Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 89
  1. #21  
    It will all be the same as years past. neither canidate is going to bring "change".
  2. #22  
    Maybe the truth there - the same old, with a bit of a modification thrown in, or all new with change that comes tugging at your wallet and national defense.
  3. #23  
    Mod, you say you want to see the Republican party move to the center; then I take it you want the Democrat party to move to the center also? As it is, the Democrat party is moving to the left post haste.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    But seriously...what if your candidate loses? What will you do?
    Take it out on this forum by getting a Blackberry; I'll be another lost Treo user..


    Erm, probably nothing really. What can you do if your candidate loses? I know I won't be making any silly claims of things I have no intention of doing (like moving to Canada).
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by smileyboy View Post
    It will all be the same as years past. neither canidate is going to bring "change".
    I'd argue that Bush brought change.... change we can all see and feel.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Take it out on this forum by getting a Blackberry; I'll be another lost Treo user..

    Erm, probably nothing really. What can you do if your candidate loses? I know I won't be making any silly claims of things I have no intention of doing (like moving to Canada).
    I've moved on to an iPhone...but may be dumping that soon too. No tethering is a deal breaker for me because I use it with my TomTom for traffic conditions....vitally important in Los Angeles. Not sure what to get though. I never did sell my Tilt, so I could return to it. The Treo Pro sounded exciting until I started seeing the reports about the keyboard and the quality of the screen.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Thanks for the spelling corrections. Aisle. And Martial. Got it. I'll try to pay more attention to my spelling and grammar (which is hopeless).
    Martial was you, but I've seen aisle quite a few times from several people. It just makes me want to make Survivor references (although I'd be horrible at it since I've only ever seen parts of a few shows).
    I understand your position. You seem to be more of a Libertarian than I am so neither candidate represents your ideal candidate.
    Exactly. Obama's much closer this election, but I'm still concerned about him letting some of the Congress have their way too easily.
    I don't agree with the premise that McCain and a Dem House/Senate will lead to anything good either.
    Don't get me wrong. I certainly don't think that it would lead to good. I just don't think they'd get along well enough to screw things up too badly.
    Maybe if he had won back in 2000 and had a Dem House/Senate I'd feel differently. But today he is both too old (read: Palin is scary inexperienced) and he has demonstrated that he is erratic throghout his entire campaign...let alone his career. His temperament is not something this nation can trust right now in very tough times that require more friends than enemies.
    That's one thing I think would be good about Obama. Like I said, I think it would make the other kids like us more.
    Finally, if McCain were to win I think it would embolden the Republican party - which would be regrettable since I'd like to see them move to the center (or dare I say, more toward Libertarian).
    The Republicans will likely never go back more to the Libertarian side truly. They're getting too beholden to the social conservatives. That's the real 'danger' with Palin, IMO.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The Republicans will likely never go back more to the Libertarian side truly. They're getting too beholden to the social conservatives. That's the real 'danger' with Palin, IMO.
    Well to be more specific, they won't go back to being Goldwater Republicans any time soon - to which I hope you're wrong. Interestingly enough, I think over 53% of Catholics are now saying they will vote for Obama. Other than the most strident evangelicals I have to wonder if social conservatism will ever regain the influence it once enjoyed in the GOP? It seems to me McCain bet the farm that if he pandered to the social conservatives that he would win the election - it appears he will fail miserably.

    I suppose a lot depends on how things go in 8 days and then over Obama's first two years. He has a chance to be different and truly bring this nation together and move it forward. But we've all heard the "uniter not a divider" mantra before and look how well that turned out? I just think he is much wiser than the last guy to say that.
  9.    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I would imagine $10 BILLION a month being spent in Iraq would allow for a fairly significant cut once we wind down operations there. Would that equate to 25% of the overall military budget? Dunno. But neither does Ben - nor does he know when the cuts would happen; over what period of time; what region the cuts would occur; what branches would be cut; etc.
    OMG. I just saw the Fox & Friends show where they used Barney Frank's comments about reducing defense spending, namely in Iraq, and the whacko Colonel they had on the segment and now I see where Ben came up with this 25% reduction. Unreal. The brilliant morons "interviewing" the Colonel brilliantly equate Barney's out-of-context comments to Obama's defense spending policies. You have to see this crap to believe it - he evens blames Barney Frank for Freddie Mac.

    http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video0...w.foxnews.com/

    Pure genuis. I don't know how anybody can watch this drivel and call it journalism. This isn't even biased - its outright CAMPAIGNING for McCain.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    OMG. I just saw the Fox & Friends show where they used Barney Frank's comments about reducing defense spending, namely in Iraq, and the whacko Colonel they had on the segment and now I see where Ben came up with this 25% reduction. Unreal. The brilliant morons "interviewing" the Colonel brilliantly equate Barney's out-of-context comments to Obama's defense spending policies. You have to see this crap to believe it - he evens blames Barney Frank for Freddie Mac.

    http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video0...w.foxnews.com/

    Pure genuis. I don't know how anybody can watch this drivel and call it journalism. This isn't even biased - its outright CAMPAIGNING for McCain.

    what's really really spooky about the harangue is that every problem and outrage that he enumerates is the direct result of junior's malfeisance.

    Inadequate medical care and support for wounded veterans, improper evaluation and care of mentally compromised vets, inadequate support for their families -- and yet they have the audacity to point blame at democrats, Frank, and Obama -- amazing !!!
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    You have to see this crap to believe it - he evens blames Barney Frank for Freddie Mac.
    You don't think Barney Frank played a major role in creating the mortgage crisis???
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You don't think Barney Frank played a major role in creating the mortgage crisis???
    Describe major?

    Short answer: he played a role, but not anymore than guys like Phil Graham http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/p...sure-phil.html or Trent Lott who refused to let Hagel's bill even go to the Republican controlled floor for a vote. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440681,00.html
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/27/2008 at 07:23 PM.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    If Obama loses, McCain will create a police state. We'll be under marshal law and forced to give up our rights under the constitution. McCain will claim that the congress has failed and as such, he'll call upon the conservative justices of the Supreme Court to back his declaration as being the sole authority over all branches of our government - in effect, declaring him "dictator in chief".
    Are you serious? As stated earlier in this post. No matter who wins, we won't notice much change; no pun intended.
  14.    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by aximtreo View Post
    Are you serious? As stated earlier in this post. No matter who wins, we won't notice much change; no pun intended.
    It was rhetoric intended to mock similar alarmist posts claiming Obama will lead us into socialism/communism.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by aximtreo View Post
    Are you serious? As stated earlier in this post. No matter who wins, we won't notice much change; no pun intended.
    I think we will see changes if obama is in... you can bet a reduction in iraq... if dems have control over congress, you can bet he will push his agenda quickly in his first two years.

    I believe at least two supreme court justices will retire... he will take care of that. (mccain would as well, but it will leave the court afu.

    If mccain is in, he will have a hard time with dems controlling congress... mccain would have to reach across and make plenty concessions with his policies, much more than what obama will have to make.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Short answer: he played a role...
    So why roll your eyes when the guy blames Frank for Freddie Mac? Neither Lott nor Gramm are directly responsible for that. Frank was.
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    So why roll your eyes when the guy blames Frank for Freddie Mac? Neither Lott nor Gramm are directly responsible for that. Frank was.
    How so? How was he "directly" responsible?

    You see, I think there is a lot of blame to go around - and Franks has some culpability- but the idea that one man brought down the whole system is ridiculous.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    So why roll your eyes when the guy blames Frank for Freddie Mac? Neither Lott nor Gramm are directly responsible for that. Frank was.
    I don't know how much Frank is responsible for anything, but I know that Fanny Mae was not responsible for this crisis.

    Anyone who knows much about the elements that created it -- or who has read through my posts in the mortgage thread -- would understand the truth of that.

    Those who blame greedy home buyers, lying borrowers, or organizations like Fanny Mae or Acorn -- know nothing about the roots of how it came about.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    How so? How was he "directly" responsible?

    You see, I think there is a lot of blame to go around - and Franks has some culpability- but the idea that one man brought down the whole system is ridiculous.
    Being directly responsible does not mean being solely responsible.

    Frank is directly responsible for Freddie Mac because he's the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee which oversees Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. For years, he strongly opposed closer supervision, and he argued that the risks were exaggerated. He was wrong.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I don't know how much Frank is responsible for anything, but I know that Fanny Mae was not responsible for this crisis.

    Anyone who knows much about the elements that created it -- or who has read through my posts in the mortgage thread -- would understand the truth of that.

    Those who blame greedy home buyers, lying borrowers, or organizations like Fanny Mae or Acorn -- know nothing about the roots of how it came about.
    I don't blame greed or lying. I blame legislation that set out to turn poor people into home owners, and I blame the ecosystem that fed and fed off of that process.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions