are truckers supporting john mccain or obama?

[GMAN]

Good post, Longsnowsm. I am not sure how you rationalize the fiscal conservative with social liberal. To me the terms are contradictory. I will disagree with you on one issue. I don't think the Republican party has been hijacked by the Christians, but by the liberals. The Republican party used to be conservative. I am conservative, but don't necessarily consider myself a Republican. Several years ago there was an exodus from the Democratic party to the Republican party so that these liberals could get elected. It didn't change their vote or point of view, but did enable many liberals to get reelected under the conservative flag.

We need to get back to adhering to the Constitution. Most of the social programs we take for granted were never allowed or provided for in the Constitution. Unless we get back to smaller government and greater self reliance, this country will cease to exist. This is not the same country it was only 30 years ago. Changes have been tremendous. Government is not our friend nor is it our benefactor. It is now the largest employer in the nation. The bigger the government grows, the greater the tax burden on those of us in the private sector. It isn't necessarily just the so called conservatives who have moved so much of our industry abroad. Over regulation, over taxation, unreasonable environmental laws, etc., have all contributed to many industries moving out from under the scrutiny of an overzealous government. The major unions were also a strong contributor leading to industries either ceasing to exist or moving much of their capacity to more friendly countries.

I think the party that most reflects the Constitution is the Libertarian party. They basically feel that unless it harms another it is OK and the government has no business getting involved.

[Scottt]

Remember the election in 2006?
Almost two years ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $ 4.00 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 2% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

It certainly is not CHANGE we can live with.

Remember its Congress that makes laws not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

[dieselpower]

I don't know which candidate to vote for. I really don't trust Barack I don't know the reason, but something about him doesn't seem right. I kinda like McCain because he is talking about trying to dill for oil ( its worth a try). The one reason I am a little nervous about McCain is he is up in age. I know age should not matter, but this is a tough position to run. I remember George W back in 2000, he looked fresh and poised to take controll of the steering wheel fastword to 2008 he looks tired and sometimes he looks like he doesn't give a dam he just looks so stressed to me he looks a lot older to me now than he did back in 2000. I agree with some of the stuff Barack says and what McCain is saying. I don't like the fact some blacks are giving Barack their votes just because he may be half black ( I am a black man myself but I'm not giving him *****. The person I want to vote for will do what he says he will do and wants to help everybody not just his crooked buddies and palm greasers. If I had to vote today I would vote McCain but we have until November so hopefully by then I will have heard enough empty promises to make a sound decision.

[Colin]

Originally Posted by Scottt

Remember the election in 2006?
Almost two years ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $ 4.00 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 2% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

It certainly is not CHANGE we can live with.

Remember its Congress that makes laws not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

Remember, the President signs into law whatever bills Congress hand to him and that he agrees with.

[Colin]

On another topic, I'm not sure Sidney is much different than any other candidate. It's difficult to appeal to moms and moderates who may not agree with any war.
Sidney will try and try to appear young (did anyone see the Fox News piece that ran tape of him from 2000 and portrayed it as current?) and vibrant. Sorry bub. You have to respect his service to our country 40 years ago. But Sidney as President? No way.

See how dumb that looks? Using Sen. Obama's middle name apparently because it reminds people of someone who is easy to hate. Good one. Is that why James Gillespie Blaine lost? Oof.

[SemperFi]

I want ...

higher taxes, a bigger and more intrusive government, a weaker military, the government to take care of me, to spend myself out of existence complying with all the new environmental policies, to learn to be a good socialist, so ... OBAMA :x

[BigDiesel]

Originally Posted by Colin

On another topic, I'm not sure Sidney is much different than any other candidate. It's difficult to appeal to moms and moderates who may not agree with any war.
Sidney will try and try to appear young (did anyone see the Fox News piece that ran tape of him from 2000 and portrayed it as current?) and vibrant. Sorry bub. You have to respect his service to our country 40 years ago. But Sidney as President? No way.

See how dumb that looks? Using Sen. Obama's middle name apparently because it reminds people of someone who is easy to hate. Good one. Is that why James Gillespie Blaine lost? Oof.

You must need more welfare I am guessing........

[Colin]

Originally Posted by Colin

On another topic, I'm not sure Sidney is much different than any other candidate. It's difficult to appeal to moms and moderates who may not agree with any war.
Sidney will try and try to appear young (did anyone see the Fox News piece that ran tape of him from 2000 and portrayed it as current?) and vibrant. Sorry bub. You have to respect his service to our country 40 years ago. But Sidney as President? No way.

See how dumb that looks? Using Sen. Obama's middle name apparently because it reminds people of someone who is easy to hate. Good one. Is that why James Gillespie Blaine lost? Oof.

Originally Posted by BigDiesel

You must need more welfare I am guessing........

Nice try. You attempt to be pithy, but I wonder if you overlooked my sarcasm.

And "must" then "guessing"? Either you know something or you have a supposition. Which is it?

[GTR SILVER]

Originally Posted by SemperFi

I want ...

higher taxes, a bigger and more intrusive government, a weaker military, the government to take care of me, to spend myself out of existence complying with all the new environmental policies, to learn to be a good socialist, so ... OBAMA :x

very well put....................... 8) 8) 8)

[JeffTheTerrible]

I'm just a bit curious.. I see the word "socialist" being thrown around a lot. Now, I don't support it in any way, although I'm sure I'll be accused of such for asking this question... but do any of you even understand the basics of it? Because most people I've asked this question of don't, and, judging by some of the applications I've seen of it in some of the threads posted on this forum recently, I'd feel inclined to believe it's more the same here.

[Colin]

Socialist sure sounds good though if you're trying to vilify someone after using their middle name doesn't work.

[GMAN]

Originally Posted by JeffTheTerrible

I'm just a bit curious.. I see the word "socialist" being thrown around a lot. Now, I don't support it in any way, although I'm sure I'll be accused of such for asking this question... but do any of you even understand the basics of it? Because most people I've asked this question of don't, and, judging by some of the applications I've seen of it in some of the threads posted on this forum recently, I'd feel inclined to believe it's more the same here.

What would you like to know about socialism?

[str.whl.hldr]

Originally Posted by Longsnowsm

I am burnt out. These guys are all blow and no go... I have seen the democrats in charge, republicans in charge... I have voted every time until this year... You know what they have gotten done? Bankrupt the country. That's it. There, at least they have accomplished something...

So I may not vote this year. So "None of the above".

Longsnowsm

If you dig the constitution or freedom why not write in Ron Paul or the libertarian candidate. Silence equals consent, is not voting.

I only partially agree with the bankrupting the country part. Other countries have to pay tribute to us when they purchase oil and keep dollars in their treasury's. The "petro dollar" will probably stand for a while longer. It is interesting to see other countries that despise "us" try to barter services/goods for oil so they won't have to pay our tribute. Iraq really screwed up trying to switch to the Euro so did Iran. If dollar hegemony fell in the world oil market we would be crushed. Once we stabilize Iraq to where we can get 5-6 million barrels a day in a couple of years, I have little doubt we'll see tanks rolling towards Tehran. I really don't know, these geopoliticalthings get dicey. It is interesting though.

[JeffTheTerrible]

Originally Posted by GMAN

What would you like to know about socialism?

I know enough about it already. I'm waiting to see who's the first to stumble in trying to explain it when they have no idea about the dynamics of it (and the same can be said in regards to any system of government). There's always at least one.

[GTR SILVER]

Originally Posted by JeffTheTerrible

I know enough about it already. I'm waiting to see who's the first to stumble in trying to explain it when they have no idea about the dynamics of it (and the same can be said in regards to any system of government). There's always at least one.

A socialist is one who believes that all work and all profits should be shared equally....(let the government take control )

[JeffTheTerrible]

Actually, most references to Socialism I've seen made on this forum would imply that it's labor-movement Socialism (defined by Marx as the transitory period between Capitalism and Communism), where wealth is not distributed equally, but is distributed unequally dependent on the specific task and skill level of the task being performed by the worker.

[tropolis]

im surprised some of you guys like mccain just because of what's come out with him and the DHL drivers

[GTR SILVER]

The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only.


The juggle of sophistry consists, for the most part, in using a word in one sense in the premise, and in another sense in the conclusion.

:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :shock:

[Longsnowsm]

Originally Posted by GMAN

Good post, Longsnowsm. I am not sure how you rationalize the fiscal conservative with social liberal. To me the terms are contradictory.

I think the party that most reflects the Constitution is the Libertarian party. They basically feel that unless it harms another it is OK and the government has no business getting involved.

Actually Gman, Libertarian's are an excellent example of socially liberal, fiscal conservatives. They mind their own business unless your doing harm to others. This includes the activities in your bedroom and on many other social issues. The word liberal has been mutilated to mean socialist and big government. Democrats have the same issues as republicans. What the party used to stand for is mostly represented by radicals today.

Those that are in power today in the Republican party know just how to get everybody foaming at the mouth and marching to their orders. All they have to do is hit on the buzz words: Flag burning, school prayer, abortion, Pelosi, or Radical Islam and people are off to the races... It is shameful.


Longsnowsm

[Longsnowsm]

Originally Posted by str.whl.hldr

[

If you dig the constitution or freedom why not write in Ron Paul or the libertarian candidate. Silence equals consent, is not voting.

Once we stabilize Iraq to where we can get 5-6 million barrels a day in a couple of years, I have little doubt we'll see tanks rolling towards Tehran.

I might just do that... Write in Ron Paul and at least express my opinion.

On the stabilizing Iraq and the oil. I know this gets hit on by the Republicans, but their facts are wrong about the potential oil out of Iraq and what stabilizing production means. Oil production in Iraq hit it's peak in the late 80's at just shy of 3 mbpd. It's peak production since that time came in 2001 at just under 2.6 mbpd. Iraq has not had the development that other countries have had so there is room for production growth. So those that want to talk about the benefits of Iraq and it's oil production seem to intentionally fudge the numbers to help justify our presence and to show how much more work we have to do and why we have to stay. I think if you look at the data most of their capacity is already back online.

What is the current production rate in Iraq? Roughly 2 mbpd, current post-war capacity is 2.2 mbpd, pre-war capacity was roughly 3 mbpd.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html

I saw some data someplace recently that showed the production rates from their fields which showed most of their production is also in decline. Since they haven't had the investment in their infrastructure they may be able to boost production levels back above that 2.6 mbpd, but I doubt they will ever approach the 3 mbpd. A more plausible scenario will be they sustain existing rates for a while longer.

The stabilization story we hear some some in the public arena is pure BS. The facts speak for themselves, but then again that would be hard to put in a 30 second sound bite.

Longsnowsm