| Sep 22 @ 2:05 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others
|
|
Loreli
Posts: 20,315
|
QUIT FIGHTING!
1. I'm a registered Dem (don't know that I posted it...but I vote people, not party-THAT I have posted-at least once)
2. I was selected to sit on pre-caucus committe (this I posted, for advice), and caucused. NEVER did I say I went to the DNC 
3.I have said, at least once, that I don't care for anyone running. My Mom and I discuss this....she feels you just vote more AGAINST the person you like the least)
4. I like McCain..(I've said this).but heck-his whole campaign is being over run by Palin. She rubs me wrong. Sorry guys, but it's my right. Maybe I'll see something different before election day. 
5. Whatever I am registered as, I am FIRST an American.
I accept everyone for their views....if they can hold a decent discussion, without name calling. To me, that shows fear.
The Early Show had a political analyst on, who said right now, the candidates are tied...(then added if it's the same on election day the US turns purple, and Paulsen gets it
Now-can we give REASONABLE examples without page long copy/paste, giggling and name calling?
Please.
|
|
  |
|
| Sep 22 @ 2:16 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others |
|
KatiefromStafford
Posts: 2,266
|
Yeah, Pat!
Seriously, this is a great idea.
Try it this way, convince me why I should vote for your candidate?
hey, Lori 
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 2:28 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others
|
|
eastham
Posts: 6,341
|
What's very interesting, and we certainly saw this in NY when Hillary Clinton first ran for the Senate is that people don't go to the polls when they dislike someone, they go to the polls to vote in favor of someone. Rick Lazio vote for me, because I'm not Hillary campaign and Hillary cleaned the floor with him.
I remembered that when looking at the numbers for McCain in VA. 81% of Obama supporters indicated that they had a very favorable view of their candidate, while 46% of Virginians who said they supported McCain did so because they disliked Obama. Given that often people don't go to the polls to vote against someone, but to vote for someone, I wonder how this will affect the race.
Indeed, I wonder how many of those who appear to be more anti-Obama and tepid McCain supporters on these threads will actually go out and vote in November. (And if my neo-con co-worker is any indication, they won't because they're not registered.)
I am a registered Democrat and I intend to vote for Senator Obama. I think that McCain's chance was in 2000, but today he is too old. I fear that he will continue down the dangerous path that Bush has led us and we will fully use up and good will we still possess.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 2:52 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others |
|
Heaveninawildflower
Posts: 15,333
|
I can't remember when I last felt so strongly that I don't want either candidate. I agree entirely that Sen. Obama isn't experienced enough, and his record is much less than impressive. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, it's same old same old from the Republican camp Gov. Palin impresses me no more than Sen. Obama, and frankly I'm far less than impressed with someone who approaches government as 'You can't blink'. I think that's been the current administration's problem - just do it may work for sneakers but not for much else. I'm not at all convinced that jumping in and bailing everyone out, committing half a trillion dollars, without taking more than a weekend to look at it will prove to be a wise move in the long run.
As always, I agree that it's the economy, stupid. I don't think either side has a clue in that area.
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 3:26 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
I'll be looking closely at how these gentlemen are handling this bailout issue, but to be frank, I'm in agreement with Heaven that this is moving WAY too fast for the average person to follow. News reports aren't released that soon, and by the time they're reporting on one proposed provision, it seems agreements have already been made or said to be unworkable and they've moved on. We're going to wind up with something people have not had time to get educated about or make an informed decision on. And the American people certainly aren't getting time to do much in the way of weighing in on it. However, McCain is toeing the conservative line and promising that in spite of the ballooning debt, he will not raise taxes.  I have stated several times how irresponsible I think that is, in light of the current (and now proposed $11 trillion) national debt. I haven't heard anything about what Obama has said about it, but given how newsworthy it would be if he said, "We're going to have to hunker down, tighten our belts, maybe a couple of notches, and dig our way out of this one," I would guess he hasn't said that. And, of course, I'm still waiting for either of them to talk about realistic policies that would make it less attractive to ship jobs overseas and bring them back to this country, without that becoming a huge inflationary pressure by driving up the costs of goods. (And I freely admit I have no ideas about how to do that; everything I can think of would drive up costs of goods at the end point.)
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 5:54 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others |
|
Loreli
Posts: 20,315
|
Yep-I agree since the announcements, people are scrambling to find good and bad on VPs...and even when the election comes around....many may not know all they want to.
I talk to a lot of people, and I'm surprised how many "just don't know."
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 6:18 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others
|
|
Gman762
Posts: 3,291
|
On the other hand, as far as I can tell, it's same old same old from the Republican camp Gov. Palin impresses me no more than Sen. Obama,
Uhhh...er...ah...one is running for president. One is running to be the primary sub-manager of the president.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 6:23 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others |
|
Loreli
Posts: 20,315
|
Uh, er...she knows that...we're voting for a ticket and she would have to step up in the event of Preident's demise
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 6:34 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others
|
|
Gman762
Posts: 3,291
|
Uh, er...she knows that...we're voting for a ticket and she would have to step up in the event of Preident's demise
The sentence states otherwise...plainly...except to you I guess. 
Then you'd get Biden as a back-up if the Magic Muslim goes down...a well known liar, drunk and gaffe machine. One of the worst anti-gun senators going. I won't be supporting anyone that un-American or his boss.
When it comes to the economy, it is all a factor of the Fannie Mae meltdown. The rules were changed for Fannie Mae during the previous Admin. It was basically set up for a financial collapse and it was so-stated at the time. Sub-prime lending, risky loans for those that could not afford it, etc, etc.
PROOF...for those with the brains to think
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 8:48 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others |
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 5,081
|
Both candidates are liars! But, since McCain picked that religious nut I will be voting for Obama!
Nothing like seeing more of the same to make someone move off that proverbial fence, roll up the sleeves and go to work for Obama!
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 9:05 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others
|
|
Gallows_Humor
Posts: 8,063
|
"Anarchy is any social relationship that involves neither dominance nor submission. It is the absence of social hierarchy, with no one imposing their will on another by force or threat of punishment. Anarchy means "without a ruler", or "without government". Government here is meant in the sense of "governing over" and forcing compliance through coercion. Such order is violent order. Anarchy, by contrast, is inherently cooperative- people relating to one another as equals."
This definition encompasses the idea that anarchists do not have a problem with government dirrectly, but with the fact that it creates a hiearchy and gives power to select individuals.
this just about says it all for me... 
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 9:15 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others |
|
Gman762
Posts: 3,291
|
Sweet Jesus...a friggin' anarchist?
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 9:18 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others
|
|
Gallows_Humor
Posts: 8,063
|
no shit sherlock.... as a non intemet investigator... you always are the last to know...
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 9:47 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
*sigh*. I see this thread stayed on a helpful track.
Back to the economy, anyone? I understand how the Fed bailout is going to stabilize markets short-term, but I do not understand what they are proposing to do that is going to be a fundamental change that will prevent this from happening again. I see a lot of the same people who were saying that all the defaulting lenders were just irresponsible greedy people living beyond their means, but of course they're not saying that about the CEOs and stockholders of these companies. Despite a lot of misleading posts that claim otherwise, the deregulation of these institutions ALLOWED them to make these loans. Nothing required them to. The regulations that were left in place (or instituted) in 1993 said IF you loan money to people meeting certain guidelines, THESE GROUPS HAVE TO BE INCLUDED. There was nothing that forced those corporations to lower their lending standards other than greed. The bailout is supposed to "free up these businesses from the burden of bad debt so they can still lend money without fear (of the consequences of their bad decisions) and thus not bring the US credit market to a standstill." (I'm paraphrasing what I heard on the news with a small editorial commentary by me.) But the only way to prevent these high risk loans from again burdening these companies IS to tighten up the credit market. Probably to such an extent that it's going to hurt almost as bad as just letting the major lenders fail. Whether the credit market dries up from fear or regulation, I don't see a different outcome, and I don't see where the bailout does more than shift the burden of debt to the taxpayers and forestall the inevitable when the underlying economy is as poor as it is. Given the way things tend to progress geometrically from an inception, when are they going to need the next bailout? Instead of it being the 75+ years from the Great Depression to this mess, are our children going to find themselves saddled with quadrillions in governent debt as they approach retirement?
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 9:55 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others
|
|
Gallows_Humor
Posts: 8,063
|
big sigh... if the treasury dept is given control over this.... then the administration and not congress has control over the banks...
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 9:58 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
if the treasury dept is given control over this.... then the administration and not congress has control over the banks... And I see on the market blogs today where there are damned few investors who think THAT is a good idea. (And why the marked dropped almost 400 points again today). I wonder what kind of stop-losses are going to be triggered when it hits 10,000 again. 
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 10:01 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others
|
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 5,081
|
Until controls are re-installed to stop the stealing going on from the lenders it will be business as usual tomorrow!
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 10:02 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others |
|
Loreli
Posts: 20,315
|
The problem is....they all tell you what they think you want to hear.
I have some info coming in the mail...I have told both sides I'm concerned about healthcare, the economy, social security and vets.
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 10:16 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
lol.. I'm not hearing what I want to hear, Lorelei. I want to hear that they are bringing jobs back to this country and that they can do it without driving the average cost of a new car to over $50,000 or the price of a toaster to $110. I buy as few Chinese-made products as I can, but I find it increasingly difficult to FIND an American-made product, even when I'm willing to pay the higher cost.
I'm not sure how true it is, but back before Sam Walton died, I read (I think it was in Reader's Digest) that he actually made deals with a few people to build factories to produce goods for Wal-Mart, so that they would be American jobs being produced, rather than just going the extra-cheap route and buying from overseas manufactures. (The article was about some kind of furniture plant he made a deail with. If the guy would tool the plant and produce the items, Walton would agree to buy all the product, as I recall.) I used to joke that Hobby Lobby should change it's name to The Chinese Import Store. My grandfather was a hard-line Union man, and wouldn't buy clothes without Union labels. No, his dollar didn't stretch as far, but he knew that his doing that meant that somewhere an American worker was working, and making money, and putting OTHER union workers to work for the products he was buying. And when those union workers built a home, because they were making a decent, living wage, they would hire a union electrician like my grandfather to wire it. He knew that what he spent making sure Americans were working would come back to put money in his pocket. It seems like since the 80s or so, and the Reagan "Greed Era," we've lost that "utimately good for everybody" mentality and the country as a whole has switched to "How can I get mine NOW!"
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 22 @ 11:45 PM |
The thread to clarify your stance, and help others |
|
Jankia
Posts: 9,149
|
Loreli-- The problem is....they all tell you what they think you want to hear. With a choice limited to two,my stance is with the person that actually has done something other than talk and someone with a believably proven history.
I could vote independant but we all know fishing would have been more important than wasting time at town hall. 
|
| |
|
|
|
|