd flood the market with nice, cheap, imported machine guns. 
I don't think this is as true as it was in the past. Today's youth don't have as much of a sense of their rights and personal freedoms as those in the past have. They "know" that they have personal rights and freedoms, but don't understand that they have to fight to keep them. This is the generation, after all, that said "not my president" and thought that it was true. You may not have voted Bush into office, but he's sure as hell your president and what he says and does matters. There just seems to be a disconnect between young voters and the political process. Is this an "across the board" kind of thing? No, of course not. But I think the disconnect with the younger generations is far wider than it was with any prior with the exception of the Hippies.
Well, I have faith that God exists, but the scientific facts are contrary to my faith and can't be ignored. Same can be said for politics in this country. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 2:34pm
I think you and I are on the same page here.
Agreed. I zoomed through HR 45 just now, and on its surface it seems fairly benign, subject to principled objections to a national firearms card. But with all things the devil is in the details - or in the case of legislation, in the interactions with other legislation. This bill bears the mark of something thrown together over lunch, which is never a good sign.
That's kind of where I stand as well. What's a fella to do if he just likes to shoot guns without all the nutballery?
And I hope you are wrong.
That is FAR too profound for an internet message board.
------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: MeanMan
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 2:38pm
|
I doubt there will ever be a worthwhile revolt in the US. No one will do anything big because of technology being able to track their every move it's not like the Boston Tea Party, you can't just put on a mask and have some fun anarchy, you'd probably be shot by police. There's too much... I don't know, civilization? Not many will risk what they've done in life to protest in a large manner. ------------- 
hybrid-sniper~"To be honest, if I see a player still using an Impulse I'm going to question their motives." |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 2:42pm
The same has been stated in other countries the world over in the past century. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Take the 1968 riots but instead of being social, make them political, and you've got a revolution on your hands. Arm the rioters and you've got a civil war. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 3:01pm
Take the food away and you have Africa. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 3:04pm
|
^ Win.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 3:05pm
|
I think I might consider myself a partial anti-federalist, or at least a moderate libetarian. The main thing I don't like is Social Security, I will not get the benefits of it, and besides that, some federal programs frequently dip into that store of money(which is not what it is for). To top that off, my federal Tax takes out 10 times as much as my state tax. I'm pretty sure I would rather have that money going into my own state. I feel I have no representation as far as my taxes go. Politicians soon lose their hometown values after leaving for DC. Do I think something will happen with states rights, and my rights? Yes. To blame on one administration would be false. It has been a long time since we have had an administration that has realized that the federal government has gotten to big and powerful. I also feel that the government is not the laissez faire attitude we used to have. The economy goes up, and it goes down, but giving handout(bailouts) and "stimulus packages" that will double the national deficit is moronic. How about we start making the countries that owe us money start paying. |
Posted By: mod98commando
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 3:09pm
I can't say that I have as much faith as you. Far too often I see people talk up a storm about things but when it comes time to act, nothing is done. Sure people will complain about everything but talk is cheap, people need to actually do something about their problems and that's where the big issue is with our country. The only people acting are these crooked (and often idiotic) politicians that are disconnected from society and the needs or desires of the people they represent and their actions are not often what will provide the best results for us. Unfortunately, I think we're headed downhill from here unless something big happens. ------------- oreomann33: Everybody invades Poland Rofl_Mao: And everyone eats turkey Me: But only if they're hungary Mack: Yeah but hungary people go russian through their food and end up with greece on everyth |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 3:20pm
Could we take it that far? The people speaking of revolution are the same who hold their admiration for the military as high as they do their religions. But the military exists to protect the nation as a whole. The conflict of beliefs among supporters of revolution would make any attempt confused and unorganized. What would happen after the revolt? Who will they fight against? Is it war they want or a mass assassination of specific politicians? Would they replace the central government with another one designed to keep out the political beliefs they fought against? Could you call such a government a democratic republic anymore? Would they turn the states into nations, each governing itself? Wouldn't those new nations' governments also be "big governments," the same entities they want to eradicate? Where does "unity" come from in a conglomeration of now separated states? Is it still a "United States" if the new government is purged of beliefs opposite to those who started the revolution? I don't get what anyone is trying to accomplish by calling for revolution. We survived as a society because even the most corrupt and powerful people can be booted by impeachment/arrested/sued/voted out of office. Even secession and the following Civil War did not manage to break up the Union, and they were organized and clear in their intentions. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 3:57pm
You do know that S.S. is technically a voluntary payment right? You don't pay, you don't get the benefits, but it is technically possible to not have to pay it. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 4:54pm
| If you can show me how I can stop paying in, I am willing to go that route. |
Posted By: Bruce Banner
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 5:01pm
|
Yeah, I wouldn't bet on social security being voluntary. ------------- Waste and excess are not conservative family values http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/07opclassic.html - Nature is not a liberal plot http://pickensplan.com - A Good Energy Plan |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 5:12pm
|
I'll repeat what I said shortly after the elections: Unless the Republican Party sheds off the far right, evangelical, moral-regulatory extremists, in both political elements and supporters, (Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, FreeEnterprise) they will be largely irrelevant. Right now their aim is simply off of the point on the political spectrum where most people are finding themselves. The country has shifted a bit less-right, but the party has not shifted with it. Please see the transition of the Democratic party from the Southern segregationist party to the creature it is today. They went through times of change too. I still think that unless that change occurs, bringing the party back to the more moderate, financially conservative, small-government (REAL small government. None of this "The bailout is evil but I'm cool with gay marriage being banned" part-time anti-federalist stuff) party it used to be, they will not have another positive net election result. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 8:47pm
I've been saying this since the second Bush inauguration. Tolga, I never said it would be a worthwhile revolution, merely pointing out that it could indeed happen very easily. Furthermore, everyone always says that the Army would put down any revolution. That is simply not true. Our troops would be loathe to fire on their own civilians. Some may stand and fight, others would turn sides. Anyway, it is a situation too awful to think of. If the US were to descend into civil war again, the whole world would be up a certain creek without a paddle. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: TheDude
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 8:54pm
|
First: Don't feed the troll. Even if he isn't a real troll, he's bad enough to be. Second: All the troll-y thing is doing is misrepresenting facts, then lumping them together to make his point. /ignore. ------------- "According to Sue Johanson, theres nothing that can increase your manhood, trust me I've already looked into it for myself." -Zata <keep the sigs friendly, please> |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 10:10pm
Somehow I find myself listening a lot to this group lately...
fight the power! ------------- 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 10:30pm
|
"
And a new world order is about to begin, y'knowhutI'msayin? Now the question is - are you ready, for the real revolution which is the evolution of the mind? If you seek then you shall find that we all come from the divine You dig what I'm sayin? Now if you take heed to the words of wisdom that are written on the walls of life then universally, we will stand and divided we will fall" FLAVOR FLAVE!!!!!!!!!! ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 10:41pm
|
You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world You say you got a real solution Well, you know We'd all love to see the plan ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 10:43pm
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 11:18pm
Then you are the typical American. From the studies I have looked at, and the political scientists I have talked to about it, it was shortly after Bush's second election when his poll numbers shot down, and had an effect on Republican's appeal and poll numbers. This is two elections with net Democratic gains in a row. Time will see what happens. |
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 05 February 2009 at 11:30pm
As far as I can tell, my brother in the navy, told me that some bills signed recently kinda screwed over the military. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 06 February 2009 at 12:14am
Bills pertaining to the military industrial complex that are signed into law with Democrats in power usually do this. All you have to do is look back to the Clinton Era to see the US military almost get neutered to the point of uselessness. Our military man-power was cut from 2.1 million members of the armed forces to 1.6 million. That amounts to over one full Army Group or three full Field Armies. To give you an idea, our entire European front in WWII was made up of only three Army Groups. Remove just one from the equation and we wouldn't have had the manpower to win. Of course, his cuts were across the board throughout all the services, but the above still illustrates the sheer drop in manpower during the last Democratic control of the White House. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 February 2009 at 12:19am
|
Because, apparently cutting down the amount of military is a bad thing..... ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 06 February 2009 at 8:24am
| Actually, the Navy was preparing for and beginning to downsize prior to the Obama administration. We've started to see an increase in administrative separations due to Physical Readiness Test failures. We lost at leas 5 people from my command due to that. Now, anyone on their first or second enlistment has to submit a "Perform to Serve" package to stay in the Navy. It used to be first year only, then they extended it to weed out the tirds who got through the first enlistment. Every enlistment after the 2nd enlistment requires performance packages (can't remember the exact name) as well. This is good for the people that do their jobs well, bad for those who are just scraping by. |