Are you and angry white man?

[uofom3]

I'm not going to say things that I've gone over for 20+ pages. Go find the thread, read it, and then come talk to me. You have absolutely no idea of the hornets nest that you are walking into.

[Turf1600]

I'm not going to say things that I've gone over for 20+ pages. Go find the thread, read it, and then come talk to me. You have absolutely no idea of the hornets nest that you are walking into.

Link? ;)

[uofom3]

Cut the guy some slack man. Not everyone needs to read r3v for a solid year before they post.

I'm feeling combative today, I'm sorry :)

[uofom3]

Link? ;)

Jesus man, I can't hold this guys hand all the way to the solution - he's a Libertarian so he probably doesn't need my help ;)

[ldsbeaker]

I am. Definitely.

p.s. I don't want to vote for anyone, either. Unless it's Ron Paul.

[DarkWing6]

Shallow in what respect? i agree with some things said, but not all and i dont like mcCain, or clinton. and who's the other big figure in this election process? It's Obama. So just liek everyone else is entitled to their opinion and views so am i.

Obama has never really backed anything he has "proposed" with anything that makes sense. His economic plan is a joke along with all of his other "programs". I am really stuck at choosing the best of the worst this year (like everyone else), but I am going to go with McCain.

I'm not super hip on the "in it to win it", but that has also been taken out of context. I go with the mentality that those in control of the military have more knowledge about it than I do. I don't think we should be policing the world, spreading democracy, or be in Iraq without any clear objectives, but being in Iraq longer than we expected or want to be will be better on our economy that Obama's plan. If you want to have a life, money, or job in America you wont vote for Obama.

[uofom3]

Obama has never really backed anything he has "proposed" with anything that makes sense. His economic plan is a joke along with all of his other "programs". I am really stuck at choosing the best of the worst this year (like everyone else), but I am going to go with McCain.

I'm not super hip on the "in it to win it", but that has also been taken out of context. I go with the mentality that those in control of the military have more knowledge about it than I do. I don't think we should be policing the world, spreading democracy, or be in Iraq without any clear objectives, but being in Iraq longer than we expected or want to be will be better on our economy that Obama's plan. If you want to have a life, money, or job in America you wont vote for Obama.

spectacular.

Also - how about Airbus getting a 35 BILLION dollar contract for the new tankers? Which actually equates to a $39 BILLION dollar loss to the American public because of the $4 BILLION in tax revenue that will be lost because the job went overseas.

Thank you very little.

[chbimmer]

Well.....2 things are for sure in this life. DEATH AND TAXES. Now who will be the best person to run the country, not of the people running since all they desire is power. They have their idea on how things should work. (I.e. Bushes no child left behind program) That is not only the worst program, but it is absoluty horrible and he thinks it is the next best thing since his oil stock. don’t get me wrong, I didn’t vote, but I would have voted for bush...so I am bashing myself over this stuff to. But the reason that I bring this up is because He is a white man with power ( as I am also white) that has no idea how much innercity kids (mainly black with some white mixed in) don’t have the learning curve that he or his kids do. My wife teaches in the inner city and these kids are in fourth grade, don’t know their colors, how to add or subtract yet they are being passed to the next grade so they are not "left behind" call it pregidous or what ever you would like to call it, simple fact is they need to learn slower. Their parents didn’t finish high school and don’t stress how education is important. The kids don’t even know their options. This type of program really helps these kids drop out; because when they get to high school they are so far behind they just want to give up. They want to give up because they don’t place a value on education. Now they might not want to and that is OK this is a free country, but white people are successful due to the history of success that we have had so it is really considered an inheritance for us. Something the inner city kids need. When they are young they want to learn, but they grow out of it due to their surroundings and what their parents do.


It is actually sad because these people that are in politics never really see this part of America, but yet they run it like they grew up in it. These people think taking guns away from people will stop crime but all it will do is keep upstanding people from having guns while the criminals get them off the black market and take what they would like with no one there to stand up and fight them. These people are not the most honest people in the world, but Hillary Clinton is so inconsistent and for her to say the dream team is her and obama is crazy first because all she talks about is that Obama has not crossed the "president threshold" when not only is he beating her right now but why would you want a vice president that is not qualified to be president? She is off her rocker if you ask me.


:rant off:

[Nic01101011]

ok - post #169(and onward) in that thread must be what you are referring to - and while it deals with what is essentially what I said in my reply, the end of post #154 seems inconsistent with what you posted in this thread. I take back what I said if the reply I responded to was sarcastic, and either way my line about being closed minded was inappropriate. I tend to take things too literally sometimes.

Unlike you, I don't enjoy discussing politics, and I have walked into plenty of hornet's nests in the past. Kudos to the forum for remaining civil in that thread.

Are you a polysci or econ student?

[Farbin Kaiber]

your using new math?

[DarkWing6]

Also - how about Airbus getting a 35 BILLION dollar contract for the new tankers? Which actually equates to a $39 BILLION dollar loss to the American public because of the $4 BILLION in tax revenue that will be lost because the job went overseas.

This is an interesting one for me. First off because both of my parents work for Boeing, but more so the economic side of it is kinda different.

You can look at this two ways. Since this is a military contract the government is spending our tax dollars. Since it is our money we would want them to be wise with it (i.e. taking the best deal possible). We all hope that our tax dollars are spent wisely (they aren't always, but it is the hope). If we want them to spend our money wisely wouldn't it be best to save $5 billion by going with Airbus (Boeing was offering a $40 billion contract)? That is (essentially) a $5 billion tax break, right?

You can also look at it from the side that the $35 billion is not going back into our economy. There are jobs being created in the sense that these planes will be assembled state side, but, as we all know, that will be done as little as possible and wont make a huge effect.

There are also some other issues about how the contract was presented and other things, but that is not really the economic side of it.


So what do we do? Do we want our government to spend our money the same way we would and get the best deal possible or should we offer US companies, like Boeing, essentially a monopoly on these kinds of deals?

Honestly, I do not know. The capitalist in me says take the best deal. It is a free market. Boeing should have been more competitive (this is where the contract issues are coming up, Boeing was not presented the same contract as Airbus and says they can do it cheaper).

[uofom3]

your using new math?

is this directed at my net loss to our economy statement?

[uofom3]

ok - post #169(and onward) in that thread must be what you are referring to - and while it deals with what is essentially what I said in my reply, the end of post #154 seems inconsistent with what you posted in this thread. I take back what I said if the reply I responded to was sarcastic, and either way my line about being closed minded was inappropriate. I tend to take things too literally sometimes.

Unlike you, I don't enjoy discussing politics, and I have walked into plenty of hornet's nests in the past. Kudos to the forum for remaining civil in that thread.

Are you a polysci or econ student?

Business Major at the University of Oregon (a highly liberal institution... but I love it none the less) with 3 classes over a minor an econ... I thought about getting the double major, but I don't want to spend the money for 3 more terms of school. Thanks for going back and reviewing the thread... all 160+ pages are a good read.

[Farbin Kaiber]

is this directed at my net loss to our economy statement?

I thought Nic010101010010 was talking about the posts in this thread. Trying to find #159 wasn't working out for me too well. I now see it's from the Obama-yo-Mama thread.

[02robin]

Also - how about Airbus getting a 35 BILLION dollar contract for the new tankers? Which actually equates to a $39 BILLION dollar loss to the American public because of the $4 BILLION in tax revenue that will be lost because the job went overseas.

Its not quite that simple. While EADS did win the contract, its a joint deal with Northrop Grumman who are based in Los Angeles, so there's no magical tax exemption. Also, something like 60% of the aircraft would be made and/or assembled in the States (in contrast to Boeing's projection of closer to 80%), which they claim would result in the creation of ~30,000 jobs in historically poor parts of the country, bringing much needed revenue to those areas.

While there is something going on with the awarding of the contract, everything right now points to a cocky Boeing, drowning in lucrative backorders for the 787, proposing an inferior product and doing a poor job of selling it. Since Boeing has filed protest, there's a mandatory 100 stop work order in place, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

Also, in regards to the OP, I fail to see how pandering to the 'angry white man' demographic is any different than what they're supposed to be angry about.