Post by: Ezekiel on September 04, 2008, 06:09:47 PM
Confession.
McCain was my choice eight years ago. He lost.
Then, he became GWB, Jr. You know what? I got mad at him. (I saw that, during his speech.)
I abhor right-wing, radical, cold-dead-hands, Reaganite-to-Buchanon conservatism in ALL its forms. Palin makes me ill. And I thought that's what McCain had become.
*expletive deleted*it. Mac's back. [edit: meaning he's not a far right nutjob, even though he acted like one for eight years.]
It's going to be a race, isn't it?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 04, 2008, 06:13:47 PM
Post by: Ezekiel on September 04, 2008, 06:14:19 PM
That's a shame, Zeke. I feel for you. Really, I do. Honest.
Hey, I meant internally.
I LIKED this guy and he broke my heart. (I still recall the great SNL bit -- taken from Apocalypse Now -- where he has an animated meltdown supporting GWB: but did it, anyway.)
If he can only be what he was eight years ago, muzzle Palin, and do what he says, I'm torn.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 04, 2008, 06:18:51 PM
Chris
Post by: Ezekiel on September 04, 2008, 06:20:11 PM
I'm hoping he gets elected and gridlock is the result. Perpetual, never ending gridlock so we can at least maintain the status quo.
Chris
Chris
Given that, I'd rather have Obama with a Democratic majority.
America is broken. Be bold!
That's what I thought McCain was, eight years ago.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 04, 2008, 06:27:22 PM
Chris
Post by: Ezekiel on September 04, 2008, 06:29:52 PM
I like it broke just the way it is. I don't want progressive policies or new programs.
Chris
Chris
I don't want 4-8 more years of right-wing, radical, wingnut-hawk, failed policy (home and abroad) GWB-type "leadership."
BROKEN.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 04, 2008, 06:33:36 PM
I like it broke just the way it is. I don't want progressive policies or new programs.
Chris
Chris
I don't want 4-8 more years of right-wing, radical, wingnut-hawk, failed policy (home and abroad) GWB-type "leadership."
BROKEN.
Broken is just fine with me. A functioning govt is one that takes money away from my family, reducing my ability to provide for them. Because of the parasites, a functioning govt does nothing but take from me. I want a govt that accomplishes nothing.
Oh, and I'm better off than I was 8 years ago.
Chris
Post by: Thor on September 04, 2008, 06:35:34 PM
Post by: mtnbkr on September 04, 2008, 06:39:33 PM
Chris
Post by: Ezekiel on September 04, 2008, 06:40:19 PM
Oh, and I'm better off than I was 8 years ago.
Noted. "That's one."
Related to the Carter years -- not endeavouring to bail him out -- he was handed a bucket of warm spit by the Republican Party. (Of course, one could argue same, now.)
And comparing GWB to Reagan, who is wildly overpopularized (Capt. Debt, anyone?), doesn't seem forthright: unless we're speaking of undercover/bad military engagements.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 04, 2008, 06:40:36 PM
Quote
I'm hoping he gets elected and gridlock is the result. Perpetual, never ending gridlock so we can at least maintain the status quo.
Yeah. That's what the founding fathers said and why you inherited all the freedoms you have.
They might have said that or worse had they seen the sort of treasury robbing socialists we have to deal with these days.
Chris
Post by: TommyGunn on September 04, 2008, 06:42:24 PM
I like it broke just the way it is. I don't want progressive policies or new programs.
Chris
Chris
I don't want 4-8 more years of right-wing, radical, wingnut-hawk, failed policy (home and abroad) GWB-type "leadership."
BROKEN.
Yeah, Bush is so right wing that he has increased the size of government at a record rate.... like the liberals did when they were in power the past 40 years.
Yeah, Bush is so right wing he's increased the debt incredibly ....like the liberals did when they were in power the past 40 years.
Bush ...right wing radical.
The guy who invited Teddy Kennedy to the White House.
The Bush who promised in a 2000 debate to reauthorize the assault weapon ban.
PLEEEEEEAAAAAASSE.......
Post by: mtnbkr on September 04, 2008, 06:43:20 PM
Quote
Broken is just fine with me. A functioning govt is one that takes money away from my family, reducing my ability to provide for them. Because of the parasites, a functioning govt does nothing but take from me. I want a govt that accomplishes nothing.
Oh, and I'm better off than I was 8 years ago.
Oh, and I'm better off than I was 8 years ago.
Exactly. Nevermind the debt has increase from $3 trillion back in 2000 to the $9 trillion plus it is today. Let your grandchildren and great grandchildren deal with it.
They'll be better able to deal with it if I can leave them something other than dreams of a free country. That debt won't go away as Obama and his cronies expand social spending, bring socialized healthcare, etc.
Chris
Post by: mtnbkr on September 04, 2008, 06:54:38 PM
Neither party is your friend, my friend. Both have abandoned the FF principles.
Just now figuring this out? I know neither party is my friend, which is why I'd prefer neither do anything at all. The less they do, the less they interfere with my life.
Chris
Post by: mtnbkr on September 04, 2008, 06:55:35 PM
Don't you consider that welfare?
Absolutely and you'll notice I never said I supported it or anything else of its ilk.
Chris
Post by: De Selby on September 04, 2008, 06:58:49 PM
That's a shame, Zeke. I feel for you. Really, I do. Honest.
Hey, I meant internally.
I LIKED this guy and he broke my heart. (I still recall the great SNL bit -- taken from Apocalypse Now -- where he has an animated meltdown supporting GWB: but did it, anyway.)
If he can only be what he was eight years ago, muzzle Palin, and do what he says, I'm torn.
Absolutely zero chance of that bolded part.
He already flipped on his "maverick" image a long time ago to get to this point. People do not toss principles aside to achieve something, and then magically become principled again once they reach a position of power.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 04, 2008, 07:00:15 PM
People do not toss principles aside to achieve something, and then magically become principled again once they reach a position of power.
I see your point.
Post by: GigaBuist on September 04, 2008, 07:16:30 PM
Quote
Nevermind the debt has increase from $3 trillion back in 2000 to the $9 trillion plus it is today.
Actually the deb was $6 trillion in 2000. We haven't seen a $3 trillion debt since about 1990. We had hit $4 trillion by 1992, which should be hard to forget, because Ross Perot was slamming that down that nation's throat via informercials. Source: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Quote
Yeah, Bush is so right wing that he has increased the size of government at a record rate.... like the liberals did when they were in power the past 40 years.
Yeah, Bush is so right wing he's increased the debt incredibly ....like the liberals did when they were in power the past 40 years.
Yeah, Bush is so right wing he's increased the debt incredibly ....like the liberals did when they were in power the past 40 years.
You might want to check the link I posted just above this. There's a pretty distinct pattern showing debt rising when a Republican president is in office, starting with Reagan.
Quote
Clinton actually balanced the budget and left a surplus (although doing nothing to reduce the national debt).
Err, Clinton didn't balance the budget by himself. You've repeated the claim that we were $3 trillion in debt in 2000, which indicates that you're not aware of what was happening in the early-mid 90's when that was actually what the national debt was, so I'll recap:
In 1994 the Republicans swept up majorities in both houses. Clinton couldn't get his budget by them. The Federal government actually shut down because of this. In the end, the only thing Clinton could get through was a balanced budget. The Republicans had to do that. They wouldn't have maintained their majority come 1996 if they didn't.
Granted, by 2000 they'd all apparently taken up heavy drinking as a hobby, because that's when they started spending like drunken sailors, which brings me to the first point that you made:
Quote
Yeah. That's (Gridlock) what the founding fathers said and why you inherited all the freedoms you have
Yes, gridlock is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created our system of government. Why do you think we have a bicameral legislature? Veto powers? Veto overrides? They fully intended a system that made it difficult to change the existing laws or even pass a budget in this country.
That's why we saw a balanced budget under Clinton, which you praise, while knocking the very system of government that delivered it.
Post by: GigaBuist on September 04, 2008, 07:41:17 PM
Quote
Errrr., if a 'bicameral legislature' was what the FF intended, why are we XXXX $trillion in debt?
Well, that's just a nonsensical question, but I'll give a stupid answer to it.
The 17th amendment didn't help any, nor did the 16th. We had a bad stretch of ideas there for a while, 16th, 17th, and 18th. Fixed one of 'em though!
Quote
The simple fact is, Republicans SPEND as much a Democrats (if not more, see the last 8 years).
No real disagreement there.
Quote
Proof? Reagan, Clinton (the so-called 'Republican Revolution' under Newt fizzled out after its first term).
Fizzled out? Care to point me to a point in time where the Republicans were in the minority between 1994 and 2006 in the Legislature? As I recollect, they owned the show for just over a decade. Could be wrong on that one, though. They had it in 1994, they had it in 1996, and they sure had it in 2000, 2002, and 2004. That leaves 1998 up for grabs. Show me I'm wrong. I doubt I am, but I could be. I entered college that year and was sorta doing "other stuff" at the time.Quote
Then, of course, there's the predominantly Dem congress under GWB, who rubber stamped anything/everything Bush wanted.
From 2000-2006 Bush had a Republican Congress. Where are you getting this "predominantly Dem congress under GWB" nonsense?
Post by: Scout26 on September 04, 2008, 08:14:17 PM
Quote
They might have said that or worse had they seen the sort of treasury robbing socialists we have to deal with these days.
I couldn't agree more. Spending is out of control. By my reckoning, Republicans have owned the Whitehouse 28 of the past 40 years. RR spent bigtime as has GWB. Big spenders both. Clinton actually balanced the budget and left a surplus (although doing nothing to reduce the national debt).
Neither party is your friend, my friend. Both have abandoned the FF principles.
Ummm, RR had to deal with a (D) congress. Checking my copy of the constitution, Congress (specifically the HOR) makes the budget. The Senate and President can only approve or disapprove.
Clinton had an (R) congress that shoved a balanced budget down his thoart (they also wanted to also give him line item veto.) Yes, GWB has failed as a fiscal conservative in his vain attempt to buy votes. I'd rather have Mike Irwin write the budget. Then we'd finally see widows and orphans being tossed out into the streets on their ears !!!
Post by: Dannyboy on September 05, 2008, 03:13:29 AM
I abhor right-wing, radical, cold-dead-hands, Reaganite-to-Buchanon conservatism in ALL its forms. Palin makes me ill. And I thought that's what McCain had become.
McCain a right-wing radical? Really? Dude, what the hell have you been smoking/drinking/snorting/shooting? Yeah, he's so far right that most Republicans still aren't too happy he's the nominee. He's so far right that he had to choose a VP that other, more intelligent people, have called a right-wing nutjob.
It's amazing that you could spend so much time on this board and nothing that is said makes it into your tiny little brain. A large percentage of this board has military experience and has told you how full of crap you are and yet, despite the fact that you have absolutely no experience with the military, except for a conversation with a couple of drunk officers in a bar, you continue to insult them. For months most of the conservatives here have said that they don't like McCain. The reason being that he's not conservative enough. I guess any Republican is a right-wing nutjob in your tiny Liberal mind. A masturbationist, absolutely. Intellectual? Don't flatter yourself.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 05, 2008, 03:23:03 AM
Clinton gutted the military and that is the reason we are in a lot of the trouble we are in now with all the Reserve and National Guard call ups and no equipment.
And I too am better off now than I was 8 years ago.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 05, 2008, 03:38:06 AM
McCain a right-wing radical? Really? Dude, what the hell have you been smoking/drinking/snorting/shooting?
I've just watched him vote as one for eight years.
It's pretty simple.
Post by: Lennyjoe on September 05, 2008, 03:59:37 AM
Quote
Reagan spent millions on defense which caused the Soviet Union to go bankrupt. Which won us Cold War I.
Clinton gutted the military and that is the reason we are in a lot of the trouble we are in now with all the Reserve and National Guard call ups and no equipment
I agree with you 100%!Clinton gutted the military and that is the reason we are in a lot of the trouble we are in now with all the Reserve and National Guard call ups and no equipment
I am also better of now than I was 8 years ago.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 05, 2008, 04:19:40 AM
Clinton gutted the military and that is the reason we are in a lot of the trouble we are in now with all the Reserve and National Guard call ups and no equipment.
Disagree, vehemently.
Non-judicious use of current resources remains the actual problem. (Strategically, we are just as powerful as we ever were: #1 by a wide margin.) Scaling down a Cold War anachronism was the right call.
Afterwards, initiating a land war in Asia was the wrong one.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 05, 2008, 04:24:31 AM
Post by: Teknoid on September 05, 2008, 04:34:56 AM
McCain a right-wing radical? Really? Dude, what the hell have you been smoking/drinking/snorting/shooting?
I've just watched him vote as one for eight years.
It's pretty simple.
Bull.
First; President Bush doesn't have a vote in the Senate. So just who is it that McCain is voting with? That would be Republicans. But wait! Most votes in the Senate are unanimous! So that would mean that for most of those votes where McCain was voting "with Bush" you would find every Democrat voting right along with McCain. Funny we don't see that in the mainstream media. Fact is, where there is an actual contested and meaningful vote in the Senate you'll find McCain voting "with Bush" only 45% of the time.
Only a Democrat with Bush Derangement Syndrome could get his shorts in a knot over McCain voting "with Bush" on a resolution commending a basketball team. Also, if you eliminate the 9 times that Obama voted with McCain, that percentage drops to 34%.
I think you get your news from either the Huffington post, or Democratic talking points.
You want to talk about voting? Look at how Yomama votes. Just about 100% liberal.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html
Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.
And so . . .
So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time most recently, but less so in earlier years. And Obama has voted pretty close to 100 percent in line with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 05, 2008, 04:37:24 AM
I like it broke just the way it is. I don't want progressive policies or new programs.
Chris
Chris
I don't want 4-8 more years of right-wing, radical, wingnut-hawk, failed policy (home and abroad) GWB-type "leadership."
BROKEN.
So you'd rather replace it with Progressive Post-American Socialisim?
Post by: mtnbkr on September 05, 2008, 04:51:12 AM
So you'd rather replace it with Progressive Post-American Socialisim?
He's hoping for change dude.
Chris
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 05, 2008, 04:53:14 AM
He's hoping for change dude.
Chris
Well that is all he will have left if Obama gets his tax package.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 05, 2008, 04:56:28 AM
It becomes more obvious everytime you type that you have no clue how the military works.
You dispute that our international ability to project power (not, "invade and hold land") is the same as '92? We can still touch anything we want to, anytime we'd like to.
What may prove difficult, for lack of materiel, is an occupation force.
I didn't realize that was our mantra.
Quote from: teknoid
McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 95 percent of the time most recently, but less so in earlier years.
That was the point: knee-jerk support of bad ideology.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 05, 2008, 05:03:30 AM
So you'd rather replace it with Progressive Post-American Socialisim?
He's hoping for change dude.
Chris
You made me snort coffee......
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 05, 2008, 05:14:24 AM
Quote
You dispute that our international ability to project power (not, "invade and hold land") is the same as '92? We can still touch anything we want to, anytime we'd like to.
Only because Bush and Co. restarted some of the programs that Clinton and Co. hacked.
Do you think we would have the B-2, F-22 and all the new subs and ships if Clinton or one of his clones were in the White House?
Post by: grampster on September 05, 2008, 05:34:15 AM
The Federalist System was intended to be a weak overarching system that kept states from being at one another's throats so that the union of states would be beneficial to all, especially smaller states. The Constitution limited the Federal government. Gridlock was the intent of the Founders. Individual prosperity and liberty only happens when the federal government stands out of the way. That's what checks and balances are all about. It's too bad they don't teach the Constitution in the schools; starting in grade 5 and continuing through grade 12. It's a pretty obvious oversight.
The BoR was laid out as a reminder of the limiting intent of the Constitution. Ie: if you don't understand the limits of the document, here are a few reminders, spelled out clearly about SOME of the limits. In fact if the document doesn't say it can, then it can't.
Unfortunately, citizens stopped being intimately involved in the process of maintaining the Republic and the warning given by one of the founders, "We have given you a Republic, madam, if you can keep it" was not heeded, especially now.
Obama and his ilk are a greater danger to our Republic than anything we have faced before. He's the smiling benevolent dictator all you statists have been anxiously waiting for. Be careful what you ask for, you are likely to get it. The Republicans are not much better.
But let me put it to you simply. I would rather deal with the robber barons than a strong national government. I can avoid the robber baron if I choose, with no other danger than inconvenience. If I avoid the government, they will come with guns, take away my goods, property and throw me under a jail.
Post by: K Frame on September 05, 2008, 06:11:02 AM
So, you're saying you were around when the Constitution was drafted and adopted?
Wow.
You look so young...
Post by: Ezekiel on September 05, 2008, 06:50:16 AM
Quote
You dispute that our international ability to project power (not, "invade and hold land") is the same as '92? We can still touch anything we want to, anytime we'd like to.
Only because Bush and Co. restarted some of the programs that Clinton and Co. hacked.
Do you think we would have the B-2, F-22 and all the new subs and ships if Clinton or one of his clones were in the White House?
I see your point.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 05, 2008, 07:03:22 AM
Quote
You dispute that our international ability to project power (not, "invade and hold land") is the same as '92? We can still touch anything we want to, anytime we'd like to.
Only because Bush and Co. restarted some of the programs that Clinton and Co. hacked.
Do you think we would have the B-2, F-22 and all the new subs and ships if Clinton or one of his clones were in the White House?
I was just poking about stuff in Portsmouth about the recent launch of the Virginia-class USS New Hampshire, a brand-new nuclear attack sub. She's to be commissioned in the shipyard here in October, I'm trying to find a way to go see that. (I'd previously attended the commissioning of the missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf as a kid, through a middle school trip.)
That would never have been done during Clinton's terms, a new fast attack sub like this one. Contract was awarded in 2003, she's ready to go now, $54 million dollars under budget and eight months early.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 05, 2008, 08:00:13 AM
Sigh....It is always so amusing to watch the certitude of young people who were not around when stuff happened. They only know what they read and hear, and only read what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.
The Federalist System was intended to be a weak overarching system that kept states from being at one another's throats so that the union of states would be beneficial to all, especially smaller states. The Constitution limited the Federal government. Gridlock was the intent of the Founders. Individual prosperity and liberty only happens when the federal government stands out of the way. That's what checks and balances are all about. It's too bad they don't teach the Constitution in the schools; starting in grade 5 and continuing through grade 12. It's a pretty obvious oversight.
The BoR was laid out as a reminder of the limiting intent of the Constitution. Ie: if you don't understand the limits of the document, here are a few reminders, spelled out clearly about SOME of the limits. In fact if the document doesn't say it can, then it can't.
Unfortunately, citizens stopped being intimately involved in the process of maintaining the Republic and the warning given by one of the founders, "We have given you a Republic, madam, if you can keep it" was not heeded, especially now.
Obama and his ilk are a greater danger to our Republic than anything we have faced before. He's the smiling benevolent dictator all you statists have been anxiously waiting for. Be careful what you ask for, you are likely to get it. The Republicans are not much better.
But let me put it to you simply. I would rather deal with the robber barons than a strong national government. I can avoid the robber baron if I choose, with no other danger than inconvenience. If I avoid the government, they will come with guns, take away my goods, property and throw me under a jail.
The Federalist System was intended to be a weak overarching system that kept states from being at one another's throats so that the union of states would be beneficial to all, especially smaller states. The Constitution limited the Federal government. Gridlock was the intent of the Founders. Individual prosperity and liberty only happens when the federal government stands out of the way. That's what checks and balances are all about. It's too bad they don't teach the Constitution in the schools; starting in grade 5 and continuing through grade 12. It's a pretty obvious oversight.
The BoR was laid out as a reminder of the limiting intent of the Constitution. Ie: if you don't understand the limits of the document, here are a few reminders, spelled out clearly about SOME of the limits. In fact if the document doesn't say it can, then it can't.
Unfortunately, citizens stopped being intimately involved in the process of maintaining the Republic and the warning given by one of the founders, "We have given you a Republic, madam, if you can keep it" was not heeded, especially now.
Obama and his ilk are a greater danger to our Republic than anything we have faced before. He's the smiling benevolent dictator all you statists have been anxiously waiting for. Be careful what you ask for, you are likely to get it. The Republicans are not much better.
But let me put it to you simply. I would rather deal with the robber barons than a strong national government. I can avoid the robber baron if I choose, with no other danger than inconvenience. If I avoid the government, they will come with guns, take away my goods, property and throw me under a jail.
I think that's a good summary of the U.S. Constitution. I only disagree with the last paragraph in the sense that, in my opinion, the 'robber barons' and 'strong national government' are now the same. There's not really a choice for me there.