ONE (and maybe the only) Reason to Vote for McCain

bg0331cj.jpg
 
No matter who gets in they are walking into a really big mess, At this point who ever gets in and no matter how good they are, we as a counrty are screwed, I truely think we are at the door of another great depression, and who ever is in office will take the heat for it, For years and years this contry has put it's future on plastic and in political correctness, all the time allowing the goverment tell us how to live are lives, and as sad as it sounds as a people we sat by watching Amarican Idol, and the OJ trials, instead of reading local papers, or books, we [beeep] about things but never took real action, we have as a people have turned a blind eye to the mess in washinton, and the federal reserve, it will always be republicans vs democraps, they all vote along there party lines adding goverment pork at every turn.

Nafta destroyed the "dreaded" industries of this counrty, most of are leaders are lawers, that in its self being a huge part of the problem.

Myself personally I think I will vote for Ron Paul, He probably won't win, and even if he did get into office it's probably to late anyway, but I think he does have a true grasp of the constituion, and what role the goverment should take, but hell in 4 years will it really matter?

As a dislaimer: I am sure many of you good people were and are active, I am simple referring to the other less informed mass population.
 
Quote:
Quote:
carter was the worst in history.



Amen, Stu!

The economy as a whole is not that bad. Do you blame GWB for the greed of people and mortgage lenders as a whole that basically has caused this 'housing crisis'? Do you blame GWB for the emerging markets of China and India that have demanded vast amounts of steel and petroleum that have driven prices up?

Our wonderful media would like us to believe that the the sky is falling and our wonderful liberal buddies will bail us out only if let them. Well, I guess we all know how Mr. Clinton helped the economy during his 8 years.

Mr. Greenspan made some knee jerk decisions with the discount rate that caused our economy some fits and starts.(he later admitted he was wrong) It's unfortunate that I see Bernanke doing the same thing, and the Fed's PERCEPTION of where we are at any point in time can cause them to make decisions that are self-fulfilling prophecies!

Tim



The Gov. and greed created this disaster and it's way to late to turn back now. Now all we can do is sit back and watch the free market suck us down even farther all in the name of supply and demand. To bad there wasen't enough oil to run the machine. My pops was always an optomist, this time I think we met our match.

No I don't blame Bush 43 for the emerging economies, I blame Reagan, Bush41 and Clinton. They're the ones that thought we needed to favor trade to Japan, China, Mexico and now down the line washing out manufacturing in this country. Was just a Hollywood war against unions in the beginning but put us where we are today. If cheap junk is a benefit I sure don't see it buying ammo because of metal prices or buying gas.
 
Last edited:
Wrong, bush has definitely taken top honors in this catagory and unfortunately 4K innocent US lives along w/him.

Quote:
carter was the worst in history.





*slap, slap* wake up, you were having a bad dream that had you listening to the likes of flush lintball and bill oreilly. Trust me on this, its really that bad.

Quote:
The economy as a whole is not that bad.

 
yanno, the news media keep telling me it's that bad, but once again my eyes do not confirm this. When I go to larger towns & cities, the roads & highways are full of people. The malls & shopping centers are packed. I was in Panama City Beach saturday to dive -geez, there's more of that recreational spending, me making a 300 mile round trip to go diving for a day- and the place is packed with spring breakers. The city just south of here is opening new businesses every week.

Lowes & Home Depot are packed with people shopping & buying, stock is flying out the door as people, including me, tackle spring landscaping & gardening projects around the home.

So I'm just not so convinced of all the doom & gloom we're being fed. If it's really that bad, it sure as hell isn't slowing anyone down.
 
Quote:
yanno, the news media keep telling me it's that bad, but once again my eyes do not confirm this. When I go to larger towns & cities, the roads & highways are full of people. The malls & shopping centers are packed. I was in Panama City Beach saturday to dive -geez, there's more of that recreational spending, me making a 300 mile round trip to go diving for a day- and the place is packed with spring breakers. The city just south of here is opening new businesses every week.

Lowes & Home Depot are packed with people shopping & buying, stock is flying out the door as people, including me, tackle spring landscaping & gardening projects around the home.

So I'm just not so convinced of all the doom & gloom we're being fed. If it's really that bad, it sure as hell isn't slowing anyone down.


I see all this Stu & awhile back I was told by some on here that I shouldn't believe my own eyes & I don't know much about finance. Maybe not, but I own my own home & don't owe anyone, so I'm winning, as far as I can tell. Don't leave out the Casinos in this. You can hardly get in them, especially on rainy days when construction workers are idle. I don't much care what people do with their money, I just don't want them spending mine.
Clinton is the one that relaxed all rules of responsibiliy & got people in the housing market. I've also said before that Bush is not running for POTUS. Our choices are between McCain vs. Obamessiah & the B%#$@.
Again; 'BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR POTUS' Period!
We have some here who are stuck in reverse. Get in the game. Its time to move on. Vote for someone you will regret so you will have sumpin to B#$*# about next year.
As far as Ron Paul, anyone can study the constitution & profess to be an 'EXPERT'. Thats what preachers do with the Bible. Ask Obamma.
 

*slap, slap* wake up, you were having a bad dream that had you listening to the likes of flush lintball and bill oreilly. Trust me on this, its really that bad.

Quote:
The economy as a whole is not that bad.





Sorry--I am not one of the sheeple that bases my opinions on what others tell me is so. After spending 29 years in the banking and finance industry, I have a bit of a grasp on how things work and how to interpret signs that the economy might be slowing. The Fed is reacting to what might happen, not what is happening right now.

Not to get off topic, as I agree with Bob--W is not running again and that is not the issue. If you think things are bad now, I rue the day we see another Clinton or Mr. Socialist in the White House, because I can guaranty you will need to hold on to your hind end then!

You might do well to do some 'homework' of your own and search out some economic indicators and decide for yourself on our economy.

Might start with the historical unemployment rate and go from there.

Tim
 
Quote:
Are you kidding me..bush has been a tried and proven dumb arse. He has got us into a trillion dollar black hole that he has us trying to "dig our way out of" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Spends money like a drunken sailor, Gas at an all time high, recession like or equal to economy, etc, etc. Now, I pose to you, how could she or anybody else for that matter do worse? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
Qualifier-I support Ron Paul for the record.

Quote:
Quote:
Well, one way you can look at it, no matter which of the three get it we're getting a vast improvement over what we've got now.




You must be either joking or not have a brain cell left in your head if you think Hillary or Obama would be better than GWB. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif If you are being serious I would have to question your sanity. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif Please do tell me in what way Hillary would be better than Bush? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif I'd love to hear it.






Ok,

#1 Please explain to me what George W. Bush has done to drive the price of Gasoline up? Do you really understand the basis of economics or do you just like to parrot what you hear the liberal media saying?

#2 While I too do not like the governmental spending that I see going on, do you realize that the democratic controlled congress must appropriate all spending??? Do you realize that they want a budget $257 Billion larger than that proposed by GWB?

#3 Can you please explain to me how exactly Hillary or Obama's plans to vastly increase spending (ie socialized medicine) and raise taxes will improve the economy? Once again, do you understand economics or do you just like to repeat what you hear Keith Olberman say?
 
Speaking of parroting or should we just call it good old fashioned plagiarism? With all due respect, your sigs and comments/retorts look like a rush limbaugh duck, sounds like a rush limbaugh duck, waddles like a rush limbaugh duck, hmmm, much be a rush limbaugh duck then huh? I'm sure you're not under the impression so as to believe that a sitting for the lack of a better word "president" can't affect oil prices or economics in general? If so then stop following that aforementioned duck. Heres a good read, How did ole bushy get there?
Quote:

#1 Please explain to me what George W. Bush has done to drive the price of Gasoline up? Do you really understand the basis of economics or do you just like to parrot what you hear the liberal media saying?



Umm, excuse me but if memory serves me correctly how many yrs was it that bush had complete control w/repubs controlling both the house and the senate? You can say it, we all know. Wasn't it something to the effect of 6 yrs? You mean you're going to place the blame of the economic travesties we've suffered on the backs of the Democrats which incidentally are in need of removal from office as well. Are you trying to convince me that bush has republican tendencies?

Quote:
#2 While I too do not like the governmental spending that I see going on, do you realize that the democratic controlled congress must appropriate all spending??? Do you realize that they want a budget $257 Billion larger than that proposed by GWB?



They're not my dogs in the fight so why would I bother to comment on their "specific" policies? But you're right, this health care industry/pharmaceutical industry does leave something to be desired.

Quote:
#3 Can you please explain to me how exactly Hillary or Obama's plans

 
Has any one ever considered the real reason that fuel prices are so high?
Consider this INFLATION, the dollar isn't worth squat, and If you don't belive me, Canada's dollar is now stronger, The Uro is Stronger, The more Cash the goverment prints, the lower the dollar you work for goes DOWN in value.
Very simple econimics, none of these experts are taking into account for all the inflation going on, and one more reason fuel is higher priced is all of the fed/state/local taxes, add the dollars lack luster value, no new refineing plants being biult to top if off consider the following, you goto your local wally world to buy something, you buy product X and low and behold it comes from China.
China uses fuel to power the factory to make said product X, then they put product X in a box, that box was made in China, then they ship product X across the ocean, unload product X on to a truck, ship product X half way across the USA, and the we/you/us we hop in are import car to go buy it at every step fuel get used, and this all adds up to the following:

1. Your kid gets lead poisoning.
2. Your expensive import car now has a door ding.
3. Your cretit card has another 50$ on it.
4. Next week your managment job at the toy factory goes over sea's.
5. Because of China's demand for energy and are goverment
Nafta policies, are fuel prices have to go up.

I for one don't blame at all the oil companys, they pay HUGE taxes, and I am sure one or more of the people here on this fourm has some kind of stock's or IRA's etc related to big oil.
The majar problem is the goverment, like always sticking there nose where it doesn't belong.
It started back in 1913 with the fed reserve, and just today I heard on the radio, that oil big wigs have to go before congress.
A real leader would push though major tax reform, invest in are own energy deposits, be more bussiness friendly, and quit spending on pork projects, we need to bring the dollar back from death.
 
Colorado Pete...
On the surface, McCain's SCOTUS picks would seem like a plausable reason for voting for the guy. He has always stated that he would only appoint CONSTRUCTIONIST judges to the bench of the Supreme Court.

Sounds good, right?
I mean - Constructionist means to be a Constitutionalist, no?

NO!
Quote:
from "Cyclopædia of Political Science", John Lalor - 1881
BROAD CONSTRUCTION, or LOOSE CONSTRUCTION, of the constitution, is the necessary expression of the nationalizing, often called the centralizing, element of American politics. Its main object has always been to make the federal government as powerful in the internal administration of the whole country as in the management of its foreign affairs. The founder of this school was Alexander Hamilton (see BANK CONTROVERSIES, II.), whose writings are still, to a remarkable degree, a compendium of the broad constructionist doctrines of succeeding times. The little that was lacking in his work was supplied by the Adamses, John and John Quincy; and Webster, Story and Clay had only to complete and beautify a theory whose framework had already been strongly built. In the writings of these six men, may be found all the essentials of broad construction, with the exception of that which was applied to the abnormal political influences of slavery.



I like the Constitution the way it was written - we don't need any add-ons past let's say the 15th Amendment or so.

The political line of thought of Hamilton is what gave rise to a Consortium of Private Bankers issuing the Nations Currency via the private Federal Reserve. Hamilton - in his Constructionist view - wished for bankers to enslave the nation from the get-go. Thomas Jefferson bi-a-tch slapped him on occasion, thus starting the differences in the line of thought of the North v. South... yup, the anger between the North and South wasn't about Slavery. It was about a limited central, "FEDERAL", power and how much control it should have over the Sovereigns of the Several States.

If we continue to look at history, the GOP (son of Whig, son of Federal) has attempted to garner more and more power at the expense of Individuals, Counties and States. Somewhere after the 'Civil War' the Democratic Party aligned themselves with that tenet of power grabbing... so in essense we have a one party system with two wings of that party - the Hamiltonian party.

And all along we thought they were different. The only difference is how fast they wish to take our souls, but make no mistake - both want them.
 
What we need are 'original intentist' judges, by my wording. Nobody else seems to use that phrase though. I still think that McCain's judges just might be better picks than HillBarack's though.
At least, I sure don't want a Dem picking them.
 
the hildabeast is a marxist & obama is left of her. the chances either of them picking a USSC nominee can be counted on the thumbs of one foot.
 
I can't really address and obscure definition from 1881, but in today's use of the term "constructionist" or "strict constructionist" you are talking about justices whose judicial philosophies are like those of: Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

One more guy like these and we'd be in decent shape. The trick is avoiding misfires like Souter and Kennedy (not AS bad as Souter, but not a reliable correct vote).
 
yes carter is the worse ever and he needs to move to saudia arabia who has given him all the money for his library of cowardice. carter has never left the rose garden
 
Ahh, come again?! Do you think for a millisecond that our very own george bush doesn't have VERY deep "financial" ties w/the Saudi's as did/does his dad? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

"In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while only 2 percent classified it as a success.

Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.


Quote:
“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”
Quote:
“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”
Quote:
“George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians. “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”


Quote:
yes carter is the worse ever and he needs to move to saudia arabia who has given him all the money for his library of cowardice. carter has never left the rose garden

 
it would be nice to know the names of those you quote. I'm sure they have no biases at all /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Those quotes read very much like democrat talking points.

I've lived through both. I enlisted during the carter administration. Carter was the worst, period.
 
Back
Top