What issue is most important to you in the election?

[zartan]

There's no right or wrong answer here, i'm not waiting to flame anybody's reply, i'm just genuinely interested in what issue is of the most concern to you in this election year.

[AUChamps]

Gas prices.

[gatorunvrsty]

A sense of humor. Looking at my choices, I've decided I'm going to vote for the guy who can make me laugh when I feel like crying... and I foresee a lot of times like that, regardless of who wins.:sad:

[gatorunvrsty]

zartan, you're probably not going to get a whole lotta responses in this one. Most folks don't even research the issues enough to realize they're not even in the tax bracket that would be affected should a Democrat take office. Most think they're getting shafted and paying for all those no accounts to live comfortably, while they work their behinds off.

That's always the funniest part of the argument to me. They rant and rave like they're actually paying for someone else's upkeep, when in reality, their income tax rate remains virtually the same, regardless of who's in office.:laugh: It's smoke and mirrors... the only people who actually stand to feel a little pinch (and I do mean a little one, relatively speaking), are the wealthiest 10 percent of this country. We average joe's won't see a change at all in our take home pay. At the same time, though, conservatives will send out those little token tax break checks to keep giving the impression that they're looking out for people. What those checks will buy today are a couple tanks of gas... that wouldn't be necessary in the first place if gas prices weren't soaring out the roof, and common people weren't losing jobs at a record pace.

That same 10 percent of the nation's wealthiest citizens not only hold 85 percent of the stock in this country, they're slashing jobs to remain there. They slashed payrolls by 62,000 last month alone... for the 6th straight month of job losses. Almost a half million men and women out of work in the first half of this year. 1.5 million have lost work over the last year, and remain unemployed (8.5 million jobless 7/2008, 7 million jobless 7/2007). U.S. Economy-MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25510193/)

Yeah, those Republicans have it all figured out, alright. Hell, they're creating a welfare state right before everyone's eyes, and the next necks on the chopping block still don't even see it coming. How many of those normally hard working people who are now standing in the unemployment, food stamp, and health department lines do you think were actually conservative supporters before this happened to them... I'd say most. I'd bet they and their families aren't very vocal in their opposition to those Democratic programs right about now.:dry: In fact, only a higher tax rate on the mega wealthy is even keeping them alive right now. F*cking Republicans can't have it both ways. If they want to slash jobs, pay lousy wages, and refuse insurance to employees, they're going to have to ante up at IRS. If they want to do the moral, humane things, and take less for themselves so that they can provide their workers with a liveable wage and decent health-care, then more people could pay their own way and get off assistance rolls. Dumba$$es are creating the very situation they claim to despise most.:brick:

[zartan]

yes, exactly. the Right has been making a hobby of wrecking things (our foreign policy, the economy, the environment) and then saying 'you can't elect a Democrat now, there's a crisis'.

[BAMAPERRY]

The last time the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress was the first two years of Bill Clintons first term. A disaster. Before that, they last held all three during the Carter administration. Pick your poison.

[cocky4ever]

1.) The economy. Until we can get that back on the right track the quality of life for Americans as a whole will decline.
2.)Foreign policy...and this includes terrorism, trade among countries, natural disasters all over the world, helping stop genocides, etc. Until we get these things back on the right track the quality of life for a LOT of people in the world will decline.
3.)American education. Its becoming more and more of a joke and that means we arent fulfilling our obligation to our children and the future of this country.
4.) The environment. Sad that its this low but just shows how much our govt. has screwed up other things. One way or another we have to change how we're affecting the environment so the sooner we start the better it will be.

5.) Every other thing the govt. has screwed up(which is pretty much everything its put its hands on).

The sad thing is that I dont see either candidate making any significant strides in any of these areas. If we're supposed to have such a great system in this country then how come we ended up with such crappy choices :(

[gatorunvrsty]

The last time the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress was the first two years of Bill Clintons first term. A disaster. Before that, they last held all three during the Carter administration. Pick your poison.

How could the anyone consider the Clinton administration a fiscal disaster? The man ended his presidency by leaving a $559 billion budget surplus (something I don't recall ever hearing of before him, and definitely won't be hearing about Dubya), and a 65% approval rating. That's the highest approval rating of any President since WWII. And, Presidents typically get much higher approval ratings in time of war... even that can't help Bush, who currently has a 25-28% approval rating. In fact, the man has a 71% DISapproval rating... the disparity being the 1% with no opinion. No President has ever had a disapproval rating in the 70's... EVER; and that includes Truman and Nixon.:eek:

[BAMAPERRY]

So, Bush sux, so we should vote for Obama? That doesn't make any sense. I lot of the problems we've had lately have been since the Dems took over control of Congress in the '06 election.

[cocky4ever]

So, Bush sux, so we should vote for Obama? That doesn't make any sense. I lot of the problems we've had lately have been since the Dems took over control of Congress in the '06 election.

Yeah because a lot of these problems have only been around since 2006...WTF:confused:

[BAMAPERRY]

Energy will be the biggest issue in this election. I wouldn't want to be opposed to offshore drilling going into the Fall elections.

[D^3]

1. Iraq War.
2. Strategy on how to fight the war on terror
3. Foreign policy
4. Domestic economy/gas prices
5. Less government programs/NO gov't healthcare

[the Paradox]

1. Iraq War.
2. Strategy on how to fight the war on terror
3. Foreign policy
4. Domestic economy/gas prices
5. Less government programs/NO gov't healthcare

Please D3, due to the fact that you did not vote for John Kerry, you are obviously to stupid to vote or have an opinion. For proof of this, please refer to the above posts. :whistle:


RTR

[D^3]

Please D3, due to the fact that you did not vote for John Kerry, you are obviously to stupid to vote or have an opinion. For proof of this, please refer to the above posts. :whistle:


RTR


Gonna suck for them I suppose when my worthless opinion goes into the ballot box, along with 60% of the rest of Americans, who are stupid as well.

[timNem]

I'm too stupid and unable to research to know what the issues are and how they effect me. So Im flipping a coin.

[GeauxTo]

National Security
Illegal Aliens and revising our citizenship laws
Drill for Petroleum Here
Economic incentives; more manufacturing here, less buying from abroad.

[Crimson Kicker8]

National Defense, this includes stabilizing Iraq.

[Crimson Kicker8]

'you can't elect a Democrat now, there's a crisis'.

What are you talking about? You can't elect a Democrat period. One Democratic president in the last 18 years??? :whistle:

[AUChamps]

How could the anyone consider the Clinton administration a fiscal disaster? The man ended his presidency by leaving a $559 billion budget surplus (something I don't recall ever hearing of before him, and definitely won't be hearing about Dubya), and a 65% approval rating. That's the highest approval rating of any President since WWII. And, Presidents typically get much higher approval ratings in time of war... even that can't help Bush, who currently has a 25-28% approval rating. In fact, the man has a 71% DISapproval rating... the disparity being the 1% with no opinion. No President has ever had a disapproval rating in the 70's... EVER; and that includes Truman and Nixon.:eek:

Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. Having the Executive Branch run with 1 party and the Legislative Branch controlled by the other is what leads to success. Clinton-Gingrich in the 90s or Reagan and Tip O'Neill in the 80s, that's what we need today. Compromise.

[azamugg]

plus anyone who knows Kindergarten level Economics understands Clinton was in the right place at the right time w/the E-Commerce/Tech boom as far as the surplus is concerned

[gatorunvrsty]

I appreciate all the martyrdom and self-deprecation, but the people I'm referring to know who they are; and aren't even necessarily all on this board. I'm talking about people who squeal that they're tired of supporting other people on the welfare rolls; but only earn in the $30,000-$77,000 range themselves. They pay the base rate + 25% of the amount over $31,000. Even the next bracket up pays virtually the same rate, although their base tax will be significantly higher... those folks earning $77,000 to $160,000 only pay 3% more, or the base rate + 28% of the amount over $77,000. Depending on where they live, they're really only supporting themselves and their families. Their tax rates would be the same whether there's a Republican or Democrat in the White House.

The tax breaks advocated by conservatives are primarily aimed at people in tax brackets significantly higher than that. Unfortunately, 6 figure salaries used to mean well off; but, more and more, it describes upper middle class... and how much longer that'll be true is up for debate. Tax rates really start to take off at the $160,000 + level, and these aren't even the people Republicans are trying to appease. The major tax breaks I've heard proposed by Republicans in the last few years (and that many middle class voters mistakenly think will apply to them), would actually only apply to the very wealthy... that group with more money than their descendants could ever even spend.

I'm not in favor of raping middle class Americans to support lazy Americans; and that's not what those tax and spend Democrats propose, despite what the propagandists say. I'm in favor of forcing the CEO's and corporation owners to either take care of the folks making them rich (their middle class employees), or letting the IRS get the money out of them to take care of these workers. One way or the other, by choice or by force, they need to take care of their responsibilities to their workforce; and stop getting disgustingly fat at the expense of them and their families. And that is what Republicans are trying to preserve... the ability to disregard their responsibilities to workers, the environment, and their communities, and keep getting even more wealthy than they already are. In essence, Republicans are already raping all of us, without benefit of a little lube nor the decency to offer a reach-around. That's what they mean when they're referring to so many middle class, hard working Americans struggling without even the most basic health care or retirement plans. And what happens when one of these mega-rich POS runs his company into the ground? He raids the retirement coffers, does a few years at Club Fed, and gets out in plenty of time with enough hidden assets to live the remainder of his life in luxury. All the while, the employees who paid for 10, 20, or 30 years get to keep working into their 70's to be able to continue eating without having to resort to pet food.

[azamugg]

I appreciate all the martyrdom and self-deprecation, but the people I'm referring to know who they are; and aren't even necessarily all on this board. I'm talking about people who squeal that they're tired of supporting other people on the welfare rolls; but only earn in the $30,000-$77,000 range themselves. They pay the base rate + 25% of the amount over $31,000. Even the next bracket up pays virtually the same rate, although their base tax will be significantly higher... those folks earning $77,000 to $160,000 only pay 3% more, or the base rate + 28% of the amount over $77,000. Depending on where they live, they're really only supporting themselves and their families. Their tax rates would be the same whether there's a Republican or Democrat in the White House.

The tax breaks advocated by conservatives are primarily aimed at people in tax brackets significantly higher than that. Unfortunately, 6 figure salaries used to mean well off; but, more and more, it describes upper middle class... and how much longer that'll be true is up for debate. Tax rates really start to take off at the $160,000 + level, and these aren't even the people Republicans are trying to appease. The major tax breaks I've heard proposed by Republicans in the last few years (and that many middle class voters mistakenly think will apply to them), would actually only apply to the very wealthy... that group with more money than their descendants could ever even spend.

I'm not in favor of raping middle class Americans to support lazy Americans; and that's not what those tax and spend Democrats propose, despite what the propagandists say. I'm in favor of forcing the CEO's and corporation owners to either take care of the folks making them rich (their middle class employees), or letting the IRS get the money out of them to take care of these workers. One way or the other, by choice or by force, they need to take care of their responsibilities to their workforce; and stop getting disgustingly fat at the expense of them and their families. And that is what Republicans are trying to preserve... the ability to disregard their responsibilities to workers, the environment, and their communities, and keep getting even more wealthy than they already are. In essence, Republicans are already raping all of us, without benefit of a little lube nor the decency to offer a reach-around. That's what they mean when they're referring to so many middle class, hard working Americans struggling without even the most basic health care or retirement plans. And what happens when one of these mega-rich POS runs his company into the ground? He raids the retirement coffers, does a few years at Club Fed, and gets out in plenty of time with enough hidden assets to live the remainder of his life in luxury. All the while, the employees who paid for 10, 20, or 30 years get to keep working into their 70's to be able to continue eating without having to resort to pet food.


take care of responsibilities to their workforce? the workforce that came to work for them voluntarily? the workforce that couldve done something else if they had made different decisions in their life? the workforce that can quit and go work for a company that offers them what they want, which if enough people did would force the "market" to compete for those jobs and not the Government?


as far as white collar crime are you talking about the Dem. Trial attorneys that get them off?

[*bama boy*]

1. getting the job done in Iraq and getting our troops out safely/ a president that will keep us safe
2.Drill here, drill now, pay less (help by signing the petition at www.americansolutions.com)
3. Getting conservative supreme judges
4.Having a small government (no govt healthcare or redistrabution of wealth)

[AUChamps]

Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. Having the Executive Branch run with 1 party and the Legislative Branch controlled by the other is what leads to success. Clinton-Gingrich in the 90s or Reagan and Tip O'Neill in the 80s, that's what we need today. Compromise.
Gator, I'd appreciate it if you gave me your 2 cents on my post. I think I make a great point.

[gatorunvrsty]

plus anyone who knows Kindergarten level Economics understands Clinton was in the right place at the right time w/the E-Commerce/Tech boom as far as the surplus is concerned

Really? :blink: That's some coincidence that Clinton was able to accomplish what 12 years of Republican policies before, and 8 years of Republican policies since, haven't been able to. If this was just a discussion that didn't involve partisan politics where people have already made up their minds about which party they support, I bet every person on this board would look at that one fact, and say, "You know what, it's pretty damn obvious that those Republicans don't have a clue when it comes to fiscal responsibilty and economic stability.".

Let's make a sports analogy out of it:

Coach Reagan really likes and believes in the trickle-down offense; and absolutely insists on using it. Despite losing records year after year, he uses that same trickle-down offense for 4 years... much to the chagrin of Bama fans. Coach Reagan gets a contract extension because he's such a likeable old fellow, folks really want to see him succeed, and they figure he'd have learned that his offense wasn't so great after all. The next 4 years are even worse for ol' Coach Reagan and Bama, as the losses continue to pile up, and the losses become worse and worse under his guidance and insistence on using his particular trickle-down offense. Reagan retires and names his assistant, Coach Bush Sr. as his preferred successor.

Coach Bush Sr. is a staunch believer in the offense of his predecessor, and also runs the trickle-down offense with a few of his own little nuances thrown in. Bama loses at a record pace for 4 more years. Coach Bush Sr.'s contract isn't renewed, and there are rumors he was actually fired by fed up boosters and fans.

Bama decides to go a different route, and try a little known coach from Arkansas with a unique offense. Coach Clinton enjoys astounding success, and restores glory to once omnipotent Bama. His unique style and offensive playcalling are so successful that he's given a raise, extension, and there's talk among fans and boosters that he may be one of the best coaches Bama has ever had... certainly since the glory years of Coach Kennedy. His support is overwhelming. After the 8 years, Coach Clinton retires, having compiled an astounding won/lost record, bowl record, and leaving the Bama coffers full of money and talent for the next coach.

Through a series of strange circumstances, and no small amount of confusion, Bama makes a mistake and hires the wrong coach. Apparently, despite having the endorsement of Coach Clinton, and winning the majority of the votes from Bama's board of directors, Coach Gore isn't hired. Coach Bush Sr.'s son, Dubya, doesn't actually get hired, but appointed by a misguided group of higher ups at Bama who wield enormous power. Coach Bush Jr., Dubya, takes Bama back into the dark ages of the trickle-down offense; and, before long, all of Bama's respect, money, and talent are gone. Fearing instability and the unavailablity of a better coach, and with smaller programs rising up in the background, Bama plays it safe and gives Dubya another 4 years to show what he can do... praying he's learned his lesson about the trickle-down offense. Unfortunately for the Bama faithful, ol' Dubya hasn't ever been very good at learnin', and keeps plugging away with old tried and tried and truly atrocious trickle-down offense. Of course, long ago somebody told Dubya he might want to name his offense something else, as folks were catching on that it weren't very good. But, to the trained Bama spectators, and supporters of Coach Clinton, it was just the same ol' trickle-down offense with a new name. Realizing Dubya should have been fired long ago, Bama is now excited about the prospect of some new leadership, and maybe a return to greatness. But, after Dubya, this is a very deep quagmire to try and pull a program out of. Let's hope Bama and its fans have learned their lesson.

Aza, maybe you might quit listening to those folks with Kindergarten level economic understanding. Most professional level economists credit Clinton's steadfast determination to see his policies implemented as designed as the primary reason for the economic prosperity and strength of the nation during his presidency. The man balanced the budget and provided a huge federal surplus, while overseeing the longest period of economic expansion in the history of this country that wasn't boosted by a war effort.

The fact of the matter is, greed will prevent most wealthy people from doing the right thing with their money. If Republicans expect there to ever be a time when corporations and companies can just have all the money, and trust them to take proper care of their employees and environmental concerns, they'll be waiting forever. That's the nature of greed... which is capitalism gone awry.

[D^3]

Ach! I have to repost to fix the order of my issues, I accidentally left one out.

1. BORDER SECURITY
2. Iraq war
3. Foreign Policy
4. Domestic economy/gas prices
5. less gov't programs/NO gov't healthcare

[gatorunvrsty]

Gator, I'd appreciate it if you gave me your 2 cents on my post. I think I make a great point.

I think you make an excellent point. It's why a checks and balances system was implemented in the first place. So that no one group had all the power. I always think the best solutions are reached when there is extensive debate and challenges to a specific party's proposals. When one group just gets to make all the rules, it USUALLY ends up hurting one group or another.

Here's my thing. If Democrats introduce proposals that hurt multi-millionaires a little, by taking some of the money from their pockets, and putting it into the pockets and programs of the less fortunate... well... they can stand a little pain. Being a millionaire affords you some considerable wiggle room; and their pain may entail having to wait an extra year before buying their next Bentley... not particularly painful, if you ask me. On the other hand, if Republicans introduce proposals favoring or benefitting these same wealthy Americans, it'll likely cause pain to groups who have absolutely no slack in the pain department. One health catastrophe for a child whose parents have no insurance, because their millionaire boss refuses to provide health care to his employees and their families, will ensure that family remains poor for the rest of their miserable lives... if they don't commit suicide first. Pain isn't reckoned the same way with these two groups. Placing a burden on middle or lower class families could mean homelessness, inability to provide for the family, inability to address health problems, inabilty to keep a vehicle in working order, etc., etc.. Any such burden on that group starts a snowball effect that they may never emerge from. Hence, I choose to err on the side that looks out for the group that has little chance of recovering from even the slightest disruption in their financial stability or status.

A burden on one group could cause some inconvenience or annoyance; while a burden on the other could cause dissolution entirely.

[*bama boy*]

Ach! I have to repost to fix the order of my issues, I accidentally left one out.

1. BORDER SECURITY
2. Iraq war
3. Foreign Policy
4. Domestic economy/gas prices
5. less gov't programs/NO gov't healthcare

Ah, ya i left that out as well. Not that it matters tho, both McCain and Obama are awful when it comes to securing the border and throwing the illegals out.

[AUChamps]

I think you make an excellent point. It's why a checks and balances system was implemented in the first place. So that no one group had all the power. I always think the best solutions are reached when there is extensive debate and challenges to a specific party's proposals. When one group just gets to make all the rules, it USUALLY ends up hurting one group or another.

Here's my thing. If Democrats introduce proposals that hurt multi-millionaires a little, by taking some of the money from their pockets, and putting it into the pockets and programs of the less fortunate... well... they can stand a little pain. Being a millionaire affords you some considerable wiggle room; and their pain may entail having to wait an extra year before buying their next Bentley... not particularly painful, if you ask me. On the other hand, if Republicans introduce proposals favoring or benefitting these same wealthy Americans, it'll likely cause pain to groups who have absolutely no slack in the pain department. One health catastrophe for a child whose parents have no insurance, because their millionaire boss refuses to provide health care to his employees and their families, will ensure that family remains poor for the rest of their miserable lives... if they don't commit suicide first. Pain isn't reckoned the same way with these two groups. Placing a burden on middle or lower class families could mean homelessness, inability to provide for the family, inability to address health problems, inabilty to keep a vehicle in working order, etc., etc.. Any such burden on that group starts a snowball effect that they may never emerge from. Hence, I choose to err on the side that looks out for the group that has little chance of recovering from even the slightest disruption in their financial stability or status.

A burden on one group could cause some inconvenience or annoyance; while a burden on the other could cause dissolution entirely.
Just remember that Tip worked with Reagan to get Reaganomics pushed through in Congress, and we all know how the Contract with America helped Clinton's economic policy. Point is, these defensive and offensive coordinators(senate majority leader and house speaker) play as big(if not bigger role) in shaping the coach's(president's) agenda.

Look at Auburn as an example. Tubs is a great CEO/president coach because he allows for his OC and DC to do the talking. Putting Tony Franklin as OC is very much akin to my metaphor of political moderation where the president is of one party and the leaders of Congress are of another party. Compromise will be the reason for our success. Otherwise, you can try the 'Bama dictatorship policy where the coach/president is the only voice for the team, but we'll soon find that'll fail.

[gatoraus]

1. getting the job done in Iraq and getting our troops out safely/ a president that will keep us safe
2.Drill here, drill now, pay less (help by signing the petition at www.americansolutions.com)
3. Getting conservative supreme judges
4.Having a small government (no govt healthcare or redistrabution of wealth)

Do you guys realize how little an effect there will be on gas prices with offshore drilling?

[*bama boy*]

Do you guys realize how little an effect there will be on gas prices with offshore drilling?

If we would have started drilling in 2002 when it came up in congress gas prices would be nowhere near where they are now. McCain was actualy one of the republicans who stood against it. Right now if we were 2 start offshore there is a chance because of speculation of more incoming gas that gas prices would drop considerably. But chances are it will take 2-5 years. which is a much better plan than what the Democrats have planned to lower gas prices (nothing). McCain is an idiot but he does (now) have the right idea on what we should do about gas prices. with our current technology it looks like we could get about 20 billion barrels off of just florida's shores. Which means we wouldnt need Middle eastern imports for about 16 years.

[gatoraus]

If we would have started drilling in 2002 when it came up in congress gas prices would be nowhere near where they are now. McCain was actualy one of the republicans who stood against it. Right now if we were 2 start offshore there is a chance because of speculation of more incoming gas that gas prices would drop considerably. But chances are it will take 2-5 years. which is a much better plan than what the Democrats have planned to lower gas prices (nothing). McCain is an idiot but he does (now) have the right idea on what we should do about gas prices. with our current technology it looks like we could get about 20 billion barrels off of just florida's shores. Which means we wouldnt need Middle eastern imports for about 16 years.

So, if McCain was a Democratic candidate, would we call him a flip-flopper?:laugh:

[*bama boy*]

haha good point. i really do think he is a flip-flopper, and an liberal, and a liar, i cant stand him, but he is on the right side of issues more than Obama is.

[Gamecocks4Ever]

If we would have started drilling in 2002 when it came up in congress gas prices would be nowhere near where they are now. McCain was actualy one of the republicans who stood against it. Right now if we were 2 start offshore there is a chance because of speculation of more incoming gas that gas prices would drop considerably. But chances are it will take 2-5 years. which is a much better plan than what the Democrats have planned to lower gas prices (nothing). McCain is an idiot but he does (now) have the right idea on what we should do about gas prices. with our current technology it looks like we could get about 20 billion barrels off of just florida's shores. Which means we wouldnt need Middle eastern imports for about 16 years.

As for the speculators, you never know what that crazy bunch is going to do, so don't even try to predict their next move. As for "us" having more oil, do you really think that'll make the prices come down that much? Who owns that oil? Could it be the companies? Do you really think Exxon or any other oil giant is going to keep the oil in this country for a lesser price, when China or some other developing nation is willing to pay $140+ a barrel for it? Remember, these are the same companies who are proud of their record profits when we're all paying $4.00/gallon. I'm glad you have more faith in these white-collar A$$holes than I do.

[AUChamps]

As for the speculators, you never know what that crazy bunch is going to do, so don't even try to predict their next move. As for "us" having more oil, do you really think that'll make the prices come down that much? Who owns that oil? Could it be the companies? Do you really think Exxon or any other oil giant is going to keep the oil in this country for a lesser price, when China or some other developing nation is willing to pay $140+ a barrel for it? Remember, these are the same companies who are proud of their record profits when we're all paying $4.00/gallon. I'm glad you have more faith in these white-collar A$$holes than I do.

When you look at the per capita incomes of India and China right now, and you see the gas prices, something doesn't add up. That "something" is crazy fuel subsidies, something that the gov'ts of each country damn well know they can't afford forever. They're putting themselves further in debt by continuing to subsidize fuel because if those countries had to charge real world prices for Gas, there would be riots in the streets and people would die by violence, starvation, or a combination of both.

I will say to India's credit, they are huge proponents of CNG Cars. CNG is Compressed Natural Gas, something that costs pennies on the dollar to gas and available to us right now.

http://www.cngvehiclesforsale.com/

Damn I wish I lived in Oklahoma where it's practical to fuel up on CNG for like 90 cents a gallon:

http://www.joplinglobe.com/statenews/local_story_143230857.html

Damnit, give me a CNG car that I can fuel up at home with. Give you guys a CNG conversion! We all can embrace CNG, as public transit and garbage trucks have begun to do.

[crimsonnation713]

Chris Rock summed it up for me when he said " if you vote for a Democrat just because they're a Democrat...you're a f!@#ing idiot. If you vote for a Republican because they're a Republican....you're a f!@#ing idiot".
How about listening to whats being said and go from there. IMO alot of the problem with the guys in D.C. right now is the fact its Dems against Republicans. Its like a clique when we were in school.Its purely asinine for grown men to act the way these guys do and expect a country to run smoothly. Little George has laid the ground work that could REALLY make us hit lower than we ever have.

[the Paradox]

I agree with Gator, I need the high five from sheluvsbama.


RTR

[timNem]

Gas prices.

My pops and I just made a Hydrogen Booster for under $20. We put it on his 1994 Acura Vigor and his gas mileage has jumped to 52 miles per gallon from 30 mpg. It works great and Im going to build some for all my vehicles. The only negative is that you will have to take it off during freezing temperatures, which can be done in seconds.

[AUChamps]

My pops and I just made a Hydrogen Booster for under $20. We put it on his 1994 Acura Vigor and his gas mileage has jumped to 52 miles per gallon from 30 mpg. It works great and Im going to build some for all my vehicles. The only negative is that you will have to take it off during freezing temperatures, which can be done in seconds.
Explain how this works, and how safe it is to install one as well. Also, this won't make the car explode on contact a la Ford Pinto if the hydrogen booster is punctured, right?

[Sabanocchio]

1.) The economy. Until we can get that back on the right track the quality of life for Americans as a whole will decline.
2.)Foreign policy...and this includes terrorism, trade among countries, natural disasters all over the world, helping stop genocides, etc. Until we get these things back on the right track the quality of life for a LOT of people in the world will decline.
3.)American education. Its becoming more and more of a joke and that means we arent fulfilling our obligation to our children and the future of this country.
4.) The environment. Sad that its this low but just shows how much our govt. has screwed up other things. One way or another we have to change how we're affecting the environment so the sooner we start the better it will be.

5.) Every other thing the govt. has screwed up(which is pretty much everything its put its hands on).

The sad thing is that I dont see either candidate making any significant strides in any of these areas. If we're supposed to have such a great system in this country then how come we ended up with such crappy choices :(I agree with this, but I'd have health care 5th.

[timNem]

Explain how this works, and how safe it is to install one as well. Also, this won't make the car explode on contact a la Ford Pinto if the hydrogen booster is punctured, right?

it works by electrolysis. You can use any SS pipe or an old water filter tank. I used stainless steel perforated plates that you attach in the tank where you have 4 or 5 plates, positive on inside and negative on outside you also need to have some neutral plates that will take the voltage. The perforations collect the HO bubbles. I also attached a motor control where I can control the voltage pulses and increase the bubbles. When it is shut down it turns back into H20, it will clean out the carbons in your motor as well.

Its safe but just as dangerous as gasoline, and a person should probably be mechanically inclined before trying it, i.e. knowledge of mechanics, DC voltage, safety.

[AUChamps]

it works by electrolysis. You can use any SS pipe or an old water filter tank. I used stainless steel perforated plates that you attach in the tank where you have 4 or 5 plates, positive on inside and negative on outside you also need to have some neutral plates that will take the voltage. The perforations collect the HO bubbles. I also attached a motor control where I can control the voltage pulses and increase the bubbles. When it is shut down it turns back into H20, it will clean out the carbons in your motor as well.

Its safe but just as dangerous as gasoline, and a person should probably be mechanically inclined before trying it, i.e. knowledge of mechanics, DC voltage, safety.
Will any local mechanic be willing to install this into a car, and didn't Mythbusters do a test on this(with mixed results from what some would argue was severely flawed testing)?

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/07/mistakes-in-the-mythbusters-episode-on-fuel-economy-devices/

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to use one of these on my Civic but there has to be a confidence that it's A). going to improve fuel economy and B). have no adverse effect under the hood with other parts on the car.

[BAMAPERRY]

Clinton can thank his lucky stars the Republicans took over Congress. He was proposing the biggest Government power grab in U.S. history. The Dems were defeated in the biggest political shift in an election year in U.S. history because of it. Their stalemates neutralized the Government, which was good for the country. It's amazing to see a commie like you justify taking other peoples money because they can "afford it". Let me tell you something Gator, the working class pays for everything in this country, they do the work. You raise taxes on the corporations, "the rich", they'll do nothing but pass it down to the working class. This country elects Barak Obama to serve out Jimmy Carters second term, and we're REALLY gonna be hurtin'.

[timNem]

Will any local mechanic be willing to install this into a car, and didn't Mythbusters do a test on this(with mixed results from what some would argue was severely flawed testing)?

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/07/mistakes-in-the-mythbusters-episode-on-fuel-economy-devices/

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to use one of these on my Civic but there has to be a confidence that it's A). going to improve fuel economy and B). have no adverse effect under the hood with other parts on the car.

Its no different than adding NOS to your car. I doubt that you can get any local mechanic do it, there is a guy in Madison that sells them. You need to limit the HO intake to about 30% or go to porcelain valves, pistons etc. Car mfgs had to change the alloys when we upgraded to unleaded gasoline, same thing here if you want to go to 100% hydrogen

Mythbusters don't know squat :D It just depends on how bad you are wanting to save $$$ on gas.

[Noah.Dreams]

I need to hear a presidential candidate outline a quantative plan to rebuild the North American infrastructure. Specifically, targeting which bridges have to be replaced, dedicate funding for a national commuter rail system, and more nuclear power stations like the TVA started 30 years ago. Also the US has to partner with Mexico to build 10 new oil refineries in the next 5 years.

[JerryBeeds]

Balcony Collapse. If we all got on board we could end BC in our time.

[AUChamps]

I need to hear a presidential candidate outline a quantative plan to rebuild the North American infrastructure. Specifically, targeting which bridges have to be replaced, dedicate funding for a national commuter rail system, and more nuclear power stations like the TVA started 30 years ago. Also the US has to partner with Mexico to build 10 new oil refineries in the next 5 years.
Mexico and Canada. As an example, Shell is building a refinery just north of the mythical world of Sarnia.....Ontario, and that's right across the border from Michigan. That's right, while Ontario(who admittedly isn't in much better economic shape) is getting a new refinery, we got squat.

[Tator]

The things that concern me for this election....

1. Change, politically speaking....
1a. "The Less Fortunate" would change to "The Less Motivated".
1b. "Millions without healthcare" would change to "Millions who are Less Motivated".
1c. "Increased Government Assistance" would change to "Work harder so others don't have to".
1d. "Evironmentally sound" would change to "Economically Unviable".
1e. "Politician/Political Candidate" would change to "Liar".
1f. "CEO's make too much money" would change to "Stalin says that CEO's make too much money".
1g. "War on Terror" would change to "Politicians dictating tactics".
1h. "Border Security" would change to "Screen Door on a Submarine".
1i. "Bugetary Restraint" would change to "We're going to raise the budget by 50%, then cut the increase by 10% and call it bugetary restraint".
1j. "Low voter turn out" would change to "Nothing's going to change anyway".

[timNem]

http://f304.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f169070%5fAGzIjkQAABNYSG6UeQW0ez7b V9A&pid=1.2&fid=Inbox&inline=1

[adamsputnik]

Don't much care, really. If the fit hits the shan then I'll just drag the wife out of the country to Australia anyway.

[bigsexxxy]

Gonna suck for them I suppose when my worthless opinion goes into the ballot box, along with 60% of the rest of Americans, who are stupid as well.

http://www.electoral-vote.com

I know you're not stupid, so show me how exactly John McCain is going to win this election. According to the polls, he doesn't have enough support to get 270 electoral votes, so how is this going to happen? 60% ain't gonna happen my friend. This election is going to be won or lost in the Rust Belt states and those people don't seem too happy with how the country has been run the past 7 1/2 years under a Republican president. Couple that with a spending advantage of over 3/1(Obama is going to spend 300 million, while McCain is going to spend around 85 mil, from what I understand) and the fact that even conservatives don't even like their candidate for president and you've got an Obama victory.

[JessJess6713]

I've pretty much kept my mouth shut about politics and a football website, but since there's going to be a post about I think that there are a lot of mis-conceptions that should be cleared.

1.
If you think Bush has done a good job as president, stop reading now. You're hopeless:crazy:

The horrible job over the past 8 years doesn't discredit the whole Republican party, but it does discredit the current administration in control of the Republican party, and those who wish to continue it.

Likewise it doesn't mean that Democrats are good. Bill Clinton created a national surplus, but he also signed NAFTA. Make no mistake, free trade is bad in unequal economies. Some of this fallout (nowhere near all of it) is his doing. Removing all trade barriers with countries that don't equal our environmental standards, minimum wages, safety regulations, and child work laws makes us unable to compete. We lose jobs, the dollar loses value, they lose quality of life, the environment gets destroyed, children work, and our good remain the same price. Supply and demand determines prices, not the cost of production.

Side Note - Bush tried to extend this to countries more under developed than Mexico. McCain was just recently in Columbia working out these agreements. Republicans and Democrats unite to screw us for big money.

2.
There is no candidate running that supports a nationally required free health care system financed by extra tax dollars. If your stuck on how long it takes Canadians to get an MRI, you need to get over it.

Over 80% hectare cost is administrative, because it is run so inefficiently. It's run that way to deny as many claims as possible. Obama's plan is to simplify and regulate a broken industry, and subsidize it (like we already do with farming).

It won't be required, and the way or medical system works won't be altered. You won't even have to change your insurance if you don't want to change it. It will simply be more affordable for people who want to work to get it.

3.
Being a black man with an Arabic name has NOT and will NOT help Obama's case. I hope that you're not dumb enough to buy that.

Racism is real whether you are personally racist or not. Does he get some white guilt votes? I've never met anyone, but I'm sure there are a few. Does he lose votes soley bc he's black? YES! Did you watch the WV primaries, or read the exit polls in Pennsylvania? This is completely disproportionate.

Is the media nicer to him bc he's black? After seeing them refer to his wife as his baby's momma, say he's doing terrorist fist bumps with his wife, suggesting that he should be shot, slamming him for the frequency that he wears freakin' pins, and purposefully misusing his name I'd say no. That's just me though.

The volume of people who still think he's a secret Muslim seriously hurts my faith in national intelligence.


I support Obama, as you should have figured out by now. Here are the issues that are important to me:

1) Intelligent foreign policy that will make us safer, balance our budget, and improve our world standing.

2) Rebuilding our economy and strengthening the dollar by fixing our current regulation of the financial sector, abandoning the FTAA, and fixing NAFTA.

2) Reduction of oil dependance (the only thing really lower gas prices. Isn't it sad that they won't go down until we don't need them to?)

[td8079]

Economic issues... stabilizing the stock market and gas prices. The middle east is going to be the answer somehow, someway.

[Noah.Dreams]

Here's a prediction for you. Obama will win by a 15% margin.

Just watch Obama's momentum after the presidential debate.

[Zee]

Here's a prediction for you. Obama will win by a 15% margin.

Just watch Obama's momentum after the presidential debate.

All I know is that McCain needs to hammer him and not try to run a "clean" campaign. If he hits Obama hard on his voting record, lack of experience, etc, I think the people in the middle of the political spectrum will realize just how far left he really is and how little experience he truly has. Yea, he is a good speaker and all, but other than persuading the naive, what does that really matter?

[WayzUp]

I live in the buckle of the rust belt so keep that in mind.

1) ECONOMY and strengthening the US DOLLAR - We are a country of debtors and it's caught up to us. History has shown that the fall of any super power starts the majority of the time with the devaluation of its currency. The US$ is on the ropes people.
2) EDUCATION - We are no longer falling behind....we ARE behind and fading quickly.
3) ALTERNATIVE ENERGY - and I don't mean bio-fuels as they will increase our food costs more than they already have. I'm talkin' dramatically upping our investment in fuel cell cars, making them here and getting a large percentage of our electricity via nuclear. Drilling/Increasing domestic oil production will provide no incentive for Big Oil to sell a barrell of oil for a penny less than what the market will bear. :brick:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8968/twocentsgr6.gif

[ColonelKurtz]

Restoration of the Constitution as the Law of the Land is my #1 issue as that would fix all of the other problems.

Obama is so totally unqualified to even merit consideration that hopefully the Dems have finally cut their own throats with his selection.

McCain is a dolt and the absolute worse candidate the Repubs could send out to do battle with Obama.

Obama is a Socialist, McCain is a spendthrift Liberal, which is about equally disgusting. Obama is all about Bigger Government but so is McCain. Obama is for getting out of Iraq, while I think McCain is too, he at least wants to pull out when the Iraqis say they can handle it again. Obama is for decreasing personal wealth via higher taxes and Federal economic controls while McCain is for that with an out for his buddies.

The Socialist Worker's Party endorses Obama as does the American Communist Party and every Black Nationalist anti-American group in existence. I won't vote for him.

[WayzUp]

Restoration of the Constitution as the Law of the Land is my #1 issue as that would fix all of the other problems.

+rep for that statement alone, Kurtz. :thumpsup:


McCain is a dolt and the absolute worse candidate the Repubs could send out to do battle with Obama.
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9739/mccainmotivatesr5.jpg
:laugh: :wacko:

[Tator]

2.
There is no candidate running that supports a nationally required free health care system financed by extra tax dollars. If your stuck on how long it takes Canadians to get an MRI, you need to get over it.

Over 80% hectare cost is administrative, because it is run so inefficiently. It's run that way to deny as many claims as possible. Obama's plan is to simplify and regulate a broken industry, and subsidize it (like we already do with farming).

It won't be required, and the way or medical system works won't be altered. You won't even have to change your insurance if you don't want to change it. It will simply be more affordable for people who want to work to get it.


1. The only reason that neither McCain nor Obama are blatantly calling for free healthcare is because they know they'll have to fall on that sword later and it'll most likely prove fatal.

2. First off, every health insurance policy I've ever had clearly stated in the policy what was and wasn't covered. They legally can't refuse to pay a covered procedure and you can't force them to pay for one that isn't. And what idiot told you that 80% of the cost of healthcare was administrative? Better yet, why'd you listen? Unless of course, you're talking about Medicare and Medicaid then you're most likely correct. Anything the government touches is inherently inefficient and under bid.

3. So, if it won't be required, nothing about the medical system will change, and you don't have to change your insurance, tell me again how Obama will make it more affordable? Oh, right....through subsidies.....

Remind me again, where does the money for subsidies come from? Me? Crap.

So, Obama's going to NOT change the way the medical system works in order to change it and make it more affordable in order to allow me to keep more of my money, so he can increase my taxes, so he can pay for the subsidies that make healthcare more affordable for me......got it.

I think.

[Crimson Kicker8]

Bama decides to go a different route, and try a little known coach from Arkansas with a unique offense. Coach Clinton enjoys astounding success, and restores glory to once omnipotent Bama. His unique style and offensive playcalling are so successful that he's given a raise, extension, and there's talk among fans and boosters that he may be one of the best coaches Bama has ever had... certainly since the glory years of Coach Kennedy. His support is overwhelming. After the 8 years, Coach Clinton retires, having compiled an astounding won/lost record, bowl record, and leaving the Bama coffers full of money and talent for the next coach.


:laugh::laugh::laugh: That's good GU, I needed a good laugh this morning. You left out a few things though. A little over halfway through Coach Clinton's tenure at Alabama, things begin to fall apart. So much so that the Alabama board of trustees decides to fire all of Coach Clinton's assistants, coordinators, and support staff. Coach Clinton's momentum fades to the point that his named successor isn't even able to get hired at the end of the season. As a matter of fact, assistant coach Gore can't even get the support of the county he was born and raised in. Finally, Alabama hires Coach Bush Jr., who sustains a cheap shot his first year as coach dealing with outsiders hitting his program when they weren't looking. Fortuanately for Bama, the remaining 7 years result in goal line stands that would make Barry Krauss proud and Alabama goes on to defend it's program from any further cheap shots.

Just a few things that needed to be included ;)

[AUChamps]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: That's good GU, I needed a good laugh this morning. You left out a few things though. A little over halfway through Coach Clinton's tenure at Alabama, things begin to fall apart. So much so that the Alabama board of trustees decides to fire all of Coach Clinton's assistants, coordinators, and support staff. Coach Clinton's momentum fades to the point that his named successor isn't even able to get hired at the end of the season. As a matter of fact, assistant coach Gore can't even get the support of the county he was born and raised in. Finally, Alabama hires Coach Bush Jr., who sustains a cheap shot his first year as coach dealing with outsiders hitting his program when they weren't looking. Fortuanately for Bama, the remaining 7 years result in goal line stands that would make Barry Krauss proud and Alabama goes on to defend it's program from any further cheap shots.

Just a few things that needed to be included ;)
Coach Clinton had it good with OC Gingrich and DC Lott. They didn't always agree on philosophies, but they balanced each other out(especially with OC Gingrich's out of the box concept of a Contract to the Fans).

[bigtreydaddy]

I think it's hilarious how an "innocent" what's-your-issue thread is really a set up for all these "experts" to come out and slam everyone with an opposing viewpoint. I, for one, consider myself a well-informed citizen and plan on voting (don't feel like one can have an opinion on matters if he doesn't), but I'm not gonna hop on here pretending to be some insider or some omniscient political god with all the right answers to our nation's woes. Getting to the point of the thread, the USD/economy is my #1 issue going into this election followed by SS/welfare reform. As far as my second issue is concerned, I think we can all agree that there is some abuse of the system going on here (which, if corrected, might help my #1 issue...hmmm). And for the record, I'm totally on board with Kurtz and the Constitution. Let's party like it's 1781, baby!