|
Post by J-Sav on Feb 13, 2008 17:17:02 GMT -4
Excellent assesment mancow. I've always said that if Clinton is the nominee, McCain will win. I'm an independent, and like alot of people out there, I can't stand Hillary Clinton, even though I love Bill. But if Democracts are smart, Obama should get the nomination, because he can beat McCain. I will vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee. I love McCain, and I have alot of respect for him, and if it wasn't for Obama, he would get my support, but I like how Obama brings people together, and I think he will bring this nation, and this world together to make better somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Feb 13, 2008 17:20:44 GMT -4
I consider myself a conservative, but am not really a big fan of McCain. That being said, there is a decent chance that I will vote for him no matter who the Democratic candidate is come November. Living in a strongly "blue state", my vote really doesn't matter much. However, if Hillary were to become the nominee, nothing will keep me from going to the polling place to vote against her. And, although Obama is even more liberal than Hillary, that type of negative sentiment does not exist where he is concerned. In discussions with others, I have realized that I am not alone in this type of thinking. When it comes to Hillary, there just isn't much of a middle ground...you either lover her or hate her. So, the conclusion that I am drawing here (9 months before the election): McCain vs. Obama = Obama win McCain vs. Clinton = McCain win Part of that has to do with nobody really wants 8 more years of Clinton or Bush in the Whitehouse. The United States presidency shouldn't have two royal families taking turns ruling over 30 years. Bush Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton Clinton
|
|
David
Bench Warmer
Posts: 258
|
Post by David on Feb 13, 2008 17:22:22 GMT -4
Aw, you beat me to it! Oh well...
|
|
|
Post by John on Feb 13, 2008 17:42:29 GMT -4
that's a great picture!
|
|
|
Post by chang on Feb 13, 2008 19:32:14 GMT -4
I consider myself a conservative, but am not really a big fan of McCain. That being said, there is a decent chance that I will vote for him no matter who the Democratic candidate is come November. Living in a strongly "blue state", my vote really doesn't matter much. However, if Hillary were to become the nominee, nothing will keep me from going to the polling place to vote against her. And, although Obama is even more liberal than Hillary, that type of negative sentiment does not exist where he is concerned. In discussions with others, I have realized that I am not alone in this type of thinking. When it comes to Hillary, there just isn't much of a middle ground...you either lover her or hate her. So, the conclusion that I am drawing here (9 months before the election): McCain vs. Obama = Obama win McCain vs. Clinton = McCain win Part of that has to do with nobody really wants 8 more years of Clinton or Bush in the Whitehouse. The United States presidency shouldn't have two royal families taking turns ruling over 30 years. Bush Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton Clinton The senior Bush only served 4 years I'm hoping whoever wins gets only 4 years too. If there was a better candidate in 04, we wouldn't be talking about 8 year terms. btw, Clinton-Bush was the first time there's been back to back 8 year terms since I forgot who and who.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Feb 13, 2008 19:42:28 GMT -4
Senior Bush was President for 8 hours while Reagen was under the knife.
Bush (8 hours) Bush (4 years) Clinton (4 years) ...
I win
|
|
|
Post by John on Feb 13, 2008 19:44:53 GMT -4
btw, Clinton-Bush was the first time there's been back to back 8 year terms since I forgot who and who. do you count harry truman who took over for franklin roosevelt after FDR died in his 4th term? truman was re-elected. after he left, eisenhower served for two terms. besides those two, the last consecutive two-term presidents would then probably be james madison and james monroe, the 4th and 5th presidents. an interesting anecdote that i was never aware of.
|
|
mancowmilitia
6th Man
SLOB - Cubs
2005 / 2009 SLOB Champions
Posts: 966
|
Post by mancowmilitia on Feb 20, 2008 10:17:12 GMT -4
I received the following in an email today. It really hits the nail on the head... The Angry White Man
There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.
He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Kelly on Feb 20, 2008 18:23:39 GMT -4
Let's say I break into your house
A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!! It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.
Her point:
Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it hard to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters: You are Required to let me stay in your house You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan You are Required to Educate my kids You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family (my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house. And oh yeah, I get a free education, where you have to pay your own way through college.(TEEHEE) And what a deal it is for me!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me. And don't forget to make sure your forms are in MY language - I need to understand them...
Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America if you agree, pass it on ( in English ). Share it if you see the value of it.
If not blow it off......... along with your future Social Security funds, and a lot of other things.
Interesting take on things.....
TK
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Feb 20, 2008 18:45:30 GMT -4
I'm guessing the original writer of that letter didn't take the three seconds to google "cost of illegal immigration" to see if the baseless fears about illegal immigration and social security were true. Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change. www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.htmlI would imagine most of the rest of the letter is similarly exaggerated at best and/or blatantly false.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2008 22:14:53 GMT -4
Immigration is nothing like breaking into a house.
Unless your house is huge, has room for millions of extra people, and already has a way to break in legally - but the legal way takes decades of time and thousands of dollars.
Also; illegal immigrants undoubtedly put strain on social programs, but so do lazy people, legal immigrants, and government employees that we overpay to work within the social programs. What people don't understand is that any way of dealing with illegal immigrants is also going to cost a HUGE amount of taxpayer dollars.
The only solution other than becoming a police state is to make the road to legal immigration MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH less restrictive, expensive, lengthy, and bureaucratic.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Mar 18, 2008 17:45:28 GMT -4
bump I'm guessing you have a different viewpoint on guilt by association smear tactics now that the presidential candidate you appear to support is getting the brunt of it.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Mar 18, 2008 17:54:39 GMT -4
Immigration is nothing like breaking into a house. Unless your house is huge, has room for millions of extra people, and already has a way to break in legally - but the legal way takes decades of time and thousands of dollars. Also; illegal immigrants undoubtedly put strain on social programs, but so do lazy people, legal immigrants, and government employees that we overpay to work within the social programs. What people don't understand is that any way of dealing with illegal immigrants is also going to cost a HUGE amount of taxpayer dollars. The only solution other than becoming a police state is to make the road to legal immigration MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH less restrictive, expensive, lengthy, and bureaucratic. If more people were snitches, we could fix all of those problems. I know people who own restaurants and still apply for welfare. I know people that hire illegal immigrants to do their lawns. But I'm, and as a country, not one to blow whistles so all of those problems continually get overlooked. It's almost the whole "group mentality" effect. If no one else cares, why should I care? We need an IRS like agency or internal affairs type department to crack down on illegal immigration, people not working, etc. (hey hiring all those people could stimulate the economy as well, see the New Deal when Roosevelt hired thousands for public arts/works projects) But seriously, that'll never happen.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Mar 18, 2008 17:59:06 GMT -4
Immigration is nothing like breaking into a house. Unless your house is huge, has room for millions of extra people, and already has a way to break in legally - but the legal way takes decades of time and thousands of dollars. Also; illegal immigrants undoubtedly put strain on social programs, but so do lazy people, legal immigrants, and government employees that we overpay to work within the social programs. What people don't understand is that any way of dealing with illegal immigrants is also going to cost a HUGE amount of taxpayer dollars. The only solution other than becoming a police state is to make the road to legal immigration MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH less restrictive, expensive, lengthy, and bureaucratic. If more people were snitches, we could fix all of those problems. I know people who own restaurants and still apply for welfare. I know people that hire illegal immigrants to do their lawns. But I'm, and as a country, not one to blow whistles so all of those problems continually get overlooked. It's almost the whole "group mentality" effect. If no one else cares, why should I care? We need an IRS like agency or internal affairs type department to crack down on illegal immigration, people not working, etc. (hey hiring all those people could stimulate the economy as well, see the New Deal when Roosevelt hired thousands for public arts/works projects) But seriously, that'll never happen. Yes that would solve everything, More government is always the correct answer.
|
|
|
Post by chang on Mar 18, 2008 18:35:21 GMT -4
I never said always. I don't think "being lazy" and illegal immigration is something that can be fixed without gov't forcing things in the right direction though. They simply aren't things like the economy or education where hands-off gov't may be beneficial. There really aren't real experts on motivation and how to stop illegal immigration but there are industry experts on education and economics.
|
|