No freight!!!

[RLENT]

The fiscally responsible Clinton left us in great shape, a growing economy and a sound balance sheet.

Dude .... have you ever read a balance sheet ? Clinton .... fiscally responsible ...... ya gotta be kiddin' ....... right ?

George W. has bankrupted us.

Well I can't argue with your sentiment - but the fact is it wasn't only W - though he certainly put the icing on the cake ......

 

[DougTravels]

Relent

I agree with much of what you said. Both parties look out for their interests and those of lobbyists. I wish there was a legitimate 3rd party candidate who would look after the interests of the American voter/taxpayer.

The fact remains until then we have 2 choices right now. Mine is Obama.

By the way to call me a diehard democrat is wrong my votes for president are as follows:

1984-Reagan
1988-Bush
1992-Perot
1996-Clinton
2000-Gore
2004-Kerry
2008-Obama

 

[DougTravels]

Yes I have read balance sheets. Clinton turned over to W. a US that was fiscally sound. It was under his watch that Welfare reform was established (yes it was a republican house and senate)but he signed it into law.
Clinton has many personal issues but he was great president.

 

[RLENT]

I agree with much of what you said.

Well ..... that's a starting point at least.

I wish there was a legitimate 3rd party candidate who would look after the interests of the American voter/taxpayer.

The ONLY WAY there will ever be a legitimate 3rd party candidate is if you and Leo (and others like you two) stop agreeing that there are only two choices ..... as long as the both of you and others continue to beat that drum NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE ..... for the better at any rate ......

By the way to call me a diehard democrat is wrong

I didn't call you that - those are your words not mine - I merely illustrated my take on your current political stance.

my votes for president are as follows:

Right back at ya - here's mine:

1984-Reagan
1988-Bush
1992-Perot
1996-Perot
2000-Bush
2004-Bush
2008-dunno at this point - but I can say, for sure, ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY, IN CONCRETE, WITH A LASER BRANDING IRON:

It won't be Obama, and it won't be McCain.

Never, ever, ever again will I vote for a candidate at any level of government that bears the label or affiliation of the two parties. The reason is simple - the country is in the current situation it is in (which in case no one has noticed is bad ....... really bad ...... more on that in a moment) not due to the actions of any one individual or party ..... but because of the actions of the two parties and those individuals party officials who comprise them. Both of them.

The depth of betrayal of the American people by BOTH parties over the last 75 to 100 years is so utterly deep that it is, to me, almost unfathomable. These guys have totally sold me and thee down the river .... and the chickens are now truly starting to come home to roost ......... big time.

Although I was a registered Republican for over 30 years, I would cross party lines in order to vote for any candidate no matter the party affiliation - if I thought the candidate was a decent person and the best qualified for the office.

A couple of years ago I changed my party affiliation to Independent from Republican. Finally had enough of the betrayal.

It's a funny thing - there's this prinicpal - a fundamental law actually - the folks on the conservative side of the ledger usually seem to know about it - they just seem to have a really hard time applying it to politics:

Anything which you reward (like say with votes) you're gonna get more of, and anything you penalize, you're gonna get less of ....

So when your party says there for this and this and this ........ and then utterly fails to deliver on anything that they say they are for ..... and delivers in spades on everything that they say they are against ....... why in God's name would you continue to vote 'em into office ?

On the current situation - we are already nearly at the point of living in a police state - and we (and our parents and grandparents before us) have let it happen to ourselves.

It's gonna get ugly ..... real ugly ..... and we'll probably see it within our lifetimes - perhaps within the next 5 to 10 years. And it doesn't make any difference which of the two candidates are elected ....... same thing. Joe Stalin or Adolph ..... you take your pick - they both will deliver the same results .... death, destruction, and economic slavery ......

No freight ? ..... no frickin' freight is gonna be the least of your worries.

Live anywhere close to a major metro area ? ....... good luck ...... my thoughts are with ya.

 

[RLENT]

Yes I have read balance sheets.

Well hopefully you're not reading any US government balance sheets ..... 'cause them books was/is so thoroughly cooked (by both parties) so as to make a Mafia Don blush .....

Clinton turned over to W. a US that was fiscally sound.

What exactly do you base that statement on ?

For starters, what was the solution that Clinton came up with and proposed or implemented to fund Social Security so that it wouldn't eventually run out of money ?

It was under his watch that Welfare reform was established (yes it was a republican house and senate) but he signed it into law.

Just to set the record straight on this matter:

President Clinton is eager to be portrayed as the father of this success. Though he eventually did sign welfare reform, Bill Clinton is a man who does what's right only after exhausting every alternative. Considering his years of vetoes, flip-flopping, and obstructionism, for Bill Clinton to take credit for welfare reform is shameless -- even for him. Here's a refresher.

Clinton vowed to "end welfare as we know it," then waited a year and a half before he proposed legislation that would have increased welfare spending $14 billion over five years (source: CBO).

In a 1995 phone conversation with Clinton, columnist Ben Wattenberg called the president's welfare reform bill "soft and weak." Wattenberg wrote, "He [Clinton] agreed, saying, 'I wasn't pleased with it either.'" (The Times Union, 11/3/95)

President Clinton then vetoed welfare reform twice -- first on December 6, 1995, and again in the dark of night on January 9, 1996 -- before finally signing on July 31, 1996, under the spotlight of a re-election campaign. "'If it were 14 weeks after the election, he'd say no,' Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York said of Clinton." (U.S. News & World Report, 8/12/96).

Clinton also promised to undo many of the reforms:

"At a meeting of the nation's governors, President Clinton promised to approve welfare waivers in 90 days or less, whether he agreed with the changes or not. In California, we sought a federal waiver for one reform we wanted to make to reduce welfare grants and make work more attractive than welfare. That was over a year ago, and the Clinton Administration continues to delay it at a cost to taxpayers of $3 million a week." (California Governor Pete Wilson, 9/6/95)

After his second welfare reform veto, Clinton praised Wisconsin's welfare reform plan and promised a federal waiver. Here's what that plan's architect, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, had to say about Clinton: "Four years after promising to end welfare, the president is bragging about a piecemeal, Washington-knows-best waiver process. We can't end the 50-year social disaster called welfare by handing out one waiver at a time." (5/18/96)

South Carolina Governor David Beasley: "We said if you get caught [using drugs] while on welfare, you get put in treatment. If you get caught a second time, we're cutting you off. The Clinton Administration said no to that proposal."

Despite Clinton's many promises, welfare reform did not happen until Republicans took over the Congress. The last person who should be taking credit for welfare reform is Bill Clinton.

Clinton has many personal issues but he was great president.

Yes, he does have many personal issues ..... but no, he was not a great president - he was an extremely popular president - there is a huge difference.

He was however a great politician - but that's not quite as much of a compliment (as being a great president)

Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln ...... these were great presidents ..... and great men.

 

[Sparticus]

Regardless of who wins, same issue is still there.
Can't tax yourself into prosperity.

Davekc, I've got to disagree with your statement.

 

[Sparticus]

Regardless of who wins, same issue is still there.
Can't tax yourself into prosperity.

Davekc, I have to disagree with your statement.
Politicians tax into prosperity!

 

[DougTravels]

Relent, I respected your opinions until you stated that you voted for George W. Bush twice. The first time, ok he fooled alot of people. After 4 years of him, you voted for him again. I know alot of people did, but I have no use for anyones opinions that voted for George W. Bush twice. This country is now screwed up because of you and people like you. Thanks for nothing. Bash me if you want, but the United State's problems begin and end with people who voted for him twice.

 

[Sparticus]

Dougtravels...
do you also know that Clinton balanced the budget under the
advisment of Dick Morris, a Republican strategist. Clinton administration balanced the budget by reduced capital gains taxes from 28% to 20%, and yes it boosted the economy.
Imagine that!! Allowing those that create jobs the ability to
CREATE jobs. It has been reduced even further since Clinton.

Obama wants to increase capital gains to 20% and 20% rate on dividends. Have you ever heard of DOUBLE taxation? This would be an Obamanation of the tax code.

 

[BillChaffey]

"Spread the Wealth around" Nobama say's. That way the ones who work for a living can make sure the ones sitting on the corner with their hand out asking "What is the Goverment going to give me now" can remain sitting on the corner.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

So Rlent your going to vote still? I hope...

If many voters cast their vote for an independent or a write in...
Politicians seem fixated on polls and trends, the numbers game IF they were to see this wouldn't it scare the begeevees out of them? Wouldn't it send a serious message that, Hey we the voter aka taxpayer have had enough?
If BOTH parties saw that they were losing their EXCLUSIVE power grip...wouldn't that force them back to center?

Evil is evil...makes no sense to vote for a lesser evil...your still voting evil, hence you agree with evil...only just a tad less...thats ridiculous!!

 

[Turtle]

Relent, I respected your opinions until you stated that you voted for George W. Bush twice. The first time, ok he fooled alot of people. After 4 years of him, you voted for him again. I know alot of people did, but I have no use for anyones opinions that voted for George W. Bush twice.

Too funny. Man, you just got OWNED!

He posted facts in response to your opinions, and you change the subject to something completely irrelevant in a lame attempt at a drive-by insult as you cut and run. What does he voting for Bush a second time have to do with the facts that he posted about Clinton? Other than nothing, I mean.

Typical liberal response... can't debate the facts in defense of your own opinion, so you ignore the facts, change the subject, try to make the other guy look bad so you can feel better about a seriously deluded opinion.

 

[FIS53]

Since everyone is so unhappy with the two current political parties, why not start a third national party? Since this takes time and effort (creative money management) why not this time utilize the write in vote but organize, e-mails, faxes, tel calls etc to create that message of real change. Pick your candidate and push for it. I know not a lot of time left to do this but todays communications are great.
Yes create another party that stands for truth, facts and other such wonderful things that have gotten lost in the world of politics from municipal to state to federal. Elect officials who actually work for the people and not their own agendas or large special interest groups. it can be done it just takes the will power and the effort to do it. I'm sure it can be done for less money than Obama is spending right now. In fact I bet you could garner a nice chuck of free advertising utilizing many of the talk show hosts on radio and TV.
Just an idea. Rob

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Rob...and I am living amongst these folks!!

I've been saying that for years and questioning these guys...BUT it's the same old thing and response from most..."the lesser of 2 evils " logic! They are stuck...afraid to move off 2 party system...They know it can be done but they are scared!! Can you believe that? One of the most war like nations in the world but afraid to fight to save their own country!

 

[Sparticus]

Here's a thought:

Who thinks that Obama practice what he preaches.

Lets see a massive re-distribution of the remainder of his
privately funded campaign contributions. Reports have stated
he has raised 600 million so far. That would re-distribute quite well in the poverty stricken, inner city, liberal neighborhoods he
claims to be fighting for.

 

[LDB]

If Joe Lieberman were the dem candidate I'd have voted for Bob Barr the other day. With Obama as their candidate I can't do what I want and vote for the third party. I must do what I believe required and vote against Obama. Say what you want about doing that, and for some be sure it's an insult toward me as usual, but sometimes you have to do what's needed at the time not what's preferred. I am not a member of any party. I vote for anyone I can vote for and against those I must vote against.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

If Joe Lieberman were the dem candidate I'd have voted for Bob Barr the other day. With Obama as their candidate I can't do what I want and vote for the third party. I must do what I believe required and vote against Obama. Say what you want about doing that, and for some be sure it's an insult toward me as usual, but sometimes you have to do what's needed at the time not what's preferred. I am not a member of any party. I vote for anyone I can vote for and against those I must vote against.

One thing about voting it's yours and yours alone, to vote the way you see best...Not what others see and say...it's your duty, it's your right!

As Fred Thompson said on a line the other day on Law and Order....those who avoid jury duty to serve are the same ones that avoid the military to service....

 

[BigRed32771]

If it had just been about Obama and McCain, I'd have voted for Barr. I figure the only significant difference in policies between O and M is the speed of the crash and which side of the cliff we plunge off. But Obama is so clearly a socialist (Marxist?) in his policies, and his choice of friends and mentors over the years is so suspect, that I had to chalk up "against Obama" as one reason to vote for McCain. Not that I like McCain, but he's the only one with any reasonable chance of avoiding a probable Obama-nation debacle (oh, how I wish the libertarians were a more serious political party). Add to the mix Sarah Palin as a potential successor to McCain at best and the presumptive nominee in four years if O wins, and I decided I could hold my breath and squint just long enough to mark myself down for the GOP ticket. Just for the record, though, let me emphasize, I am not voting for McCain; I am voting for Sarah Palin and that old guy running on her ticket. (And yes, she's more qualified than O; she has genuine executive office type experience, while he has limited legislative experience during which service he spent most of his time and energy running for the next office up the ladder to which he and his compatriots aspired).

As for the freight issue, I just don't know. I'm hoping things will continue to move, but I fear that we're in for an economy in melt-down for the next couple of years and that doesn't bode well. 3 more payments on the truck...and then I can breathe just a little easier. If it goes badly I can just park and try to wait it out. I've already picked out the spot for the veggie garden...

Doug

 

[cheri1122]

I agree with everything RELENT said: the American people have been sold out for a long time, and if nothing changes, it's going to get very ugly.
I rather liked Sarah Palin, until I read something that proved (in my estimation) her moral bankruptcy: she took her daughters along to events to which they had not been invited, (usually calling ahead to ask if she could, and always getting an ok, of course), and then billed the taxpayers for the daughters' travel & hotel expenses - in one case, the hotel room was $500 per night, for 2 nights. In another instance, she asked if she could bring one daughter to a luncheon, and arrived with all 3, forcing the staff to scramble to provide seating & meals for the extras.
Only after reporters questioned the expenses, did she amend her return to state that the girls had been invited to the functions, to perform some role - a lie that many organizers innocently betrayed when questioned by reporters later.
Sarah Palin is just another money grabbing politician, IMO, who will betray the taxpayers to better herself, her family, and friends - in other words: more of the same.
Republican or Democrat makes no difference any more - they all seem to have adopted the British definition of "public", ie: private.

 

[ATeam]

Since everyone is so unhappy with the two current political parties, why not start a third national party? ... Yes create another party that stands for truth, facts and other such wonderful things that have gotten lost in the world of politics from municipal to state to federal. Elect officials who actually work for the people and not their own agendas or large special interest groups. it can be done it just takes the will power and the effort to do it. I'm sure it can be done for less money than Obama is spending right now. In fact I bet you could garner a nice chuck of free advertising utilizing many of the talk show hosts on radio and TV.
Just an idea. Rob

First, this thread should be in the Soap Box section.

FIS53, Been there, tried that. Beginning in 1992, I threw myself into the political arena with everything I had to support first an alternative to the two parties (Perot) and then to build a state and national third party. In the following 10 years, we had some success (see my bio) but I learned something even more important along the way.

When I started a new political party in Minnesota, I believed the problem I was trying to solve was systemic. That is, both parties had become so corrupt that neither one of them could be counted on to cure the ills of the other. Both were firmly entrenched in the money swirl that Washington has become, to the point of becoming blind to the people Democrats and Republicans are elected to serve.

After starting a new political party, the dynamic was the same at the state level and nationally as I interacted with other third-party activists from other states and worked with them in an attempt to start a new national third party. It turned out that most of the people entering the third-party movement were as political, self-serving and special-interest focused as those in the two major parties.

Yes, we had some successes and even managed to elect a few public officials that refused PAC money and supported the reform of the electoral process that currently favors the political elite. But the problem lies with the people. Sure, we can, in theory, change the system by injecting a third major party into it, but that won't change the people.

I don't know how to re-instill into today's electorate the country-first ethic that I saw in my parents' and grandparents' generations. Consequently, I am not politically involved today. Instead, I financially support a church college where freethinking and critical analysis is developed, alternative religions and points of view are respected, and social and civic contribution is encouraged.

If I were to become politically involved again, it would again be to build a third party. But this time it would begin with a strong emphasis on personal respect for your neighbor's right to fully participate in the process, and the public good (different than one's personal good), as it is debated and developed in a fair and open democratic process.