all done
 

serioulsy, I've got nuthin.
So I cant stand O, think he is an empty suit and every criticism of him prior to being elected has proven to be true.
but......would things be better if McCain was president? Im not convinced.
I see no one in the Repub race that even interests me. I heard Perry on an intervirew (I know nothing about him) and he was asked specifics and all he did was spout anti-fed talking points. He couldnt provide one solution to anything.

I have no hope for anything to improve in this country. I've lost faith in the system.

We was just talkin about mccain about an hour ago. Wondering where we would have been. I think better off...even with palin who everyone looks at as a ditz. I think they might have surprised people.

Right now if I had to pick I'd go Romney. No matter what we're #^&#^&#^&#^&ed for the next 5 years right now.

you're in good company...

Former President Jimmy Carter wants to see Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination and run against President Obama next November.

"I hope he wins," Carter said of the former Massachusetts governor in a Thursday night interview with MSNBC. "I'm not taking a position, but I would be very pleased to see him win the Republican nomination."

I feel about the same way. I hope he wins. Probably not though because O'bama is going to spend spend spend. He'll spend his way either into the poorhouse or right back into the white house..

Remember all the phone calls for the election last time...

Can you imagine what it's going to be like this time? Cut your line now while you can :smash:

Wonder how it woulda been different? The current tax policies under Obama are the same as under Bush. McCain probably wouldn't have changed them. McCain may not have done the stimulus, but the economy may have gone in the shirter. Health care reform is one place, but it hasn't been implemented and any economic impacts are in the future. Iraq and Afghanistan probably the same. My guess is McCain woulda stayed out of Libya. He woulda got Bin Laden. Wall street reform would have been stricter under McCain-Cantwell. Maybe no cash for clunkers, but the economy picked up for awhile back then. He was for TARP before the Palin crowd got on his case. Only real difference is the letter after his name.

THe last ten years have 8 under W and 2 under Obama, ya think he did it all in 24 months?

Regardless I'm going Republican.

No matter who owns the Executive Office. As long as Congress remains gridlocked we are just losers.

Anybody hear the NPR story this morning about how they outsourced the prefab steel for the Bay Bridge to China?

California Turns To China For New Bay Bridge : NPR

Generally agree...not to mention the natural disasters, Japan nuke meltdown and Arab Spring. McCain presidency and the economy would still be struggling to get traction.

Perhaps he could have cut taxes even further, but given the situation this would have just been more spending. Deficit would probably be about the same as Obama's stimulus.

-spence

Hey . . . buck up Jimmy. Help is around the corner. All that is needed is the Congress, the POTUS, and the SCOTUS, to act responsibly. It is good that the system is so out of whack. This is what was needed to show our leaders that they have been irresponsible. They will now finally understand that reckless spending and massive debt and deficits are wrong. They will surely, now, see that the super wealthy must be held in check and not be allowed to keep so much that their influence will be irresistible. And it will be obvious that the old system is no longer useful. They might all realize that it is necessary to have a constitutional convention to create a new Constitution which will reflect our and the world's current needs. They will surely realize that the inequities of the old world will only continue to breed the racism, poverty, hate, violence, and disorder that cripples us now. It is good that you have lost faith in the system. It will be necessary that a solid majority have also lost faith. This will facilitate the transition to a new system . . . to a fundamental transformation of an unjust, war-mongering system to one of equality and peace. As you have pointed out, it doesn't matter who gets "elected." The economy will be the same. They are all interchangeable names, empty suits that can be of no interest to you. Might as well keep Obama. That would make the transformation easier, smoother . . . right?

Hurl :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The system is the greatest the world has ever seen and it will
continue to be so. It's the lame brain politicians who are running it
now who are the problem.
So far I haven't seen anybody currently throwing their hat in that
would make much of a difference.
Imho, we need some no nonsense, get it done servants to get back on
track. Christie and Juliani come to mind.

Gotta love chum :rotf2:

-spence

ahhh, hope and change.

Term limits in congress and the senate...

The Ayn Rand Institute held its annual "Atlas Shrugged Revolution" dinner Thursday night in New York City.

In attendance were a number of financial luminaries and hedge fund managers, including Peter Schiff of EuroPacific Capital, John Tamny of RealClearMarkets, Dmitry Balyasny of Balyasny Asset Management and Scott Schweighauser of Aurora Investment Management.

The setting was the tony St. Regis Hotel on Fifth Avenue but there was nothing pleasant about the primary message coming from both the speakers and those in attendance: Western civilization is heading for hell and a hand basket, just like Rand predicted in her seminal novel.

In the accompanying video, ARI president Yaron Brook tells Henry why Rand's devotees believe the global economy is "heading for collapse."

In a nutshell, Brook believes politicians and policymakers have "no solutions" for the problems facing the globe.

"The fundamental problem," Brook says, is with the philosophical belief our society has that governments can solve problems and more rules and regulations are the answer to our economic ailments.
Barring "real structural change" to our economic underpinnings toward self-reliance and true laissez-faire capitalism, "we can buy time, but we can't change the outcome," Brook says.

And what will that outcome be? A repeat of the Great Depression in the 'best'-case scenario, he says. And the worse-case? A repeat of the fall of the Roman Empire.

"I don't expect that, I think we'll rebound," Brook says. "But we have to remember that…civilizations in human history have declined, they've disappeared."

Ayn Rand was a true believer in the political genius of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they created. Her and the Ayn Rand Institute's negative view of the direction we are heading is largely due to our divergence from Constitutional governance and departure from the philosophical, intellectual, and economic principles on which it and our country were founded.

uh, yeah, I got that. Hence the red highlights.

If you got that, then why are you "all done"? Why do you "got nuthin"? Support the politicians who come closest to what you "got." None are perfect. It's a slow crawl back to Constitutional government, but it will be even slower or even less possible if the believers give up.

Romney??

be careful what you wish for...


:rolleyes:

Romney, same old same old politician through and through.

Ya don't get what ya see with this guy.

I had to bump this thread.
Here we are 4 months later. The best repub party can come up with is

- an rich stiff who pays 15% in taxes and invests funds offshore (I dont fault him for this but come on! The dems will cream him on this!!!) The guy has no charisma.

or
- a disgraced speaker of the house who is known to have a temper, cheats on his wifes and has a different idea every minute!

Seriously? This is the best this country can do? All this repub momentum via the tea party, all the anti obama sentiment and this is what you got? What a joke.

Gingrich - Palin will do well
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed. It's all a joke.. On all sides
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

X2

and with the nastiness of the primary the pres. race will be even worse.

An election based on personalities is by definition a joke. No candidate is perfect. And each voter has a different definition of perfect. And personality is more myth than reality. And different people have different perceptions of myth so view a given personality differently. All elections in the past have had this flaw. My myth versus your myth and so little paid attention to the principles of our government. This has led to a degradation of those principles so that most don't even know what they are. If there is a difference in governmental principle between our candidates, that is what matters and has always mattered regardless of the flaws of those candidates.

i doubt it. the repubs have done such a good job discrediting their own candidates that BO should just be able to waltz back in without too much of a fight IMHO.

such a shame. if only Ron Paul wasn't such a whack job on some topics and presented a little better....

I’d love to see the skeletons in the closet of the “perceived” best presidents (and leaders for that matter) in history. Talk about a side show……..

At least you can't knock Romney for managing his money well (maybe he can manage our tax money the same way). If I were him, I would do it too. If you had that money and financial advisers he has I bet every one of us would do it. Who was that guy that is a Senator from MA and registered his luxury yacht boat in another state......

I’m sick of all of it. The media too. All the media wants to do is uncover something bad and never spend any time on the good. Maybe there is no good or maybe our society gets a hard-on for dirt digging. Anyone who runs gets the witch-hunt and unfortunately the media decides what and who they want to hunt. Everyone (except me :) ) has dirt about something in their present or past.

I'm not a big Romney defender but his entire income is investment income, he's paying the going rate for capital gains, I also think a lot of Americans have investments "off shore" in foreign investment through their portfolios so I hope you don't fault him, he says he getting no unusual tax advantages from those investments and all of his investments have been in a blind trust since 2002/3....I guess you just fault him for being a rich stiff with no charisma?

speaking of which...Jonh F. Kerry and his Sugar Mommy were paying 12% in taxes......didn't stop all of the democrats for voting for him now did it???? He thought he'd won...... is he complaining that the rich need to pay more? cause I think we've learned that he's profieted nicely thanks to Congress exempting themselves from the insider trading laws.....shame.........I think he's still bitter...along with Gore...what's he worth now and how exactly has he earned it??? and I wonder what he's paying in taxes?...I know he wasn't big on charitable contributions...well, except with other peoples money...

at least Rom can tell you how he earned the money that is producing his investment income:)

why don't we refer to Clinton as....disgraced former President of the United States who is known to lie, cheats perpetually on his wife and takes credit for ideas that he co-opted from someone else out of political expedience? good think he's not running again?...right???...probably never get elected...although...I think we knew all or most of those things about him before he was elected...twice

not a Newt defender either but I think it's just hilarious after John Edwards, Clinton, the Kennedys, Client #9 and on and on....did we ever get an in-depth interview with Teddy's ex...right before a campaign...oh the stories she might have told...we did get Newt's mom...remember that...with Connie Chung I think?

This election is going to be a tough decision for me. Ive voted for both parties in the past. I want some change but don't see it happening. The congress is so whacked right now i cant see anything meaningful get done.
The two choices we really have are Newt, Mitt or the big O. Newt is a really smart guy and has some good ideas but the pandering to the Right makes me swallow vomit every time i hear it. Mitt does not show confidence, he looks nervous to me. I have a hard time believing what he says. He doesn't just pander to the right, he just panders. He seems like a moderate at times that takes huge turns to the right but then comes back to the middle. As a business man i dont really know if he was that successful or not. Running the Olympics is running a country, its not even in the same ball park, it aint even the same game.
Ron Paul is a whack who i respect. I like a lot of his ideas, but if they were all put in place i shutter to think what would actually happen. Isolationism isn't a bad thing. I think he is the only one who think Israel should be on their own.
On the social issues... Do they really matter at all right now? Isn't getting the economy back on track more important than abortion etc. I didn't lose my guns when Obama got elected like it was warned by so many. Gay marriage, whatever... The only issue i really care about and its not really a social issue is Social Security. I have been paying into it for a long time, and damn it i better get mine when i retire and i don't mean when i am 87 years old.
When it comes to fidelity in office i really don't care. Clinton did a good job and had his on the side, Newt on the side, JFK, lots on the side. When you are a person in power no matter what the job the opportunities with women present themselves. I don't care if you take advantage of the situation, it shouldn't come out in public. If it does just admit to it. Its not usually that big of a deal unless you are John Edwards, he really botched it up.

I usually stay out of the political forum but im bored and bitter that im not at the rod building class right now. Friggin snow...

There's plenty of good out here, problem is reporting it won't
sell advertising space. :( $$$ are always the bottom line.

ABC proved it's liberal bias by breaking the Gingrich open marriage thing
the night before the final debate. So did King, making it his first question
in the debate.

Sensationalism????? tell me something I don't know. :deadhorse:

you are right....it's a tough one:uhuh:

The problem isn't media bias, it's this process where we're having 4,000 debates and for the most part there's not much substance. The networks are looking for anything to stir the pot to keep the ratings up.

Clinton and Kennedy didn't leave their wives.

The Gingrich infidelity is much worse, showing a pattern not just of cheating but of leaving multiple wives in the process not to mention the stories of doing so with health issues at play.

This really gets to the heart of Newt's character which many believe to be extremely erratic and egotistical. Gingrich repeatedly states he's the most consistent Conservative, but his track record paints a different picture.

-spence

Newt helped take us from a time when pols. would drink together after sessions (think Reagan and Tip) to a time where if someone on the other side disagrees with you, they are evil and un-American.

from Chris Matthews lips you your ears...icky:)

"There's something there I miss today," mused the former Democratic staffer and longtime talk-show host Chris Matthews in January about the relationship between Reagan and House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, the most powerful Democrat in Washington during Reagan's first term. Matthews dreamily evoked a time when Reagan and O'Neill had drinks together, swapped Irish stories, slapped backs, and, they say, cut deals with a minimum of personal rancor—as opposed to the ugly relations between the two parties today.

The Democratic Party maintained control of the House from 1954 until 1995.

Newt helped take us from a time when the Dems ran the House perpetually to a time when it has, now, changed hands a couple of times in 15 years .....a lot of people didn't like that....Washington and the goings on there have always been quite ugly, if you know anything about the history of American politics and elections you would know that nothing has changed since our founding in terms of the brutal rhetoric, the attacks and in many cases the complete lack of civility....politics has always brought this out in people and always will, Newt did not help make Washington a less friendly place....it has always been that, particularly at times when power is changing hands...it does make a nice talking point though:uhuh: "Newt ruined civility in Washington"

Didn't the Clintonistas refer to their paticular brand of politics as "BLOOD SPORTS"? The term refers to and traces back to 18th Century England when entertainment was provided in the village square for the masses by tethering a bear.... "bear baiting".... or a bull... "bull baiting" and sometimes even a bager "Newt Baiting?", to a stake and then unleashing mastiffs and bulldogs on the animal where they would then rip eachother apart....and then they'd go have drinks afterward:rotf2:



"In truth, this depiction of Reagan is entirely false, as is the contention that Reagan-era Washington was a kinder and gentler place than it is today. The hostilities between parties and ideologies in Washington during Reagan's presidency make the present day look tame by comparison. No president in modern times has ever been as reviled. And the hatred of Reagan was justified, to some degree, because his presidency, in the rueful words of the journalist Richard Reeves a decade ago, "damned near destroyed American liberalism."

Liberals hated Reagan in the 1980s. Pure and simple. They used language that would make the most fervid anti-Obama rhetoric of the Tea Party seem like, well, a tea party. Democratic Rep. William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was "trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf." The Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (later a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the "good Germans" in "Hitler's Germany."

There was ample academic support for this theme. John Roth, a Holocaust scholar at Claremont College, wrote:

I could not help remembering how 40 years ago economic turmoil had conspired with Nazi nationalism and militarism—all intensified by Germany's defeat in World War I​—to send the world reeling into catastrophe. . . . It is not entirely mistaken to contemplate our postelection state with fear and trembling.

Eddie Williams, head of what the Washington Post described as "the respected black think tank, the Joint Center for Political Studies," reacted to Reagan's election thus: "When you consider that in the climate we're in—rising violence, the Ku Klux Klan—it is exceedingly frightening." (This was not far removed from Fidel Castro's opinion about Reagan, offered right before the election: "We sometimes have the feeling that we are living in the time preceding the election of Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany.") In the Nation, Alan Wolfe​ wrote that "the United States has embarked on a course so deeply reactionary, so negative and mean-spirited, so chauvinistic and self-deceptive that our times may soon rival the McCarthy era."

"As for the supposed sweetness and light between Reagan and Tip O'Neill, it was mostly blarney. The two had numerous tense phone calls and meetings. In private they called each other's views "crap" on more than one occasion; as the budget talks in 1982 headed to a climax, Reagan told O'Neill, "you can get me to crap a pineapple, but you can't get me to crap a cactus." O'Neill publicly called Reagan "callous . . . a real Ebenezer Scrooge," whose program was "for the selfish, the greedy, and the affluent." In his diary, Reagan wrote: "Tip O'Neil [sic] is getting rough; saw him on TV telling the United Steelworkers U. that I am going to destroy the nation." He also told his diary that "Tip is a true pol. He can really like you personally & be a friend while politically trying to beat your head in." That was Reagan at his most charitable. He noted once that in a White House meeting where O'Neill "sounded off in a very partisan manner," "I almost let go the controls but I didn't," and on another occasion he described one of O'Neill's public claims as "the most vicious pack of lies I've ever seen."

'Reagan had in mind such O'Neill gems as his remarks in 1981 on ABC that Reagan "has no concern, no regard, no care for the little man in America. And I understand that. Because of his lifestyle, he never meets those people." This was a mere warm-up for O'Neill's blast at Reagan during the 1984 campaign:

The evil is in the White House at the present time. And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water for blood.

bet they had a few beers after that one huh?...did he say "evil"....twice?????

Newt and Lee Atwater - who on his death bed tried to make amends.

yeah, I'm not having much luck finding where either of them ever referred to other elected politicians as "evil"...let alone twice in one speech regarding a sitting American President :) maybe he said it with the best of intentions...being good friends and all:rotf2:

here's more Tip...

Tip O' Neill (the powerful Speaker of the House) said Reagan's mind was "an absolute and total disgrace" and that it was "sinful that this man is President of the United States."

probably like.... 3 beers and a shot for that...right??


the right's rhetoric never quite measures up to the left when you actually look at it...but the left sure have selective memories :uhuh:

Seems like when news comes out on these candidates that most people would be embarrassed about they get more votes and donations go to record levels :rotf2: I always thought evangelicals had higher moral sandards.:biglaugh:

people tend to rally around those that they feel are being unfairly treated......Hillary always had her highest positives when she was playing the victim...remember the cry in NH? dems rallied around Bill despite being lied to and having his finger wagged in their faces...shouldn't be shocking...Evangelicals and others recognize that people can get on the right path...Newt has indicated and I guess shown that he has changed regarding the issue that you are talking about and I think most found the interview to be bitter, salacious and purpousfully politically timed rather than some great revelation