Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

America in 2012 and the next four years after?

robert38-55robert38-55 Senior MemberPosts: 3,621 Senior Member
I know for a fact that knowone can predict the future, at least humans anyway.( Well with the exception of my Mother), I was just wondering what some of your opinions and forethoughts might be for America before and after the Presidential election in 2012. One thing is for certain no matter who is elected to the office of the President,congress, they will have their work cut out for them. The best laid plans of mice and men sometimes go awry. Whomever gets elected, the astute President should do what's best for the USA as a whole without reservation and without hesitation and show some backbone and spunk. Whomever gets elected just remember that we will have 4 years of that person as a general rule. We know that its our congress and senate that introduce the laws of the land, and the President of the USA is the leader of the free nation, but we need a good solid leader, with good intentions for the USA and it's citizens. The last thing we need is another President and Congress who creates an imbrogllo
climate and atmosphere in Washington, D.C.

On a more cynical note: My mother was the only person who could predict the future. She would take one look at my elementary school days report card and tell me excatly what was going to happen when my Dad got home!:rotflmao::rotflmao:
"It is what it is":usa:
«1

Replies

  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    INFLATION. That's the only thing I'm absolutely sure of.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,911 Senior Member
    If Obama is elected...economic and social disaster
    If Republican elected....prosperity...maybe

    More like an evaluation than prediction...sorry
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Just something to chill your heart. The next President will likely appoint 2-3 Supreme Court Justices. You want Obama to do that, or someone else?
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    knowone

    knowone? Really?
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    Okay, don't hang me for this but ...

    IF at the state level the Republicans will just work on controlling the House and Senate with enough force maybe the country could deal with Odumba being reelected which seems pretty likely. If the GOP could have enough hold on the Legislative branch to handle vetos and such the country could atleast survive. Any way 4 years of the next term will be hard on any president Rep or Dem ... the economy will not recover quickly under either but I'd rather have a good conservative leader who cares about the country rather than his golf game in Hawaii.

    AND if we get lucky and the idiot boy does something really stupid, can we say I M P E A C H M E N T ?
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    I, in my infinite lack of wisdom in this matters think that now more than ever the future of all mayor nations is tied together to a larger degree and it is not about one country's future but as part of a larger picture this more so due to economics and public opinion which is governed by the much faster this days world media and those that know how to use this tool for their benefit.
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Just something to chill your heart. The next President will likely appoint 2-3 Supreme Court Justices. You want Obama to do that, or someone else?

    That is such a critical point, ten, and one that I HOPE Republicans consider if their fave guy/gal isn't nominated and they want to sit home and not vote out of spite.

    What do I think the future will bring? If Obama gets another 4 years it will be a helluva long time before things get turned back around. If he loses, regardless of which Republcan wins, there will be some tough times but either way, we will prevail.

    I'm deathly worried about rogue nuclear suitcase bombs in the Middle East.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,327 Senior Member
    we need a good solid leader, with good intentions for the USA and it's citizens. The last thing we need is another President and Congress who creates an imbrogllo climate and atmosphere in Washington, D.C.

    As Han Solo would say; Well, that's the real trick, isn't it?

    My biggest concern is that this is virtually impossible to do at this point as these people are representatives of the people, and the people of this country don't seem to have anything even close to unity or a unifying event to get them to come together as a nation. The WWI generation had the Lusitania; WWII - Pear Harbor and the Boomers and X'rs had the Red Scare (which didn't work quite as well, but it somewhat served). 9/11 was ALMOST such a unifying event, until GWB made the colossal error of telling the nation to go on about their daily lives while the establishment "handled it".

    Call it local culture, call it subcultures, call it generation gaps, call it differences or race or religion - I see our current state as a nation of people who can no longer even agree on the color of poop. I think we may be getting to a point where the major groups simply get sick of compromising with each other and head for the formation of several new countries - certainly not in the next four years, but possibly within the next 20. That'll make for some interesting migration patterns.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    knowone? Really?

    Really:rotflmao::rotflmao: I thank my teachers for allowing me the opportunity to learn how to reed, rite, and talk American, both in proper English and American southern. But I thank my Vetern's more, for giving me the teachers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love it when a plan comes together: quote from the "A" team. Thaks again Jayhawker for pointing out the errors of my ways and a Very Merry Christmas to you and yours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    cpj
    Re: America in 2012 and the next four years after?

    I no, write?]

    ^^^^ Thats funny right there I don't care who ya is, If Ya'll ain't thanking dats funny ya need to get outof hea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nutting likes southern comfort!!!!!!!!!( not the liquor, but the life style of course)
    Thanks cpj,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:cool2:
    On a more cynical note: My mother was the only person who could predict the future. She would take one look at my elementary school days report card and tell me excatly what was going to happen when my Dad got home

    The above would include any and all grades on English: riting, reeding spell'n!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! get it???????????????:rotflmao:
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    As Han Solo would say; Well, that's the real trick, isn't it?

    My biggest concern is that this is virtually impossible to do at this point as these people are representatives of the people, and the people of this country don't seem to have anything even close to unity or a unifying event to get them to come together as a nation. The WWI generation had the Lusitania; WWII - Pear Harbor and the Boomers and X'rs had the Red Scare (which didn't work quite as well, but it somewhat served). 9/11 was ALMOST such a unifying event, until GWB made the colossal error of telling the nation to go on about their daily lives while the establishment "handled it".



    Call it local culture, call it subcultures, call it generation gaps, call it differences or race or religion - I see our current state as a nation of people who can no longer even agree on the color of poop. I think we may be getting to a point where the major groups simply get sick of compromising with each other and head for the formation of several new countries - certainly not in the next four years, but possibly within the next 20. That'll make for some interesting migration patterns.


    I like what you wrote Bigslug!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    9/11 was ALMOST such a unifying event, until GWB made the colossal error of telling the nation to go on about their daily lives while the establishment "handled it"

    Once Iran nukes Israel, or at least makes the attempt, that will be the tipping point that makes the world unite and make a large smoking hole where the radical jihadists used to be- - - - -and the collateral damage will be ignored, except by the bleeding heart liberals who will whine and moan no matter what. There were even chicken-livered cowards who opposed our participation in WW II, as I recall. There can be no negotiating with some things, such as cancer, and radical Islam. The only option is to totally excise the problem and accept the pain the operation causes, or surrender and die.
    Jerry
  • HakkonenHakkonen Member Posts: 251 Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Just something to chill your heart. The next President will likely appoint 2-3 Supreme Court Justices. You want Obama to do that, or someone else?

    I sure hope it's Obama, or better yet, Hillary. Maybe a liberal Court will overturn that asinine "money is speech" decision.
    "If money is speech, then no money means no speech." --Bill Moyers

    Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and wealth does not trickle down.
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    Hakkonen wrote: »
    I sure hope it's Obama, or better yet, Hillary. Maybe a liberal Court will overturn that asinine "money is speech" decision.

    Here is where a HUGE part of the problem lies, how we allow ourselves to be divided adn blinded in this instance by "partisan preference". Change is very difficult but still I cannot fathom how intelligent folks support a 2 party system where they get to choose among 2 guys with a lot of baggage that does not have our interests at heart whatsoever every 4 years!
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • HakkonenHakkonen Member Posts: 251 Member
    Where are the alternatives? I'd love to see a strong third (and fourth, and fifth) party, but I just don't see it happening. Maybe if no single party could muster a legislative majority, they might be forced to re-learn the lost art of statesmanship. Unfortunately, the Republicans and the Democrats have such a stranglehold on American politics that they can strongarm, co-opt, or just plain absorb any competition.
    "If money is speech, then no money means no speech." --Bill Moyers

    Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and wealth does not trickle down.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    It's not the 2 party system, it's the people we elect. We have a 2 party system because with a "winner take all" system like we have, you'll only wind up with 2 dominant parties.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Once Iran nukes Israel, or at least makes the attempt, that will be the tipping point that makes the world unite and make a large smoking hole where the radical jihadists used to be- - - - -and the collateral damage will be ignored, except by the bleeding heart liberals who will whine and moan no matter what. There were even chicken-livered cowards who opposed our participation in WW II, as I recall. There can be no negotiating with some things, such as cancer, and radical Islam. The only option is to totally excise the problem and accept the pain the operation causes, or surrender and die.
    Jerry

    Agreed.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 902 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Just something to chill your heart. The next President will likely appoint 2-3 Supreme Court Justices. You want Obama to do that, or someone else?

    If you want Obama, you can kiss your guns and the 2nd Amendment goodby, as this will give the Liberals a majority and overturn the last ruling of SCOTUS.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Nomadac wrote: »
    If you want Obama, you can kiss your guns and the 2nd Amendment goodby, as this will give the Liberals a majority and overturn the last ruling of SCOTUS.


    This is the fear tactic that the republicans use, even after the fiasco of Kelo vs New London.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Once Iran nukes Israel, or at least makes the attempt, that will be the tipping point that makes the world unite and make a large smoking hole where the radical jihadists used to be- - - - -and the collateral damage will be ignored, except by the bleeding heart liberals who will whine and moan no matter what. There were even chicken-livered cowards who opposed our participation in WW II, as I recall. There can be no negotiating with some things, such as cancer, and radical Islam. The only option is to totally excise the problem and accept the pain the operation causes, or surrender and die.
    Jerry

    I will agree with ya too Teach!!!! It is Israel's fate and destiny to prevail, as it was written over 3000 years ago. When Iran attacks Israel, Israel will strike back with a vengence and Iran will then understand this: "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out."
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    Jerry, the difference between us "bleeding heart liberals" and hawkish conservatives is we don't go around picking fights. However if we're hit, we have no problem retaliating with overwhelming force. Where we draw the line is on preemptive strikes against someone we think might, maybe someday think of hitting us or our friends. When you take that step to pick the fight you lose all moral high ground and you're the one who ends up looking like the bully. It hurts to take the first punch, but it's the right thing to do. Plus, when you stare down the bully and dare him to hit you, more often than not he'll simply back down.

    Soooo..using that rationale....since its the "right thing to do" you would let the home invader shoot you first.....probably ought to invest in some body armor...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • HakkonenHakkonen Member Posts: 251 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Soooo..using that rationale....since its the "right thing to do" you would let the home invader shoot you first.....probably ought to invest in some body armor...

    Try again. Invading someone's home is the first punch.
    "If money is speech, then no money means no speech." --Bill Moyers

    Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and wealth does not trickle down.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    Hakkonen wrote: »
    Try again. Invading someone's home is the first punch.
    Around here it is as well...I'm not sure how alpha feels about it...
    However...my point is that when you have an aggressor (person or country) who has continually displayed threatening behavior, has threatened you with extermination, and has even gone so far as to actively back those that HAVE attacked you...how much rope do you give them?
    Personally,I don't think that, given time, understanding, diversity and anger management classes, they're going to change much. Sooner or later you're going to have to actually deal with them...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    alpha...this isn't about us and what we did....it's about them an what they're doing...
    Same with thing with the aggressor who is threatening you...do you pause and wonder what you may have done to make him angry at you...
    so I'll ask it again ...How much rope do you give them before you act? How many lives do you allow them to take before you step in and say "Enough"...please put a number on "Enough"

    From where I stand, they have been given all the "warnings" they need, too many in fact...Hell, I didn't give a petulant child that many chances before I gave him a whack on the bottom.
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,118 Senior Member
    Lemme try this again...I'm speaking hypothetically...it doesn't matter what country, Iran, Mexico, Canada, California fer Christs sake...what would an aggressor nation have to do for you to finally take decisive action? By the way...since you seem to be so free and easy with somebody else's blood...your family lives in the most obvious target zone.

    I kinda use the rattle snake that keeps showing up in my yard analogy...he hasn't bit anyone in my family yet, I've even gone so far as to move him out into the pasture a couple of times, but he keeps coming back...and when he is in my yard, his mere presence is a credible threat, last week he bit the neighbors dog....Now I know one thing for certain, if I take my shotgun and blow his head off, Mr. No Shoulders isn't going to be a threat to anyone anymore...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Well said, Jay.

    If the US had been more assertive it's possible that much of the war in Europe of WW2 could have been prevented. Germany was apprehensive about US involvement but when we failed to send troops to help the British during their evac of the coast, the Germans felt it was okay to forge ahead.

    I think the analogy of a personal attacker is an excellent one. Do you wait until the mugger lays you out on the sidewalk? Do you let the home invader stab you? "Okay, you stab me again, I'm gonna be very angry."

    What do we do? Call the UN? Yeah, tell me how that's working in central Africa.

    I admit that I'm undecided whether the Iraq was was the right thing to do. But those who think that the fang-toothed Dick Cheney started it because of Halliburton are simply Jesse Ventura groupies. It was a legitimate decision, and I'll remind some here, BACKED by people like our dear ol' VP. It may have been ill advised but it was advised, studied, voted upon, and supported.

    What do we do? Nuke Iran? Not right away, but there's a point in which things go beyond talk.
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    It's not the 2 party system, it's the people we elect. We have a 2 party system because with a "winner take all" system like we have, you'll only wind up with 2 dominant parties.

    The actual number is not the issue, the point is that citizens pretty much don't have a say on who they vote for and there it is certainly a numbers game and with the 2 party system the immensity of the votes end up going for either for "our team", the perceived lesser evil, who a favorite celebrity endorses, is good looking, says what we want to hear, is from the neighborhood, none reasonable reasons to choose leadership ...

    That to me is not electing anything, it is exercising our right to be lazy, close minded SHEEP, take your pick, ranch red, ranch blue, or is it slaughterhouse at the end of the road...?

    Why not take politics out of the equation, what good comes from that outside of leading the herd, make it the 2 herds?

    Make it open to anyone without any strings attached, make that part mandatory. I know, that would be a royal mess, it does not have to be, not this days, test those that want to run, do this by levels, start with a test anyone can mail in for that matter, then make it harder every step until a manageable group of the best candidates is reached and and let those be the ones voters choose from, for one it would force the voters to get more involved and eliminate the "team" mentality, the baggage that comes with it, which in a nutshell is the root of all the problems, this on their side and on ours.
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,877 Senior Member
    The citizens don't have a say on who they vote for because... wait for it... they don't pay attention! The don't pay attention when they're running for local office, they don't pay attention when they run for state office, and they don't pay attention when they run in the primaries. Look at who's running this year. None of them are running for the first time. None of them. A good derail early on would stop them. But it hasn't. Why? Apathy.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,327 Senior Member
    Sorry Jayhawker, but I fear the rattlesnake analogy is best applied only to rattlesnakes.

    A rattlesnake doesn't have relatives, countrymen, or ideological allies living under the same or - more to the point - different flags. A preemptive strike on a reptile is one thing for preserving your literal back yard - but a reptile can't play political and media games on an international scale.

    It is damnably hard to take the moral high ground when you pull the trigger first, and doing so exposes you to the indignation of all those potentially on the side of the guy you plugged. You end up fighting a lot more people at once that way. Let the other guy shoot first and see how his friends react when they realize he just pissed off the wrong most powerful country on earth. Make no mistake about it, waiting to get punched can get ugly, but it gives you a much sturdier soap box to stand on when you make the case for throwing punches of your own. Not only that, it makes it a lot easier to justify punching back really, REALLY HARD. None of this is a matter of what's right and wrong - the simple fact is that in any court of public opinion, guys who fight back when attacked get more props than guys who start fights because they "feel" threatened. We've got two big oceans for insulation and the most powerful military in the world - from the outside, first strikes by us just look like empire building, whether they are or not is immaterial.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    Jerry, the difference between us "bleeding heart liberals" and hawkish conservatives is we don't go around picking fights. However if we're hit, we have no problem retaliating with overwhelming force. Where we draw the line is on preemptive strikes against someone we think might, maybe someday think of hitting us or our friends. When you take that step to pick the fight you lose all moral high ground and you're the one who ends up looking like the bully. It hurts to take the first punch, but it's the right thing to do. Plus, when you stare down the bully and dare him to hit you, more often than not he'll simply back down.

    Do you want to try and explain Korea and Vietnam to me? Or were you referring to sending troops to Somalia and then ignoring their requests for the armor they needed to do the job safely. The problem with staring down a bully with nuclear weapons or the intent to build the same, is that he might just be crazy enough to go ahead and use the stuff anyway.
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    The citizens don't have a say on who they vote for because... wait for it... they don't pay attention! The don't pay attention when they're running for local office, they don't pay attention when they run for state office, and they don't pay attention when they run in the primaries. Look at who's running this year. None of them are running for the first time. None of them. A good derail early on would stop them. But it hasn't. Why? Apathy.

    YES, I AGREE, so maybe shake things up and make them care in a responsible intelligent manner by someone a lot smarter than the sum of us instead of going in circles?
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement