Modern McCarthyism

Originally posted by smw6869
Sorry, i broke my foot two weeks ago and been watching too much TV. I'v been stuck in the office all day. Can't say i've watched any commercials. Please inform me as to what programs are working. Take your time. Which programs will be eliminated? Take your time. Will Nat'l HealthCare be working? You know, like Soc. Sec, Medicare? I'm for programs that work. ...[text shortened]... all what? You know! Say it! That's right.....suckers of the green weenie!

GRANNY.

If you are not up on things then how can you claim that Obama is going to create a huge government, and the same old story "that's what Dems always do" no longer works. The Republicans have proven themselves quite adept at spending money and creating a massive, useless government.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
If you are not up on things then how can you claim that Obama is going to create a huge government, and the same old story "that's what Dems always do" no longer works. The Republicans have proven themselves quite adept at spending money and creating a massive, useless government.

Dear god Clifford, i said ALL politicians. DEMS and REPs. When did i say i wasn't up on things? I said i don't watch political commercials. Is that the only way to be "up on things"? I'm sure Nat'l healthcare won't be massive! I'm for helping those with no health care. I don't think either party can run it right. Anyway, i guess we'll see what Obama's team can do. Now, drink your last ten beers and finish delivering the mail before someone catches you shaming on the people's time. Cheers!

Originally posted by smw6869
You tend to vote Dem even though you're a Libertarian? Are you sure you're not just a Librarian? You surely appear confused to me. What, do you wake up every morning and flip a coin? Some deep rooted, strong beliefs you have! You've never heard me say how great Bush is. Do you lump everyone in the same camp 'cause they differ with you? Sounds like it's a p ...[text shortened]... st.....Shoot my a**. Ah, you don't have a gun? Some Libertarian! Pathetic!

GRANNY.

All I've heard is whining about Democrats from you. We have the most
socialistic government in America's history, but the bulk of your whining
has been on Obama's platform.

You may not be praising Bush, but big deal! The guy's a communist
crook, the worst in our nation's history, an embarrassment to the entire
Republican platform.

Where's your outrage? Where's your indignation? Where's your passion
against this travesty of a President? I've seen posts where you crap all
over W. Clinton, and yet his government was infinitely more fiscally
responsible than Bush's.

My post is not about absolute ideas -- that I need people to agree with
me on corporate welfare, global warming, civil rights, or whatever. My
post is about the very inconsistency you betray: the villification of one
party because it's that party.

And, as I said, there is a pocket of Democrats who are no better, who
think that when Democrats fart, they smell like roses. They point a
crooked finger at Larry Craig and the evilness of the Republicans, but
they consider the Eliot Spitzer's infidelity with a hooker to be a witch hunt.

They aren't outraged at hypocrisy and infidelity; they just want to malign
those who think differently.

And you're little insulting rant and jaunt at what you suppose my position
is on gun rights only makes you look childish. If you want to debate
points with me, that's fine, but I'm not going to indulge some sort of
pre-pubescent exchange.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
All I've heard is whining about Democrats from you. We have the most
socialistic government in America's history, but the bulk of your whining
has been on Obama's platform.

You may not be praising Bush, but big deal! The guy's a communist
crook, the worst in our nation's history, an embarrassment to the entire
Republican platform.

Where's your ...[text shortened]... e, but I'm not going to indulge some sort of
pre-pubescent exchange.

Nemesio

Well, if Bush is a commie, Osama must be his get- away- driver. Bush is not a commie and Osama is not a commie either. Aren't you the ideological extreemist! Don't know what a commie is, eh? So, you're voting for the best of the worst are ya? Sheesh! Both these candidates don't even know how to spell Libertarian. You're a pathetic sell out to your alleged values. Google the political test and dare to report the results. You think Bush is a socialist? So your going to vote for the biggest liberal social in the present gov't.? You double talk even better than Sherzo. I villify One party? I don't like either party. Nice cop-out with the pre-pubescent exchange thing. You're not going to indulge me cause you're untruthful about your politics and i can called you out. Stop whining and hold your liberal piss for the class room. I won't vote for McCain because the military issue. I won't vote for Obama cause I DON'T TRUST HIM. Obama is going to win and therefore i hope he is 'THE ONE'

GRANNY.

GRANNY.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
If you are not up on things then how can you claim that Obama is going to create a huge government, and the same old story "that's what Dems always do" no longer works. The Republicans have proven themselves quite adept at spending money and creating a massive, useless government.

Let's face it, Cliff. In light of Bush's monumental and cataclysmic failure
as a President, it would be next to impossible for a Republican nominee
to be elected. In fact, McCain who was known to be (if not in actuality)
a thorn in Bush's side was the only one who stood a chance and he's
made a valiant effort (the selection of Palin excepted). I've got to give
McCain credit for all but the last two weeks of his campaign when he's
gotten obviously desperate.

Additionally, my father made a very good point when speaking with me
today: McCain is a one-term President, no matter what. There is next-to-
no chance that even if he won, that he would run a second time. So, he's
got nothing to lose by reneging (as politicians do) on his campaign
promises. So, given his tendency to fight passionately for those issues
that he has great belief in, he certainly wouldn't be the worst Republican
President to have in office during this time of trial for the U.S. I'm not
a believer that McCain is in actuality McSame, or McW, as I've seen
recently on a bumper sticker. But even still, McCain wouldn't have the
same opportunities that Obama has.

Assuming Obama's elected, he really stands at the threshold of greatness.
Depending on what he does, he could resurrect the American way of life
or he could utterly obliterate it.

Currently, the Democratic Congress has been literally impotent. Despite
Pelosi's bold claims, she's done nearly nothing but make noise (which,
frankly, she's good at). Obama stands to have both House and Senate
in his corner. With at least nine Republican seats very possibly swinging
to Democrats (Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virgina), filibusters are going
to be increasingly hard to maintain. If the democrats just pick up five
seats, the balance will be 54-44, with two independents who tend to
vote Democrat. That means only four Republicans would have to defect
in order to break filibuster. If they pick up the whole nine, it will be 59(+2)-
39; the Republicans won't even be able to filibuster! With the current
233 to 202 difference in the House and the possibility of picking up a
conservative estimate of ten seats, brings the difference to 243 to 192.

In short, Obama will be in a position to do either great things or devastating
things, unlike a President has seen in a really long time. If he truly
has the interests of the future of this country in mind, he will do what
needs to be done in order to restore economic order, re-establish the
rights of the disenfranchised, shrink the government from its gargantuan
size, cut programs that don't work and feed them to the private sector,
and end the madness in Iraq and refocus our efforts where our security
is genuinely needed.

If he is the leader he claims to be and could genuinely be, with the
Congress on his side, he could go down as one of the greatest Presidents
in history. If he is not, then he may cripple this country irrevocably.

Nemesio

Originally posted by smw6869
Well, if Bush is a commie, Osama must be his get- away- driver. Bush is not a commie and Osama is not a commie either. Aren't you the ideological extreemist! Don't know what a commie is, eh? So, you're voting for the best of the worst are ya? Sheesh! Both these candidates don't even know how to spell Libertarian. You're a pathetic sell out to your alleged v ...[text shortened]... . Obama is going to win and therefore i hope he is 'THE ONE'

GRANNY.

GRANNY.

I know you are, but what am I?

Originally posted by Nemesio
I know you are, but what am I?

I'am What? What are you what?

GRANNY.

Originally posted by Nemesio

I tend to vote Democrat because I find that (for all the wrong reasons, mind you) they tend to
embrace platforms that protect rights whereas Republicans tends to want to restrict them.
Because there isn't a genuinely viable Libertarian candidate, it means I have to be willing to
tolerate higher spending on welfare than I'd prefer (e.g.). Because I find ...[text shortened]... ians in other countries, I find that this is not a terribly hard decision
to make.

Nemesio[/b]

Really? So it was the Republicans that invite corporate welfare? It seems to me that the only dissenting voices against the bail out were Republicans? In addition, the Democrats passed the bail out with flying colors just as they voted to go to war with "W", however, you would have us believe it was all partisan politics. I think this is disingenuous at best.

Originally posted by Nemesio


Currently, the Democratic Congress has been literally impotent. Despite
Pelosi's bold claims, she's done nearly nothing but make noise (which,
frankly, she's good at). Obama stands to have both House and Senate
in his corner. With at least nine Republican seats very possibly swinging
to Democrats (Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshi idents
in history. If he is not, then he may cripple this country irrevocably.

Nemesio[/b]

It is also important to note that the Congress has a lower approval rating than George Bush. However, the main difference is, is that Bush will be history as his term ends as well as McCain's chances to replace him because of Bush's legacy, but the Democratic Congressional members will more than likely find a way back into office despite their equally, if not worse, legacy. It is perplexing to say the least. My best explanation is that the voters do not hold Congressional members accountable as much as they do the President. When they want "change" all they know to do is vote for a different party for President.

As for your prediction that the Dems are on the verge of taking all three Houses of government, I would concur. This will only empower Obama to do his worst or best, whatever the case may be. One thing is for certain, it is a pretty scary thing to bet the house on his character and/or judgment to attain such power. In fact, it is a pretty scary thing to give anyone such power in general.

Originally posted by whodey
It is also important to note that the Congress has a lower approval rating than George Bush. However, the main difference is, is that Bush will be history as his term ends as well as McCain's chances to replace him because of Bush's legacy, but the Democratic Congressional members will more than likely find a way back into office despite their equally, if no ...[text shortened]... ttain such power. In fact, it is a pretty scary thing to give anyone such power in general.

I don't think that it is that perplexing. Voters with an iota of intelligence, can look at the current congress and know that they haven't done anything worth a damn. However, they may also be smart enough to realize that they have only been in office for 2 years, while the Republicans in charge for the previous 12 or 16 (can't remember, haven't had coffee yet) screwed up the country beyond anyone's wildest expectation. Surely that can be debated, but that is how it looks in the mind of most voters.

Any reasoning person isn't going to blame the financial fiasco on the congress that has been in power for less than 2 years, but rather the one that was for the previous decade.

Originally posted by whodey
In addition, the Democrats passed the bail out with flying colors just as they voted to go to war with "W", however, you would have us believe it was all partisan politics. I think this is disingenuous at best.

I am disgusted with both Democrats and Republicans for voting for the bail out. But it was
spearheaded by the President, as you well know. For all intents and purposes, he introduced the
legislation and he signed it into law.

And the vote to go to war was predicated on the intelligence that Powell immolated himself on,
the intelligence which was absolutely 100% false. In so doing, we've stimulated terrorism, not
crippled it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
Really? So it was the Republicans that invite corporate welfare? It seems to me that the only dissenting voices against the bail out were Republicans? In addition, the Democrats passed the bail out with flying colors just as they voted to go to war with "W", however, you would have us believe it was all partisan politics. I think this is disingenuous at best.

Funny; you supported the bailout until most House Republicans voted against it.

Originally posted by Nemesio

And the vote to go to war was predicated on the intelligence that Powell immolated himself on,
the intelligence which was absolutely 100% false. In so doing, we've stimulated terrorism, not
crippled it.

Nemesio[/b]

I think this is perhaps why Powell is supporting Obama now. Perhaps he has a guilty conscience?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Funny; you supported the bailout until most House Republicans voted against it.

I have mixed emotions about the bail out. I have gone back and forth on the matter. On the one hand, I did not want to see mass unemployment and financial collapse and, on the other hand, I did not want the tax payers to dig themselves yet another hole so that they will never see the light of day.

One thing is for sure and that is the bail out was sold by the media and politicians. I suspect the Republicans voting against it in the first place the first go around was simply smoke and mirrors so as to appeal to the general sentiment against the bail out amongst the voters. Then they let the stock market deteriorate a bit further as people saw their retirement savings go to pot and the next thing you know public sentiment shifted towards the bail out plan.

In retrospect, both Republicans and Democrats probably knew the passing of the bail out was a forgone conclusion.

Originally posted by whodey
I have mixed emotions about the bail out. I have gone back and forth on the matter. On the one hand, I did not want to see mass unemployment and financial collapse and, on the other hand, I did not want the tax payers to dig themselves yet another hole so that they will never see the light of day.

One thing is for sure and that is the bail out was sold b ...[text shortened]... th Republicans and Democrats probably knew the passing of the bail out was a forgone conclusion.

A funny thing is that even though the bailout was passed and we were told the passing of it was urgent (too urgent to wait until after the election), so far not a single mortgage based security has been purchased by the government - which was supposed to be the central purpose of the bailout. I wonder now if the government will actually buy any significant amount of these securities.

Looking back, it seems clear that the whole exercise was to reassure the stock markets and prevent them from dropping sharply. Obviously, it failed to do so.