"Did I tell you that I like this forum? I also like talking to myself sometimes too. That helps put me in touch with the inner me. Ilike me! “

Would that be defined as, mental masturbation?

ILovePickles - 10 October 2008 05:55 AM

wassup - 09 October 2008 11:07 PM

sandman,
You can unite behind him if you want. Knowing what I know, I sure as hell won’t. I’ll just get in line for any goodies that come my way, and work for a Republican Congress in two years to reign in the massive pork spending and big government we will surely get with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a President Obama running the Country. They will have to add digits to the National Debt calculator just to keep track of the astronomical numbers. It nauseates me just to think about it.

You really have no reason to be worried. The country didn’t go to pot when Clinton was in office, did it? Actually, we had the best economy under Clinton. He dealt with the terrorists, balanced the budget, did very good with the economy.

You’re worried about something that will never happen. What I find humorous is that I am more worried that our economic situation will worsen under McCain. Bush obviously did nothing to confront the oil cartels in their efforts to price gouge. And now that his term is nearly up, oil prices mysteriously drop?

I look at the past with Clinton and I see relief. I see a future that involves McCain, and I’M SCARED! You really should be more worried about your candidate.

Pickle,
Let me learn you a lesson or four here. Number 1, Clinton was the beneficiary of the positive economic policies of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Number 2, Clinton did not have to worry about a Cold War so had resources available to stimulate the economy that were not previously available. Number three, Clinton had a Republican Congress for much of his time and therefore did not have to deal with a Congress trying to puch wasteful spending down our throats. And Number 4. for some of his Presidency, Clinton had the line item veto, and recognized that controlling spending was what the country needed. Unfortunately, candidate Obama is no President Clinton.

stablemaster - 10 October 2008 10:46 AM

“Did I tell you that I like this forum? I also like talking to myself sometimes too. That helps put me in touch with the inner me. Ilike me! “


Would that be defined as, mental masturbation?

I’m reading your post, stablemaster. I’m one of the silent majority that will speak come election day. We are the ones that tell the pollsters we are voting for Obama when we have no intention of doing so.

wassup - 10 October 2008 10:52 AM

ILovePickles - 10 October 2008 05:55 AM

wassup - 09 October 2008 11:07 PM

sandman,
You can unite behind him if you want. Knowing what I know, I sure as hell won’t. I’ll just get in line for any goodies that come my way, and work for a Republican Congress in two years to reign in the massive pork spending and big government we will surely get with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a President Obama running the Country. They will have to add digits to the National Debt calculator just to keep track of the astronomical numbers. It nauseates me just to think about it.

You really have no reason to be worried. The country didn’t go to pot when Clinton was in office, did it? Actually, we had the best economy under Clinton. He dealt with the terrorists, balanced the budget, did very good with the economy.

You’re worried about something that will never happen. What I find humorous is that I am more worried that our economic situation will worsen under McCain. Bush obviously did nothing to confront the oil cartels in their efforts to price gouge. And now that his term is nearly up, oil prices mysteriously drop?

I look at the past with Clinton and I see relief. I see a future that involves McCain, and I’M SCARED! You really should be more worried about your candidate.

Pickle,
Let me learn you a lesson or four here. Number 1, Clinton was the beneficiary of the positive economic policies of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Number 2, Clinton did not have to worry about a Cold War so had resources available to stimulate the economy that were not previously available. Number three, Clinton had a Republican Congress for much of his time and therefore did not have to deal with a Congress trying to puch wasteful spending down our throats. And Number 4. for some of his Presidency, Clinton had the line item veto, and recognized that controlling spending was what the country needed. Unfortunately, candidate Obama is no President Clinton.

That was great sandman. The president and congress working with, or against, each other for what becomes a good outcome. I believe in having checks and balances. Bad things seem to happen when C&B’s arent in place. Example: The first six years of the Bush adm. He pretty much had his way, as did congress. Hello! Here we are in deep dodo. I hope that There are strong checks and balances in place when Obama becomes President. Hell man who wants a dictator?

I’ll bet I could learn to respect you sandy.

I’m waiting to see if anyone here can see the major flaws in wassups post there.....  (You need to research a little more my friend before you post....  Just a word of advise....)

Reinsaka - 10 October 2008 05:42 PM

I’m waiting to see if anyone here can see the major flaws in wassups post there.....  (You need to research a little more my friend before you post....  Just a word of advise....)

Well, spit it out. You need to do the work and ‘ll respond or agree.

wassup - 10 October 2008 06:00 PM

Reinsaka - 10 October 2008 05:42 PM

I’m waiting to see if anyone here can see the major flaws in wassups post there.....  (You need to research a little more my friend before you post....  Just a word of advise....)

Well, spit it out. You need to do the work and ‘ll respond or agree.

I’m not sure what he means, but the one big flaw that I noticed was in this part.

wassup - 10 October 2008 10:52 AM

Pickle,

Let me learn you a lesson or four here. Number 1, Clinton was the beneficiary of the positive economic policies of the Reagan and Bush Administrations.

GHW Bush left Clinton with one of the highest unemployment rates and with the most poverty ever recorded.  The unemployment rate was 7.8% and poverty was 14.2%.  Fairly strong economy, but he was shipping jobs.  Reagan lowered income taxes, but unemployment under Reagan was at 10.8% and the national debt (spurred on by the stock market crash of 1982) grew from $700Billion to $3Trillion.

That’s it dude.....  You’ve been reading....

Where did ya find it???

With all respect in the world wassup, you can’t throw the economy at Clinton… Reaganomics backfired big time on Reagan… His trickle down economics didn’t work, nor will it work for McCain....

One big flaw in Wassup’s thinking is that he is one of the silent majority who will vote for McCain on election day. He thinks there are a lot of people who tell pollsters they will vote for Obama when they have no intention of doing so.

What Wassup does not take into account is the Reverse Bradley Effect. There are huge numbers of people in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, etc… who would never admit to their friends that they secretly like Obama.

They will not send in money or wear a campaign button or put a bumper sticker on their 4-wheel drive pick-up, but when they go into that election booth, they will color-in the oval or punch the chad or push the button next to Obama’s name. They will express surprise and feign outrage when Obama wins but they will be smiling inside because they will know they voted in their best economic interest.

The good ole’ boys and rednecks and sportsmen and gun owners and agricultural workers and truck drivers and small-business owners who make less than a quarter-million per year will privately support Obama. Or their wives and girlfriends will, perhaps without admitting it to their husbands and boyfriends.

The church ladies and home-makers and social club members and hairdressers and manicurists and all their customers will talk about how they can’t possibly vote for a black man, but they will pull that lever for Obama, and then go home and hear their husbands tell them that they voted for McCain, when in truth and fact, the husbands voted for Obama too.

People who have no problem using the “N-word” and go around saying they would vote for Obama if he were only white, will privately and confidentially vote for Obama, and they will feel good about it. They will say “they can’t believe it” the day after the election, and they will wonder how Obama won their state when all of their friends and neighbors were in agreement that they were forced to vote for McCain because “we can’t elect a black man to be our President.”

I am still laying 4 to 1 odds that Obama will win this election and win the popular vote by a bigger margin than anyone in modern times. Any takers yet?

Interesting theory, CD. Now would that be called the Obama, McCain, or Bush effect? Perhaps those of us around in 5 or 10 years or so will see a book or two written on that theory, to validate it.

CaveDweller -

Any takers yet?

Almost!!!  I want to see how this Palin thing will work out....

Reinsaka - 10 October 2008 07:47 PM

That’s it dude.....  You’ve been reading....

Where did ya find it???

With all respect in the world wassup, you can’t throw the economy at Clinton… Reaganomics backfired big time on Reagan… His trickle down economics didn’t work, nor will it work for McCain....

I beg to differ on that if my understanding of trickle down is correct. As I understand, these stimulus packages that have been put in effect or proposed this year are based on the premise that putting more money in the hands of people, stimulates the economy. These plans have been supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

Personally, I don’t support them as much as I used to because most of the products purchased, are manufactured oversees and this would seem to dilute the effect domestically. Although there is some effect at the retail level, the bang for the buck really isn’t there anymore.

What do you consider to be modern history?

Reinsaka - 10 October 2008 08:41 PM

CaveDweller -

Any takers yet?

Almost!!!  I want to see how this Palin thing will work out....

What palin thing?

wassup - 10 October 2008 08:49 PM

What do you consider to be modern history?

Any election since McGovern vs. Nixon in 1972.