McCain concedes, country is lost

[SteveS]

OK, maybe I'm pessimistic. I have thought that John McCain was the best bi-partisan cantidate in the race. I didn't like him (still would have rather had a real conservative) from the beginning, but I think that B.O. represents a move towards socialism. Over the years I have disagreed with McCain on the issues where he has made extra effort to work with the liberal Left. And still the Liberals (and I live with one) did not like him, preferring (as my wife did) "Vast right wing conspirocisy" Hillary and over the top Obama.

 

Sorry to be ranting, I've been applying bourbon to the wounds since I got home from work in anticipation of the results. On the Left coast we are at a bit of a disadvantage with the elections mostly decided before we get home. I aready knew that my vote for McCain was for nothing in Washington state since the delagate votes would go Democrat. King County, where Seattle is located (just a little Liberal), is 1/3 of the state population. Along with the Left leaning neighboring counties the state is regarded as Democrat (just like Oregon and California). I just think that this presidential result is bad for our country in a number of ways (and hope to be proved wrong).

 

Thanks for letting me vent.

[Keith Browning]

I know how you feel - I want to cry. With a Democrat controlled House and Senate teamed up with the most liberal Democrat president in history I am scared for our future. Honestly scared to the bone. We will see how much damage Pelosi, Reed and Osama are going to inflict on this great country in the next two years then hopefully in the next mid-tem elections the balance of power can be adjusted in Congress to keep things in check. What I think most people don't realize is that a one party rule has the potential to do so many bad things. From what I have read and heard the worst has yet to come.

 

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

 

Welcome to the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America)

[LARRY BRUDZYNSKI]

Quote:

Welcome to the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America)

Oh shit here it comes.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/hitthefan.gif

Hey I keep hearing Canada needs new citizens

[Alex Bruene]

Quote:

Welcome to the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America)

Oh shit here it comes.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/hitthefan.gif

 

Hey I keep hearing Canada needs new citizens

Political defectors? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shrug.gif

[DamageINC]

I really don't know where to stand on the whole thing, I can't say I'm an Obama fan but I really never thought Johnny had much going for him either.

 

I almost feel embarrassed to admit it, but lately with the economy crisis, I don't look like such an "out there" dude - but I was very impressed with Ron Paul's overall standings on pretty much everything, it was the first time I'd really heard so much come out of a politicians mouth that I actually agreed with. It's a shame he never got much media attention (until lately, because the economy's in shambles and he's the only political figure out there who actually understands how money works) because I feel if he'd been given more of a chance to breathe, a lot more people would have been aware of his presence.

 

Either way, doesn't make a difference, no point in wishing or hoping, just gotta roll with the punches and deal with the leftovers. Good luck to BO, he'll need it.

 

Dave

[mlee]

no offense guys, but i am glad to not be american. obviously whatever happens down there has a direct affect on us up here, so i like to stay current and pay attention to what is happening in the us. i really do agree with damageinc, again i am not american, but i truely believe ron paul is the only guy that potentially could have made a noticable difference in 1 term, and he was probably the best qualified for the job. and for all of those disappointed with the lopsided democratic win, what did you really expect? you voted in a republican that fucked your country for the last 8 years, did you really think that any republican candidate would even stand a chance? and regaurdless of who won, i have to give both candidates credit, because in all honesty who in their right mind would want to take over after what has gone on in the last 8 years(or even the last 3 months)? maybe the reason why gore or kerry didn't make another run?

 

i also definately don't agree with all of obama's veiws, but all in all that is who i would have voted for given the options. all i have to say is obama will be fighting an uphill battle for the next 4 years and will be heavily scrutinized on every decision he makes and i highly doubt any noticable difference will be felt after only 1 term(except maybe military wise).

[Fredsvt]

I read a poll Tuesday morning asking a simple question

"How do you feel about the upcoming election"

Excited

Scared

Nervous

Thinking of Canada

 

Here's the percentages after I made my choice.

Excited 3%

Scared 30%

Nervous 15%

Canada 52%

 

I'm very nervous over what he intends to do with the military around the world. Let's capitulate to the terrorists and Russia.

 

Then his "spread it around" theory. The worst though is the forced volunteerism, you MUST watch your neighbor, who'll watch you, and if you don't actively volunteer to help others.........You get "fined" aka taxed appropriately.

 

Anyone seen the city year commercials. Click those heels, wear the "golden O" and your uniform. Looks quite familiar to those who have studied ww2.

[Jeff_]

Perhaps we should take a step back and consider the possibility that this election represents more than just another battle in the epic struggle between Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps what happened is exactly what the nation needed. I voted for Bush in 2000, and I voted for Obama in 2008. I make no apologies for the latter, because when I take a look at this, I'm not seeing left or right this time. I'm not seeing a battle between the far left ideology of Communism, verses the far right Ideology of Fascism. I'm not seeing a struggle between the far left economic system of Socialism, verses the far right economic system of un-regulated monopoly Capitalism. This time I see a generational battle. A battle all of us - from all points in the aforementioned spectrums must grapple with. The question of whether it is finally time for one generation, to pass the torch to another... And whether that new generation is prepared to accept it and lead the world.

 

John McCain embodies all of the very best qualities of his generation. He is truly an American hero. I submit to you, that because of John McCain, and his generation, and their success in everything that truly matters, a new generation, one Barack Obama currently represents, is now able to accept the torch and lead all of us forward. I further believe that what happened yesterday was necessary as evidenced by our current economic and geo-political state. 2 wars with no end in sight, the worst economy since the Great Depression, and the 5 trillion dollar national debt that took our country 200 years to accumulate... Well, we doubled it to more than 10 trillion in less than 8 years, and we're passing these burdens to our children. It reminds me of a section in the farewell address of one of those good Republican presidents:

 

Quote:

"Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we - you and I, and our government - must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. ~Dwight Eisenhower

 

These failures were brought to us by a failure of the current administration to unite us. This is not a failure of Conservatism... This is not a failure of the market... This is a failure to unite. A failure to realize the truth that the late senator Paul Wellstone knew when he said: "We all do better when we all do better."

 

I'm not a welfare queen, nor will I ever be. What I do know however, is in the last 4 years my income has decreased steadily, I've had to work harder just to keep my head above water. All this time I have become better and more efficient at what I do. In 2006 the dealership I loved - closed, and now I'm stuck at one that is hostile to labor, and has a pile of job applications on the service manager's desk from other closed Ford dealers. The only reason I have a job right now is because I excel at what I do, yet I feel no economic justice or reward for my excellence - that's for damn sure. The only reason I don't leave and start over somewhere else is because I'm trapped in a home that won't sell in this ever-worsening market, and I care too much about my hard earned credit rating to walk away from it. The American dream, the dream that a man can support a family on one income... send his children to college... afford to take a risk and start a business... Well, at this point it seems like a fairytale to me. This is not the same America I used to know. I still love my country, yet I feel something fundamental about it is broken and needs to be fixed. I've worked far too hard, invested far too much in myself to become just another number, just another replaceable employee. No my friends, something is very wrong right now with our country. We have become far too polarized, and for what? Political strategy??? So one party can get their 51-49% majority by dividing us over wedge issues like Gay rights and Abortion? That seems a little shallow to me. It seems that we have bigger legacy issues to worry about these days, and we can only dig our way out if we shed this partisan warfare and actually work together.

 

Socialism has become such a dirty word, because it is not fully understood by most people, and is often used to paint one's political opponent as unacceptable, or "un-American." The truth is many things in our lives are socialized ie: Police, Fire Departments, the military, roads, the criminal justice system, the postal service, public libraries, public schools, Social Security, Medical care for citizens over 65, veterans benefits, and all functions of our government. Most industrialized countries that we consider allies have far more things socialized, yet are still considered Capitalist societies. The things considered to be absolute needs by a society, are often socialized, and there's nothing wrong with that... Personally I'd be in favor of adding single payer universal health care financing to the list (not the government takeover of health care) just the financing but that's just me.

 

If your house is burning down, would you rather call 911 and have the fire department there immediately to put it out, knowing the cost for this has already been covered by your tax dollars because we as a community decided to share in the risk and responsibility? Or, would you prefer to call around for bids to figure out which "for profit" fire department, has the best cost/response time ratio, as your entire life goes up in flames? Do you honestly believe that you would be able to "keep more of your own money" if all roads were privately owned and you were charged a toll just to drive to work??? Do you think the privatization of military logistics to contractors like Halliburton has been a good deal for tax payers? These are examples of where socialism is a good thing, and there are many examples of where it is not. For example, I don't want the government to build my house or television. Things like that are best achieved through capitalism. The trick is realizing that some things are done more effectively through the public sector, and some things from the private sector and finding balance. Unless we are born independently wealthy, we have to decide as citizens, which things to socialize, and which to privatize. These are the only two options. Most of the time the answer is obvious, but the handful of issues where it is not obvious, are really the only domestic policy differences between the two major political parties. Obviously there are major differences in terms of social, and foreign policy, but that is for another rant.

 

There have been times in our history when we have allied ourselves with left wing Communists to defeat right wing Fascists, and also a time when we had a Cold War against those same Communist allies. Perhaps one of our biggest problems has been a misguided desire to label a nation as "good" or "evil" based simply on their economic system. Perhaps what actually makes them good or evil isn't so much the system they use, but the extent to which their people are allowed to choose it.

 

As Americans, we have 3 main rights bestowed on us. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is my opinion that the things required for Life should usually be socialized (less food and clothing) but things like national defense, and health care for sure. The things necessary for the pursuit of happiness (the things that make life worth living) should be obtained through Capitalism ie: if I want a car, I should work to earn money with which to buy it. And the things required for Liberty could be a combination of Socialism and Capitalism depending on the issue ie: If I'm arrested for a crime and can't afford a lawyer - one will be appointed for me at no charge If I want to sue somebody for wrecking my car that I worked so hard for, I have to pay for my own lawyer, or for my own insurance - you get the idea.

 

When you look at news coverage of the political rallies held by McCain and Obama ask yourself this: Which audience looks more like a cross-section of the country? Which candidate speaks more of "inclusion"? As I said before, what is happening is not a failure of Capitalism... It's a failure of un-regulated capitalism which leads to monopolies. It is a failure to unite around a common purpose. So instead, we have the small fish being eaten by the medium fish, and the medium fish are then eaten by the big fish. Eventually there are only a handful of huge fish remaining who have nothing more to eat - so they starve to death. Look at all of the banks failing, and being bought by other bigger banks for a real time example. In a living organism, such fierce competition, - such un-regulated growth is called CANCER. If your liver is in competition with your lungs - neither wins because your entire body will die of cancer. Un-regulated growth always kills, and that is what is happening to our economy. There are times to compete, yes, competition keeps us strong. What Bush failed to realize however, is cooperation is equally necessary because just like our economy, organic life requires the cooperation of it's organs to serve a higher purpose. If we fail as a nation to become more than just the sum of our individual citizens, so too will our nation die. The truth is, the only way to keep this growth benign, is to control it through government. Yes, government is expensive, and your precious tax dollars are necessary to fund it. Keep in mind though, the only reason your precious dollars have any value at all, is because our big government says so. If you weaken our government, so too will you weaken the value of our currency, and ultimately your net worth. As long as we truly have a government of - by - and for the people, we have nothing to fear from its size.

 

In recent weeks we have even seen the unthinkable; We watched as Republicans embraced SOCIALISM to try and save the credit markets. Who'da thunk it? We watched as Bush's "anti plunge" task force quietly used treasury funds (tax payer dollars) to buy massive shares of stock to falsely stabilize the Dow industrial average, and make things appear better than they actually are. We watched as a bi-partisan bailout of Wall Street to the tune of 700 BILLION dollars was strapped on the backs of our children and grand children. A Socialist move proposed by Republican Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen, who, by the way, used to run the legendary and troubled Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, and who, by the way, just assigned a 35 year old Buddy of his from Goldman, to administer the $700 Billion, of which we now know 10% will go toward bonuses for the executives of these failed institutions. Is this the fault of those Liberal Democrat Bastards? Well, they did fail to stop Reagan's quest to de-regulate all industry. They failed to stop the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which really de-regulated the financial industry... Hell some Democrats even supported that abomination. And they failed to stop Reagan and Bush from busting labor unions starting with Patco in the 80's which directly had the effect of weakening the working class whether they be union or not. But it sure wasn't the desire of most Democrats to go down this road, and as I remember, they actually tried to stop these things from happening, until they ran out of political capital and had no choice but to sit back and watch it happen.

 

So how did Reagan set these events in motion and beat the Democrats so handily? It is because he was able to articulate a Conservative argument more effectively than the Democrats could articulate a Liberal argument at the time. He convinced people that their government of-by-and for the people, was actually their enemy, a concept that still echoes in the minds of conservatives to this day. Because he was able to do this, Reagan was able to become one of those few transformational presidents who actually changed the course of the nation. Prior to Reagan it had been nearly 50 years since a President was actually able to truly transform the nation, that being the Liberal Franklin Roosevelt, who's "New Deal" public works endeavor pulled us out of the Great Depression by making the government the employer of last resort, and by enacting the regulations that prevented the cancerous consolidation of wealth and ultimately another Great Depression for generations. It has been 29 years since Reagan took office... 29 years since last we had a truly transformational president. It sure seems to me at least, that President Elect Obama has turned the table again, and is now able to articulate a Liberal argument more effectively than any current Republican can argue for Conservatism. And as such, he has the potential to actually change the direction of the country, I sure hope so. Just as Reagan had the support of "Reagan Democrats," Obama has the support of "Obamicans." It's not because Liberalism is necessarily superior to Conservatism, It is just that currently - Obama is more effectively articulating his argument, it is because he is currently winning the ultimate debate in the minds of independent voters. And what's even more impressive, is Barack Obama actually understands this concept of being a transformational president. He was asked in a press interview who he thought the last 2 transformational presidents were, and he actually answered correctly: Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Regan. This of course offended Bill Clinton deeply, but Bill just didn't understand the question because he wasn't able to transform anything, and was guilty of most of the same sins anyway (as well as some new ones if you know what I mean)

 

This ability to persuade independents by most effectively articulating a party's, argument is the Capitalist free market at work. It forces the minority side to improve itself so it can come back and compete again another day. This is how we improve ourselves, this is how we grow intellectually, and as a society. Obama didn't require any intellectual Socialism to win this argument, he only needed his mind, the kind of mind we only see emerge once every 30-50 years, so for God's sake give the man a chance will you? He has the potential to unite us, Republicans and Democrats and Independents. Only united will we dig our way out of this hole. Only united will our generation succeed in preparing the next to accept the torch when we can run with it no longer. Only united can we achieve our potential, not just as Americans... But as humans, and live up to the promise of leaving the next generation with a better nation than we received.

 

May President Obama serve as a post-partisan agent of the people's will. - May he unite us, yet occasionally shove liberal legislation down the throats of conservatives. May he lead our nation back to peace and prosperity. May the conservatives use this frustration to drive them in rebuilding their party to one that serves normal working people. And may God bless the United States of America.

 

~Jeff Eichen

[jaysonfordtech]

First off I must say I did not vote for either John or Barak. I am however looking forward to seeing the faces of the now excited American people in 2 or 3 years when very little has been accomplished. Please remember that this man is a politician, not a messiah. May the flying spaghetti monster give the president guidance, and may Charles Darwin bless North America. LOL!!!

[SteveS]

What an excellent post! Thank you, Jeff, for sharing such a well thought out, polite and considerate response. I tend to think that more government is bad, less regulation is good, but your point is well taken: too little oversight can lead to problems as well. Open and respectful dialog can only benefit constructive thinking.

 

Have you considered a career in politics? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/poke.gif

[Jeff_]

Ain't no thing Steve, and your side has some pretty good arguments too /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cheers.gif Now your sides' challenge is to take my arguments apart over the next 4 years if you want me to vote Republican again.

 

P.S. Thanks again for the banjo fittings - they work great!

 

As far as a career in politics, I don't know that it's realistic at this point in my life. But maybe someday when I have more time and money than I know what to do with I'll run for dog catcher or something.

[Tony302600]

<----keeping mouth shut. I've read stuff bout McCain and his past that makes me wanna punch him in the face. (all documented from good sources).

 

Politics is dirty, it always will be, nothing will ever change....... No matter who is in office. But i will say that i'm happier that Obama got elected. He seems to be the one that will make the most change. You looked at Obama'a rally he had 650,000+ diverse people. McCain had what looked like 1,000 caucasions. (no offense) When McCain made his speech, he said we must all unite with president Obama..they all started booing, but he sternly made the motion for them to stop.

 

I don't know, but this is an awesome post. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/notworthy.gif Good Job, a lot of good info.

 

On Edit: My dad came back from Europe on a business endeavour, and was telling me that every newspaper was blaming the U.S. for all of their problems. Using the U.S. as an effigy and scapegoat for all their problems. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shrug.gif

[mlee]

again, no offense to americans(it isn't your fault as citizens), but alot of the world problems are and will continue to stem from the us. we are already starting to feel the effects here, not so much where i am, but definately in ontario, quebec, etc. china has been funnelling billions of dollars into the us to try to sustain the economy, and as one of the largest importers in the world, if the us isn't buying, every other country suffers.

 

i think the whole world is in for a rough few years, but i do think obama will at least not did you guys in any deeper.

[Keith Browning]

i do think obama will at least not did you guys in any deeper.

Too late. The markets have been reacting to the idea of an Osama presidency. The day after election day: the market tanks. Is that a positive reaction? The democrat party in Congress has caused most of this starting with the sub-prime mortgage mess - Osama was in the middle of it. He has helped to cause all this. He STILL has yet to tell us HOW he is going to change things.

[BustedKnucklez]

I must say that I am truly impressed by that post, Jeff_E. I 100% agree with you. I too voted for Obama. A lot had to do with that generational change that you speak of. Great post, really great post. C'mon Keith, we need to stand behind our commander in chief, just like all you republicans said whenever Bush made another boo boo. Our country took a giant leap for mankind. God Bless us all. By the way, Jeff, can I share that post with others?

[Jeff_]

Absolutely /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/thumbup.gif

[eastendpowerstroke]

The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis":

1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.

Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.

How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market? Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.

1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stock holding few.

1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.

1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.

2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.

2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.

2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, sub prime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.

2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!

If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words. They are condemning!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related#

Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.

[eastendpowerstroke]

Originally Posted By: LARRYATSTI

Quote:

Welcome to the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America)

Oh shit here it comes.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/hitthefan.gif

 

Hey I keep hearing Canada needs new citizens

Political defectors? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shrug.gif

I'm going to be in Mexico in early January and in Northern Vermont late January (pretty close to Canada) Maybe I'll defect to one country or the other!!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/thumbup.gif

[Jeff_]

Nooooooo David, don't abandon ship. I'll be damned if I'm going to let you bail and leave us with more 6.0's to work on.

 

Quote:

the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis":

Rupert Murdoch must own this publication. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/coffee.gif

 

You just need a good lap dance and you'll be feelin much better. Now that's a bi-partisan solution for everything /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rockon.gif.

[Fredsvt]

I picked what I saw as a lesser of two evils. Neither were ones I would have picked. I hated Hillary at the beginning but would have rather had her than either of the ones we had to choose from.

 

I looked at Barr's website when I got my absentee ballot, and his was the only one that made any sense.

He repeatedly requested to be included in the debates. Both sides AND the media refused to allow him access.

 

Both parties have failed us, big time. The dems, love to tax, spend and give away everything to people who shouldn't get anything, and then always blame the gop for anything that happens. Being in NJ I see it constantly.

 

The gop went away from true conservatism, i.e., fiscal prudence and small unobtrusive government. The gop became after Reagan the holier than thou, we are on God's mission to do whatever (which became our foreign policy, stupid imho), and the party who let whatever big business those in power invested in, become the ones that mattered (i.e. lining their own pockets). Not the people they were there to serve.

 

The whole thing SHOULDN'T be about "he who spends the most money wins", it SHOULD be about who can best serve ALL the people.

 

I'm trying to be as open minded as possible. But this person, who's a complete UNKNOWN has to prove himself. What I've seen and heard so far does not impress me in the least.

[jimmy57]

You guys have very little pariotism or maybe I should tone that down and say very little confidence in our country, its people, and our system of government that has served us so well for over 200 years.

I do believe that a person of color, albeit diluted toned down color, being elected president is a milestone.

I also believe that the poor-mouthing is very much akin to the thing old-timers of most every generation have said about those 2-3 generations behind, i.e., "those kids will never amount to anything and we're all going down when it's their time to run this country!"

 

I am not aligned with either party completely. Republicans tend toward meanness and bigotry while claiming Godliness and Democarats tend toward a bit looser reins on things that matter to me.

If we get gov't out of our lives to the extent that some Red guys espouse then we will all have to start paving our own little section of assigned highways ourselves while the Blue guys might have the gov't bringing us breakfast in bed at the expense of them dirty filthy rich guys.

Neither perfect, neither totally wrong.

I have hope for the USA and the world that things will improve and we will have an up cycle until we have the next doom and gloom down cycle.

I'm getting dizzy here so I'm stepping down off my soapbox.

 

You know, NO candidate said a damn thing about better radiators in 6.4's or increased strength head bolts for 6.0's.

[LARRY BRUDZYNSKI]

Quote:

You know, NO candidate said a damn thing about better radiators in 6.4's or increased strength head bolts for 6.0's.

AMEN

[mlee]

Quote:

You know, NO candidate said a damn thing about better radiators in 6.4's or increased strength head bolts for 6.0's.

AMEN

 

voice your opinion http://www.change.gov on obama's new website.

[SteveS]

I must confess that when I started this thread I probably should have not been saying anything (Posting Under the Influence), and am glad that I was not offensive. In the clear light of morning I expected that it would run something like: "you're full of crap", "yeah, we're screwed", "now things will get straightened out", "no way, we're sunk". But it has been a great discussion with some excellent exchanges of ideas. I probably have pushed a couple people toward carpal tunnel syndrom with the amount of typing needed for their post /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif .

 

I am glad that we can have a chat like this and still stay friends!

[LARRY BRUDZYNSKI]

Quote:

I am glad that we can have a chat like this and still stay friends!

Well, we still haven't seen /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grampy-jim.gif Jim ring in on this yet......