# I think I can hear the sound............



## paratrooper

*..........of boots on the ground.* :watching:

ISIS has upped the stakes: Islamic State claims beheading of British hostage: SITE


----------



## rustygun

I think that will be the only answer. I think we need a take no prisoners attitude.


----------



## Scorpion8

I doubt it. What's one person, in truth? Hundreds of people die over in that wasteland on a daily basis, killing each other. They've been fighting over my-religion-is-better-than-yours since Jesus was soiling diapers. But you know what? We have the technology to solve it. Way back in the 80's was the oft-forgotten Pershing short range tactical ballistic missile. Neat piece of trivia was it could be fitted with a neutron warhead, which was an airburst device. The ground level destruction was very minimal, but the neutron radiation killed all indiscriminately. Use it in the Middle East over ISIS territory? I'd give it a 99 on a scale of 1-to-10. Maybe not very PC, but then that's why I'm not an elected official ....


----------



## paratrooper

I do believe that we (USA) will have boots, lots of boots, on the ground within a matter of a month or two.

Even if Obummer doesn't want to, that is the only way that we will be able to rid the world of the scum. We can bomb day in and day out, and that will not get the job done. From what I have heard, the ISL could be 60K strong within a matter of several weeks.

This is a world threat, unlike we've seen in many, many years. It's time to take matters into our hands and do whatever it takes, and I do mean, *whatever it takes*, to bring this to an end, once and for all.

The longer we wait, sitting on our hands, hoping that it will all just go away, will provide ISL with a better foot hold. I don't see them as the kind that will be happy with the current status quo. They want as much territory as they can acquire.


----------



## pic

Isis is either very stupid or they have a few tricks yet to come. 
The beheadings seem like an intentional maneuver to pull us closer for the big ambush.
Just seems very strange.


----------



## Cait43

paratrooper said:


> *I think I can hear the sound.............of boots on the ground.*
> 
> While bombing serves a purpose, history shows that in order to bring the enemy to its knees "boots on the ground" is necessary in order to prevail..........


----------



## rustygun

I have no doubt the US military could destroy ISIL. But then what? They hate us want us dead no matter what we would do. Eventually we would leave again and they or something like them would start up again, no matter if we stayed 6yrs or 60. Certainly no easy answers, I do think the longer we wait to do something now the worse it will be when we do go in.


----------



## desertman

We finished and won World War Two in three and a half years. Why should this be any different? There are already boots on the ground some 1500 of them, we sure as hell aren't going to do it with that, or with the Islamic Black Militant that occupies the oval office. Along with a treasonous secretary of state, who during the Vietnamese war accused his fellow soldiers of committing war crimes reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. I wouldn't want to be among those 1500.


----------



## TAPnRACK

The World Police (US) should hang tight til other countries commit to lending a hand... we are not the only country with an armed force and something at stake.


----------



## Hauptmann

paratrooper said:


> *..........of boots on the ground.* :watching:
> 
> ISIS has upped the stakes: Islamic State claims beheading of British hostage: SITE


I agree. Boots on the ground, but first, let the Air Force turn that desert into a big piece of glass.


----------



## denner

Cait43 said:


> paratrooper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think I can hear the sound.............of boots on the ground.*
> 
> While bombing serves a purpose, history shows that in order to bring the enemy to its knees "boots on the ground" is necessary in order to prevail..........
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but those drones flying around are hell too. I'm a little confused, isn't ISIS the group or the genesis of the group McCain and Obama were lobbying for to arm against the Syrian Government? Is this what Putin had warned about from the beginning? I need enlightenment or a quick brush up on foreign affairs
Click to expand...


----------



## denner

TAPnRACK said:


> The World Police (US) should hang tight til other countries commit to lending a hand... we are not the only country with an armed force and something at stake.


I agree, especially Saudi Arabia, always riding the fence, but when their monarchy is threatened they start crying, seeking help and warning of the dangers like the fence riders they are and the good guys they ain't.

You can pretty much bet the : UK, Australia, and the US will have the lion share.


----------



## TAPnRACK

There are plenty of countries that are closer and that are not trillions of $$$ in debt... and didn't take the lead in a 20+ year war. Time for others to step up instead of counting on the good ol' USA to jump in with both feet. We have problems in our own country that should be addressed.

While I find the ISIS & ISL to be despicable and their actions horrific... how is this effecting American's exactly? I was under the assumption our armed forces were created to protect our liberty and freedom... at least that's the oath I took as a Marine. This idea of us being the World Police needs to stop... I see too many young guys in their 20's & 30's that are really messed up (mentally & physically) from fighting in a war that has no direct impact on our way of life. 

But when our liberties and freedom are directly threatened... I say drop the hammer and unleash hell!


----------



## paratrooper

TAPnRACK said:


> The World Police (US) should hang tight til other countries commit to lending a hand... we are not the only country with an armed force and something at stake.


I agree 100% with that! The more allies were have in the fight, the stronger the message we will send.

I don't like the thought of being thought of as "the world police", but we have inherent interests outside of our nation's borders. We have troops stationed in many other countries, and until we bring them all home once and for all, others, as well as our own citizens, we will continue to be thought of as world police.


----------



## pic

TAPnRACK said:


> There are plenty of countries that are closer and that are not trillions of $$$ in debt... and didn't take the lead in a 20+ year war. Time for others to step up instead of counting on the good ol' USA to jump in with both feet. We have problems in our own country that should be addressed.
> 
> While I find the ISIS & ISL to be despicable and their actions horrific... how is this effecting American's exactly? I was under the assumption our armed forces were created to protect our liberty and freedom... at least that's the oath I took as a Marine. This idea of us being the World Police needs to stop... I see too many young guys in their 20's & 30's that are really messed up (mentally & physically) from fighting in a war that has no direct impact on our way of life.
> 
> But when our liberties and freedom are directly threatened... I say drop the hammer and unleash hell!


If they can hit us directly they will. Do we wait for another 9/11. I'm sure they are seeking weapons of mass destruction. I agree we need, the world needs to get involved also.
I think 9/11 will be minimal when compared to their next planned US STRIKE.
I really think we are at risk , more today then yesterday.


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> We finished and won World War Two in three and a half years. Why should this be any different? There are already boots on the ground some 1500 of them, we sure as hell aren't going to do it with that, or with the Islamic Black Militant that occupies the oval office. Along with a treasonous secretary of state, who during the Vietnamese war accused his fellow soldiers of committing war crimes reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. I wouldn't want to be among those 1500.


Ahem! YOU may have only fought 3 and a half years, but others were in it for 6 long ones. What is different is the TYPE of conflict. Rules have changed (or are being ignored these days....)

Also, if you really think The Prez is a Muslim, you may want to read up on Reality, and get out of the Faux News addiction. Please?

Oh - "Khan".. You're welcome!


----------



## desertman

The Nazi's started out small too, they could have been stopped by the French before marching into the Rhineland in 1936 in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. By 1939 they were a force to be reckoned with. Leaving almost 66 million dead after the war. So what should we do? As of 2013 there are 2.08 billion Muslims in the world, of that number how many are or will become militant? How many will actively participate in an Islamic caliphate? How many home grown terrorists do we have on our own soil? How many will come through our open borders? Do we wait until our major population centers fall under terrorist attacks such as 9/11 or worse? I doubt that the empty suit in the White House or his feckless Secretary of State will be able to rally our supposed allies to join in this fight.


----------



## desertman

Sail Design:
Stop with your Liberal blather, just look at that man's up bringing and who has been a major influence in shaping his way of thinking during his young adult life. According to Snopes.com his father was raised as a Muslim, Wikiepedia claims that he was an Athiest. Then there's the Reverend Jim Wright "America's chickens have come home to roost" and Bill Ayers member of the "weather underground". He's a proven liar, there are enough contradictory statements that he's made that are now coming back to haunt him. Not the least of which were the empty promises of "Obamacare". Either he was flat out lying to get a program passed that he knew the public wouldn't be in favor of, or he actually had no idea what was in, what was supposedly his signature legislation. Take your pick, lying or gross incompetence? The "empty suit" in the oval office stated that he wanted to fundamentally change America. To what? He sees this country to be the source of the world's evils. It was indeed John Kerry who brought up "Genghis Khan" in his statements before congress describing American atrocities during the Vietnam War while American troops were still fighting and thousands being held captive in POW camps. I'm sure those statements improved their situation. Talk about aiding and abetting the enemy? Can you even imagine having to be called up to serve under those two individuals? You may want to read up on Reality or choose to ignore it. I'm guessing you'll choose to ignore it, you already have. Ahem! As for World War Two, we may have been in it for only three and a half years, but if it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German and God only knows what the world would be like today. As for the TYPE of conflict there's not much difference both are based on hate, world domination and religious differences. Same old shit just different asses. Rules? You must be joking or very naive. Are there ever any rules when it comes to war? Get out of the MSNBC addiction and the blind worship of your "messiah". Please? Oh, thank you for the correction "Khan". I guess that's all you've got.


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> The Nazi's started out small too, they could have been stopped by the French before marching into the Rhineland in 1936 in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. By 1939 they were a force to be reckoned with. Leaving almost 66 million dead after the war. So what should we do? As of 2013 there are 2.08 billion Muslims in the world, of that number how many are or will become militant? How many will actively participate in an Islamic caliphate? How many home grown terrorists do we have on our own soil? How many will come through our open borders? Do we wait until our major population centers fall under terrorist attacks such as 9/11 or worse? I doubt that the empty suit in the White House or his feckless Secretary of State will be able to rally our supposed allies to join in this fight.


Don't confuse my desire to correct factual inaccuracies with any disagreement on the logical outcome. Boots there will need to be, and it's better they come from the part of the World immediately affected than from here. But we all know that's not happening. Hopefully the UK will step in with some - they have a good history in those regions.

"Empty suit?" I like the guy, and his policies. "Feckless" Sec. of State? Right with you.


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> Sail Design:
> Stop with your Liberal blather,
> <snippage>
> 
> Oh, thank you for the correction "Khan". I guess that's all you've got.


No - I can spell quite a few other words correctly, too. 

My "blather" which is only blather if you don't agree (so why not just say you don't agree?) is a product of my upbringing and 59 years of Life. Your upbringing and Life has led you to other beliefs. I applaud that. So stop mud-slinging. We simply disagree.

I know it is frowned upon to offer Liberal thoughts in Gun Forums (or Fora if you want to be persnicketty) but sadly I find myself a gun person at odds with "gun people." Forgive me if occasionally I speak my mind, as you do. This IS a free country, last I checked.


----------



## paratrooper

SailDesign said:


> Don't confuse my desire to correct factual inaccuracies with any disagreement on the logical outcome. Boots there will need to be, and it's better they come from the part of the World immediately affected than from here. But we all know that's not happening. Hopefully the UK will step in with some - they have a good history in those regions.
> 
> "Empty suit?" I like the guy, and his policies. "Feckless" Sec. of State? Right with you.


Really? You _like_ the guy, and his policies?


----------



## GCBHM

There are already around 1000 American troops on the ground THAT WE KNOW OF, but the US government is not going to be willing to do what is necessary to defeat this enemy. They have never done what is necessary to defeat this ideal. That is b/c the American government is not interested in defeating it. It is more interested in the money that comes from being in war, and creating avenues for American influence (aka Military Industrial Complex) to expand and protect its agenda, which simply is to get fat off the fruits of war. 

It is not in America's best interests to get involved, although we have been involved for far longer than we should have. American interventionism is precisely why they have been at war with the US ever since it got involved in the Middle East. When the US government got invaded Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, that pushed them over the edge. Now don't get me wrong. ISIS is the scourge of the earth and should be dealt with, but not by the US. The Arab League should be the point on this, perhaps with American assistance, but we do not need to be putting troops on the ground or even conducting air strikes. Of course, this is one of the problems in American politics. Our government isn't interested in true liberty or peace. Only the progression of its agenda.


----------



## desertman

Sail Design:
Sorry you consider it mud-slinging as I have made no personal attacks against you, if it will make you happy I will no longer use "Liberal blather". I just threw some of your statements right back at you, ie. "Faux News addiction and having to read up on Reality", along with known facts about your president. He certainly doesn't represent me or anything that I believe in. Believe me it's nothing personal, you have every right to speak your mind that is as long as we have the freedom of speech. You do however puzzle me Sail Design, in your support of a party that views the "Constitution" as a "living breathing document" that can be literally changed by the stroke of a pen by some corrupt politician, from the bench, or by a majority of voters. The United States of America was founded on the principles of a "Constitutional Republic" and not a democracy. We are only a democracy in that we are able to elect leaders to enact legislation as long as that does not violate the "Constitution" regardless of public opinion. Above all else they are sworn to uphold it "so help them God". It is designed that way so the majority who is in power at any given time can not oppress those "unalienable rights" that we all share including the minority party. The Democratic Party unquestionably wants to get rid of that "pesky document" it gets in the way of them imposing their will on this entire country. Most notably the 2nd Amendment and through certain governmental actions such as supporting the so called "fairness doctrine", the 1st Amendment. They have no objection to unions and their own special interest groups contributing to political campaigns but not corporations or groups like the "evil" NRA. It's okay for George Soro's to spend his money to influence elections but not okay for the Koch brothers. Without that "Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights" we could forget about any freedom of speech or any other of our "certain unalienable rights that have been endowed by our creator". One of which is the 2nd Amendment whose sole purpose is to guarantee that all of those rights will exist. Your home country of Great Britain should have realized that in 1776. Fortunately the founders of this nation did not want to become like the Great Britain that they had just overthrown, hence we have a "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" to prevent that from ever happening again. Nothing against the Great Britain of today, but we are the United States of America and a lot of us want to keep it that way. Sorry, Sail Design I will never subscribe to your way of thinking.


----------



## SailDesign

paratrooper said:


> Really? You _like_ the guy, and his policies?


You DON'T?? <gasp!> 

Did ya like the last guy we had in the Oval Office?


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> Sail Design:
> <snip>
> You do however puzzle me Sail Design, in your support of a party that views the "Constitution" as a "living breathing document" that can be literally changed by the stroke of a pen by some corrupt politician, from the bench, or by a majority of voters. <more snip>


I think the fact that there are already a number of "amendments" (remember that second one? That's the one we agree on!) proves that the Constitution CAN be changed. That's PROVE, as in incontrovertible. No ifs, ands or buts - it was amended.

What I have snipped above is merely the proof that you and I do not agree on everything. I'll bet we even have different favorite colors. 

Added in Edit: I am actually an Independent, and will probably vote for a Republican Governor for RI this go-round.


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> Your home country of Great Britain should have realized that in 1776. Fortunately the founders of this nation did not want to become like the Great Britain that they had just overthrown, hence we have a "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" to prevent that from ever happening again. Nothing against the Great Britain of today, but we are the United States of America and a lot of us want to keep it that way. Sorry, Sail Design I will never subscribe to your way of thinking.




Man - forgot this part... Firstly, I was born here in the US of two US-er parents, both born and bred. My mother married British when I was 5 and I couldn't help but go over there with her, really. Yes, upbringing and views are very "other-side-of-the-Pond" but citizenship and inclination has always been USA. As evidenced by the fact that 30 years ago I brought my wife and kids back over here. Because I prefer it here, obviously.


----------



## desertman

Sail Design:
Yes it can be amended, but there is a difficult process for that:


> The framers of the Constitution, recognizing the difference between regular legislation and constitutional matters, intended that it be difficult to change the Constitution; but not so difficult as to render it an inflexible instrument of government. The amending process they devised, codified in Article Five of the United States Constitution, has two steps. Proposals to amend the Constitution must be properly Adopted and Ratified before becoming operative.
> 
> A proposed amendment may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:
> The United States Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary;
> OR
> A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds (presently 34) of the states.
> To become part of the Constitution, an adopted amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress):
> The legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period-if any;
> OR
> State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, within the stipulated time period-if any.
> Upon being properly ratified, an amendment becomes an operative addition to the Constitution.---Wikiepedia


The Democratic Party is trying to convince people that the "Constitution" is outdated, not kept up with the times, has no place in our modern society and is a living breathing document. They have stated it it publicly ad nauseam and wish to circumvent this process either legislatively or from the bench.

You're correct we do not agree on anything!



> I am actually an Independent, and will probably vote for a Republican Governor for RI this go-round.


Well at least there's hope, as long as he's not a RINO like Lincoln Chafee, God only knows what he stands for, he's switched parties so often. I guess he only stands for Lincoln Chafee.

No, I don't quite remember all the nitty gritty details of your life story, just that I remember from one of your posts that you were from, or at one time lived in Great Britain. Perhaps that influenced your way of thinking. I know and have spoken to a few people from Great Britain that were born and raised there along with a few from Cuba, came to America and would never want to see the United States become like their home country. God bless 'em and welcome to America! Otherwise why would they leave if their place of origin were so great? Then there are those that come here illegally looking for a handout and demanding rights and representation that they never earned. If you're going to move someplace where the traditions and customs of the people that are currently living there are different from yours you have no business moving there in the first place, if you try to force your agenda down their throats. This will be taken as elitist and will be met with hostility and resentment. If the people are happy living there they do not want "Change We Can Believe In". Sorry, I had to throw that in.


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> <snip "How to Change the Constitution">
> 
> You're correct we do not agree on anything!


What?!? You don't like guns, or bacon?!? Sheesh - some people! 



desertman said:


> Well at least there's hope, as long as he's not a RINO like Lincoln Chafee, God only knows what he stands for, he's switched parties so often. I guess he only stands for Lincoln Chafee.


Sadly, I think that's about it... I'm not sure HE knows what he stands for now.

We have a choice between:
1. Raimondo, who would be the first female Gov and is backed by the Providence Italian population, 
2. Fung, who would be the first Asian Gov and is backed by, well, I guess no-one in particular except the GOP (i.e. no pressure groups visible)
or 3. Healey, who used to be the Cool Moose Party (I wish I was kidding) but has been persuaded to run as a Moderate Party candidate after their guy dropped out. He would be the first long-haired, bearded Gov in the last 100 years at least.

A lovely bunch. Oh, and our old twice-convicted Buddy Cianci is running for a third term at Mayor of Providence. Convicted of what? Racketeering, assault, the usual. Lovely little state, but it's home. And you wonder why my politics is all forked up? Hah!


----------



## paratrooper

SailDesign said:


> You DON'T?? <gasp!>
> 
> Did ya like the last guy we had in the Oval Office?


Personally, I'm suspicious of any politician, or any person wanting to be a politician, or any person wanting to associate with a politician, or any person wanting to live in Wash. DC.

I simply cannot recall the last time I was impressed to any degree, by a politician. In my eyes, a politician is just a criminal that hasn't been caught, charged, and convicted yet. :smt033


----------



## SailDesign

paratrooper said:


> Personally, I'm suspicious of any politician, or any person wanting to be a politician, or any person wanting to associate with a politician, or any person wanting to live in Wash. DC.
> 
> I simply cannot recall the last time I was impressed to any degree, by a politician. In my eyes, a politician is just a criminal that hasn't been caught, charged, and convicted yet. :smt033


I can live with that.  I've always held that anyone who WANTS to be Prez is automatically the wrong guy for the job (or gal, come to that) but you kinda have to elect someone.... Jury is still out on who I vote for next time, although if there is a Palin involved, it will be for the Other Side.


----------



## desertman

Sail Design:


> What?!? You don't like guns, or bacon?!? Sheesh - some people!


Okay, I give up, you got me on that one, oh and I do like bacon! It sounds as if you do not have much faith in your current crop of politicians. Well I've got news for you I really don't trust many of them, either Republican or Democrat. Unfortunately government is composed of these scoundrels, and Democrats are for big government. I really have no trust or faith in government, but I have to vote for somebody so I'll vote for who I believe will preserve, uphold and defend the "Constitution" as it is written. It just so happens that the Republicans have expressed the least amount of hostility to it. I am first and foremost a "Constitutional Conservative" damn proud of it. For what it's worth I do not agree with the Republican Party moving to the so-called center, we lost the last two presidential elections because of that, McCain only represented McCain and Romney never stood for anything other than Romney, but either one of them would have been better than what we have now. I'm sure you'll dis-agree, I guess we'll have to leave it at that. You can't win unless you motivate your base, those two just didn't have it. Cheers! No hard feelings.


----------



## TAPnRACK

Glad you boys got that out of your system so we can get back to.... wait, what were we talking about?


----------



## desertman

Paratrooper:


> Personally, I'm suspicious of any politician, or any person wanting to be a politician, or any person wanting to associate with a politician, or any person wanting to live in Wash. DC.
> 
> I simply cannot recall the last time I was impressed to any degree, by a politician. In my eyes, a politician is just a criminal that hasn't been caught, charged, and convicted yet.


Amen, brother! Too many lawyers passing laws that only benefit lawyers, they have no idea what type of problems that the average person faces. Graduated high school, went on to college, got a law degree, opened up a lucrative law practice and never had the experience of struggling to get or losing a job. Yet they act as if they understand the problems of the average person and how to solve them all for their own personal gain. Curtis Sliwa calls them "Liars for hire". That about sums it up for lawyers and politicians the two go hand in hand. Why else would they prostitute themselves for some crummy little political office? They have the ability to con an awful lot of people, that is what they are trained for. They also know how to use and evade the law with impunity. "Sail Design" may not like this but they are also a core constituency of the Democratic Party.


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> <snip-de-dip>
> Cheers! No hard feelings.


None.


----------



## SailDesign

TAPnRACK said:


> Glad you boys got that out of your system so we can get back to.... wait, what were we talking about?


Fcuked if I know - something about the patter of tiny feet?


----------



## desertman

TAPnRACK:


> Glad you boys got that out of your system so we can get back to.... wait, what were we talking about?


Whew! We sure did, one thing sometimes leads to another, it was inevitable that "boots on the ground" would eventually lead to a political conversation.


----------



## TAPnRACK

I always find it interesting to see everyone's thoughts on things... and you guys were respectfully debating political viewpoints.... happens in a lot of threads, no biggie.

I enjoyed reading it.


----------



## paratrooper

Sometimes, I feel that the best person for a political position......isn't a politician. You shouldn't be able to go thru your entire life as a politician. 

Don't get me wrong, compared to some of you, I don't know squat about politics, and I like it that way. I do have opinions and views, but they may not always be mainstream or popular. 

Politics seem to corrupt even the best intended person. I truly don't think it's avoidable. To fill the shoes of a politician, you have to be willing sell a bit of your soul and integrity. 

Three careers in life I'd never want to be involved in. A politician, a lawyer, or a new/used car salesman.


----------



## paratrooper

TAPnRACK said:


> Glad you boys got that out of your system so we can get back to.... wait, what were we talking about?


Weren't we talking about cheese? :smt102


----------



## pic

SailDesign said:


> I can live with that.  I've always held that anyone who WANTS to be Prez is automatically the wrong guy for the job (or gal, come to that) but you kinda have to elect someone.... Jury is still out on who I vote for next time, although if there is a Palin involved, it will be for the Other Side.


This nation has been "flipping a coin", "drawing straws" in electing our president.
Does this nation have anybody who can lead that will run for president ,,, it just will not matter what party he belongs to. 
Waiting for that true individual leader. :smt1099


----------



## pic

Committee Assignments | U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan
Click link above

He was Romney running mate. I been watching this guy. Jury is still out.


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> TAPnRACK:
> 
> Whew! We sure did, one thing sometimes leads to another, it was inevitable that "boots on the ground" would eventually lead to a political conversation.


No way round that. 

I think (personal opinion, therefore worthless in the Grand Scheme) is that he is waiting for another nation to volunteer and *produce* feet on the ground so that, for a change, the US is not the major player at ground level.

But I'm quite prepared to be wrong (and used to it)


----------



## desertman

pic:


> He was Romney running mate. I been watching this guy. Jury is still out.


Indeed it is! He's just more of a puppet for the Republican hierarchy. It is they along with the Democratic hierarchy who will eventually decide who their respective nominees for president will be. They can do this because they have unlimited access to the media along with appearances on all the political talk shows. They conduct their own public opinion polls that usually go in favor of who they are trying to promote. Going forward into the nominating process their hand picked favorites will already have front runner status far ahead of all the other wannabe's. When it comes time for televised debates most of the questions will be directed toward the hand picked favorites and by the time the public has a chance to vote, the die will have already been cast. Right now the odds on favorite for the Democrats are, God forbid, Hillary Clinton and for the Republicans, should they decide to run are probably Jeb Bush, yeah another Bush or Chris Christie governor of one of the most Liberal States in America disguised as a Republican, then there's Romney, again. God help us all. Come on America! We should be able to do better than that when picking who the next leader of the free world should be. This should not be a popularity contest, these individuals will be making decisions that will have a profound effect on each of our lives and for generations to come. Time to tell the party hierarchy to go to Hell, we don't want any of them. We want to give each candidate an equal chance to express their ideas on how to better America or how they plan on destroying it, and then let the voters decide. I'm just sick and tired of being told to vote for so and so as they have the only chance to beat so and so. The only caveat is can we trust any of them?


----------



## desertman

Sail Design:


> I think (personal opinion, therefore worthless in the Grand Scheme) is that he is waiting for another nation to volunteer and produce feet on the ground so that, for a change, the US is not the major player at ground level.


No nation is going to be willing to do what another nation is not willing to do for itself. Can you blame them? If we are to win this war against ISIS, ISIL or any other form of terrorism especially where American interests are involved, there will be American boots on the ground. There are already or will be 1500 boots on the ground in the foreseeable future, that's only the beginning. Obama may want to drag it out until the end of his presidency and dump it on his successor whomever that may be. I'm no expert on foreign affairs, but I just don't see anyway around it. But God damn it if we are to commit American lives to this war we sure as hell better have a strategy to win it and win it decisively. Instead of wasting American lives, only to pull out and let the enemy take over as has happened in North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. There also has to be a clear and concise strategy for the aftermath. One things for sure, these groups are out to destroy our western civilization as we know it. Sooner or later someone will have to stop them, hopefully it will be before it's too late.


----------



## paratrooper

I'm thinking if we find that we need to return to Iraq, we just clean house there, and then claim it as our own this time. 

I've been looking to buy some vacation property overseas on-the-cheap. :smt115


----------



## desertman

paratrooper:


> I've been looking to buy some vacation property overseas on-the-cheap.


Naaaaah!, I think we'll be better off staying in Arizona, got plenty of desert which suits me fine and I doubt anyone will try to invade this state. We are all armed to the teeth and know how to use them.


----------



## pic

desertman said:


> paratrooper:
> 
> Naaaaah!, I think we'll be better off staying in Arizona, got plenty of desert which suits me fine and I doubt anyone will try to invade this state. We are all armed to the teeth and know how to use them.


The Mexicans have already invaded your state. "Nogales way" haha. Worst state in the USA for drug trafficking :buttkick::buttkick:


----------



## rustygun

paratrooper said:


> I've been looking to buy some vacation property overseas on-the-cheap. :smt115


They probably think the same thing about our country. After they kill us all, and force our wives and daughters into slavery.


----------



## desertman

pic:


> The Mexicans have already invaded your state. "Nogales way" haha. Worst state in the USA for drug trafficking


You must mean the socialist welfare State of New York? I suppose there are no illegals in New York or drug trafficking? New York City is like a foreign country. Besides you've got Cuomo, the Safe Act, the most dysfunctional legislature in the nation, the highest taxes, the most oppressive gun laws, and miserable winters. More people have left that state during the past decade than any other state in the nation. It also has one of the highest percentages of foreign born populations. Shall I go on? You can keep it! I've got close relatives that live there, they can't wait to get the hell out. No, thank you, I'll stay in Arizona.


----------



## paratrooper

Arizona has it's issues, just like any other state does. But, when you take a good look at it, AZ. pretty much has it's **** together. 

I'm sure there are better states to live in, and I know for fact, there's a lot worse states in which to live. For me, I'm happy here, even with the illegal immigration / drug trafficking issues or not. 

If nothing else, at least here, we can own, possess, and carry a firearm in public, and not have to worry about being harassed or arrested for it.


----------



## SailDesign

paratrooper said:


> Arizona has it's issues, just like any other state does. But, when you take a good look at it, AZ. pretty much has it's **** together.
> 
> I'm sure there are better states to live in, and I know for fact, there's a lot worse states in which to live. For me, I'm happy here, even with the illegal immigration / drug trafficking issues or not.
> 
> If nothing else, at least here, we can own, possess, and carry a firearm in public, and not have to worry about being harassed or arrested for it.


Do you have much call for Yacht Designers down that way...? That's a prime requirement for me....


----------



## paratrooper

SailDesign said:


> Do you have much call for Yacht Designers down that way...? That's a prime requirement for me....


We have some lakes here in AZ., but none that are large enough to support a yacht that I know of.

But, I do know a guy that owns a 1968 Cadillac. Oh wait......that's a land yacht. :smt033


----------



## SailDesign

paratrooper said:


> We have some lakes here in AZ., but none that are large enough to support a yacht that I know of.
> 
> But, I do know a guy that owns a 1968 Cadillac. Oh wait......that's a land yacht. :smt033


I could redesign that, at a pinch...


----------



## desertman

paratrooper:
I've traveled throughout the country and have met people from all walks of life. There's no place like Arizona, and there's no place I'd rather be. Where one decides to live for some is a personal decision, they have that option. Some unfortunately do not, they for some reason or the other are stuck where they are. For those that do decide to move, please do not try and change the place that you are moving to into the place you just left. If that's the case you really don't belong there and will end up being miserable. It's more than just gun laws, it's a way of life, either you respect that or don't bother coming at all. I've heard people complain after they've moved, "well that's not the way it was where I came from" and "how come you don't have such and such?" Or some women who just moved here, wrote a letter to the local paper complaining how "shocked" and "appalled" she was when she walked into a convenience store and saw someone openly carrying "a gun!", "a gun!" she shrieked. She then questioned whether this individual was going to pay for those items. Well, for Christ's sakes lady this is Arizona, either you accept it or just leave, you will not be missed. Probably just came for the weather and scenery, but it's a hell of a lot more than that.


----------



## desertman

Sail Design:


> Do you have much call for Yacht Designers down that way...? That's a prime requirement for me....


There's Lake Havasu City, or Lake Powell recreational boating is pretty popular there, but that's pretty much power boats under 30ft. Lake Havasu City is arguably the hottest place in Arizona, 120's are not uncommon. You might want to try the Carolina's or Florida the gun laws are fairly lenient and I believe Hatteras Yachts are manufactured in the Carolina's. Don't know about sailboats.


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> Sail Design:
> 
> There's Lake Havasu City, or Lake Powell recreational boating is pretty popular there, but that's pretty much power boats under 30ft. Lake Havasu City is arguably the hottest place in Arizona, 120's are not uncommon. You might want to try the Carolina's or Florida the gun laws are fairly lenient and I believe Hatteras Yachts are manufactured in the Carolina's. Don't know about sailboats.


Thanks, D'man. Sadly, my question is kinda rhetorical, as my mother moved here from theUK about 10 years ago, and is living just one block away right now. She ain't moving, and I'm pretty much stuck until she's gone... No other family here.

Luckily, there is plenty of call for designers here in RI.


----------



## pic

desertman said:


> pic:
> 
> You must mean the socialist welfare State of New York? I suppose there are no illegals in New York or drug trafficking? New York City is like a foreign country. Besides you've got Cuomo, the Safe Act, the most dysfunctional legislature in the nation, the highest taxes, the most oppressive gun laws, and miserable winters. More people have left that state during the past decade than any other state in the nation. It also has one of the highest percentages of foreign born populations. Shall I go on? You can keep it! I've got close relatives that live there, they can't wait to get the hell out. No, thank you, I'll stay in Arizona.


Why switch to ny, haha, let's focus on your great state of Arizona ,lol haha. Use that thing they call google and read.. Never heard if snopes.com,,, is that like the national enquirer,lol


----------



## paratrooper

desertman said:


> paratrooper:
> I've traveled throughout the country and have met people from all walks of life. There's no place like Arizona, and there's no place I'd rather be. Where one decides to live for some is a personal decision, they have that option. Some unfortunately do not, they for some reason or the other are stuck where they are. For those that do decide to move, please do not try and change the place that you are moving to into the place you just left. If that's the case you really don't belong there and will end up being miserable. It's more than just gun laws, it's a way of life, either you respect that or don't bother coming at all. I've heard people complain after they've moved, "well that's not the way it was where I came from" and "how come you don't have such and such?" Or some women who just moved here, wrote a letter to the local paper complaining how "shocked" and "appalled" she was when she walked into a convenience store and saw someone openly carrying "a gun!", "a gun!" she shrieked. She then questioned whether this individual was going to pay for those items. Well, for Christ's sakes lady this is Arizona, either you accept it or just leave, you will not be missed. Probably just came for the weather and scenery, but it's a hell of a lot more than that.


I agree with what you have said, and I have lived in other states, and met all different kinds of people, and lived in Europe for 2.5 yrs., so I'm somewhat aware of their firearm laws there.

I'm lucky that I can pick and choose which state I want to live in. I'm now retired, but when working, I wasn't told to either move "there" or lose your job.

I was born in Idaho, and have lived in Washington state, Montana, and Oregon, and of course, now Arizona. While in the military, I spent time in Louisiana and Georgia. Neither impressed me all that much.

Anyways, here I am, going on 60 in October, been around the block a few hundred times, met people of all kinds, some not worth a shit, and others that turned into life-long friends.

I feel bad for those that were born and raised in areas (states) that limited your rights as a citizen and made life much harder than it needed to be. States where government came first, and the citizen came in a distant second place.

*BTW.....*the wife and I were in Walmart last night shopping. Passed by a guy and his wife. He was open carrying a J-Frame S&W in a small holster. I noticed it right away, passed by him and smiled. He smiled back at me and kind of knowingly grinned.


----------



## desertman

pic:


> Why switch to ny, haha,


No, let's focus on New York. Because that's where you're from, right? It was you who first made derogatory comments about Arizona. I know quite a bit about Arizona, I live here, I don't have to "google" it. Living here allows you to separate fact from fiction. I've also spent enough time in New York to know that I would never want to live there. I hear all the horror stories about New York and of how lucky I am to be out here from relatives who can't wait to get out at the first opportunity. What in the world does Snopes. com or the National Enquirer have to do with it? I don't get it? Sure, Arizona has a problem with illegals and drug trafficking. We're a border state. How about the South Bronx, Mt. Vernon or Yonkers? Syracuse? Rochester? Troy? Binghampton? Maybe Buffalo? Now there's a lovely city. No crime, drugs or illegals there. Right? Last time I went through Buffalo the place was boarded up, abandoned factories just about everywhere. Same for a lot of upstate cities. It's an industrial wasteland. But you know what? Illegals are not welcome here such as they are in New York or other sanctuary states, all of this is due to decades of "progressive" social policies. New York used to be called the "Empire State" it's now known as the "Vampire State" because it sucks the economic life blood out of most who reside and do business there. Your great governor claimed that all that do not think like him are not welcome there. Then you've got Sheldon Silver, speaker of the assembly who is one of the most corrupt politicians in the country who rules that chamber with an iron fist, been there nearly forever. Yet he only represents the lower east side. You haven't disputed my comments about New York. Why is that? No,"pic" you can have New York.


----------



## pic

desertman said:


> pic:
> 
> No, let's focus on New York. Because that's where you're from, right? It was you who first made derogatory comments about Arizona. I know quite a bit about Arizona, I live here, I don't have to "google" it. Living here allows you to separate fact from fiction. I've also spent enough time in New York to know that I would never want to live there. I hear all the horror stories about New York and of how lucky I am to be out here from relatives who can't wait to get out at the first opportunity. What in the world does Snopes. com or the National Enquirer have to do with it? I don't get it? Sure, Arizona has a problem with illegals and drug trafficking. We're a border state. How about the South Bronx, Mt. Vernon or Yonkers? Syracuse? Rochester? Troy? Binghampton? Maybe Buffalo? Now there's a lovely city. No crime, drugs or illegals there. Right? Last time I went through Buffalo the place was boarded up, abandoned factories just about everywhere. Same for a lot of upstate cities. It's an industrial wasteland. But you know what? Illegals are not welcome here such as they are in New York or other sanctuary states, all of this is due to decades of "progressive" social policies. New York used to be called the "Empire State" it's now known as the "Vampire State" because it sucks the economic life blood out of most who reside and do business there. Your great governor claimed that all that do not think like him are not welcome there. Then you've got Sheldon Silver, speaker of the assembly who is one of the most corrupt politicians in the country who rules that chamber with an iron fist, been there nearly forever. Yet he only represents the lower east side. You haven't disputed my comments about New York. Why is that? No,"pic" you can have New York.


I'm not comparing Ny to Arizona,lol. Ny sucks .
But you seem to put Arizona on this Grand Great Pedestal .


----------



## pic

The drug transporters used to head straight for Arizona to pick up their load,lol.:buttkick:


----------



## pic

Anyway you have a right to defend what's yours. But defending what's yours ,, in your words can offend others.
And I know all about Arizona..


----------



## pic

And try not to be so long winded. 
It is difficult to read and time consuming,
Thanks,
PIC


----------



## pic

Snopes.com is a Scam >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds


----------



## desertman

pic:


> And try not to be so long winded.
> It is difficult to read and time consuming,


Then don't read it, Thanks



> Anyway you have a right to defend what's yours. But defending what's yours ,, in your words can offend others.


What goes around comes around. Please read your initial quote, see below.



> The Mexicans have already invaded your state. "Nogales way" haha. Worst state in the USA for drug trafficking]





> I'm not comparing Ny to Arizona,lol. Ny sucks .


You sure fooled me. I know New York sucks. But if you believe it sucks, then why do you stay there?



> And I know all about Arizona..


I'm sure you do, it certainly sounds like it. LOL I'll bet you've never been here.



> But you seem to put Arizona on this Grand Great Pedestal


I love it here, and will defend it till my last dying breath. I'll bet you can't say that about New York, as you say "Ny sucks". The difference between you and me "pic" is that I'm happy where I am, doesn't sound like you can say the same.


----------



## desertman

Sail Design:


> Thanks, D'man. Sadly, my question is kinda rhetorical, as my mother moved here from theUK about 10 years ago, and is living just one block away right now. She ain't moving, and I'm pretty much stuck until she's gone... No other family here.


Just find a place where you belong, then nothing else will matter. Good luck my friend!


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> Sail Design:
> 
> Just find a place where you belong, then nothing else will matter. Good luck my friend!




They let me shoot here from time to time - and the Mother doesn't need a paid sitter with me round the corner. Grandkids are all within an hour's drive. Life is good here.


----------



## desertman

paratrooper:


> I agree with what you have said, and I have lived in other states, and met all different kinds of people


I have relatives in New York and have made numerous trips there by rail, never flown. You get to meet all types of people while on the train from all parts of the country, you get to dine with them and hang out in the lounge car. Have had some great conversations with people, and by rail you get to witness the good, the bad, and the ugly of America which you can't see from the highway, which I've also done. I just thank God for where I am. In my neighborhood there are people that have moved here from all over the country, the one thing we have in common and there are many others, is that we all want to be here.


----------



## paratrooper

I'm not positive, but I think I flew over NY state once.

I was sleeping at the time. :watching:


----------



## desertman

Sail Design:
Although we may dis-agree on many issues, you're alright! Wish you the best!


----------



## desertman

paratrooper:
I've been all over New York State, there are many nice parts of it, just too many not so nice parts. A lot of it is just downright depressing, dismal, dank and dreary. It's a shame what it's government has done to that state. But, the people keep electing them? A hopeless situation indeed. If you ever go there visit the West Point museum, I think you'll find it interesting.


----------



## pic

That's all I have to say,

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2013-03-07/news/inside-an-arizona-drug-smuggling-gang/full/ click

Arizona still one of the worst states to be a kid

Arizona continues to hover near the bottom nationally for the overall well-being of its children, a new study shows.

Childhood poverty, a ballooning number of children in foster care and a shrinking number of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool contributed to the state's problems, according to 2012 data analyzed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation in its annual Kids Count report.

"Arizona remains in the bottom 10 of the country," said Dana Wolfe Naimark, president and CEO of the Children's Action Alliance. The state's overall ranking inched up a notch to 46th nationally, from 47th last year.

The number of Arizona children living in poverty stayed level from 2011 to 2012, but remains among the states in the national cellar, with 27 percent of children ages 17 and younger. In all but two Arizona counties - Coconino and Maricopa - more than half of children live in households that are at or below twice the poverty level ($36,568 for a family of three), the study found.

Among the dismal statistics, there were some bright spots.

For example, 77 percent of Arizona high-school students graduated within four years in 2012, up from 71 percent in 2000. While still short of the national average of 81 percent, the trend shows encouraging improvement, Naimark said.

Fewer babies were born to mothers who did not have high-school diplomas, a rate that dropped by half, from 30 percent to 15 percent, since 2000.

And the rate at which juveniles were arrested for violent crimes was cut in half over the last decade, to fewer than two kids per 1,000 youths ages 8-17. This mirrors a national downward trend in juvenile arrests.

At a Monday news conference, the alliance highlighted one of Arizona's poorest marks: the number of children in preschool, ranking Arizona 49th in the nation. Only 34 percent of kids ages 3 and 4 go to preschool. Nationally, the figure is 46 percent, the Kids Count report shows.

Maritza Rosales said preschool profoundly influenced her path in life.

She enrolled in a preschool program sponsored by A Stepping Stone Foundation in the early 1990s. Her parents were involved in the program as well, working as volunteers and encouraging her academic work through the years.

As she was nearing graduation at Carl Hayden High School, Rosales said she was stunned to learn she had been awarded a college scholarship, courtesy of the foundation. It helped her earn a bachelor's degree from Arizona State University.

She now works for the U.S. Department of Justice and, with her husband, is raising their 2-year-old son. Preschool is in his future, she said, since she's seen what a difference it made in her life.

The data arrive just in time for the election season, with the primary election coming next month.

"We expect every candidate who's running for governor, for superintendent of public instruction and Legislature to pay attention to these statistics and use them to inform their policy decisions," Naimark said.

She had suggestions of her own, specifically support for child care and health coverage for children.

"Parents having safe and affordable child care and preschool is what sets kids up for success," she said. The state has recently made child-care subsidies available for 4,000 families that have been on a lengthy waiting list. While welcome, the money will only cover a fraction of the need, advocates have said.

She also said she hopes lawmakers work toward expanding health coverage for children in low-income families, noting Arizona is the only state without a Children's Health Insurance Program.

Here's how the state measures up in key areas:

Economics

Ranking: 46th, up from 47th in 2011.

This finding is based on the percentage of children living in poverty (27 percent); households where the parents don't have stable jobs (34 percent); homes where teens are not in school and not working (11 percent); and households where the housing costs take a significant chunk of the family budget (38 percent).

Education

Ranking: 44th, up from 46th in 2011.

This statistic includes the percentage of children in preschool (34 percent); the percentage not graduating in the standard four years from high school (23 percent); the percentage of fourth-graders not proficient in reading (72 percent); and the percentage of students not proficient in math (69 percent).

Health

Ranking: 44th, up from 45th in 2011.

This ranking is based on the percentage of low-birth-weight infants (6.9 percent); children without health insurance (13 percent); death rate per 100,000 children (28 percent); and rate of teenage alcohol and drug abuse (8 percent).

Family support

Ranking: 46th, the same as in 2011.

This includes the rate of teen births (37 percent); the number of children living in high-poverty areas (22 percent); children in single-parent households (38 percent); and children in families where the head of the household did not have a high-school diploma (19 percent).


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> Sail Design:
> Although we may dis-agree on many issues, you're alright! Wish you the best!


Likewise, and backatcha! Just remember, there's idiots on BOTH sides of that political fence. Glad we're not....


----------



## paratrooper

pic said:


> That's all I have to say,
> 
> Inside an Arizona Drug Smuggling Gang | Phoenix New Times click
> 
> Arizona still one of the worst states to be a kid
> 
> Arizona continues to hover near the bottom nationally for the overall well-being of its children, a new study shows.
> 
> Childhood poverty, a ballooning number of children in foster care and a shrinking number of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool contributed to the state's problems, according to 2012 data analyzed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation in its annual Kids Count report.
> 
> "Arizona remains in the bottom 10 of the country," said Dana Wolfe Naimark, president and CEO of the Children's Action Alliance. The state's overall ranking inched up a notch to 46th nationally, from 47th last year.
> 
> The number of Arizona children living in poverty stayed level from 2011 to 2012, but remains among the states in the national cellar, with 27 percent of children ages 17 and younger. In all but two Arizona counties - Coconino and Maricopa - more than half of children live in households that are at or below twice the poverty level ($36,568 for a family of three), the study found.
> 
> Among the dismal statistics, there were some bright spots.
> 
> For example, 77 percent of Arizona high-school students graduated within four years in 2012, up from 71 percent in 2000. While still short of the national average of 81 percent, the trend shows encouraging improvement, Naimark said.
> 
> Fewer babies were born to mothers who did not have high-school diplomas, a rate that dropped by half, from 30 percent to 15 percent, since 2000.
> 
> And the rate at which juveniles were arrested for violent crimes was cut in half over the last decade, to fewer than two kids per 1,000 youths ages 8-17. This mirrors a national downward trend in juvenile arrests.
> 
> At a Monday news conference, the alliance highlighted one of Arizona's poorest marks: the number of children in preschool, ranking Arizona 49th in the nation. Only 34 percent of kids ages 3 and 4 go to preschool. Nationally, the figure is 46 percent, the Kids Count report shows.
> 
> Maritza Rosales said preschool profoundly influenced her path in life.
> 
> She enrolled in a preschool program sponsored by A Stepping Stone Foundation in the early 1990s. Her parents were involved in the program as well, working as volunteers and encouraging her academic work through the years.
> 
> As she was nearing graduation at Carl Hayden High School, Rosales said she was stunned to learn she had been awarded a college scholarship, courtesy of the foundation. It helped her earn a bachelor's degree from Arizona State University.
> 
> She now works for the U.S. Department of Justice and, with her husband, is raising their 2-year-old son. Preschool is in his future, she said, since she's seen what a difference it made in her life.
> 
> The data arrive just in time for the election season, with the primary election coming next month.
> 
> "We expect every candidate who's running for governor, for superintendent of public instruction and Legislature to pay attention to these statistics and use them to inform their policy decisions," Naimark said.
> 
> She had suggestions of her own, specifically support for child care and health coverage for children.
> 
> "Parents having safe and affordable child care and preschool is what sets kids up for success," she said. The state has recently made child-care subsidies available for 4,000 families that have been on a lengthy waiting list. While welcome, the money will only cover a fraction of the need, advocates have said.
> 
> She also said she hopes lawmakers work toward expanding health coverage for children in low-income families, noting Arizona is the only state without a Children's Health Insurance Program.
> 
> Here's how the state measures up in key areas:
> 
> Economics
> 
> Ranking: 46th, up from 47th in 2011.
> 
> This finding is based on the percentage of children living in poverty (27 percent); households where the parents don't have stable jobs (34 percent); homes where teens are not in school and not working (11 percent); and households where the housing costs take a significant chunk of the family budget (38 percent).
> 
> Education
> 
> Ranking: 44th, up from 46th in 2011.
> 
> This statistic includes the percentage of children in preschool (34 percent); the percentage not graduating in the standard four years from high school (23 percent); the percentage of fourth-graders not proficient in reading (72 percent); and the percentage of students not proficient in math (69 percent).
> 
> Health
> 
> Ranking: 44th, up from 45th in 2011.
> 
> This ranking is based on the percentage of low-birth-weight infants (6.9 percent); children without health insurance (13 percent); death rate per 100,000 children (28 percent); and rate of teenage alcohol and drug abuse (8 percent).
> 
> Family support
> 
> Ranking: 46th, the same as in 2011.
> 
> This includes the rate of teen births (37 percent); the number of children living in high-poverty areas (22 percent); children in single-parent households (38 percent); and children in families where the head of the household did not have a high-school diploma (19 percent).


Well crap......now you have me wanting to move.


----------



## Hauptmann

*Now I'm REALLY confused.*

What is the topic of this thread?


----------



## SailDesign

Hauptmann said:


> What is the topic of this thread?


I think you mean "What WAS the topic of this thread?" Currently it seems to be a general discussion room.


----------



## pic

paratrooper said:


> Well crap......now you have me wanting to move.


Great sense of humor , lol.
If it didn't get so cold n rainy in the ORCA's I would move north west.


----------



## desertman

pic:


> *Exodus from New York*
> The frustration over taxes and registration fees is driving more people to leave New York than any other state in the nation. That means fewer people paying taxes, buying homes and going to restaurants.
> *A study by the Tax Foundation shows New York is 50th in what it calls "income migration". From 2000 to 2010, more than $45 billion in salaries moved out of New York.* The next highest is California, but its total was only $29 billion.
> *Joe Kabasta, who is moving to Tennessee, said, "There's no option. There's nothing I can do to make a difference. The only difference is to vote with my feet and walk away."*
> News10NBC's Berkeley Brean talked Joe Kabasta and his wife, Karen, in their backyard in Hamlin. Their backyard is huge. It has a pond stocked with fish. It's his dream home. But it is on the market.
> Kabasta said, "I pay $8,700 a year in property tax. That's just outrageous."
> Joe says his property taxes nearly doubled over five years. Now he and Karen have bought a new home in Tennessee. He says their yearly property tax bill there is less than what he pays here in one month.
> When Joe and his wife leave, they take their incomes with them.
> And how bad is that for New York? Over a decade, the state lost more than $45 billion in income that moved to a different state. Texas ranks third in the Tax Foundation's "Income Migration" report and ranks 11th best for business tax climate because of zero income tax, lower property taxes. Texas is actively poaching New York jobs and people. New Yorkers are taking advantage. *In ten years, $1.1 billion of New York income migrated to Texas.*
> 
> The Empire Center for New State Policy has released "Empire State Exodus," which details New York's continuing loss of people and their incomes to other states. The report was authored by E. J. McMahon, senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute and director of the Empire Center and me.
> 
> *Since the beginning of the decade, New York has experienced a net domestic migration loss of more than 1,500,000, the largest loss in the nation.* The extent of this loss is illustrated by the fact that Katrina/Rita/defective dike ravaged Louisiana lost a smaller share of its population than New York, which also led in relative terms.
> 
> The report uses the latest Census Bureau and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data to examine how many New Yorkers have left the state, where they have gone and how much income they have taken with them. It includes detailed breakdowns of population migration patterns at a regional and county level.
> 
> More than 85% of the domestic migration loss was from the New York City region (combined statistical area) of New York State and more than 70% of the loss was from New York City itself. The data shows a continuing exodus from the city, to the suburbs and to elsewhere in the nation.
> 
> The annual net loss of New Yorkers to other states has ranged from a high of nearly 250,000 people in 2005 to a low of 126,000 last year, when moves nationwide slowed down sharply along with the economy.
> 
> *Households moving out of New York State had average incomes 13 percent higher than those moving into New York during the most recent year for which such data are available.* In 2006-07 alone, the migration flow out of New York drained $4.3 billion in taxpayer income from the state. New York taxpayers moving to other states had average incomes of $57,144, while those
> moving into New York averaged $50,533 as of 2007, according to the report.
> 
> *"Even with its large domestic migration losses, New York's total population has grown slightly since 2000, thanks to a large influx of immigrants from foreign countries," *the report says. "But New York's share of U.S. population is still shrinking. A continuation of the domestic migration trends highlighted here will translate into slower economic growth and diminishing political influence in the future."





> New York University's Brennan Center for Justice issued a 2004 report, The New York State Legislative Process: An Evaluation and Blueprint for Reform, by Jeremy M. Creelan and Laura M. Moulton. The report was widely discussed as defining New York State's legislature as *"the most dysfunctional in the nation."*





> *Political corruption*
> The federal prosecutor on a mission to crack down on corruption in New York politics has requested all complaints of wrongdoing filed against public officials with the state's ethics panel, The Post has learned.
> *Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara has filed a subpoena to review hundreds of accusations and dozens of cases filed with the Joint Commission on Public Ethics as part of an explosive grand-jury probe of potential Albany misdeeds, sources close to the probe said.*
> Bharara's office will keep busy.
> Last year, JCOPE received 250 complaints. *There are 21 open investigations, and 69 other cases are under review.*
> JCOPE investigates public officials accused of conflict of interest, receiving improper gifts, nepotism and other misdeeds. It also regulates lobbyists.
> Bharara is following up on the investigative work of Gov. Cuomo's Moreland Commission to Combat Public Corruption.
> The federal prosecutor obtained the files of the Moreland panel after Cuomo abruptly disbanded it when the state budget was approved.
> *"Preet said he would do a deep dive into Albany corruption. This is it," a source familiar with the probe said.*
> State legislators and top administration officials file personal financial disclosure reports with JCOPE.





> *Drug Situation*: New York City has long been home to numerous drug trafficking organizations.
> *The city's large, diverse, multi-class population creates a demand that these organizations are more than willing to serve.*
> *New York City also acts as the source for organizations that smuggle drugs to other East Coast destinations and to Canada and Europe.*
> Due to successful drug initiatives and enforcement operations undertaken in the New York metropolitan area, many drug traffickers are moving their illegal operations to the upstate region to earn greater profits, elude law enforcement, and avoid competition from rival drug groups.
> 
> Cocaine: Colombian and Mexican drug trafficking organizations are the primary transporters and distributors of wholesale amounts of cocaine in New York; however, Mexican nationals have replaced Colombians as the main source of supply for multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine in New York City.
> *Cocaine is also a significant problem in Albany and western New York State.* Most cocaine distributors in the Albany area have connections to sources in New York City, but some Albany distributors have direct links with organizations in Florida and Puerto Rico.
> 
> *Crack cocaine is readily available in economically depressed areas in all major New York cities*, along with some suburban and semi-rural areas, and is occasionally a source of violence in upstate cities.
> 
> Such violence usually occurs when new dealers challenge more established dealers over territory.


If New York were so great why are so many people leaving? I'll still take Arizona any day. I guess we can both cut and paste statistics all day long. What will that prove?


----------



## pic

desertman said:


> pic:
> Talk about being long winded and time consuming? Do you ever look in the mirror?


Who started this thread anyway,lol.


----------



## paratrooper

pic said:


> Who started this thread anyway,lol.


Guilty as charged.................


----------



## rustygun

Is this the bacon thread.


----------



## paratrooper

rustygun said:


> Is this the bacon thread.


It's whatever you want it to be. :numbchuck:


----------



## pic

Desertman

Your very easily manipulated . And very predictable .:smt033


----------



## desertman

pic:


> Your very easily manipulated . And very predictable


Likewise, Do you still have that mirror?


----------

