• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Deciding between Liberal and Conservative Politics

Considering that Dubya was the first "MBA" in the White House...I think it's wise to keep a "businessman" very far away from the Oval Office. Dubya was also a terrible businessman...fwiw.

Mitt has his MBA but he also has a Law degree...which I find very useful for a president to have because they generally know to act "within accordance of the law" which, also, is something Dubya the business dork has had problem doing....

The best candidate for President is Barack Obama.

That is a matter of opinion, and by that I mean everything in this post. I think there is room for disagreement.

I phrased my previous post poorly. What I meant was someone like a CEO, someone who had met a payroll... I would count in that group business owners, mayors and governors. I would not count in that group lifetime legislators. I don't think that running the giant thing that is the US government is a "starter" job.

So why is Mr Obama the best person for the job. What does he bring to the table in your mind? You will notice that I did not bad mouth the man or call him names. Super debating techniques (not) but I prefer something more substantive.
 
[size=-2]Bush began his industry career in 1979, when he established Arbusto Energy, an oil and gas exploration company he financed with his education trust fund surplus and money from other investors, including Dorothy Bush, Lewis Lehrman, William Henry Draper III, Bill Gammell, and James R. Bath, the last of whom represented Salem bin Laden, a half-brother and cousin of Osama bin Laden. In 1984, Bush sold the company, hurt in the wake of the 1979 energy crisis, to Spectrum 7, another Texas gas exploration firm. Under the terms of the sale, Bush became CEO (Chief Executive Officer). Spectrum 7 lost revenue and was merged into Harken Energy Corporation in 1986, with Bush becoming a director of Harken.

In April 1989, Bush assembled a group of investors from his father's close friends, including fellow fraternity brother Roland W. Betts; the group bought an 86% share of the Texas Rangers for $75 million. Bush received a 2% share by investing $606,302, of which $500,000 was a bank loan. Against the advice of his counsel, Bush repaid the loan by selling $848,000 worth of stock in Harken Energy. Harken reported significant financial losses within a year of this sale, triggering allegations of insider trading. On March 27, 1992, the Securities and Exchange Commission concluded that Bush had a "preexisting plan" to sell, that Bush had a "relatively limited role in Harken management", and that it had not seen evidence of insider trading.

The subsequent SEC investigation ended in 1992 with a memo stating "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," but noted that the memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result". Critics allege that this decision was strongly influenced by the makeup of the SEC at the time, which heavily favored Bush. The chairman at the time was Richard Breeden, a good friend of the Bush family's who had been nominated to the SEC by President George H. W. Bush and who had been a lawyer in James Baker's firm, Baker Botts. The SEC's general counsel at the time was James Doty, who had represented George W. Bush when he sought to buy into the Texas Rangers (although Doty recused himself from the investigation.) Bush's own lawyer was Robert Jordan, who had been "partners with both Doty and Breeden at Baker Botts and who later became George W. Bush's ambassador to Saudi Arabia".

In "House of Bush, House of Saud", Craig Unger notes that at the time of Bush's sale, Harken Energy "was expected to run out of money in just three days". In a last-ditch attempt to save the company, Harken was advised by the endowment fund of Harvard University to spin-off two of its lower-performing divisions. "According to a Harken memo, if the plan did not go through, the company had 'no other source of immediate financing.'" Bush had already taken out a $500,000 loan and sought Harken's general counsel for advice. The reply was explicit: "The act of trading, particularly if close in time to the receipt of the inside information, is strong evidence that the insider's investment decision was based on the inside information... the insider should be advised not to sell". This memo was turned over by Bush's attorney the day after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that it would not charge Bush with insider trading. On June 22, Bush sold his 212,140 shares of stock anyway for a net profit of $848,560. The very next quarter, Harken announced losses of $23 million, which continued to the end of the year when the stock "plummeted from $4 to $1.25".

As President, Bush has refused to authorize the SEC to release its full report on the Harken investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush[/size]

General "Buck" Turgidson: Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.
 

Rattrap

Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
Seriously, the democrats need control of the White House or else the sky will fall. McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years and he isn't well informed on the economy. What the fuck are people supporting him? He clearly isn't the candidate we need right now.

I've been thinking for a while now that people like to choose their politics like they do their favorite sports team: you pick a side, for whatever reason, and then you root for them irregardless of whether or not you should. I hear of far too many people voting Democrat or Republican because they're registered Democrat or Republican. "Rooting for the team", even if the candidate their team has put up isn't going to hold up the common good for anybody.

The number one argument I heard for voting for Bush the first time around (which, to be fair, I wasn't all that mindful of politics at the time, not being able to vote myself): "I'm a registered Republican."

For football teams, this is fine. For a much larger "arena" where people's lives can be ruined or ended, I find such ignorant thinking immoral.
 
I've been thinking for a while now that people like to choose their politics like they do their favorite sports team: you pick a side, for whatever reason, and then you root for them irregardless of whether or not you should. I hear of far too many people voting Democrat or Republican because they're registered Democrat or Republican. "Rooting for the team", even if the candidate their team has put up isn't going to hold up the common good for anybody.

The number one argument I heard for voting for Bush the first time around (which, to be fair, I wasn't all that mindful of politics at the time, not being able to vote myself): "I'm a registered Republican."

For football teams, this is fine. For a much larger "arena" where people's lives can be ruined or ended, I find such ignorant thinking immoral.

What an interesting point. But maybe people vote that way because picking a party that on the whole agrees with your basic beliefs or maybe even your one issue is easier than actually trying to be informed about individuals running for office.

I don't think I have seen this anywhere that I have voted but when I was a kid I remember the Chicago Daley (the first one) machine urging voters to just pull the democrat lever. Saves you all that difficult thinking you know.
 
That is a matter of opinion, and by that I mean everything in this post. I think there is room for disagreement.

I phrased my previous post poorly. What I meant was someone like a CEO, someone who had met a payroll... I would count in that group business owners, mayors and governors. I would not count in that group lifetime legislators. I don't think that running the giant thing that is the US government is a "starter" job.

So why is Mr Obama the best person for the job. What does he bring to the table in your mind? You will notice that I did not bad mouth the man or call him names. Super debating techniques (not) but I prefer something more substantive.

good point bombardier
 
I've been thinking for a while now that people like to choose their politics like they do their favorite sports team: you pick a side, for whatever reason, and then you root for them irregardless of whether or not you should. I hear of far too many people voting Democrat or Republican because they're registered Democrat or Republican. "Rooting for the team", even if the candidate their team has put up isn't going to hold up the common good for anybody.

For football teams, this is fine. For a much larger "arena" where people's lives can be ruined or ended, I find such ignorant thinking immoral.

it's true...alot of people take a "side" no matter what. that's unfortunate.

What an interesting point. But maybe people vote that way because picking a party that on the whole agrees with your basic beliefs or maybe even your one issue is easier than actually trying to be informed about individuals running for office.

Alot of beliefs are similar within the parties...that's why I'm pretty confused at the fighting between Obama and Clinton, except maybe since it's for the big seat amongst them. They're already acting like McCain is outta the picture...he might be, but he might be not.
 
Mr Obama and Ms Clinton are certainly more interesting right now. If you haven't caught the NYT article about McCains kid that is an enlisted Marine that just finished a tour in Iraq you guys should check look for it. Lots of stuff I didn't know in that story.
 
Mr Obama and Ms Clinton are certainly more interesting right now. If you haven't caught the NYT article about McCains kid that is an enlisted Marine that just finished a tour in Iraq you guys should check look for it. Lots of stuff I didn't know in that story.

wow that's interesting...didn't know about him having a son who served in Iraq. At least that shows his acceptance to provide his own child to a war, something Bush hasn't done.

It's a good thing that it was not publicized. His son would have been a major target, like when news leaked that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan.
 
michael moore is a lib idiot anyway you slice it nothing can change that fact unless he tries to make a movie about it. conservatives all the way
 
I think Michael Moore is an insult to the respectable liberals and they see him as secular progressive.
He's a hero to the radical left though.
 
I think Michael Moore is an insult to the respectable liberals and they see him as secular progressive.
He's a hero to the radical left though.

What is wrong with being a secular progressive?
 
[B][URL="https://www.freeones.com/friday said:
Friday[/URL][/B] on my mi, post: 2107835, member: 44516"]What is wrong with being a secular progressive?

Welcome back Friday. I'll answer that question after you answer mine I left you earlier in the thread ;)
 
[B][URL="https://www.freeones.com/friday said:
Friday[/URL][/B] on my mi, post: 2107847, member: 44516"]Which was what?

post #28
 
Your saying your concerned about national security is nice but doesn't tell me much.What does that mean politically? And this line about the govt taking care of you is not very helpfull eitheir.It would really be better to more specific in what you think govt should be doing probably than what you don't want them to do.

I believe the government needs to protect us from terrorism as their priority.

I have heard plenty of the criticism of Moore.But have never heard any I thought disputed the facts in his movies.Specifically what "actions" are your refering to?

What do you think about the wounded soldiers he has filmed and included in his movie? The "Michael Moore Hates America" has a soldier interviewed in the movie who is pissed that he was included into "Fahrenheit 911". What do you think about Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" filming in the one bank where he allegedly was given a gun? "Michael Moore Hates America" has different views on that. The questions are on you now.

I haven't said you are just regurgitating the right wing Fox noise type stuff that's around so why would you say that? Let me just say I am significantly older than you are and probably have a much deeper knowledge of history and events than you,so please don't infer that my opinions are not my own.And you didn't address the point I made eithier.Does the US have a right to go around and change govt's we don't approve of?

If you belittle me, I'll ignore you. But this one time, I will let it slide :) As for the US playing "big brother" in this world...more nations need to participate. I wish the UN will be more stern with governing policies of other nations. The US is doing it because we are the main target. If we don't, we'll get destroyed. The other countries are probably not worrying about it until the US will be annihilated...and once we're out of the picture, they will be next. Again, just my opinion.

Ok here is post #28.Is the question of the soldier interview what you are refering to? If it is,my answer is tough he didn't like it being included.Did Moore distort it or anything is the only legitamate question.But people have no right to say I don't want to be mentioned in a documentary.
 
I'm still waiting for a conservative person on this forum...Scuba or Bombadier seem to be the 2 most "open" about their Conservatism...to answer this question:

Based on the overall track record of George W Bush these past 7+ years and including the current state of the wars and the economy, why should an American voter vote for a Republican president in November?

Earlier in this thread I brought up "supporting the troops" and on Friday there were reports that John McCain has yet to support a "new G.I. bill" that has bipartisan support and which gives additional healthcare and education benefits to Iraqi/Afghan war vets. Why is he dragging his feet or "kicking this can down the street?" Shouldn't this war vet be the first to sign this bill? Don't we owe our veterans these benefits, simply for "thanks" for defending our country?

John McCain also apologized for voting against establishing a Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday in Arizona.

Is this guy really in step with Republicans or Americans?
 
I am not up on the bill you mention but I will look into it. I can't fathom why he wouldn't support something like that unless it sucked. I'm not sure why we need a new GI Bill. I don't know anyone that has trouble with the present one.

I have not advocated any party or candidate in this election and would never hold myself as a member of either party. I have been a registered independent since I was 18 years old. I have voted for dems and republicans.

The candidates that align with me right now just happen to be republicans because my important issues are:

Terror
Border/immigration
Taxes

No dem candidates see things my way on those issues. At other times of my life other issues might have led that list and made me vote different.

Bush does not piss me off at all. I think that history is show that Iraq was the right thing to do and was the beginning of turning the tide on some people that declared war on my country well before 9-11. If you think the war was a bad idea and you want it over now then there are probably no republicans that will do it for you.

Just as a thought piece. If you are against the war in Iraq, why? I am curious.

As far as the economy goes...well...I certainly hate the cost of gas but I am not sure what a president or congress could do to change that short of increasing the supply. We certainly have untapped oil in the US but I don't think there are too many democrats that would support getting any of that and most republicans won't either. Nuclear power won't find any support on the democrat side as well even though that would lower the cost of oil. Other than that I don't have any complaints about the economy from my view.
 
66% of Americans want the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end. That 66% is comprised of more than just Dems. It also includes Indies and Pubs. That 66% doesn't mean "the wars were wrong"...all it means is let's get the hell out of there and let "the world" monitor Iraq and let Iraqis build their nation. That is what it means.

All of the reasons for going to war in Iraq have proved false or were lies. Take your pick. I don't really care about Saddam. I'm glad he's gone today. Sure. But I'm not in favor of spending endless tax money to "rebuild" Iraq or police a Civil War.

Your reasons for voting Repub in the fall are "keep the blinders on" reasons or "bury your head in the sand" reasons. They will not get any Repubs elected in November--on any level--Governor/Congress/Mayor.

The Dept of Homeland Security is a colossal bureaucratic nightmare. It must be "broken up" back to the pre-existing Gov't Orgs--Fema--Coast Guard--whatever other orgs which were "folded into" it. TSA might need to remain but it needs to be funded better.

The Patriot Act is a mess. It needs to "go away."

Bush's tax cuts worked for about 2 years...but the economy has evaporated, we're bleeding jobs and our currency is worth about as much as the peso was a decade ago. Bush is too "out of touch" to do anything and McCain has already admitted he's "not very strong on economics." That is a recipe for disaster.

The price of oil/barrel will drop by 45% once we leave Iraq. It is not economically feasible to believe anymore that the economies of China and India are "raging" and keeping the price skyrocketing while the greatest consumer nation of Oil (the U.S.) is in deep recession....the basic economics don't "add up" anymore. There is a 45% "fear quotient" built into the price/barrel which will "go away" once we leave.

The Republicans are going to get slaughtered at the polls. Barry Goldwater was an Arizonian politician who suffered the greatest loss at the polls in the history of modern American politics. John McCain will be repeating this historical fact this November.

Hillary's chief strategist resigned today. Her campaign is in shambles. Obama will begin to focus on McCain and we'll all start seeing how poor a choice McCain really is.
 
Top