Paul Ryan

[Ronin13]

And in 2004 Romney signed his state's permanent AWB bill into law.

10 years of that I'm sure sucked (wasn't into firearms at the time). But MA will have theirs forever unless someone passes a law repealing it.

And that's fine. See the great part about constitutionality is state's rights. I would expect most of us to support that here. If one state doesn't want certain things they write laws, that's fine, if they believe that way. It's at the Federal level that I have a problem with it. Less power to the Fed, good... less power to the states, bad.

[Aloha_Shooter]

MA can get rid of their draconian law simply by electing a new slate of legislators and a new governor. Isn't that what we're trying to do now at the federal level (aside from the die hard libtards that will vote for anything under the donkey and the die hards that will vote third party or not vote at all because Romney isn't ______ enough)?

We got the AWB before precisely because Perot and his supporters threw a tantrum -- Bill Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote. You're throwing a fit because Romney did what his constituents in Taxachusetts wanted even though he says he wouldn't do that at the federal level and you KNOW Obama wants to do that and more. That just doesn't make much sense in my book.

In an aside, I disagree with Rucker61 a lot but will have to give him his due in the preceding debate. The US is a net importer of petroleum but net exporter of gasoline and diesel. Distribution of refineries is why Iraq was awash in a sea of oil but couldn't get refined fuel to run their vehicles and generators.

One thing that helps us a little is the fact that most of the world wants diesel more than gasoline so we have had reductions in the price of gas in the past simply because the refineries were ramping up production of diesel to meet world demand and had a temporary surplus in gasoline as a result.

However, Ronin is correct that oil company profits are roughly 5% (or less) of the gross price so the federal government actually makes more per gallon than the oil company does (and the state gets even more!). Overall oil company profits are up in part because they have diversified and raked in huge profits from federal expeditures to promote "alternative" energy.

[Rucker61]

This is not true. Not even close. I've been in the market for a long time and dramatic turns in the economy will effect the DOW but so will what's going on in Europe and just about everything else effects the markets. We're in a nearly global economy. One strong factor in 'lifting' the markets now is the belief that obama will be unemployed soon. Just like the market dived 4 years ago when it looked very likely a Dem was going to win the white house. You can love obama all you want but don't think for one minute that business loves him. He hates business people and we hate him.

The post I responded to blamed him for ruining the economy. I just pointed out that the economy, by one measure, has gotten better. I also pointed out, as you may have noticed, that Obama doesn't get credit for it, as one man really doesn't have that much impact.

I'd like to see some more evidence that the market is lifting in response to the belief that Obama will be leaving office. Most polls still show Obama as the odds on favorite.

I'm curious why you think that the market dived primarily in response to the possibility of a Democrat winning the White House. Most economists would put the blame on the housing bubble burst and credit derivative crash.

Regarding business people vs Obama, you'll find that there are quite a few business people who favor Obama. I can walk around the office here in a Fortune 100 company and see at least a fifty/fifty split in political allegiance, with a slight favor to the Democrat.

[Rucker61]

However, Ronin is correct that oil company profits are roughly 5% (or less) of the gross price so the federal government actually makes more per gallon than the oil company does (and the state gets even more!). Overall oil company profits are up in part because they have diversified and raked in huge profits from federal expeditures to promote "alternative" energy.

I saw a report that in 2011, Exxon reported about an 8% profit world-wide, and much less than that in the US. Small wonder that they like to export. Given that nearly all levels of government are in a budget crunch, it's highly unlikely that the tax on gasoline and diesel will be reduced.

[Scanker19]

And that's fine. See the great part about constitutionality is state's rights. I would expect most of us to support that here. If one state doesn't want certain things they write laws, that's fine, if they believe that way. It's at the Federal level that I have a problem with it. Less power to the Fed, good... less power to the states, bad.

What?

[HoneyBadger]

What?

Ronin is talking about states' rights. It would be much better for a state to decide they want to ban guns than the federal government. If Massachusetts doesn't like scary looking guns, move to a state that DOES like scary looking guns. Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, to name a few.

States should have the power to legislate what is right for THEIR OWN PEOPLE, the same way that local governments should legislate for their own people. Many more people will be happy this way and the entire united States will be a much freer and more prosperous nation without all the nation-wide blanket laws, regulations, and restrictions.

If you think I'm wrong, feel free to verbally abuse me.

[Ronin13]

What?

I'm simply stating that if one state decides to oh say legalize marijuana, then that should be the decision of that state, not the federal government. If they decide in another state that they want to make it harder to purchase a pistol (NY) then that's a state right as long as it doesn't infringe on the constitution. But when the federal government steps in and says "Hey that's a good idea... for everybody" it nullifies state's rights and reduces freedom.

[Sharpienads]

Ronin is talking about states' rights. It would be much better for a state to decide they want to ban guns than the federal government. If Massachusetts doesn't like scary looking guns, move to a state that DOES like scary looking guns. Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, to name a few.

States should have the power to legislate what is right for THEIR OWN PEOPLE, the same way that local governments should legislate for their own people. Many more people will be happy this way and the entire united States will be a much freer and more prosperous nation without all the nation-wide blanket laws, regulations, and restrictions.

If you think I'm wrong, feel free to verbally abuse me.

I think you're right and will not verbally abuse you.

What a person does as governor is not the same as what one will do as president. Or shouldn't be, anyway.

[HoneyBadger]

I'm simply stating that if one state decides to oh say legalize marijuana, then that should be the decision of that state, not the federal government. If they decide in another state that they want to make it harder to purchase a pistol (NY) then that's a state right as long as it doesn't infringe on the constitution. But when the federal government steps in and says "Hey that's a good idea... for everybody" it nullifies state's rights and reduces freedom.

I beat you to it, but I think you said it more eloquently.

[Ridge]

Isn't that what we're trying to do now at the federal level (aside from the die hard libtards that will vote for anything under the donkey and the die hards that will vote third party or not vote at all because Romney isn't ______ enough)?

Isn't that exactly what the people on here voting for Romney are doing??