America reacts...

[Hacker 82]

Don't know about you guys but this is how I reacted today...

 

Bought a certain stock at a 52-week low this morning, stock went up $3.39/share, made almost 13% on my investment today!!!

 

Suckers...

 

You evil capitalist. lol

[Lance 228]

since we blamed obama for the drop yesterday i'd like to thank him for the 400+ point gain today...nice job Barry.

[BHS03 99]

since we blamed obama for the drop yesterday i'd like to thank him for the 400+ point gain today...nice job Barry.

 

Guess you missed the part where Ben Bernanke spoke. Thanks Ben.

[futbolking 766]

Good Lord, are we really this divided? Seems to be absolutely no middle ground...

[Guest The Variable]

Good Lord, are we really this divided? Seems to be absolutely no middle ground...

 

Play in the middle of the street and its likely that youll get hit by traffic going in both directions.

 

There is compromise, there is moderation, and then there is lackluster lukewarm nothings that comprise the "moderate" politicians.

[Guest The Variable]

since we blamed obama for the drop yesterday i'd like to thank him for the 400+ point gain today...nice job Barry.

 

Yeah, the market came back when he shut up...what does that tell you?

[deuceswild 15]

Play in the middle of the street and its likely that youll get hit by traffic going in both directions.

 

There is compromise, there is moderation, and then there is lackluster lukewarm nothings that comprise the "moderate" politicians.

 

So is it not okay to side with issues from both parties? Is it better to vote in one direction just because its what you've always done or what your parents have always done or what your preacher tells you to? Or is it best to approach each issue by itself and decide what is best for you?

[Guest The Variable]

So is it not okay to side with issues from both parties? Is it better to vote in one direction just because its what you've always done or what your parents have always done or what your preacher tells you to? Or is it best to approach each issue by itself and decide what is best for you?

 

Thats not necessarily why people vote based on ideology. Some do and some do not. Being a libertarian puts me at odds with both my parents and my former churches on several social issues. I dont do that because I always have, I do that because I know I am right.

 

I was mostly referring to "moderate" politicians. Show me a moderate and I will show you a politician looking for favors from members of both parties. Look at Leiberman, blue dog democrats, Lindsey Graham ect.

[deuceswild 15]

Thats not necessarily why people vote based on ideology. Some do and some do not. Being a libertarian puts me at odds with both my parents and my former churches on several social issues. I dont do that because I always have, I do that because I know I am right.

 

I was mostly referring to "moderate" politicians. Show me a moderate and I will show you a politician looking for favors from members of both parties. Look at Leiberman, blue dog democrats, Lindsey Graham ect.

 

I guess I "play in the middle of the street" some. It credits the fact that I actually care enough to give each candidate/party a chance to convince me in one direction. I'm not a fan of people who know very little about what they're voting for and only vote for who they do because of the reasons I listed above. I assumed you and probably most people on this forum vote for who they do because of what they know - I was only curious as to how you viewed people who may or may not have a stance but are open to learning more about both sides. I personally feel that is how our political system is designed and that is what it was meant for, sadly it seems we're are divided - which in itself is absolutely fine and necessary - but we're ruthlessly divided. No one can reason anymore.

[Guest The Variable]

I guess I "play in the middle of the street" some. It credits the fact that I actually care enough to give each candidate/party a chance to convince me in one direction. I'm not a fan of people who know very little about what they're voting for and only vote for who they do because of the reasons I listed above. I assumed you and probably most people on this forum vote for who they do because of what they know - I was only curious as to how you viewed people who may or may not have a stance but are open to learning more about both sides. I personally feel that is how our political system is designed and that is what it was meant for, sadly it seems we're are divided - which in itself is absolutely fine and necessary - but we're ruthlessly divided. No one can reason anymore.

 

Well here is a piece of advice, and I am sure Hacker will back me up. Dont ever listen to a politician during his campaign. Its setting yourself up for failure. At this point in history the odds are incredibly in favor of you being lied to. Look at what the candidate has done in the past and that is as accurate of a story you are going to get when it comes to their qualifications and intentions (and even then its pretty shakey). They will literally try to say anything to win your vote and once they get in, they will do whatever they want.

 

And weve always been ruthlessly divided. The 20s/30s were bad. 60s/70s. Remember the early 90s? 150 years ago We had a civil war. Before that duels and men in congress beating each other with canes. Thats a lot worse than some congressman (accurately) calling the president a liar during a pointless speech or the president publically chastising the SCOTUS in some address. Its in our DNA.

Edited August 10, 2011 by The Variable

[deuceswild 15]

Well here is a piece of advice, and I am sure Hacker will back me up. Dont ever listen to a politician during his campaign. Its setting yourself up for failure. At this point in history the odds are incredibly in favor of you being lied to. Look at what the candidate has done in the past and that is as accurate of a story you are going to get when it comes to their qualifications and intentions (and even then its pretty shakey). They will literally try to say anything to win your vote and once they get in, they will do whatever they want.

 

And weve always been ruthlessly divided. The 20s/30s were bad. 60s/70s. Remember the early 90s? 150 years ago We had a civil war. Before that duels and men in congress beating each other with canes. Thats a lot worse than some congressman (accurately) calling the president a liar during a pointless speech or the president publically chastising the SCOTUS in some address. Its in our DNA.

 

Its not the promises of any politician you should ever pay attention to when they speak.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I offer that before our current information age, while there were two ruthlessly divided sides, it did not trickle down into every single layperson. Now we have information at our disposal 24/7, politics thrive off of that and its shoved in our face whether we want it to or not, forcing us to form an opinion. It wasn't like that 15 years ago. While we may have always been ruthlessly divided, I vow that it did not extend as deep into the American psyche as it does today. To say whether that is good or bad is another debate, but we seem to look at things in black and white and not so much for what they really are.

 

I'm going to move to Bermuda and just play video games all day and live off sandy crab meat. I'll make money off Ponzi schemes or something. That's what my DNA is telling me.

[Guest The Variable]

Its not the promises of any politician you should ever pay attention to when they speak.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I offer that before our current information age, while there were two ruthlessly divided sides, it did not trickle down into every single layperson. Now we have information at our disposal 24/7, politics thrive off of that and its shoved in our face whether we want it to or not, forcing us to form an opinion. It wasn't like that 15 years ago. While we may have always been ruthlessly divided, I vow that it did not extend as deep into the American psyche as it does today. To say whether that is good or bad is another debate, but we seem to look at things in black and white and not so much for what they really are.

 

I'm going to move to Bermuda and just play video games all day and live off sandy crab meat. I'll make money off Ponzi schemes or something. That's what my DNA is telling me.

 

Hopefully Ill have my Xbox Live up and running soon.

[Hacker 82]

Its not the promises of any politician you should ever pay attention to when they speak.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I offer that before our current information age, while there were two ruthlessly divided sides, it did not trickle down into every single layperson. Now we have information at our disposal 24/7, politics thrive off of that and its shoved in our face whether we want it to or not, forcing us to form an opinion. It wasn't like that 15 years ago. While we may have always been ruthlessly divided, I vow that it did not extend as deep into the American psyche as it does today. To say whether that is good or bad is another debate, but we seem to look at things in black and white and not so much for what they really are.

 

I'm going to move to Bermuda and just play video games all day and live off sandy crab meat. I'll make money off Ponzi schemes or something. That's what my DNA is telling me.

 

Bermuda does sound appealing. When Reagan was elected, I threatened to move to Micronesia; Tahiti or Fiji sounded very attractive. (Now, I say that the man turned out to be a pragmatic leader who worked and compromised to accomplish what was best for the country. Except for "Trickle Down" economics. How that hasn't worked is clear when you realize the top 1% in this country control 90% of the wealth.)

 

My rule of thumb in listening to politicians is they are going to act in one of two ways. They well be like the guy who will tell a woman just what she wants to hear to get her in bed. Once he has succeeded in that he will keep spewing the same old lines to keep her there.

 

I do agree that the information available makes it hard not to form an opinion. If all you do is digest information from the same old sources - Fox, CNN, MSNBC, then you are doomed to form an opinion they want you to hold. You lock yourself into a box that way, and then they have you.

 

The hardest thing to do in our country today is form our own opinions. While difficult, it is crucial if we are to regain control of our futures. Contrary to what you might hear, no one has a monopoly on the truth.

[Guest The Variable]

Except for "Trickle Down" economics. How that hasn't worked is clear when you realize the top 1% in this country control 90% of the wealth.)

 

They also pay 90% of the taxes too.

[Lance 228]

Yeah, the market came back when he shut up...what does that tell you?

 

that he talked for 36 hours?

[Guest The Variable]

that he talked for 36 hours?

 

Hah...yeah, what am I saying. That guy never shuts up.

[Lance 228]

Hah...yeah, what am I saying. That guy never shuts up.

 

Honestly, i dont think Obama had a chance coming in to it all...when he was elected it did nothing but polarize DC to the point where NOTHING can get accomplished...which is sad because he was voted in by people hoping for a new start....all you got is 4 years of gridlock. I guess we just have to go back to letting old white guys run the country to get anything done around here...and just hope one gets in there who can somehow make things a little better.

[Guest The Variable]

Honestly, i dont think Obama had a chance coming in to it all...when he was elected it did nothing but polarize DC to the point where NOTHING can get accomplished...which is sad because he was voted in by people hoping for a new start....all you got is 4 years of gridlock. I guess we just have to go back to letting old white guys run the country to get anything done around here...and just hope one gets in there who can somehow make things a little better.

 

You really want to go there?

 

He had a supermajority in congress. He had no excuse between 09 and 10 to have gridlock. He screwed up because he is a child playing with matchsticks. Hes a college lawyer trying to manage. He doesnt know how the real world operates. He failed because he is ashamed of this nation. He failed because his ideology is hollow and bankrupt. He failed because he is nothing but a flashy option. Campaigns well and runs poorly.

 

He got elected because he WASNT Bush and McCain ran a play-to-lose campaign. He won because there was no Marco Rubio or Chris Cristie out there yet. He was elected because he was popular, not competent.

 

Youre right, he didnt have a chance because he was a lame choice from the get go and he has been in over his head since.

Edited August 10, 2011 by The Variable

[Deleted Account 5,203]

You really want to go there?

 

He had a supermajority in congress. He had no excuse between 09 and 10 to have gridlock. He screwed up because he is a child playing with matchsticks. Hes a college lawyer trying to manage. He doesnt know how the real world operates. He failed because he is ashamed of this nation. He failed because his ideology is hollow and bankrupt. He failed because he is nothing but a flashy option. Campaigns well and runs poorly.

 

He got elected because he WASNT Bush and McCain ran a play-to-lose campaign. He won because there was no Marco Rubio or Chris Cristie out there yet. He was elected because he was popular, not competent.

 

Youre right, he didnt have a chance because he was a lame choice from the get go and he has been in over his head since.

 

Yeah, this pretty much nails it.

[Guest The Variable]

Yeah, this pretty much nails it.

 

Save for the Mukaka incident, George Allen probably would have been able to beat Obama in the election.

[Lance 228]

You really want to go there?

 

He had a supermajority in congress. He had no excuse between 09 and 10 to have gridlock. He screwed up because he is a child playing with matchsticks. Hes a college lawyer trying to manage. He doesnt know how the real world operates. He failed because he is ashamed of this nation. He failed because his ideology is hollow and bankrupt. He failed because he is nothing but a flashy option. Campaigns well and runs poorly.

 

He got elected because he WASNT Bush and McCain ran a play-to-lose campaign. He won because there was no Marco Rubio or Chris Cristie out there yet. He was elected because he was popular, not competent.

 

Youre right, he didnt have a chance because he was a lame choice from the get go and he has been in over his head since.

 

some of that is true, some of it is BS...you have some valid points but you let the same old republican crazy talk over run them most of the time.

 

He had gridlock because even his own party wouldn't support what he was trying to do...his idea was to be a middle of the road democrat that could appeal to more central republicans and democrats, and to some extent that is what he has gotten, only problem is that most of the people that were in the middle ran towards the left or right when he arrived...as far as voting goes anyway.

 

The healthcare thing was and is a total mess...there is something that needs to be done, but this is clearly not the answer...I assume it will be corrected soon enough. He would have been better off not rushing that through and actually putting a few years more work in to correcting the problems, but I think mostly it was just about getting it over with as soon as possible and not actually fixing anything.

 

and yes...a bible thumping old white man is about all that will get anything done right now i guess. Where's Jerry Falwell when you need him...its to bad he is gone, could have made it this time around i think.

[deuceswild 15]

Save for the Mukaka incident, George Allen probably would have been able to beat Obama in the election.

 

Eh...no.

 

Better than McCain though, definitely. Palin did McCain no favors, and poor John just seemed sour and unlikeable in the last 6 months of the campaign. Allen and a good running-mate would have given Obama a good run but I think the Republican party had a big challenge ahead of them in that election regardless.

 

This time around the Republicans have a pretty fair shot depending of course on who they send to the front of the class.

[Guest The Variable]

some of that is true, some of it is BS...you have some valid points but you let the same old republican crazy talk over run them most of the time.

Im not a republican, never have been and likely never will be.

 

He had gridlock because even his own party wouldn't support what he was trying to do...his idea was to be a middle of the road democrat that could appeal to more central republicans and democrats, and to some extent that is what he has gotten, only problem is that most of the people that were in the middle ran towards the left or right when he arrived...as far as voting goes anyway.

How much did you know about Obama before he got elected? He was the 2nd most liberal voting senator during his short tenure. He worked with some of the most leftist organizations during his time in Chicago. There isnt a single point in his history that he has ever shown moderate roots. His energy policy is left of center. His social adgenda is left of center though he is shuffling his feet on gay rights. Union support is left of center. Immigration is left of center. Look at his cabinet...not many moderates advising him. He picked one of the most vociferous leftists out there in Rahm Immanuel as his Chief of Staff. Healthcare was incredibly left of center. If he was a middle of the road democrat, his support would not have come from Pelosi or Reid. It would have come from blue dog democrats. Leiberman ran from him. Manchin had to attack him to win in WVA. That eternal a-hole Murtha, when he died his successor also had to run against Obamas policies. Thats as moderate you can get in the DNC and it aint Obama.

 

The healthcare thing was and is a total mess...there is something that needs to be done, but this is clearly not the answer...I assume it will be corrected soon enough. He would have been better off not rushing that through and actually putting a few years more work in to correcting the problems, but I think mostly it was just about getting it over with as soon as possible and not actually fixing anything.

SCOTUS will likely strike it down as unconstitutional 5-4 or 5-3 if Kagan recuses herself. He went the wrong way with it. He refused to go after tort reform which remains the single largest contributing factor to rising health costs. If they strike it down...Obama is done.

 

and yes...a bible thumping old white man is about all that will get anything done right now i guess. Where's Jerry Falwell when you need him...its to bad he is gone, could have made it this time around i think.

This is patently false. The biggest slash against Romney is his religion. Palin isnt an old white man, and neither is Bachman. Rubio is a son of cuban immigrants. We had a host of black tea party candidates running for congressional districts in '10. Herman Kane has a decent fanbase. The issue isnt with diversity, its the lack of common sense.

 

I asked you before, which group thinks of the national budget the closest to how you organize your families finances? I know from my experience which ideology actually promotes business growth.

[Guest The Variable]

Eh...no.

 

Better than McCain though, definitely. Palin did McCain no favors, and poor John just seemed sour and unlikeable in the last 6 months of the campaign. Allen and a good running-mate would have given Obama a good run but I think the Republican party had a big challenge ahead of them in that election regardless.

 

This time around the Republicans have a pretty fair shot depending of course on who they send to the front of the class.

 

I think he would have beaten Obama pretty well in the debates, he can speak well off script (unless hes been drinking as we all found out). I dont think it would have been close to a sure bet but in a toss up I would have given Allen the advantage.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Save for the Mukaka incident, George Allen probably would have been able to beat Obama in the election.

 

Yes, he would've. Even after the incident, he was just 9000 votes short of holding off Jim Webb. That one incident, IMO, cost him the presidency of the United States. Allen was a man with considerable leadership experience, both in legislative and executive affairs. Just a shame he let his temper get the best of him that Charlottesville afternoon.

 

It's a shame, the Republicans have been looking for a candidate that isn't a complete dud, when in all reality that man was George Allen. Ugh...