McCain - Palin, your true feelings - Page 3
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 80

Thread: McCain - Palin, your true feelings

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by gdcleanfun View Post
    If Obama is too young, then Kennedy was too young. Seriously, I won't vote for any of them. You can't make me! I will crawl under a mushroom and be fed... well, you know, B4 I vote for any of them! I'm writing in my candidate! Is Pat Paulson still in the running? What about Alfred E. Newman?


    Kennedy was too young. I'm glad that he wasn't around long enough to do more damage. Ted's still around, in poor health and he's STILL causing problems.

    I would highly suggest against writing in a candidate. At this point there's nobody around that will make a "write in " situation plausible.

    Be very careful what you wish for.....




    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  2.   
  3. I would never vote for anyone who is against all things that I am for and for all things that I am against!

    Namely Obama. An eloquent speaker does not a President make!

    Sorry, gotta go Guys and read by Bible and clean my Glock .40 and 686P!
    Last edited by Highcountry; 09-28-2008 at 10:15 PM.

  4. #23

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by JBB View Post
    Leaving Mass, Posts like yours are the reason this forum is so lame most of the time. Your comments are rude and uninformed. Also, try spell check.

    Thanks for showing your imbecility


    lets see,
    1: You didn't respond with anything relating to the topic

    2: You didn't point out any spelling error = you're the dumb @ss
    go troll somewhere else
    Last edited by LeavingMass; 09-29-2008 at 04:26 PM.

  5. #24

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ58 View Post
    And some would say that Joe Paterno is to old to coach, maybe but still doing it and is doing a heck of a great job. some say Brett Farve should have stayed in retirement but is still better than most quarterbacks in NFL. Palin to young, McCain to old I don't think so. I'm not voting for Biden or Palin I'm voting for the President's job first VP second, Joe Bidens record well speaks for it self. I do not always vote for a certain party just who I think will do the best job, and like some not always right but at least I vote.
    Comparing the presidency to football ?

    SMH

    When a football team loses, no nation suffers


    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    ...... As for Palin, she may not be a great public speaker but neither is Bush. ..
    And look at the mess Bush has us in now.....compare

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingMass View Post
    And look at the mess Bush has us in now.....compare
    May want to research where a lot of that mess originated. The financial crisis is a result of decisions made under Clinton. Remember also the president doesn't have omnipotent power and the Democratic controlled Congress/ Senate made many of these decisions.

  7. It is amazing to me that one would consider that we are only looking at this from one issue, specifically 2nd Amendment. Of course this is a gun forum, and that is certainly going to be in the forefront, but how is it that you assume that you know we are not looking at other issues.

    We have debated the issue of McCain/Obama on other threads, and most have made it clear that we are not that thrilled about either choice. However, I will never vote for someone that I disagree with about 95% of the time, and that is Obama.

    I also find it quite ridiculous that people will continually bring up Palin's lack of experience and ignore the fact that Obama is a come out of nowhere candidate. He has not even completed one term as a senator. He has not authored one piece of legislation since taking office and I have yet to see anyone tell us one major decision he has made or accomplishments attached to his resume.

    He is the most dangerous Presidential candidate in the history of this country and it seems like a majority of the people are going to display their imbecility when voting for him.
    "Always at your command"
    "לפקודה תמיד אנחנו"

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    May want to research where a lot of that mess originated. The financial crisis is a result of decisions made under Clinton. Remember also the president doesn't have omnipotent power and the Democratic controlled Congress/ Senate made many of these decisions.
    I beg to differ. The conditions that led to the housing boom and subsequent bust. all happened under Bush, not Clinton

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,437
    The housing bust is really no one's fault, specifically. It's a confluence of factors. My following ideas on the subject are not meant to insult any particular groups, but just to state the facts.

    The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was a piece of legislation from the 1970s that encouraged investment in poor areas. It was amended several times since then. Under Clinton, it was changed in 1995 to make it easier for poor people to get more credit in their names. Banks were required to pay more attention to places that they otherwise had refused to do business in, and had to give some sort of loan options to people in those areas.

    Now this all sprang from good intentions. This was meant to be a way of getting private industry to revitalize inner city areas and try to get people there to own their own homes. It's a proven fact that higher rates of home ownership equals a greater feeling of responsibility. It's no secret that banks often look down on black people. That's just wrong - if you go into a bank (what's left of banks nowadays) they should give a family from a low-income area the same chance, credit-wise, as one who comes from a country club. But, credit and ability to pay off the loan should not be overlooked. Banks aren't charities.

    This seems to have worked out for a few years. Poor people got loans, but they were responsible and worked to pay off their houses. Home ownership went up, crime went down a little, and everything was normal.

    After the dot com bust and 9/11, interest rates took a nose dive. And hey, here's these really liberal CRA rules...so there was a HUGE STAMPEDE FOR HOUSES AND PROPERTY!!!!!!!

    This wouldn't even have been so bad, except they kept rates at the rock-bottom for three years - leaving the door open long enough to make sure that any possible demand for houses was completely saturated. Then rates started to rise, ARMs on CRA-style mortgages rose, so prices plunged, foreclosures shot up, banks got poisoned, etc...

    Some point the finger at Carter for coming up with the CRA in the first place. Clinton is a popular target, but he couldn't have known things would work themselves out like they did. The program had been around for years and never caused problems - although it does show the folly of government intervention in virtually any area.

    In reality, the Federal Reserve under Bush should have known better than to leave interest rates so low for so many years. They should have seen the types of loans that were coming in, but no one wanted to be the department that threw a bucket of water on the economy. The whole country was tied up in anti-terrorist propaganda, real estate was booming through the roof, and it simply wasn't fashionable to talk about mundane and vague economic troubles in the far future.
    Silent Running, by Mike and the Mechanics

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by toreskha View Post
    The housing bust is really no one's fault, specifically. It's a confluence of factors. My following ideas on the subject are not meant to insult any particular groups, but just to state the facts.

    The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was a piece of legislation from the 1970s that encouraged investment in poor areas. It was amended several times since then. Under Clinton, it was changed in 1995 to make it easier for poor people to get more credit in their names. Banks were required to pay more attention to places that they otherwise had refused to do business in, and had to give some sort of loan options to people in those areas.

    Now this all sprang from good intentions. This was meant to be a way of getting private industry to revitalize inner city areas and try to get people there to own their own homes. It's a proven fact that higher rates of home ownership equals a greater feeling of responsibility. It's no secret that banks often look down on black people. That's just wrong - if you go into a bank (what's left of banks nowadays) they should give a family from a low-income area the same chance, credit-wise, as one who comes from a country club. But, credit and ability to pay off the loan should not be overlooked. Banks aren't charities.

    This seems to have worked out for a few years. Poor people got loans, but they were responsible and worked to pay off their houses. Home ownership went up, crime went down a little, and everything was normal.

    After the dot com bust and 9/11, interest rates took a nose dive. And hey, here's these really liberal CRA rules...so there was a HUGE STAMPEDE FOR HOUSES AND PROPERTY!!!!!!!

    This wouldn't even have been so bad, except they kept rates at the rock-bottom for three years - leaving the door open long enough to make sure that any possible demand for houses was completely saturated. Then rates started to rise, ARMs on CRA-style mortgages rose, so prices plunged, foreclosures shot up, banks got poisoned, etc...

    Some point the finger at Carter for coming up with the CRA in the first place. Clinton is a popular target, but he couldn't have known things would work themselves out like they did. The program had been around for years and never caused problems - although it does show the folly of government intervention in virtually any area.

    In reality, the Federal Reserve under Bush should have known better than to leave interest rates so low for so many years. They should have seen the types of loans that were coming in, but no one wanted to be the department that threw a bucket of water on the economy. The whole country was tied up in anti-terrorist propaganda, real estate was booming through the roof, and it simply wasn't fashionable to talk about mundane and vague economic troubles in the far future.
    Presidents are responsible to the extent that their appointees (ie., Federal Reserve chairman, Treasury secretary, etc.) set policies that are the driving force behind much of what goes on in the economy.

  11. If the pres. is at fault for all that is going on then we have a hell of a lot of people getting paid for nothing.Lots of really greedy people run wall street.The lack of morals and character is the cause of the fall of the USA and some people saw it coming.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast