# Presidential Election



## G-Loose (Jun 30, 2008)

Personally, I don't like our choices in this election. It always seems that we are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils when it comes presidential election time. This year is no different. On one side you have a muslim racist that thinks we should love terrorists more so they won't want to bomb us and on the other side we have an old fart who just wants to continue to let the rich get richer while the country goes down the tubes. I believe the Republicans are reaping the seeds they have sown with the falling apart our economy. When these guys make millions and millions of dollars someone has to lose. That someone is everyone with a retirement plan that's based on stocks and mutual funds. Our two-party system sucks. If someone with great ideas comes along they just get shut down by the big parties just like Wal-mart coming in and shutting down the mom and pop stores. Now we are left with the same problem, we have to accept life on their terms just as we have to live with Wal-mart's lack of customer service and an overall who cares about the customer attitude. I firmly believe the only reason Obama has been selected by the Dems is because he is, dare I say, black. The fact that he is black greatly overshadows the fact that he is a racist and the fact that he hates America and what it stands for. The point being that many people will vote for him simply because he's black and that's the name of the game for each party, to get your guy in office no matter what that actually means for the wellfare of our country. "That's all I got to say about that", Forrest Gump.


----------



## BluSkyy (Jun 30, 2008)

G-Loose said:


> On one side you have a muslim racist that thinks we should love terrorists more so they won't want to bomb us and on the other side we have an old fart who just wants to continue to let the rich get richer while the country goes down the tubes.


I don't agree with your characterization of either candidate. That being said, I don't know that either is going to represent the public well...but that isn't really what we have a president for, is it?


----------



## Dexman1349 (Jun 30, 2008)

I will respectfully not answer the poll based on the mis-informed over generalized extremist view in the original post.

Muslim racist? Because he has a Muslim sounding name and is black? Have you even heard one of his speaches, or visited his website? Do you know any of his official stances?

Old fart wanting to continue the "Bush Legacy" (my summary of yours)? Again, have you heard his speaches, visited his website? Again, do you know any of his official stances?

How much of your info comes from MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, Comedy Central or the local news compared with word of mouth and general water-cooler discussion with other mis-informed over generalized people? It sounds like either way too much crap info or no information at all. I don't know if you tried to dumb down your thoughts for others to understand, but please remember this is probably one of the more educated discussion forums you will find on the internet. Most of us here are either PE's, PLS's or working our asses off to get them.

Perhaps if the thread was started with an actual "educated" approach, I may dignify the poll with a choice.


----------



## DVINNY (Jun 30, 2008)

This thread outta get good.

I'll keep it on my "one's to watch" list for exploding situations.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jun 30, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> I will respectfully not answer the poll based on the mis-informed over generalized extremist view in the original post.
> Muslim racist? Because he has a Muslim sounding name and is black? Have you even heard one of his speaches, or visited his website? Do you know any of his official stances?
> 
> Old fart wanting to continue the "Bush Legacy" (my summary of yours)? Again, have you heard his speaches, visited his website? Again, do you know any of his official stances?
> ...


I will re-characterize. Canidate 1: No track record while avoiding voting while a Senator. He doesn't have a clue what it takes to be a Christian by his statement that there are more than one way to be saved. He also won't be seen at a Mosque. He does not have real experience. If education replaces experience, he only has a law degree with no education in finance, business, engineering, social studies, and so forth. He also would rather talk rather than stand up for what is right, including defending the unborn. He does have a 20 year track record of supporting racial clerics, and having them be his mentor. His wife wasn't proud to be an American until he was winning a primary.

Canidate 2: He liked to party early on, probably as a rebellian against his dad and grandfather who were high ranking officers. He knows his military, and how to stand up for what is right. His education is from Military school where he was near the bottom due to demerits from goofing off. He crashed 5 planes during his military career including the time he was shot down. He spent years being tortured in a prison camp/hotel. He has 20 plus years of experience of getting things done in Washington. He is respected by his peers. He can be trusted with the USA 's military to do what is right for its citizens. He has a better understanding of fiscal requirements in order to protect the USA 's future. *His wife distributes beer!!!!*


----------



## G-Loose (Jun 30, 2008)

Slugger926 said:


> I will re-characterize. Canidate 1: No track record while avoiding voting while a Senator. He doesn't have a clue what it takes to be a Christian by his statement that there are more than one way to be saved. He also won't be seen at a Mosque. He does not have real experience. If education replaces experience, he only has a law degree with no education in finance, business, engineering, social studies, and so forth. He also would rather talk rather than stand up for what is right, including defending the unborn. He does have a 20 year track record of supporting racial clerics, and having them be his mentor. His wife wasn't proud to be an American until he was winning a primary.
> Canidate 2: He liked to party early on, probably as a rebellian against his dad and grandfather who were high ranking officers. He knows his military, and how to stand up for what is right. His education is from Military school where he was near the bottom due to demerits from goofing off. He crashed 5 planes during his military career including the time he was shot down. He spent years being tortured in a prison camp/hotel. He has 20 plus years of experience of getting things done in Washington. He is respected by his peers. He can be trusted with the USA 's military to do what is right for its citizens. He has a better understanding of fiscal requirements in order to protect the USA 's future. *His wife distributes beer!!!!*


Thanks Slugger. This was the kind of response I had hoped for..


----------



## Dexman1349 (Jun 30, 2008)

Slugger926 said:


> I will re-characterize. Canidate 1: No track record while avoiding voting while a Senator. He doesn't have a clue what it takes to be a Christian by his statement that there are more than one way to be saved. *We as a country are multi-denominational. We have been led with the "Christian" belief since our beginning, and we are no longer the biggest, best, and most profitable country in the world anymore. China and Japan combine to own over 50% of the US debt. Are they Christian countries? No. Do you honestly feel that a country run by a Jew, a Muslim, a Cathlic, or an Athesist would be the worse thing imaginable?* He also won't be seen at a Mosque. *I've never been seen in a Mosque either, does that mean I can't run for president?* He does not have real experience. If education replaces experience, he only has a law degree with no education in finance, business, engineering, social studies, and so forth. *How many degrees does McCain have? Does McCain have an engineering degree? Does he have a MBA?* He also would rather talk rather than stand up for what is right *Why does standing up for your beliefs have to include your fist or gun? Some of the best "battles" I've been witness to were wars of words and intellect. Do you really prefer a country run with the mentality of: "I'm right, your wrong and to prove my point I will hit/shoot/bomb you?"* , including defending the unborn. *Defending them from what? Being born into a home that has already demonstraded the child is unwanted? What about a child stemming from rape? How about the unwanted child in a home supported by Medicaid, do you want your tax dollars to support another child that had already been dubbed "unwanted" by the parent(s)? I agree that there are alot of abortions just from stupid people not considering the consequences of their actions and I would like to see a crack-down on stupid people, but in my eyes abortion should always be a choice. Not one to be made by the government. If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one*. He does have a 20 year track record of supporting racial clerics, and having them be his mentor. His wife wasn't proud to be an American until he was winning a primary. *Good for her for voicing her opinion, as is the very foundation of this country. If the President of this country (and anyone surrounding him) can't say what they really feel, how can we truly trust them? Would you rather have a President that strokes your ego and tells you everything you want to hear, knowing full well that not everything said is neither true or right?*
> Canidate 2: He liked to party early on, probably as a rebellian against his dad and grandfather who were high ranking officers. *Good for him. To deny the fact that he or almost everyone else in this country has enjoyed the freedom we celebrate would be a lie.* He knows his military, and how to stand up for what is right. His education is from Military school where he was near the bottom due to demerits from goofing off. He crashed 5 planes during his military career including the time he was shot down. He spent years being tortured in a prison camp/hotel. * So he is another candidate both willing and able to use to the military to handle the countries issues. Let's see how he uses the military to combat the multi-billion dollar price tag it carries, or the rising housing crisis, or the economy, or the multi-TRILLION dollar deficit largely held by Asian countries, or the issue of abortion you mentioned above... I'm not saying that we should all be hippie and "Can't we all just get along?" but seriously, give me a candidate who can negotiate without a gun in his hand.* He has 20 plus years of experience of getting things done in Washington. He is respected by his peers. *Never a complaint on this front. If you can't get along with your fellow law-makers, you will never be able to get anything done. Only question is, how many don't respect Obama? *He can be trusted with the USA 's military to do what is right for its citizens. *I read this as "he is more willing to use the military in a way that I would use it, which is to solve all of my problems"* He has a better understanding of fiscal requirements in order to protect the USA 's future. *He has a republican mentality when it comes to money. It's my money, nobody else should ever benefit from it, and don't you ever think of taxing me! While I don't agree with more taxes, I do understand that government and the infra-structure of this country cost money to operate. We can't continue to take out loans from other countries to continue to operate as a country. At this point I really think this truly requires a complete restructurization of the Federal Reserve, not a new president. EVERY president to date has simply taken the same problem, put a bigger band-aid on it and passed it off to the next president.* His wife distributes beer!!!! *Ok, you got me on this one with the exception of, What the hell does that do for me? Not enough to sway my vote one way or another.*


I have posted comments and questions in bold above.

My quick and simple summary of your description is this:

Candidate 1: In-experienced, under-educated, non-christian who only wants to solve issues about talking about them

Candidate 2: Fun, goofball, war vet who is both willing and able to use a military

By your summaries, I feel more inclined to move out of the country than to participate in this presidential vote. The one thing that I think is still lacking from the summaries you posted was part of my original post: do you know the official stances of either candidate? This summary is just what has happened in the past with little regard with either candidates goals toward the future.

I honestly haven't made a decision towards either candidate. Obama is starting to waffle a bit like Kerry did, McCain has seemed to turn more into the Bush I don't like than the "left-wing" republican senator everyone liked in Arizona.

Ok. I'm done now. I'll try to refrain from going much further into this before I manage to really get myself into trouble.


----------



## G-Loose (Jun 30, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> I will respectfully not answer the poll based on the mis-informed over generalized extremist view in the original post.
> Muslim racist? Because he has a Muslim sounding name and is black? Have you even heard one of his speaches, or visited his website? Do you know any of his official stances?
> 
> Old fart wanting to continue the "Bush Legacy" (my summary of yours)? Again, have you heard his speaches, visited his website? Again, do you know any of his official stances?
> ...


My intent was not to dumb down but generate others responses and thoughts on the current political atmosphere. As far as official responses, does it really matter anyway? If the voters want something different, hasn't it become commonplace to simply "crawfish" out of it and say "what I meant by that was...". Official stance means nothing to me. Like the preacher once said, "If you play around the hog pen long enough, yer eventually gonna to get some mud on yah". We don't have a good choice here but the bottom line is that if a Democrat is elected we all will be considered rich and be taxed to death. Yep, if you make over $50K you are rich to Dems and as such should bare the burden of those who don't want to work for it.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jun 30, 2008)

That picture pretty much sums up my opinion of the election candidates this year. A giant douche and a turd sandwich. I refuse to choose between two equally useless pawns of the major parties. I have never been a fan of liberals, and both candidates now qualify. Republicans used to be conservative, but now they are just "moral conservatives" funded and led by the evangelical christians. There does not exist a major, fiscally conservative party.

Last election, I voted for Michael Badnarik. He was the Libertarian candidate. And before you guys start pissing and moaning that I "wasted my vote", might I direct you to the people above that are spouting off that you haven't taken the time to research what a candidate really believes. Well, that's what I did, and the person that most closely advocated my political beliefs was the Libertarian, so I voted for him. So all the millions and millions of jackholes that vote for the "lesser of two evils" or the "best of the worst", I say YOU are wasting your votes and condemning the country to 4 more years of the wrong direction...which ever of the Big Two wins.

This year, I'll either vote for Ron Paul if he runs as an independent, the Libertarian candidate if I like what he has to say, or I won't vote at all. I'm tired of voting in a system when I know for a fact that I will not be represented in any way, shape, or form in the federal government whether I vote or not. We basically have an election to choose your dictator. Once these idiots get in office, it's not like they are trying to represent the will of the people. They are just pandering to their party, the lobbyists, or whoever has the deepest pockets.


----------



## Slugger926 (Jun 30, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> I have posted comments and questions in bold above.
> My quick and simple summary of your description is this:
> 
> Candidate 1: In-experienced, under-educated, non-christian who only wants to solve issues about talking about them *OR GIVING UP MUCH LIKE FRANCE DID DURING WWII AT THE SAME TIME TAKING AWAY 2nd ADMENDMENT RIGHTS.*
> ...


One thing I learned both in Church and from interviewing classes, if you want to know how someone will act or perform in the future, look at both their previous and current actions. How someone solved a problem in past will probably be how they will handle the problem in the future. Their actions speak the truth, while their words can pretty much be ignored. Their past actions will dictate how I believe the candidate will do what is best for my job, investments (which is partially tied to my job), my retirement, and the future of my kids.

I doubt anyone will get into trouble over beliefs. This is America, and everyone is entitled to their beliefs, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and their right to bear arms to protect their rights.

For anyone not wanting to vote for either, this poll is flawed. There is a big campaign to write my name in. PM me if you want to write me in.

Just put : Terry Britton, P.E. on your ballot.

:multiplespotting: :multiplespotting: :multiplespotting: :multiplespotting:


----------



## EM_PS (Jun 30, 2008)

My traditional write-in vote was, is, &amp; always willl be Mickey Mouse - power to the House of Mouse! M. Mouse in '08!


----------



## Slugger926 (Jun 30, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> My traditional write-in vote was, is, &amp; always willl be Mickey Mouse - power to the House of Mouse! M. Mouse in '08!


Excellent choice. If M. Mouse gets in, then maybe my 1.58 shares of Disney stock rocket. (Don't you love sharebuilder.com and fractional shares???)


----------



## klk (Jun 30, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


>



I love South Park!


----------



## Dexman1349 (Jun 30, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> My traditional write-in vote was, is, &amp; always willl be Mickey Mouse - power to the House of Mouse! M. Mouse in '08!


Mickey is the only person to obtain at least 0.5% of the votes every election since the 50's.

I hear Elvis is another that gets a few votes every year.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jun 30, 2008)

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh politics. There is nothing more exciting than engineers discussing politics.

We should invite Carlito from UK to join this one. He surely will have a lot to share.

:bio: mates


----------



## engineergurl (Jun 30, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> Mickey is the only person to obtain at least 0.5% of the votes every election since the 50's.
> I hear Elvis is another that gets a few votes every year.


And did you learn that on CNN, FOX or what ever media of your choice... errr, oh wait, maybe that came from a water cooler conversation with the misinformed. Dude, come on.

If you want my opinion, which I'm sure some don't but there HAS to be someone out there to get excited to see my post in a political form...

There is a racial spin on this because there is no denying the fact that some portion of the population will make a decision to vote based with out research and education and the fact that they feel comfortable with the particular canidate and that particular candidates race.

It's pointless to vote any way but democratic or republican, because that is just a wasted vote... how many times has Nadar lost an election, and last time I checked Micky Mouse and Elvis haven't been elected either.

Obama has stuck by his voting history from what I've seen but hasn't shown much loyalty elsewhere when it hits the fan, he is inexperienced and although I think he is making promises from his own mind and ideals, I don't think once the election is over, IF he's president he will go against his advisiors and I don't see how some of the stances he is taking on things will be able to be seen through.

McCain hasn't had to campaign within his party so we've had less time to judge him, I will openly admit that he was not my choice for the party. Although I look at it as not the lesser of two evils, but who is the closest to my ideals and who do I think will make the best decisions for the country.

Each and every administration has done good and bad things for our country. Usually we don't see the impact of the current adminstration until the first term is over, unless there are extenuating circumstances. And there are reason why our government is built on the checks and balances ideal. Maybe I'm the only one who has any faith in our institution but I can imagine, 4 or 8 years from now, WHOEVER is elected, there will be some people who have changed their minds, there will be a whole other generation adding their opinion and everyone else will still be bitching about taxes and death.


----------



## G-Loose (Jul 1, 2008)

engineergurl said:


> bitching about taxes and death.


In that order!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 1, 2008)

I think people shy away from voting third party candidates after the election of 1992.

That being said, Vote Captain Worley! I'm forthcoming with my politics!

What will Captain Worley do about illegal immigration?

CW: Nothing.

What will Captain Worley do about the economy.

CW: Nothing.

What will Capatin Worley do about high gas prices?

CW: Nothing.

Captain Worley. He may not be the answer, but at least he's not another question.

(paid for by citizens for drinking CABs and taunting people about it on Friday afternoon)


----------



## roadwreck (Jul 1, 2008)

I like this poll. I was able vote for both! 

(best of both worlds or visa versa?)


----------



## GCracker (Jul 1, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> By your summaries, I feel more inclined to move out of the country than to participate in this presidential vote.


Have you ever been outside the US? True we have our problems, but the US is still, by far, the best country in the world!

I'll stay even if Obama gets elected. :unitedstates:


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2008)

GCracker said:


> Have you ever been outside the US? True we have our problems, but the US is still, by far, the best country in the world!I'll stay even if Obama gets elected. :unitedstates:


+1 Brotha !! :bananalama:

:unitedstates:

JR


----------



## bigray76 (Jul 1, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I think people shy away from voting third party candidates after the election of 1992.
> That being said, Vote Captain Worley! I'm forthcoming with my politics!
> 
> What will Captain Worley do about illegal immigration?
> ...


Need a running mate??? One of us may be sober some portion of the time!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 1, 2008)

bigray76 said:


> Need a running mate??? One of us may be sober some portion of the time!


I think may is the operative word, but I think this country could use a Yelltsin type (or types).


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Jul 1, 2008)

engineergurl said:


> It's pointless to vote any way but democratic or republican, because that is just a wasted vote... how many times has Nadar lost an election, and last time I checked Micky Mouse and Elvis haven't been elected either.


If that's the case, you could have stopped after you said "It's pointless to vote." Republicrats are the same damn party anyway. Sure, they put on a big show, and bicker about shit...but where the rubber meets the road, they are still spending money that they don't have to put up some illusion that you cannot live without government.


----------



## Dexman1349 (Jul 1, 2008)

engineergurl said:


> And did you learn that on CNN, FOX or what ever media of your choice... errr, oh wait, maybe that came from a water cooler conversation with the misinformed. Dude, come on.


Google it, I dare you. Mickey Mouse recieves hundreds of write in votes every election (doesn't matter if it's for governor, president, senator, etc). Here are a few of the top results when I did a search today:

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=14757



> "People just went wild," Yolo County clerk recorder Freddie Oakley is quoted as saying. "[They] were writing in Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse. We always see a couple of those in every election, but we saw thousands of them." - ST


http://www.co.monroe.pa.us/Elections/write...=MICKEY%20MOUSE



> Ballot Return Votes for MICKEY MOUSE (Governor and Lieutenant Governor):


http://www.speakupwny.com/article_3557.shtml



> As you pointed out in your letter, many voters cast write-in votes as a form of protest. When someone votes, as an example, Mickey Mouse, their vote is counted but it is not practicable to give Mickey Mouse his own space on the final count or the numerous other write-in votes.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 1, 2008)

I saw a negative campaign ad being run against me...

Captain Worley, he's a known Homo Sapien.

Captain Worley was seen masticating in McDonald's with school children present.

Captain Worley once matriculated in front of a group in high school. He seemed happy about it.

Captain Worley...the question is, what kind of deviant is he?

(paid for by the FL Stormwater Modeling Association)


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2008)

^^^ ^ :Locolaugh: :Locolaugh:

JR


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 1, 2008)

Dexman1349 said:


> Google it, I dare you. Mickey Mouse recieves hundreds of write in votes every election (doesn't matter if it's for governor, president, senator, etc). Here are a few of the top results when I did a search today:


Please forgive my quoting (you could just reread what you wrote, but it seems you forgot):



> Mickey is the only person to obtain at least 0.5% of the votes every election since the 50's.


There are something like 120,000,000 votes *counted* in a presidential election. 0.5% would be 600,000 votes. There's no way that many knuckle-heads write-in Micky. Hundreds, sure... but not almost a million!

So, I double-dog-dare you to show a reference that supports your original claim. The burden is on you (not us!)... and assuming you had data for ONE presidential election, I'd then ask to see data on each one since 1950.

The problem, as I understand it, is that votes for Mickey Mouse aren't tallied... so I don't think there's a record of the count.


----------



## benbo (Jul 1, 2008)

GCracker said:


> Have you ever been outside the US? True we have our problems, but the US is still, by far, the best country in the world!I'll stay even if Obama gets elected. :unitedstates:


I'll stay even if Captain Worley gets elected. And I've read some pretty bad things about him on some other sites.


----------



## EM_PS (Jul 1, 2008)

:unitedstates: Hell i'd stay if Ted Kennedy was to become the Prez - and thats saying something (for me)

The last time i used the M. Mouse write-in was during one of our worthless union elections - sad thing was, if he had received just one more write-in vote, he would have been the alternate union pres. - I didn't realize he had such mainstream appeal - he's a gamer!


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 1, 2008)

83% of all statistics are made up on the spot anyway.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 2, 2008)

benbo said:


> I'll stay even if Captain Worley gets elected. And I've read some pretty bad things about him on some other sites.


Oh, they're pretty much true, but for your support, my first act will be to add benbo to my cabinet as energy advsor.

I think me and M. Mouse should be added t the polls. I mean, M is a perrenial favorite, and I'm the dark horse candidate.


----------



## benbo (Jul 2, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Oh, they're pretty much true, but for your support, my first act will be to add benbo to my cabinet as energy advsor.
> I think me and M. Mouse should be added t the polls. I mean, M is a perrenial favorite, and I'm the dark horse candidate.


Perhaps you can snag M.Mouse as a running mate. That's always a crucial decision. Especially for an admitted masticator.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 2, 2008)

When I was in college, the two chartoon characters from the student newspaper won the general election for student body pres and vice pres. The governing body had them disqualified on minor technicalities.

:true:


----------



## TouchDown (Jul 2, 2008)

You can't stop this kind of movement:

Captain Worley for President!


----------



## TouchDown (Jul 2, 2008)

Not sure what your main demographic is, but...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 2, 2008)

^^BUWAHAHAHA!!!! I'm so forwarding that.

Benbo, I never admitted the masticating. I have heard that 99% of people do it and the other 1% are liars, though.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jul 2, 2008)

The matriculation charge will probably stick though. There's likely a paper trail.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 2, 2008)

Yes, that's one I will be unable to duck. However, there were two occasions when I didn't publicly matriculate. In a seemingly odd twist to the story, I wouldn't have matriculated in public the first time if my parents hadn't made me do it.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jul 2, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I wouldn't have matriculated in public the first time if my parents hadn't made me do it.


Rebounding from parental induced trauma makes for good human interest. The media will love it. Add a trip to rehab and you're a shoe-in.


----------



## benbo (Jul 2, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Yes, that's one I will be unable to duck. However, there were two occasions when I didn't publicly matriculate. In a seemingly odd twist to the story, I wouldn't have matriculated in public the first time if my parents hadn't made me do it.


How exactly do you matriculate in private? Don't you have to show up to officially matriculate? Unless you are talking about just the registration process to matriculate.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 2, 2008)

No, I think its considered matriculating in private when you get notification.

I have had to show employers proof of matriculation, which is downright embarassing. I mean, they want to see proof on paper.

Flyer, perhaps I should make a public service ad as well, showing the youth of America that you shouldn't be ashamed to matriculate. I could do it after rehab.


----------



## benbo (Jul 2, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> No, I think its considered matriculating in private when you get notification.
> I have had to show employers proof of matriculation, which is downright embarassing. I mean, they want to see proof on paper.
> 
> Flyer, perhaps I should make a public service ad as well, showing the youth of America that you shouldn't be ashamed to matriculate. I could do it after rehab.


I've had to show employers proof of graduation, but the only time I had to show proof of matriculation was when I was hoping to get reimbursed for matriculating.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 2, 2008)

You got paid to matriculate?

Boy, I picked a good Secretary of Energy!


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 3, 2008)

GCracker said:


> Have you ever been outside the US? True we have our problems, but the US is still, by far, the best country in the world!I'll stay even if Obama gets elected. :unitedstates:


Would their be any difference in the USA a few years after Nobama gets elected versus living in a 3rd world country?


----------



## GCracker (Jul 3, 2008)

Slugger926 said:


> Would their be any difference in the USA a few years after Nobama gets elected versus living in a 3rd world country?


I'd like to think so. We have a pretty good system of checks and balances to keep one from becoming a dictator and/ or completely screwing the country up. If that doesn't work, we have armed citizens to take his ass out at any time! :beerchug:


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jul 3, 2008)

The republic survived the Carter administration. It will survive whichever of these two gets elected.


----------



## Dexman1349 (Jul 3, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> The republic survived the Carter administration. It will survive whichever of these two gets elected.


The problem is that we shouldn't need to worry about "surviving" an elected president.

It's one thing to survive the King Henry VIII's reign, but something completely different when we "choose" who is our leader.


----------



## benbo (Jul 3, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> The republic survived the Carter administration. It will survive whichever of these two gets elected.


If you listen to these guys I think one of the most radical differences is on the capital gains tax rate - which I think Obama wants to double. But looking at the housing market and the stock market, capital gains basically amount to zero either way.


----------



## GCracker (Jul 3, 2008)

The problem is "we" don't choose initially. Most people listen to who the media thinks has the best chance to win based on their "polls" and votes accordingly. Then we come out of the primary with two donkey's instead of one! :smileyballs:

How many times have you heard "I think so and so would make a good president, but he doesn't stand a chance of getting elected because the CNN poll shows....."?????? I've heard it plenty...


----------



## BluSkyy (Jul 3, 2008)

I personally think the whole "horse race" aspect of the presidential race is ridiculous and should be discarded. Why is it important to know what everyone else thinks about a candidate before someone votes?


----------



## GCracker (Jul 3, 2008)

I agree, but there's way too much money involved for the media to let it die.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jul 3, 2008)

benbo said:


> If you listen to these guys I think one of the most radical differences is on the capital gains tax rate - which I think Obama wants to double. But looking at the housing market and the stock market, capital gains basically amount to zero either way.


Doubling of the capital gains tax will both hurt and delay a recovery while reducing federal revenue in the process.



GCracker said:


> The problem is "we" don't choose initially. Most people listen to who the media thinks has the best chance to win based on their "polls" and votes accordingly. Then we come out of the primary with two donkey's instead of one! :smileyballs: How many times have you heard "I think so and so would make a good president, but he doesn't stand a chance of getting elected because the CNN poll shows....."?????? I've heard it plenty...


There was a statement made by a columnist in the Chicago Tribune regarding the two candidates for governor. I think it applies this year to the presidential election: "They are two horns of the same goat." There are differences between the two if you're a one-issue voter. My concern is that neither one of them has been an executive in charge of anything. The history is that senators do not make good presidents. There's always an exception to every rule, but I figure either one is only going to be a single term president.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 7, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> The republic survived the Carter administration.


Barely. Those were some truly horrid times. I can't think of anything good that came out of that era (Jan 77- Jan 81).


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jul 7, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Barely. Those were some truly horrid times. I can't think of anything good that came out of that era (Jan 77- Jan 81).


Agreed. However I can think of one good thing. The winner of the presidential election in November of 1980.


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 7, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Barely. Those were some truly horrid times. I can't think of anything good that came out of that era (Jan 77- Jan 81).


Some of us were born during that era, don't we qualify as something good?


----------



## bigray76 (Jul 8, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I saw a negative campaign ad being run against me...
> Captain Worley, he's a known Homo Sapien.
> 
> Captain Worley was seen masticating in McDonald's with school children present.
> ...


I'd hate to think of what they'd say about me as your running mate!


----------



## Slugger926 (Jul 10, 2008)

I think either Capt. W or myself have a great shot at winning. The question is when to launch the SPAM email campaign.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 10, 2008)

bigray76 said:


> I'd hate to think of what they'd say about me as your running mate!


Well, the whole point of life is to leave behind an interesting memoir....


----------



## bigray76 (Jul 10, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Well, the whole point of life is to leave behind an interesting memoir....


"In certain chapters of The Life of Bigray, we have changed the names to protect the innocent and those currently in the witness protection program".

I'll just answer questions like Bill Clinton... "I do not recall"


----------



## sehad (Jul 10, 2008)

What is the real definition of recall?


----------



## bigray76 (Jul 10, 2008)

"I don't remember.... I'll have one of my staff follow up with you on that"


----------



## csb (Jul 10, 2008)

You know, in the last two administrations, either the President or the Vice President has shot someone in the face.

Of course, for the Clinton administration, it only required a kleenex to clean up....


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 10, 2008)

^HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## TXengrChickPE (Jul 10, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> Agreed. However I can think of one good thing. The winner of the presidential election in November of 1980.


Indeed! It's too bad we didn't figure out cloning before he passed... we could use him now.


----------



## sehad (Jul 10, 2008)

csb said:


> You know, in the last two administrations, either the President or the Vice President has shot someone in the face.
> Of course, for the Clinton administration, it only required a kleenex to clean up....


:appl: :appl: :appl:


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 21, 2008)

our poll very closely mimicks that of the national poll

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/straw-poll


----------



## cement (Jul 21, 2008)

wow, that is interesting. how do you suppose WYoming is going for Obama? must be a lot of posts from laramie.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jul 22, 2008)

Pretty interesting results given that the "official" polls conducted by Zogby etc. are showing it to be a much closer race with a slight edge for Obama (this week anyway). Two thoughts come immediately to mind:

1. How big is the difference between the answers people give a pollster over the phone and their actual selection in the voting booth?

2. For the internet poll, how many people that vote in the AOL poll are actually going to vote for real come November?


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 22, 2008)

^^ The AOL poll IMO would have more youth taking the poll which should help Obama, so my question is "how bad would it be if the election were right now?"

and to answer your first question: I think a BIG difference. Many people will say that they can support the guy, but when they pull the curtain, they are going to have a mental image similar to the NEW YORKER satire and they will vote McCain.

^That's just my opinion. Take it for what its worth. 2 cents.


----------



## ktulu (Jul 22, 2008)

^^^ aren't you supposed to be on vacation??


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> The republic survived the Carter administration. It will survive whichever of these two gets elected.


You know, I have accepted this fact as well.

What has come across as very interesting during this presidential election season is that all of the other races (legislative, governors, state seats, local races) have clearly been eclipsed and treated as if they don't matter.

While I agree that the executive office is highly visible and some direct influence (e.g. policies, supreme court nominees, agency nominees, etc.) that the real concerns people are raising (health care reform, solvency of social security, budget shortfalls, etc.) really come down to how the congress decides to legislate and spend.

So, yes, selection of a presidential candidate is important but those other races that are being ignored are actually MORE important. IMHO. :2cents:

JR


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 22, 2008)

ktulu said:


> ^^^ aren't you supposed to be on vacation??


I am.

My wife is across the street at Books-a-million, and the kids are both napping, so I'm surfing the condo Wi-Fi.

Gotta get my EB.com spammin' in.


----------



## csb (Jul 22, 2008)

cement said:


> wow, that is interesting. how do you suppose WYoming is going for Obama? must be a lot of posts from laramie.


Easy...if 5 people voted for him that's over half the state's population!


----------



## Vishal (Jul 22, 2008)

csb said:


> Easy...if 5 people voted for him that's over half the state's population!


:lmao:


----------



## frazil (Jul 22, 2008)

csb said:


> You know, in the last two administrations, either the President or the Vice President has shot someone in the face.


LMAO!!!


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 27, 2008)

For those of you who slept through World History 101 here is a condensed version.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were:

1. The invention of beer, and

2. The invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man.

These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals

2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, firemen, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, golfers, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history.

It should be noted that a liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before posting their response.

A conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that he will immediately post to affirm other true believers.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 27, 2008)

How many Conservatives does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Conservatives only screw poor people.

----------------

Question--why should you always take two Republicans fishing with you?

If you take only one, he'll smoke all your pot, but if you take two, they won't smoke any.

-----------------

A liberal says "My glass is half full."

A conservative says, "Who drank half my water?"

------------------

What's the difference between liberals and conservatives?

A liberal wins the lottery and throws a party.

A conservative wins the lottery and complains that he has to pay taxes on it.

------------------

How many conservatives does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. They'll pass a law forcing school children to pray to God to take the dark away.

-------------------


----------



## EM_PS (Jul 27, 2008)

here we go. . .

opcorn:


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 27, 2008)

How many liberals does it take to change a light Bulb?

A: At least ten, as they will need to have a discussion about whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb they still may not change it to keep from alienating those who might use other forms of light.

Q:How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?

A:None. Liberals wouldn’t actually change the light bulb, but they would show compassion for it by talking a lot about how terrible it is in the dark and more funding is needed to improve dim, 60 watt bulbs up to bright and productive 100 watt bulbs.

Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Let George Bush fix it! It’s his fault it’s dark anyway!

Question - What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?

Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.


----------



## engineergurl (Jul 27, 2008)

okay guys... lets not go too far and get back to the topic before one with power shuts it down...lol


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 27, 2008)

^^Um. I think DVINNY would be the one with the power to shut it down.

But there is no way I win a joke war with him. I don't know where he gets so much material.


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 28, 2008)

I can assure you that I can't be offended. I could have fun with it, but I do know how people can get heated over such things.

With that said:

_The Pope took a couple of days off to visit the mountains of Alaska for some sight-see! ing._

_He was cruising along the campground in the Popemobile when there was a frantic commotion just at the edge of the woods. A helpless Democrat, wearing sandals, shorts, a "Save the Whales/Bush Lied" T-shirt and a tree-hugger hat, was screaming while struggling frantically, thrashing around trying to free himself from the grasp of a 10-foot grizzly._

_As the Pope watched horrified, a group of Republican loggers came racing up._

_One quickly fired a .44 magnum into the bear's chest. The other two reached up and pulled the bleeding semiconscious Democrat from the bear's grasp. Then using long clubs, the three loggers finished off the bear and two of them threw it onto the bed of their truck while the other tenderly placed the injured Democrat in the back seat._

_As they prepared to leave, the Pope summoned them. "I give you my blessing for your brave actions!" he told them. "I heard there was a bitter hatred between Republican loggers and Democratic environmental activists but now I've seen with my own eyes that this is not true."_

_As the Pope drove off, one of the loggers asked his buddies "Who was that guy?" "It was the Pope.", another replied, "He's in direct contact with God and has access to all God's wisdom."_

_"Well," the logger said, "he may have access to all God's wisdom but he sure doesn't know squat about bear hunting! By the way, is the bait holding up, or do we need to go back to town and snatch us another one?" _


----------



## G-Loose (Jul 28, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> I can assure you that I can't be offended. I could have fun with it, but I do now how people can get heated over such things.
> With that said:
> 
> _The Pope took a couple of days off to visit the mountains of Alaska for some sight-see! ing. _
> ...


Awesome!


----------



## Dleg (Jul 28, 2008)

^I usually avoid political discussions, plus I think of myself as an independent thinker, and therefore neither a "Democrat" or a "Republican". But it always amazes me how the Republican party has been able to swindle the blue collar workers of America into believing that they should also be "Republicans" because "Republicans" stand for toughness, masculinity, huntin', fishin', God, family, and all this other bullshit which has absolutely nothing to do with what the "Republicans" actually do up in Washington, once elected.

There was a time, and you all know this, that the Democratic party attracted all the blue collar workers, because the Democratic party stood for labor unions, etc. - all the things that directly aimed at the blue collar demographic. (for right or wrong - don't accuse me of being a union sympatizer because I am not). But now it seems that some smart, yet cynical and calculating folks somewhere along the line, figured out that all they had to say was this:



"Democrats are faggots"

... and the blue collar workers would march in droves over to the Republican Party. _"Shucks, I don't nobody to think that I might be a faggot!"_ And the Republican Party, as we all also know, is not at all in favor of labor unions, and is instead all about what's best for the large corporations and "the economy" as a whole. And once again, I agree with the basic economics of that - workers usually benefit when their coprorations do well. But we all also know that many politicians stand aside and watch while big business goes to the extremes, and replaces all those good old boy blue collar voters with illegal immigrants, and then, ultimately, sends all those blue collar jobs overseas.

Simply amazing. People are obviously pretty stupid and gullible, when you get right down to it. Personally, I'd rather see this democracy work the way it's supposed to, and have the masses voting on the issues that the politicians actually control, and not all this masculinity ridicule crap.


----------



## Dleg (Jul 28, 2008)

^Oops. To be fair, I should add that I think the Democratic party has also blown it by alienating those folks with too much emphasis on fuzzy social issues that they equally have no business arguing about int Washington.

('cause I don't want to sound like a whining, faggoty Democrat)


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 28, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Simply amazing. People are obviously pretty stupid and gullible, when you get right down to it. Personally, I'd rather see this democracy work the way it's supposed to, and have the masses voting on the issues that the politicians actually control, and not all this masculinity ridicule crap.


My feelings exactly, Dleg.

You might find the opinions of Susan Jacoby interesting. Here is an excerpt from her article in the Washington Post this past winter:



> [SIZE=14pt]*The Dumbing Of America*[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces[/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=10pt] By Susan Jacoby Sunday, February 17, 2008; Page B01 [/SIZE]
> 
> ...


The article in its whole is a very interesting read.


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 28, 2008)

So ya figured us out eh?

Don't tell the others.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jul 28, 2008)

I don't think we or she are trying to insult any individual's intelligence, or even the nation's as a whole. BUT, I think we are being lead down a path where every issue can be summarized by some sort of quick, emotional sound bite, and we are encouraged not to put any thought into anything.

Maybe I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like "they" are trying to keep us fat, dumb and happy so we don't rock the boat and ruin "their" party.


----------



## DVINNY (Jul 28, 2008)

I don't think its a conspiracy. I think its happening, but I'm not convinced there is a "conspiracy" to keep us that way, its just working out in "their" favor that its happening.

I am a republican because that party is closest to my values, but I really wish that our country could have a true 3 party system. Then if all 3 parties only had 33% of the votes, then to have laws and changes passed, they would have to be genuine to have the other 2 parties 'step into the aisle' to vote for it.

The way it is now a majority can be won by a party, and I don't think that's very healthy.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Jul 28, 2008)

^^ I'm too lazy to look up the exact context, but the framers (Jefferson in particular I think) didn't like the idea of political parties. To be called a "party man" was an insult.

The two worst things we have done is instituted direct election of senators and the president. The senators used to be beholden to the state legislators. An individual voting district in this country has less representation in congress than most foreign countries.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2008)

It is interesting to see the firestorm unleashed by Jon Voight's Op-Ed piece entitled, _Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people_ printed in the Washington Times

JR


----------



## snickerd3 (Jul 30, 2008)

ineteresting comic strip http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19798680/?cat=td

I don't usually read his work, but if either candidate can take the process back to basics, it would be better for all.


----------



## G-Loose (Jul 30, 2008)

jregieng said:


> It is interesting to see the firestorm unleashed by Jon Voight's Op-Ed piece entitled, _Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people_ printed in the Washington Times
> JR


With all the problems we are having in America and the world today, if Adolf Hitler had been born 50 years later he could get at least half of America to buy into his beliefs. Ever wonder how an anti-social human being such as Hitler became so powerful he nearly conquered all of Europe? If any of you know anything about how he got into power, it had nothing to do with his white supremacist views. He promised "hope and change" for the people who had no jobs and were starving to death and didn't feel like their government was doing anything to help (any of this sound familiar). Along comes Hitler to the rescue, all you had to do was accept or at least overlook his views of the Jews. Once the country began to prosper and most of the people, as long as you weren't jewish, were happy everyone felt loyalty and obligation to Hitler, their savior. Hitler is referred to by most theologians as anti-Christ, not "The Antichrist" mind you but anti-Christ none-the-less.

So, my point is, many people in this country today have been primed by the liberal/socialist media to "drink the koolaid".


----------



## benbo (Jul 30, 2008)

G-Loose said:


> With all the problems we are having in America and the world today, if Adolf Hitler had been born 50 years later he could get at least half of America to buy into his beliefs. Ever wonder how an anti-social human being such as Hitler became so powerful he nearly conquered all of Europe? If any of you know anything about how he got into power, it had nothing to do with his white supremacist views. He promised "hope and change" for the people who had no jobs and were starving to death and didn't feel like their government was doing anything to help (any of this sound familiar). Along comes Hitler to the rescue, all you had to do was accept or at least overlook his views of the Jews. Once the country began to prosper and most of the people, as long as you weren't jewish, were happy everyone felt loyalty and obligation to Hitler, their savior. Hitler is referred to by most theologians as anti-Christ, not "The Antichrist" mind you but anti-Christ none-the-less.
> So, my point is, many people in this country today have been primed by the liberal/socialist media to "drink the koolaid".


I'm conservative, I prefer McCain, but come on. This is hyperbole. Every new candidate preaches change. When you drop the "Hitler" you reduce the argument. Remember Hitler was also ultra-nationalist (after Versailles). People might try to make that stretch to criticize McCain, which would be an equal stretch. The differences between Obama and McCain are significant, and to the extent I can tell he is more like Carter than Clinton, but really this is a stretch to me. If a real Hitler came to power I'd leave, or take up arms. I'll likely stay if Obama get's elected.


----------



## GCracker (Jul 30, 2008)

Dleg said:


> ^I usually avoid political discussions,
> 
> There was a time, and you all know this, that the Democratic party attracted all the blue collar workers, because the Democratic party stood for labor unions, etc. - all the things that directly aimed at the blue collar demographic. (for right or wrong - don't accuse me of being a union sympatizer because I am not). But now it seems that some smart, yet cynical and calculating folks somewhere along the line, figured out that all they had to say was this:
> 
> ...


I usually stay away as well, but I disagree that all red blooded americans jumped off the train because of sexuality. ( I know you were making a broad statement)

I agree on the above in reference to labor unions back in the day. But, what do the unions do now besides completely screw people out of their money and jobs? In the early days unions were needed to protect and provide for the american worker. Now, the unions drive up wages so high that american companies can't compete and people loose their jobs. Two industries that come to mind are automotive and steel. I went to high school with a guy that worked for the Atlanta GM plant during the summers making $18 per hour to start. This is a high school kid working between semesters pushing a broom!!!!

Add to that the dems and libs think that it's ok to give 40% of that money to the "family" that has 10 kids and can't afford to or won't work to support them. Also throw in that most of them (the one's that you see on TV) support gun control, are anti hunting, fishing, save the tree, etc and it's easy to see why most blue collar workers stopped supporting the democratic party.

In response to G-Loose, the Jewish people were seen as being reason for the people starving to death and not having jobs. Hitler used this to get the support of those people. (not saying their actions were justified)

In some ways the Dem and Rep parties do the same thing. The rich man is keeping you down let's tax him to death!!! Or, the poor man is taking all your money!! Put me in office and I'll stop it!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 30, 2008)

I'm not being mean G-Loose, but you probably ought to read something about Hitler. His 'Hope and Change' was to get rid of all the Jews. Hitler was pure evil that probably could not have risen to power outside of that place and time.

I don't think GWB, Obama, or McCain come anywhere close to Hitlerian proportion.


----------



## G-Loose (Jul 30, 2008)

GCracker said:


> In response to G-Loose, the Jewish people were seen as being reason for the people starving to death and not having jobs. Hitler used this to get the support of those people. (not saying their actions were justified) In some ways the Dem and Rep parties do the same thing. The rich man is keeping you down let's tax him to death!!! Or, the poor man is taking all your money!! Put me in office and I'll stop it!


Your statements are accurate about Hitler gaining support, and I agree that both parties use the same kind of propaganda. People like to have someone to blame for their problems, so Hitler gave them the Jews. The fact that the country prospered only served to cement the idea in the minds of the people that the Jews were to blame. While socialist ideas seem good to begin with, once they take hold people no longer have a say-so in their own lives. People today have not seen the government oppression that was the very reason for the formation of this great country. Our schools are teaching liberally biased history and therefore our kids cannot learn the valuable lessons that the original American revolutionaries learned by giving their lives for the freedoms we have today. Today, it's all about making sure certain people are not allowed to voice certain views and ensuring that "I" get what "I" deserve. In my opinion if you don't work for it, then you do not deserve anything but a swift kick in the arse. The fact that by voting a certain way will ensure that "I" don't have to work for what "I" have is just as flawed as congress voting for their own raises.

The good thing is that when the next revolution occurs, I will be on the gun toting, hunting, fishing, fight if neccessary, and work for what you have side and not the gun control, tree hugging, protect the animals, live off the government teet side. If we were playing one of those role play trading card games I see those geeks playing sometimes, "my M16 defeats your peace shield" everytime, lol.


----------



## G-Loose (Jul 30, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I'm not being mean G-Loose, but you probably ought to read something about Hitler. His 'Hope and Change' was to get rid of all the Jews. Hitler was pure evil that probably could not have risen to power outside of that place and time.
> I don't think GWB, Obama, or McCain come anywhere close to Hitlerian proportion.


I totally agree with your statement of Hitler's being pure evil. Do you think all of his followers were pure evil as well. I can tell you, NO. They were families, mothers, fathers, and children. They were convinced to believe in something through Hitler's powers of persuasion and their longing for a better life. I'm not saying by any means that Obama or McCain is evil like Hitler. What I am saying is simply that today people are willing to accept a candidate even if he had ties to our most hated enemies, the radical muslims (I"m not saying Obama does, I'm simply stating even if he did) in return for the promise of a better life for themselves and their families. That is what I mean when I say Hitler could gain power in this country today. For all you Bible readers... Did the serpant tell Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and they would die? No, he made them believe that God did not want them to eat the fruit because then they would be gods themselves. This played on the inate human desire to make a better life for themselves. This is basically what Hitler did. The power of persuasion is a very powerful gift that put into the wrong hands can yield great tragedy. Jim Jones and David Koresh (sp) are prime examples of how the powers of persuasion can be used to cause seemingly good people to believe the most outlandish things even to the point of giving ones own life for it.


----------



## TouchDown (Jul 30, 2008)

> What I am saying is simply that today people are willing to accept a candidate even if he had ties to our most hated enemies, the radical muslims (I"m not saying Obama does, I'm simply stating even if he did) in return for the promise of a better life for themselves and their families.


Yeah, I don't really agree with this statement. I do agree that a good portion of the voting public could be considered gullible or ambivalent or uninformed, but saying they would support a candidate who has ties to radical muslims in this day and age if he/she could give them a better life? Banking on a thought that in this day and age that Hitler could do well politically in this country just because people would be stupid enough / gullible / greedy that they would consider mass execution if it helped them in some way? I find that hard to fathom. I'd like to think that America is stronger than that.


----------



## G-Loose (Jul 30, 2008)

TouchDown said:


> Yeah, I don't really agree with this statement. I do agree that a good portion of the voting public could be considered gullible or ambivalent or uninformed, but saying they would support a candidate who has ties to radical muslims in this day and age if he/she could give them a better life? Banking on a thought that in this day and age that Hitler could do well politically in this country just because people would be stupid enough / gullible / greedy that they would consider mass execution if it helped them in some way? I find that hard to fathom. I'd like to think that America is stronger than that.



The point is that Hitler did not stand up and say support me and I will kill the Jews. He did not come across as hey I'm evil but I can help you. If he had he would not have gotten the support he did. He just said I can help. It was a gradual process of placing blame on the Jews and then telling them he can help make a better life for them. After he had the support of the country and started his genocide on the Jews noone would go against for several reasons, a few of which are: fear, loyalty, and gratefulness. The people were like so what if he kills the Jews he made a better life for me and my family. Sounds alot like the mentality of people today. It's all about what I can get for me, who cares about others or even the overall good of the nation. This is why most of our government has been bought and paid for by big corporations. The ideals have been misconstrued or no longer exist.


----------



## GCracker (Jul 30, 2008)

TouchDown said:


> Yeah, I don't really agree with this statement. I do agree that a good portion of the voting public could be considered gullible or ambivalent or uninformed, but saying they would support a candidate who has ties to radical muslims in this day and age if he/she could give them a better life? Banking on a thought that in this day and age that Hitler could do well politically in this country just because people would be stupid enough / gullible / greedy that they would consider mass execution if it helped them in some way? I find that hard to fathom. I'd like to think that America is stronger than that.



While incredibly sad, I could somewhat see it happening (not the mass execution). There is a growing population in this country that isn't about what they can do for the country, or even what they can do for themselves, but rather what the government will give or do for them.


----------



## benbo (Jul 30, 2008)

What objective evidence, or actual problems do you point to for the low regard you have for the American people? THe truth is that most of the people in this country work and go about their business. Unemployment is still comparatively low, charitable giving is still high, crime is down. As far as people being sheeple, despite his oratory skills Obama is pretty much even with McCain. And if he wins, you really see that as the end of the world? THe country is split along all sorts of lines. Sure the country has some problems, and the economy is not 100% great, but what is your statistical evidence for any of these dire predctions? I think the vast majority of people are a positive force in this country. I don't know what gives you such a negative view.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jul 31, 2008)

What benbo said.

I think we have a large tendency, fueled by the idiocracy that is the US media, to see the glass as half empty, even when it is almost full.

Gramm was right. We're a bunch of whiners.


----------



## EM_PS (Jul 31, 2008)

^ 2nd that! And i gotta say, i'm really tired of hearing about streets being closed by the white house so a 'watermelon patch' can be planted, or that dog fighting will be legalized if Obama wins. good God, aren't we past these racist lines of thought? Not so much, clearly. . .


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 1, 2008)

I haven't heard those yet, and I live in probably the most racist county in SC.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 1, 2008)

> The two most important events in all of history were:
> 1. The invention of beer, and
> 
> 2. The invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man.


I'm with you on #1, but I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on #2. I think pizza should be #2. The wheel is fine and all, but it doesn't go as well with beer.


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 1, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> I haven't heard those yet, and I live in probably the most racist county in SC.


i brought them up cuz i just heard the "watermelon" one yesterday. . . .by a relative. . . .and i think (hope) he was kidding


----------



## DVINNY (Aug 1, 2008)

Robbie Knievel is planning a new huge MEGA-EVENT.

He has already jumped the fountains at Ceasars Palace,

he has already jumped the Grand Canyon,

this time, he is going to JUMP OVER 5,000 Obama supporters......

.....

..... with a BULLDOZER


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 1, 2008)

Look at what the morons in the House are up to today.


----------



## Casey (Aug 1, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Look at what the morons in the House are up to today.


They should do what they do at concerts when it is time for everyone to leave.

Turn on the mainlights and play some muzak.


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 1, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> Look at what the morons in the House are up to today.


thats hilarious! Now all we need is a shirtless guy (there's always a shirtless guy) and maybe some face-painters - rock the Congress! Yeah-Boy!


----------



## engineergurl (Aug 1, 2008)

wow, according to a different article, they stayed there for 5 hours until the building shut down.


----------



## DVINNY (Sep 17, 2008)

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008...oll-sept-11-18/



> If you were in a foxhole in Iraq late at night who would rather have share that foxhole with you while you slept?- Obama or McCain?


----------



## FLBuff PE (Sep 18, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008...oll-sept-11-18/


McCain, and I'm a staunch Democrat (in case no one could tell). I am very proud of John McCain's service to our country, both in the military and as a public servant. :unitedstates: I just disagree with his stance on issues.


----------



## DVINNY (Sep 23, 2008)

Pretty Good Evaluation process

ABC has a test at the below address to see who's campaign statements,

McCain's or Obama's, you agree withmost. They don't tell you who made

the statements, of course, but a statement made by each candidate on

the same topic (economy, immigration, judiciary, etc.) will be side by

side.

You just pick which statement you agree with and, after selecting all 13,

you'll find out which candidate's philosophy you support.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/MatchoMatic...page?id=5542139


----------



## Road Guy (Sep 23, 2008)

all praise early voting! I just voted during lunch! only took about 30 minutes.............................................

But I guess I cant change my mind after the debates now I guess?


----------



## ramicoce (Sep 23, 2008)

^^^ Yeah, there's that cost to early voting. Although, I suppose that can be a good thing too.


----------



## Supe (Sep 23, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> Pretty Good Evaluation process
> ABC has a test at the below address to see who's campaign statements,
> 
> McCain's or Obama's, you agree withmost. They don't tell you who made
> ...



Wow, I figured it'd be closer for me, but only had two checks for Obama and the rest McCain.


----------



## DVINNY (Sep 23, 2008)

I was 12-1 for McCain, so we're about the same.

I went with Obama's comment on a tax issue.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Sep 23, 2008)

We don't get Flash apps at work so I'll have to try this one at home but I've got to imagine I fall in pretty closely with the Obama camp. We'll see later on.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Sep 23, 2008)

I was 9-4 McCain.


----------



## Supe (Sep 23, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> We don't get Flash apps at work so I'll have to try this one at home but I've got to imagine I fall in pretty closely with the Obama camp. We'll see later on.


A lot of the two responses are surprisingly close. Some were dead giveaways such as pro-life BS, but quite a few subtle differences.


----------



## snickerd3 (Sep 23, 2008)

I was about equal with half going to each side with McCain getting the 1 extra...So who knows what that means.


----------



## mudpuppy (Sep 23, 2008)

I ended up with Obama, 8-5. But with many of the statements I felt I was picking the one I least disagreed with.


----------



## EM_PS (Sep 23, 2008)

8-5 McCain - it is meaningless, but ultimately not surprising.


----------



## Dleg (Sep 23, 2008)

I was 8-5 Obama, too, but two of the things I agreed with McCain on were what I would almost call deal-breakers: I could live with the other disagreements with his policies, but not with those two disagreements I have with Obama (but who am I fooling - I can't vote anyway, and I am sure both will work out OK for the US)


----------



## Katiebug (Sep 24, 2008)

9 McCain/4 Obama. I thought it'd be closer!


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Sep 24, 2008)

8-5 Obama for me too. I tend to vote Democratic because I fundamentally line up with what they are pushing a lot more than I do with the Republicans.

But when it comes down to it, it's hard to tell what a candidate is really all about because they all spew out the same rhetoric about how they are going to change this or do that without telling you how they plan to do it.

That's why picking the quotes is so interesting. Every candidate preaches tax cuts for the middle class, health care reform, more jobs, blah blah blah...


----------



## Supe (Sep 24, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> But with many of the statements I felt I was picking the one I least disagreed with.


Welcome to our election process.


----------



## Road Guy (Sep 24, 2008)

suprised we havent heard much about social security "lock boxes" etc this year.....usually that and 2 or 3 things that get forgotten about after the election are the main focus by this point


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> But with many of the statements I felt I was picking the one I least disagreed with.


That's exactly how I felt!

Or, to quote Ralph Nader about THIS presidential election cycle, "The choice is between the evil of two lessers."

:Locolaugh: :Locolaugh:

JR


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 24, 2008)

jregieng said:


> Or, to quote Ralph Nader about THIS presidential election cycle, "The choice is between the evil of two lessers."


You're quoting Ron Paul there...not Nader.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2008)

^^^ Actually, a number of people have been using that phrasology to describe the the two-party system - Nader has been pushing that point since well before 2000. I just heard him on NPR using that term again ... it just cracks me up because it is one of those things where all you can do is nod your head in resignation.

JR


----------



## EM_PS (Sep 24, 2008)

Mel Gibson remarked during the Gore / Bush election that "When God gives you lemons, you make lemonade".

My quote would be "please pass the crab legs!"


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Sep 24, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> "When God gives you lemons, you make lemonade".


I laugh every time I see that saying now because of some fake energy drink commercial I saw on YouTube. It said "When God gives you lemons...FIND A NEW GOD!"


----------



## csb (Oct 1, 2008)

I only got three McCains...and I'm a registered Republican. I even got the signed picture of him and Palin in the mail the other day!


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 1, 2008)

I did a ten question blind survey on quotes from the candidates earlier. I got 1 McCain. I guess I know where I stand.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 1, 2008)

csb said:


> I even got the signed picture of him and Palin in the mail the other day!


We are starting to plan for a vacation to Alaska next year and have ordered all sorts of travel brochures from the state. We've started a habit of tearing out the page with the picture and welcome message from the governor. If you want I could send them to you instead of throwing them out.


----------



## csb (Oct 1, 2008)

I could start some freaky Palin wall in my office!


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 1, 2008)

^ A Democrat and a Republican working together. Congress could learn from EB.com.


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 1, 2008)

^And the republican is running with scissors and the democrat is passed out with a wine bottle in his hand. Imagine that!


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 1, 2008)

^ 2 wine bottles. Get it right!


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 2, 2008)

I can't believe what I heard on the radio this morning. A John McCain ad trying to make Obama look bad because, get this, Obama wants to _eliminate deficit spending!!!!_

Didn't the country just get into a perilous financial situation due to irresponsible borrowing and spending? And McCain thinks the goverment should follow this model in it's own finances? Aren't the Republicans supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility?

Not that I was seriously thinking of voting for McCain, but this just sealed the deal for me. I'm pissed, and completely disgusted right now. IMHO, an "experienced" politician will only bring more of these political tricks, lying and cheating to the table. Not that Obama's a lot better, though.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 2, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> Aren't the Republicans supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility?


They haven't been acting like it, have they? I'm coming to the conclusion that having one party control the executive and legislative branches of the gov is not a good thing at all. Doesn't matter which party, either.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 2, 2008)

^^ I agree. Gridlock is good. The more gridlock there is, the less pain the government can inflict on us.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 2, 2008)

I'm not too happy about this headline:

"McCain campaign writes off Michigan

Republican officials say candidate is shifting resources away from the state"

"These officials said McCain was pulling staff and advertising out of the economically distressed Midwestern state."

Just what us fence sitters wanna hear, yet another muckity-muck dildo politician giving up on our plight

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26995047


----------



## roadwreck (Oct 2, 2008)

I'm playing Palin Bingo. 

http://www.palinbingo.com/


----------



## frazil (Oct 2, 2008)

I got my Palin glasses on.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 2, 2008)

frazil said:


> I got my Palin glasses on.


I like the Frazil glasses better.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 3, 2008)

due :appl: for Sarah Palin in last nite's debate. She did really good, though struggled there for awhile w/ a hair malfunction (part of her bangs kept flipping into her left eye) - also, i seriously have heard the term 'maverick' enough times this year to never need to hear it till i go boots up!

I enjoyed last nite's debate more than the presidential one - thought more could be gleaned from what Palin / Biden were orating than what McCain / Obama did


----------



## Supe (Oct 3, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> due :appl: for Sarah Palin in last nite's debate. She did really good, though struggled there for awhile w/ a hair malfunction (part of her bangs kept flipping into her left eye) - also, i seriously have heard the term 'maverick' enough times this year to never need to hear it till i go boots up!
> I enjoyed last nite's debate more than the presidential one - thought more could be gleaned from what Palin / Biden were orating than what McCain / Obama did



I couldn't help but laugh at Biden's closing speech last night. I've heard more legitimate, heart-felt closing statements come out of Steven Hawking's speech computer. I was waiting for him to start waving around miniature American flags and lighting sparklers.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 3, 2008)

I loved Palin's "Say it ain't so, Joe" towards the end. . .clearly she's a White Sox fan! :beerchug:


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 4, 2008)

Should the government really get to say what we can wear to the polls? Apparently the Repblicans think they should. From this article:



> Now, a political fight over what voters can wear to the polls is headed to court in Pennsylvania — with the Republican Party favoring a dress code and Democrats opposed.
> To the GOP, the lack of rules could open the door to all kinds of questionable displays — even, one Republican leader suggested, something as outlandish as a musical hat.
> 
> To the Democrats, voters should be free to express themselves. They fear a dress code could scare away some new voters.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 4, 2008)

Hmm, my only musical hat plays the Canadian National Anthem. . . .or wait, was it God save the Queen?


----------



## kevo_55 (Oct 8, 2008)

I thought this was pretty funny: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.p...901647&amp;sc=1


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 8, 2008)

^^Those were awesome!


----------



## kevo_55 (Oct 8, 2008)

Not to bash McCain or anything, but I thought those were funny.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 8, 2008)

^I agree. You gotta have a sense of humor, and some of those were extremely funny.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 8, 2008)

my goodness, how many of them are there?

I saw some pretty good ones.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 8, 2008)

kevo_55 said:


> Not to bash McCain or anything, but I thought those were funny.


Epic Lol's!


----------



## SkyWarp (Oct 8, 2008)

kevo_55 said:


> I thought this was pretty funny: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.p...901647&amp;sc=1


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 9, 2008)

1o1ZoRzz!!1!


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 9, 2008)

_emailed to me today_

*CHANGE ?* (just the century)

As America enters the final weeks of the 2008 Presidential Election a community organization based in CHICAGO named ACORN (with ties to Barack Obama) has come under fire for "POSSIBLE" voter fraud (I for one was shocked). Acorns explanation is possible mistakes by employees and can't help that. Do they think Americans are that stupid? Frankly I believe the Government is that stupid to keep funding these organizations with OUR TAX DOLLARS. When you step back and look at the series of events unfolding it is easy to see that AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS (that lately there are plenty of) have been funding the fix of the "FIX" of the Presidential election.---PLAIN AND SIMPLE---Could it be that the COMMUNITY ORGANIZER has elevated to ORGANIZED CRIME ??? Is Barack Obama Chicago's 21st Century version of Chicago's 20th Century Al Capone??

And now a message from my friend Roy in Chicago...

You want CHANGE?

CHANGE Chicago style...

BODY COUNT

In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago,

221 killed in Iraq .

WHO'S IN CHARGE IN ILLINOIS ?

Gov. Rod Blogojevich

House leader Mike Madigan

Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)

Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley)

&amp;

SENATORS

BARACK OBAMA

&amp;

DICK DURBIN

....the leadership in Illinois .....all Democrats.

Chicago is a combat zone. Of course they're all blaming each other.

Can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.

Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.

(Look'em up if you want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.

He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics?

"BULL SHIT"


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 9, 2008)

Ok, I wasn't going to post this because I figure at least a few people here may be offended, but given the last post I figure it's just fine.

Rolling Stone published a very long, admittedly biased article on McCain. Way too much to quote here, but this particular passage seemed relevant.



> The myth of John McCain hinges on two transformations — from pampered flyboy to selfless patriot, and from Keating crony to incorruptible reformer — that simply never happened. But there is one serious conversion that has taken root in McCain: his transformation from a cautious realist on foreign policy into a reckless cheerleader of neoconservatism.
> "He's going to be Bush on steroids," says Johns, the retired brigadier general who has known McCain since their days at the National War College. "His hawkish views now are very dangerous. He puts military at the top of foreign policy rather than diplomacy, just like George Bush does. He and other neoconservatives are dedicated to converting the world to democracy and free markets, and they want to do it through the barrel of a gun."


----------



## Dleg (Oct 9, 2008)

^^My thoughts (hopes, really) are that he is doing that to try to ensure the votes of the neoconservatives. I HOPE that once (if) he gets in office, he returns to his more moderate, realist ways, which are the only attributes that originally made me think I would prefer him over a Democrat. (aI say this as an independent, but registered Republican who has been offended by what "Republican" has come to mean under Bush, and seems to be continuing in full force under Palin-McCain)


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 10, 2008)

Interesting editorial in today's State paper about why Obama's association with Rezko, Ayers, and Wright gives valuable insight into Obama's character:

http://www.thestate.com/editorial-columns/story/550342.html

As Joe Walsh once sang:

On the bottom words are shallow,

On the surface talk is cheap.

You can only judge the distance,

By the company you keep.


----------



## frazil (Oct 10, 2008)

^to me this story just makes McCain look desperate. There's no real evidence that they had much connection. Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago now and when he was a radical Obama was only 8 years old. ridiculous.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 10, 2008)

That's just an editorial, not a story. But, Obama's state senate campaign began in Ayers living room. Ayers has supported Obama thru his state senate, national senate, and Presidential bids.


----------



## benbo (Oct 10, 2008)

I don't think this is going to work for McCain. I don't think people care about Ayers. They are too worried about their money, with the 24-7 bombardment of gloom and doom. I'm a McCain guy (barely) but Obama is a lot smarter buying these half-hour chunks on the anniversary of the great crash. If nothing else, his campaign is a master of political theater.

I think a lot of politicians on both sides associate with very unsavory characters. To me the shocking thing about Ayers is that now he is a respected member of Chicago political society (if there is such a thing.) He was much worse than a dime store radical waving Mao's little red book on a corner. Tom Hayden was fairly radical because of his stuff in the Chicago seven or whatever, but it was nothing compared to Ayers. Those Weathermen plotted bombings where people actually got killed. Granted, they were the bombers who got killed, but these days if you conduct a crime and your accomplice gets killed that makes you a murderer.

But like I said, I don't think anybody cares about this.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 10, 2008)

I don't make much of this, and it's not because I'm pro-Obama. I highly doubt either candidate to be President of the US is in bed with terrorists. They wouldn't have gotten this far if they did.

Palin's ties to the Alaskan Independence Party are concerning to me though.

I'd be more worried about what special interests the candidates are in bed with.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 14, 2008)

THE HAIRCUT

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked

about his bill and the barber replies, 'I cannot accept money from you.

I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left

the shop.

When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there is a 'thank

you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill,

the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing

community service this week.' The cop is happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is? a 'thank you'

card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he

tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money

from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The professor is very

happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a 'thank you'

card and a dozen different books, such as 'How to Improve Your Business'

and 'Becoming More Successful.

'Then, a Congressman comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his

bill the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm

doing community service this week.' The Congressman is very happy and

leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen

Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut.

...And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the

citizens of our country and the members of our Congress.

...f**k*r$...


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2008)

The Scholastic Kid's Poll is in ....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27172326/

JR


----------



## Dleg (Oct 14, 2008)

Interesting news piece from CNN

Buckley leaves National Review after Obama endorsement



> Christopher Buckley, the son of conservative icon William F. Buckley, said Tuesday he's resigned from the conservative National Review days after endorsing Barack Obama's White House bid, among the most powerful symbols yet of the conservative discontent expressed this election cycle.
> ...
> 
> *"Eight years of 'conservative' government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case," he also wrote.*


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 16, 2008)

the biggest thing I dont like about Obama, and he said it several times in the debate last night is that he keeps using the phrase "for those that can afford it" meaning for those that can afford to pay higher taxes they should, people, businesses, etc, for those that can afford to pay for other people to have health care should, thats just not very American, it is very European, but not American


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 16, 2008)

^ The whole "those that can afford it" line sends me right off the map. The problem with that philosophy is that as soon as you define an income level that can afford to pay higher taxes, you have just upped the incentives for people to either stop trying to earn above that level or to hide any income above that level. Either way, it stifles economic activity and actually lowers the income to the treasury. It does, however, increase how much control government has on the management of our own lives.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 16, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> the biggest thing I dont like about Obama, and he said it several times in the debate last night is that he keeps using the phrase "for those that can afford it" meaning for those that can afford to pay higher taxes they should, people, businesses, etc, for those that can afford to pay for other people to have health care should, thats just not very American, it is very European, but not American





> From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.


Welcome to Communism/Socialism/Marxism/Obamaism.


----------



## benbo (Oct 16, 2008)

Just for the heck of it, I looked this thing up.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...s_tpc/index.htm

I'm not sure how true this is, or if these guys will stick to this. And that $12 number is apparently not a typo.

I think some of the lower income folks on here don't really pay any income tax, so it is basically a credit on their payroll taxes or something. And I'm not sure how much if this is just letting or not letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

I think the real problem is going to be getting any kind of tax decrease at all through what is likely to be a fairly lopsided Democratic (or Democrat, whichever you prefer) Congress.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 16, 2008)

^^ That is if you actually believe Obama's tax proposal. How does he plan to cover all of the new spending he has proposed?

I remember the fall of '92 when a certain presidential candidate promised a tax cut for the middle class.

I also remember the State of the Union address in '93 where he not only said the government couldn't afford the tax cut, he was going to have to raise taxes. He also introduced us to the concept of the retroactive tax increase.

His plan was that nobody would hold him accountable in '96. He was correct.


----------



## benbo (Oct 16, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> ^^ That is if you actually believe Obama's tax proposal. How does he plan to cover all of the new spending he has proposed?
> I remember the fall of '92 when a certain presidential candidate promised a tax cut for the middle class.
> 
> I also remember the State of the Union address in '93 where he not only said the government couldn't afford the tax cut, he was going to have to raise taxes. He also introduced us to the concept of the retroactive tax increase.
> ...


Yes, like I said, I don't know if either one of them will actually follow through, or even be able to follow through. I'm sure McCain would like tax cuts, not so sure about Obama, but if McCain wants to keep the Bush tax cuts he's got to get the Congress to vote to extend them, and I don't see how that's going to happen with what the next Congress is likely going to look like.


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 16, 2008)

benbo said:


> I think some of the lower income folks on here don't really pay any income tax, so it is basically a credit on their payroll taxes or something.


Yeah... some want to call it a rebate - which it's not. 1/3 of Americans FILING TAXES (I don't know how many don't file at all) didn't pay *ANYTHING* to the IRS in 2006 when all was said and done... so these are not "tax cuts" or rebates we're talking about for the poorest - they are INCREASES in the credit (aka welfare). You can read more at this site


----------



## kevo_55 (Oct 16, 2008)

Maybe it was just me but McCain looked like a train-wreck for the first half hour of the debate.

He got MUCH better after that.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 16, 2008)

Wife asks last nite why i'm not watching debate (had Law &amp; Order rerun on). I say, "i'm so sick of listening to those 2 jackasses jibberjabber back-n-forth, i hope who ever wins keeps his piehole shut for a couple months just to give us a break"

So she boots up CNBC on her ol laptop, watches like 20 min., next thing i know she's surfin the net. I'm like "what up?"

She be all like "yeah, you're right. . ." that's right! I don't hear that too often :appl:

And God Bless Fox for running the NLCS game in complete disdain for airing the heckle &amp; jeckle show :thumbs:


----------



## Supe (Oct 16, 2008)

kevo_55 said:


> Maybe it was just me but McCain looked like a train-wreck for the first half hour of the debate.
> He got MUCH better after that.



I actually thought it was the other way around. He started shooting himself in the foot once they started bringing up Roe vs. Wade, etc.


----------



## benbo (Oct 16, 2008)

Supe said:


> I actually thought it was the other way around. He started shooting himself in the foot once they started bringing up Roe vs. Wade, etc.


So I take it you're a fan of the Kelo decision -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Activist (read liberal) court activity is a major issue, and goes far beyone RvW.

I do agree he was better in the beginning, becasue he doesn't explain some of these issues very well.


----------



## Supe (Oct 16, 2008)

benbo said:


> So I take it you're a fan of the Kelo decision -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
> 
> Activist (read liberal) court activity is a major issue, and goes far beyone RvW.
> ...


Very much the opposite in regards to the Kelo decision.

McCain started off very well, but as they trudged on in the debate, the fluency of his arguments started to break apart, and he started coming across as a staunch social conservative, moreso than I believe that he actually is or intended to be. I think there were some fence sitters that he probably lost as the evening went on.

Personally, I wish it hadn't turned out that way. Some of the things Obama said were just asinine (don't even get me started on all of the ECE education reform and "community service" credit crap), he just came across as the better speaker towards the end.


----------



## benbo (Oct 16, 2008)

Supe said:


> Very much the opposite in regards to the Kelo decision.
> McCain started off very well, but as they trudged on in the debate, the fluency of his arguments started to break apart, and he started coming across as a staunch social conservative, moreso than I believe that he actually is or intended to be. I think there were some fence sitters that he probably lost as the evening went on.
> 
> Personally, I wish it hadn't turned out that way. Some of the things Obama said were just asinine (don't even get me started on all of the ECE education reform and "community service" credit crap), he just came across as the better speaker towards the end.


I agree McCain doesn't explain things really well sometimes.

What I saw him saying was that he was a federalist. But I only caught it on replay. I've watched McCain debate many times and I've never seen him come off as a radical prolifer. Maybe something about late term abortion, on which I think he agrees with popular opinion in the country. But I guess eveybody sees it through their own lens. I don't think you have to be a social conservative to think that an unelected court should not be able to mandate social policy for the entire country. At least I think that is a matter for the people through their elected representatives.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 16, 2008)

Harlem Voters ^^^


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 16, 2008)

sadly, its these that are being interviewed that will probably make the difference in the race.

Very sad.


----------



## SkyWarp (Oct 16, 2008)

^?

How do you measure people voting blindly to determine if there were more on one side or another?


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 16, 2008)

I just hung up the phone. I was finally part of one of the polls. I told them that I was voting for Obama, but that my mind could be changed before the election.

Supposedly, West Virginia is now a 'battleground' state. I hope that everyone in our state is smart enough and will do exactly what I just did. If both candidates think that we are unsure and that we will change our minds before the election, then they will spend a bunch of campaign $$$'s here.

Of course I'd never vote for Obama, but I see no harm in giving him false hope.

OPERATION CHAOS.


----------



## k2keylargo (Oct 16, 2008)

I'm voting for Nader, again. I think the two party system totally sucks. It is leading to the deterioration of the US. That's my opinion.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 16, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> I just hung up the phone. I was finally part of one of the polls. I told them that I was voting for Obama, but that my mind could be changed before the election.
> Supposedly, West Virginia is now a 'battleground' state. I hope that everyone in our state is smart enough and will do exactly what I just did. If both candidates think that we are unsure and that we will change our minds before the election, then they will spend a bunch of campaign $$$'s here.
> 
> Of course I'd never vote for Obama, but I see no harm in giving him false hope.


I don't know dude, it didn't take long for McCain to throw in the towel on Michigan, and this like a week after he was stumping on my side of state (i.e. conservative side)


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 16, 2008)

k2keylargo said:


> I'm voting for Nader, again. I think the two party system totally sucks. It is leading to the deterioration of the US. That's my opinion.


If I even bother voting, and if he manages to make it on to the Kentucky ballot, I will vote for Bob Barr.


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 16, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> I remember the fall of '92 when a certain presidential candidate promised a tax cut for the middle class.


And I remember a certain presidental candidate in 1988 promising, "Read my lips, no new taxes."



error_matrix said:


> I don't know dude, it didn't take long for McCain to throw in the towel on Michigan, and this like a week after he was stumping on my side of state (i.e. conservative side)


No, you're on the left side of the state and I'm on the right side. Maybe we should switch spots?


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 16, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> And I remember a certain presidental candidate in 1988 promising, "Read my lips, no new taxes."


When he went back on that one, he was crucified by both sides of the isle. He also lost his bid for re-election.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 17, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> I remember the fall of '92 when a certain presidential candidate promised a tax cut for the middle class.
> I also remember the State of the Union address in '93 where he not only said the government couldn't afford the tax cut, he was going to have to raise taxes. He also introduced us to the concept of the retroactive tax increase.
> 
> His plan was that nobody would hold him accountable in '96. He was correct.


That's because the economy was doing quite well. Booming, even, you might say. And the deficit was very much under control. How do you reconcile that?

(BTW I voted for Ross Perot in '92, and was already where I am now in '96 and thus couldn't vote. But I would have probably voted for Clinton by then, because my investments were doing very well and things in the US seemed great at the time. I could care less whether he got a little on the side at the office or was "the Anti Christ" as my ex's former pentacostal church-mates truly seemed to believe)


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 17, 2008)

^^ The theme of the '92 election was "It's the econonmy, stupid." Clinton repeatedly claimed it was the worst economy in the last 50 years. However, the historical data indicates that the recovery was well under way in '92. There is usually a large disconnect between perception and reality where the state of the economy is concerned. Clinton raised taxes at a time when the economy was already growing again at a good rate. Economic fortune happened to be smiling on him.

The reason the deficit was under control in '96 was a combination of the election of the congress of '94 and the economy being on fire resulting in more money coming in than the government could spend. Unfortunately, regardless of political party, more money coming in means more money spent growing the government. It also seems that government is incapable of saving anything for when the inevitable slow down.

(I also could care less about Clinton's "side" action on its own. He was accused of violating a law that he signed (A superior in his 50's shall not be diddling with an underling in her 20's). He then lied about it in both a press conference and under oath.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 17, 2008)

Bush would have won in 92 if not for Perot. I often wonder how the US would be different if Perot had never run.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 17, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Bush would have won in 92 if not for Perot. I often wonder how the US would be different if Perot had never run.


I wonder how the US would have been different if Perot had won.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 17, 2008)

Anyone catch the clips from that fundriaser the candidates attended jointly? Holy crap that was funny, better than the debates. I wish they publicized it more in advance.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 17, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Bush would have won in 92 if not for Perot. I often wonder how the US would be different if Perot had never run.


Don't forget too, that Clinton won TWICE because of Ross Perot.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 17, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Anyone catch the clips from that fundriaser the candidates attended jointly? Holy crap that was funny, better than the debates. I wish they publicized it more in advance.


It was awesome, and they should really do that kind of stuff more often. People would get a better feel of the candidates.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 17, 2008)

Perot got real weird in that Clinton - Bush Sr election year (consipiracys about kidnapped daughter or something?), otherwise i woulda voted for him then. I did vote for him [Perot] when Slick Willy ran for re-election however. Guy was genuine. . .it woulda been interesting had he made it.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 17, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> It was awesome, and they should really do that kind of stuff more often. People would get a better feel of the candidates.


It's refreshing to see them as real people for a change. The rhetoric and double talk machine gets turned off for a night.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 17, 2008)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I wonder how the US would have been different if Perot had won.



Perot would have quit within six months after he couldn't get Congress to bend to his whims.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 17, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Perot would have quit within six months after he couldn't get Congress to bend to his whims.



The idea of Perot with his finger on 'the button' gave me the hebee jebeez. Those paid ads with the charts were kind of entertaining though.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 17, 2008)

^Yeah, I didn't care for that at all. the guy was a loon with a bad temper.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 17, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> The idea of Perot with his finger on 'the button' gave me the hebee jebeez. Those paid ads with the charts were kind of entertaining though.


I almost pissed myself when he said "I"m allllll ears!"


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 17, 2008)

Capt Worley PE said:


> ^Yeah, I didn't care for that at all. the guy was a loon with a bad temper.


uummmm, is this about Perot. . . .or did we segue back to McCain?


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 17, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> I just hung up the phone. I was finally part of one of the polls. I told them that I was voting for Obama, but that my mind could be changed before the election.
> 
> Supposedly, West Virginia is now a 'battleground' state. I hope that everyone in our state is smart enough and will do exactly what I just did. If both candidates think that we are unsure and that we will change our minds before the election, then they will spend a bunch of campaign $$$'s here.
> 
> ...


/soapbox

DV, I know that I said earlier that I would stay out of the political threads, but this bothers me on several levels. Yes, I am an Obama supporter, but I am going to leave politics out of this. As engineers, we supposedly have a code of ethics. While I understand that this does not legally do so, I would hope that engineers would exercise the same ethics in their personal lives. Also, as a Christian (which you have stated that you are), lying is against the moral and ethical standards of our shared faith. Deliberately misleading, as you stated you did above, is not very Christ-like, which I would hope all Christians aspire to be. In my area of the country, there has been vandalism of political signs of both parties, as well as political offices (rocks and concrete planters through windows). I am extremely disturbed by this sort of behavior, and am just ready for the election to be over. DV, I'm not perfect either, but blantantly misleading on a poll (yes, I know it is trivial) is not something that I would do. I now continue my silence in the political threads.

/soapbox


----------



## benbo (Oct 17, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> /soapbox
> DV, I know that I said earlier that I would stay out of the political threads, but this bothers me on several levels. Yes, I am an Obama supporter, but I am going to leave politics out of this. As engineers, we supposedly have a code of ethics. While I understand that this does not legally do so, I would hope that engineers would exercise the same ethics in their personal lives. Also, as a Christian (which you have stated that you are), lying is against the moral and ethical standards of our shared faith. Deliberately misleading, as you stated you did above, is not very Christ-like, which I would hope all Christians aspire to be. In my area of the country, there has been vandalism of political signs of both parties, as well as political offices (rocks and concrete planters through windows). I am extremely disturbed by this sort of behavior, and am just ready for the election to be over. DV, I'm not perfect either, but blantantly misleading on a poll (yes, I know it is trivial) is not something that I would do. I now continue my silence in the political threads.
> 
> /soapbox


I hope you are equally outraged over the thousands of phony voter registrations. Somehow that seems a little more serious than joking (or lying if you prefer) with a person on a poll, which is a voluntary action and not legally binding on anything.

And I don't know if you are a Christian or not. If you are not (or even if you are) it is a little pretentious to tell somebody what they do is, or is not Christian. In my interpretation of lying not only are all lies not equally bad, sometimes it is even preferable to lie. A lie on the stand is worse than a lie to a pollster. And if some person shows you their ugly kid and asks you "Isn't she beautiful", I can pretty much guarantee it is more decent to lie.

Oh by the way, if you said earlier you would stay out of political threads, and now you are in a political thread, that is a ....what is that called again?


----------



## BluSkyy (Oct 17, 2008)

I'm all for keeping "the man" guessing.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 17, 2008)

benbo said:


> I hope you are equally outraged over the thousands of phony voter registrations. Somehow that seems a little more serious than joking (or lying if you prefer) with a person on a poll, which is a voluntary action and not legally binding on anything.
> And I don't know if you are a Christian or not. If you are not (or even if you are) it is a little pretentious to tell somebody what they do is, or is not Christian. In my interpretation of lying not only are all lies not equally bad, sometimes it is even preferable to lie. A lie on the stand is worse than a lie to a pollster. And if some person shows you their ugly kid and asks you "Isn't she beautiful", I can pretty much guarantee it is more decent to lie.
> 
> Oh by the way, if you said earlier you would stay out of political threads, and now you are in a political thread, that is a ....what is that called again?


I'll finish the sentence...a lie. And that would make me a liar, benbo. As I stated, I am not perfect. Yes, I am outraged by the voter registration fraud. Fraud in general makes me upset. I am a Christian, and I usually try to uphold the "take the log out of your own eye before removing the splinter out of some else's" credo, but I felt like making my feelings known. I agree that there are different levels of lies. In general, however, I do my best to at all times tell the truth. And there are times when I take into account someone's feelings in a matter, as in your example of the ugly kid, and lie. I don't know why, but the way DV presented his post bothered me. I know I said that I would leave politics out of it, but obviously I couldn't, and that must be why it bothered me. I apologize for offending anyone with my viewpoint. Hence the "/soapbox" disclaimer.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 17, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> /soapbox
> DV, I know that I said earlier that I would stay out of the political threads, but this bothers me on several levels. Yes, I am an Obama supporter, but I am going to leave politics out of this. As engineers, we supposedly have a code of ethics. While I understand that this does not legally do so, I would hope that engineers would exercise the same ethics in their personal lives. Also, as a Christian (which you have stated that you are), lying is against the moral and ethical standards of our shared faith. Deliberately misleading, as you stated you did above, is not very Christ-like, which I would hope all Christians aspire to be. In my area of the country, there has been vandalism of political signs of both parties, as well as political offices (rocks and concrete planters through windows). I am extremely disturbed by this sort of behavior, and am just ready for the election to be over. DV, I'm not perfect either, but blantantly misleading on a poll (yes, I know it is trivial) is not something that I would do. I now continue my silence in the political threads.
> 
> /soapbox





benbo said:


> I hope you are equally outraged over the thousands of phony voter registrations. Somehow that seems a little more serious than joking (or lying if you prefer) with a person on a poll,


Benbo just said what I was going to say.

As far as the Christian guilt trip, how bout I throw a better one at you. I mislead a pollster hoping for economic gain in my area, OK. You are supporting a candidate who strongly supports abortions, and more specifically late term abortions. Go check your Christian credentials at the door. Or as you stated, stay out of the political discussions.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 17, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> Benbo just said what I was going to say.
> 
> As far as the Christian guilt trip, how bout I throw a better one at you. I mislead a pollster hoping for economic gain in my area, OK. You are supporting a candidate who strongly supports abortions, and more specifically late term abortions. Go check your Christian credentials at the door. Or as you stated, stay out of the political discussions.


Check.


----------



## roadwreck (Oct 17, 2008)

Kang: Abortions for all.

[crowd boos]

Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone.

[crowd boos]

Kang: Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

[crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]


----------



## benbo (Oct 17, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> I'll finish the sentence...a lie. And that would make me a liar, benbo.


No big deal. You have as much right as anybody to your opinion obviously.

Actually I wouldn't call what you did a lie by my definition. I would just say you changed your mind. I was just making a point that there are different levels of mistruth, which I see you agree with.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 17, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> Check.


Just a Tit for a Tat.

As long as you know I still love ya FLBuff. 

Thick skin required in these threads.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 17, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> Just a Tit for a Tat.
> 
> 
> As long as you know I still love ya FLBuff.
> ...


Childish response on my part, and I apologize. I was acting like a little kid, who feels he is being picked on. I went home and cried it out, but I'm back. I apparently have thinner skin than I thought. Speaking of Tits for Tats, how bout that wedding dress in another thread?

But now that I'm here, I will change my mind (in the words of benbo), and debate a little. Obama does not support abortion, he supports the right of a woman to have the choice to have one. From Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, but oft quoted on this board):

Abortion and contraception

In his write-in response to a 1998 survey, Obama stated his abortion position as: "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade."[190]

While serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council[191] for his support of abortion rights.[192] Since his election to the United States Senate Obama has maintained a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood (as of 2007) and NARAL (as of 2005).[193] Obama opposed the Induced Infant Liability Act.[194] Obama is reported to have opposed it because of technical language that might have interfered with a woman's right to choose and because Illinois law already required medical care in such situations, even though the third version of this bill contained explicit language affirming Roe vs. Wade.[195]

Obama voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, saying "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."[196] Obama voted against a bill that made it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent to accompany a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion.[197] The bill was signed into law by President Bush in 2005. Obama has, however, expressed support of bans on late-term abortions, provided they include exemptions for the life or health of a mother.[198]

Obama voted for a $100 million education initiative to reduce teen pregnancy and provide contraceptives to young people.[196]

One thing that I find curious about the Republican Party is that the party is for less government, but wants to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 17, 2008)

I've never said the Republican party is perfect. They are far from it. But closer to my views.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 17, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> I've never said the Republican party is perfect. They are far from it. But closer to my views.


And the Democratic party isn't perfect either, far from it (hey, we just agreed on something). Now back to looking at wedding dresses! :eyebrows:


----------



## benbo (Oct 17, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that"One thing that I find curious about the Republican Party is that the party is for less government, but wants to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body.


Apparently Obama also wants to be able to tell a woman what she should do with her "own body", it is just a matter of how far along in the pregnancy it is.

Some people believe the unborn child is actually a separate human being, at least at some point in it's gestation. The main problem with Obama is that he wants to repeal the Hyde amendment, which would require people who hold such beliefs to pay taxes for what they consider to be akin to infanticide.


----------



## roadwreck (Oct 17, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> One thing that I find curious about the Republican Party is that the party is for less government, but wants to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body.


Best I can tell the republicans are only for 'less government' when they are talking taxes, but then they fail to curtail spending.







I find the trend between 1992 to 2000 pretty interesting. Who was president then? I forget.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 17, 2008)

> One thing that I find curious about the Republican Party is that the party is for less government, but wants to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body.


And what sorts of 'family values' I should have. If your platform is less government and less interference, then why are you telling me what I should or shouldn't do in my own home.


----------



## benbo (Oct 17, 2008)

roadwreck said:


> Best I can tell the republicans are only for 'less government' when they are talking taxes, but then they fail to curtail spending.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know of many Republicans who would be for, oh say, banning trans-fats in restaurants, but I know plenty of Democrats who would. And they also seem to be particularly enamored of sin taxes on things they don't like, while allowing things they do.

As far as that trend line - I just see an X. But for any trend from 1992 on there is always an alternate explanation that involves a Republican congress.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 17, 2008)

benbo said:


> Apparently Obama also wants to be able to tell a woman what she should do with her "own body", it is just a matter of how far along in the pregnancy it is.
> Some people believe the unborn child is actually a separate human being, at least at some point in it's gestation. The main problem with Obama is that he wants to repeal the Hyde amendment, which would require people who hold such beliefs to pay taxes for what they consider to be akin to infanticide.


From my quick research (b/c, to be honest, I did not know about the Hyde Amendment), my understanding is that the Amendment to the Roe v. Wade decision bans women on Medicaid from using their coberage to help pay for an abortion. The problem that I have with this amendment, is that it federally mandates the exclusion of benefits for this procedure. I understand your position, though, benbo. I do not want the government funding issues that I am morally opposed to either. I am not sure what the answer is.


----------



## benbo (Oct 17, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> From my quick research (b/c, to be honest, I did not know about the Hyde Amendment), my understanding is that the Amendment to the Roe v. Wade decision bans women on Medicaid from using their coberage to help pay for an abortion. The problem that I have with this amendment, is that it federally mandates the exclusion of benefits for this procedure. I understand your position, though, benbo. I do not want the government funding issues that I am morally opposed to either. I am not sure what the answer is.


Once the court (as they did in Roe) declares something a "right" under the Consitution, the next step is almost always to mandate paying for it, unless there is someone to stop it politically. It has gotten to the point where the Court has usurped a lot of the legislature's power.

I understand a lot of people don't like funding the war. They think it is immoral. They do not want to pay for it. But they have the ability to vote a new person (like Obama) in. Fighting wars is not generally mandated by a court. And it's not like we'll not be fighting any wars when Obama gets in. He already said he wants to send a few more batallions to Afghanistan. But apparently that is an acceptable war.

You seem to be a reasonable person. Obviously, this abortion is never going to be a personal physical issue for me as a man. I generally don't debate this since NOBODY ever changes their mind on this. So I'll quit now.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 17, 2008)

I was against going to war in Iraq, but we are now there. I am NOT against funding the effort there now. We are there, and need to support our troops wherever they are (Iraq, Afganistan, etc.). I think that we need to get out of Iraq responsibly, as Obama does. I personally do not believe that we can EVER have a no war president, b/c as soon as a no war candidate is elected, we will be target #1. The threat still needs to be there. The main beef that I have with McCain's foriegn policy, and agree more with Obama, is that I think McCain is a 'shoot first, ask questions later' type of guy. I believe in diplomacy first, aggression last.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 17, 2008)

benbo said:


> Some people believe the unborn child is actually a separate human being, at least at some point in it's gestation. The main problem with Obama is that he wants to repeal the Hyde amendment, which would require people who hold such beliefs to pay taxes for what they consider to be akin to infanticide.


This is my major issue with it, as I've stated before in this thread.



benbo said:


> Obviously, this abortion is never going to be a personal physical issue for me as a man. I generally don't debate this since NOBODY ever changes their mind on this. So I'll quit now.


People DO change their minds on it.

Do a search for Norma McCorvey (she is JANE ROE)


----------



## benbo (Oct 17, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> People DO change their minds on it.
> Do a search for Norma McCorvey (she is JANE ROE)


Maybe I should have said that I've never been able to change anyboy's mind on it.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 17, 2008)

, yeah me neither.

but its not my mission to.

As a christian I'm supposed to spread the word and teach to others, but I don't because I do not believe in 'jamming my beliefs down someone else's throat"

I just don't appreciate them doing it to me.

so I'm far from perfect.

far, far, from it.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 17, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> , yeah me neither.
> 
> 
> but its not my mission to.
> ...


Again, we agree on several fronts. I'm in the same boat as you on the whole 'perfect' thing. Although I might add a few more fars for myself (just to be safe).


----------



## Dleg (Oct 17, 2008)

Here's my thoughts on ANYONE mixing Christianity into American politics...

Step back, think back to the "real" Jesus (as we know him from Sunday school, presented in the Bible) and just imagine for yourself what Jesus would do if he was stood up in front of the two political parties. Which one would he join?

At the risk of balsphemy, my guess is that he would fly into a rage and flip tables over at BOTH parties.

Would he classify himself as a liberal or a conservative? Libertarian? Socialist?

Once again, I think none of those. But I wouldn't say Jesus's teachings were aploticial, either, and meant to apply only to the individual. Just as an example, what do you think Jesus' position is on the "redistribution of wealth" in society as a whole? I don't think you have to look very far into the Gospel to find out.... And it is certainly most inconsistent with the policies coming from a LOT of politicians who claim to be representing the "Christian" voters.

So in other words, US politics and Christianity don't mix, and should NEVER mix. I get very upset with anyone who tries to claim that Christianity is driving their political views, or that their party represents "christians" more than another. I don't see either candidate up there presenting positions that I can imagine "the real Jesus" ever agreeing with. So I say we just talk policies and keep religion out of it.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 17, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Here's my thoughts on ANYONE mixing Christianity into American politics...
> Step back, think back to the "real" Jesus (as we know him from Sunday school, presented in the Bible) and just imagine for yourself what Jesus would do if he was stood up in front of the two political parties. Which one would he join?
> 
> At the risk of balsphemy, my guess is that he would fly into a rage and flip tables over at BOTH parties.
> ...


Agreed...I attempted to take politics out of it, but what thread did I post in? My bad. I agree with your analysis. I think 'the real Jesus' would turn the tables over on both parties.

Anyway, Dleg, any amazing breakfast stories that you can regail us with? I miss those...


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 18, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Here's my thoughts on ANYONE mixing Christianity into American politics...
> Step back, think back to the "real" Jesus (as we know him from Sunday school, presented in the Bible) and just imagine for yourself what Jesus would do if he was stood up in front of the two political parties. Which one would he join?
> 
> At the risk of balsphemy, my guess is that he would fly into a rage and flip tables over at BOTH parties.
> ...


Dleg,

You make great points, I've thought about this many times before. He would be very sad by the state of this union, that's for sure.

However, let's look at his "redistribution of wealth" stance.

In his day, TAX collectors from Rome came by and took from all the Jews of that day.

Was he in favor of this in the bible? I wish I could remember where it was in the bible but I remember once seeing something that said it was OK to pay a tax, but extorsion from Rome was wrong. I'll have to try and find its location in the Bible.

He was in support of the wealthy individual making the decision to distribute the wealth on their own. Not by force from Rome. There's a big difference there. So that does not fall under government or Robin Hood doing it for you, it comes under acts of kindness and charity.

One of his disciples, Matthew, was a tax collector from Rome, the book talks many times about how Jesus accepted "the tax collectors and other sinners" as his friends.

Jesus taught that as an individual, you should do the right thing.

Maybe I interpret his teachings wrong, but that's how I see it.


----------



## benbo (Oct 18, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Once again, I think none of those. But I wouldn't say Jesus's teachings were aploticial, either, and meant to apply only to the individual. Just as an example, what do you think Jesus' position is on the "redistribution of wealth" in society as a whole? I don't think you have to look very far into the Gospel to find out.... And it is certainly most inconsistent with the policies coming from a LOT of politicians who claim to be representing the "Christian" voters.


As a disclaimer, I don't have a huge problem with paying income tax, even with a slightly progressive tax system. So I assume that'll get me in trouble with one half of the people around here. THe problem is that it is hard to determine when it becomes excesive.

I don't think anybody can look at some of these tax rates and think there was much incentive to earn well above the top bracket -

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Granted I don't know what deductions were like in those days, but it makes it seem funny the couple of percentage points we're talking about now. THat was pretty bad.

I am not a big fan of all the "Jesus" talk in a political campaign either, although I know people do shape their political beliefs by their faith or lack thereof.

However, I do think it is funny that even you seem to have some sort of interpretation of "How would Jesus vote?" My suspicion is that Jesus wouldn't have bothered to vote at all. But that's my opinion. My reading of Jesus was that primarily he was talking about the afterlife. When he did speak about earthly things I think he was generally talking about activities here on earth (such as charity) that would help the individual set themselves up better for the afterlife, and serve as a witness to their faith. I don't read Jesus as seeing governmentally compulsed acts of charity as being a big plus for anyone. I don't think he was big on money. So I guess I sort of agree with both you and DVinny.

THe one I can never get over was that parable when all those guys worked different lengths of time and they got the same pay. I would have been the one complaining too. And I probably would have bitched like hell about the prodigal son, except I was the prodigal son.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 18, 2008)

change of pace and subject


----------



## ktulu (Oct 18, 2008)

Jimmy Johns is also an ex-Alabama football player currently in jail for selling cocaine to kids...


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 18, 2008)

benbo said:


> As a disclaimer, I don't have a huge problem with paying income tax, even with a slightly progressive tax system. So I assume that'll get me in trouble with one half of the people around here. THe problem is that it is hard to determine when it becomes excesive. I don't think anybody can look at some of these tax rates and think there was much incentive to earn well above the top bracket -
> 
> http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
> 
> Granted I don't know what deductions were like in those days, but it makes it seem funny the couple of percentage points we're talking about now. THat was pretty bad.


I don't have a huge problem with paying income tax either. However, I do have a problem with the progressive tax schedule. Currently, the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay well over 90% of the income taxes. The problem is that this sets up a situation where politicians can make tax proposals based on "sticking it to the rich" where "the rich" is anybody making more money than you.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 18, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Here's my thoughts on ANYONE mixing Christianity into American politics...
> Step back, think back to the "real" Jesus (as we know him from Sunday school, presented in the Bible) and just imagine for yourself what Jesus would do if he was stood up in front of the two political parties. Which one would he join?
> 
> At the risk of balsphemy, my guess is that he would fly into a rage and flip tables over at BOTH parties.
> ...


At the risk of :deadhorse:

Jesus was 'sucker-questioned' by 2 groups who hugely opposed each other but united however briefly in attempt to trap him; the pharisees (conservatives) and the herodonians (liberals). In questioning Jesus about the rightness of paying taxes to Caeser, the two responses (yes its right / no its not) that he could have given would have made 1 of the 2 groups claim he was either opposed to God or a revolutionary who should be turned over to Roman authorities. In a manner, he side-stepped the question by answering 'give Caesar what belongs to him, but everthing that belongs to God must be given to God.' In showing that a denarius (coin) had an image of Caesar on it, he assigned a zero importance of Caesar &amp; 'what belongs to him', while ultimately alluding to the fact that the world and all things in it belong to God anyway. Money &amp; politics were completely off of Jesus's radar screen.

And i agree Dleg, politics and religion do not belong together; for myself, i assign politics as ultimately beneath religion and my faith. Its the means by which my country/state/city "operates", while my religion / faith is the means by which I operate, and nothing by which i would beat anybody over the head with or try to mandate an entire country operate by.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 19, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> politics and religion do not belong together; for myself, i assign politics as ultimately beneath religion and my faith. Its the means by which my country/state/city "operates", while my religion / faith is the means by which I operate, and nothing by which i would beat anybody over the head with or try to mandate an entire country operate by.


Well said. But easily said if the side with views opposite yours are not trying to mandate how you operate by.

not saying, just saying.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 19, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> Well said. But easily said if the side with views opposite yours are not trying to mandate how you operate by.


Agreed, and i guess thats a roundabout way of making my point. If the liberals don't try to mandate how i or my family operate by, why should I (right leaning) try to mandate back? - as a christian, i simply do not suscribe to the belief that i have an 'evangelical mission' to convert the world, much less my country. My country did not come into being that way - quite the opposite really. Don't impinge on my religion or practice of, and I won't impinge on others need for 'un-religion' or whatever you wanna call it. Both are, or should be, of equal importance in this great country of ours. :unitedstates:

just sayin - :beerchug:


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 19, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> Don't impinge on my religion or practice of, and I won't impinge on others need for 'un-religion' or whatever you wanna call it. Both are, or should be, of equal importance in this great country of ours. :unitedstates:


:thankyou:


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 19, 2008)

As I'm sure everyone has seen by now, Colin Powell has endorsed Obama for President.

Excerpts from the Yahoo article:



> Powell, 71, criticized McCain for invoking the former domestic terrorist William Ayers as an Obama associate.
> "They're trying to connect him to some kind of terrorist feelings, and I think that's inappropriate," Powell said. "Now I understand what politics is all about — I know how you can go after one another. And that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me.
> 
> . . .
> ...


This is one of the biggest things that bothers me about the Republican party. They seem to be trying to stir up some sort of primal hate in order to win elections. I don't like it.


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 19, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> change of pace and subject


While election/voter registration fraud is a serious issue, I would not be too quick to implicate just the Democrats on this (and I am not saying you did DV, just that most of the news stories I've seen on this are implying that). There are below-board players on both sides of the aisle.

From the LA Times:



> *[SIZE=24pt]Voters say they were duped into registering as Republicans[/SIZE]*
> SACRAMENTO -- Dozens of newly minted Republican voters say they were duped into joining the party by a GOP contractor with a trail of fraud complaints stretching across the country.
> 
> Voters contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. Some said they were told that they had to become Republicans to sign the petition, contrary to California initiative law. Others had no idea their registration was being changed.
> ...


I'm sure everyone agrees that these fraudsters should go to jail. But I think making such a big deal of it just before the election is a deliberate political attempt to distract from the real issues of the election.

And just to say so on the record, I am not a fan of ACORN. They are cosntantly using underhanded tactics to stir the pot.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 19, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> Agreed, and i guess thats a roundabout way of making my point. If the liberals don't try to mandate how i or my family operate by, why should I (right leaning) try to mandate back? - as a christian, i simply do not suscribe to the belief that i have an 'evangelical mission' to convert the world, much less my country. My country did not come into being that way - quite the opposite really. Don't impinge on my religion or practice of, and I won't impinge on others need for 'un-religion' or whatever you wanna call it. Both are, or should be, of equal importance in this great country of ours. :unitedstates:
> just sayin - :beerchug:


well said. I agree.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 19, 2008)

There is voter fraud going on this year in all directions. They are estimating the numbers of fraudulant registrations are well over 200,000 right now.

I have a feeling this election may be decided by less than that. Wouldn't that be the real shame.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 19, 2008)

The scary thing (and overall real problem) in that article MP is that people are stupid enough to be duped by a 'scam' that lame, no matter which party they suscribe to - thats like the Howerd Stearn thing 'so you would vote for Obama &amp; Palin?'

They should make voting a right contingent on passing an exam. . . say something along the lines of the FE maybe :joke:


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 19, 2008)

^To some extent I agree, but on the other hand, how often do you read every word of something you sign? For instance do you read every page of a mortgage before you sign it? That could take hours.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 19, 2008)

True and i just noticed it said "*some* were told they had to become republicans to sign the petition" - my 1st read thru i thought they were all told they had to switch parties to support the petition.

Interesting, i've never considered myself anything than a temporary member at best of which ever party i support(ed) at the time. I would never proclaim membership to either party, plain &amp; simple, let alone sign anything in such casual settings.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 19, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> The scary thing (and overall real problem) in that article MP is that people are stupid enough to be duped by a 'scam' that lame, no matter which party they suscribe to - thats like the Howerd Stearn thing 'so you would vote for Obama &amp; Palin?'
> They should make voting a right contingent on passing an exam. . . say something along the lines of the FE maybe :joke:



I've said that before and I was NOT kidding. Voting should be something people take more seriously. If you want to vote, IMO, you should have at least graduated from high school, AND pass some sort of voter test showing that you understand at least the basics of US government. Like a driver's license. Someone voting irresponsibly (or several million voters) can potentially do just as much harm as someone driving irresponsibly.

If such were the case, I think we'd see the campaigns of both parties speaking to the real issues more so than they are now. I think both parties focus far too much on the "lowest common denominator" in order to make sure they get more of the "stupid" vote.


----------



## engineergurl (Oct 19, 2008)

How could you not vote republican after you watch this? sorry I know this probably belonged in the mccain jokes but you know me!!

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...lin-rap/773781/

no offense to anyone please!


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 19, 2008)

^^ It was pretty good. The opening skit was kinda funny too.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 19, 2008)

OK,

Now I need to stir the pot a little. I'm not sure how many of you have heard about the fact that Barack Obama may not be an American born citizen. He has been asked on numerous occasions to show a birth certificate or somehow otherwise prove he is an American, but he just says that he was born in Hawaii.

Now, if I'm the guy that is leading in the polls to become the next President, and someone asks me that question, I think I'd just show them the proof.

Here is the lawsuit filed against him, and the only way Obama can satisfactorily respond is to release his suposed Hawaiian birth certificate. If he has it, why hasn't he released it? If he does release it, game over.

So why drag this out on technical grounds? It doesn't make sense.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-pae...case_id-281573/



> *BERG v. OBAMA et al *Plaintiff Philip J. Berg alleged that Defendant Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 19, 2008)

^I didn't think it was possible for a child to lose their citizenship if they were born in the U.S. I say this because where I live, there are thousands of kids born here of non-citizen parents, and those kids retain their citizenship even when their parents return to China or the Philippines or Bangladesh. I see this nearly every day.

If that was even true, don't you think this would have come up before now? How could Obama have ever gotten a passport, for example, to leave the U.S. and get back in for all those trips he made abroad? I ahd to show my birth certificate to get my passport, didn't you?

Frankly, I was pro-McCain before these kinds of stories started coming out. This is exactly the kind of tactic that turned me off of McCain. I can't imagine McCain himself ever saying something like this, either. But I believe he is condoning these tactics, because I am getting these same stories in e-mails from my Mom, and she is working the McCain campaign in CO.

I don't particularly like Obama, but I dislike this kind of scare tactic more than anything, and it's lost McCain my vote (eh, who am I kidding. I can't vote anyway!)


----------



## Dleg (Oct 19, 2008)

The "citizenship" controversy on Snopes (Obama DID release his birth certificate to the press, several months ago):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

and

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp


----------



## benbo (Oct 19, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> As I'm sure everyone has seen by now, Colin Powell has endorsed Obama for President.


Wow! I never would have seen that coming. Powell only agrees with Obama on about 75% of the issues, and is pissed off at the Republican party for several reasons. What's really hilarious is that Powell is suddenly beloved by the Democrats. He didn't seem that popular after his UN testimony. Plus, this is sort of like the guy who piles on to a tackle after the entire team has joined in. This will change nobody's mind. But IMO it doesn't matter. Obama was almost certain to win before this endorsement, and he's still almost certain to win.

The Ayer's thing is stupid because it just isn't working. Ayer's is a terrorist jackoff, but nobody cares. And when you bring it up it sounds like you are calling Obama a terrorist, which he isn't. It's not working. But all this handwringing over it is ridiculous too. This is politics, both sides use nasty techniques. And the ACORN story doesn't matter either, and it is always the losing side that starts whining about voter fraud.

I prefer McCain. But whoever wins I'm going to pray they make decent decisions, because I want to keep my job and my money, and I don't want to get blown up by a terrorist.


----------



## benbo (Oct 19, 2008)

I have my theory on how McCain's could have had a much better chance at winning. I know I'm not the first person to mention it - I probably heard it somewhere, maybe even here. But I agree with it.

He should have fought the bailout.

The major issue that brought Obama to prominence, the war in Iraq, almost nobody talks about any more. This is because things have gotten better in Iraq, and worse in the economy.

Obama's main argument about McCain was that he was

"George Bush II", and McCain's argument against Obama was that he was inexperienced.

I happen to like Sarah Palin, but when McCain picked her it severely undercut his main argument against Obam. I know why he did - because despite what Obama says, he is not a lock-step conservative and the base doesn't trust him. But it did undercut his argument, and tick off a bunch of Republican elite cogniscenti, giving the media a bunch of fodder about disgruntled "conservatives."

Still, none of that mattered much. But when he voted for the bailout he lost his last chance to really contrast himself with Obama on an important issue. He also voted for a bailout full of pork, so he could no longer claim he never voted for an earmark. Plus, it was very unpopular, and if he had voted against it when Obama said he "always voted with Bush" he could have said "well, I'm not the one who voted with Bush on the bailout." Now I assume McCain thought that the bailout was correct and necessary. But he lost his last chance to really differentiate himself with Obama on an issue that people actually care about.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 19, 2008)

WOW benbo, great point.

I wish McCain would have fought the bailout too, I was against the bailout, and still am. Sadly, I can't support the candidate that was against it because there wasn't one. At least not out of the two

so Dleg, you don't ever sit and second guess the Barry Soetoro, Barry Dunham, Barry Obama thing at all?

Then he never told ANYONE that he spent 3 weeks in Pakistan until he was busted on it? I have to admit that I do not think Obama is a terrorist, or a 'sleeper cell', but he has acted very odd when it comes to his past.

I get a slew of the same emails everyday that you are talking about, and it does make you wonder if even a percentage of it is true.


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 19, 2008)

If people immediately slandered you based on your middle name, wouldn't you be touchy about it too?


----------



## Dleg (Oct 19, 2008)

^^ I remember very vividly the comments from my ex girlfriend in late 1992, about how Clinton was the anti-Christ, all the biblical prophesies that supported her theory, the dozens of murders the Clintons were responsible for, and how all of her church members (Pentacostal - at the time) were stocking up on food and ammo to prepare for the end times.

:true:

As such, I don't get all worked up at all about the e-mail traffic that goes around. Basically, if it sounds crazy, it probably is crazy.


----------



## kevo_55 (Oct 20, 2008)

I thought this was pretty funny.

Palin can take a hit!!

Linky

edit:

Here's another one:


----------



## Melanie11 (Oct 20, 2008)

I voted today! :multiplespotting:

Anyone else voting early?


----------



## snickerd3 (Oct 20, 2008)

Melanie11 said:


> I voted today! :multiplespotting: Anyone else voting early?


I'm waiting for election day to see all the buzz and excitement...I mean the state is giving us the day off so I should at least attempt to do something election related that day.


----------



## frazil (Oct 20, 2008)

I voted last week by absentee ballot. That was easy! I want to do it that way every time.


----------



## snickerd3 (Oct 20, 2008)

Any thoughts on Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama?


----------



## Melanie11 (Oct 20, 2008)

frazil said:


> I voted last week by absentee ballot. That was easy! I want to do it that way every time.


My husband voted by absentee ballot too. That is what I plan to do in the future as well.


----------



## cement (Oct 20, 2008)

snickerd3 said:


> Any thoughts on Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama?


I want to see the list of white, unexperienced liberals that he has endorsed first.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 20, 2008)

snickerd3 said:


> Any thoughts on Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama?


I have many thoughts, but I don't think the endorsement is that powerful, but of course it will help Obama some and hurt McCain some. I just don't see it being by much.

I watched it yesterday, and Powell started off saying how he won't vote for Obama just because he's black, then went on for 20 minutes about why he is not voting for McCain because of how McCain's campaign treated Obama.

What?

it was a weak statement, but either way.

I don't like how McCain's campaign has handled things either, but I still believe in voting for the guy that stands for values and ideals closer to mine, not the one who is percieved to have run a 'better campaign'.

(shakes head)


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 20, 2008)

Dleg said:


> ^^ I remember very vividly the comments from my ex girlfriend in late 1992, about how Clinton was the anti-Christ, all the biblical prophesies that supported her theory, the dozens of murders the Clintons were responsible for, and how all of her church members (Pentacostal - at the time) were stocking up on food and ammo to prepare for the end times.


Yes i remember in last election, I had an acquaintence whose wife thought John Kerry was the anti-christ - this election year, its closer to home: my MIL swears that Obama is the anti-christ! She's alot of fun to goad. . . like "hey, you notice how those Obama-Biden signs kinda look like they say Osama Bin Laden?"

Anyways, i wish we could get past this witch burning mentality that never seems to go away - and ALOT of what is fueling my inlaws 'hook-line-&amp;-sinker' routine are idiotic email 'chain letters' or whatever you wanna call them.

I think voting should have a minimum IQ score to be given as a right, seriously.


----------



## snickerd3 (Oct 20, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> Anyways, i wish we could get past this witch burning mentality that never seems to go away - and ALOT of what is fueling my inlaws 'hook-line-&amp;-sinker' routine are idiotic email 'chain letters' or whatever you wanna call them.


My mom and my aunt are like that too. They are big on the It must be true if the newspaper said it...first media outlet to report it becomes the gospel truth, although my aunt is the bigger offender of the two. I can usually talk my mom out of the craziness and get her to look at the bigger picture.


----------



## SkyWarp (Oct 20, 2008)

cement said:


> I want to see the list of white, unexperienced liberals that he has endorsed first.


 He's choosing between two candidates not 50, why would that matter?


----------



## benbo (Oct 20, 2008)

snickerd3 said:


> Any thoughts on Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama?


See my post above as to why I find it completely expected.

As far as whether it matters? To a tiny, tiny few voters maybe.

Because at this point I don't really believe in undecided voters. I think most of them have either really made up their minds already, or aren't going to vote at all.

This has been at least a two year campaign. If you don't know who you are going to vote for by now you are a weirdo. You'll probably end up flipping a coin, consulting a medium, or using a ouija board.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 20, 2008)

We told my MIL that Powell had endorsed Obama. . .her reaction? Who's that?

I told her he was probably the false prophet. . .


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 20, 2008)

^^^Do you want me to start a chain email?


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 20, 2008)

benbo said:


> This has been at least a two year campaign. If you don't know who you are going to vote for by now you are a weirdo. You'll probably end up flipping a coin, consulting a medium, or using a ouija board.


Fire up the ouija, because I am still undecided.

I know for sure I'm not voting for McCain, but I haven't decided amonst the others.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 20, 2008)

^ there are others?

they don't tell you to light fires, do they?


----------



## Dleg (Oct 20, 2008)

Geeze, you guys should have to deal with _my_ mother during this election. She's actually working the McCain campaign in CO, and she believes every chain e-mail she forwards. I know better and just ignore them, but my sister cracked two weeks ago when my Mom sent another chain e-mail (about Obama being a terrorist-Marxist or something like that) with a personal, practically tearful plea for my sister to change her mind about who she was voting for, to prevent the downfall of America. This sent my sister over the edge and she finally replied with some Snopes links and a few choice words about being "hurt" that she was somehow being considered a marxist/socialist/terrorist sympathizer because she was choosing to vote for the Democratic Party candidate. In the USA .

So now the Civil War has re-emerged in my household and my parents refuse to speak to my sister until she votes for McCain. True story. And now I am being dragged into it and asked how I feel aboutt he elction, and asked to help talk my sister into voting McCain. I still haven't responded - I simply don't know how to.

So this just adds to my opinion that the McCain, and previous Bush capaigns, for that matter, have done nothing but drive Americans further apart. You can't call the other candidate things like that, and expect to not also be taken as calling the ~50% of Americans who happen to give him their vote those things, too. It's unprofessional, and worst, beneath the dignity of what I consider America to be about. And that, I think, is an important consideration when trying to guage the manner in which an administration will conduct its business within America and the World at large.

(which is really too bad, because McCain was well ahead of Obama in this regard, in my opinion at least, until all this came to the forefront and "the gloves came off" Put them back on! Please!)


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 20, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> We told my MIL that Powell had endorsed Obama. . .her reaction? Who's that?
> I told her he was probably the false prophet. . .


LOL. I love it.

I'm not blaming McCain for things that are done by people 'working' for him in CO or any other place for that matter. How can it be his fault? He has refuted every one of those issues.

I can't for a minute think that McCain himself is sitting in his hotel room at night thinking "If only I could make them all think he is the Anti-christ"

Obama can't claim any political genius on his part. He cannot run head to head against McCain because McCain has more experience among many other things, so instead Obama's campaign advisors decided it would be easy to run against the sitting president who has a very low approval rating. Obama's whole campaign has had NOTHING to do with accomplishments by Obama but instead about the doings of president Bush. To be very honest, any Democratic nominee had the ease of this campaign handed to them on a platter.

He talks about who is to blame for the economy, who is to blame for Iraq, who is to blame for fuel crisis, who is to blame for this, who is to blame for that. I've yet to hear Obama say "I lead the bill or the initiative to do this......."

He hasn't.

McCain's campaign may not be great by any means, but to me, he still has a hell of a lot more substance than the guy who doesn't vote either way but says 'present', then goes on to criticise everyone else's decision. Very weak IMO.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 20, 2008)

NOW we're talkin! If this was the kind of political discourse the rest of America was engaging in, we'd be in a far better place.

In other words, you made excellent points. Not sure I would vote for McCain at this point (yes, i am still "undecided" benbo, so maybe I'm a weirdo), but those are all points that previously drove me away from Obama.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 20, 2008)

I think that most who even 'somewhat' follows politics has long had their mind made up, BUT I know of many who aren't big into politics at all and are trying to find out who the right person is,

so yes, I think there are many undecided out there.


----------



## benbo (Oct 20, 2008)

Dleg said:


> NOW we're talkin! If this was the kind of political discourse the rest of America was engaging in, we'd be in a far better place.
> In other words, you made excellent points. Not sure I would vote for McCain at this point (yes, i am still "undecided" benbo, so maybe I'm a weirdo), but those are all points that previously drove me away from Obama.


Well I don't know if you are a weirdo or not, but you are pretty fickle because you just posted this yesterday -

"I don't particularly like Obama, but I dislike this kind of scare tactic more than anything, and *it's lost McCain my vote* (eh, who am I kidding. I can't vote anyway!)"


----------



## benbo (Oct 20, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> Fire up the ouija, because I am still undecided.
> I know for sure I'm not voting for McCain, but I haven't decided amonst the others.


Yep, you might as well use a ouija because I can't imagine what you're waiting to hear in the next 14 days that will push you to, whoever, Nader or whoever it is you're supporting. I mean, it seems like you know what you believe in, and you certainly can't have any doubt after so long a campaign what the candidates believe in.

If it was actually close in Michigan would you be undecided?


----------



## benbo (Oct 20, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> I think that most who even 'somewhat' follows politics has long had their mind made up, BUT I know of many who aren't big into politics at all and are trying to find out who the right person is,
> 
> so yes, I think there are many undecided out there.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't get this. This has been the most talked about election of my adult lifetime. It has also been one of the longest campaigns, with so many debates and ads and everything else through all those primaries and the election. I don't see how anybody who is motivated to vote, to stand in what may very well be long lines on election day, can be undecided two weeks out. John McCain is saying the same things basically he said two years ago. Same with Obama. Now if you're talking strategic voting - looking at how close it is and deciding whether to vote for somebody who can acutally win, or send a message, I don't consider that undecided. Even my co-worker, who wouldn't be able to tell Biden from Palin, has an opinion (basically throw the bums out which is always his opinion).

I wish somebody who is undecided would let me know what they expect to happen in the next two weeks to zero them in.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 20, 2008)

benbo said:


> Well I don't know if you are a weirdo or not, but you are pretty fickle because you just posted this yesterday -
> "I don't particularly like Obama, but I dislike this kind of scare tactic more than anything, and *it's lost McCain my vote* (eh, who am I kidding. I can't vote anyway!)"


I can't figure out what you don't understand. I don't particularly like Obama. I was leaning toward McCain for several reasons, including those just posted by DVINNY. But the crazy, divisive stuff coming from the McCain supporters has now made me reconsider. I am currently undecided.

And, I fail to see why I need to justify my decision processes to you, or anyone else.

(and it's true, I can't vote, which I think is a little unfair since I am a US citizen living in a US territory, so I will, at the very elast, excercize my 1st amendment right to talk about how I would vote, if I could).


----------



## benbo (Oct 20, 2008)

Dleg said:


> I can't figure out what you don't understand. I don't particularly like Obama. I was leaning toward McCain for several reasons, including those just posted by DVINNY. But the crazy, divisive stuff coming from the McCain supporters has now made me reconsider. I am currently undecided.
> And, I fail to see why I need to justify my decision processes to you, or anyone else.
> 
> (and it's true, I can't vote, which I think is a little unfair since I am a US citizen living in a US territory, so I will, at the very elast, excercize my 1st amendment right to talk about how I would vote, if I could).


Did I say you needed to justify your decision to me? All I said was that what you posted yesterday made it seem like you had decided. But, debating the issues and who you vote for - that is "justifying your decision process." I have no problem doing it, that's why I post on a thread like this. I don't see why you're getting upset.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 20, 2008)

I'm not upset. I felt you had misunderstood me and I needed to clear it up for you, and also to provide you some idea with how a person could still be undecided, since you stated earlier that you didn't see how anyone could be.


----------



## benbo (Oct 20, 2008)

Dleg said:


> I'm not upset. I felt you had misunderstood me and I needed to clear it up for you, and also to provide you some idea with how a person could still be undecided, since you stated earlier that you didn't see how anyone could be.


Okay. My mistake. Probably because I don't know anyone who is not rabidly on one side or the other this cycle. Now I know two people on this board.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 20, 2008)

I'm surprised there aren't more people like me, or at least, that you haven't run into them. I can't remember whether or not it was Nader who said we are "faced with the evil of two lessers", but that's how this election seems to me, and most other elections I have lived through. If neither candidate particularly matches up with my priorities, and I refuse to "throw away" my vote on a third party, then I am truly left "undecided" and faced with choosing the lesser of the two evils. Which in this case is hard for me to discern.


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 20, 2008)

benbo said:


> Now if you're talking strategic voting - looking at how close it is and deciding whether to vote for somebody who can acutally win, or send a message, I don't consider that undecided.


Well, ok you've caught me. I guess I do have a bit of strategery going on. I'm torn between voting for my usual party (Libertarian) or against the Republicans (i.e. for Obama).



benbo said:


> Okay. My mistake. Probably because I don't know anyone who is not rabidly on one side or the other this cycle. Now I know two people on this board.


I wouldn't say I'm rabidly on either "side". I just hate one side less than the other.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 20, 2008)

I know a few people that say, "well, I know so and so and I know they are really really smart and into politics and they say to vote for Obama, but then I also know so and so who is also really really smart and they say to vote for McCain, I just don't know what to do"

^^ I've heard it more than once.

Also, I do not have a yard sign out as of yet, but do have a neighbor that has told me she doesn't follow politics, but always looks in my front yard when going to vote for City council, county commission, etc. etc. because she "knows that I always know who to vote for"

(BTW, I've had more signs in my yard for friends that are Democrats than for Republicans, so it's not a straight party ticket thing around here)


----------



## benbo (Oct 20, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> Well, ok you've caught me. I guess I do have a bit of strategery going on. I'm torn between voting for my usual party (Libertarian) or against the Republicans (i.e. for Obama).


Libertarians or Obama ???!!!!!! How in the world do you reconcile that? I guess maybe if the only really important issue is the attitude toward foreign policy.

THe current Libertarian candidate is Bob Barr.

Probably the only thing they remotely agree on is getting out of Iraq and maybe gay marriage.

Just off the top of my head, Barack Obama is for universal government funded preschool, a huge governmental medical insurance program which includes federal funding for abortion, banning conceal carry of handguns federally, and if nothing else at least some tax increases. He is a supporter of Roe v Wade and more liberal Supreme Court justices. He claims he wants to increase the troop levels in Afghanistan.

Bob Barr (and his party) are for a consumption tax like the fair tax, which is a regressive tax and definitely not for increasing taxes on anyone, the party is opposed to Roe v. Wade on federalist grounds (and Barr himself at least used to be for outlawing abortion - you know Ron Paul was ALWAYS anti abortion).

He is for almost no gun laws and I can pretty much be certain he isn't for universal preschool or government healthcare. Good Lord, he probably isn't even for federal government money going to education. And I'm certain he's for originalist judges. He wants to reduce the troops in Afghanistan, and would probably pull them all out if he could.


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 20, 2008)

This is my problem with politics. I can't find anyone who fits with what I think--so yes I am forced to consider widely disparate candidates.


----------



## benbo (Oct 20, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> This is my problem with politics. I can't find anyone who fits with what I think--so yes I am forced to consider widely disparate candidates.


Me too. I am probably more naturally a Democrat on the majority of issues, and am actually still registered D, but for my more important issues I currently line up Republican so that's where I go.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 21, 2008)

benbo said:


> Bob Barr (and his party) are for a consumption tax like the fair tax, which is a regressive tax and definitely not for increasing taxes on anyone, the party is opposed to Roe v. Wade on federalist grounds


^^ Those parts are great for me, but I can't waste a vote on Barr.


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 21, 2008)

Is there any chance we can get rid of the two-party system?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 21, 2008)

I gave Barr serious consideration, but I just can't get behind the guy. He changes political parties every thime the wind shifts.

I think McCain should really hammer the "If he wanted to run against GWB, he should have run four years ago." I also think he missed a great opportunity by not opposing that onerous bail-out bill.


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 21, 2008)

I saw an add for a democratic challenger that detailed pretty good why we will never have any kind of consumption tax or “fair tax” while most of us pay 15-25% in taxes, there is a very large percentage of people who pay close to nothing in taxes, the ad, detailed how every time you buy groceries, movie tickets, gas, you would pay the 23% national sales tax. While I think the idea is great, the folks at the lower end of the tax bracket are going to see that they will have to start paying what the middle class pays and they will raise holy hell to get it stopped. Why should they have to start paying any sort of “fair share” now when they haven’t had to pay anything all these years (sarcasm)?


----------



## chaosiscash (Oct 21, 2008)

^^ From a state standpoint, that's how we do things in TN. There is no state income tax, and the sales tax rate is 9-10%, depending on what city/county you're in. I think its great. I feel like I pay less in (state) taxes here than I did in SC.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 21, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> I saw an add for a democratic challenger that detailed pretty good why we will never have any kind of consumption tax or “fair tax” while most of us pay 15-25% in taxes, there is a very large percentage of people who pay close to nothing in taxes, the ad, detailed how every time you buy groceries, movie tickets, gas, you would pay the 23% national sales tax. While I think the idea is great, the folks at the lower end of the tax bracket are going to see that they will have to start paying what the middle class pays and they will raise holy hell to get it stopped. Why should they have to start paying any sort of “fair share” now when they haven’t had to pay anything all these years (sarcasm)?



The thing with the fair tax is that we are already paying the 23% tax as a cost that is already built in to the price of the products we buy today. The price of any gizmo you purchase has all of the income and other taxes paid in its production already in the price. What the fair tax attempts to do is bring all of the taxes out in the open for everybody to see.

Also, to implement the fair tax, we would also have to junk the federal income tax structure along with all of the red tape that goes along with it. There is a very large industry built around compliance with the current tax laws. This industry is very resistant to anything even close to the fair tax.


----------



## snickerd3 (Oct 21, 2008)

I'd really like to know how they decide the order on the ballot, if each county makes its own. For those people who don't care and just check the first box they come to, (I've heard people say they have done it) it gives that group the extra votes.

They printed a copy of the official ballot in our local newspaper and it is not in alphabetical order. The rest of the positions also follow this same party order.

McCain/Palin Republican

Obama/biden Democratic

Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente Green party

Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root Libertarian

John Joseph Polachek New

Charles O. Baldwin/ Darrell L Castle Constitution Party

Ralph Nader/ Matt Gonzalez independent


----------



## benbo (Oct 21, 2008)

snickerd3 said:


> I'd really like to know how they decide the order on the ballot, if each county makes its own. For those people who don't care and just check the first box they come to, (I've heard people say they have done it) it gives that group the extra votes.
> They printed a copy of the official ballot in our local newspaper and it is not in alphabetical order. The rest of the positions also follow this same party order.
> 
> McCain/Palin Republican
> ...


My guess is that they group it based on the number of people registered, then alphabetize it within those groupings.


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 21, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> The thing with the fair tax is that we are already paying the 23% tax as a cost that is already built in to the price of the products we buy today. The price of any gizmo you purchase has all of the income and other taxes paid in its production already in the price. What the fair tax attempts to do is bring all of the taxes out in the open for everybody to see.
> Also, to implement the fair tax, we would also have to junk the federal income tax structure along with all of the red tape that goes along with it. There is a very large industry built around compliance with the current tax laws. This industry is very resistant to anything even close to the fair tax.



your preaching to the choir, but I dont think most people are going to be able to comprehend all that, especially the ones that couldnt even figure out how to vote in Florida in 2000.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 21, 2008)

chaosiscash said:


> ^^ From a state standpoint, that's how we do things in TN. There is no state income tax, and the sales tax rate is 9-10%, depending on what city/county you're in. I think its great. I feel like I pay less in (state) taxes here than I did in SC.


Yep, here in SC (at least in Colatown and Richco) you still pay 9-10% sales tax and you get to pay a state tax of 6%.

Jolly.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 21, 2008)

snickerd3 said:


> I'd really like to know how they decide the order on the ballot, if each county makes its own.


Each county has a ballot drawing.

When I ran for office, I attended the ballot drawing. Our county does it with lottery balls that have numbers on them. If there are 5 candidates for an office, then the candidates have a lottery in alphabetical order. First name gets first lotto ball, if its a 3, then he/she is 3rd on the ballot.

Kinda simple, but still fair.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 21, 2008)

This site shows just what your ballot will look like. Here's mine for example. Enter your city and state and it comes up. It also has referendums for your state.

Sample Ballots


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 21, 2008)

^^Cool site! Thanks!


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 21, 2008)

This guy lives down the street from me.

http://vote-wv.org/Intro.aspx?Id=WVRaileyCharlesG


----------



## Dleg (Oct 21, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> Is there any chance we can get rid of the two-party system?


Anyone can run for president, as it is now.... What exactly do you mean?

I'll give you a story of life in a place where the two-party system broke down. Our present governor ran in a race against 4 other candidates, each representing a relatively equal number of voters. He won with about 27% of the total vote. He has been a total disaster on his own, but on top of that, you have a public who can rightfully say "we didn't vote for this clown!" It's pretty chaotic, and totally counter productive.

Because of all of this, a law was passed that will require whoever becomes governor to have at least 51% percent of the vote, and dicates run-off elections for the top two if noone can get 51%. We will find out how well that works next year.


----------



## frazil (Oct 21, 2008)

Final debate in a minute


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 21, 2008)

Actually, that was a minute and 41, but was AWESOME


----------



## Dleg (Oct 21, 2008)

^Ouch!


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 22, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> your preaching to the choir, but I dont think most people are going to be able to comprehend all that, especially the ones that couldnt even figure out how to vote in Florida in 2000.



Sad, but true. The level of understanding of economics in this country is pretty pathetic. Most of what I have learned has been from reading due to personal interest rather than any class in either high school or college. I'm still amazed at how many people don't understand their own paychecks, much less how much they are paying in "hidden" taxes.


----------



## klk (Oct 22, 2008)

snickerd3 said:


> I'd really like to know how they decide the order on the ballot, if each county makes its own.


I guess its different for each state. In Oregon, they are required by law to randomly generate a list of letters and those letters are used to create the order of the candidates as they appear on the ballots. This is the text as is appears in our voter guide:



> While the candidates’ statements for candidates running for the same office appear in alphabetical order by their last name in this voters’ pamphlet, you will notice that they appear in a different order on your ballot.Oregon statute (ORS 254.155) requires the Secretary of State to complete a random order of the letters of the alphabet to determine the order in which the names of candidates appear on the ballot.
> 
> The alphabet for the 2008 General Election is:
> 
> N, X, Q, H, Y, S, G, K, I, A, E, M, B, O, R, W, D, Z, U, J, L, V, T, F, P, C


Does your voter guide mention anything like this?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Oct 22, 2008)

> The alphabet for the 2008 General Election is:N, X, Q, H, Y, S, G, K, I, A, E, M, B, O, R, W, D, Z, U, J, L, V, T, F, P, C


For some reason, this brings to mind the fact that Indiana has tried on multiple occasions to change the value of Pi to 3.


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 22, 2008)

frazil said:


> Final debate in a minute


If it's said enough... it becomes the truth!


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 22, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Anyone can run for president, as it is now.... What exactly do you mean?


While anyone can run, only one of two parties can win...

When do you think will be the first time a non-Democrat and non-Republican becomes president? When will both the Democrats and Republicans lose control of the House or Senate?

Read more at Wikipedia and everything2


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 22, 2008)

> The business of our nation goes forward. These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people.
> Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.
> 
> But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
> ...


Portion of Reagan's first Inaugural Address


----------



## Dleg (Oct 22, 2008)

Didn't Reagan oversee the largest growth in National debt ever? Kinda makes all that ^^^ ring a little hollow.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 22, 2008)

^^ One of the things that everybody always forgets is that almost all spending is controlled by congress. Every budget Reagan submitted was DOA in congress. The economy he inherited in 1981 wasn't exactly booming and it got worse before it got better.


----------



## benbo (Oct 22, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Didn't Reagan oversee the largest growth in National debt ever? Kinda makes all that ^^^ ring a little hollow.


THat's true.

Reagan himself considered the increase in the debt to be a failure of his administration. However, to be balanced you have to also consider that a great deal of the deficit spending was to defeat the Soviet Union. If you look at the Debt/GDP during WWII I think you will see it dwarfs the debt Reagan ran up in the Cold War. Granted, things haven't gone that great vis a vis Russia since then, but I don't think you can blame Reagan for that. Plus Reagan added millions of jobs and had a fairly booming economy for most of his administration. President Clinton reaped a peace divdend.

President Bush doesn't really have any excuse for the way he ran up the debt, however.


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 22, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> While anyone can run, only one of two parties can win...
> When do you think will be the first time a non-Democrat and non-Republican becomes president? When will both the Democrats and Republicans lose control of the House or Senate?
> 
> Read more at Wikipedia and everything2


That's an interesting question. If you look back to the last time there was a change in political parties in the White House was just before the Civil War. The Whigs disappeared and the Republicans came on the scene. I would think it take something Earth-shattering for a non-Demipublican president to make it into the White House. Hopefully not another Civil War.

On the other hand, the Republican and Democratic parties seem to have evolved over the past 150 years (under what president was the income tax instituted?) so one could argue that they are not the same parties as they were--just that they have the same names.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 22, 2008)

^ (in response to benbo &amp; FlyerPE) Agreed. But the deficit spending to run up the national defense systems and provoke the USSR into going bankrupt trying to match it, isn't that what everyone likes to give Reagan credit for? And if so, how can anyone genuinely claim Congress acted alone in running up the deficit? It was part of Reagan's grand strategy. That's all I'm saying - read his inaugural speech above for yourself. It seems to contradict what he actually did. Perhaps it worked out for the best, or perhaps its full aftereffects have yet to be seen.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 22, 2008)

Reagan's creation of jobs - here is another interesting set of statistics from wikipedia.

Once again, it doesn't seem to live up to the hype. (take a look at the figures during the Carter admin, for isntance)


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 22, 2008)

I never claimed congress acted alone. I was responding to a chart regarding government spending and who the president was at the time. That chart doesn't appear to account for who was in charge of congress at any particular time. My point is that no president operates in a vacuum.


----------



## benbo (Oct 22, 2008)

Dleg said:


> ^ (in response to benbo &amp; FlyerPE) Agreed. But the deficit spending to run up the national defense systems and provoke the USSR into going bankrupt trying to match it, isn't that what everyone likes to give Reagan credit for? And if so, how can anyone genuinely claim Congress acted alone in running up the deficit? It was part of Reagan's grand strategy. That's all I'm saying - read his inaugural speech above for yourself. It seems to contradict what he actually did. Perhaps it worked out for the best, or perhaps its full aftereffects have yet to be seen.


Yeah, I don't buy that it was all Congress fault myself. And I don't think Reagan did either. He blamed himself too. I am certainly no expert on any of this, but it seems to me the deficit almost always increases because of the spending rather than the taxes. I think to a certain point lower taxes bring more revenue, but they always seem to spend it.

Right now politicians are arguing over a few percentage points in the top rate. I personally don't think that matters that much. But what blows my mind is that I think the top rate has always been around 200K. From WWII to Reagan the top bracket was anywhere from 95 to 70%. I can't see how anybody could care that much about making extra money above 200K if the gvt was going to take 70% of it.


----------



## benbo (Oct 22, 2008)

Dleg said:


> Reagan's creation of jobs - here is another interesting set of statistics from wikipedia.
> Once again, it doesn't seem to live up to the hype. (take a look at the figures during the Carter admin, for isntance)


That's reasonable job growth when you start in a horrible economy.

You can't look at a President's record without examining the trends of what happened before and after his term. A president comes in operating on the prior presidents economy and budget, and gets his policies in then later they effect the economy. It's not an instantaneous thing. Otherwise, if Obama gets in we'd have to blame him for all of the problems we are having right now. I don't like Obama but I'd give him a chance to turn it around. Those are GWBs and the current congresses fault to the extent they are not just cyclical.

Look at these unemployment numbers

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

When Carter came in he had UE rates around 6 or so because of the people who came before him The economy went into recession during his term and unemployment ran up to 9% by the time he left, and under basically his economy ran up to over 10% at the beginning of the Reagan term. By the time Reagan left UE was back down to around 5%.

But that aside, I think Carter is primarily blamed for the double digit inflation rate and the 20% prime interest rate he left Reagan with, not so much jobs.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Oct 22, 2008)

benbo said:


> From WWII to Reagan the top bracket was anywhere from 95 to 70%. I can't see how anybody could care that much about making extra money above 200K if the gvt was going to take 70% of it.


I think 70% is confiscatory in just about anybody's book. Back in my utility days, I was well paid for OT. During my first stint of 80hr weeks, I guestimated what my take-home pay should be based on the percentage of my gross I took home on a normal paycheck. I was pretty pissed about a 39% tax burn. I wouldn't have bothered to put in that much time again if it had been 70%.

The other part of it isn't so much that people will just stop trying to make money above that line, they will put much more effort into avoiding the tax since the incentive to do so is much greater.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 22, 2008)

Where is the 70% figure coming from? Once again, according to wikipedia (and the link you psoted the other day, benbo), the top tax bracket these days is paying 35%.

The top bracket went over 90% during WWII, and stayed above 70% until Reagan came in (I was shocked to see this "socialist" level of taxation occuring during our country's most "anti socialist" period).

During Reagan's first term, it dropped to 50%. Then to 38.5% during his second. It gradually dropped to 31% during George HW's term, jumped to 39% during Clinton's, and then marginally down again during W's terms, to where we are today, at 35%.

Edit: nevermind. I see you were saying essentially the same thing, benbo.


----------



## EM_PS (Oct 23, 2008)

Nothing to do with this election year. . . just hilarious -


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 23, 2008)

^^^ That's awesome


----------



## ktulu (Oct 30, 2008)

Well, McCain has at least one vote. Just submitted my absentee ballot - headed to Iron Mountain, MI on Tuesday. I wasn't going to not vote for this one.

Should I take a coat??


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2008)

ktulu said:


> Should I take a coat??


Plan on taking a coat even though word on the street is that there is going to be a bit of a heat wave creeping in .. supposed to get up into the 40s from what I understand.

JR


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 30, 2008)

Is it Tuesday yet?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Oct 30, 2008)

I wish. Well, I have mixed emotions, actually.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 30, 2008)

I'm just ready for this election season to be over.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2008)

^^^ I think A LOT of us feel that way! 

JR


----------



## benbo (Oct 30, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> Is it Tuesday yet?


I'm not sure of the context, but I heard them say on CNN this morning that Barack Obama couldn't become president until next Tuesday. Funny, but I thought whoever was elected had to wait until January. Did I miss something?


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 30, 2008)

Typical cable news slip-up. I'm with you on this one, benbo. I wasn't talking about a candidate in particular, more the entire process. But, I suppose that I should have said 'Is it Wednesday yet?', meaning that the election is over. Although, it may go on much longer than that if either side challenges things. I am not calling the election till someone takes the oath of office.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2008)

I was invited on out with an attorney to watch the results come in over drinks. 

I agree, I won't believe anything until the candidate-elect is sworn into office!

:bio:

JR


----------



## benbo (Oct 30, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> Typical cable news slip-up. I'm with you on this one, benbo. I wasn't talking about a candidate in particular, more the entire process. But, I suppose that I should have said 'Is it Wednesday yet?', meaning that the election is over. Although, it may go on much longer than that if either side challenges things. I am not calling the election till someone takes the oath of office.


Yeah, I wasn't commenting on your post. I just picked it to stick my post on. I actually think it'll be over on Tuesday, and I don't think it will go my way. It think it will be closer than expected popular vote wise (maybe 3 or 4 %), but I think O-man will get over 300 electors. That's my prediction.

I also predict the other big winner that night will be jr. (see post above)


----------



## FLBuff PE (Oct 30, 2008)

benbo said:


> Yeah, I wasn't commenting on your post. I just picked it to stick my post on. I actually think it'll be over on Tuesday, and I don't think it will go my way. It think it will be closer than expected popular vote wise (maybe 3 or 4 %), but I think O-man will get over 300 electors. That's my prediction.
> I also predict the other big winner that night will be jr. (see post above)


Depends on how manydrinks he consumes vs. the lawyer!


----------



## benbo (Oct 30, 2008)

FLBuff said:


> Depends on how manydrinks he consumes vs. the lawyer!


"Yes he can!!"


----------



## MGX (Oct 30, 2008)

My only hope for the '08 presidential election is that the victor wins by a large margin, large enough to not drag things on for months with hand recounts, dangling chads or any other drama.

On second thought perhaps some more mayhem like the post 2000 race might be good for America.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 30, 2008)

> I was invited on out with an attorney to watch the results come in over drinks.


We're having a little Go-Bama get together on Tuesday. My first thought was to make a Superbowl Party atmosphere out of it, as we are known throughout parts of 2 states for our awesome pigskin parties, but then I thought about the what happened in the SB last year, and decided on a different approach.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2008)

benbo said:


> I also predict the other big winner that night will be jr. (see post above)


Now that's a prediction I hope holds true !!! lusone:



FLBuff said:


> Depends on how manydrinks he consumes vs. the lawyer!


She hasn't really had anything but one beer around me, so it will be interesting! I will be taking it slow ... :eyebrows:

JR


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 31, 2008)

I think everyone is tired of political ads, etc.


----------



## Road Guy (Oct 31, 2008)

I am going to have to unplug my phone until Tuesday, to many damn messages from candidates... "Hi, this is so and so running for such and such....." cant hit delete fast enough on my answeringmachine


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 31, 2008)

Corey Miller Well Driller

Mr. Obama,

Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me 'Cory the well driller'. I am a 54 year old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go 'conquer the world' when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start not a result of privilege. It is the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10 year old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck).

A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D.. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas . 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas . Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our countrys' (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn't want to take a risk, and wouldn't demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. I'm the guy you characterize as 'the Americans who can afford it the most' that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution 'to spread the wealth' to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach on every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce "politically motivated"), you averaged of less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else's money you are giving to them. I won't say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you or Joe Biden (don't you just hate google?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us...

Cory Miller

just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American... www.cmillerdrilling.com


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Oct 31, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> I think everyone is tired of political ads, etc.


Probably the only thing you and I agree on this election year. Let's just get this over with.

And $10 says someone will put feelers out for 2012 before the inauguration happens.


----------



## benbo (Oct 31, 2008)

Dear Mr. Obama -

Who am I? Just your ordinary graduate of a top three engineering school who worked his way up from the floor not like the goats I have to deal with on this website. I don't really care one way or the other about taxes, because I am so smart and rich I will figure out a way around them. What I would like you to do is clamp down on EB.com and force them to reinstate my posting priveleges. I'm sure you can add this to the long list of new laws you and your pals in the Congress will be passing. There needs to be a law against these jealous people who could never recieve an offer from a Fortune 10 company like I did, let alone be the agreed upon top enigneer in the world by all the deans of engineering schools.

Who am I?

You can just call me GT_ME the only PE and licensed contractor in the US


----------



## frazil (Oct 31, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Probably the only thing you and I agree on this election year. Let's just get this over with.
> And $10 says someone will put feelers out for 2012 before the inauguration happens.


----------



## benbo (Oct 31, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Probably the only thing you and I agree on this election year. Let's just get this over with.
> And $10 says someone will put feelers out for 2012 before the inauguration happens.


You have ads in Boston?

Who is it? THe Green party battling the Democrat? (Yeah, I know you had a couple Republican governors, but I didn't know there was anything close this year)


----------



## mudpuppy (Oct 31, 2008)

ktulu said:


> Well, McCain has at least one vote. Just submitted my absentee ballot - headed to Iron Mountain, MI on Tuesday. I wasn't going to not vote for this one.
> Should I take a coat??


"Normal" temps are high 50/low 30, but this time of year is hit or miss. That far north--it could be 60 degrees and nice or 25 degrees with 10" of snow on the ground. Bring a coat just in case. By the end of next week they are predicting highs in the 30's with snow in Iron Mountain.

Iron Mountain is a beautiful area. I have a friend that lives up there and have been tempted by some of the job openings she has sent me. Cost of living is dirt cheap too--average home price is in the $60k range.


----------



## DVINNY (Oct 31, 2008)

[No message]


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 1, 2008)

frazil said:


>


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHCK!!! Don't post stuff like that without a warning.



> You have ads in Boston? Who is it? THe Green party battling the Democrat? (Yeah, I know you had a couple Republican governors, but I didn't know there was anything close this year)


Yeah, we have tons of ads here. Which is odd because there's not a close race here at all. McCain is about as popular in these parts as a guy in front of Fenway in a Yankees shirt.


----------



## mudpuppy (Nov 1, 2008)

I'd been reading reports that the Republicans were keeping a dirty trick up their sleeve to let out just before the election. . . .looks like they finally let it leak.

I am interested to see how this works out for them. Apparently McCain thinks everyone will be outraged and vote for him. However, my feeling is that people will see through this as the politcal move it is and it will backfire on him.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 1, 2008)

See through it as a political move?

so you think the McCain campaign coersed Obama into saying these things back in 2001 so that they could use it as a political move in 2008?

That is not the big move at the end, Arnold is:


----------



## mudpuppy (Nov 1, 2008)

I'm not talking about your post, DV, I'm talking about Obama's aunt being an illegal alien. Guess I should have made that clear. I am sure it's not an "accident" that this happened to leak out less the 4 days to the election.


----------



## benbo (Nov 1, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> I'm not talking about your post, DV, I'm talking about Obama's aunt being an illegal alien. Guess I should have made that clear. I am sure it's not an "accident" that this happened to leak out less the 4 days to the election.


Nobody will care. Anybody who would care about an illegal aunt is already voting for McCain.

But as far as it being somehow "dirty" that's called politics. I'm sure you're not going to claim the Democrats never did that? Ask Arnold (a governor I hate) about what his oponent and the LA Times leaked right before his election. What about somebody whining for years about money in politics and promising to take public financing then changing their minds when they see how much money they have. It's just strategy.


----------



## mudpuppy (Nov 1, 2008)

I'm certainly not claiming the Democrats are innocent of this kind of stuff. I think it's dirty when either side does it.


----------



## benbo (Nov 1, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> I'm certainly not claiming the Democrats are innocent of this kind of stuff. I think it's dirty when either side does it.


To me, leaking something that's a lie too close to the election for the person to respond is dirty.

Leaking something true, to me that's just strategy. The other campaign (whoever it is) should be prepared to counter it.

To me this doesn't matter. I don't hold a person's relatives against them, and I don't consider this the crime of the century anyway.

But, and this may be my prejudice, but I do think it is a little strange that the news media somehow was able to find out that Mitt Romney's gardeners were illegal, but couldn't find out that Obama's aunt was illegal. Plus, I think if I was as rich and "compassionate" as Barack, I might set her up living in a little better place. But maybe he didn't know about her.

In this case the momentum and enthusiasm is so much in Obama's favor I don't think it will matter one bit.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 1, 2008)

benbo said:


> Plus, I think if I was as rich and "compassionate" as Barack, I might set her up living in a little better place. But maybe he didn't know about her.


Uh...she's mentioned in his memoirs...pretty sure he knows about her.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 1, 2008)

I love this one, especially the first few minutes where Arnold is making fun of Barack's girly legs, etc.

Funny stuff.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 2, 2008)

Arnold's not a bad guy to have stumping for you. Funny stuff.

Obama is built like a toothpick, which may be part of the reason I can relate to him. I may not be able to gain 5 lbs, but dammit I could run for office one day too.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 2, 2008)

Obviously, how he is built has nothing to do with his ability (or lack of) to run the office of President, but Arnold would make you believe so.

I thought it was pretty good. Stick legs. LOL


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 2, 2008)

This is a must watch

Jon Stewart - Daily Show


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 2, 2008)

^^^ I'm also surprised I missed him saying that, since I'm sure all the major networks covered it, just the same as they would have if Sarah Palin had said it.


----------



## mudpuppy (Nov 2, 2008)

^^They did. I saw it.

Well, not on TV but on online news. I don't watch TV news.


----------



## EM_PS (Nov 2, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> I love this one, especially the first few minutes where Arnold is making fun of Barack's girly legs, etc.
> Funny stuff.






DVINNY said:


> Obviously, how he is built has nothing to do with his ability (or lack of) to run the office of President, but Arnold would make you believe so.
> I thought it was pretty good. Stick legs. LOL


Not to piss kerosene on an oil fire, but alot of what the Governator rallies about falls apart with two simple words: Sarah Palin


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2008)

I am glad Tuesday is only a few days away ... I will be out




watching the results roll in ...

:bio:

JR


----------



## EM_PS (Nov 2, 2008)

^ tuesday nite. . .. think there's a Punky Brewster / Webster marathon on TNT that nite. . . that's where i'll be 

i guess watching results roll in in a bar-setting could be fun. . ."[insert State/region here] results are in, everybody supporting [insert candidate here] chug!"


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2008)

^^^ I will be out with a date ... so, as DVINNY said, I hope I come out as the BIG winner for the night!!! :w00t:

JR


----------



## EM_PS (Nov 2, 2008)

^ you're hoping for a different kind of 'chug' :17: :eyebrows: . . . [to borrow your fave emoticons]


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 2, 2008)

hopefully, JR will not be listening to the "pundits" but instead going for the VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!

If your candidate wins a state, have your companion do a shot, and if your candidate loses a state, then the companion must do a shot.


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> ^ you're hoping for a different kind of 'chug' :17: :eyebrows: . . . [to borrow your fave emoticons]








DVINNY said:


> hopefully, JR will not be listening to the "pundits" but instead going for the VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!








DVINNY said:


> If your candidate wins a state, have your companion do a shot, and if your candidate loses a state, then the companion must do a shot.


That sounds like a plan !!!! lusone:





JR


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 3, 2008)

Written by a good friend of mine:



> Saturday, November 1, 2008
> Clarksburg Attorneys Letter To Senator Obama Defines Americans Hopes For The Future
> 
> Just Days Before The Election, Attorney Garth W. Beck's Letter To Obama Speaks Of Hope.
> ...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 3, 2008)

^^ :appl: :appl: :appl:


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 3, 2008)

jregieng said:


> ^^^ I will be out with a date ... so, as DVINNY said, I hope I come out as the BIG winner for the night!!! :w00t:
> JR


Are you gonna show her your polling place?

On a serious note, I wonder what the lines will be like around here tomorrow. I've seen some horror stories on CNN about 6 hour waits. If my wife misses her regular train, the next one that stops at her stop won't be around until midday which means I get to slog my way into Boston to take her in.


----------



## cement (Nov 3, 2008)

I voted last week. walked right in, maybe 4 people in line. we have a ton of ballot issues so it might be a mess tomorrow.

lusone: for McCain!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 3, 2008)

We've never had to wait in line at our polling place.

I am thinking of taking Wednesday off for two reasons. I'm probably going to be up late Tuesday, and I want to avoid the riots if McCain wins (i drive through some rough neighborhoods on my way in).


----------



## snickerd3 (Nov 3, 2008)

The popluation of our town is about 6,000 people. There are like 10 different polling places...I don't think the lines are going to be too bad for us.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 3, 2008)

My town has 65,000 people in it and about 15 polling places. It's my first election here so I don't know what to expect. It could be a little messy.


----------



## BluSkyy (Nov 3, 2008)

my district just got split...new polling place...ought to be interesting.


----------



## Supe (Nov 3, 2008)

I think the speed will depend a lot on whatever method your county uses. I had 100+ people in front of me for early voting, and only waited about half an hour. There were 12 or so mini voting booths, everything done with an electronic scroll wheel (iPod style). If you were voting straight party, you could be done in 30 seconds, and no dimpled chads!


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 3, 2008)

Here's another one of those where do you stand on the issues sites that generates the candidate you are most in line with. It was pretty comprehensive and a good way to waste time at work.

I came out as moderately liberal with a slightly left of center view on economics, which seems about right.

Electoral Compass



> If you were voting straight party


As opposed to voting for the :f_115m_e45d7af: party?


----------



## Supe (Nov 3, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Here's another one of those where do you stand on the issues sites that generates the candidate you are most in line with. It was pretty comprehensive and a good way to waste time at work.
> I came out as moderately liberal with a slightly left of center view on economics, which seems about right.
> 
> Electoral Compass
> ...



You know, voting republican as opposed to voting democrat...


----------



## FLBuff PE (Nov 3, 2008)

Just a friendly reminder, if you have not already, or cannot (sorry Dleg), go out and vote tomorrow!


----------



## snickerd3 (Nov 3, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Here's another one of those where do you stand on the issues sites that generates the candidate you are most in line with. It was pretty comprehensive and a good way to waste time at work.
> I came out as moderately liberal with a slightly left of center view on economics, which seems about right.


Didn't help for me, put me dead center. I'm atill torn on which way to vote, social issues vs $ issues


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Nov 3, 2008)

The 2012 election begins Wednesday...


----------



## MA_PE (Nov 3, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> My town has 65,000 people in it and about 15 polling places. It's my first election here so I don't know what to expect. It could be a little messy.


vote after work, then you don't have to worry about catching trains.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 3, 2008)

How late are the polls open in Mass?

I'd rather do it early than late. The Framingham/Worcester line has been having a lot of screwy signal problems lately that have led to trains being 30+ minutes late.


----------



## ktulu (Nov 3, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Here's another one of those where do you stand on the issues sites that generates the candidate you are most in line with. It was pretty comprehensive and a good way to waste time at work.
> I came out as moderately liberal with a slightly left of center view on economics, which seems about right.
> 
> Electoral Compass
> ...


Whew!! I voted for the right person!


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 3, 2008)

snickerd3 said:


> I'm atill torn on which way to vote, social issues vs $ issues


I put much more weight on social issues, but that's just me.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 3, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Here's another one of those where do you stand on the issues sites that generates the candidate you are most in line with. Electoral Compass





> Your position in comparison with the candidates.You have responded to 36 propositions. Based on the responses you provided, you are the closest to
> 
> Mike Huckabee and you are the furthest away from Barack Obama
> 
> ...


pretty cool poll VT.

looks like it put me closest with Fred Thompson


----------



## Supe (Nov 3, 2008)

Rudy Giuliani (withdrawn)

You are 8% more economic left

You are 1% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 69%

John McCain

You are as economic right as economic left

You are 13% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 68%

Mitt Romney (withdrawn)

You are 9% more economic left

You are 13% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 68%

Ron Paul (withdrawn)

You are 3% more economic left

You are 20% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 61%

Mike Huckabee (withdrawn)

You are 5% more economic left

You are 19% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 68%

Fred Thompson (withdrawn)

You are 8% more economic left

You are 28% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 70%

Bill Richardson (withdrawn)

You are 47% more economic right

You are 38% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 55%

Hillary Clinton (withdrawn)

You are 50% more economic right

You are 36% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 55%

John Edwards (withdrawn)

You are 45% more economic right

You are 41% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 56%

Barack Obama

You are 41% more economic right

You are 53% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 49%


----------



## Dleg (Nov 3, 2008)

Well whaddaya know ... looks like I _AM_ a commie!

Who knew?

Bill Richardson (withdrawn)

You are 16% more economic right

You are 11% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 69%

Hillary Clinton (withdrawn)

You are 19% more economic right

You are 9% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 74%

John Edwards (withdrawn)

You are 14% more economic right

You are 14% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 72%

Barack Obama

You are 9% more economic right

You are 25% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 72%

Ron Paul (withdrawn)

You are 34% more economic left

You are 8% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 57%

Rudy Giuliani (withdrawn)

You are 39% more economic left

You are 26% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 60%

John McCain

You are 31% more economic left

You are 40% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 56%

Mitt Romney (withdrawn)

You are 41% more economic left

You are 40% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 56%

Mike Huckabee (withdrawn)

You are 36% more economic left

You are 46% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 56%

Fred Thompson (withdrawn)

You are 39% more economic left

You are 55% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 51%


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 3, 2008)

Dleg, Hilary Clinton? I'll pray for you. LOL.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 3, 2008)

QUICK:

A small break for a little humor


----------



## mudpuppy (Nov 3, 2008)

Benbo, you were incredulous I was considering between a Democrat and a Libertarian, but this poll seems to confirm--I agree the most with Obama and Ron Paul. Of course not on the same issues, I'm sure!

Bill Richardson (withdrawn)

You are 31% more economic right

You are equally social-liberal as social-conservative

You have a substantive agreement of 61%

John Edwards (withdrawn)

You are 30% more economic right

You are 4% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 67%

Hillary Clinton (withdrawn)

You are 34% more economic right

You are 1% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 63%

Ron Paul (withdrawn)

You are 19% more economic left

You are 18% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 72%

Barack Obama

You are 25% more economic right

You are 15% more traditional

You have a substantive agreement of 68%

Rudy Giuliani (withdrawn)

You are 23% more economic left

You are 36% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 57%

John McCain

You are 16% more economic left

You are 50% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 51%

Mitt Romney (withdrawn)

You are 25% more economic left

You are 50% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 50%

Mike Huckabee (withdrawn)

You are 20% more economic left

You are 56% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 56%

Fred Thompson (withdrawn)

You are 23% more economic left

You are 65% more progressive

You have a substantive agreement of 45%


----------



## EM_PS (Nov 3, 2008)

^ weird -

my top 3 was Ron Paul (whoever the hell that is), Giulani, McCain

Bott 3: Obama, Huckabee, Thompson


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Nov 3, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> ^ weird - my top 3 was Ron Paul (whoever the hell that is), Giulani, McCain
> 
> Bott 3: Obama, Huckabee, Thompson


Ron Paul is the only candidate that ran for either of the "Big Two" that I would have voted for had he made it through primaries.


----------



## mudpuppy (Nov 3, 2008)

Ron Paul is ostensibly a Republican, but he ran for Prez as Libertarian in 1988.


----------



## Enginnneeer (Nov 3, 2008)

The EB polls have McCain as a clear winner, is it over? McCain wins the White House?


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 4, 2008)

I don't know, not if this is what is being told to B.O. supporters:


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 4, 2008)

^^ Wow. I wasn't aware that I won't have to pay the mortgage anymore. I can just sit here, spam, and wait for my check from Uncle Sam to support my right to own a house.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 4, 2008)

Dammit how do I get the percentages to show up?


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> This is a must watch
> Jon Stewart - Daily Show


Showing why he is from Dull-a-ware :Locolaugh: :Locolaugh:

JR


----------



## mudpuppy (Nov 4, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> Dammit how do I get the percentages to show up?


It's a secret. . . took me forever to figure it out. I ended up clicking on something that looked like a pencil and it popped up. Not sure if I could do it again if I wanted to.


----------



## benbo (Nov 4, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> Benbo, you were incredulous I was considering between a Democrat and a Libertarian, but this poll seems to confirm--I agree the most with Obama and Ron Paul. Of course not on the same issues, I'm sure!
> Bill Richardson (withdrawn)
> 
> You are 31% more economic right
> ...


I figured I better first say that I am not questioning your choices, but it is sort of weird from my experience. Almost every libertarian I know is a disaffected Republican who is moderate on social issues. I know a lot of more liberal people who tell me they are libertarian, primarily because they are pro-choice, pro-legalization etc. But then when I point out that most libertarians don't really believe in income taxes at all, or public education or anti-discrimination laws (let alone hate crime laws) they seem surprised.

That's why this is a meaningless internet survey. It treats all issues equally, as if people don't have priroities of what their issues are. Your support of Bill Richardson and Rudy Giuliani is almost equal. You also have substantive agreement over 50% with most of the Republicans. Maybe you agree with Paul on Iraq and foreign policy. If you want out of Iraq, there were about three questions just on that. Ron Paul and Barack Obama disagree on almost everything except that. And Ron Paul is pro-life, which is not a typical libertarian position. Plus, there was something on there about legalizing drugs, actually two related questions I think. Probably Paul is the only one for that.


----------



## engineergurl (Nov 4, 2008)

Ironically, the poll said that I was closest to Giuliani and Thompson... who were my number one and two choices.


----------



## roadwreck (Nov 5, 2008)

And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Nov 5, 2008)

HAIL LORD XENU!


----------



## snickerd3 (Nov 5, 2008)

Now that Obama has won, our lovely Gov. Blagovich gets to pick someone to take Obamas place int the senate....with as oblivous and power hungery as Gov is, he'd probably appoint himself to the vacant position...may god have mercy on us all.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 5, 2008)

^^ With a 13% approval rating, at least 1 in 10 people will be happy with whatever his choice may be.


----------



## snickerd3 (Nov 5, 2008)

My cousin is a secret service agent at the White House. It will be interesting to see what he thinks come Easter time when he comes home for a visit. The Bushes are well respected by the SS folks, From what he heard (before he started)the Clintons were not.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 5, 2008)

Well, who want's to hang around in a family where the wife knows full well that the husband is getting hummers under the desk in the same house? That's gotta be tense. Obama seems relatively boring compared to that, but I'm sure the SS will have their hands full with all the whackos who want to "get him."


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 5, 2008)

True.

I bet old Bill kept it interesting though.


----------



## DVINNY (Nov 6, 2008)

Old Bill prolly loved this


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 7, 2008)

boy they are still ragging on Sarah Palin, I cant figure out if its the democrats or republicans who are generating all this, I dont recall Edwards and Lieberman gettign ragged on after they lost, I cant figure out where its all coming from? Hidden Agenda from Republicans who dont ever want to see her nationally again or just typical media bias of women


----------



## roadwreck (Nov 7, 2008)

^^

who is "they". I haven't seen or heard anything about her after election night other then she will be going back to Alaska (hopefully never to be heard from again).


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> Hidden Agenda from Republicans who dont ever want to see her nationally again or just typical media bias of *conservative* women


Fixed it for you. I think it's a little of both.


----------



## benbo (Nov 7, 2008)

roadwreck said:


> ^^who is "they". I haven't seen or heard anything about her after election night other then she will be going back to Alaska (hopefully never to be heard from again).


I saw it all over CNN and MSNBC last night. It was on Andersen Cooper 360 and some show with John King (CNN). McCain aides spilling the beans on Palin, happily covered by a hungry media. About the only thing that got covered more was Bush's dog biting a reporter. Apparently Cheney coached him to do it.

But I'm sure it's warranted. After all, Palin's pumps probably had a lot more to do with the economic collapse than Freddie Mac

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...1900&amp;page=1

Just for the record, Emmanuel was hired to run the day to day and mainly the politics at the White House, not to be an economic advisor. I really hope the media doesn't feel that they now have to jump all over evderything they find out about Obama. THe country needs the admiistration to concentrate on not screwing things up. But IMO the media was pretty shameful in the campaign.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 7, 2008)

^^ I'm interested to see how Chicago Machine politics plays on the national stage.


----------



## roadwreck (Nov 7, 2008)

benbo said:


> I saw it all over CNN and MSNBC last night. It was on Andersen Cooper 360 and some show with John King (CNN).


Ah, I wasn't watching either of those last night. I was watching the matchup of a pair mighty ACC opponents battling it out on the gridiron for conference supremacy. Sadly, the team I'd like to see win did not. So at half time I switched it off and watched dirty jobs. Far more interesting then seeing video of a dog biting a reporter (which I did see, but online). Next time maybe the dog will go for the jugular. I did enjoy the reporter summarizing his injury. Good God, grow a pair. You were bitten by a dog on the finger, not mauled by a bear. We don't want to hear about how you had to be bandaged up by a doctor and will have to be on a strict regiment of antibiotics for weeks.


----------



## benbo (Nov 7, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> ^^ I'm interested to see how Chicago Machine politics plays on the national stage.


What I'm really interested to see is a confirmation hearing if they pick Larry Summers for TReasury Sec. I am really interested to see what my glorious Senator (Barbara Boxer) has to say about when he was at Harvard and basically told the ladies not to worry their pretty little heads about numbers and such.

I suspect they won't pick him for this reason, but it will interesting if they do.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 8, 2008)

^^ I think "don't worry their pretty little heads about numbers and such" is, at best, a misrepresentation of what he actually said.

Link to story

However, a sentence or two taken out of context will likely keep him out of the job.


----------



## benbo (Nov 8, 2008)

Flyer_PE said:


> ^^ I think "don't worry their pretty little heads about numbers and such" is, at best, a misrepresentation of what he actually said.
> Link to story
> 
> However, a sentence or two taken out of context will likely keep him out of the job.


Actually I was just joking. I'm suprised this author used the same words as me!

What I really meant was I wonder if Boxer and the other Democrats will be as ferocious against Summers as they would be against a Republican appointee who said the same thing.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Nov 8, 2008)

^^ I'm actually curious to see what happens on that one for the same reasons. The media coverage will be interesting to watch also.


----------



## cdcengineer (Mar 29, 2012)

DVINNY said:


> I don't know, not if this is what is being told to B.O. supporters:


Wow - she was right. No more worrying about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage. BO has taken care of that.


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 30, 2012)

^^ That's because her car and house have been REPO'd in the last 3.5 years.


----------



## cdcengineer (Mar 30, 2012)

It's kinda funny to read this old thread. It's like reading the Wall St journal after the fact. Like a crystal ball into the future / past.


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 30, 2012)

Dleg said:


> Didn't Reagan oversee the largest growth in National debt ever? Kinda makes all that ^^^ ring a little hollow.


Not anymore. 

Reagan 1.8 Trillion in 8 years.

Obama 4.3 Trillion in 3.5 years.


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 30, 2012)

cdcengineer said:


> It's kinda funny to read this old thread. It's like reading the Wall St journal after the fact. Like a crystal ball into the future / past.


Agree. Some of the old posts are now quite funny, seeing as how things have turned out


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Mar 30, 2012)

The DV/Buff Christianity debate got a little heated...


----------



## cdcengineer (Mar 31, 2012)

Wonder if anyone wants to change their opinion, or better yet, their vote now knowing how things have turned out.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Apr 1, 2012)

DVINNY said:


> Dleg said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't Reagan oversee the largest growth in National debt ever? Kinda makes all that ^^^ ring a little hollow.
> ...


Oh nonsense, that's just inflation...

Ugh...

Can we get that DLeg for President movement going again?


----------



## DVINNY (Apr 2, 2012)

mudpuppy said:


> How many Conservatives does it take to screw in a light bulb?
> 
> Conservatives only screw poor people.
> 
> ...


Almost 4 years later, and those are all still great.... especially #2


----------

