• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

MaCain Liberal?

Bring in the republicans to finish out the war on terror...then...8 years from now let the dem's take care of the economic cleanup....

Interesting to think about: Obama's VP is an older rich white man...how many toothless, inbred, middle-american rednecks are gonna vote for Obama with the intention of assassinating him to put a younger-than-McCain white male in control?

The Dem's constant references to McCain being too old and ready to die to be president have alienated every older, white, powerful male supporter in the country...the people who really control elections...
 
Last edited:
Ecomike said:
Reagan did the same thing in the 1980's with legal changes that allowed a joint R & D effort that combined the best private public and academic reasearch efforts under one roof in Austin Texas that led to US domination of the computer revolution that brought us out of the 80's depression and into the internet computer economy of the 90's. It was to a great extent responsible for the prosperity of the 90's.


XJEEPER said:
BTW, I like what you said about the 80's economy being in the crapper, which is great reason to learn from them and not to elect another Jimmy Carter.
.


But then you change XJEEPER's post to read like this changing Jimmy Carter for Ronald Regean.

"BTW, I like what you said about the 80's economy being in the crapper, which is great reason to learn from them and not to elect another RONALD REAGAN."



So....

Was Regean at fault, or the hero because he cannot be both.
 
I'm voting for McCain because at least he has a plan, even if it changes once or twice. O'Bama preaches change and revitalizing the government and such but his talk rarely has any substance to it.
I'll also choose McCain because I wish to keep my firearms and it isn't that hard to find out where O'Bama and Biden stand on gun rights.
And why does everyone put the sole blame on a president for the economy? Honestly aren't they just the head of the executive branch? And like stated earlier, what about people spending outsid their limit, not the presidents fault!
 
well I'm pretty sure roving squads of liberals aren't going to march through the streets collecting firearms you have already purchased and own legally...on the same note...buy anything you really want now, because they can do something about that...
 
red91 said:
.


But then you change XJEEPER's post to read like this changing Jimmy Carter for Ronald Regean.

"BTW, I like what you said about the 80's economy being in the crapper, which is great reason to learn from them and not to elect another RONALD REAGAN."



So....

Was Regean at fault, or the hero because he cannot be both.


I expect no less from Mike, he's too predictable. It took Reagan two terms to turn around the mess that Carter's administration created. Anyone who defends the actions of Jimmy Carter should be charged with Treason.........
 
XJEEPER said:
I expect no less from Mike, he's too predictable. It took Reagan two terms to turn around the mess that Carter's administration created. Anyone who defends the actions of Jimmy Carter should be charged with Treason.........

then on the other side of the coin....clinton took alot of credit for the excellent economy Reagan left behind.
 
XJEEPER said:
No need to recheck it, Mike. It's accurate based on current market values and comparisons of recent sales in the my area. Thanks for feeling you need to question the accuracy of my data.

Still makes my point accurate, the folks that choose to live within their means, with little or 0 consumer debt will be just fine.........I'm still angry that Congress is making me pay for the others that got themselves upside down on their mortgages/2nds.

The way I see it we are stuck paying that tab whether we bail them (who ever them is) out or let them sink. Either way it is going to cost us a bunch, a cost we should not of had to worry about had Washington been on their feet and doing their job of regulating interstate commerce the last 27 years!

Many people are going to be stupid and greedy, that is why we need better regulation of the financial industries, to keep this sh*t from happing.
By the way, in case you had not noticed, some people who have been fiscally conservative have still lost their jobs are struggling with a house payment on a house that is no longer selling for what they bought it for. Some of them were wealthy, some of them were Veterans, it is not all subprime stuff anymore.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/26/real_estate/Case_Shiller_home_price_report/index.htm?postversion=2008082609

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- National U.S. home prices fell a record 15.4% in the second quarter compared with last year, according to a report released Tuesday.
The latest S&P/Case-Shiller national home price index is down 18.2% from its peak in the second quarter of 2006, and there are no signs that the pace of home-price declines is easing. The second-quarter loss was even larger than the record 14.2% drop posted in the first three months of 2008.
Both the Case-Shiller 10-city index (down 17%) and 20-city index (down 15.9%) also posted record year-over-year losses in the second quarter."



"And with mortgage loans difficult for many home buyers to obtain and foreclosure rates still rising, inventories of homes for sale continue to expand, depressing home prices. There is now an 11.2 month supply of existing homes on the market.
"The inventory problem has not been solved," said Larson.
Peter Schiff, president and chief global strategist at Euro Pacific Capital, said the market is only about halfway to its bottom. In 2005, he predicted the then-coming bust would cut 30% off national home prices.
Losses will continue because there has been no fundamental change in markets, he said. Despite abundant foreclosure sales, inventories are still growing and lending availability is still shrinking.
And, people are not inclined to buy in a falling market. They wait for it to hit bottom. "If prices fall another 20%, that's the time to buy," said Schiff."
"The worst performing city in the index was Las Vegas, where prices plunged 28.6% year-over-year, followed by Miami, down 28.3%, and Phoenix, down 27.9%."



"...cited San Francisco, where the price of inexpensive homes has fallen more than 40% from the peak, while moderate priced homes were off 30%,"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cshpi-peak.svg
 
red91 said:
.


But then you change XJEEPER's post to read like this changing Jimmy Carter for Ronald Regean.

"BTW, I like what you said about the 80's economy being in the crapper, which is great reason to learn from them and not to elect another RONALD REAGAN."



So....

Was Regean at fault, or the hero because he cannot be both.

He was both. His R & D plan efforts in the mid 1980's helped, along with democratic policies in the 1990's that expanded the internet. The combination spark the 1990's internet computer economic expansion. Unfortunately he was so busy fighting inflation in the 80's that many of us starved to death (figure of speech), went broke, lost everything, during the 80's waiting for the positive results of one of the good things he did.
 
XJEEPER said:
I expect no less from Mike, he's too predictable. It took Reagan two terms to turn around the mess that Carter's administration created. Anyone who defends the actions of Jimmy Carter should be charged with Treason.........
Actually the inflation problem was inherited by Carter from Ford, who inherited it from Nixon, do you remember the Nixon wage and price freezes by executive order? And of course Nixon inherited inflation and the Vietnam war that started the inflation spiral from LBJ. Another presidential mistake from Texas.

Interesting how history repeats itself. I learned the other day that LBJ sole sourced all the overseas contracts for Vietnam to Brown & Root (Now Haliburton), just like Bush Cheney did with Haliburton for Iraq. Now that waste of my tax dollars, not having competitive bids, is what should be called treason.
 
XJEEPER said:
I expect no less from Mike, he's too predictable.
I'm not the only one that is predictable around here!:laugh3:
 
red91 said:
then on the other side of the coin....clinton took alot of credit for the excellent economy Reagan left behind.

Actually Bush Senior cleaned up the Reagan finacial mess after Reagan left office, and left a decent situation behind for Clinton to build from. Bush Senior was too afraid to help the economy along his last year, when the economy needed a boost and it cost Bush Senior a second term. Clinton started a policy of moving the R&D operations from the national labs that were being mothballed by Bush policy when the Soviet Union collapsed, so Clinton created a path for private enterprise to work with the national labs to move high tech from the national labs out into the street to stimulate the economy that was heading downhill during and after the end of the Gulf War.
Bush was actually the one that raised taxes to try and balance the federal budget again. He came close, but Clinton finished the job Bush Senior started.

In some ways, Bush Senior was one of the best presidents we had. Unfortunatley his son ruined the family name and legacy.
 
EMSJEEP said:
well I'm pretty sure roving squads of liberals aren't going to march through the streets collecting firearms you have already purchased and own legally...on the same note...buy anything you really want now, because they can do something about that...

What firearms? Oh, the ones I bought that were destroyed in that fire? Yeah, that sucked. ;)

:read: :shhh:
 
Boatwrench said:
Which part?

This part:

"Oh and the military thing, do you know we have fewer carrier battle groups than at anytime since before WWII. McCain supported the decommissioning of the last carrier (Kitty or Kennedy?) WITHOUT authorizing building a new carrier. McCain also has cut veteran's benefits."
Thanks.
 
your right mike...so on the other side of the coin, how many servicemen and women did Clinton put out on the streets with all of the base closures?
 
Ecomike said:
She has no real credible credentials for being the Commander in Chief, except for being a city council women and mayor of a huge city of something like 6,600 people. And Governor of vast snow and ice covered, sparsly populated state for kless than 2 years. My God, is that best he could find as his runner up left in the Republican party?

Forget for a minute that she claims to be a Republican, and ask yourself if you can really picture her as the Comander in Chief as we face a new Russian (Soviet) threat?


Yes...because she know's how this shit works, and has already had front line experience with it and the men and women who operate it.






Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It’s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.

As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's.

She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.

Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska's proximity to Russia, she may have security clearances we don't even know about.

According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.

She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.







Yeah she has it going on Mike.

Refute this if you can.
 
To add to red's post...

The presidency is an executive position and it's vastly preferred that candidates have executive experience. Palin has it, Obama does not. This is significant because an execuative makes decisions, leads, manages, governs, takes responsibility etc. A senator does none of these. This is common knowledge within political circles and intelligent people recognize it.

What's absurd is hearing Obama supporters suggest that she doesn't have enough experience. Her overall political experience is only slightly less than Obama's, but it's in areas that really count. She has accomplished REAL CHANGE as an EXECUTIVE, not just empty words from someone who doesn't vote in Congress often. Let each of their records speak for themselves.
 
Boatwrench said:
Still looking for the carrier battle group item, in the mean time here's some reading.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00111
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00041



These were just the easy ones that didn't require much research.

The one you posted that I recopied above seems to be the only one with CLEAR party line divisions on the vote, and a clear veterans medical benefits funding only objective (tied to corporate tax loop hole closure to fund the proposed increased veterans benefits) focus on the amendment, but I have not read the entire text of the original bill. On the surface it looks to be a clear indication that Republicans will vote to save major corporate tax loop holes rather than fund Veterans medical care.

To be fair to the Republicans, it does not say that don't support veterans medical care improvements, only that given a choice they would vote for corporate tax loop holes rather than for increased veterans medical help which indicates where their true loyalties lay, Big business and big oil.

The other three seem a bit more vague, and harder to draw any clear conclusions from. One of the other 4 has funding even for the kitchen sink (speaking figuratively) and or no real clear party line vote divisions.

But that one seems to make one of my points that Republicans are bit too pro-Big business and really not serious enough about taking care of the medical needs of veterans with long term disabilities.
 
Back
Top