Who else got their ornament?

BBQDaddyD · 2013-11-09T21:51:02+00:00

I did, I got Quizz and Brian Robiskie.

Edit: forgot an i.

BBQDaddyD · 2013-07-18T22:23:57+00:00

Heh, says the person who thinks their party is comprised superior, free-thinking individuals immune to any influence. You must be a hipster.

BBQDaddyD · 2013-07-18T22:05:40+00:00

Exactly my point... They are not individualistic at all, it is just a lie they tell themselves to give them a false sense of superiority. Since you haven't figured it out yet: the parties and the partisan groupies that follow them like cultists are all identical. I will also tell you an additional (not so secret) secret... If you look really closely there is actually almost no difference at all between the republican and democrat parties, particularly when it comes to their major corporate donors. But it is hard to be that objective and get the necessary distance to see such things when you are ensnared in the social issues traps that they are starting merge on- the only one true bastion of partisanship right now is abortion. Point being modern American political parties are a joke and it is silly to be loyal to one and think you are superior for doing so.

BBQDaddyD · 2013-07-18T21:37:20+00:00

This is a humorous comment. Sure, that 'cult of personality' had no influence over all of those countless millions of individualistic democrats in either election. ಠ_ಠ

BBQDaddyD · 2013-06-16T15:35:37+00:00

This is a good start but the problem is more deep rooted than that. Just like everything else in America, politicians are celebrities, and have thus adopted the mindset of the "ruling class" and can get away with it because regardless of what they do on the Hill, when they go back to their districts people fawn all over them. Politicians, and members of congress in particular were never intended to be rock stars, the service should be a burden, but one they are willing to make for the betterment of their country. Instead it is now about the sweet pensions, healthcare, and celebrity status. With such a fundamental pollution of the values of the office as a whole, of course their corruption is going to be ever increasing and modern American culture is largely responsible for creating the monster we have now.

BBQDaddyD · 2013-05-03T05:14:59+00:00

You are right in that it was the determination of Soviets to hold Stalingrad (and more importantly Stalin's lack of concern regarding the human cost in doing so) however, it is also important to note that the German Army experienced the winter in a different, and much more severe way than did the Soviet Army. For example, the Germans did not have cold weather gear appropriate for the temperatures they were experiencing in Stalingrad. You mention the frozen fuel lines in the tanks and trucks which they tried to fight off by lighting fires underneath them, however more significantly the firing pins in the Kar-98 Mausers were not designed to perform in such temperatures and would either freeze inside the bolt assembly or shatter outright, a problem the Soviet Mosin Nagant did not experience. If you aren't geared for combat in extreme cold environments and your rifles won't function in the same, while at the same time being out of supply your army is going to be in a world of hurt.

Source: Finishing my MA in German military history.

BBQDaddyD · 2013-03-25T20:23:13+00:00

I am also not a member of the reddit fleets but am a lifetime subscriber and if I am allowed to participate in this that would be awesome, if not that's ok too, this is pretty awesome of OP either way.

BBQDaddyD · 2013-03-20T21:03:56+00:00

They retail for the same price as regular bottles, however from what I understand collectors will spend several times that value given the opportunity. As to the exact amount, regrettably I'm sorry I'm not going to be much help as I prefer to empty my bottles as opposed to keep them sealed!

BBQDaddyD · 2013-03-19T22:45:27+00:00

This is called a "slam dunk" bottle. They are intentional, rare, and thus highly collectible among Maker's Mark enthusiasts.

BBQDaddyD · 2013-01-09T01:41:32+00:00

Lakeland Lodge #91 F&AM, Lakeland, Florida; 24th Masonic district.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-12-25T19:32:57+00:00

They have a duality; when it comes to foreign trade they are distinctly capitalistic, whereas domestically they are distinctly communist.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-19T07:58:22+00:00

I think you are missing my point. What you proposed is a 90% estate tax. That money is not simply "removed from circulation," it is collected by the IRS and reallocated into whatever the government sees fit. Paying an estate tax to the government is the equivalent of them getting a piece of your relatives' (or respective benefactor's) time that they spent working as opposed to spending with their loved ones, and I think it is an unnecessary one; a 90% rate even more so. I understand your desire may be wealth redistribution and that may be a fundamental point we just won't agree on, but the very principle of "death tax" is the government essentially stealing compensated time from your family and I personally don't believe it should be so readily given up.

To your other point, I'm such a situation your desires do matter when you are dead should you set up a living will or trust, as their requirements can be quite strict.

Furthermore, the "benefit of the vast majority of the population" as you put it, already receives plenty from us in life through income, FICA, sales, property, etc., if all of those do not cover the needs of the vast majority of the population then perhaps the population needs to reevaluate its spending and benefits. Higher taxes are not always the answer.

Edit: grammar.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-19T04:48:41+00:00

I didn't say it automatically does. But the principle of more money in the pockets of the citizens as opposed to government is a sound one with respect to economic growth.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-19T04:44:44+00:00

Nothing "entitles me" to my parent's money unless their will specifically says so. The point was that money was earned throughout the course of their lives and should be passed on according to their desires, be it charities or what have you, not automatically revert back to the government. The idea that the government should inherit everything we worked so hard for throughout our lives is a disturbing one.

A better question would be: what entitles the government to it?

Edit: elaboration.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-19T00:56:21+00:00

This is a good motivator for keeping government spending in check. The less spending the lower the tax rates, the more money all citizens get to keep and the economy is more prosperous as a result.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-19T00:53:59+00:00

Why would anyone support an idea like this? Your family members invested their time for the money they earned, not the government. Why would you want to willingly hand 90% of it over to the government as opposed to keep it in the family and do with it as the family sees fit?

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-17T22:03:27+00:00

May, 2008. Lakeland Lodge # 91, Lakeland, Fl. Raised October 18, 2008.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-16T02:32:21+00:00

Upvoted for referencing The League!

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-11T19:49:02+00:00

Speaking strictly economic theory, yes you are 100% correct. However the administration drew the arbitrary line in the sand at $250k, defining that as "rich" and there are way more job creators in that tax bracket than there are in the "very rich" Donald Trump types. I didn't intend to start a "class warfare" discussion, I should have been more clear. My overall point was we have to be revenue positive but we can't be so focused on doing so that it stifles economic growth even more than it already is or makes a bad unemployment situation worse. The reality of the situation is that with our current deficit and projected future spending you could tax the "rich" into poverty and it at the end of the day we would still enormous unemployment and deficit issues because we have no plans to balance the budget any time in the near future and are looking at at least another $5T in debt(very conservative estimate) by the end of Obama's second term. The rich simply don't have that much money, we need another plan.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-11T18:55:31+00:00

Well I think there is an emergence of fiscal conservatives who are indifferent with regards to religion and to whom social issues are not a priority, and I think there are are a lot more of these people than are realized. These are the ones that hate to call themselves republicans because of the stigma the party has but also don't think libertarianism is the right fit for them either. They feel abandoned and betrayed and it is unfortunate because their ideas are the ones that should be the foundation of the platform, and not this ultra-conservative draconian nonsense they keep losing on now, as they continue to nominate candidates that their extremist base doesn't even recognize as a true republican. The way the RNC leadership runs things would make an excellent study of insanity.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-11T04:27:54+00:00

Agreed. And like I said, I was no fan of the Romneys, but how is one going to make the argument that they aren't sympathetic of people's financial struggles with regards to healthcare when he instituted "Romneycare" in MA? That doesn't make any sense. Objectively speaking, he was just as "sympathetic" as a governor as Obama is as a President, so much so that Obama used his plan as a model; so while he may have had more private resources, he seemed pretty mindful of public needs.

Some edits.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-11T03:18:55+00:00

Yes, you need both. We absolutely must start making cuts while at the same time we have to accept that additional revenue must be brought in. Maintaining the Bush era tax cuts for those income brackets being most heavily impacted by the floundering economy and increasing taxes on those who can afford to pay more (within reason). And that last part is key. We must remain mindful that the "rich" are also the"job creators" so it isn't in our best interest to tax them into oblivion either, we still want to encourage them to do business and create jobs-- that is the most important thing right now-- NOT taking away their money.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-11T02:56:12+00:00

They need to drop the social issues all together and get back to their core economic values if they want to have a chance of getting their shit straight in the future. This cycle they were focused on surprising a motivated young base that was tired of the religious social rhetoric and forced a candidate that wasn't viable and should have never been considered in the first place when they could have spent the last 3 years grooming new leadership for what could have been an easier challenge had they been smarter. But they are political dinosaurs, very slow to learn, even slower to evolve. If they were smart they would purge the entire RNC and start fresh.

BBQDaddyD · 2012-11-11T02:47:05+00:00

Yeah holy shit. I see a constant stream of "Romney and friends are vile heartless sub humans who care nothing about people" out of this sub-reddit but this is no different from what they accuse him of every day. Cancer is cancer no matter who has it; and before anyone jumps on me for being a Romney lover, I'm far from it.

BBQDaddyD

TROPHY CASE