• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Mark Levin on John McCain

Faster horses

Well-known member
If you want to hear what Mark Levin has to say about John McCain, go to his site and click on Jan. 29th: http://www.marklevinshow.com/audio.php

He talks about John McCain and the ACLU, Ted Kennedy and a LOT MORE...it's enlightening...and Mark Levin is VERY UPSET about John McCains policies.

John McCain is scary.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
If McCain is the man I just might stay home or look at the minor candidates. Did ya hear him talking about RR.................he is no RR
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
If you want to hear what Mark Levin has to say about John McCain, go to his site and click on Jan. 29th: http://www.marklevinshow.com/audio.php

He talks about John McCain and the ACLU, Ted Kennedy and a LOT MORE...it's enlightening...and Mark Levin is VERY UPSET about John McCains policies.

John McCain is scary.

FH-- Did you see who McCain just picked as his Montana campaign manager-- Conrad Burns.... :roll:

Now I just can't see how that'll help McCain- especially to get votes in the general election if he's the Republican nomination- as Burns went out on some sour low notes even with many of the Republicans- but had lost almost ALL the independent vote....
The blogs are having a hayday with it-just laughing up a storm--How McCain portrays himself as the one to clean up a corrupt Washington, and do away with pork barrel spending- and then hires one of the most scandal ridden and corrupt pork barrel ex-Senators in the last 50 years.... :wink: :lol:

Heres one of the blog articles from Left in the West:


The Drunken Sailor: McCain's Montana albatross (+)
by: Jay Stevens
Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM MST
Did you hear the news (via Montana Headlines)? "Boss Hogg" Burns is now the new chair of frontrunner John McCain's campaign here in the Treasure State .
Two words: high comedy.

McCain, as you may remember, was one of the authors of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Conrad Burns' claim to fame is an all-too-cozy relationship to convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Burns also infamously changed his vote on a Marianas Islands labor bill that would have ended forced prostitution and slave labor, after a 15-minute meeting with a representative of the islands' garment industry and a $5K campaign donaton. (Which he apparently did out of principle.)

McCain, as you also may remember, was an outspoken critic of pork-barrel spending and a proponent of earmark reform. Conrad Burns, of course, was the drunken sailor of spending. In 2006, his campaign essentially consisted of him telling us we owed him our support for the pork and earmarks he brought to the state, never mind the tawdry methods by which the money was acquired.

In short, marrying Burns to McCain feels like a state GOP project to rehabilitate Conrad Burns' reputation in time for the 2012 election (when Dennis Rehberg will no doubt run on the platform that Tester "stole" his seat from the now "saintly" Burns). But I wonder how McCain feels about being tied to Conrad Burns?

Now, after the Florida primary, with McCain seizing the reigns of the primary race, the Montana GOP finds itself in a bind. After all, it certainly appears as if the state's Republican caucus was engineered to give establishment candidate Mitt Romney Montana's delegates. And now? What if the state's Republican voters want to vote for McCain - and Iverson et al gives them Romney? And McCain wins the nomination? The state GOP leadership would find itself defying both the party's nominee and its base.

But changing the caucus - as suggested by Montana Headlines - so that caucus goers vote for the winner of an open Republican primary would necessarily p*ss off the hundreds of folks who signed up to be party precinct captains so they could help pick the presidential nominee. So much for enthusiastic help next November, which seemed to be the other goal of a caucus.

In the end, of course, John McCain is the conservative apostate, and the state GOP probably can't stomach the thought of a McCain win of Montana 's Republican delegates. So the caucus will likely stay as it is, and Conrad Burns can continue to enjoy his retirement, unmolested.

Also leaves a guy wondering how big a state of disarray the Montana Republican Party really is in...I knew they were having terrific problems- are short on money and bodies- and even the local folks are feuding- but to have to bring back and sport around CONman while the caucus's are already fixed for Rumney to win- just lowers their chances even more....

I would think Montana Republicans could get better use out of the CONman by sending him on an expense paid vacation to some deserted isle and keeping him out of sight- and hopefully out of mind- until after the election.... :wink: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
I'm speechless. Do you suppose birds of a feather, flock together? :p

I'm for Romney at this point.


Personally I don't think Romney stands a chance in Hades of winning the general election...He's portraying himself right now as a reincarnation of GW Bush- and no matter what you or a few on this site on here think, the voters (populace of the nation) out there are sick and tired of GW- and his policies- and big money dominating the administration and Congress (and Rumney is deffinitely big money since he's financed most of his own campaign)....He's the D.C. establishment choice so they can continue their elitist neocon control of D.C.- but folks are fed up with the establishment Republicans anymore....

Even Hitlery will tromp Romney.....McCain stands a chance-because he can pick up independents and moderates--but like you say, I think he is scarey....

Doesn't matter much anymore-- almost all running are Globalist wide open free traders (a policy that got us into this recession), all support or have supported some form of amnesty for the illegal invaders in out country, and all (except Huckleberry) have deep ties to a corrupt/scandal ridden Washington D.C. :( :( :(

LOU DOBBS FOR PRESIDENT- RON PAUL FOR V.P.!!!!!!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
I'm speechless. Do you suppose birds of a feather, flock together? :p

I'm for Romney at this point.


Personally I don't think Romney stands a chance in Hades of winning the general election...He's portraying himself right now as a reincarnation of GW Bush- and no matter what you or a few on this site on here think, the voters (populace of the nation) out there are sick and tired of GW- and his policies- and big money dominating the administration and Congress (and Rumney is deffinitely big money since he's financed most of his own campaign)....He's the D.C. establishment choice so they can continue their elitist neocon control of D.C.- but folks are fed up with the establishment Republicans anymore....

Even Hitlery will tromp Romney.....McCain stands a chance-because he can pick up independents and moderates--but like you say, I think he is scarey....

Doesn't matter much anymore-- almost all running are Globalist wide open free traders (a policy that got us into this recession), all support or have supported some form of amnesty for the illegal invaders in out country, and all (except Huckleberry) have deep ties to a corrupt/scandal ridden Washington D.C. :( :( :(

LOU DOBBS FOR PRESIDENT- RON PAUL FOR V.P.!!!!!!

Did I miss something that said we were in a recession? Or are you just moving from the sky is falling to it is a fact and already fell? Last I heard there was no sign of negative growth only people like you going around yelling it.

Sad thing is the perception of a recession can do lots of harm. Even though nothing in any sector besides the housing has showed any negative growth the media is trying to make things out to be worse than they are. And the housing sector is a very small part of our GNP.

Truth is we have had record growth, record tax revenue and good unemployment numbers. But since the Libs can not scream about Iraq due to things looking up over there now they scream recession, they have to find a way to get the Dem's into office and the sky is falling approach is one of their favorites!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A+---It appears to me it depends on which school of economics you went to- and which factors you use as indicators...Each seems to have a little differing definition of what factors it takes to define a recession...From listening to and reading many differing economic experts-- its pretty well divided 50/50 now on whether we are already in recession- or whether we are heading into one...And some believe we have been in recession since about last October....

Some of the European economists are the most pessimistic...

Personally I believe we are (and have been in recession) and are experiencing an economic situation they call "stagflation" -- wages that haven't grown or actually gone backwards for years- inflation- fast devaluation of the dollar- worldwide loss of confidence in the US dollar, that will remove the dollar and the US from being the global economy leader......Not Good......
 

Mike

Well-known member
Gold went down in London this morning because of the Dollar gain against the Euro.

This "recession" is nothing but a market scared by the traders.

The markets are generally skeptical during elections because of unknowns.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yeah, blame it on the media. They shouldn't be reporting negative stuff, even if it is the truth.

The Federal Reserve cut a key interest rate yesterday for the second time in just over a week, as its leaders concluded that the distress in financial markets is a sufficiently grave threat to ordinary Americans to warrant the most aggressive campaign of rate cuts in the modern history of the central bank.

The cut came as new evidence showed that the crisis that began in complicated global debt markets has now affected U.S. households. The nation experienced its weakest rate of growth since 2002 in the last three months of 2007, the government reported yesterday.

Add that to the climbing unemployment rate, budget deficit, and growing inflation numbers and, as hard as you may try, there's no way to get a rosy picture of our economy for the next few years.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Sorry you haven't kept up with it, but the latest news is unemployment is down.

And I listened to Glenn Beck about Capital Gains tax. Since they lowered the tax rate (to 15%) the increase in money paid in has jumped. Now your friends want to raise it back to 28% or higher (the 15% tax on capital gains lasts until 2010 at this point). Lowered capital gains tax is touted by the Democrats as a benefit to the rich and that just ain't so.
Lowering it has allowed property to be traded and each time it is sold, capital gains tax is paid (or deferred in some situations).

I remember an article in Readers Digest that talked about some folks investing in a house that was badly in need of repair. They did the work themselves. Visited the local stores to get what they needed. Carpet, tile, lumber, windows, paint, fixtures, everything. When they sold it, they had to pay most of the profit in capital gains at 28%. They didn't make much and they said they would NEVER do that again as it wasn't worth the effort.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Sorry you haven't kept up with it, but the latest news is unemployment is down.

.

What is your source :???:

Reprinted from MoneyNews.com
Weekly Jobless Claims Surge by 69,000

MoneyNews
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008


WASHINGTON -- The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless aid jumped by a much larger-than-expected 69,000 last week to the highest in over two years, government data Thursday showed, but the numbers were likely skewed by the timing of a public holiday.

The Labor Department said that initial claims for state insurance benefit totaled 375,000 in the week ending Jan. 26, the highest reading since October 2005, when claims reached 376,000. It was also the largest weekly increase since September 2005, when claims had mounted by 95,000, the Labor Department said.

Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast 315,000 claims last week following an upwardly revised 306,000 the week before, previously reported at 301,000 claims.
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/scripts/money/printer.pl?page=http://moneynews.newsmax.com/money/archives/articles/2008/1/31/084306.cfm?s=mne
 

Steve

Well-known member
ff
The nation experienced its weakest rate of growth

It was still growth.. not decline...


Recession

Two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP is commonly taken to be a recession. The National Bureau of Economic Research, a private organization, effectively decides when recessions occur, however, and the actual dating process is determined by judgment rather than a formal rule.[/b]
 

TSR

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
I'm speechless. Do you suppose birds of a feather, flock together? :p

I'm for Romney at this point.


Personally I don't think Romney stands a chance in Hades of winning the general election...He's portraying himself right now as a reincarnation of GW Bush- and no matter what you or a few on this site on here think, the voters (populace of the nation) out there are sick and tired of GW- and his policies- and big money dominating the administration and Congress (and Rumney is deffinitely big money since he's financed most of his own campaign)....He's the D.C. establishment choice so they can continue their elitist neocon control of D.C.- but folks are fed up with the establishment Republicans anymore....

Even Hitlery will tromp Romney.....McCain stands a chance-because he can pick up independents and moderates--but like you say, I think he is scarey....

Doesn't matter much anymore-- almost all running are Globalist wide open free traders (a policy that got us into this recession), all support or have supported some form of amnesty for the illegal invaders in out country, and all (except Huckleberry) have deep ties to a corrupt/scandal ridden Washington D.C. :( :( :(

LOU DOBBS FOR PRESIDENT- RON PAUL FOR V.P.!!!!!!

I would love to see a Lou Dobbs/Ron Paul Independent ticket. They would certainly get my vote.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Sorry you haven't kept up with it, but the latest news is unemployment is down.

.

What is your source :???:

Reprinted from MoneyNews.com
Weekly Jobless Claims Surge by 69,000

MoneyNews
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008


WASHINGTON -- The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless aid jumped by a much larger-than-expected 69,000 last week to the highest in over two years, government data Thursday showed, but the numbers were likely skewed by the timing of a public holiday.

The Labor Department said that initial claims for state insurance benefit totaled 375,000 in the week ending Jan. 26, the highest reading since October 2005, when claims reached 376,000. It was also the largest weekly increase since September 2005, when claims had mounted by 95,000, the Labor Department said.

Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast 315,000 claims last week following an upwardly revised 306,000 the week before, previously reported at 301,000 claims.
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/scripts/money/printer.pl?page=http://moneynews.newsmax.com/money/archives/articles/2008/1/31/084306.cfm?s=mne

Reprinted from MoneyNews.com
Payrolls Fall First Time in Five Years

MoneyNews
Friday, Feb. 1, 2008


WASHINGTON -- Employers cut 17,000 jobs in January - the first such reduction in more than four years and a fresh sign that the economy is in danger of stalling.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Everything I saw said Unemployment was down from 5% to 4.9% and that was on tv again today.

Yep-- that is what the numbers are showing--but the experts figure those numbers really don't show the real picture because after the 12 weeks of unemployment insurance runs out you are dropped from the figuring of the unemployment rate- and are no longer considered part of the labor force... :roll: Another way the government screws the numbers to make things look better than they are- invented during Clintons term.....

The unemployment rate declined from 5 percent in December to 4.9 percent in January. The jobless rate - calculated from a different statistical survey than the payroll figures - dipped as people, perhaps discouraged by their prospects, left the labor force for any number of reasons.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Reprinted from MoneyNews.com
Real’ Unemployment Figure Nearly 10 Percent


Monday, Feb. 4, 2008 11:00 a.m. EST


Headlines trumpet what seems like good news: Unemployment rate dropped to 4.9 percent and the slowing U.S. economy shed only 17,000 jobs in December.

Ethan Harris, chief economist at Lehman Brothers, told the New York Times that a 17,000 job loss was "an incredibly tiny number” within a labor market of 138 million jobs. "It could be just a simple statistical quirk,” he said.

But, deeper in the report is more disturbing news. While most newspapers report only the headlines provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the full report actually consisted of 31 pages. And, one line in a table on page 21 paints a more disturbing picture of unemployment.

"Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers” rose to 9.9 percent in January from 8.7 percent the month before.

"Marginally attached workers” is a bureaucratic word used to describe long-term jobless and discouraged. It is defined in the report as, "neither working nor looking for work but…they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past.”

What the report describes as "persons employed part-time for economic reasons” are those looking for a full-time job but can’t find one and settled for part-time work.

In the broader context of an economy with 138 million jobs, there are thus actually more than 13 million unemployed or underemployed.

Even the headline number is misleading. Nearly 20 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least six months.

"You have to understand that 5 percent unemployment today is worse than 5 percent unemployment 10 to 15 years ago," said Jason Furman, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Another government agency, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), issued a report in October 2007 warning that the long-term unemployment problem is growing.

"People are less likely to become unemployed than in the past, but those who do become unemployed are more likely to remain unemployed for more than half a year," the CBO report stated.

In what seems to be a growing economic trend, part of this problem can be traced to the subprime crisis: People aren’t moving for new jobs because it’s too hard to sell their home.

John Challenger, CEO of job placement service Challenger, Gray & Christmas, told CNN that widely publicized problems with mortgages and housing prices are making some job hunters reluctant to relocate for a new job since it may mean taking a large loss on their current home.

Providing data, he noted that 11 percent of job seekers relocated in the fourth quarter of 2007, down from 15.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2006.

Summing up the current situation, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said "We are looking at a labor market already that is weak and set to get a lot weaker.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I heard one of the news pundits best describe the current Republican Party as--"The Hatfields and the McCoys".... :shock: Altho thats probably an offense to all Hillbillies around the country :wink: :lol: :lol:

Dobson to boycott election if McCain nominated
By Christa Marshall
The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 02/05/2008 12:52:26 PM MST


Saying Sen. John McCain is "not a conservative," Dr. James Dobson proclaimed today he would refrain from voting in the 2008 election if the Arizona senator is the Republican nominee.

"Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life,"

Dobson said through a prepared statement read on "The Laura Ingraham Show."
 
Top