# McCain's Record on Financial Regulation is scary



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

So I'm sure over the weekend most of you heard the government is taking over Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae. We the taxpayers will now be bailing them out. Just who are we bailing out? Read on. If you aren't concerned, you should be.

As an aside, do you know how our US Treasury bonds are backed? Anyone?

Confidence. Confidence that the United States, and it's Treasury, will fully back back them. So that FAITH in our ability to cover our azz when the bonds come due is the only thing keeping America upright at any given moment. Think about that for a minute.

So why does this matter? Well it goes towards who we will place into the Office of the Presidency. Who will that be? Which candidate has a better record in regards to understanding economics? Which Political Ticket has a better foundation and understanding of how to work with those agencies?

Still wondering? Think it is McCain? Think again.

With McCain's past scandal involving the Keating Five, and the Guvment bailout that ensued, we are desperately in need of leadership with our economy.

McCain has said himself he doesn't fully understand the economy.

Do you?

For those of you trying to understand the importance of what I'm saying, we're not really bailing out US homeowners, but rather *we're bailing those who hold the bonds of Freddy mac and Fannie Mae. Who are most of the bondholders? The central banks of Asian nations.*

How are we financing this bailout? By using US Government _Treasury bonds._ Who is buying those? The central banks of Asian nations.

For now, at least.

If investors confidence in US Treasury Bonds begins to wane, we're all in desperate trouble. This is _not_ an over exaggeration. Allow me to explain.



> The next president, who in turn will set the regulatory environment, really matters. The best, perhaps the only way, to restore investor confidence in US and global financial institutions is through tight regulation. To be blunt: investors are correct. The Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac bonds were far crappier than they were told.* Until everyone in convinced things are worth their claimed worth, things are only going to get worse.* We need a president who can take on the financial industries, who is above corruption on this issue above all others.
> 
> source: http: //seattlesavant.com


If McCain gets into office we have no hope. I've already commented on his involvement in the Keating Five scandal-the last big collapse of US financial institutions, that cost taxpayers over $200 billion (in today's dollars.)

In case you all aren't familiar with how McCain was corrupt, a bit of chronological history:


> 1. As early as 1985, the Federal Home Loan Lending Board (FHLLB) became concerned that shoddy lending practices at private Saving & Loans were putting governmental insurance funds (like FDIC), and in turn the US taxpayers, at tremendous financial risk.
> 
> 2. Edwin Gray, the head of the FHLLB, tried to curtail this reckless lending by putting in very modest restrictions.
> 
> ...


Why is this all so important you may ask?

Essentially because a large, very large portion of the US government runs on revolving credit, and because high investor interest in low interest Treasuries keeps interest rates low for the rest of us. For the first part, think of it as the person who pays off a high interest credit card with a lower interest credit card, which gets paid off with another credit card, ad infinitum.

As long as Treasuries are seen as safe (and ceasing to offer 30 year T-bonds was not a smart way to shore up confidence), people want them. The safer a bond is, the lower the interest rate is. Treasuries are seen as, bar none, the safest bonds in the world, so they can pay less than 4%. In other words, they can pay less than the rate of inflation, which means that we can sort of make money, as long as the demand remains steady. If it doesn't, then you have to offer higher interest rates, ones that are profitable in real dollars. That means that the money going out of the US goes out at an even faster rate, causing massive inflation.

Another way of thinking of it for example is that your salary (or in the example above the US Guvment) has half the buying power each year. It's essentially a 50% pay cut each year.

What would happen then(if the US Government cannot sell treasury bonds, and thus defaults) ?

*Well the United States Government would collapse. Completely.*

Think about that for a moment. What would it be like? The great depression is a fairly poor example. The US government didn't default in 1929; *it would in this case*. Without a solvent government, programs like the New Deal will be impossible. Also, feeding us and keeping us warm is a much more complicated and costly problem than it was in the 1930's. It is possible that many people might starve or die from thirst in places like the desert southwest during a total collapse of government. Look at what happened with a national disaster like Katrina.

For a more reasonable modern scenario, consider what happened in Argentina during the 1999 Argentinian economic crisis. Look it up to see how the collapse of the Argentinian currency affected life there.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

To top it all off, Sarah Palin had a famous gaffe this past weekend.

*Mudflats had this* report:



> The number one issue of concern on people's minds these days is* the economy.*
> 
> Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs today Saturday, Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had _"gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."_
> *
> ...


This just gets scarier to me the more I learn about the Republican ticket....

I can see why they have her tucked away from the mainstream media. They are afraid of serious additional gaffes such as this....

But it does strike another important glaring point. We NEED people in positions of understanding how the economy works.

It seems many of you believe I'm just being partisan with every post, but I can't make this stuff up. These are all real quotes, and real possibilities.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> but I can't make this stuff up.


I am sure you don't, but someone does. I remember the Keating Five scandal. Mostly I remember it as a liberal blown out of proportion smoke and mirrors. They were then as they are today. 
The big problem is people push for easier to get home loans. They push their representation in Washington, and they in turn push the lending institutions. They should mind their own business. California is the best example of people not willing to be responsible for their actions. They went and purchased houses beyond their financial ability. If they didn't get the loan they whined to government. Financial institutions gave in especially when government says they will back them. 
Do you have an opinion who these every day folk are, anyone? I'll tell you. They are the same type of people that want the government to take care of them. They whine when they can't get loans, and when they can't pay them they just walk away with no sense of responsibility. Do you know who they are yet? They are the same people that will vote for Obama, because they are still looking for a way to make the working stiff provide their free meal. 
They are parasites on the American working class. They see Obama as a direct line from the working stiffs jugular directly to their wallet. It isn't big business that is greedy as the liberals would paint them, it's the liberals that want something for nothing that are greedy. It's not greedy when you earn it, it's greedy when you want something for nothing, and that is what Obama is preaching. 
Yes, I'll take McCain. The taxes Obama proposes proves he knows nothing about an economy. He simply knows how to get votes from the lazy.



> This just gets scarier to me the more I learn about the Republican ticket


Time and experience will teach you differently what to be frightened of.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

And I suppose that the 57 states isn't important enough for one of your long articles Ryan?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Looks like Ryan needs another lesson in fact checking. First off, the Gov way before Bush or McCain or even Biden set in motion the promise to back the loans for Fannie and Freddy. The purpose was to encourage lower interest rates and free up equity for more home loans. This allowed less equity to be in a home before you purchased it, IE down payment money. This promise gave capital investors reasons to do business with them and thus opened up the home buying to a new set of people.

Ryan you are to young to understand that homes never had the rate of appreciation we have seen in the last 25 years. So home loans where many times not a solid investment vehicle. Thus people with capital would invest in things like gold and silver etc.. and not into housing funds.

Now fast forward a bit to the lending binge that took place. Double digit appreciation per year spurred an industry within the industry of writing loans because of the low risk of loss. Most property if distressed could still be sold at a profit to the lender, covering loan fees, commissions etc.. because the value of the homes where rising so quickly. Loan deregulation passed by a Dem Senate, and Rep house signed by Bill Clinton had lenders writing loans solely "on the come" as they say. ARM loans, no financial record loans, the list goes on and on.

This bubble burst as inflation reared its head and interest rates moved higher. Suddenly people where seeing large increases in their ARM loans. Credit standards tightened a bit as money supply dried up because of the plunging dollar caused by overspending of our Gov, rises in energy costs etc... Capital investors now felt safer moving back into more secure investments even with lower return rates. Many homeowners who before the rise in interest had been able to manage payments suddenly could not and because the property had not increased in value and in some regions actually decreased found they could not find lenders to refinance these loans. Others got into trouble because lenders where borrowing money at 125% of value. That is basically saying her is a $1.25 for a $1.00

So Fannie and Freddy like other institutions where left holding loans on property that is now worth less than when it was purchased or for what was loaned against it. They now did not have money to lend which compounds the problem. They could not borrow the money because they where suddenly upside down in there loan portfolio

Back in 2005 Bush attempted to fix some of this, but was met with opposition from Dem's and some Rep and the legislation that was passed was watered down. The first fix offered did not get voted on until the new Congress came into power in 06 Had the original steps offered been taken it would not have prevented what has happened but it would have reduced the risk and exposure of the taxpayers. Japan had just went through this and we had something to look at and see what would work and what would not.

McCain and 22 other Rep voted for the proposed changes in the original form while all but one Dem and the balance voted those changes down. Sen Obama opposed these changes and voted to allow the practices to continue.

This is another attempt to distort records and try and make it appear that NObama had the wisdom to fix this before hand. His vote proves he did not and McCain did !!!!

When we bought our first house Ryan I had to have 20% down and show how I got it. It could not have been a gift or loan from a family member etc.. unless I went through FHA. When we bought our second home 10 years later we only needed 10% down. Six years later we bought our house with no money down. In both our second and third homes we where able to take out an imediate second mortage to fund the 20% downpayment. We had thought about building a new home and also buying a piece of commercil property in 06.

I had no less than three companies offer us loans with no finacial records needed to buy and build. Granted interest rates where higher, but still the fact that I could borrow money with no demostrated ablity to pay it back was unreal. This is what Bush attempted to fix and what McCain supported. This is what NObama voted to continue to allow!!!!!!!


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

So after just a few short months. I've come to the conclusion the Ryan works for the Obama campaign and Plainsman works for the McCain campaign. 8)

Am I close?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Looks like Ryan needs another lesson in fact checking. First off, the Gov way before Bush or McCain or even Biden set in motion the promise to back the loans for Fannie and Freddy. The purpose was to encourage lower interest rates and free up equity for more home loans. This allowed less equity to be in a home before you purchased it, IE down payment money. This promise gave capital investors reasons to do business with them and thus opened up the home buying to a new set of people.
> !


Thanks Ron.

Who regulates the mortgage industry? There are so many entities involved it is ridiculous. Most importantly is the scary fact that there is not National oversight authority on the mortgage industry. Yes the mortgage industry gave out home loans.. blah blah blah. That is chump change compared to the upcoming bailout. Back to my point.

You are missing the central point(s) of my thread..

The point of my thread was discussing the bailing out of Fanny Mae etc, and the resultant downstream effect to the bond markets, whether those bond investors are going to continue to be willing to purchase them given current rates of return, the affect on inflation, and who is going to handle the economy wisely to ensure we don't have a catastrophe.

I agree that those financial institutions were operating on poor fiscal policy to allow those loans to happen, and the blame there goes squarely to the Fed Chairman Greenspan, and the rest of the Fed, in combination with the Treasury Dept, Federal Housing Administration, and the Congress.

The question becomes going forward, is who understands the economy better?

You can clearly see my point about McCain. But it appears you aren't willing to concede my point about the larger implications to the economy depending on who gets elected.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > but I can't make this stuff up.
> 
> 
> I am sure you don't, but someone does. I remember the Keating Five scandal. Mostly I remember it as a liberal blown out of proportion smoke and mirrors. They were then as they are today.


So all the bullet points mentioned above are smoke and mirrors? really? Hmmm.... that is clearly not the opinion of most who have written on the effects of the scandal.



Plainsman said:


> The big problem is people push for easier to get home loans. They push their representation in Washington, and they in turn push the lending institutions. They should mind their own business. California is the best example of people not willing to be responsible for their actions. They went and purchased houses beyond their financial ability. If they didn't get the loan they whined to government. Financial institutions gave in especially when government says they will back them.


This thread isn't about people pushing to get easy home loans. It is about a much larger underlying implication of Economic Comprehension on the part of the McCain ticket.



Plainsman said:


> Do you have an opinion who these every day folk are, anyone? I'll tell you. They are the same type of people that want the government to take care of them. They whine when they can't get loans, and when they can't pay them they just walk away with no sense of responsibility. Do you know who they are yet?


Yep they are both Republican and Democrat. They are average folks of all stripes and colors. No one party has any advantage here. And no they don't all just walk away. That is a broad generalization. Almost all go to great degrees to get right side up. They work and fight tooth and nail to hold on to their mortgage. They were taken to the cleaners too... as many of them received poor financial advice. Most were trying to live the "American Dream" and get into a house to build equity. There are so many folks nowadays who don't understand a stitch about how money works regarding investing, mortgages, the bond market, etc... and unscrupulous lenders were simply trying to make a quick buck and get them to sign on the dotted line.

You are attacking the wrong folks Plainsman.



Plainsman said:


> They are the same people that will vote for Obama, because they are still looking for a way to make the working stiff provide their free meal.
> They are parasites on the American working class. They see Obama as a direct line from the working stiffs jugular directly to their wallet.


They are the working class stiffs Plainsman. The mortgage crisis has hit every sector of society.



Plainsman said:


> It isn't big business that is greedy as the liberals would paint them, it's the liberals that want something for nothing that are greedy. It's not greedy when you earn it, it's greedy when you want something for nothing, and that is what Obama is preaching.


This is classic Republican spin. Obama is not preaching any of this. Please show me proof where he preaches something for nothing in regards to this line of logic?



Plainsman said:


> Yes, I'll take McCain. The taxes Obama proposes proves he knows nothing about an economy. He simply knows how to get votes from the lazy.


Where in Obama's tax plan regarding the economy proves he knows nothing?



Plainsman said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > This just gets scarier to me the more I learn about the Republican ticket
> ...


Nice implication that I don't have the experience to understand better.

You go with that philosophy. :thumb:

No consider how much wisdom, experience and saavy the average younger voter has (or even a younger guy on this forum). Am I better read, more up on the issues, and have a grasp of things compared to most of them? Consider that those folks are also voting in this election. I'll leave that consideration up to you.

Uh huh.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

As an aside...

Let me ask this one simple financial question to all of you..

Is owning a home you are paying a mortgage on a financial asset or liability?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ryan I am well aware of the economic impact this election will have, and that is why I have been vocal in pointing out the tax policy and spending promises of Nobama and those of McCain.

The central core of much of the devaluation of the dollar and the rise in energy costs is related to spending and debt.

Go back and find me one place where NObama is talking about reducing spending overall!

McCain has and also points out the fact that he has seen the results of lowered taxes and wants them lower yet. No increases in capital gains,opposite of Nobama. Plus Nobama is proposing removing the cap on SS payroll taxes. For farmers and those who are self employed this would mean a tax rate of over 50% to the Fed Gov. Tell me where that is good for this nation. We are considering moving. Under Obamas plan I would pay 28% on every dollar more than I paid for my house! No allowances for improvements, or interest I have paid. Tell me how this is going to revive the housing market?

The next is on wealth re-distribution, Nobama is saying he was a tax cut for 95% of all people. He is camouflaging his plan on taxes by calling them cuts.

A family of 4 making $50,000 a year most likely pays little or no taxes. Under NObamas plan they will receive additional money over and above what they sent in!

McCain plan would raise the amount of where people would not pay taxes!

See the contrast in the two, look backward and see which plan creates jobs and which one actually increases tax revenue per dollar of GDP that is produced in this nation.

So if you want to attempt to post articles on economic policy it is best to understand what each candidate is proposing and which one is most likely to move the nation forward and not backward!

By the way, Ryan three independent tax watch dog groups have rated both plans. NObamas gets a D- rating and McCain's gets a C+ rating as an average from the groups.

Then there is the impact of energy on this nation and the stranglehold it can put on growth. Two of the groups both independent rated those policy choices as well. McCain gets a B+ rating on average and Nobama an F!

So tell us again why McCain is a risk with our economy?

You really need to understand the details to get it Ryan and I don't think you do!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ruger1 said:


> So after just a few short months. I've come to the conclusion the Ryan works for the Obama campaign and Plainsman works for the McCain campaign. 8)
> 
> Am I close?


No, I don't like McCain, but I dislike Obama even more. Now Palin, I could see helping her out.



> So all the bullet points mentioned above are smoke and mirrors? really? Hmmm.... that is clearly not the opinion of most who have written on the effects of the scandal.


It's things like those writings that give me such a poor opinion of written history. Give me first hand observation every time.



> This thread isn't about people pushing to get easy home loans. It is about a much larger underlying implication of Economic Comprehension on the part of the McCain ticket.


I know that's what you want it to be, but to me the problem is people. People who bought beyond their ability to pay back. They deserve to loose their behind.



> Yep they are both Republican and Democrat.


I don't think so, and here is why. I remember back in college 1967, 68 etc most of the people in social studies were liberal. Most in business were conservative. Math, science, were split. I'll give you an example of one of my liberal acquaintances from Devils Lake. He said in social studies he had learned to work the programs. He said after graduation he was going to take five years vacation, live off the government, then get a job. Most of the liberals I knew in college were always looking for ways to make the other guy pay. Most of my other friends wanted a good education so they could work hard and be successful. Most of my liberals friends tried to figure out how they could get money from my conservative friends. Now you know where my attitude was born.



> They are the working class stiffs Plainsman. The mortgage crisis has hit every sector of society.


Sure some are working class stiffs, but they are mostly of a group that bought more than they could pay for and when they didn't have a fixed rate they said oh well, I guess I'll file bankruptcy and start over, leaving the bank holding the bag.



> This is classic Republican spin. Obama is not preaching any of this. Please show me proof where he preaches something for nothing in regards to this line of logic?


He wants to raise taxes right? Who do you think he wants to give that money to. He wants to tax those who have and give money back to those making under $45,000 a year. That's redistribution of wealth. How much taxation can companies withstand before they move over to Japan or somewhere else? Do you think that will be good for the companies? That's proof he doesn't know what he is doing.



> Nice implication that I don't have the experience to understand better.


It's not an implication, and it has nothing to do with your ability to understand. The deal is you have to read it, and some of us remember the things you talk about. The odd thing is the reality us old guys remember doesn't resemble the written things your passing on. You can't experience things that happen before your born. Try to understand that is no reflection on you, it's not personal, that's just the way it is. As an example I can't tell you what it's like to talk to Abe Lincoln. No really.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

ruger1 said:


> So after just a few short months. I've come to the conclusion the Ryan works for the Obama campaign and Plainsman works for the McCain campaign. 8)
> 
> Am I close?


not exactly......Plainsman doesn't really like McCain, he just tolerates him as a viable choice over NO-bama, the scariest candidate of all time.

ryan, works covertly for NO-bama, under the guise of a libertarian, although he is not very good at it!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Here's the latest on the Fanny Mae fallout..



> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008161349_apmortgagegiantscrisis.html
> 
> US government takes on big role in mortgage market
> 
> ...


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> This is classic Republican spin. Obama is not preaching any of this. Please show me proof where he preaches something for nothing in regards to this line of logic?


http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html

Watch it and listen well when Bill asks him about this issue.

I have heard this same thing from him other occasions. However this time someone asked him to explain and followed up on a statement he intends to garner votes with.

So spin away Ryan Nobama is hanging himself with his own words and now that the people are paying attention as is usually the case after Labor Day, his message of change is sounding more and more like policy of old. He even makes reference to FDR the first Pres to establish income re-distribution and who set the stage for the diapers to death somebody owes me something mentality we have in this nation with so many people!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks for posting that Ron. I had a phone call and missed half of it.

It appears that the new democrats have forgotten that it was JFK who first implemented the tax cutes to increase government revenue. It worked in the early 1960's, it worked under Reagan, and it worked under Bush. What is it they do not understand? 
The liberals complain about jobs going overseas, and blame it on Bush. What do they think causes companies to leave their homes and move away? Could it be taxes and wages push them to move or claim bankruptcy? 
Obama denies that it is redistribution of wealth to take money from A and give it to B. Again, what is so hard to understand? If they tax you ten percent more Ron, (just and example) and give me $5000 more back than I paid in I would say that is wealth redistribution. What I would like to know is there anyone here that doesn't understand that?????? Some people evidently don't. Maybe it's like modern math and 2X2 = 5. I'll bet the young people don't remember that genius move called modern math do you? It was real, honest. When was that again, the mid 1970's?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Oh I remember modern math real well!!!!!!!!!!!

Plainsman, in part a lot of people will not understand that 95% of all people do not pay tax! The key for me was in the wording and the subtle way he implies that he is giving 95% of tax payers a cut. It was not until I really listened a while back that I noticed it was 95% of all people a tax cut! That perked my ears up.

I went to his site and it was there also, and talked to one of his local surrogates about this and he said I heard right.

Then I almost fell on the floor when O"Reilly pinned him down on this and it made me smile!!!!!!!!! Now we have it in his own words exactly what his intentions are!

So I guess to get more money from the Gov I need to earn less! They will make up the difference and soon I will be driving a new Mercedes because they are going to pay my health care coverage as well!

But I am going to have to buy Euro Gold and Silver to avoid that nasty capital gains tax. I will never sell anything except for cash and without a receipt either to avoid paying 30% to the Gov. Heck we are now headed back to a cash society instead of moving forward to a currency free society!

Just think, you go up to farmer Jones and offer him $5000.00 for his tractor, then say, but I will pay you $4000.00 cash. Farmer Jones now makes $500.00 than he would before and you pay $1000.00 less!!!!!!!!!

Hey maybe this capital gains thing is a good idea! Wonder if I can find someone with enough cash to buy my house! I will take 15% less and still come out ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :beer:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

R y a n said:


> Where in Obama's tax plan regarding the economy proves he knows nothing?


When he says he knows raising the capitol gains tax will result in lower govt income, but that hes doing for reasons of fairness. That pretty much proves hes a socialist fool.

Lemme tell ya a lil story. A few years ago I bought a house in Las Vegas at $150k. I thought I was doing pretty good, and I put a roof over my families heads. My house hit a high of $230, and is now currently at around $125. I'm no longer living in that home as I have since moved to Utah. I'm still paying for my house, hoping that I can continue to pay for it so that I can at least sell it and break even, and keep my credit in the black.

Im pretty nervous about the economy, because I am in fact operating at a loss at the moment.

Im also voting McCain.

Obamas plan of taxing the "Rich" will directly affect my life as I know it because I work for Wal-Mart, the embodiment of everything socialist democrats hate. Right now Im paid a better than Average wage for my work, I get overtime, and I get quarterly bonuses. Without this job I wouldnt be able to support myself as well as I would hope.

Sorry Ryan, but this educated middle class American still isnt fooled by Obamas promise.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

For those that missed it, I happened to have CBS News on tonight while working. They compared the candidates tax plans.

Three families in Ohio with three kids each.
Family #1$32,000

Family #2 $64,000

Family #3 $213,000

Family 1 paid no taxes in 07 no change with McCain taxes owed but would get $2200.00 in a refundable credit back from the Gov

Family#2 would receive $225.00 from McCain plan, and $500.00 under Nobama

Family #3 which is under the $250,000.00 threshold that Nobama is claiming will see no tax increases see a reduction in owed taxes under McCain because of the child credit which affects everyone at all levels of income, but would get a $5000.00 increase in taxes under NObama

So Ryan there is exactly what I said in regards to income tax re-distribution! Now if that check came from the county it would be called welfare! I do believe one of NObamas claim to fame was his support of welfare reform!!!!!!!!

The only thing that I wished they would do is show the impact of these changes on jobs and tax revenue to the Treasury then people would really see the scam that NObama is running.

I would guess that most people receiving that $2200 check will vote for NObama. Why not it is free money to them. No work required etc.. Then there will be those who will watch their income just to receive the max benefit never once thinking that earning it is a better idea!

This type socialism makes my blood run hot with disgust!!!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> This type socialism makes my blood run hot with disgust!!!!!


Amen Ron :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Ryan are you trying to show in this post that McCain is a corrupt bought and paid for politician with puppet strings attached?

Is it your hope that by bringing these points to light people will wake up and say, what the hell is going on? Why are we once again forced to pick between the better of two evils? Or do you just like watching our fellow Nodak brothers spend countless hours trying to justify why once again they are lowering their moral standards and agreeing to place one of two worthless sellouts into our most coveted post.

I love plainsmens stance on all this, sort of like saying " yep I know the guy is totally worthless, clueless and corrupt, but hell! he is still better then that nut job socialist that's running against him."
I myself was hoping for a bit of public rage this year. I was hoping that enough people had had enough of feeling forced into making a choice that won't benefit them either way. that they would stand up and take matters into their own hands and find a person that was truly worthy of the title of president.

I would like to say that I think both Ryan and Ron did a good job at stating some important facts and history. Both of them made some very good points, but over all I think I'm going to stand on Ryan's side of it.

I simply wish he would have went the full distance and said that the people that always benefit from bailout, bribes, and corruption are not the population that argues over left and right, democrat and republican. The people that benefit from it are the ones that sit high above and pull the strings. Those are the guys that never loss, they back both sides and they are backing both of our current candidates. Regardless of which one makes it to the white house; I know right now that the end result will be that the boys pulling the strings are still going to get what they want.

Ryan I know these boys give you a lot of heat on these forums, but keep it up.

If you leave there will be nothing worth reading in here anymore.

ps thank god hunting season is here!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

wiskodie1 said:


> Ryan I know these boys give you a lot of heat on these forums, but keep it up.
> 
> If you leave there will be nothing worth reading in here anymore.
> 
> ps thank god hunting season is here!


Thanks wiskodie!

I think alot of guys would be shocked and surprised with the number of PMs I receive every week stating the same thing.

This forum isn't as conservative as some believe it to be.

And I'm not as liberal as some would like to paint me. But I do try to liven this place up a little!



Hunting season will commence in a few weeks in full, and then really get swinging in a month...

This being an election year, this place in general will really live up!

:beer:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

R y a n said:


> I think alot of guys would be shocked and surprised with the number of PMs I receive every week stating the same thing.
> 
> This forum isn't as conservative as some believe it to be.


Private support on a public forum. Soild.

Where is that darn poll when you need it, I swear it read something like 62% would vote on the conservative side. Just sayin".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I love plainsmens stance on all this, sort of like saying " yep I know the guy is totally worthless, clueless and corrupt, but hell! he is still better then that nut job socialist that's running against him."


Close, but no cigar. I doubt if anyone in congress is not corrupt it would be McCain. Clueless, I doubt that too. You don't have as much experience as he does and remain clueless. Worthless, not quite, but he is to liberal and most times liberal is less than worthless, it's dangerous.

Better than the nut job socialist that's running against him. Your words, but I like them. I would say your spot on. 

Now Palin, I like her. God willing (hope that wasn't to much like praying and offends anyone) we will have her for eight years after McCains four.

Did I spell *anyting* wrong? I know it's about time for some liberal to pull that zinger out of the hat. :rollin:


----------

