doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Moved topic

Gnomon, I was specifically and only referring to the inclusion of improvements of gun rights as being attributable to the current administration. I was making no comment about the economy, good or bad.

I would agree that the economic problems faced by the US during his term had their origins far earlier than when Obama got onto the scene. My opinion is there is a direct line back to the policies of the Clinton administration. Just as I might agree that whatever economic improvement or decline that has taken place in the last three years has only been marginally affected by the policies of the current White House. It is a much larger issue than that.

I would respectfully disagree however, that, economically speaking, as a result of the Obama administration, you are "as a nation are far better off..."

But time will tell on that.

Quote:
"It is disingenuous (at least in my opinion) to "blame" Obama for the economy (ignoring that it has been recovering for the past several years) and then not credit him when gun rights are expanded."

Believe it or not I'm going to agree with you but NOT the reason you made this statement
A sitting President is,for all practical purposes, unable to exert much if any control over the economy. The economy ,as a rule, reacts slowing to changes.
For example the tax reform that was instituted under Reagan really didn't kick in until Clinton took office and that was when we reaped the benefits. Of course Clinton took the credit even though his own economic "policy" was to basically leave the economy alone.
Obama has done NOTHING positive to effect the economy and we will be paying for his bailouts long after he's left office.
Giving Obama credit for any kind of positive form of gun legislation must be your idea of a sick joke. His AJ lackey's testamony before the Supreme Court in the Heller case and the same individuals flagrant breaking of the law in Operation Fast & Furious readily point out the fallacy of your post. Furthermore his demonstrated overt contempt of Congress is unpresidented for a government official.

Yup. RR raised taxes. It worked wonders.

If ya wanna think about breaking law, think "Iran Contra" but it's counterproductive to point fingers - what we really are interested in is outcome.

The stock market is up. More people are getting employed.

That's good.

Jim, I think Canadians generally look upon their constitution as rules to live by just as we consider Dave's rules to contribute and keep it clean. Constitutions are elegant but all countries transgress as we do here on the board. As for the Bible, Canada is more secular than the US which has far greater numbers attending services regularly, possibly highest percentage in the West. Both our countries, however, observe the Bible differently in practice.

Canadian provinces with most Catholics are producing the least children. Contraception clamours for attention of US primaries where statistics tell us 60 per cent of Catholics practice birth control. Reminds me of Cuomo senior's address to the Democratic convention to the effect "I'm a practicing Roman Catholic but represent all the citizens of New York. Who am I to make contraception laws for everyone when we're not following Church rules ourselves?

Canvas, it might be hair-splitting but we are better off now than we were when Obama took office.

I'm talking about right now - it's not a matter of "time will tell" and whether or not anyone wants to give Obama any credit we are better off by any inclusive metric than we were when he took office.

Some might credit Obama; others might credit pixie dust.

Gnomon, not at all arguing with whether you are better off. Only taking issue with what seemed to be your original assertion that for both gun rights and the economy, Obama deserved credit. It was implied, but it was the essence of your post, as I read it.



What I meant by "time will tell", is that I believe the impact of Obama's economic policies and action won't be fully understood for some years to come. And that is true for any administration. Not that the current metrics don't suggest it is better than in 2008/2009.

Gnomon, I have no expectation that I could ever change your mind, but to correct you....

Unemployment increased dramatically after Obama took office. This was after his promise that the Stimulus Bill would keep unemployment below 8%. I am so glad you provided that link to Trading Economics.com.... it proves my point exactly. The chart which pops up looks very good for the one month period shown. But click on the date selection above the chart and change the 2010 to 2000, the year George Bush 46 took office. Man, your boy Obama doesn't look so good now, does he? Why would you give us a link to historical data that shows your boy has presided over the longest and deepest recession since the Depression?

It is generally conceded that the unemployment rate has been falling the last several months because we now have 1.2 million per month running out of 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. They are no longer counted as unemployed. So if the whole country was unemployed and never went back to work, the rate would eventually go back to zero. Last month, we gained 200,000 jobs, new claims dropped, but 1.2 million ran out of benefits and many will join the 17 million new food stamp recipients under Obamas' tenure.

If you look at your historical data closer, you can see that Bush 46 inherited a mini-recession from Bill Clinton and made things much better until the mortgage crisis which was precipitated by the Democratic braintrust, Dodd-Frank. As noted earlier, Clinton was a huge benefactor of Reagans' policies. He was able to show huge cuts in military spending because he was gutting a military that Reagan had built to huge levels to bankrupt the former Soviet Union.

I told you why I am complaining about the eventual outcome on gun rights even though there have been few overt assaults during Obamas' tenure. With his judicial appointments at the Federal District and Supreme Court level, his anti-gun dogma will haunt us long after he is gone. His Secretary of State has reversed the U.S. position on the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty, and a lame duck Obama will have no fear of instituting his anti-gun agenda by executive order.

Gunflint Charlie, are you paying attention? Do you see why I have to go on and on and repeat myself? Talking to Gnomon is like reasoning with a 2 year old. Or maybe you agree with him?

OK Gnomon, pay attention now. Gas prices are over a dollar per gallon higher today than they were a year ago. Demand is still very weak due to the piss-poor economy. U.S. stockpiles are way up. That is a big reason refining has slowed. There is no shortage of crude. We just don't need so much refined product due to bloated inventories. So why the higher prices? More importantly, where is the shrill Democrat crying that Bush and Cheney endured about being in bed with Big Oil and keeping gas prices high for their buddies at Haliburton? Shameless Hypocrites with a capital H.

Don't blame Iran's sabre rattling for this. Gas prices were much higher under Obama before Iran started threatening to block the flow of oil. And Obama's handling of Iran and their nuclear program has been a spectacular failure. It has become obvious that Obama will probably decide to attack Iran's nuclear facilities right before the election in order to give himself a boost. You and yours will swallow that bait, hook, line, and sinker.

King Brown, I am going to print out your post on "what is so sacred about Constitutional rights?", and also save it in a file. In the future, when someone says I've painted you in an unfair light, I will be able to reproduce your exact words. That should be required reading for everyone here.

I sure hope I didn't shame one of my protagonists' into making their apparent first ever financial contribution to this BBS a few nights ago in the wee hours. Better late than never. I don't want to mention any names because I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

I don't need a rod and reel when I go fishing. They keep jumping right into my boat.


What did jOe say about being "dum'r 'n a box of rocks"? I want to know why jOe is insulting boxes of rocks?

the true unemployment rate is over 16% when counting those that are discouraged and left the workforce.Look at the charts;

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/key-charts...labor-force-plu




Are you better off now then you where 5 trillion dollars ago?
National debt increased 43% !
67 MILLION people now receive subsidies from Washington more then any other time.49% pay NO federal taxes !


http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/08/dependence-on-government-at-all-time-high/

Dave K.

You and I should probably try to refrain from talking about Obama's sad economic record here in the DoubleGuns BBS, and stick to his egregious anti-gun resume. I let myself get dragged into that, and shouldn't have. What's at issue here is whether anti-gun politics has any relevence to Double Guns and our ability to maintain those rights. I'm going to try very hard not to let them drag us so far off-topic that they win the initial arguement. I do like your data though... Too bad you'll be accused of making stuff up. Remember, we are just Jim's Parrots. Squawwwk!

Keith, I'm not aware of members painting me in an "unfair light." Some disagree with my opinion as I do theirs. That's not unfair. It's what dialogue is for. I don't mind your quoting my views as long as they are used in context they were made. It's worth considering in any discussion of the sanctity of constitutional rights of what our white majorities did to minorities, blacks there and indigenous peoples here, which continue to this day. One of the bitterest civil wars in history couldn't give meaning to the wonderful words, and we're still palavering to make it right with First Nations.