[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 sh!t. 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.

:roll:

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. :roll:

[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. :roll:

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. :roll:

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.