FYI, the stock market in Nov. 2006 was 12250. In Jan. of 2007 (new Congress sworn in), it was at 12,500. It didn’t hit 14,000 until June, 2007.
http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=djia&sid=1643&time=5yr&Submit1=Refresh
People, please keep personal attacks or hints of them out of this. I don’t see any rational reason why this thread should be shut down. So don’t create one…
GG
@Cmdr:
What was that line again?
“I stand 40 yards away from someone who is trained to kill me.” Or something like that in A Few Good Men out of the Mouth of Jack Nicholson?
Yea. It’s a war zone. If you cannot bring your wife and children to your duty station because it’s hostile, then it’s a warzone.
I believe for something to be a ‘warzone’ there needs to be actual conflict, not just the distant threat of one.
Also, on the German revolutionary units: Im sure if you looked hard enough youll find somebody in the United States that thinks it was wrong for us to break away from Great Britain and wants us to go back. Every country has its crazies.
Anyway, I’m done with Smacktard. Shoot, anyone who sees himself as a smacktard really shouldn’t be taken seriously enough to argue with. Especially when they’re trolling and driving the topic on a tangent.
oooh, a little personal there.
The real issue is, can we trust Obama to use nuclear weapons to defend this nation or not? If he won’t even man up enough to absorb some good honest ribbing about his ears or even to answer some straight forward questions about his past, can we really expect him to do his duty?
Explain a plausible scenario (with specifics) where the president will need nuclear weapons in the near future. Nukes are touchy subjects, its all very situational. Even in extreme situations I would be hesitant to use them.
The other issue is, last time the Clintons were in the white house, the national guards went on strike. (Washington State and Montana.) Considering most of the forces deployed in Iraq (at least while I was there) were rent-a-soldiers (national guard) can we trust them to do their duty under the Clintons, or will they go AWOL like the last time we had the Clintons in the White House?
I wouldnt associate Bills weakness in situations from 10-15 years ago with anything that might be applicable today because it is a person with the same last name in office.
Finally, can we trust McCain to nominate the right judges so as to over turn some of the bench legislation that’s been rammed down our throats unconstitutionally - to secure our borders with NO PROSPECT WHATSOEVER of an amnesty - to push for the tax cuts he REFUSED TO SIGN TWICE - to protect our civil liberties (which he has actively worked to repeal at every turn he gets) and to protect American business from eco-terrorists and the Useless Nations?
I could be wrong, but I believe he didnt sign the tax cuts because they were not accompanied by cuts in spending, which is a logical reason to not cut taxes.
After all, we have three liberals running for the White House:
Obama - Ultra Liberal and very secretive about his past and his affiliations
Clinton - Not as Ultra Liberal, but still VERY liberal.
McCain - The most liberal republican on the face of God’s green Earth. (AKA, Moderate-Liberal.)
If Obama is ultra liberal, what are kucinich and gravel?
The new congress had to be more then just sworn in. Nancy needed to get her new drapes purchased, measured,installed, etc. They didn’t even get a budget put together until after April. So yes, when they took over, THEN and only THEN did the stock market start it’s death spiral.
And a war zone is any zone designated as such by the United States Military. If you are under the threat of physical violence by an enemy army, and the threat is realistic, then it’s a war zone. Korea and the United States do NOT have a peace treaty. Cuba’s been itching to storm GITMO.
Iraq is by and large pacified. There’s some pocket resistance here and there, but over all, Al Queda’s been kicked out, the Iranians are having a much harder time getting illegal weapons into the country because of the increased border security (Hey, McCain, look you CAN secure a border!).
Hell, even the media’s begrudgingly saying that Iraq’s a victory now. The only holdouts that it’s a victory are the extremist, whackos like Moveon and Daily Kos. Unfortunately, those two organizations are running the entire Democratic party.
As for a PLAUSIBLE situation where nukes are needed - that’s a very stupid request. No matter what realitic, plausible situation anyone would raise, you’d easily say was ridiculous because you cannot imagine a plausible situation. Thus, all plausible situations TO YOU would be ridiculous.
To the rest of us, there are cases where nukes may be necessary, as improbably as the situation may be, and that’s why we still have nukes in our arsenal. If our CIC is too spineless to use them when they are needed, and the enemy knows this, they no longer serve as a deterrant. And, even worse, if he’s too spineless to use them, what makes you think there are no generals who would “accidentally” use them to attempt and save the country? And if we have generals going renegade, then we’ve lost the chain of command and thus, military discipline.
This can go bad 9 ways from Sunday if the situation arises. If Barry Hussein wants to be CIC, maybe he should show us that he not only has the will to use force if needed, but that he is honest enough with himself and the nation about where his allegiances and favorable nostalgia lie?
I’d have no problem electing the son of an Iraqi national to the office of the Presidency, even if he was a Muslim. But he’d better damn well be honest with us and actually tell us what he thinks. It’d also be nice if he didn’t cry to mommy everytime someone poked fun at his ears.
@Cmdr:
Oh yea, the Korean war was NEVER DECLARED. Guess that IS a difference….you know, the ILLEGAL invasion of a sovereign nation with a PERMANENT garrison.
What was I thinking? At least Iraq was approved by Congress BEFORE we invaded.
And the SDF is NOT a military. It is a department of their law enforcement. Just because they have fighters and bombers and tanks does NOT mean it is a standing military. Under their constitution they are not PERMITTED to have a military. Thus, they have the worlds BEST police department.
And, for the record, the United States President CAN push legislation. And thus, it IS important to know the heritage and culture and political affinities of those running for United States President precisely because they CAN push legislation through Congress and the House. All they need is a single patsy and they can write any bill or law they want too.
How do you think No Child Left Behind came into being? How do you think the Department of Homeland Security came into being? How do you think the Transit Security Administration came into being? Hell, how do you think NAFTA happened? Some president wrote the bill, found a moron to sponsor it and them pushed it through congress with an iron rod.
If you are so deluded as to actually think that the President is an impotent geriatric sitting behind a mahogony desk waiting and praying that legislation is written and sponsored without interacting what-so-ever in the process (because that’s the way YOU, as an individual, see the executive branch) does not make it so. It just makes YOU uninformed as to how the process REALLY works.
Maybe you need to go back and take a civics class? I mean, I assume, of course, you actually DID take one at some point in your life…or were you one of the kids that were not “left behind” and socially promoted in public high screwl?
Hmm…makes you wonder…saying there is a HUGE Japanese military complete with Samuri and all…not even knowing that their constitution strictly forbids them to have a standing military at all. Not even knowing that Korea is a war zone that we’ve been in for at least 10 times as long as Iraq and that the President invaded long before Congress approved of it. Not even knowing that there were German resistance cells in Germany after World War II and some even exist to this day. Not even knowing that Gitmo was CONQUERED and STOLEN from the Spanish and Cuba and we’ve been an occupying force for almost a century at least, maybe longer.
Hmm, guess instead of civics, you should take a few American history courses - then you can take a civics class. The scary thing is, you probably get to vote!
I think I am in love.
Jen, educate yourself: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/Occ-GY/
(copy and paste it)
Chapter 18. We didnt lose a single soldier to German “resistance”. The biggest problem soldiers faced were reprimands for fraternizing with German women. There wasnt a SINGLE incident like the bombings that go on in Iraq every day. But read it yourself, youll see.
The 110th congress was sworn in Jan 4th, 2007. The stock market continued to climb until it peaked in July 2007. It peaked again in Oct. 2007. NINE months after Congress was sworn in. October was the beginning of the Bear market were now in.
I can make a similar argument: When Bush was sworn in the Dow was 10732. It closed yesterday at 11893. A grwoth of 1100 over 7 years. About 1% per year. Is Bush to blame for this anemic grwoth? No. If anything his tax cuts helped spur the economy (growth of govt. under Bush is a differnt matter), and 9/11 was devastating. likewise, the credit and housing crisis were now in, which is driving down the market and depressing the economy, has nothing to do with democrats or republicans.
I consider myself a conservative, but blaming everything under the sun on the opposition party is ridiculous. Correlation does not mean causation.
Back on topic…
Wyoming really hurt Hillary. Almost no change in delegate count (Obama 7, Hillary 5), but the psychological shift of Hillary losing one of the “whitest” states in America is a devastating blow to her campaign’s effort to portray Obama as a “black candidate” (which it has been trying to do since South Carolina).
Also, the final delegate count for last weeks min-Super Tuesday is actually in Obama’s favor (due to his Caucus win in Texas) despite Hillary’s unexpected win in Rhode Island.
I have to be honest… I think Obama is going to win Pennsylvania. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh control the state. All of the other areas combined cannot counter those two massive population centers (Pittsburgh and the rest of the Commonwealth can barely counter metro Philly, which is why PA leans solidly liberal despite the huge conservative ares of the 814 area code).
And with Pennsylvania, I think Barrack clinches the Democratic Nomination.
The ONLY way I think Hillary can get the nomination is by using the “back room tactics” that the Clinton’s have excelled at. But any effort to do so would be suicidal for the Democratic Party, and I am not sure that the Super Delegates would go along with that suicide and give Hillary the nomination.
Yeah, Its kind of funny how fast the media coverage changes on obama or Hillary. two days ago, they were pratcically writing Obama’s obituary. Before Texas and Ohio, they were writing Hillary’s. Then he wins a small state with a gain of TWO delegates, and now hes got the big MO again. The press will be fawning over him like crazy after he trounces Hillary in Mississippi. Like Switch says, it may carry into Penn, but I think Hillary will probably get it by 5 or 10.
The Dems have to put these two on a ticket to beat McCain. McCain is also taking some flack for not releasing his medical records. he better pick a good VP…
A) You’re completely off base, Smacktard, but your name says it all and I said I was done with you.
B) The 110th Congress was sworn in during the month of January, however, they did not pass any legislation until April/June. I credit this to their inability to find matching drapes to their sofas, but it could be sheer incompetence on their part as well. So yes, the crash in 2007 can be squarely landed at their feet. They promised to take America in a new direction and they accomplished that mission objective. We went from growing (sluggishly) to shrinking (moderately fast.)
C) I think Hillary will get Florida and Michigan reseated at the convention. And I think Republicans will arrive at the polls in record numbers to give her the win in BOTH states just like Democrats arrived at the polls in record numbers to get McCain elected. (At least according to the exit polls, of which I’ve posted links numerous times in this thread, so I will refrain from doing so again now.)
Add to that the dirt they Clintons have on the super delegates (from the FBI files they took illegally while in the White House last time) and add to that Sandy Berger’s established machine (he’s got his clearance back now, amazing how that was just in time for Hillary to run, huh?) and let’s not forget that the Clintons also have the ties to Communist China and Communist China’s vast stores of money - remember China got Bill elected in 1992 and 1996 and has already been shown to have a financial interest in Hillary’s campaign through Norman Shu et el - and I don’t think we can count her out yet.
However, I do think in the last week of August, we’ll not only have to wear rain coats to keep the blood from the feud off of us, but that we will most probably end up with Obama with a margin of two or three delegates - maybe Clinton with the same margin. And, as we have seen from both 2000 and 2004, the Democrats don’t lose graciously, thus, we can expect September to be filled with court cases and recounts.
This may play into the hands of the Republicans however. The country already despises Congress, it’s got the lowest ratings of any Congress in history and their ratings are barely half as good as the Presidents (and we know most of the nation is upset with him.) This means, even if a democrat IS elected, odds are the Congress will switch back to the Republicans. This would be a good thing. The bleeding heart liberal can go cry on the shoulder of Europe about how evil Congress is and then Congress can keep this nation from becoming the United Socialist States of America.
It would be a bad thing if McCain got into the white house AND the democrats kept the Congress however. The republicans would take the blame for all the failures (and they would be enormous in magnitude) and we’ll be inflicted with liberalism as the dominant force in politics for the next 50 years.
No. The Dems NEED to get the White House and the Reps NEED to get the Congress. (Mainly because we don’t have a Republican running for President this term. We have a “Conservative-Liberal” (Quote is from John McCain describing himself THIS year) and that’s just not good enough.
To wrap up, I think the DNC is in a full out melt-down. They’ll have infighting and bickering for months while each side tries to prove it’s not sexist and not racist (even though both sides clearly are based on their party’s history and policies) with the Kennedy Family trying to reclaim their dynasty on one side and the Clinton Family trying to retain their dynasty on the other side. This has all the makings of a good Mafia/Godfather movie!
Can someone pass the popcorn and beer? How much are tickets to this shin-dig? Oh really!?! Free! Awesome! Let’s get the show on!
@Cmdr:
And a war zone is any zone designated as such by the United States Military. If you are under the threat of physical violence by an enemy army, and the threat is realistic, then it’s a war zone. Korea and the United States do NOT have a peace treaty. Cuba’s been itching to storm GITMO.
Iraq is by and large pacified. There’s some pocket resistance here and there, but over all, Al Queda’s been kicked out, the Iranians are having a much harder time getting illegal weapons into the country because of the increased border security (Hey, McCain, look you CAN secure a border!).
Youre almost making it sound like Iraq is more peaceful than Korea.
As for a PLAUSIBLE situation where nukes are needed - that’s a very stupid request. No matter what realitic, plausible situation anyone would raise, you’d easily say was ridiculous because you cannot imagine a plausible situation. Thus, all plausible situations TO YOU would be ridiculous.
Please dont act like you know me and how I think.
@ncscswitch:
I have to be honest… I think Obama is going to win Pennsylvania. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh control the state. All of the other areas combined cannot counter those two massive population centers (Pittsburgh and the rest of the Commonwealth can barely counter metro Philly, which is why PA leans solidly liberal despite the huge conservative ares of the 814 area code).
I forget who said it, but - “Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in the middle”.
@Cmdr:
A) You’re completely off base, Smacktard, but your name says it all and I said I was done with you.
You keep saying that.
[B) The 110th Congress was sworn in during the month of January, however, they did not pass any legislation until April/June. I credit this to their inability to find matching drapes to their sofas, but it could be sheer incompetence on their part as well. So yes, the crash in 2007 can be squarely landed at their feet. They promised to take America in a new direction and they accomplished that mission objective. We went from growing (sluggishly) to shrinking (moderately fast.) [/quote]
I thought you were “done with me”, but anyway what you posted is wrong. On Jan 10th 2007, the 110 congres passed a minimum wage hike. It was approved by the senate on Feb. 1 http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/18/
Youre argument still doesnt make sense: the 110th congress comes in, does nothing (according to you) until May-june, and somehow that causes a Bear market in Oct.? Exactly what pivotal legislation was passed that got us into this mess? Because all I saw congress doing was passing a meaningless minimum wage hike, toothless ethics reform, and some supplmental funding measures for Iraq/Afghan. Everything else they tried was veteoed by Bush.
So exactly how is Congress to blame for the recession we’re almost certainly in?
However, I do think in the last week of August, we’ll not only have to wear rain coats to keep the blood from the feud off of us, but that we will most probably end up with Obama with a margin of two or three delegates - maybe Clinton with the same margin. And, as we have seen from both 2000 and 2004, the Democrats don’t lose graciously, thus, we can expect September to be filled with court cases and recounts.
In the end, Obamas pledged delegate margin will be around 80-120. After Barac wins Missisippi, it will be like March 4th never happened (he’ll actually be further ahead). Hillary will have to win 65% of remaining delegates just to TIE Obama. Aint gonna happen with only 9 contests left.
The real fight will be if she wins the popular vote and Obama has a significant delegate lead.
In that case, they give it to clinton with Obama as VP. Without the popular vote, Hillary has no chance.This means, even if a democrat IS elected, odds are the Congress will switch back to the Republicans.
Hastert’s seat just went Democratic. That was unexpected and doesn’t bode well for repubs in 08.
That’s because the lies were circulated (in clear and direct violation of Campaign Finance Reform Act) about Oberweise.
However, he does not get to keep that seat. He only gets to have it for a few months and then loses it in November.
Stop the personal digs. If I see it again in this thread I will delete the whole post. If you are confused as to what I am referring PM me. df
anyone notice how the “red states” seem to be going obama’s way. a lot of the south and the midwest. basically all the midwest. no racists here. well, maybe.
also, the hispanics rufuse to vote for a black candidate. the democrats maybe giving the republicans a present. who knew they were so racist?
the “blue states” seem to go for hillary. what the liberals cant vote for a black man? i’ve always said the liberal views are the most racist ever. ie. they blacks need help b/c somehow they cant do things themselves. the most racist view ever, ever.
wyoming stalled some momentum for clinton, but is it really momentum, or is it just who the press decides to play up for a week or two. and the sheeple follow their press.
The liberals are just voting for hilary because they think shell be Bill again and all liberals loved him. Its not like if the general election is Obama / McCain they will jump on mccain.
@Cmdr:
That’s because the lies were circulated (in clear and direct violation of Campaign Finance Reform Act) about Oberweise.
However, he does not get to keep that seat. He only gets to have it for a few months and then loses it in November.
Again, showing your niavette of how things are done and when.
If youre going to call someone naive, you should have your facts straight: Bill Foster gets Haster’s seat until JANUARY. The ELECTION is in Nov.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/833484,election030908.article
The victory in the 14th Congressional District means Foster will serve out the remainder of Hastert’s term, which ends next January.
anyone notice that it’s legal for hillary to make bill vice president. and she could just appoint bill as VP after the election if she wins. then step down. and we get bill again.
hell, bill even wants to make it legit for him to run again, by saying much like putin, that its only 2 consecutive terms thats outlawed. those clintons.
Let him whose name says it all be corrected once again:
Once a congressman is voted out of office he loses all his influence, in essence he is already deposed it is just a matter of formality. He gets to vote, but he is no longer courted by either side; rather the new congressman arrives in Washington and begins networking.
It’s the same with a President btw. Bill was basically useless after 11/2000 when George was elected. Had Gore been elected, he would still have had all the influence he had before, instead of the bottom dregs of the barrel.
Anyway,
Yes, Balung, I’ve noticed that the “racist republicans” seem to be going for Obama a lot. We also, being sexist and all, seem to be voting for Hillary a lot. Guess we did not really enjoy the Democrats and the News Media picking John McCain for us so now we’re sabotaging them and going to get them smacked right upside the head with someone they will NOT enjoy for 4 years.
Didn’t know republicans were as excited about either clinton or obama.
@Cmdr:
Let him whose name says it all be corrected once again:
Once a congressman is voted out of office he loses all his influence, in essence he is already deposed it is just a matter of formality.
That’s fine (called “lameduck”) but not really what you said. You said: “He only gets to have it for a few months and then loses it in November.”
Thats different then being a lameduck. A lameduck congressman still occupies the office and gets to vote. He does not “lose it in Novemeber”. He stays until the next Congress is sworn in (January).
And the only way Bill Foster can become a lame duck (which your assuming he will be) is if he loses in Nov. What makes you think hes going to lose to the guy he just beat? If your that sure about it, I have a PayPal account…
Bill was basically useless after 11/2000 when George was elected. Had Gore been elected, he would still have had all the influence he had before, instead of the bottom dregs of the barrel.
It didn’t stop Bill from pardoning all sorts of scumbags.
Didn’t know republicans were as excited about either clinton or obama.
I wouldn’t say “excited” but many of us view McCain as being just like Clinton or Obama on domestic issues. And if he’s going to pass the same legislation as they would, and that legislation would do irreparable harm to the nation in the short term (until conservatives can repeal it and restore balance and equality to the people) then why should we be labeled the ones who destroyed America’s economy, America’s health care and America’s freedoms? Wouldn’t it be better to have the liberals take the blame so we can restore order faster?
Remember, Jimmie Carter was a liberal, saying the same things as McCain, Clinton and Obama, and he almost destroyed this country in 4 years. Luckily, strong conservatives stood up and took over in the 1980s and saved the nation from total economic collapse. FDR also a liberal, was driving this nation right into the socialist gutter until Japan attacked us. If Japan had just been patient, they could have purchased us for a few hundred yen when we would have been begging for anything but our current form of government under FDR. (The New Deal has been the RAW DEAL for America since it’s inception. If it was not for the massive demands on American business and our oil exports to foreign nations from World War II, we would have been bankrupt in the late 1930s and early 1940s, despite the New Deal.)
So yes, many republicans, myself included, would rather a democrat get into office and pass democrat legislation then a republican get into office and pass democrat legislation. That way we don’t get saddled with the blame when the country fails, rather the blame will go where it is deserved and conservatives will regain prominence in this nation and restore us to prosperity.
The only reason we are in this predicament is because of the lies and slander of the democrats against good, honest, hard working American politicians who would not be bought by liberal lobbiests. Because they stuck to their morals, lies were spread about them and, historically speaking, Republicans will retire in the face of dishonor, even if that dishonor is fictional, for the good of the party. If we fought for our politicians like Democrats do (slandering those who attack instead of asking those who were victimized to resign) there’d be no strong democrats left. The people would have voted them out decades ago.
