REpublicans: Do you honestly believe things would have been that different w/McCain?

[Taco John]

I don't.

The only difference that I'd see with McCain is that there would have been more bipartisainship when it came to the spending bill. There would have been more Republicans (more of you folks) who are against it now but would be in favor of it if McCain were president.

[blaise]

Not really, but I don't think the sample size for Obama's presidency is big enough yet. And I would just like to point out that the bipartinsanship hypocrisy wouldn't simply be on the Republican side.

[Radar Chief]

No, that’s why I didn’t vote for him.

[dirk digler]

I agree. A couple of things Obama has done already McCain advocated for like closing Gitmo.

As far the stimulus bill is concerned you are right because the Dems still would have had a large majority in Congress so there would have been more "bipartisanship" just for the simple fact that Republicans would have been forced to vote for it.

[HonestChieffan]

Based on his comments Id say it would be different, how much is hard to say and we wont ever know.

[Otter]

Nope. Nothing noteworthy anyway.

Keep voting for who television tells you to people.

[RINGLEADER]

I've heard this a lot lately from my Obama-backing friends. Who knows how different it would be but this argument is the fall-back to blaming Bush.

[HonestChieffan]

Its the "our new guy is a failure but so was your old guy and your new guy would have been too" so its all ok.

[RINGLEADER]

Its the "our new guy is a failure but so was your old guy and your new guy would have been too" so its all ok.

Yep.

Dems better hope they can make it stick.

[trndobrd]

The main difference is that McCain would not have bought into such a large stimulus bill, and he most certainly would not have let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid write the bill.

[petegz28]

I am not sure how much would be different other than if McCain did the same as Obama the Left would be bitching for one reason or another.

[Calcountry]

I don't.

The only difference that I'd see with McCain is that there would have been more bipartisainship when it came to the spending bill. There would have been more Republicans (more of you folks) who are against it now but would be in favor of it if McCain were president.But if that toad were president all would be well now, damn we are stupid and you are smart, we should have listened to you.

[LOCOChief]

Of course it would, McCain wouldn't have abandoned capitalism in favor of a Federalist response to the crisis, crisis, crisis, crisis, crisis, crisis, crisis, crisis etc.

This country is a heartbeat away from revolution.

[Iowanian]

No.

I don't however believe this turd being force-fed to us would be at this level.

[Garcia Bronco]

Unless McCain could somehow make the media stop talking about this 24/7 and stop them from spreading some of this negativity I don't really see how anyone could be doing any different. I will say that I think this stim bill would have less pork in it.

[FishingRod]

Well the heath of the country would be no different but, the Bill would still be being dissected line by line in congress. I liked McCain better than Obama but I didn't actually like him enough to vote for him. He was too conservative socially for me and not conservative enough fiscally.

[Taco John]

I've heard this a lot lately from my Obama-backing friends. Who knows how different it would be but this argument is the fall-back to blaming Bush.

Not in the least. This argument is about blaming you people who will vote for a socialist just because he's the "better" one of the two offered.

[ClevelandBronco]

I doubt that anything would be radically different right now.

The enormous difference would probably show itself when Justice Ginsberg resigns or dies.

[RINGLEADER]

Not in the least. This argument is about blaming you people who will vote for a socialist just because he's the "better" one of the two offered.

I stand corrected good sir. But I don't think, as has been proffered here, that Pelosi and Reid would have written it or that it would be so scatter-shot in its approach. In the end no one really knows.

But the argument IS a fallback to the blame-Bush line that a lot of my Obama-backing friends have started using. I've heard this from other people which is why I probably (erroneously) applied those sentiments to you.

[Guru]

We will never know TJ.

[BucEyedPea]

I don't.

The only difference that I'd see with McCain is that there would have been more bipartisainship when it came to the spending bill. There would have been more Republicans (more of you folks) who are against it now but would be in favor of it if McCain were president.

That's about the size of it. Or they'd be saying they don't agree with him on this but we're still better off with him still. Oh, or we'd be safe. From what? I want to be safe from this govt of ours that is no longer America.

[SHTSPRAYER]

McCain sucks. I couldn't bring myself to vote for him. But the truth is, his administration would not have spent more money in 3 weeks than the Bush administration spent in 5.

[jettio]

All of the stupid people who voted for B*sh and who were for the unnecessary War with Iraq, even though plenty of wise people knew better, Now want to blame Obama for making decisions to deal with a crisis that he has to do something about.

Seems to me that Obama is relying on people that he has reason to believe are qualified to make the best recommendations. It also seems that Obama is aware of the plusses and minuses of the choices he has made and the ones he decided not to make.

I suppose we will have a bunch of people who pretty much were in favor of B*sh and all of the sh*t he caused spending the next two years pizzing and moaning about Obama following the best advice available.

What exactly is the alternative course of action that all of the crybabies around here prefer?

Seems we have a POTUS that is a smart guy trying his very best and and trying to hire the best advisors, why don't some of the wiseguys around here put in their resumes so that their great ideas can be considered and possibly implemented.

[SHTSPRAYER]

All of the stupid people who voted for B*sh and who were for the unnecessary War with Iraq, even though plenty of wise people knew better, Now want to blame Obama for making decisions to deal with a crisis that he has to do something about.

Seems to me that Obama is relying on people that he has reason to believe are qualified to make the best recommendations. It also seems that Obama is aware of the plusses and minuses of the choices he has made and the ones he decided not to make.

I suppose we will have a bunch of people who pretty much were in favor of B*sh and all of the sh*t he caused spending the next two years pizzing and moaning about Obama following the best advice available.

What exactly is the alternative course of action that all of the crybabies around here prefer?

Seems we have a POTUS that is a smart guy trying his very best and and trying to hire the best advisors, why don't some of the wiseguys around here put in their resumes so that their great ideas can be considered and possibly implemented.

Hey retard, your hero B.O. has just put this country in more debt in less than 1 month than Bush did in about 5 years.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6XkjyKfLZTI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6XkjyKfLZTI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Taco John]

McCain sucks. I couldn't bring myself to vote for him. But the truth is, his administration would not have spent more money in 3 weeks than the Bush administration spent in 5.

Waitaminute... You said 5. Am I to understand that Bush spent more than this in 8 years? :eek:

[BucEyedPea]

The alternatives have been discussed, at length on this board.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Waitaminute... You said 5. Am I to understand that Bush spent more than this in 8 years? :eek:

Well I use five years because thats how long we've been in Iraq and I've seen it written several places that this "stimulus" bill is actually going to cost more to the American taxpayer that the Iraq war. If we add up all the money dumped into Africa and the expansion of medicare under Bush, I would imagine it would be more. Don't know, though.

[Calcountry]

All of the stupid people who voted for B*sh and who were for the unnecessary War with Iraq, even though plenty of wise people knew better, Now want to blame Obama for making decisions to deal with a crisis that he has to do something about.

Seems to me that Obama is relying on people that he has reason to believe are qualified to make the best recommendations. It also seems that Obama is aware of the plusses and minuses of the choices he has made and the ones he decided not to make.

I suppose we will have a bunch of people who pretty much were in favor of B*sh and all of the sh*t he caused spending the next two years pizzing and moaning about Obama following the best advice available.

What exactly is the alternative course of action that all of the crybabies around here prefer?

Seems we have a POTUS that is a smart guy trying his very best and and trying to hire the best advisors, why don't some of the wiseguys around here put in their resumes so that their great ideas can be considered and possibly implemented.I think Rick Santelli summed up my opinions very succinctly.

We don't believe in Marxism, simple. We know, if you suck at what you do, and you want to get ahead, you can go confiscate the wealth from a productive member of society and make yourself fell all good, but, that is Marxism. Soon, all you will have is pain and misery, and a despot dictating where to live, how much you can make, and when and how far you can move.

[SHTSPRAYER]

I think Rick Santelli summed up my opinions very succinctly.

We don't believe in Marxism, simple. We know, if you suck at what you do, and you want to get ahead, you can go confiscate the wealth from a productive member of society and make yourself fell all good, but, that is Marxism. Soon, all you will have is pain and misery, and a despot dictating where to live, how much you can make, and when and how far you can move.

It works great until you run out of productive people to ripoff and ruin.

[NickAthanFan]

McCain's administration probably would have paid their taxes.

[jettio]

I think Rick Santelli summed up my opinions very succinctly.

We don't believe in Marxism, simple. We know, if you suck at what you do, and you want to get ahead, you can go confiscate the wealth from a productive member of society and make yourself fell all good, but, that is Marxism. Soon, all you will have is pain and misery, and a despot dictating where to live, how much you can make, and when and how far you can move.

Why not talk about reality?

Obama's economic advisors are free market capitalists making educated guesses at the best interventionist steps to take in a crisis situation.

The way our economics are set up is that government is involved. How do you expect to go to global trade without government involvement?

Who do you think prints the money?

Seems like you have the mindset to be destined for misery without any despot telling you "where to live, how much you can make, and when and how far you can move"

You are obviously getting bad information from somewhere if you think that is happening.

[Simplex3]

I doubt that anything would be radically different right now.

The enormous difference would probably show itself when Justice Ginsberg resigns or dies.

How much more liberal a judge can Obama appoint? Wasn't Ginsberg the one that said she looks to European law and searches her "feelings" when deciding if something is or isn't constitutional?

I think the real difference here is that it gives the leftist wing-nuts on the SC the chance to get out without being replaced by anyone more centrist. Not that McCain would have appointed any constructionists, though.

[Simplex3]

The way our economics are set up is that government is involved. How do you expect to go to global trade without government involvement?

I'm pretty sure GE & Ford have phones that can call all over the world. If not have them call me, I'll hook them up.

[memyselfI]

I'm not a Republican even though I agree with their feelings about Obummer. But I think the one difference would be that the expectations would have been much lower therefore the threshold for success would have been as well. I also McCain would have had a longer honeymoon because the thrill of his mere presence would not have been so great to wear off so quickly.

[|Zach|]

I'm not a Republican even though I agree with their feelings about Obummer. But I think the one difference would be that the expectations would have been much lower therefore the threshold for success would have been as well. I also McCain would have had a longer honeymoon because his thrill of his mere presence would not have been so great to wear off so quickly.

Thats what we need. The lower common denominator.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Thats what we need. The lower common denominator.

That's what we wound up with; the moonbat media promoted B.O. and McCain.

[Adam]

I think it would have been better, because it would have started with heavy tax cuts, and he would face an opposition party in control of both houses of congress. It still wouldn't have ended up being something I'm happy about, but I do believe it would be significantly better than this steaming pile.

[ClevelandBronco]

How much more liberal a judge can Obama appoint? Wasn't Ginsberg the one that said she looks to European law and searches her "feelings" when deciding if something is or isn't constitutional?

I think the real difference here is that it gives the leftist wing-nuts on the SC the chance to get out without being replaced by anyone more centrist. Not that McCain would have appointed any constructionists, though.

It's probably a simple misunderstanding.

Yes. Pres. Obama will appoint a very liberal replacement.

The replacement that Sen. (or Pres.) McCain would have appointed would probably not be nearly as liberal as our current Justice Ginsberg or the replacement that Pres. Obama will appoint.

There's your difference.

[Taco John]

Until I start hearing Republicans talk about the Republican form of government, and how the Federal Government has over-reached it's boundaries, I won't take the party seriously. They, of course, won't ever do that because they'd have to give up on the idea that the Federal government should have control of such things as Marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion - all of which should strictly be state issues.

The truth about the party is that it is Republican In Name Only. Very few of them are truly Republicans.

[headsnap]

Until I start hearing Republicans talk about the Republican form of government, and how the Federal Government has over-reached it's boundaries, I won't take the party seriously. They, of course, won't ever do that because they'd have to give up on the idea that the Federal government should have control of such things as Marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion - all of which should strictly be state issues.

The truth about the party is that it is Republican In Name Only. Very few of them are truly Republicans.

:bravo:


it's a messed up world when TJ and meme are the ones making sense...

[Taco John]

I've always made sense. It's just taken people the experience of real disillusionment with the Republican party to realize it.

[ClevelandBronco]

Until I start hearing Republicans talk about the Republican form of government, and how the Federal Government has over-reached it's boundaries, I won't take the party seriously. They, of course, won't ever do that because they'd have to give up on the idea that the Federal government should have control of such things as Marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion - all of which should strictly be state issues.

The truth about the party is that it is Republican In Name Only. Very few of them are truly Republicans.

This Republican agrees.

However, as long as there is an Electoral College, there are two parties and a few stragglers.

[Direckshun]

I personally don't know how a libertarian can link itself to the Republican party right now.

Most libertarians I've met are principled, intelligent people that I really, really disagree with. I don't understand how they can align themselves with a party of anti-intellectual reactionaries.

[Taco John]

I personally don't know how a libertarian can link itself to the Republican party right now.

Most libertarians I've met are principled, intelligent people that I really, really disagree with. I don't understand how they can align themselves with a party of anti-intellectual reactionaries.



What are you talking about? That's all you are as far as I can tell. I don't know why you're pretending to be any different. You pull the same bullshit as Republicans did. They take the most extreme liberals and paint the party with them (Michael Moore, Rosie O'donnell, etc.). You take the most extreme and paint the entire party with them (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.) They brainlessly defend their party's bullshit. You brainlessly defend your party's bullshit. Their political compass goes completely batshit when in power. Your political compass goes completely batshit when in power.

You're right about one thing though - libertarians can't align themselves with Republicans right now, no matter how badly we want to. That's why the movement is trying to take over the party and lead them in a new direction and not just "align" with them. If it doesn't work, you'll see libertarians voting third party again.

We got our work cut out for us, but the combination of Bush and Obama has started to open a hell of a lot of eyes and especially ears.

[BucEyedPea]

Why not talk about reality?

Obama's economic advisors are free market capitalists making educated guesses at the best interventionist steps to take in a crisis situation.

The way our economics are set up is that government is involved. How do you expect to go to global trade without government involvement?

Who do you think prints the money?

Seems like you have the mindset to be destined for misery without any despot telling you "where to live, how much you can make, and when and how far you can move"

You are obviously getting bad information from somewhere if you think that is happening.

Coining ( the Constitutional power) and/or printing money ( a dubious Consitutional power) has nothing to do with what economic system we have. Economics is the creation and distribution of wealth. Our federal govt has no role in that.

I don't know of any Constitutional, as in "specific or enumerated" powers, that give our federal govt a role in creating or distributing wealth, even if those powers have been seized in various forms through the years. No the "general welfare" doesn't count. We can still wind up disagreeing what will benefit the masses under that. There is no economic system stipulated. By the nature of the document being written as a restraint on the federal govt it gives rise to freedom which means laissez-faire. That's where individual people decide to make voluntary exchanges with each other as to what they value individually. Not the govt.

I do know of areas that give our federal govt a few "specific and enumerated" powers that grease the wheels of commerce but no govt can create wealth. And redistribution schemes is legalized theft. Such as protection of one's right to property ( all property which includes one's earnings), copyright/patents, regulation of interstate commerce ( original meaning not everything under the sun you want to put in that category), and coining money which means coins. Our federal govt handed that power over to the Federal Reserve which creates money out of thin air as a checkbook entry and enables our gov to spend beyond it's means ( as well as the rest of us). Even if the govt winds up being the printer.

[jettio]

Coining ( the Constitutional power) and/or printing money ( a dubious Consitutional power) has nothing to do with what economic system we have. Economics is the creation and distribution of wealth. Our federal govt has no role in that.

I don't know of any Constitutional, as in "specific or enumerated" powers, that give our federal govt a role in creating or distributing wealth, even if those powers have been seized in various forms through the years. No the "general welfare" doesn't count. We can still wind up disagreeing what will benefit the masses under that. There is no economic system stipulated. By the nature of the document being written as a restraint on the federal govt it gives rise to freedom which means laissez-faire. That's where individual people decide to make voluntary exchanges with each other as to what they value individually. Not the govt.

I do know of areas that give our federal govt a few "specific and enumerated" powers that grease the wheels of commerce but no govt can create wealth. And redistribution schemes is legalized theft. Such as protection of one's right to property ( all property which includes one's earnings), copyright/patents, regulation of interstate commerce ( original meaning not everything under the sun you want to put in that category), and coining money which means coins. Our federal govt handed that power over to the Federal Reserve which creates money out of thin air as a checkbook entry and enables our gov to spend beyond it's means ( as well as the rest of us). Even if the govt winds up being the printer.

The reality is today, all of the changes in monetary policy that you think were bad decisions have been made and the current marginal decisions are based on making the decisions to get the the best possible results under the current structure.

I don't see any reversion back to the gold standard or any other old ways unless things get catastrophically bad and people view it as an all hands on deck war-like situation.

I guess you like using your imagination and theorizing about abstractions and all, so make the most of it.

You and Taco will rule the world some day, so make sure you get some sleep.

[Dave Lane]

Its the "our new guy is a failure but so was your old guy and your new guy would have been too" so its all ok.

Yep 30 days in he's a horrible failure :)

[BucEyedPea]

The reality is today, all of the changes in monetary policy that you think were bad decisions have been made and the current marginal decisions are based on making the decisions to get the the best possible results under the current structure.

I don't see any reversion back to the gold standard or any other old ways unless things get catastrophically bad and people view it as an all hands on deck war-like situation.

I guess you like using your imagination and theorizing about abstractions and all, so make the most of it.

You and Taco will rule the world some day, so make sure you get some sleep.
I'm not a gold bug per se. I am for private money which we've had before successfully. That usually winds up being gold. That's not an abstraction. The abstraction is coming from current policy, including under Bush even earlier like the past 16 years which is a refusal to confront reality and an attempt to create a utopia by promising things like credit to those not deserving and housing they can't afford. How is that imaginary? It isn't. That's only in your imagination or the utopian socialists.

What didn't work before will NOT work again. What worked before will work again....that does not have to even be my own ideal ( which would have to be gradiently worked towards anyway since we didn't get here overnight). It could just be saner fiscal and monetary policy that uses more restraint, doesn't protect those from the reality of what they don't deserve, or try to prop up prices because Keynesians think deflation is a bad thing. In reality, deflation helps the poor and middle class get through a recession/depression. It just doesn't help the rich. You'd prefer to help rich bankers instead? Anyhow, that's not imaginary at all....that's called rationality, ethics and confronting reality. What no one has the balls to do. Remember...the market always gets the last say. Yup! Even in a super socialism it does. It's a law like gravity. Keep imagining though.

[Calcountry]

I'm not a gold bug per se. I am for private money which we've had before successfully. That usually winds up being gold. That's not an abstraction. The abstraction is coming from current policy, including under Bush even earlier like the past 16 years which is a refusal to confront reality and an attempt to create a utopia by promising things like credit to those not deserving and housing they can't afford. How is that imaginary? It isn't. That's only in your imagination or the utopian socialists.

What didn't work before will NOT work again. What worked before will work again....that does not have to even be my own ideal ( which would have to be gradiently worked towards anyway since we didn't get here overnight). It could just be saner fiscal and monetary policy that uses more restraint, doesn't protect those from the reality of what they don't deserve, or try to prop up prices because Keynesians think deflation is a bad thing. In reality, deflation helps the poor and middle class get through a recession/depression. It just doesn't help the rich. You'd prefer to help rich bankers instead? Anyhow, that's not imaginary at all....that's called rationality, ethics and confronting reality. What no one has the balls to do. Remember...the market always gets the last say. Yup! Even in a super socialism it does. It's a law like gravity. Keep imagining though.:clap:

They don't call it LAW of Supply and Demand for nothing. It is a mathematical concept, like the LAW of Gravity.

[Dave Lane]

:clap:

They don't call it LAW of Supply and Demand for nothing. It is a mathematical concept, like the LAW of Gravity.

Or the LAW of evolution. but evolution has lots more science and proofs behind it. I think at this point with the markets in this flux its the THEORY of supply and demand and is in uncharted territory.

[headsnap]

Or the LAW of evolution. but evolution has lots more science and proofs behind it. I think at this point with the markets in this flux its the THEORY of supply and demand and is in uncharted territory.

:shake:



our Economics education in this country is woefully inadequate...

[BucEyedPea]

Or the LAW of evolution. but evolution has lots more science and proofs behind it. I think at this point with the markets in this flux its the THEORY of supply and demand and is in uncharted territory.

Actually supply and demand has more proof. Afterall, evolution still has missing links and is a still theory. Supply and demand can be seen and felt in real time. It's real, it exists. Note the wailing and gnashing of teeth when prices go to high on something people want but there isn't enough of. People just don't like the reality of it.

[Direckshun]

What are you talking about? That's all you are as far as I can tell. I don't know why you're pretending to be any different. You pull the same bullshit as Republicans did. They take the most extreme liberals and paint the party with them (Michael Moore, Rosie O'donnell, etc.). You take the most extreme and paint the entire party with them (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.) They brainlessly defend their party's bullshit. You brainlessly defend your party's bullshit. Their political compass goes completely batshit when in power. Your political compass goes completely batshit when in power.

Hey, we weren't the ones pretending Bush and Palin were intellectual heavyweights.

We were making our decision between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

[Saul Good]

Yep 30 days in he's a horrible failure :)A president can easily be a horrible failure in just 30 days. Obama has proved as much. Obama could whip out his junk on live television, and people like you would act like we couldn't judge him yet because he hadn't been in office long enough.

[beavis]

I'm not a gold bug per se. I am for private money which we've had before successfully. That usually winds up being gold.

I've started to buy gold/silver for the first time in my life. I figure it will be easier to carry the bread line than a wheelbarrow full of dollars.

[Taco John]

Or the LAW of evolution. but evolution has lots more science and proofs behind it. I think at this point with the markets in this flux its the THEORY of supply and demand and is in uncharted territory.

Just for the record, while I personally believe in adaption, which seems to me to be the motive power of the evolutionary process - there is no such thing as "the LAW of evolution."

[Taco John]

Hey, we weren't the ones pretending Bush and Palin were intellectual heavyweights.




I don't recall anybody making the case for either. As I recall, the case that was made for these two were that "they're just like you."

Not that you're "counter" is on point or anything. But I figured if you were going to go through the trouble to create a diversion from my point, I might as well assist you in getting it right.