The New avatar says it all.

[stevetheupsguy]

Maybe I can satisfy everyone with this ticket, whaddaya think, will it work?

 

[Catatonic]

Maybe I can satisfy everyone with this ticket, whaddaya think, will it work?

Now these people will start flaming themselves...
might even cause schizophrenia.
Not a good idea.​

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Maybe I can satisfy everyone with this ticket, whaddaya think, will it work?

Steve, I know this post was tongue in cheek, but it does bring up a question that I have always pondered. Why don't politicians who win their general elections incorporate those proposals from their opponent(s) that would move this country forward in to their platform? For example, let's project Obama as the winner. Now, McCain does has several good ideas in his economic proposal, one of those being that losses of up to $15,000 in the stock market during 2008 can be deducted in full in 2009, rather than the current limit of $3,000 with the remainder of the losses deducted in subsequent years until exhausted.

On the flip side, let's say McCain wins. Obama also has several good ideas in his economic proposal which McCain could choose to incorporate in to his agenda. One of these that I am in favor of is allowing individuals to withdraw up to $10,000 from their retirement accounts without penalty in 2009. This initiative would answer the question from one of our members in another thread in which he asked if he could withdraw money from his 401k to pay down his mortgage.

A number of good (and poor) proposals are presented and discussed during a campaign and I would think that the winner should take an objective look at those proposals offered by his opponent which would move this country forward.

 

[Catatonic]

Why don't politicians who win their general elections incorporate those proposals from their opponent(s) that would move this country forward in to their platform?

Hell, for the most part, they don't even pursue the proposals within their own campaign.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but politicians tell you what they need to get elected and then once they get in office they get bogged down in the realities of the budget, world events, partisan politics, etc.

 

[LiL"Comet"]

Hell, for the most part, they don't even pursue the proposals within their own campaign.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but politicians tell you what they need to get elected and then once they get in office they get bogged down in the realities of the budget, world events, partisan politics, etc.

Exactly Hoax!!!!! All of them are slimy "politicians". Hell my own family members are in politics here and that more than anything has almost completely turned me against all of the BS. Cuz that's what it is BS...

As I set here typing this thread there has been 6 commercials on up coming state and presidential elections. There all the same talking about how the other party is not going to do this or not going to do that.... blah, blah, blah

 

[hyena]

Its not really the president who runs things anyways hes kinda the scapegoat. In all honesty its run by the shadows. Rich people whos names are never heard of or known but sit back and control whats going on. Anyone ever heard of David Iche if not google his name.

 

[helenofcalifornia]

I am so glad that I don't live in one of the "battleground" states where you guys must be getting bombarded on TV with ads.

Only two more days and our long nightmare (of the election process) will be over!!!!!

 

[stevetheupsguy]

Steve, I know this post was tongue in cheek, but it does bring up a question that I have always pondered. Why don't politicians who win their general elections incorporate those proposals from their opponent(s) that would move this country forward in to their platform? For example, let's project Obama as the winner. Now, McCain does has several good ideas in his economic proposal, one of those being that losses of up to $15,000 in the stock market during 2008 can be deducted in full in 2009, rather than the current limit of $3,000 with the remainder of the losses deducted in subsequent years until exhausted.

On the flip side, let's say McCain wins. Obama also has several good ideas in his economic proposal which McCain could choose to incorporate in to his agenda. One of these that I am in favor of is allowing individuals to withdraw up to $10,000 from their retirement accounts without penalty in 2009. This initiative would answer the question from one of our members in another thread in which he asked if he could withdraw money from his 401k to pay down his mortgage.

A number of good (and poor) proposals are presented and discussed during a campaign and I would think that the winner should take an objective look at those proposals offered by his opponent which would move this country forward.

Hell, for the most part, they don't even pursue the proposals within their own campaign.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but politicians tell you what they need to get elected and then once they get in office they get bogged down in the realities of the budget, world events, partisan politics, etc.

Very true, guys, if only......

 

[Mike Hawk]

personally I would prefer the McBama ticket

 

[paidslave]

 

[stevetheupsguy]

Only problem here, little piggy, I made my own.

 

[paidslave]

Good job I am impressed but it would be great if you left out PALIN!

 

[stevetheupsguy]

How would McPiggy/Obiden sound? LOL

 

[paidslave]

You are on to something! lol

It is nice to at least have fun with this because we know each candidate has its flaws....That was very funny...

 

[rod]

that's funny----- now that's a mountain full of misfit morons if I ever saw one ----especially W

 

[rushfan]

They all suck! Demicans and Republicrats

 

[wkmac]

They all suck! Demicans and Republicrats

This thread brings up an interesting point (in a humorous way) to harken back to the original intent of Art. 2 Sec. 1 of the Constitution where the top vote getter for President won the job and the 2nd highest voter getter become VP. In the case say in 2000' Bush President, Gore VP and in 2004' Bush President and Kerry VP. It was another great checks and balance IMO maintaining divided federal gov't but that all changed in 1804' and the 12th amendment that gave us what we have today.

For all of Jefferson's good, this was one of his faults under his watch as President.

 

[stevetheupsguy]

This thread brings up an interesting point (in a humorous way) to harken back to the original intent of Art. 2 Sec. 1 of the Constitution where the top vote getter for President won the job and the 2nd highest voter getter become VP. In the case say in 2000' Bush President, Gore VP and in 2004' Bush President and Kerry VP. It was another great checks and balance IMO maintaining divided federal gov't but that all changed in 1804' and the 12th amendment that gave us what we have today.

For all of Jefferson's good, this was one of his faults under his watch as President.

That's very interesting, can you imagine this happening? I saw the John Adams miniseries on HBO and that's exactly how it was.

 

[paidslave]

This thread brings up an interesting point (in a humorous way) to harken back to the original intent of Art. 2 Sec. 1 of the Constitution where the top vote getter for President won the job and the 2nd highest voter getter become VP. In the case say in 2000' Bush President, Gore VP and in 2004' Bush President and Kerry VP. It was another great checks and balance IMO maintaining divided federal gov't but that all changed in 1804' and the 12th amendment that gave us what we have today.

For all of Jefferson's good, this was one of his faults under his watch as President.

Wow, interesting....

 

[paidslave]

that's funny----- now that's a mountain full of misfit morons if I ever saw one ----especially W

How can one not laugh at that mountain?..All politics aside it is pretty funny and everytime I look at it I have to laugh....