The bar drops again

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2822572
Glad you don't have a life. Apparently the guy had little impact if I don't remember him. You know more about him because he's from your home state. In the first rounds of the party nominations, you have so many candidates coming out of the woodwork, it's not worth listening to all of them. Sounds like he was a victim of 'lack of campaign funds'. Probably flooded the West Coast states, but he didn't have that much media coverage here. That's what is sad about today's presidential election. It's not based on who has the best policies, but who has the most campaign funds and media coverage. Richardson may be a good candidate. I honestly don't recall the guy, or what he stood for. That was over a year ago. After he was pushed out, he was old news. The only thing I remembered about Edwards was his $400 hair cuts. Coming in fourth these days is irrelevent. Like I said, glad you keep up with all the useless trivia. What place what candidate ended up in has no meaning now. It's who out of the last two that will get the final vote is all that matters now.
'
Are you kidding me?
Richardson created one of the biggest media storms of the campaign when he came out and endorsed Obama over Clinton in the primary after he dropped out. How could you not be familiar with him? That was seen as a major betrayal of the Clintons and was the first endorsement oif the demo primary candidates.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2822679
You have to actually listen to all the words in your link. Not just the ones you want to hear. He said tax cut! This is where you are trying to find inconsistency where there is none.. Bill didn't say anything different than Obama.
Obama's claim
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and NO family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes...ison_FINAL.pdf
And he said 95% of workers will see a tax cut. I can't see how those numbers add up.
I don't believe him for a second. Everytime I hear this all I can think is "He's lying".

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2822679
You have to actually listen to all the words in your link. Not just the ones you want to hear. He said tax cut! This is where you are trying to find inconstancy where there is none.. Bill didn't say anything different.
Obama's claim
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and NO family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.B]
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes...ison_FINAL.pdf

Feel free to start listening at about 1:50 into the clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1w29_XSbTo
1:35 into this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb1vl...eature=related

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2822575
Now that's an outstanding resume. Don't list any of his policies on the economy, heath care, or education. But if he's for guns, that's good enough for me!

You really are a blind follower. You should know more about what's going on in your government. Please take just a few seconds to learn about who Bill Richardson is and what he stands for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson
Since you were obviously too lazy to click the link and see for yourself, I'll paste them as well...
you're welcome.
ECONOMY...
"Balanced 5 state budgets; priority to balance federal budget. (Dec 2007)
Supports restricted Constitutional balanced budget amendment. (Dec 2007)
Save $150 billion in tax cuts for people who don't need them. (Dec 2007)
Balanced Budget Amendment to address $9 trillion debt. (Dec 2007)
Constitutionally require balanced budget & fiscal discipline. (Sep 2007)

[hr]
industry needs more liquidity & more transparency. (Aug 2007)
Grow the trade link to Mexico and attract Hollywood business. (Jan 2004)
Supports Balanced Budget Amendment. (Nov 1996)"
HEALTH CARE...
"FactCheck: Between 7% and 31% of costs are administrative. (Dec 2007)
Universal health care is a right for every American. (Dec 2007)
Give students incentives to become health professionals. (Oct 2007)
Universal health care, no matter who you are. (Sep 2007)
New healthcare system in one year, with no new bureaucracies. (Sep 2007)
Cover undocumented workers under health plan. (Jul 2007)
FactCheck: Correct that 33% of Medicare is diabetes. (Jul 2007)
Fund fight on HIV/AIDS both nationally and internationally. (Jun 2007)
NM plan: mandatory; prevention-based; choose your own plan. (Jun 2007)
Focus on preventive healthcare without raising taxes. (Apr 2007)
All Americans need same coverage as members of Congress. (Mar 2007)
State flexibility creates universal coverage without taxes. (Feb 2007)
Shift Medicaid costs back from states to federal. (Nov 2005)
Secure lower prescription drug costs for seniors. (Jan 2004)
Focus on raising childhood immunization rates. (Jan 2004)
Increase access to affordable health care. (Jan 2004)
Consolidate mental health and substance abuse therapy needs. (Jan 2004)
Restrain Medicaid costs and maintain benefits. (Jan 2004)
Affordable access to healthcare for all New Mexicans. (Oct 2002)
New Mexico Cares: invest in our health. (Oct 2002)
Supports managed competition & medical savings accounts. (Nov 1996)"
EDUCATION...
"FactCheck: NM teacher salary only moved from 44th to 36th. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: NM test scores have not made "enormous progress". (Dec 2007)
Make education a top priority and scrap No Child Left Behind. (Dec 2007)
$60 billion plan to make American education #1 in world. (Dec 2007)
Create science and math academies with 100,000 new teachers. (Nov 2007)
Commit to extending school day and/or the school year. (Oct 2007)
Start earlier with preschool for every child under 4. (Sep 2007)
Pay off college loans in exchange for national service. (Sep 2007)
Minimum wage for our teachers: $40,000 per year. (Aug 2007)
One-point plan on No Child Left Behind: Scrap it. (Aug 2007)
Scrap No Child Left Behind; it doesn't work. (Jul 2007)
Help failing schools; don't penalize by defunding them. (Jul 2007)
Minimum wage of $40,000 for teachers. (Jul 2007)
Supreme Court backstabbed equality of Brown v. Board of Ed. (Jul 2007)
Nobody asks how we pay for war; why do we ask on education? (Jun 2007)
Eliminate junk food in schools; statewide smoking ban. (Mar 2007)
Equip every 7th grader with a laptop computer. (Jan 2004)
Increase the salary of school teachers. (Jan 2004)
A plan that can reach straightforward education goals. (Jan 2004)
Charter schools show tremendous promise. (Jan 2004)
Expand the lottery scholarship program for college students. (Jan 2004)
No vouchers: they abandon public schools. (Oct 2002)
Provide parents with vouchers, even for religious schools. (Nov 1996)
Voted NO on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
Make employee educational assistance tax-deductible. (Jan 1993)"

 

[reefraff]

Obama is the classic con man. He never gives a specific detail so the truth is always a moving target.

 

[bionicarm]

EDUCATION...
"FactCheck: NM teacher salary only moved from 44th to 36th. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: NM test scores have not made "enormous progress". (Dec 2007)
Make education a top priority and scrap No Child Left Behind. (Dec 2007)
$60 billion plan to make American education #1 in world. (Dec 2007)
Create science and math academies with 100,000 new teachers. (Nov 2007)
Commit to extending school day and/or the school year. (Oct 2007)
Start earlier with preschool for every child under 4. (Sep 2007)
Pay off college loans in exchange for national service. (Sep 2007)
Minimum wage for our teachers: $40,000 per year. (Aug 2007)
One-point plan on No Child Left Behind: Scrap it. (Aug 2007)
Scrap No Child Left Behind; it doesn't work. (Jul 2007)
Help failing schools; don't penalize by defunding them. (Jul 2007)
Minimum wage of $40,000 for teachers. (Jul 2007)
Supreme Court backstabbed equality of Brown v. Board of Ed. (Jul 2007)
Nobody asks how we pay for war; why do we ask on education? (Jun 2007)
Eliminate junk food in schools; statewide smoking ban. (Mar 2007)
Equip every 7th grader with a laptop computer. (Jan 2004)
Increase the salary of school teachers. (Jan 2004)
A plan that can reach straightforward education goals. (Jan 2004)
Charter schools show tremendous promise. (Jan 2004)
Expand the lottery scholarship program for college students. (Jan 2004)
No vouchers: they abandon public schools. (Oct 2002)
Provide parents with vouchers, even for religious schools. (Nov 1996)
Voted NO on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
Make employee educational assistance tax-deductible. (Jan 1993)"
So you like this guy over Obama? Let's see:
He wants to 'balance the budget'. Great. How?
He supports Universal health care. Now that's a program every Republican will go for.

Scrap No Child Left Behind - got my vote on that one.
Laptops for every 7th grader. Nice idea. Where's the money coming from?
All his other education ideas are pretty good as well. Why didn't he get nominated to represent the Democratic ticket, instead of coming in fourth? MONEY. Here's an idea, send his reform proposals to Obama and McCain. See if either one of them will implement any of them. Like I said, when it comes down to the final two, that's all that matters. If McCain loses, Sarah Palin will return to be Nanook of the North and run her little state like she has been. In four years, no one will remember who she was, or will they care. She'll probably end up on some daytime talk show or family reality show. Richardson may very well be qualified to be President. Hope he tries again in four years, if anyone remembers who he is by then.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2822833
So you like this guy over Obama? Let's see:
He wants to 'balance the budget'. Great. How?
Spending less. Spending less. Spending less.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2822948
Spending less. Spending less. Spending less.
Bang which McCain are you trusting, the 2000 McCain or the 2008 McCain. Those are two different McCains.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2822953
Bang which McCain are you trusting, the 2000 McCain or the 2008 McCain. Those are two different McCains.
I will be the first to be disappointed with the pandering McCain has show toward the NeoCons. I truly hope it's just pandering but to your point, yes, it is a worry.
Research the voting records of both candidates. The pandering seen during an election campaign is rarely related to the real person, the voting record is the measure.
If you prefer Obama's voting record over McCain's then definately don't vote for McCain.
With McCain I see a pattern of ignoring the corporate lobbiests and an absence of voting to increase the size of the federal government. If you prefer a large government and devotion to corporate lobbiests then McCain is absolutely the wrong choice.
Have you even wondered why McCain is receiving so much less money for his campaign than previous Republican candidates?

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2822964
Have you even wondered why McCain is receiving so much less money for his campaign than previous Republican candidates?
Perhaps the history of whose party oversees a downturn in the economy is usually not elected in the next cycle. They both have an equal chance of being elected on 11/4 in my opinion.
The Republicans had a 3 branch majority and they wasted it. McCain was there when this happened, he couldn't rally the spend thrift Republicans (his Party)and end it. What makes you think he can rally the Democrats now, veto override. He had a chance to stop the bailout or at least stop the extra 100 billion republican pork barrel sweeteners. He didn't stop the added 100 billion part, this is where action and words come together and I don't trust him. That's my opinion and you are entitled to yours too.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2822980
Perhaps the history of whose party oversees a downturn in the economy is usually not elected in the next cycle. They both have an equal chance of being elected on 11/4 in my opinion.
The Republicans had a 3 branch majority and they wasted it. McCain was there when this happened, he couldn't rally the spend thrift Republicans (his Party)and end it. What makes you think he can rally the Democrats now, veto override. He had a chance to stop the bailout or at least stop the extra 100 billion republican pork barrel sweeteners. He didn't stop the added 100 billion part, this is where action and words come together and I don't trust him. That's my opinion and you are entitled to yours too.
True enough.
What did the leadership of Obama leadership do during the bailout? I seem to recall "call me if you need me"

That's almost as bad as voting "Present".

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2822833
Richardson may very well be qualified to be President. Hope he tries again in four years, if anyone remembers who he is by then.
This is exactly what I'm frustrated at. He was a good choice THIS TIME, but was overlooked by people like yourself. There was a better choice than Obama, but you never bothered researching the candidates. Know what the choices are, then make an informed decision. The fact that you didn't even know who he was speaks volumes about how you make decisions. If you truly believe in this Obama and his policies, then by all means vote for him. From what I deduce, you never even bothered to check out the options early in the game when you still had time to.
and...
It's not about remembering who he is, it's about knowing beforehand.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2822833
All his other education ideas are pretty good as well. Why didn't he get nominated to represent the Democratic ticket, instead of coming in fourth? MONEY.

If Money were the main issue, Ron Paul would have been the republican candidate. No the issue is the democrats had Clinton (history made known), Obama (media made a celebrity),and edwards (running because of past popularity).
I bet you didn't even know there was a presidential candidate during the 2004 primaries that was black.
No, the problem is people like you can't handle researching yourselves. You wait till the field is narrowed down...and the tv ads/media are telling you who is running.
You claim it is money, you are wrong. It is lack of effort on your part. I can tell you everyone that ran in the primaries through the year 2000. Because then I can learn who the future may bring us and start watching them as well.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2822948
Spending less. Spending less. Spending less.
Great buzzwords Bang Guy. I've heard that same song and dance from literally every Presidential candidate for the last 36 years. I'm the unifomed American. I don't have a clue what the various Federal programs are that you Republicans describe as 'pork barrel' or 'we're spending too much money on'. So give me specific programs McCain plans to cut to reduce this spending.
Sure McCain will cut programs. Problem is, he'll add two more useless 'pork barrel' projects once those are gone. Just look at the recent bailout. Both candidates signed off on the $700 billion package that included $120 BILLION IN PORK. How can I trust McCain's major economic platform when the guy just signed a bill allowing more useless spending while he's running for President?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2823208
If Money were the main issue, Ron Paul would have been the republican candidate. No the issue is the democrats had Clinton (history made known), Obama (media made a celebrity),and edwards (running because of past popularity).
I bet you didn't even know there was a presidential candidate during the 2004 primaries that was black.
No, the problem is people like you can't handle researching yourselves. You wait till the field is narrowed down...and the tv ads/media are telling you who is running.
You claim it is money, you are wrong. It is lack of effort on your part. I can tell you everyone that ran in the primaries through the year 2000. Because then I can learn who the future may bring us and start watching them as well.
Ron Paul spent close to $1 billion on his campaign? Those are the numbers that are going around today as to what Obama and McCain have spent so far. I listened to Clinton, Obama, McCain, Edwards, Romney. and Guiliani. Why? Because they got the most press and media exposure. Everyone else was pushed to the side. If I recall, Richardson and Paul weren't even invited to any of the Primary debates. Why? Because they had little media and press exposure so most people didn't know who they were and what their platforms were. Why/ MONEY. Apparently I'm not the only person who didn't know what these people were about. If so, then you'd see one of them on the ballot tomorrow instead of McCain and Obama.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2823668
. If I recall, Richardson and Paul weren't even invited to any of the Primary debates. Why? Because they had little media and press exposure so most people didn't know who they were and what their platforms were.
Really? guess you missed all the debates from 2007 through january of 2008.
I decided to google a list for you to show you.since you were incapable of doing this before you spouted a comment that was false to try to defend you position.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...es&btnG=Search
as for ron paul money, he was getting a lot during the primaries, he received more money than Guilliani, and was pretty much even with the others during the primaries..
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/vote2...3822989&page=1
Just admit you weren't paying attention it will be easier than sticking your foot in your mouth I am sure.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2823665
Great buzzwords Bang Guy. I've heard that same song and dance from literally every Presidential candidate for the last 36 years. I'm the unifomed American. I don't have a clue what the various Federal programs are that you Republicans describe as 'pork barrel' or 'we're spending too much money on'. So give me specific programs McCain plans to cut to reduce this spending.
Sure McCain will cut programs. Problem is, he'll add two more useless 'pork barrel' projects once those are gone. Just look at the recent bailout. Both candidates signed off on the $700 billion package that included $120 BILLION IN PORK. How can I trust McCain's major economic platform when the guy just signed a bill allowing more useless spending while he's running for President?
I was quite disappointed with McCain as well as Obama on the bailout.

So we are in agreement there.
Obama has promised to increase spending, McCain has promised to veto pork. Not that I trust politicians but the voting patterns agree with their promises. Count the pork requests for the past couple of years from each senator to get an idea of what they will do in office. Obama = Billions of $ in pork, McCain = $0 in pork.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2823680
Really? guess you missed all the debates from 2007 through january of 2008.
I decided to google a list for you to show you.since you were incapable of doing this before you spouted a comment that was false to try to defend you position.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...es&btnG=Search
as for ron paul money, he was getting a lot during the primaries, he received more money than Guilliani, and was pretty much even with the others during the primaries..
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/vote2...3822989&page=1
Just admit you weren't paying attention it will be easier than sticking your foot in your mouth I am sure.

I guess your right. I didn't pay much attention to the multitude of primary crap that was spewed continually for months on end. Why? Because they all sang the same song. If Ron Paul and Bill Richardson are so great, and better qualified to be running for President, why aren't they? Because the majority of American voters like myself either didn't agree with their platforms, or didn't know them well enough to care. When I came to work this morning, I did a little 'poll' of my own. I asked approximately 30 people if they knew the following names:
Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, Rudy Guilliani, Mitt Romney, and John Edwards.
Results:
Ron Paul - 10
Bill Richardson - 3
Rudy Guilliani - 30
Mitt Romney - 24
John Edwards - 21
I didn't ask party affiliation, or even state these were previous presidential candidates. Pretty much everyone knew Guilianni because of 9-11. They recalled Edwards because of the recent headlines about him cheating on his wife and the $400 haircuts. Mitt Romney because they recalled he was the Mormon running for office. Ron Paul because he was the Independent that had a lot of media coverage at the start of the presidential primaries. Most didn't have a clue who Richardson was. So I guess I'm not the only one who didn't 'pay attention'.