BF2S Forums Its been 2 months.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

As opposed to what is happening now?

Big bail outs don't work.  It is proven.

In previous times, they did work.  FDR did succeed with them.  Granted, I realize times have changed, and they appear to not be working now.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

What?  Have you heard the things he's said?

If you can give me an example, I'll be happy to give you my interpretation.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Are you kidding me? Change!  Funny how skeleton are overlooked when your boys are in.

I've been taking note of them.  What I'm hoping for in 2012 is that the Republicans run a stronger candidate by then.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Google "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted"

Ah, I forgot about that.  Well, admittedly, that is a silly thing to say.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

How has this corporate collusion come about?...  'Please give us more government'...'Spare sommme more for the people'...

I would like to see the market clear itself now that some money has been used to stabilize the affected markets, but apparently, that isn't going to happen. 

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Read it.  http://www.9-11commission.gov/
Wake up.

Good point.  I think I'll concede on that one.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

McCain has been a maverick to the Republican party.  However He was one of those that stood up and decried the whole 'everyone get a house' and was ignored -kinda what has happened today.  What party did that to America?  How does the populace award?  Weak.

You should have run Romney or Huckabee.  They were stronger candidates.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

HAHA.  Diplomacy is more effective than an indoctrinated religious fanaticism?  Ok.

Eh...   Good point....

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

As opposed to what is happening now?

Big bail outs don't work.  It is proven.

In previous times, they did work.  FDR did succeed with them.  Granted, I realize times have changed, and they appear to not be working now.

I'd argue that WWII was the 'stimilus' the economy needed.

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

What?  Have you heard the things he's said?

If you can give me an example, I'll be happy to give you my interpretation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … llies.html
Above link is the apology for being 'dismissive' .  Quote "Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

Just listen to his speech..

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Are you kidding me? Change!  Funny how skeleton are overlooked when your boys are in.

I've been taking note of them.  What I'm hoping for in 2012 is that the Republicans run a stronger candidate by then.

I've lost count to be honest.  But for a man that ran on a platform of 'change' and 'transparency', one is too many.  I really hope the GOP doesn't run Palin. That'd very well may force my vote over.... meh.

Turquoise wrote:

I would like to see the market clear itself now that some money has been used to stabilize the affected markets, but apparently, that isn't going to happen.

agreed.  I do think wall street took advantage of the situation

Turquoise wrote:

You should have run Romney or Huckabee.  They were stronger candidates.

All I can do is nod my head in complete agreement.  However, I think Bush f'ed his second term so badly, the D's could have run just about anyone...

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I'd argue that WWII was the 'stimilus' the economy needed.

In a way, I'd agree.  Perhaps, it was the combination of the two, because we wouldn't have been able to build up our military so fast without the preceding buildup of infrastructure.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Above link is the apology for being 'dismissive' .  Quote "Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

I see where you're coming from, but he's basically just doing damage control.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I really hope the GOP doesn't run Palin. That'd very well may force my vote over.... meh.

Agreed.  Jindal might be a good choice.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

All I can do is nod my head in complete agreement.  However, I think Bush f'ed his second term so badly, the D's could have run just about anyone...

Agreed.

Turquoise wrote:

In a way, I'd agree.  Perhaps, it was the combination of the two, because we wouldn't have been able to build up our military so fast without the preceding buildup of infrastructure.

Settled.

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Above link is the apology for being 'dismissive' .  Quote "Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

I see where you're coming from, but he's basically just doing damage control.

I don't see it as that way.  I really don't think America needs to apologize for protecting its sovereignty and best interests.  America has bailed out Europe and just about everyone else, more than once.  I think Obama wants to be the f'n president of the world.  He's sucking up to every foreign leader by offering all kinds of moronic concessions that seriously hurts America.  He's doing this by trashing our country and then turning around and saying "hey wasn't me though, we're pals right?"...  And what has been the result?  NK tests a missile, Iran hits the magic number of centrifuges... Obama's response? Slash the military budget...

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I really hope the GOP doesn't run Palin. That'd very well may force my vote over.... meh.

Agreed.  Jindal might be a good choice.

I dunno about Jindal.  I think the media would paint him as an uncle tom.  I think they'll wait to see if the amnesty thing goes through.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a Hispanic on the ticket.

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

All I can do is nod my head in complete agreement.  However, I think Bush f'ed his second term so badly, the D's could have run just about anyone...

Agreed.

Agreed, but maybe not for the same reasons... 
+1 for civility and rational debate.

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I don't see it as that way.  I really don't think America needs to apologize for protecting its sovereignty and best interests.  America has bailed out Europe and just about everyone else, more than once.  I think Obama wants to be the f'n president of the world.  He's sucking up to every foreign leader by offering all kinds of moronic concessions that seriously hurts America.  He's doing this by trashing our country and then turning around and saying "hey wasn't me though, we're pals right?"...  And what has been the result?  NK tests a missile, Iran hits the magic number of centrifuges... Obama's response? Slash the military budget...

Obama has been advocating more pressure on Iran concerning nukes.  That's practically all he talked about in Prague recently.

But he's going the route of the UN.  And we all know how effective the UN is.

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I dunno about Jindal.  I think the media would paint him as an uncle tom.  I think they'll wait to see if the amnesty thing goes through.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a Hispanic on the ticket.

Mel Martinez was a possibility a while back, but I think he's probably gonna keep a low profile now.  Mark Sanford might be a big player soon.

My money as of now is on Charlie Crist and _____.

Turquoise wrote:

Thanks

Thank you.