socal57che
Active Member
reefraff;2470072 said:
Please don't vote for McCain
- Thread starter crimzy
- Start date
socal57che
Active Member
The "quote" feature seems to be a bit touchy as of late.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2470077
hmm, with his voting record, i'm beginning to think he might be an ok president...
lol... Well that backfired on me
Of course, at least you are basing your vote on actual issues. I respect that.
http:///forum/post/2470077
hmm, with his voting record, i'm beginning to think he might be an ok president...
lol... Well that backfired on me
Of course, at least you are basing your vote on actual issues. I respect that.
cowfishrule
Active Member
sitting in the stall, i just figured out what my problem is.
i am resiliant to change. i have a comfort in knowing things as they are/how they were.
the source of this is that i am still bitter over the mlb changing its playoff format.
the mlb should be:
al east al west nl east nl west.
top team in each division is div champ, winner of those 2 goes to world series.
this stems from '94.
i should just get over it already, right?
i am resiliant to change. i have a comfort in knowing things as they are/how they were.
the source of this is that i am still bitter over the mlb changing its playoff format.
the mlb should be:
al east al west nl east nl west.
top team in each division is div champ, winner of those 2 goes to world series.
this stems from '94.
i should just get over it already, right?
1journeyman
Active Member
Sometimes change is a good thing.
Sometimes change isn't a good thing.
Look at our Foreign Policy for example. For 8 years it didn't change under President Clinton. It did change under President Bush. Now The Dems want to change it back.
When did it work better?
Sometimes change isn't a good thing.
Look at our Foreign Policy for example. For 8 years it didn't change under President Clinton. It did change under President Bush. Now The Dems want to change it back.
When did it work better?
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2469887
their experience was mainly during cold war era with little or no media coverage. they may have not been able to adapt to current world standards, but at least they can't be controlled by the majority partied senate and house. hillary and obama would be puppets, and every single country would laugh at us.
I disagree, I think the world would be more cooperative with these 2, particulary Obama. I'd be interested to know who foreign leaders endorse for presidency. I believe they do have polls of how other nations view the presidential race.
Well what that means is that this is a new world with new problems, so experience shouldn't be as important if they (rumsfield and cheney) who seem to be overqualified were unable to adequetely handle the issues we face today. I would rather have a president and leaders that are held in check by the checks and balances we have than to have the recklessness these guys have displayed.
http:///forum/post/2469887
their experience was mainly during cold war era with little or no media coverage. they may have not been able to adapt to current world standards, but at least they can't be controlled by the majority partied senate and house. hillary and obama would be puppets, and every single country would laugh at us.
I disagree, I think the world would be more cooperative with these 2, particulary Obama. I'd be interested to know who foreign leaders endorse for presidency. I believe they do have polls of how other nations view the presidential race.
Well what that means is that this is a new world with new problems, so experience shouldn't be as important if they (rumsfield and cheney) who seem to be overqualified were unable to adequetely handle the issues we face today. I would rather have a president and leaders that are held in check by the checks and balances we have than to have the recklessness these guys have displayed.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2470060
Rylan, you've been corrected on both of these before. Saddam had both Sarin and Mustard Gas.
At least you're no longer denying Obama's plan calls for Universal Health Care (only took me quoting directly from Obama's webpage 3 times for you to apparently see that). Obama's plan definitely mandates coverage. "My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums..." taken from Obama's webpage"
No it doesn't... do a little more research... Clinton's plan mandates... Obama's plan retains the rights of people to choose which is why people like Clinton say it won't cover every american because they estimate that a least 1 milllion people will not want the coverage.
He constantly says its not that people won't buy insurance, but that they can't afford it. If you go back to the last debate he and Clinton had a long dialouge on this issue ... and he wanted her to say how she would implement her plan... and asked how would the mandate be inforced. - This is the key difference with their health care plans.
Sorry Journey - I know I am 100% right on this.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470133
I disagree, I think the world would be more cooperative with these 2, particulary Obama. I'd be interested to know who foreign leaders endorse for presidency. I believe they do have polls of how other nations view the presidential race.
Well what that means is that this is a new world with new problems, so experience shouldn't be as important if they (rumsfield and cheney) who seem to be overqualified were unable to adequetely handle the issues we face today. I would rather have a president and leaders that are held in check by the checks and balances we have than to have the recklessness these guys have displayed.
*More cooperative in what ways?
*What international issues were not dealt with?
*What checks and balances were not enforced?
http:///forum/post/2470133
I disagree, I think the world would be more cooperative with these 2, particulary Obama. I'd be interested to know who foreign leaders endorse for presidency. I believe they do have polls of how other nations view the presidential race.
Well what that means is that this is a new world with new problems, so experience shouldn't be as important if they (rumsfield and cheney) who seem to be overqualified were unable to adequetely handle the issues we face today. I would rather have a president and leaders that are held in check by the checks and balances we have than to have the recklessness these guys have displayed.
*More cooperative in what ways?
*What international issues were not dealt with?
*What checks and balances were not enforced?
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2469651
This election is shaping up to go the completely wrong way. Not that I'm surprised because the voters rarely make the right decision.
It looks like McCain is the front-runner for the republicans and Obama appears to be in the lead for the democratic nomination. Unfortunately, as bright and well spoken as Obama is, he has virtually no chance of winning the presidency. This country is still too short sighted to elect a black president with a muslim sounding name. Even if the rejection is not overtly prejudicial, there will be millions who will subconsciously reject this candidate and create justifications for doing so.
So my prediction is that we will end up with another "shoot first, ask questions later" president. McCain will exacerbate the war, probably extend it into Iraq and, maybe Syria, and lead this country in the wrong direction. All the while, the blue collar Americans will be losing their sons, losing their jobs and their minimal dollars will continue to lose value.
The economic downturn in this country is not the typical peaks/valley pattern that is common with the economy. We are heading towards a recession based on poor decisions being made (actually Michigan is already in a recession).
Please people, I emplore you to stop making bad decisions in our voting. I don't care if the next president is republican or democrat, black or white or anything else. But let's stop electing the big name, old boys network, ego-maniacs who do nothing for the American people. Don't elect McCain, don't elect Giuliani. There are better choices.
For entertainment value only... http://lessjobsmorewars.com/?utm_source=rgemail
Are you kidding me? I hear everyone state if Hilary is the dem nominee they will vote McCain, but if Obama wins the will vote for him. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Obama is more left of Hilary and so much more wrong for this country. Further more he is the most well spoken individual I have seen speak in a long time....problem is he says absolutely othing in his speeches....lol
McCain in 08.
Oh for you hilary lovers, she has already said she would approve action against Iran if the persist....so either way we may be going into Iran.
http:///forum/post/2469651
This election is shaping up to go the completely wrong way. Not that I'm surprised because the voters rarely make the right decision.
It looks like McCain is the front-runner for the republicans and Obama appears to be in the lead for the democratic nomination. Unfortunately, as bright and well spoken as Obama is, he has virtually no chance of winning the presidency. This country is still too short sighted to elect a black president with a muslim sounding name. Even if the rejection is not overtly prejudicial, there will be millions who will subconsciously reject this candidate and create justifications for doing so.
So my prediction is that we will end up with another "shoot first, ask questions later" president. McCain will exacerbate the war, probably extend it into Iraq and, maybe Syria, and lead this country in the wrong direction. All the while, the blue collar Americans will be losing their sons, losing their jobs and their minimal dollars will continue to lose value.
The economic downturn in this country is not the typical peaks/valley pattern that is common with the economy. We are heading towards a recession based on poor decisions being made (actually Michigan is already in a recession).
Please people, I emplore you to stop making bad decisions in our voting. I don't care if the next president is republican or democrat, black or white or anything else. But let's stop electing the big name, old boys network, ego-maniacs who do nothing for the American people. Don't elect McCain, don't elect Giuliani. There are better choices.
For entertainment value only... http://lessjobsmorewars.com/?utm_source=rgemail
Are you kidding me? I hear everyone state if Hilary is the dem nominee they will vote McCain, but if Obama wins the will vote for him. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Obama is more left of Hilary and so much more wrong for this country. Further more he is the most well spoken individual I have seen speak in a long time....problem is he says absolutely othing in his speeches....lol
McCain in 08.
Oh for you hilary lovers, she has already said she would approve action against Iran if the persist....so either way we may be going into Iran.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2470102
Sometimes change is a good thing.
Sometimes change isn't a good thing.
Look at our Foreign Policy for example. For 8 years it didn't change under President Clinton. It did change under President Bush. Now The Dems want to change it back.
When did it work better?
I am not going to say Clinton's foreign policy was perfect.... I think we do need to change it, even from Clinton's era.... I will say that Clinton's term was relatively peaceful. If we elect a GOP president than this war will continue for who know how long. It will distract us from Afghanistan and the other problems we face... it also is a huge tax burden that limits us domestically. Lastly, we can't lower taxes in a time of war.
http:///forum/post/2470102
Sometimes change is a good thing.
Sometimes change isn't a good thing.
Look at our Foreign Policy for example. For 8 years it didn't change under President Clinton. It did change under President Bush. Now The Dems want to change it back.
When did it work better?
I am not going to say Clinton's foreign policy was perfect.... I think we do need to change it, even from Clinton's era.... I will say that Clinton's term was relatively peaceful. If we elect a GOP president than this war will continue for who know how long. It will distract us from Afghanistan and the other problems we face... it also is a huge tax burden that limits us domestically. Lastly, we can't lower taxes in a time of war.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470140
No it doesn't... do a little more research... Clinton's plan mandates... Obama's plan retains the rights of people to choose which is why people like Clinton say it won't cover every american because they estimate that a least 1 milllion people will not want the coverage. ....
Sorry Journey - I know I am 100% right on this.
Obama says: "My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less..."
Please explain...
renogaw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470154
I am not going to say Clinton's foreign policy was perfect.... I think we do need to change it, even from Clinton's era.... I will say that Clinton's term was relatively peaceful. If we elect a GOP president than this war will continue for who know how long. It will distract us from Afghanistan and the other problems we face... it also is a huge tax burden that limits us domestically. Lastly, we can't lower taxes in a time of war.
i dunno, i agree that there's tax burdens, but remember, most of those tax dollars are being spent to dirty rotten defense contracts, but the money is staying in the states, creating jobs and more taxes.
now, stop spending money on aids and farmer support in third world countries, and you'll see a real tax burden dropped.
personally, as long as the war is keeping me home at night, able to sleep with my baby on the way, my dog at the foot of the bed, my wife next to me, my fish tank in the living room, and everything else right in my tiny little world, keep it in iraq and afghanistan.
http:///forum/post/2470154
I am not going to say Clinton's foreign policy was perfect.... I think we do need to change it, even from Clinton's era.... I will say that Clinton's term was relatively peaceful. If we elect a GOP president than this war will continue for who know how long. It will distract us from Afghanistan and the other problems we face... it also is a huge tax burden that limits us domestically. Lastly, we can't lower taxes in a time of war.
i dunno, i agree that there's tax burdens, but remember, most of those tax dollars are being spent to dirty rotten defense contracts, but the money is staying in the states, creating jobs and more taxes.
now, stop spending money on aids and farmer support in third world countries, and you'll see a real tax burden dropped.
personally, as long as the war is keeping me home at night, able to sleep with my baby on the way, my dog at the foot of the bed, my wife next to me, my fish tank in the living room, and everything else right in my tiny little world, keep it in iraq and afghanistan.
reefraff
Active Member
I got this E-mail the other day
Enlightening Information from an ex-IRS employee.
After watching a focus group of democrats that watched the democratic debate the other day in Vegas, I needed to comment.
For the most part, all of them bashed Bush over and over again on how he is out for his millionaire friends and the big oil
companies and he has totally forgotten or disregarded the little guy. So being an ex-IRS employee, I decided to look back on
the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said and the media keeps stating as fact, “Bush is only out for the rich in
this country.
Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts
of income for both singles and married couples… so let’s see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html BE SURE TO CLICK HERE AND GET MORE INFORMATION!! Mo
Taxes under Clinton 1999 /// Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K – tax $8,400 /// Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000 /// Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250 /// Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800 /// Married making 60K – tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000 /// Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750 /// Married making 125K – tax $31,250
If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above
think Bush is hurting them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, all of them say they will
repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen. This is
like the movie the Sting with Paul Newman, you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened.
Now this is effective (maybe not honest) marketing or maybe a better description might be brain washing.
Seems to me for all the talk of tax cuts for the rich that the savings is getting smaller as income rises
Enlightening Information from an ex-IRS employee.
After watching a focus group of democrats that watched the democratic debate the other day in Vegas, I needed to comment.
For the most part, all of them bashed Bush over and over again on how he is out for his millionaire friends and the big oil
companies and he has totally forgotten or disregarded the little guy. So being an ex-IRS employee, I decided to look back on
the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said and the media keeps stating as fact, “Bush is only out for the rich in
this country.
Based on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts
of income for both singles and married couples… so let’s see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html BE SURE TO CLICK HERE AND GET MORE INFORMATION!! Mo
Taxes under Clinton 1999 /// Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K – tax $8,400 /// Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000 /// Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250 /// Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800 /// Married making 60K – tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000 /// Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750 /// Married making 125K – tax $31,250
If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above
think Bush is hurting them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, all of them say they will
repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen. This is
like the movie the Sting with Paul Newman, you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened.
Now this is effective (maybe not honest) marketing or maybe a better description might be brain washing.
Seems to me for all the talk of tax cuts for the rich that the savings is getting smaller as income rises
m0nk
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2470152
Are you kidding me? I hear everyone state if Hilary is the dem nominee they will vote McCain, but if Obama wins the will vote for him. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Obama is more left of Hilary and so much more wrong for this country. Further more he is the most well spoken individual I have seen speak in a long time....problem is he says absolutely othing in his speeches....lol
McCain in 08.
Oh for you hilary lovers, she has already said she would approve action against Iran if the persist....so either way we may be going into Iran.
My way out of that one is that I never said I'd vote for Obama.
http:///forum/post/2470152
Are you kidding me? I hear everyone state if Hilary is the dem nominee they will vote McCain, but if Obama wins the will vote for him. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Obama is more left of Hilary and so much more wrong for this country. Further more he is the most well spoken individual I have seen speak in a long time....problem is he says absolutely othing in his speeches....lol
McCain in 08.
Oh for you hilary lovers, she has already said she would approve action against Iran if the persist....so either way we may be going into Iran.
My way out of that one is that I never said I'd vote for Obama.
groupergenius
Active Member
I'm really amazed that folks think the war in Iraq will end the day a Dem president gets in office.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470154
I am not going to say Clinton's foreign policy was perfect.... I think we do need to change it, even from Clinton's era.... I will say that Clinton's term was relatively peaceful. If we elect a GOP president than this war will continue for who know how long. It will distract us from Afghanistan and the other problems we face... it also is a huge tax burden that limits us domestically. Lastly, we can't lower taxes in a time of war.
It wasn't peaceful, you've just forgotten the attacks we suffered.
The War on Terrorism was declared on us. Can you imagine if on December 8th 1941 we would have said "Wait... how long will this war take?"
The invasion of Iraq was determined by Saddam's actions.
Rylan, we don't always get to choose the wars we fight. Only the way we fight them.
http:///forum/post/2470154
I am not going to say Clinton's foreign policy was perfect.... I think we do need to change it, even from Clinton's era.... I will say that Clinton's term was relatively peaceful. If we elect a GOP president than this war will continue for who know how long. It will distract us from Afghanistan and the other problems we face... it also is a huge tax burden that limits us domestically. Lastly, we can't lower taxes in a time of war.
It wasn't peaceful, you've just forgotten the attacks we suffered.
The War on Terrorism was declared on us. Can you imagine if on December 8th 1941 we would have said "Wait... how long will this war take?"
The invasion of Iraq was determined by Saddam's actions.
Rylan, we don't always get to choose the wars we fight. Only the way we fight them.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2470156
Obama says: "My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less..."
Please explain...
Please point out to me where his plan mandates coverage.
renogaw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2470174
Please point out to me where his plan mandates coverage.
i'd say the "covering every american" is a start...
http:///forum/post/2470174
Please point out to me where his plan mandates coverage.
i'd say the "covering every american" is a start...