Poll: Seriously, who are you voting for???

[Flynbyu]

I agree with you somewhat. But I feel the market should have, could have been fixed sooner. I saw it coming a year ago. I really feel the same way about the war you just posted. My trouble with it is Bush "staying the course" when he doesn't know the course. I know many soldiers who have changed their tune, because they have no clue what their aim is anymore.


"Warning - while you were typing 21 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."

holy biscuits you whores! i can't even go back and quote socal   I walked away for 15 minutes! dayum!

If they jumped in sooner we would of bitched then that they are taking too much control, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And we are staying the course, and he knows exactly what it is.  The surge worked and things have been turning around.  You know one way to know Iraq is getting better?  You don't here much about it in the news.

If it was getting better, we would have troops coming home. Honestly, the election has taken away from 95% of the war's coverage.

~Brian

[Flynbyu]

I will not be voting this year. My address on my license is still under my parents address where I'm registered. I won't be driving 2 hours to vote.

Get an absentee balot.

~Brian

[socalrappy700]

I agree with you somewhat. But I feel the market should have, could have been fixed sooner. I saw it coming a year ago. I really feel the same way about the war you just posted. My trouble with it is Bush "staying the course" when he doesn't know the course. I know many soldiers who have changed their tune, because they have no clue what their aim is anymore.


"Warning - while you were typing 21 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."

holy biscuits you whores! i can't even go back and quote socal   I walked away for 15 minutes! dayum!

If they jumped in sooner we would of bitched then that they are taking too much control, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And we are staying the course, and he knows exactly what it is.  The surge worked and things have been turning around.  You know one way to know Iraq is getting better?  You don't here much about it in the news.

If it was getting better, we would have troops coming home. Honestly, the election has taken away from 95% of the war's coverage.

~Brian

No, the people in the election would be more focused on the war.  It is getting better and there has been talk about troops coming home.

[Colorado700R]

Solidiers sailors Airman and Marines are also suffering becuase of the rotation cycle.  The US military was not large enough to handle a two front war thanks to Clintons cuts.  And now, trying to recruit during an unpopular war to increase it's size  

I think about these things sometimes like "If I would have stayed in, would someone be able to be home with their family now?", or "would someone still be alive to raise his kids if I would have been there"

Very frustrating to me personally  

Clinton cuts? Why did we need a huge military when he was in office, we were not at war.

Recruiting now is at an all time low due to the fact "You're going to the sand box." There's no way I would sign up straight out of high school without going to college first and enlisting as an officer with all of the negatives we hear. These recruits need more assurance the conflict will end. The shouldn't have to be concerned they'll be stuck in a hell hole with no date to pull out.

~Brian

reducing military size is easy and fast, enlarging it is hard and slow.  Costs lots of money, takes time to recruit, train, equip, and deploy.  And national defense policy has decreed that US forces will be maintained to conduct a 2 front war since 1947.

Ask any military vet about the effects of the cuts too the military during Clinton's adminstration.

Facts:

The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.

betcha those 6 divisions would be handy right about now.

[Flynbyu]

George could have used his veto powers on bills that got us into the mess we are in today a little more. He holds the record for lack of vetos while in office (2nd place Thomas Jefferson), and the most vetos in a time period when the Republicans lost control of the house.
The main issues that stick out like a sore thumb to me is this administration's big spending, support of deregualtion of lending guidelines, spending $10 billion a week on war(that should have never happened in the first place). Not to mention his countless blunders in emergency management, fiscal management (Our country is broke!), social programs, the military (overused, over deployed, and UNDER PAID!!), our trade deficit, and energy.


~Brian

the bills that put that started the housing problem were before his time.  But i think he should of pushed for mortgage reform when he first got into office when the house and senate were still republican controlled.  And I would be going crazy with the veto's if I could with some of the bills that have been pushed the last few years, total crap.  The lending guidelines were also changed long before his time, don't try to blame him for that one.  The war is a whole other cookie, with the news we get no wonder we think it was a bad idea.  They saw it as a way to go after him and they did.  And once again he gets the blame for the emergency management instead of us complaining about the root problem....the bureaucrats.  And could you imagine what would happen if he tried to cut spending on social problems?  They would have him hanged.

I still disagree with you on the mortgage thing. There's been more forclosures on mortgages orginated from 2006 to 2008 than anytime in history. Those loans would not have been possible before Bush's term, because I myself couldn't get a home loan until 2000 when FHA dropped the down payment requirement from 5% to 3%. I had a thin file, scores in the low 700's, and no auto credit (Never had to buy a car, I've worked for a dealer for 15 years). I also originated mortages for one year. I saw first hand how non-conforming mortages were originated, and how appraisals where bogued up, and income on credit statements was falsified on "stated income loans" LEGALLY. Now, that's not available because lending guidlines are froze.

The ease of some of those guidelines helped people like myself and my wife, but it backfired on the majority of those loans.

~Brian

[socalrappy700]

George could have used his veto powers on bills that got us into the mess we are in today a little more. He holds the record for lack of vetos while in office (2nd place Thomas Jefferson), and the most vetos in a time period when the Republicans lost control of the house.
The main issues that stick out like a sore thumb to me is this administration's big spending, support of deregualtion of lending guidelines, spending $10 billion a week on war(that should have never happened in the first place). Not to mention his countless blunders in emergency management, fiscal management (Our country is broke!), social programs, the military (overused, over deployed, and UNDER PAID!!), our trade deficit, and energy.


~Brian

the bills that put that started the housing problem were before his time.  But i think he should of pushed for mortgage reform when he first got into office when the house and senate were still republican controlled.  And I would be going crazy with the veto's if I could with some of the bills that have been pushed the last few years, total crap.  The lending guidelines were also changed long before his time, don't try to blame him for that one.  The war is a whole other cookie, with the news we get no wonder we think it was a bad idea.  They saw it as a way to go after him and they did.  And once again he gets the blame for the emergency management instead of us complaining about the root problem....the bureaucrats.  And could you imagine what would happen if he tried to cut spending on social problems?  They would have him hanged.

I still disagree with you on the mortgage thing. There's been more forclosures on mortgages orginated from 2006 to 2008 than anytime in history. Those loans would not have been possible before Bush's term, because I myself couldn't get a home loan until 2000 when FHA dropped the down payment requirement from 5% to 3%. I had a thin file, scores in the low 700's, and no auto credit (Never had to buy a car, I've worked for a dealer for 15 years). I also originated mortages for one year. I saw first hand how non-conforming mortages were originated, and how appraisals where bogued up, and income on credit statements was falsified on "stated income loans" LEGALLY. Now, that's not available because lending guidlines are froze.

The ease of some of those guidelines helped people like myself and my wife, but it backfired on the majority of those loans.

~Brian

I agree on the FHA loans, but I also know who pushed for that.  The lax in mortgage laws were started long before, we have just been building on them.....pushing them until the system broke.

[Flynbyu]

Solidiers sailors Airman and Marines are also suffering becuase of the rotation cycle.  The US military was not large enough to handle a two front war thanks to Clintons cuts.  And now, trying to recruit during an unpopular war to increase it's size  

I think about these things sometimes like "If I would have stayed in, would someone be able to be home with their family now?", or "would someone still be alive to raise his kids if I would have been there"

Very frustrating to me personally  

Clinton cuts? Why did we need a huge military when he was in office, we were not at war.

Recruiting now is at an all time low due to the fact "You're going to the sand box." There's no way I would sign up straight out of high school without going to college first and enlisting as an officer with all of the negatives we hear. These recruits need more assurance the conflict will end. The shouldn't have to be concerned they'll be stuck in a hell hole with no date to pull out.

~Brian

reducing military size is easy and fast, enlarging it is hard and slow.  Costs lots of money, takes time to recruit, train, equip, and deploy.  And national defense policy has decreed that US forces will be maintained to conduct a 2 front war since 1947.

Ask any military vet about the effects of the cuts too the military during Clinton's adminstration.

Facts:

The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.

betcha those 6 divisions would be handy right about now.

It's all about defense spending. Reagan spent a shitload on it, and since the Cold War ended, we've not had to spend as much. Now we've relied on technologically advanced equipment like billion dollar bombers and smartweapons.

Sure the extra regiments would help, but they would be deployed just as long and in outdated and unsafe equipment.

~Brian

[Peelz]

George could have used his veto powers on bills that got us into the mess we are in today a little more. He holds the record for lack of vetos while in office (2nd place Thomas Jefferson), and the most vetos in a time period when the Republicans lost control of the house.
The main issues that stick out like a sore thumb to me is this administration's big spending, support of deregualtion of lending guidelines, spending $10 billion a week on war(that should have never happened in the first place). Not to mention his countless blunders in emergency management, fiscal management (Our country is broke!), social programs, the military (overused, over deployed, and UNDER PAID!!), our trade deficit, and energy.


~Brian

the bills that put that started the housing problem were before his time.  But i think he should of pushed for mortgage reform when he first got into office when the house and senate were still republican controlled.  And I would be going crazy with the veto's if I could with some of the bills that have been pushed the last few years, total crap.  The lending guidelines were also changed long before his time, don't try to blame him for that one.  The war is a whole other cookie, with the news we get no wonder we think it was a bad idea.  They saw it as a way to go after him and they did.  And once again he gets the blame for the emergency management instead of us complaining about the root problem....the bureaucrats.  And could you imagine what would happen if he tried to cut spending on social problems?  They would have him hanged.

I still disagree with you on the mortgage thing. There's been more forclosures on mortgages orginated from 2006 to 2008 than anytime in history. Those loans would not have been possible before Bush's term, because I myself couldn't get a home loan until 2000 when FHA dropped the down payment requirement from 5% to 3%. I had a thin file, scores in the low 700's, and no auto credit (Never had to buy a car, I've worked for a dealer for 15 years). I also originated mortages for one year. I saw first hand how non-conforming mortages were originated, and how appraisals where bogued up, and income on credit statements was falsified on "stated income loans" LEGALLY. Now, that's not available because lending guidlines are froze.

The ease of some of those guidelines helped people like myself and my wife, but it backfired on the majority of those loans.

~Brian

Yep, same here, got my Home loan in 05' and was shocked then at how easy it was, whereas when my wife and I had started looking in 98', it was much more difficult, and we could not get financing....so we waited and saved. Then, I watched as people around me started buying homes way out of their price range. People that work for me as well, I worry about them. I bought a home 30% under what we could afford and I still worry about mine. It worked out for me as well, but I would have still bought a home, just waited a few more years. I was more than happy renting knowing I was saving for a home I could afford....some did not see it that way, and banks were too happy to allow them to make the mistake. hence, our problem....

[Colorado700R]

Solidiers sailors Airman and Marines are also suffering becuase of the rotation cycle.  The US military was not large enough to handle a two front war thanks to Clintons cuts.  And now, trying to recruit during an unpopular war to increase it's size 

I think about these things sometimes like "If I would have stayed in, would someone be able to be home with their family now?", or "would someone still be alive to raise his kids if I would have been there"

Very frustrating to me personally 

Clinton cuts? Why did we need a huge military when he was in office, we were not at war.

Recruiting now is at an all time low due to the fact "You're going to the sand box." There's no way I would sign up straight out of high school without going to college first and enlisting as an officer with all of the negatives we hear. These recruits need more assurance the conflict will end. The shouldn't have to be concerned they'll be stuck in a hell hole with no date to pull out.

~Brian

reducing military size is easy and fast, enlarging it is hard and slow.  Costs lots of money, takes time to recruit, train, equip, and deploy.  And national defense policy has decreed that US forces will be maintained to conduct a 2 front war since 1947.

Ask any military vet about the effects of the cuts too the military during Clinton's adminstration.

Facts:

The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.

betcha those 6 divisions would be handy right about now.

It's all about defense spending. Reagan spent a shitload on it, and since the Cold War ended, we've not had to spend as much. Now we've relied on technologically advanced equipment like billion dollar bombers and smartweapons.

Sure the extra regiments would help, but they would be deployed just as long and in outdated and unsafe equipment.

~Brian

and his pay increase freeze?  Wheras myself and my fellow lowly enlisted men had to live off foodstamps while serving in the US military?

and as Commander and Chief of the US armed forces and the overall national defense of this country he failed mysriably and our troops are still paying the price for it.

BTW, George W. Bush wasn't the only one convinced of WMD in Iraq, he inherted part of that belief 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

[Flynbyu]

Shitty intell, but I remember Colin Powell was made the scapegoat. He went before the Sentate Committee and puked all of this intell on them to get funding for said war.

I remember watching it on television...."We have intercepted calls...move the weapons, inspectors on their way."

How about him endorsing Obama? A retired Four Star General, former Reagan Secuirty Advisor, former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State.

~Brian

[RaptorRandy]

How about him endorsing Obama? A retired Four Star General, former Reagan Secuirty Advisor, former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State.

Please show me where he did this   

[Colorado700R]

Shitty intell, but I remember Colin Powell was made the scapegoat. He went before the Sentate Committee and puked all of this intell on them to get funding for said war.

I remember watching it on television...."We have intercepted calls...move the weapons, inspectors on their way."

How about him endorsing Obama? A retired Four Star General, former Reagan Secuirty Advisor, former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State.

~Brian

I'm more upset about him not running on his own accord  

I don't dislike Obama, nor Biden.  

I just want someone who draws respect from both sides of the aisle to get things done.  Obama might be able to do that, but IMO needs more time to prove it at his current level.  McCain has, and does do that, and has earned overwhelming respect.  

I hope Obama will achieve the same.

It took two politcal parties to F  ck up, it'll take two political parties to fix it.  I just think Obama has a greater chance to polarize the parties than bring them together than McCain does (right now anyway).


Aaron

[Colorado700R]

How about him endorsing Obama? A retired Four Star General, former Reagan Secuirty Advisor, former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State.

Please show me where he did this   

He did, I'll try and find you the link.

Aaron

[Colorado700R]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijlyCbt9RC5CNv_VVi0CKKTXvmkAD93V23L01

[Peelz]

Shitty intell, but I remember Colin Powell was made the scapegoat. He went before the Sentate Committee and puked all of this intell on them to get funding for said war.

I remember watching it on television...."We have intercepted calls...move the weapons, inspectors on their way."

How about him endorsing Obama? A retired Four Star General, former Reagan Secuirty Advisor, former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State.

~Brian

I'm more upset about him not running on his own accord  

I don't dislike Obama, nor Biden.  

I just want someone who draws respect from both sides of the aisle to get things done.  Obama might be able to do that, but IMO needs more time to prove it at his current level.  McCain has, and does do that, and has earned overwhelming respect.  

I hope Obama will achieve the same.

It took two politcal parties to F   ck up, it'll take two political parties to fix it.[  I just think Obama has a greater chance to polarize the parties than bring them together than McCain does  (right now anyway).


Aaron

congrats on post of the day!