Teh Ricer Civic!

LOL thats awesome dude.

In other news Lindsey Lohan is a lesbian. And all my friends thought i was a dumbass for liking Duff more than Lohan back in the day. Ha!

I know MacOS is better these days, but back when i used MacOS the friggen thing crashed more than the god awful Windows ME. Mac OS 7.5.1 That being said i know my way around Mac OS X, but as a gamer, Mac is not my platform of choice (plus they are too damn expensive for the hardware you get). oh and... "I'm a PC, and the red zone is for the immediate loading and unloading of passengers only, there is no parking in a white zone"

And get nothing else done? EH i guess thats Okay. It would be even better to get a REAL fiscal conservative in there as president with a REAL fiscal conservative congress. Of course it wouldn't look much different than a Clinton era fiscal responsible thing.

You don't appreciate what a nice perk it is to immediately expense something as a business.

FAIL. That's a chaingun not a machine gun.

I know, but this sort is thing is a VERY VERY useful thing for even the smallest of businesses.

One other thing pertaining to the economy. McCains proposals would have businesses able to basically expense a lot more things much quicker. This tactic was done by Bush in the early part of this decade to great success (annoying to account for but whatever). Does Obama have this? No, he just wants to tax some of them more.

heh sorry, i did a poor job of separating my sentences, it was supposed to be a sarcastic comment. and yes ZL-1, the Azores. I do not remember off the top of my head which ones though. But uh, did you know that McCain is really Chuck Norris in a costume? When he is president he is going to roundhouse kick Osama. Then he is going to suck all the pollutants out of the air with his super lung and cough the pollution all over Russia until they submit to our whim. Then he is going to drink all the worlds ocean, filter the water through his mighty kidneys and piss out clean water for all the fishies to enjoy. He will crap out biofuels from all the seaweed and plankton he drank and will singlehandedly sever ourselfs from foreign energy. When he farts it will fill up our natural gas reserves for thousands of years. And most importantly, he is going to go to wall street and fix everything with a roundhouse kick and his superior intelligence, all while he is making food for all the starving people in the world. So remember, Vote Chuck... Vote McCain in 2008. On a more serious tone, we in the GOP oughta try and get Chuck Norris to run for president next go around, cause that would simply be badass.

'92 Election, Ralph Nader makes it clear deficit was ultra important. Clinton wins. Clinton espouses very conservative economic means (aside from a tax hike, which was compensated by loose money policy) and reduces debt. Now if Bush would have won, he already had the framework ready for debt reduction, in a way Clinton inherited the framework for debt reduction. If Iraq had never happened, the scenario would look very different. I do not believe McCain would push us into another war when our debt is already so high... unless absolutely forced to (ya know, like if Mexico decides its time to invade us to retake California). But no i totally agree with you that Bush Jr. was just terrible about financing the war, the recent subprime thing, etc. (albeit in all fairness the subprime thing shouldn't even have been a large enough problem to require THIS much federal aid). The GOP of Regan/Bush/Bush has been a borrow and spend party, i think McCain if nothing else has/will bring the GOP back closer to the Teddy Roosevelt version of the party where fiscal conservatism was very important. But at the same time, i have little confidence in Obama to actually reduce our deficit either.

You know Obama had some thin ties to a known domestic terrorist. Maybe obama will try and bomb Lisbon or worse the islands my ancestors came from However, On medical grounds i do not support charging women for a rape kit.

You know, as the US we should just seize some country and use them as guinea pigs for economic testing. We can use what we learn to improve our own economy, scientifically and unethically!

Oh i know hes still close to McCain, im just saying that on the mere technicality that hes the top adviser your wrong.

Gramm is only an unofficial economic adviser since July 18th.

Miniscule? nope! Its more than would be afforded the lower classes under Obama's plan. My approach to your statement may (was) flawed, but you just proved my point. a nice article on Obama's Income Redistribution. I must apologize, i lied about the 70% thing. Apparently what truly happened is that in 2000 top 1% paid 30% of taxes. By 2008 the same top 1% were paying 40% of taxes. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...otic_tonic.html and in reference to your #2, yes i am biased and no i would not. But i could still argue through the end of my last post that Gramm wasn't truly responsibly for the CAUSE of this crisis (which could never have happened without the S&L crisis and their resolution of it). It was more of a financial perfect storm that created this. Oh and.... totally not relevant, but i found this very amusing from this article http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...out_obama.html:

Gramm-Leach was passed in 1999 with broad support from both sides and signed into law under Bill Clinton. True, but after this do you really think McCain is going to go along with Gramm on everything? Just because you made one (really bad) mistake, doesn't necessarily discredit the rest of your advice. Plus it is obvious that McCain realized problems with it so i don't think McCain would be a blindly loyal follower to everything Gramm says. What it boils down to is that this bill passed with support from both sides. Later, the republicans say "well, due to the actions of Freddy and Fannie, there were some egregious oversights in the bill and we need to rectify this before it goes into meltdown" the democrats come back saying "screw you" and voila, were in a crisis. If i was a conspiracy theorist, i might speculate they did this to wrest the election from the GOP, but its a good thing i'm not because the idea that anyone would subject their country to this WILLINGLY is depressing. My point exactly The law itself begs to differ. So if stimulus packages, which, lets face it, weren't targeted at the rich, didn't do anything, what makes you think your policy (which is damn near the same) will do any better? The stimulus package is a classic example of Keynesian economics, or demand side as you like to call it. You can keep a fire alive by throwing money at it, or you can do a sensible thing and stick a fresh log in it. The Government throwing money around is far less efficient than the private sector doing it. One other thing. You said: This statement is untrue because who do you think securitized these bad loans? If they hadn't of been securitized then many people wouldn't have bought them (cause they would quite obviously look bad if you could see all the individual details). So if securitization is the root cause of this problem, then your real culprit is not really the Gramm act (which compounded the matter, but certainly did not create it), but the S&L crisis, which authorized the ability to securitize or "pool" these loans together. And one last thing. If McCain wins, and the economy goes on an upturn, you will grumble and say well the economy was going back up anyways and probably be happy with it. If Obama wins and the economy goes on an upturn, you will say it was all due to his economic policy and will use that as claim that Keynesian economics works.

And this still would have been adverted if that bill had been passed, it would have eliminated the worst of the worst subprime loans because the bubble was still a year or so off of popping by then. By this time now we would be experiencing a minor hiccup as some somewhat bad mortgages are going around, but the securitized loans would on the whole be a LOT safer. So sure this may have its roots back in 2001, but people realized how Freddie and Fannie were taking advantage of it and sought to rectify it before it was too late. Additionally, since Obama didn't vote FOR the 2005 bill, one could surmise that Obama understands the economy even less than McCain (even if you want to pin the blame on McCain for the entire thing anyways). And Olds, 1 question, have the Bush Stimulus packages worked? the latest one was mostly used to pay off credit, which does zip for the economy (im unaware of what the earlier ones were spent on).

The people i dont get is the Christian Science types... But whatever, they write great articles about just about everything.

Congrats on your new acquisition. I hear the traffic aint so bad up there

Oh please, prohibition was caving into far right pressure. It was silly and pointless and harmful so it was repealed. The 2nd Amendment is in the BILL OF RIGHTS. read... RIGHTS. besides, the right to own guns could be argued through the 9th Amendment too, should that be repealed? Just because you believe that americans should be deprived of the means to defend themselves (from criminals or in an extreme case, perhaps an overreaching oppressive government ) Doesn't mean that most of America feels that way, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should repeal it.

LOL! Wow. Thats very inconsiderate wording for a liberal such as yourself! Do not forget that this country was founded upon religious principles. Do not forget that those very religions helped us get through 2 world wars. Do not forget that this is still the most religious 1st world nation in the world. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but your statement is very out there. FDR was relgious, JFK was religious. Oh wait, they are all extremists i forgot. I personally am not religious, but i have many friends who are. They are very devout and yet don't go around imposing their religion on others (sure their views may be greatly affected by it). For some people religion is very important to them and gives them their "strength." For others coffee gives them the strength to get through the day. Even if she was a religious extremist, why do you think that she would RUIN her political future by espousing it on the presidential scene? Moral of the story: It's A-OK for liberals to impose their beliefs on others, but as soon as a conservative does it... Whoa boy, that man/woman is a religious nut! This is EXACTLY what i got from my educational experience. Liberals were all out front with their liberalness, like it was their sworn duty to inform us of their beliefs (you might even say they were compelled by some god-like thing). Sure i occasionally had a conservative teacher, and sure occasionally one of them MIGHT be open with their beliefs, but they were few and far between among the liberal ones. What makes YOU think YOU are better than everyone else? Your arguments against the Far Right hold just as little credit as the Far Rights arguments against the Far Left. So you admit the constitution is not important to you? So the paper that got our country through the centuries is unimportant huh? Thats great, im glad to see you honor the very document our great country is founded upon.

Well Mr Obama and ESPECIALLY Mr Biden have zero nada zip respect for the 2nd amendment, why do you feel they would honor the rest of the document? Obama supporters, recently polled, only about 30% of them believed that the Supreme court should decide constitutional matters. 30%! thats pathetic! Thats what right wingers would bring to Washington, a disrespect for the constitution. Hows that any better than having to deal with... well nothing because there's a democrat controlled congress.

I believe that in the unlikely event that Palin would become president, she would be surrounded by the cabinet that McCain has provided her. I also believe she would continue to lead the remainder of the term in the spirit of McCain. Besides, you cannot make fun of the "everyman" because Obama doesn't exactly have any experience either, and hes on the top of the ticket. He has ole Biden by his side who time and time again has made or supported poor foreign policy/military decisions. Besides, how is a rightest any worse than a leftist? This is not the presidency for social reform. Its a presidency to consolidate our military, to strengthen foreign relations, and prod our economy along.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=aSKSoiNbnQY0 nice little bloomberg article on the current financial crisis. [and yes i know the guy who wrote it works on the McCain campaign, but the facts that he presents are true, after doing a bit of research on other sites, they mesh up together, of course there are opinions in it, but the mere facts are true] Little page from the whitehouse.gov website citing the concern over the matter over the years. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0080919-15.html And heres the tail end of a little article written in 2005 in regards to the Bill proposed by the Senate Banking Committee and co-sponsored by McCain by Peter J. Wallison entitled Regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Unfortunately, Democrats believed that this was a partisan issue and vehemently opposed it (along with some greedy Republicans) which ultimately lead to this bill not gaining traction. So lets recap: Bush has been calling for regulations on Fannie and Freddie. McCain has been cosponsor of a bill that would allow Freddie and Fannie to be controlled and brought in line. Democrats seem to have been opposed to this bill (as well as a few Republicans). This bill could have prevented Freddie and Fannie from folding, it could have stopped the domino effect on Bears and Sterns as well as other financial institutes. So everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else, we are taking some very... non-capitalist... methods to rectifying this situation. Fiscal responsibility is lost upon this administration and the last congresses of the past 8 years. Of course, we still have time to bail out of this plan... but who knows. But one thing is for certain: This current economic crisis was caused by democrats who decided to make this a partisan issue back in 2005. Would you really trust the ones who ruined the economy to fix it? I don't think so. Take your time and let this sink in. There is no debating the facts, this is clear cut. This was NOT due to McCain deregulating the finance industry. This was due to partisan politics. It's okay, we all make mistakes, hell even i figured this was all Bush's fault not more than a few days ago, but then i started doing a bit of research and it became crystal clear. That being said im still 100000000% against Bush and his current socialist government rescue of our financial industry One other thing, Clinton, the Democrats Holy Grail of economic policy. Was decidedly conservative in his policies, sure he raised taxes, but everything else the man did was financially considerably conservative. as long as the government can restrain itself fiscally, conservative economics work well.

75% of rap Big Band & Swing isn't very good either Jazz 60% of country music So yeah, any of those.