Colin Powell endorsed Obama

[ikester]

It is odd that out of all the people I have talked, there is only about 20% for Obama and the remaining 80% for Mcain. Obama is spending huge amounts of money for campaign and this is what we are seeing from that, the media has him winning and convencing us of that when in fact it may not be leading. And I hope not.

 

[wUTwZAT]

It is odd that out of all the people I have talked, there is only about 20% for Obama and the remaining 80% for Mcain. Obama is spending huge amounts of money for campaign and this is what we are seeing from that, the media has him winning and convencing us of that when in fact it may not be leading. And I hope not.

Your point of view is determined by where your standing. If your in a boat shop or gun store your going to find McCain Supporters. If your at the tree hugger social club or where they goverment is handing out the chesses or whatever it is they give away, you'll find his supporters. And don't call me racist for that remark, because isn't that what they want to do is hand out something to almost everyone? And those who don't get anything end up paying for it.​

 

[WTRR]

The only good thing that can come from Obama getting elected is the end of all this racism crap. It's hard to say the man is keeping you down when the man in the White House is one of you.

 

[Faceaz]

In light of what's coming out this morning:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_bi_ge/the_influence_game_housing

I'm starting to think constant turn-over between the Right & Left is a good thing. From the second someone takes office, they & their administration have a target on their back from lobbyists. Over time those lobbyists worm their way in & affect their political decisions. Turn-over helps prevent a stranglehold by special interests. I think it's time for a true independent, that would help sever the ties.

 

[Phat Matt]

This just in OJ Simpson backs Obama!

 

[mrs. bordsmnj]

Call me racist all you want but if BO was a whitey, he would not even be an issue. In fact, I think Hillary would have won the nomination.

Lord help us if he wins. :thumbsdown:thumbsdown

 

[Nord]

I'll tell you what, the Clinton years were a buoyant time for the United States of America. You may have disagreed with everyone of his policies, and I'm sure many RDP forum members did, but it was a good time for the country.

Because of that buoyant time, we are suffering now in the long run. Clinton not only lowered the standards on getting big loans (stated income etc.) He also cut way back on our security regarding foreign terrorism (what was basically our homeland security of that time).

Both of these were fantastic for our economy at the time. Now look where we are. The public and banks are upside down on loans and Sept. 11th.

I personally believe that if Clinton didn't change the way these two scenarios were being ran, things would be different today.

But hey, what do I know, I sell boots.

~NORD~

 

[angiebaby]

This just in OJ Simpson backs Obama!

OJ doesn't get a vote anymore. . . wait a minute, he's in Vegas, maybe ACORN registered him.

 

[Guest]

OJ doesn't get a vote anymore. . . wait a minute, he's in Vegas, maybe ACORN registered him.

Acorn also likely registered Nicole and Ron Goldman....

 

[Nord]

ttt



Hoping Brown saw my last post I was waiting for some kind of retort.

 

[Rexone]

OJ doesn't get a vote anymore. . . wait a minute, he's in Vegas, maybe ACORN registered him.

Prolly 2 or 3 times.

ttt



Hoping Brown saw my last post I was waiting for some kind of retort.

Fock Brown, he's probably off at the doc getting his free monthly toenail clipping and pube trim.

 

[Nord]

lmao

 

[Tom Brown]

Hoping Brown saw my last post I was waiting for some kind of retort.

I apologize for not replying more quickly but I was at the doctor.

I've been reading about the crisis and my understanding is, the bulk of the criminal activity in the loan sector has happened since 2006. Most of the reading I've done suggests there is a need for declared income loans in the small business sector, where the ability to repay is not determined as easily as looking at someone's pay stub.

My understanding of Clinton's initiative was to help lower income families obtain financing in cases where they might have previously had difficulty in obtaining a loan, such as cases where the bulk of someone's income was based on commission while their base salary is below a threshold number to qualify.

It seems pretty clear Clinton's intent, and indeed his policy, was not about allowing people making $12K/month to declare their income as being $60K/month so they can take out a loan for several million dollars, take on payments of $20K/month, and then later tell everyone they are a product of the economic downturn when they can't make the payments.

Clinton's policy included limits on unverified, declared income and also included guidelines on who qualified. The current mortgage crisis is well outside the original policy, as I understand it. Foreclosures are not just happening in lower income neighborhoods.

.... but let's say the whole idea of simplified financial screening is flawed. Personally, I think it's a good idea for small business owners but it's definitely one that requires regulation and oversight. If it was such a bad idea, what did Bush do about it in the last 8 years?

If you come over to my place for a house warming party and get hurt on a trick stair, shame on the guy I bought the house from. If you come over for a party to a house I've owned for the last 8 years and you get hurt on a trick stair, shame on me.

Blame is easy but, unfortunately, it can make the blamer look like a whiny and irresponsible child.

..... I said GOOD DAY!

 

[Froggystyle]

McCain has a long record of fiscal conservatism. I admire him for it. I don't know why he wouldn't run that record and his fiscal policies up the flag pole as that would appeal to folks like me who look for someone who will be responsible with the economy and just generally try to not fuck everything else up.

Mostly because you are Canadian, and can't vote in this election...

Truth is, he was running on that and was getting molested by the Dems, Hillary and BO alike. You can stand for what he stands for, but to win the Presidency you better be running on a moderate Democrat ticket, or start going to Church. He needed the Religious right, and didn't have it. He didn't have the support of the true conservatives, and without them, he wasn't going to win the election.

So, he switch hit.

In my mind, I look at 23 years in the Senate, and hope that if elected that is the record we can look to for a forward trend. I agree with most of his votes, agree with most of his policies (though some are just way out there...) and will vote for him, if for no other reason than he is a Naval Academy Graduate, which I believe to be a better school for leadership than Harvard or Yale.

What incenses me is that in order to try and win he changed his views and opinions. It nullifies the experience argument too... because he is campaigning on issues counter to that experience. Of course he didn't actually change them, and the first step to fixing all the problems is of course to get elected... but he did put a doubt in my mind of his willingness to stay the course and in that he hurt my support of him.

Instead, he is focused on slamming Obama. I think that's going to hurt him on election day but what the fuck do I know.

I think that fucking up the campaign is what is going to cost him on election day. I was jazzed about Palin to begin with, but realize now he couldn't have marginalized his campaign or expressed a greater lack of concern for the strength and electability of the ticket if he had chosen Randee of the Redwoods. She is controversial without experience and a strong backing, she has liberal problems with a parochial outlook, and is a greater target for ridicule by the media than Florida is for Hurricanes.

I hear that the big dogs wouldn't run with him. Seriously. Mitt, Fred, Rudy etc... They think that this year, campaigning with McCain is political suicide.

On another note, if Clinton was so great, and as a country we all felt the love... Gore would have won by a landslide. Fact is, he skated by on the fruition of a lot of policy laid down by the Reagan/Bush years, and began to crater most of the gains towards the end.

 

[Sleeper CP]

Tommy,

that's what friends are for....even Internet ones.

If Brown can reconcile that, then E=MC2 should be a walk in the park.
The only way I can reconcile it is .... he wants to see the black guy win ,but we all know that can't be the case don't we.

Sleeper CP

Brown,

You'll be happy to know that after a review of my position on the Powell endorsement I came to the conclusion that maybe race wasn't the whole reason: Both men believe in affirmative action as well as being Pro Abortion ( I mean Pro-Choice).

I can't believe Powell wants two more Ruth B. Ginsburg's on the Supreme Court though. That's hard to swallow.

Sleeper CP

 

[SHAKE-YO-AZZ]

Call me racist all you want but if BO was a whitey, he would not even be an issue. In fact, I think Hillary would have won the nomination.

Lord help us if he wins. :thumbsdown:thumbsdown

well not that I have made a choice yet on who to vote for, but BO is the smartest of the group fftopic:drnkfr

 

[Faceaz]

On another note, if Clinton was so great, and as a country we all felt the love... Gore would have won by a landslide. Fact is, he skated by on the fruition of a lot of policy laid down by the Reagan/Bush years, and began to crater most of the gains towards the end.

I think you're pretty much right-on except for this. Bush Jr. ran on his name & the Republican Freight Train, which admittedly finds negative campaigns successful, drilled away @ the Lewinski scandal.

Also, I don't think McCain has really changed his message much (save for the economy). But he's really let Obama get to him & his frustration often seems childish.

 

[Sleeper CP]

well not that I have made a choice yet on who to vote for, but BO is the smartest of the group fftopic:drnkfr

I'll take practical, pragmatic and common sense over the smartest nearly any day.

And Bordsmnj is correct, if he were white he'd be a no name jr. senator from the state of Illinois and that's it, and McCain would be running against Hillary.

Sleeper CP

 

[SHAKE-YO-AZZ]

I'll take practical, pragmatic and common sense over the smartest nearly any day.

And Bordsmnj is correct, if he were white he'd be a no name jr. senator from the state of Illinois and that's it, and McCain would be running against Hillary.

Sleeper CP

well Bush tried that and it didnt work

 

[Sleeper CP]

I think you're pretty much right-on except for this. Bush Jr. ran on his name & the Republican Freight Train, which admittedly finds negative campaigns successful, drilled away @ the Lewinski scandal.

.

I hope you're not suggesting that only Republicans do negative campaigning ? :hmm

Sleeper CP

 

[Faceaz]

I hope you're not suggesting that only Republicans do negative campaigning ? :hmm

Sleeper CP

No, of course neither party is guilty of that. Obama is running more than McCain, but that's overshadowed by the enormous amount (positive & negative) adds that Obama is running.

Roughly a month ago, you were stating it's affective campaigning.

 

[Tom Brown]

BO is the smartest of the group

Not at all. Barack gets his intellect from Bush Jr.

 

[Phat Matt]

I was jazzed about Palin to begin with, but realize now he couldn't have marginalized his campaign or expressed a greater lack of concern for the strength and electability of the ticket if he had chosen Randee of the Redwoods.

I can't believe you pulled this gem out! LOL

 

[Sleeper CP]

No, of course neither party is guilty of that. Obama is running more than McCain, but that's overshadowed by the enormous amount (positive & negative) adds that Obama is running.

Roughly a month ago, you were stating it's affective campaigning.[/QUOTE]

I don't have a problem with negative campaigning, it's been my experience that most people that do are mamby pamby middle of the road moderates with out much of a spine.

This is the hardest job in the world and if you can't take your opponent smacking you around you don't deserve the job. As long as it's not false, if it's your past and true like; Rev. Wright ,Bill Aires (sp) (other associations with extreme leftest) it's fair game. McCain has been in the Senate for 20+ yrs and the Obama people have looked long and hard the only thing they came up with on McCain was the Keating 5. It's very old news that McCain was cleared of 16+ yrs ago. But they brought it up.

Hell, if I were McCain I would be playing Obama's book on tape in Obama's own voice " White mans greed drives a world of need", " I smoked reefer with my friends and when we had extra money we would buy "blow" cocaine", " I choose my friends wisely and the Marxist Professor's I hung out with" I'd bury his ass with it. It's all true and in his own words. The New York Times just wrote a hit piece on Cindy McCain but they won't say shit about Obama's past. Four year's ago a CBS news person admitted that the news coverage on Kerry was worth 8-12 percentage points. If his favorable coverage was worth 10% points Obama's must be worth 15-20%

You may not know this but one of our founding father's Thomas Jefferson purchase a News Paper so he could control the news about one of his opponents, if they can't take a few hits they should find another line of work.

Hell the wimp Obama refused to participate in a debate with Fox News Chris Wallace or Brett Hume as the moderator, but he would talk to Castro, Chavez, etc. but was afraid of a couple of Fox News commentators. (Pussy)

One last thing on the negative campaigning, many year's ago my POS Senator Barbara Boxer was being challenged by a very nice young man (can't remember his name his Mom was California State Secretary March Fong Uwe (sp) ) Her campaign just flat out made shit up about him, false quotes, false voting records (stated) all kinds of crap and at the end of the campaign Boxer said " Well it was a hard fought campaign and it wasn't me personally who made up those things about Matt ( that's his name) " WTF Bitch. That's the type of neg campaigning that sucks. Just in case you don't know she's a democrat.

Sleeper CP

 

[SHAKE-YO-AZZ]

Not at all. Barack gets his intellect from Bush Jr.

yeah right lolololoo Bush needs to get back on the :beer

 

[Faceaz]

I don't care which side of the isle it's from & I know it's affective. The shitty part is, I just see it as praying on week minded people.

 

[Tom Brown]

I don't have a problem with negative campaigning, it's been my experience that most people that do are mamby pamby middle of the road moderates with out much of a spine.

... AKA... the non-radical and somewhat objective majority.

Hell, if I were McCain I would be playing Obama's book on tape in Obama's own voice " White mans greed drives a world of need",

I had no idea you were such a hard core racist. You should be ashamed of yourself.

What incenses me is that in order to try and win he changed his views and opinions.

... so I hear you saying he is either lying or had an unsettlingly radical change of views. :hmm

Fact is, he skated by on the fruition of a lot of policy laid down by the Reagan/Bush years, and began to crater most of the gains towards the end.

I always figured you for a personal responsibility guy. This is the first I've heard of you not giving credit to someone you don't like but being comfortable giving credit to people you do like. Personally, I interpret US economic trends quite different to the way you choose to but I suppose the numbers, clear as they may seem to someone like me, can be spun any number of ways.

 

[TPC]

[video=youtube;hDou01X5d28]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDou01X5d28&feature=related[/video]

 

[Froggystyle]

I always figured you for a personal responsibility guy. This is the first I've heard of you not giving credit to someone you don't like but being comfortable giving credit to people you do like. Personally, I interpret US economic trends quite different to the way you choose to but I suppose the numbers, clear as they may seem to someone like me, can be spun any number of ways.

Frankly, I think this whole cycle is too long for politics. By the time you start on a path, as we found in Reagan/Bush, you absolutely need a freeway in front of you to do any real work. Fortunately, we had 12 years of progress, but were pretty well derailed by Clinton. I blame Perot.

I voted for Perot. He was a Republican of the highest order... at least in my mind. What I didn't gather then that I gather now is that nobody who voted for Perot would have voted for Clinton, and everyone who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush. If this had happened, Bush would have won by double digits. Instead, we split the vote and lost the election. Then we put a soup can up against him.

I had Democrat vs. Republican explained to me as clearly as I have ever heard it recently. Democrats are identifiers. They are observant, and they notice things happening and say something about it. They point, complain, whistle-blow and otherwise make the observation known.

Republicans fix. Usually they fix the stuff that the Democrats have identified. People like it when people do their jobs, and in this case, perform an action and "fix" the problems they are aiming at... not just identify more of the problems.

The problem with this is, not everyone can be happy with the way fixers fix problems. Just try changing the background color of a website forum some day if you want proof of that. To "fix" things usually involves taking from one place and adding to another. Good for the added side, bad for the taken side.

So, a bunch of people will be pissed no matter what. Regardless of what you actually accomplish or what it means to the net... not just the vocal majority.

Which is why the big swings of taste in American politics. People want things fixed, so they elect Republicans. But then the middle ground folks get pissed that they have lower taxes, but that the welfare went down with it. You want more people to be homeowners, but want to keep the regulation keeping them from being so. You want personal liberty, but you say after that doesn't work out that people can't be trusted to manage their own finances, and the people who loaned them the money are at fault.

I am all about personal accountability... which is why I think it is important to prescribe the financial success that Clinton felt early to the 12 years of Republican leadership immediately prior to it.

On that note, for the sake of discussion, enlighten me on the steps that Clinton took to ensure prosperity during his reign in the office. Two or three is fine. As you well know, we can go on until I don't have fingertips on the ways that Reagan improved American lives. The best thing I saw Clinton do was pass the deficit reduction act. That worked a bit... but at what cost? I'll tell you what cost... the Military. I was in it.

When you get a democratically controlled Congress, coupled with a Democratic presidency you get reduction in military spending. Period. That reduction was a huge part of the massive hemorrhage of intelligence gathering capability, our reduced ability to protect against terrorist attack, and played a large role in the rise to power of Al Quaeda, though there were myriad opportunities to nip that particular thorn in the bud.

My .02

 

[Tom Brown]

The problem with this is, not everyone can be happy with the way fixers fix problems.

Wes, the problem with your perspective is you have a personal conservative agenda. You are incapable of seeing anything done with a liberal agenda as a fix or even a potential fix since you don't believe in it.

Typing until you don't have fingertips doesn't prove your point any more than me cutting and pasting a sufficient quantity of scripture into this thread could prove the existence of God.

If you don't want to give Clinton credit for anything, that's up to you. I'm sure I will never convince you otherwise.

Frankly, I would have voted for Perot too. He is a real conservative.

You've got the biggest government in history, a couple of wars in progress, record mortgage foreclosures, an insecure US/Mexican border, wide spread corruption in the department of justice, record budget deficits, and polls indicating a huge lack of confidence in the current administration.

Doesn't sound fixed to me.

 

[Guest]

Wes, the problem with your perspective is you have a personal conservative agenda. You are incapable of seeing anything done with a liberal agenda as a fix or even a potential fix since you don't believe in it.

Typing until you don't have fingertips doesn't prove your point any more than me cutting and pasting a sufficient quantity of scripture into this thread could prove the existence of God.

If you don't want to give Clinton credit for anything, that's up to you. I'm sure I will never convince you otherwise.

Frankly, I would have voted for Perot too. He is a real conservative.

You've got the biggest government in history, a couple of wars in progress, record mortgage foreclosures, an insecure US/Mexican border, wide spread corruption in the department of justice, record budget deficits, and polls indicating a huge lack of confidence in the current administration.

Doesn't sound fixed to me.

Tom....You dont live far enough away from Froggy to talk like that!....

 

[Tom Brown]

Tom....You dont live far enough away from Froggy to talk like that!....

Nobody does.

 

[Rexone]

Tom....You dont live far enough away from Froggy to talk like that!....

Oh the memories. :beer


Bnag.

 

[Phat Matt]

Fortunately we are able to secure our borders in the north from those pesky Canadians!