My take on the Election…

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 07-12-2008, 06:41 PM
01 XLT Sport's Avatar
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NH
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My take on the Election…

It’s been a while since I have had any input on the political front but figured, hey what the hell, now is a good of time as any…

As I stated the other evening in another post this is going to be a hell of an election and I do believe a very tight one and here are a few reasons I believe so:

First, you have two candidates of which neither have any core values, well at least very few they are “actually” running on. Let’s start with the old guy, he is kind of a Kerry light, or ultra light, out there willing to say what ever, when ever, to whom ever. We all remember Kerry “I voted for the war before I voted against it” ah the good ol’ days of John F’n Kerry, bless his misguided heart and weak mind…

Moving along, the old guy, as most of us well know, is a good old fashioned moderate. That is fine with me as the vast majority of American’s are moderate with a slight lean to the right. The old guy could have this election in the bag IF he would JUST run on his core values, core moderate values. Sure I don’t care for some of them, nor are some of them my core values, but damnit, just be honest and the election is yours for the taken…

Next we have a young guy who is no where like Kerry. Kerry was fake and just couldn’t lie well. This ol’ boy, young guy is a master at deception. He too is not running on his core values of a good ol’ socialist liberal of which there is only a tiny, tiny, fraction of Americans that believe in that crap.

The young guy knows, due to his brilliance of knowing how most Americans are just plain outright stupid, and get all their information and facts from the liberal controlled media, are not going to figure him out. Their minds are too weak to work on their own and when their not watching Sponge pants Bob they get their 5 minutes of thought control from the liberal controlled media.

If it’s not the weak minds “not” working you have those that have half a brain who are afraid to speak out about him because he is a black guy

So what, just because he is black don’t mean crap, if he is stupid, a lire, and racist don’t be afraid to think it and say it regardless of color. I do, all the time, and I can’t believe for a minute about half of America supports a racist for President. What about the Duke guy, I don’t think he really ever had a shoot at getting elected and that’s a good thing, don’t need any racist as President be it a white guy, black guy, or any other ignorant schmuck…

Now, some of you may come along and cry he is not a racist, oh really? LOL Then if he is not a racist he has absolutely NO moral compass, and lacks any fractional substance of judgment, and therefore has, in my opinion, absolutely no right whatsoever to be running for any office or public servant including school crossing guard. If you don’t believe either of the above fit the young guy then you have been Obamanized!!!!

However, I do have to give the young guy some credit because after all these years he has been able to prove Jesse Jackson is nothing more then a race baiter and makes a living preaching to weak minded schmucks that their problems are due to someone else and not themselves being ignorant to reality and what life has to offer those who help themselves rather then waiting on the candy man to come by…

I think that is one of the biggest problems these days, just too many people, of all races, waiting on the candy man to come by. This election is about whom can be the best candy man and give out the most candy…
 
  #2  
Old 07-13-2008, 02:21 PM
serotta's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 702
Received 41 Likes on 39 Posts
Ha, it was much easier to start an opinion/debate thread in the old days Burt!
 
  #3  
Old 07-13-2008, 02:26 PM
BigMan's Avatar
Suspended
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But Obama is offering CHANGE! Probably change for the worse but the libs dont see this. The debates will expose Obama's lack of knowledge.
 
  #4  
Old 07-13-2008, 04:36 PM
EnglishAdam's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Houston and Lil ol' England
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow, Burt is back!!!! And Serrota in the same thread too. Good to see you old farts again.

Where the hell is BHibbs? Lets get the politics threads started properly
 
  #5  
Old 07-13-2008, 10:53 PM
dzervit's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Motor City
Posts: 4,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ahhhh, like old times!

Personally I think the old guy will win without too much issue. Let's face it, old white people are the only ones that vote, thus ensuring an old white man will be in office for at least another few terms.
 
  #6  
Old 07-13-2008, 11:17 PM
Habibi's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
For any of you guys who really believe McCain will win, you can get a very good price for him on wsex.com (sports book)

You buy his shares for $36 right now, and you can sell them anytime before the election. If you hold on to them and he wins the election, all your $35 shares are now worth $100.

So say he makes new ground during his campaign and his share value increases to say $50, you can dump him for $50 and still make a few bucks.

I know the url sounds like a **** site but it's not, it's short for World Sports Exchange.

One thing though, recently United States Congress changed some gambling laws so I'm not exactly sure if Americans can place bets on this site.

That is all, carry on.
 
  #7  
Old 07-13-2008, 11:31 PM
Stealth's Avatar
Senior Member


Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Burleson, Texas
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Omar the cashier at the 7/11 gives me change with every purchase. More change than Obama will ever give me.
 
  #8  
Old 07-14-2008, 04:13 AM
PKRWUD's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am a lifelong Republican, but may vote for a Democrat for the first time in November. I used to like McCain, but he's changed so much in the past year or so, I no longer trust him. There is clearly a great deal of hate here towards Obama, but I'd like to hear the real reasons why I shouldn't vote for him.

Reasons I've heard that don't hold water include him having a socialist agenda because he wants to make it easier for Americans to have health insurance. I'm against socialized medicine, but that's not what he's offering. I've heard that he'll raise taxes, but the truth is my taxes will actually go down.

So why is he such a terrible person? Convince me.
 
  #9  
Old 07-14-2008, 09:17 AM
Odin's Wrath's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hammer Lane
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pick your poison...



http://www.reason.com/news/show/127477.html


Federal budget policy is a dry subject with far too many numbers and charts, which makes it uninviting to most Americans. But the theme of the current budget story is one that could have come from a blockbuster summer movie: We are doomed. There is a fiscal asteroid on course to pulverize us, and no one is coming to the rescue.

The problem is simple and depressingly familiar. This year, federal spending will exceed federal revenue by more than $400 billion. Given the weak state of the economy, the deficit will get worse before it gets better.

Actually, it may never get better, because the current shortfall coincides with the start of the most dreaded fiscal event of all time: the retirement of the baby boomers, who will soon consume eye-popping amounts in Social Security and Medicare.

If that's not bad enough, Bruce Willis is not on hand to intercept the doomsday object before it arrives. Worse yet, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain wants the job.

The latest proof came when McCain unveiled his economic plan, in which he vows to eliminate the deficit in four years. His plan to balance the budget is simple: He plans to balance the budget. Exactly which programs he will trim to reach that goal are anyone's guess.

For someone with a reputation as a fearless foe of congressional earmarks and pork-barrel waste, McCain is amazingly timid in taking on the rest of the budget. About his only specific proposal is a one-year freeze in those discretionary programs that don't involve defense or veterans.

McCain doesn't say how much that would save, but it wouldn't be a lot. Those expenditures amount to only 17 percent of all federal outlays. Eighty-three percent of the budget would keep on growing. After a year, so would the other 17 percent.

He vows to follow up with "comprehensive spending controls." But promising to control spending in general means promising to control nothing in particular.

Just because voters will go along with a vague limit on total outlays doesn't mean they are willing to surrender funds going to them or their favorite causes. It's one thing to inform a toddler that he shouldn't eat too much candy. It's another to take the Tootsie Roll Pop out of his hand.

The Republican standard-bearer, however, acts as though the task will be easy. Among the methods offered in this plan: "Eliminate broken programs. The federal government itself admits that one in five programs do not perform." How about naming one? How about promising to pound a stake through its heart?

When it comes to spending, though, Obama is even worse. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation added up all the promises made by the two candidates and found that McCain's would cost taxpayers an extra $68 billion a year. Obama's add up to $344 billion a year.

The Illinois senator's pledge to get tough on unnecessary expenditures is as solid as cotton candy. Among his vows is to "slash earmarks to no greater than what they were in 2001," but earmarks make up less than 2 percent of the budget. Trying to restore fiscal discipline by cutting earmarks is like trying to lose weight by adopting an exercise program for your left index finger.

Obama claims he'll pay for all his new spending with new revenues and spending cuts. But like McCain, he has been hazy on the details. And it will be far easier for him to get Congress to approve new spending than to enact the measures needed to pay for it. Unless Obama is willing to take on his own party with the veto pen, we should expect four more years of irresponsible budgeting.

His only defense is that he would not have to make up as much lost revenue as his rival. The Tax Policy Center says his tax plan would cut federal receipts by $2.7 trillion over the next decade, compared with $3.6 trillion for McCain.

The details differ, but the basic picture is the same regardless of who wins: Washington will spend more, red ink will roll down like a mighty river, and we as a nation will continue to dodge the critical choices we face.

It would be nice to think some unexpected event will save us from the consequences of that folly. But as McCain is fond of saying, it's always darkest just before it goes totally black.
 
  #10  
Old 07-14-2008, 09:29 AM
wittom's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Western Massachusetts
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PKRWUD
There is clearly a great deal of hate here towards Obama, but I'd like to hear the real reasons why I shouldn't vote for him.
Here's a start:

washingtonpost.com-US Congress Votes Database
 
  #11  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:06 AM
PKRWUD's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Odin's Wrath
Well, the numbers vary depending on who you ask. The L.A. Times said his promises would cost $130 billion, plus an additional $80 billion to cut taxes for people like me who make less than $250k a year. They said that Obama seems to think he will increase revenue by rolling back Bush's tax cuts, closing tax loopholes, and cutting spending in govt. programs to a total of $280 billion, but the Times said a more realistic number would be closer to $200 billion. Still, that leaves him $10 billion in the hole, which is significantly better than McCain's $68 billion. Obama also talks about at least $90+ billion in savings after ending the war, but I'm not including that because I think it's going to take much longer to clean up that mess than he seems to think.


Originally Posted by wittom
Yeah, it pissed me off that he voted for HR 6304, but I have a hunch that's not what you were getting to. What was I supposed to see there that would convince me he was bad news?
 
  #12  
Old 07-14-2008, 10:35 AM
Odin's Wrath's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hammer Lane
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PKRWUD
Well, the numbers vary depending on who you ask. The L.A. Times said his promises would cost $130 billion, plus an additional $80 billion to cut taxes for people like me who make less than $250k a year. They said that Obama seems to think he will increase revenue by rolling back Bush's tax cuts, closing tax loopholes, and cutting spending in govt. programs to a total of $280 billion, but the Times said a more realistic number would be closer to $200 billion. Still, that leaves him $10 billion in the hole, which is significantly better than McCain's $68 billion. Obama also talks about at least $90+ billion in savings after ending the war, but I'm not including that because I think it's going to take much longer to clean up that mess than he seems to think.



That quote was for everybody's consumption, not to prove to you Obama was anything. Take from it what you will. We could be screwed either way. Neither candidate is ideal. I don't hate Obama; but, I'm not voting for the guy. Nothing he's said, so far, has impressed me at all. I don't like McCain much either (politically); but, I like him much better than Barack.

Anybody, that is running on getting out of Iraq being his first order of business in January, is a moron. He's backpeddling a little on that stance; but, it's too late with people who have been paying attention. Of course, some are voting for him for that very reason. I doubt he'll win; but, it could happen. There are a lot of uninformed (Or poorly informed) people, that'll vote for him just because he's a Dem. (I know you claim to be a lifelong Republican.), and a lot that just want a rock star for President. It's like voting for student council for some. "Yeah. Like... That guy's so cool. He plays basketball and gets high. Like... Woah.... Finally somebody that speaks for me. And that Obama Girl is hawt! How cool would it be to elect the first black president. FTW!"


Don't ever quote the LA times if you want to be taken seriously.
 
  #13  
Old 07-14-2008, 12:56 PM
PKRWUD's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, by todays standards I probably am liberal, but that's only because the Republican party has changed so much, I haven't. I am a huge fan of Barry Goldwater. In his day, he was extreme right wing, but today he'd probably be called a liberal. Regardless, I've never voted for a Democrat in the 24 years I've been a registered voter, but that may change this year. It seems most people either really like Obama, or really hate him. I'm just trying to find justification for the hate, and so far, it hasn't happened. If I'm going to vote against someone, there needs to be substantive reasons.

The L.A. Times is my local paper.
 
  #14  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:04 PM
Odin's Wrath's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hammer Lane
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PKRWUD
Well, by todays standards I probably am liberal, but that's only because the Republican party has changed so much, I haven't. I am a huge fan of Barry Goldwater. In his day, he was extreme right wing, but today he'd probably be called a liberal. Regardless, I've never voted for a Democrat in the 24 years I've been a registered voter, but that may change this year. It seems most people either really like Obama, or really hate him. I'm just trying to find justification for the hate, and so far, it hasn't happened. If I'm going to vote against someone, there needs to be substantive reasons.

The L.A. Times is my local paper.

Yeah. I know it is. (LA Times)

I'm not voting against anyone when I vote. I vote FOR the person that gives me the most reason to. Even if that person doesn't fit into my mold of what I'm looking for. If Obama were to adopt the Fair Tax, it would be hard for me to vote for McCain. If McCain were to adopt the idea, I wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for him.
 
  #15  
Old 07-14-2008, 01:09 PM
PKRWUD's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I should have phrased that differently. I keep seeing and hearing a lot of Obama hate, but it needs to be substantive in order for me to buy into it, at which point it could affect who I vote for.
 


Quick Reply: My take on the Election…



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:32 PM.