Post by: Lennyjoe on February 07, 2008, 07:37:32 AM
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/07/time-magazine-blog-romney-to-quit-today/
Post by: Manedwolf on February 07, 2008, 07:44:23 AM
Post by: K Frame on February 07, 2008, 07:54:13 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on February 07, 2008, 08:19:16 AM
Post by: Typhoon on February 07, 2008, 08:22:17 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on February 07, 2008, 08:26:07 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 07, 2008, 08:35:46 AM
One less obstacle in the path to freedom. Once Huckabee drops then it will be down to that liberal McCain and the only real Republican in the race, Dr. Ron Paul.
I just snorted coffee, laughing.
You ARE just joking, right?
Post by: Tecumseh on February 07, 2008, 08:40:36 AM
One less obstacle in the path to freedom. Once Huckabee drops then it will be down to that liberal McCain and the only real Republican in the race, Dr. Ron Paul.
I just snorted coffee, laughing.
You ARE just joking, right?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 07, 2008, 08:42:57 AM
PAUL IS NOT EVEN IN THE RACE. He's ten laps behind with the checkered flag coming up! All he is now is comic relief in the debates.
Typical debate now:
Moderator: (question)
Huckbee: (straight answer)
McCain: (equivocating answer)
Paul: (*whinnnne* Gold standard *whinnne* America's fault for wars *whiiiiine*)
Moderator: "Um...Dr. Paul, who are you arguing with?"
Paul: (confused)
*cue audience laughter*
How strong is that kool-aid?
Post by: GigaBuist on February 07, 2008, 08:45:01 AM
Quote
Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
Yep, if Romney didn't quit then the terrorists would win.
Post by: Racehorse on February 07, 2008, 08:45:12 AM
Post by: Bogie on February 07, 2008, 09:00:23 AM
The hair.
Edwards failed. Romney failed.
Post by: charby on February 07, 2008, 09:09:01 AM
Post by: MrRezister on February 07, 2008, 09:24:43 AM
Damn!
Post by: Manedwolf on February 07, 2008, 09:27:00 AM
What? You mean that stalwart pillar of Conservatism MITT ROMNEY is out of the race? Crap, that means that the only people left to vote for are Big Government Democrats, Big Government Republicans, and that one guy who wants smaller government and lower taxes but can't win because we're all too smart to vote for him!
Damn!
Damn!
Yes, Mike Huckabee.
Post by: Firethorn on February 07, 2008, 09:31:04 AM
How strong is that kool-aid?
Reminded me of a cute quote I saw once:
'Just enough to be flammable!'.
Post by: beatnik on February 07, 2008, 09:44:27 AM
Quote
Oh, good lord.
PAUL IS NOT EVEN IN THE RACE. He's ten laps behind with the checkered flag coming up!
PAUL IS NOT EVEN IN THE RACE. He's ten laps behind with the checkered flag coming up!
He's the only one left with money.
And you should listen to yourself: we can't vote for the one who will take our guns, so we all have to vote for one who will see to it we lose our houses.
I'm tired of that choice. My money and my vote are sticking with the place where my principles are represented. If that means four more Clinton years, well, at least the economy will be ok.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 07, 2008, 09:46:14 AM
If that means four more Clinton years, well, at least the economy will be ok.
Okay. You're beyond kool-aid. What are you smoking? How would we "lose our houses"? People who willingly went into bad mortgages to have more house than they could afford on their salaries have to answer for their bad decisions? Heaven forbid! I didn't buy a house because I knew I couldn't afford one yet!
As for Hillary, she wants to punish the successful to pay the lazy, raise taxes, and you think that will make the economy "okay"?
I despair at the utter ignorance of the voters. Gah!!!
Post by: beatnik on February 07, 2008, 09:53:41 AM
If she goes with a budget like her husband's, that means less deficit spending than we've had in 8 years.
Despite how much we all despise the Clintons, they kept things reasonably under control.
In the last 8 years the dollar has plummeted, which has already borne itself out in gasoline, housing, and is starting with groceries now. Foreign countries aren't dealing with dollars anymore because they're not worth it.
The effect was that my 401k, IRAs, mutual funds, and savings have all been decimated, despite the numbers of dollars having increased. That means my retirement is threatened and my kids may not be going to college.
There's only one guy on the R side who is even discussing this. Since he's obviously nothing more than a crazy septegenarian howdy-doody, it's not getting any attention.
So again, what choice do I have? Mortgage my family's future so that we can bring democracy (which we don't even enjoy ourselves anymore) to a place I really don't give a *%$& about, or put up with another 10 years of AWB?
I'm not saying things will be great under Hitlery, I'm saying they won't be my financial ruin.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 07, 2008, 10:02:10 AM
Maybe you're doing something wrong?
Post by: Finch on February 07, 2008, 10:10:15 AM
Yes, Mike Huckabee.
Ahh yes, Mr "We need to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."
YA THEOCRACY!
For all this I am glad though. I hope that Romney's delegates go to McCain and he gets the 1,191 that he needs to secure the Neo-Con nomination. Then Paul would realize that trying to reason with this twisted group of so called conservatives is pointless and run third party. Which, if he didn't win as a third party, I hope it would split enough of the vote to cause the Clintons to win. Then maybe we would be awake enough to get back to what our Republic was supposed to be, and not this Cluster**** we have now. It's a long shot, but I can hope.
Post by: MrRezister on February 07, 2008, 10:14:26 AM
Yes, Mike Huckabee.
Ahh yes, Mr "We need to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."
YA THEOCRACY!
Shush. He's the new Conservative-in-Chief. Taunting and criticism will not be tolerated.
Post by: roo_ster on February 07, 2008, 10:16:33 AM
Well, I have a litmus test for politicians.
The hair.
Edwards failed. Romney failed.
The hair.
Edwards failed. Romney failed.
If their hair is too pretty, you don't vote for them?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 07, 2008, 10:23:19 AM
Post by: Finch on February 07, 2008, 10:25:25 AM
Beautiful. Because when you can't debate with substance, just resort to petty insults.
Post by: Boomhauer on February 07, 2008, 10:27:12 AM
Yes, Mike Huckabee.
Ahh yes, Mr "We need to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."
YA THEOCRACY!
Shush. He's the new Conservative-in-Chief. Taunting and criticism will not be tolerated.
The Constitution, fortunately, isn't easily amended. So that really is not something I am worried about too much.
Post by: MrRezister on February 07, 2008, 10:35:36 AM
Beautiful. Because when you can't debate with substance, just resort to petty insults.
C'mon, that was hardly petty. Awesome quality, clear message, no facts.... that would make a GREAT movie poster. Don't be so mean.
Post by: Bogie on February 07, 2008, 10:49:18 AM
Yeah, I'm paranoid. So?
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on February 07, 2008, 10:50:14 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 07, 2008, 10:51:39 AM
I wonder... I wonder how many Ron Paul supporters are actually democrats.
Yeah, I'm paranoid. So?
Yeah, I'm paranoid. So?
Probably a lot of older ones who voted for and still think Jimmy Carter was right, too.
Post by: Paddy on February 07, 2008, 10:53:31 AM
Quote
Odd, he has 25 times more delegates that Ron Paul...
Yeah, and he paid about $1 million per delegate. And he's supposed to be some kind of business genius?
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 07, 2008, 12:05:05 PM
Yeah, and he paid about $1 million per delegate. And he's supposed to be some kind of business genius?
Romney paid millions of dollars from his own pocket putting his wallet where his mouth is and running for a public office which would shorten his life and would never ever pay back the money he has already spent on it. And you bust him for it? What is wrong with you?
It is my belief that putting particular political stances aside, it is exactly people like Romney that we need to be electing - people that have it all and do not NEED to be in office but run for it out of desire to make changes in this country. I'd trust him 1,000 times more than the typical politicians, whose primary motivation is stuffing their faces and their pockets through the levers of power at their disposal.
This country will only grow weaker, more socialist, and more messed up, if the culture continues to move towards condemnation of personal success. People that are so bitter about such success are almost invariably those that wait to suck on the fedgov tit as well. Apparently stealing from other people through taxation is more honorable that making out big on your own in the real world.
Also, I am glad I did not register as Republican to vote in the primary. It is clear there is something seriously wrong with the party if it would choose a pinko liar like McStain over a businessman who at least professes the right conservative stances on a series of issues.
Post by: wooderson on February 07, 2008, 12:07:04 PM
He's been a sleeper agent since 1978.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 07, 2008, 12:42:03 PM
Also, I am glad I did not register as Republican to vote in the primary. It is clear there is something seriously wrong with the party if it would choose a pinko liar like McStain over a businessman who at least professes the right conservative stances on a series of issues.
What the party wants, the party gets.
Post by: Finch on February 07, 2008, 01:06:37 PM
Yeah, and he paid about $1 million per delegate. And he's supposed to be some kind of business genius?
It is my belief that putting particular political stances aside, it is exactly people like Romney that we need to be electing - people that have it all and do not NEED to be in office but run for it out of desire to make changes in this country.Bush was pretty well off before he ran for president also, and look what we got from that.
Post by: beatnik on February 07, 2008, 01:10:39 PM
Funny, I'm doing just fine with finances. Better than I was under Klinton.
The funny part is how you don't realize you're doing worse.
Try to buy a house - they're all over the place, nobody can sell, but you're not going to find one that doesn't cost 50% more than it did 8 years ago, at least not near a city.
Go fill your gas tank, that'll cost you twice what it did 8 years ago.
Neither of these goods costs much different than they did 8 years ago if you were to purchase them using weighed gold, and the world's supply of gold hasn't appreciably changed, which means that the dollar is crashing.
I am also "doing just fine with finances", thank you. My point is that when the destruction of the dollar is manifested in every market, neither of us will be fine, unless we get 70-100% raises.
I'm glad you're comfortable with having the value of your investments slashed, but I'm not.
Post by: Paddy on February 07, 2008, 01:12:13 PM
Quote
running for a public office which would shorten his life and would never ever pay back the money he has already spent on it.
If you believe that, I have to ask what is wrong with you? They all leave better off than when they went it.
Post by: Lennyjoe on February 07, 2008, 01:26:03 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 07, 2008, 01:37:52 PM
If you believe that, I have to ask what is wrong with you? They all leave better off than when they went it.
Then please explain to us exactly how he would have recovered the millions he has already spent on the election. Also compare how much he would have otherwise made in the private sector running his business as opposed to drawing a measly 400k from the taxpayer per year for the top post in the greatest country in the world. Please also explain exactly what price should be put on the time and health of somebody as wealthy and old as he is.
Post by: seeker_two on February 07, 2008, 02:25:06 PM
Today will be remembered as the day "conservative" talk radio died and the Republic was injected with slow poison....
Post by: Finch on February 07, 2008, 03:12:46 PM
I wonder how a McCain/Huckabee team would fair out against Hillary/? or Obama/? in the run for the house?
Well, given that 3/4 of the country wants out of Iraq, probably not so good.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 07, 2008, 03:14:07 PM
I wonder how a McCain/Huckabee team would fair out against Hillary/? or Obama/? in the run for the house?
Well, given that 3/4 of the country wants out of Iraq, probably not so good.
Can you specify where this oft-repeated "3/4" number comes from, besides someone's posterior orifice at moveon.org?
It's like the VPC's "3/4s of Americans want handguns banned". Same sh__, different agenda.
Post by: Balog on February 07, 2008, 03:55:11 PM
If you believe that, I have to ask what is wrong with you? They all leave better off than when they went it.
Then please explain to us exactly how he would have recovered the millions he has already spent on the election. Also compare how much he would have otherwise made in the private sector running his business as opposed to drawing a measly 400k from the taxpayer per year for the top post in the greatest country in the world. Please also explain exactly what price should be put on the time and health of somebody as wealthy and old as he is.
I'm reminded of the Simpsons bit from when Homer became head of the Union.
Homer: So what's this job pay?
Carl: Nothing...
Homer: D'oh!
Carl: ...unless you're crooked.
Homer: Woohoo!
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 07, 2008, 05:34:28 PM
I wonder how a McCain/Huckabee team would fair out against Hillary/? or Obama/? in the run for the house?
Well, given that 3/4 of the country wants out of Iraq, probably not so good.
Can you specify where this oft-repeated "3/4" number comes from, besides someone's posterior orifice at moveon.org?
It's like the VPC's "3/4s of Americans want handguns banned". Same sh__, different agenda.
It isn't scientific data but, most of the people I know think we should get out.
Post by: Balog on February 07, 2008, 06:55:44 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 07, 2008, 07:10:42 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 07, 2008, 07:33:47 PM
Post by: Antibubba on February 07, 2008, 08:36:46 PM
Quote
Anyone been listening to "conservative" talk radio since Mitt's "suspension"?......
No. Why?
Post by: Tecumseh on February 07, 2008, 08:40:42 PM
I wonder how a McCain/Huckabee team would fair out against Hillary/? or Obama/? in the run for the house?
Well, given that 3/4 of the country wants out of Iraq, probably not so good.
Can you specify where this oft-repeated "3/4" number comes from, besides someone's posterior orifice at moveon.org?
It's like the VPC's "3/4s of Americans want handguns banned". Same sh__, different agenda.
Here is an interesting article about Bush and his administration as well as their actions...
Quote
Poll: Bush approval mark at all-time low
(CNN) -- Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his presidency, according to a national poll released Monday.
Bush also received his all-time worst marks in three other categories in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. The categories were terrorism, Bush's trustworthiness and whether the Iraq war was worthwhile.
Bush's 37 percent overall approval rating was two percentage points below his ranking in an October survey. Both polls had a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. (Watch: The last Bush Democrat? -- 2:02)
Sixty percent of the 1,006 adult Americans interviewed by telephone Friday through Sunday said they disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.
The White House has said it doesn't pay attention to poll numbers and the figures do not affect policy.
"We have a proud record of accomplishment and a positive agenda for the future," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Wednesday.
"We look forward to continuing to talk about it. I mean, you can get caught up in polls; we don't. Polls are snapshots in time."
Bush, who received high marks after the terrorist attacks of 2001, also rated poorly in the new poll for his policy on terrorism. For the first time, less than half -- 48 percent -- of those surveyed said they approved of how the president was handling the war on terror. Forty-nine percent said they disapprove.
In November 2001, Bush had an 87 percent overall approval mark and an 86 percent rating on terrorism.
Bush has been under fire from Democratic lawmakers for the way his administration made the case to invade Iraq in 2003 and how it has handled the conflict since then.
The president fired back in a speech Monday, accusing Democrats of "playing politics." (Full story)
In the new poll, 60 percent said it was not worth going to war in Iraq, while 38 percent said it was worthwhile. The question was asked of about half of those surveyed and had a margin of error of five percentage points. The results marked a decline in support of seven percentage points from two months earlier.
Bush's lowest approval ratings came on two issues that divide his own Republican Party.
On federal spending, 71 percent disapproved of his performance and 26 percent approved. The approval rating was the same on immigration issues, and the disapproval mark was 65 percent.
Sixty-one percent of respondents disapproved of Bush's handling of the economy, and 37 percent approved.
The country appears to be split on whether Bush is a strong president and whether or not Americans personally like him.
When asked about his abilities, 49 percent of those surveyed said he was a strong president and 49 percent said he was a weak leader.
About 50 percent of people polled said they disliked Bush, with 6 percent claiming to hate the president.
Bush's overall approval mark matched the 37 percent rating of newly elected President Clinton in June 1993. (Interactive: Second-term slump)
When asked if they trust Bush more than they had Clinton, 48 percent of respondents said they trusted Bush less, while 36 percent said they trusted him more and 15 percent said they trusted Bush the same as Clinton.
For the first time, more than half of the public thinks Bush is not honest and trustworthy -- 52 percent to 46 percent.
A week ago, President Bush campaigned for Virginia gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore, who lost the election a day later to Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine. (Full story)
In the poll, 56 percent of registered voters said they would be likely to vote against a local candidate supported by Bush, while 34 percent said the opposite.
Only 9 percent said their first choice in next year's elections would be a Republican who supports Bush on almost every major issue.
Forty-six percent said the country would be better off if Congress were controlled by Democrats, while 34 percent backed a GOP majority.
A large majority of Republicans -- 80 percent -- approve of Bush's performance, compared with 28 percent of independents and 7 percent of Democrats. Those results had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Vice President Dick Cheney's approval rating has dropped 14 points since the start of the year, down from 54 percent in January to 40 percent.
His chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, resigned last month after he was indicted on charges including obstruction of justice and perjury. Libby is accused of lying to investigators and a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a CIA officer whose husband criticized the White House case for war. (Full story)
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/bush.poll
Post by: seeker_two on February 08, 2008, 01:36:25 AM
Quote
Anyone been listening to "conservative" talk radio since Mitt's "suspension"?......
No. Why?
In a 18-hr span, everyone from Rush to Savage has gone from "Vote Romney--he's the only conservative" to "Vote McCain--he can unite the party". And they're saying McCain will appoint conservative justices to SCOTUS.....just like they said about Bush in 2004 just before he nominated Harriet Myers......
Turned my stomach.....
Post by: ilbob on February 08, 2008, 03:44:56 AM
the primary is about selecting a nominee. the election is about defeating democrats.
is the nominee perfect? no. is any human being perfect?
its time to put the acrimony aside and do what we can to improve things rather than pretending McCain is evil, when we know just who actually is evil incarnate in the upcoming election.
I know there are a few whiners who will hold out for a perfect candidate to appear, but it ain't gonna happen. If you feel the need to not vote for mccain because of his imperfections, thats fine. you have a right to do things that are counterproductive.
the real issue this time around is the house and senate.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 08, 2008, 03:53:04 AM
Quote
Anyone been listening to "conservative" talk radio since Mitt's "suspension"?......
No. Why?
In a 18-hr span, everyone from Rush to Savage has gone from "Vote Romney--he's the only conservative" to "Vote McCain--he can unite the party". And they're saying McCain will appoint conservative justices to SCOTUS.....just like they said about Bush in 2004 just before he nominated Harriet Myers......
Turned my stomach.....
Quote
Big-Tent GOP's Failure to Uphold Conservatism Caused This Mess
Rush sets down a marker: The McCain debacle is not our fault. It's the fault of the Republican establishment which abandoned conservatism.
Rush sets down a marker: The McCain debacle is not our fault. It's the fault of the Republican establishment which abandoned conservatism.
Quote
McCain Banks on Fear and Loathing
February 7, 2008
February 7, 2008
But what will they do if Obama is the opponent?
We're you listening to a different Rush than I was? Rush Schmortz maybe?
Post by: beatnik on February 08, 2008, 04:28:06 AM
is the nominee perfect? no. is any human being perfect?
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm
First of all, this does not outline a candidate who will promote our cause. We may be looking at four years of stagnation: which we all agree is better than the alternative.
Or, we may be looking at four years of watching him "reach across the aisle" by selling us out. Isn't that what true conservatives hate about this man? And isn't this issue the reason we all come here to argue with each other?
I am not expecting someone who is perfect. What I am expecting is people like you, who obviously read and become informed on the issues, to realize that this race is far from over and there's still an opportunity to advance either of the other guys, both of whom are much better at gun issues.
Of course, if guns really were the main issue, it would be a good idea to promote the guy who would leave Iraq faster than the democrats and steal all their votes, who would then do more to protect the 2nd Amendment than anyone in the last 100 years. But I guess that would make too much sense.
Post by: MrRezister on February 08, 2008, 07:40:01 AM
Or, we may be looking at four years of watching him "reach across the aisle" by selling us out. Isn't that what true conservatives hate about this man? And isn't this issue the reason we all come here to argue with each other?
That's me. I'm feeling like I'm stuck between choosing to get shot in the front or stabbed in the back.Of course, if guns really were the main issue, it would be a good idea to promote the guy who would leave Iraq faster than the democrats and steal all their votes, who would then do more to protect the 2nd Amendment than anyone in the last 100 years. But I guess that would make too much sense.
Did you forget that anyone who wants to leave Iraq is a cowardly "blame-America" pinko?
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 03:02:42 PM
Yes, the Ron Paul campaign is a DEMOCRATIC PLOT.
He's been a sleeper agent since 1978.
Ssshhh...He's been a sleeper agent since 1978.
We don't want them to know. Even though we were just waiting for Al Gore to invent the internet so we could spam polls.
Post by: Finch on February 10, 2008, 03:08:24 PM
Did you forget that anyone who wants to leave Iraq is a cowardly "blame-America" pinko?
DUH! I mean, the Idea that you make enemies when you go around F$#*ing with the internal affairs of other nations that don't want you there is a preposterous one. And the notion that some of the inhabitants of those nations/regions may get pissed off when you do it is ever more ridiculous.
Everyone knows that they hate us for our freedoms. Guiliani says it so it must be true -- he was there on 9/11 -- he knows.
I just feel so bad for Switzerland. They are more free than we are so I can only imagine what is coming their way....
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 10, 2008, 11:04:25 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on February 11, 2008, 08:29:56 AM
Did you forget that anyone who wants to leave Iraq is a cowardly "blame-America" pinko?
DUH! I mean, the Idea that you make enemies when you go around F$#*ing with the internal affairs of other nations that don't want you there is a preposterous one. And the notion that some of the inhabitants of those nations/regions may get pissed off when you do it is ever more ridiculous.
Everyone knows that they hate us for our freedoms. Guiliani says it so it must be true -- he was there on 9/11 -- he knows.
I just feel so bad for Switzerland. They are more free than we are so I can only imagine what is coming their way....
Why do so many people think that the USA should be allowed to meddle in the affairs of other nations? Who cares if South America gets another dictator? Or Iraq takes over Kuwait? Why should we care about what happens in the Middle East? Let them do their thing and we will do ours. We are not the worlds police. But it seems the current administration and the leading candidates think we are.
If we want to nationbuild then lets nation build. Africa, South East Asia, and some parts of Central and South America can use our help. I believe Iraq had a nation before we came and it seemed to work.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2008, 02:43:08 PM
Why do so many people think that the USA should be allowed to meddle in the affairs of other nations? Who cares if South America gets another dictator? Or Iraq takes over Kuwait? Why should we care about what happens in the Middle East? Let them do their thing and we will do ours. We are not the worlds police. But it seems the current administration and the leading candidates think we are.
If we want to nationbuild then lets nation build. Africa, South East Asia, and some parts of Central and South America can use our help. I believe Iraq had a nation before we came and it seemed to work.
If we want to nationbuild then lets nation build. Africa, South East Asia, and some parts of Central and South America can use our help. I believe Iraq had a nation before we came and it seemed to work.
A brief excursion in history:
We need oil to survive. Certain despots in the Middle East are willing to sell it to us at "reasonable prices" and use dollars in their oil deals, so long as we keep them in power, even when the dollar is dropping. We made that deal back when Reagan was fighting the Cold War and asked them to drop the price to bankrupt the USSR which chiefly counted on oil and gas exports to gain western currency. They did and Reagan won the Cold War by a bankrupting arms race with the USSR.
Then Saddam decided to mess with the status quo by invading Quweit. The local dictators got scared, chiefly Saudi Arabia, so they let us station more troops and use them as a local base to oust Saddam and restore the status quo. Some said we should also depose him, but Bush Senior judged correctly that the local despots would withdraw their support then. So we let him fester until he decided to switch away from petrodollars, which would break the deal above. So he had to be smacked down as an example, even though he had nothing to do with Al Qaida. Now the he was deposed, Iraq has to be rebuilt to an agreeable state with limited democracy and pro-western stance.
Why do we have to do all this? Because our civilization and standard of living are extremely dependent on oil, and will likely remain so for the near future. Also, our currency is largely propped by its use for oil deals, so we have become hostages to fat dictators in the middle east.
The solution? Alternative energy sources, chiefly nuclear and eventually fusion, while trimming down the military spending, the ludicrous porkbarrel for old farts, political entitlements, etc., as well as increasing productivity through technology and a cultural change, until both the budget and the trade deficit are in control. But, so long as babyboomers can vote, that aint gonna happen. And that is why we are collectively screwed.
So, study hard, get smart, start a good business or a career, earn well, and prepare for the inevitable "adjustment".
And when the adjustment comes, that cold painful feeling in your colon will be Riley's finger rummaging for his social security, medicare, and medicaid checks. Enjoy! 
Post by: MrRezister on February 12, 2008, 02:58:00 PM
And when the adjustment comes, that cold painful feeling in your colon will be Riley's finger rummaging for his social security, medicare, and medicaid checks. Enjoy!
He doesn't need to rummage, he knows exactly where we live. He'll take what he needs while we sleep.
Post by: Paddy on February 12, 2008, 03:20:04 PM
Quote
And when the adjustment comes, that cold painful feeling in your colon will be Riley's finger rummaging for his social security, medicare, and medicaid checks. Enjoy!
I got a bad rap there. I currently pay for my own health insurance at the rate of $300/mo for a high deductible policy. And I have no intention of taking ss or medicare for at least several more years.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2008, 04:15:44 PM
Or, am I? You are a babyboomer, who has got the habit of repeating to us youngsters that we should STFU and pay our taxes. So, you become the natural butt of proctological jokes for the younger generations who will actually have to pay for LBJ's and others' faux pas. Or, will we?
Post by: seeker_two on February 13, 2008, 01:44:20 AM
Quote
And when the adjustment comes, that cold painful feeling in your colon will be Riley's finger rummaging for his social security, medicare, and medicaid checks. Enjoy!
I got a bad rap there. I currently pay for my own health insurance at the rate of $300/mo for a high deductible policy. And I have no intention of taking ss or medicare for at least several more years.
You say that now........but when Hillbama Care comes, will you be in line?......