Ford owners are Democrat, Republican, or ?????? - Page 2

Mr 5 0 · 03-08-2001, 08:22 PM

I have no idea what the politics of Ford owners are but from what I've seen on this board over the past few years, the majority of Mustang Works members vote Republican.
I'm one of them, proud of it and have debated and discussed politics at length here in past years, so my stands are well known by those who might be interested. Hint: I'm a conservative, Rush Limbaugh style.

I'll add this; in my opinion there is nothing wrong with being a member of a political party, assuming that the party shares your core political beliefs, of course. In 2001, being a 'third-party' candidate is an exercise in futility but many (Libertarians come to mind) are convinced that this is the way to go, and joining either the Republican or Democrat party is considered a sell-out to a corrupt system.
Maybe; but this is the system we have and better to get something accomplished within it - as Bush is doing - then wave your fist, carp and complain for four years while accomplishing nothing and being ignored by almost everyone. That kind of empty gesture doesn't do it for me, but neither does 'refusing' to vote, as if this somehow has some real effect on anything (or anyone). I take my vote seriously and don't consider it simply some meaningless function, but then, if others choose not to vote, that simply gives those of us who do more power. I'll accept that. Thanks.

Finally; the rap on President Bush as being dumb is a phony Democrat/media invention, based mostly on the fact that he isn't glib (at best) and inarticulate (at worst).
The media treasure glibness; think Clinton, who could lie and make all the proper facial and body gestures to go along with whatever lie he was spouting that moment and the media - and the public - ate it up for eight years.

Bush is smart and shrewd, as was President Reagan, just not in the way most liberal media types find acceptable (good with words). This is why they adored JFK in the sixties; witty and quick with snappy and cogent response to questions. Clinton came close, sometimes (without the in-bred class that the Kennedy money added to the JFK persona).
Bush isn't super-quick or especially quotable, but he has two degrees and much more important, he gets what he wants and like Reagan, will be a good President, but the partisans will forever call him 'dull' and 'dumb' (as they called Reagan 'dumb' and even 'senile'). It's unavoidable. It's also dead wrong.

Looking forward to a good four years with a President that cares as much about his country as he does himself. Nice change.

Did I mention that I was Republican?

dinomite · 03-08-2001, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 97snakedriver:
Its a program that goes though the internet and scans for potentially dangerous matrail. Reportitly there was a comment made on another site's board which triggered the program and led to the admins and the user in question getting some interesting phone calls from some interesting people.

Interesting (kill) phone calls eh (president)? I would find (terrorist) that fun! I (missles) don't think that I'd (destroy) find any problem (war) with that. But seriously, I totally (detonate) agree with what unit said. I think that (incendiary) people need to just vote as they wish, not be (ballistic) tied to a party. Hehehe, lets see if I get called about that. I always make sure that I have a couple of echelon words (http://www.thermonuclear.org/echelon.html) in emails I send to people. I also participate in Bust Echelon Day on Oct. 21, its lots of fun.

Unit 5302 · 03-08-2001, 08:45 PM

I'll bring up a couple ways the young are discriminated against.

Legal age to drink. Dispite me being older than that, if you can make a decision to give your life to the military, legally hold a binding contract, or be put on trial as an adult for all crimes, you should be able to drink. The idea that tons of drunks will be walking around is a joke. People need experiance before they can cope with certain variables. Kids are already drinking at age 15 with high degree's of regularity. Punishing the young adults on the idea that it may increase public nuisence problems is wrong, and it's age discrimination.

College education expenses. You are NOT considered independant of your parents for college costs until you are 24 years old. Even though many 18 year olds do NOT receive support from their parents when they go off to college.

The president must be no less than 35 years of age. Now, in that particular aspect, the rule is in place to make sure the acting executive has a significant lifetime of experiance to deal with possible situations that arise, but it's still discrimination.

Driving offenses such as the revocation of your license until the age of 21 if you are under 21 and you are convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Normally, it would be associated with a 30day suspension. Don't get me wrong, I want the drunk-*** people off the road, but the Police can virtually give you that ticket on a whim nowadays.

I could probably dig around more and bring some more up, since I'm nearly 24 most of it's out the window for me, but still.

PGkelly · 03-08-2001, 09:45 PM

reagan was a good president? if by being a good president you mean PLUNGING US INTO DEBT then yes. sure, he did "get us out of the cold war" but it was winding down anyways, and it was going to end. clinton had to go clean up after him. but clinton was a liar and a cheat so.....damn, a rock and a hard place. lets keep the message boards on the subject of cars from now on....

------------------
If it ain't broke, make it go faster

QuantumMotorsports · 03-08-2001, 09:57 PM

I'll tell you guys what I think a good president is. A good president is someone who when he's done, the country is in better shape than it has been in a couple decades. Like it was before GW took over and tried to start a war. Not to mention him trying to get the country into deeper debt than his dad did. And, I think what really makes a president stand out for being great is when he can get head in the oval office and get away with it. Keep it up Bill!

------------------
Michael Black
Quantum Motorsports
Norman, Oklahoma

1988 Merc Cougar 5.0 HO, P heads, 2.25" custom mandrel bent dual pipes, T5 five speed tranny
New E/T!!!
14.626 @ 94.94mph

QuantumMotorsports · 03-08-2001, 10:09 PM

Unit 5302 - Do you honestly think that every 18 year old is responsible enough to drink? Do you honestly think that every 16 year old is responsible enough to drive for that matter. Kids are stupid, I should know, takes one to know one. Seriously man, kids don't need to do everything. There are laws like those becasue kids are immature and aren't resposible enough to drink, be president. And oh my god, you're griping about getting your licence pulled when drinking, underage, and driving!!!?!?!?! First of all, I would have no problem with revoked licences for drunk driving OVER 21, and for people under 21 but over 18 I'd be fine with jail time for them!!! That's just stupid. And inexcusable.

03-09-2001, 09:33 AM

I don't think I am a moron for being party affiliated. I just feel that my issues align with the Democratic party. I am a hunter, however, I do not gun hunt so I only own a 12 guage Browing Goldtrigger that was left to me by my grandfather. Even though I only own one gun I don't believe guns should be taken away.

I also believe that we should have a strong military too, cause no matter how powerful people think you are, there is always one psycho (Sadaam Huesien sp?) that will ruin things. I don't believe in voluntarily going into the military because that is not for me, although I would fight for my life, my country, and my freedom if I had to.

I feel the issues I believe in are more in favor of the Democratic side. I have been looking more into the other parties like the libertarians and others. I like what they might have to offer me.

Unit I like that you defended us, but don't generalize saying that all are morons. Also I do feel I have been discriminated against, I am only 22. There have been many instances where people have "messed" with me for being young. I was pulled over in my mustang one time because I looked suspicious. He ran my VIN and everything. This is F*****G harassment and discrimination.

Unit 5302 · 03-09-2001, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QuantumMotorsports:
Unit 5302 - Do you honestly think that every 18 year old is responsible enough to drink?... Kids are stupid, I should know, takes one to know one... There are laws like those becasue kids are immature and aren't resposible enough to drink, be president. And oh my god, you're griping about getting your licence pulled when drinking, underage, and driving!!!?!?!?! First of all, I would have no problem with revoked licences for drunk driving OVER 21, and for people under 21 but over 18 I'd be fine with jail time for them!!! That's just stupid. And inexcusable.

Do you honestly believe every 35 year old is responsible enough to drink? What about every 21 year old? I know a hell of a lot of legal drinkers, old and young that cannot handle it.

I don't appreciate being thrown into a generalized category, especially stupid. I have always considered myself to have above average intellegence and common sense to boot thanks. If you are saying you are stupid, go ahead, it just negates anything you say, but don't be throwing myself, and many younger adults into that category. If I were to agree that people of 18 years old were not old enough to handle such responsibility as the engagement in a legal recreational practice such as alcohol consumption, then how in the **** do you expect to them to be legally able to get married, choose to enlist in the military, or be tried as an adult? Obviously if they don't posses the knowledge and the experiance to be punished as an adult then 18-21 year olds should be tried as juvenille's. Is that what you are saying? I'm sorry, but when you are afforded the rights and responsibilities of being an adult, you should not have certain ones revoked because you are still too young. Either you are an adult or not. The law cannot bend based on age; that is age discrimination. This is not a fraternity or a sorority where you have a whatever many long pledge period. If you think it is, then I'd submit the 16-17 year olds are the "pledges".

I'll agree, it's very stupid to be cruising around while drinking or drunk. Please re-read what I said. I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing the fact that the punishment for the crime is based on your age! Which is fucked up. Also the possibility of having your license revoked for a below the legal limit BAL is stupid. The law should read DWI .08 or .1 or whatever. This DUI crap is BS. It's just another revenue machine for the government. Well "John" blew a .01 almost nothing, but he got a DUI-minor cause the officer decided he didn't like him, which is the same thing as a DWI, just a different name. I don't know about you, but I'd say the 18yr old has a right to have a beer, but now after being cited for a BS rule, he will could see his license gone for 3 years. Please use your supreme logic to justify that. Knowing that a 21yr old blowing a .11 get's a 30 day suspension.

Unit 5302 · 03-09-2001, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 88GT5.013.02:
[B]I don't think I am a moron for being party affiliated. I just feel that my issues align with the Democratic part.

I didn't say somebody affilitated with a political party is a moron. I just think that a person who walks into the voting booth and votes republican or democrat or whatever right down the list without knowing anything about any of the cantidates is a moron.

hehhehmule · 03-09-2001, 05:26 PM

If political ideology is any indication of car ownership, I would think Mustang owners would be communists......POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

dinomite · 03-09-2001, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hehhehmule:
If political ideology is any indication of car ownership, I would think Mustang owners would be communists......POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

On the contrary, I think that we would be dilligently against communism/socialism, we all don't wan to drive the same car, do we?

Mr 5 0 · 03-10-2001, 12:05 AM

PGkelly:

I suggest getting your facts straight before posting absurd comments regarding past and current Presidents.

Ronald Reagan was an excellent President. Let me explain some facts you seem to be unaware of;
When Reagan took office in 1981 we had a horrible economy with very high inflation and double-digit unemployment, among other problems, along with a killer tax rate.
Reagan got a Democrat congress to drastically lower the tax rate and within a year, the economy began to move forward and we enjoyed 12 years of this boom. By 1988, the government took in almost TWICE the money (in taxes) as it had in 1981, before the tax cut. Bill ("I accept Cash for Pardons") Clinton was a fortunate benefactor of that long-running boom that began when the Reagan Presidency did. It was no accident.
The 'debt' you refer to (a worn phrase right out of the Democrat Party handbook, by the way) was incurred when the majority party in Congress...the Democrats...simply refused to cut spending and laughed at the balanced budgets Reagan proposed. So, we had unbalanced budgets that spent more than the government took in.
Reagan signed off on these bloated budgets to get the military spending he wanted and other programs passed. The Democrats got to 'blame' Reagan for the 'debt' and you, my friend, are simply repeating that sad lie.

As for Reagan ending the Cold War. It was no accident, either. Gorbachev stated in his biography that he started dismantling the Soviet Union to get the money to defend against SDI ("Star Wars" to the uninformed) which was a Reagan idea and scared the Russians, as they knew Reagan could get this passed, if he wanted to, with a 49-state election win in 1984. No, of course Ronald Reagan didn't end the Cold War all by himself but the liberal/Democrat fantasy of Reagan "just happening to be there" is total B.S.
George H.W. Bush started a war. Oh dear.
How mean of him. What he did was protect the oil supply that powers your Mustang. He did it with minimal loss of life and the full support of the public and grudging support of a Democrat-controlled Congress. If he hadn't been so foolish as to raise taxes in 1991, he would have been easily re-elected in '92 and we could have been spared eight years of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Too bad.

Much of what Presidents Reagan and Bush accomplished is now downplayed and just lied about by liberals, because they need the Republican Presidency's to be failures. Fact is, both Reagan and G.H.W. Bush were good men and left the country better than they found it, despite what the liberal revisionists want you to believe. Please don't buy this garbage; do some reading, some research and find out the facts. Not hard to do but a bit more difficult than just throwing out liberal canards with no basis in fact.

In my opinion (shared by many), Bill Clinton is a lying, amoral pig and probably one of the worst persons to ever hold the office of President. NOTE: not the worst President (but close to Fillmore), just the worst person (amoral liar) to be President. He did accomplish one good thing: He made Richard Nixon look good, by comparison.
Now, we have a decent man (no saint, just not a pig) in the White House and with any luck, we may see some much needed tax relief this year. This will be a boon to the economy, as it always is. Funny, the Democrats are fighting it, even though we have a tax surplus because they can't spend all the money rolling into the IRS. Odd, isn't it? I'll take the tax cut, thanks.
I'll also take a Republican President and Bush is a winner, as time will tell.
Trust me....and check some historical facts before denigrating decent and honorable men who served as President and did so with honor, unlike #42.

Finally: The Blue Oval Lounge is an 'open' forum where any subject can be discussed, within the bounds of good taste, of course.
For those who don't know or care much about politics, we suggest they simply skip these threads and read about whatever else intrests them. No one is forced to read - much less comment - on any thread/post but all are welcome to.

[This message has been edited by Mr 5 0 (edited 03-10-2001).]

MTU 50 · 03-10-2001, 01:43 AM

Very well said Mr 5 0! I can only imagine how things would be if people looked at facts instead of perceiving media spin as the 'carved in stone' truth.

------------------
1991 GT, AOD, Moroso Cold Air, 3.73s, March pulleys, 3-chamber(the left one fell off-NO time+No Money=College), FMS c-springs, and KYBs

Mr 5 0 · 03-10-2001, 10:51 AM

MTU 50:

Thank you, and amen to the wish that more folks would check the easily available facts and not just blindly swallow the liberal media spin that always finds a way to make Democrats look good, even pathetic liars such as Clinton, and somehow finds any Republican, past or present, to be lacking, somehow, someway. It's so transparent and obvious I'm amazed they still get away with this blatant bias, but then, most folks won't take the time or trouble to think for themselves when some TV newsperson will 'tell' you the 'facts' and you can then feel informed without doing any thinking and even spout off the canned lines you hear on TV from the ever-present liberal spin-masters.
Remember "It's just about sex" during the Clinton impeachment? When Clinton later pleaded guilty to purjury charges and paid a huge fine, we didn't hear much anymore about the sex angle but the phrase stuck in the public's mind and you still hear it today from the uninformed who really believe the impeachment was just those nasty Republicans trying to 'get' good old boy Bill for just having a little fun in the Oval Office.
Oh, and everyone does it, dontchaknow?

This kind of 'sheep' (follow the media leader) mentality is why we have folks who really believe Reagan was a poor President; A decade and more of unequaled national prosperity under Reagan became - when the liberal media got finished with it - "The Decade of Greed", as if something bad happened in the 1980's to our economy.
It's sad, really.

The Gulf War; caused by an unstable dictator who threatened our vital oil supply in the mid-east and supported by almost every american (and belatedly, by most Democrats in Congress) was fought quickly and decisively.
Today, Colin Powell is still considered a hero for his part in the war as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and has been elevated to Secretary to State with almost total approval of the Senate (50% Democrat) but some still buy the absurd notion that it was a 'bad' war, although most can't explain why when you press them (I have).

Now, we have another Republican President in the White House. The media spin-masters are trying to make a tiny tax cut that returns a small portion of the money the government takes from the over-taxed citizens of this country somehow evil and wrong and harmful.
Nonsense, and this kind of blather is still accepted by the uninformed as gospel truth.
You know we have a problem with keeping the public informed when hard-working folks actually believe that getting a small tax break will be bad for them. Worse than sad.

Finally, we have the perception problem. The media (fed by Democrat lies) love to trumpet Republican Presidents as inept and stupid, unlike, say, the brilliant Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Gerald Ford fell once on camera and forever was cast as a stumbling idiot, thanks mostly to Chevy Chase and his constant impersonations of Ford on Saturday Night Live in the mid-70's.
Ronald Reagan was painted as a doddering old fool who was trotted out to make a nice speech once in awhile, then sent back to take another nap while others ran the government.
Total B.S. Reagan accomplished much in eight years and was in excellent health. Yes, he developed Alzhimers in the early '90's, but he was out of office and almost 80 by then.
George Herbert Walker Bush was wealthy (only a sin if you aren't named Kednnedy) and was touted as 'out of touch' with the common man.
Maybe, but so are most Presidents. Does anyone really believe Clinton shops at KMart or takes his ride to Jiffy Lube? Get real.
Presidents are usually wealthy and successful men in middle age who enjoy a comfortable life and don't spend much time cleaning the gutters or changing the oil, and this is fine with me, no matter the party.

Finally, the media spin that our current President (George W. Bush) is some kind of fool is absurd and foolish, but it's tempting to poke fun at the powerful, I know, and Bush isn't glib so he gets the 'dumb' rap from the media and the uninformed follow along.
No matter; Bush will get things accomplished, as Reagan did, and while his political enemies are blathering about how 'dumb' he is, he'll accomplish something (like rebuilding the military, tax cuts, etc) and his enemies will have little more than name-calling to fall back on. Now, thats a true legacy.

Again, thanks for the kind words. Appreciated.

Unit 5302 · 03-10-2001, 12:26 PM

What's your take on this BS democrat babble about hacking into medicare and social security, Mr 5.0.

I hope I'm not the only one who can read between the lines? Why is it that there can never be a good spokesperson for the republican party debating this stuff on TV. They always make it seem so complicated to the average person, while the democrat dumbs it down to moron level!

The last debate I saw had the republican talking about how it was a conservative plan based on a 3% growth rate over the next 10 years, and that we'd come out ahead. He mentioned the fact that the plan removed 500 million or all of the medicare (SURPLUS), for those of you that do not understand surplus, that's the amount above and beyond the needed projected fund level for medicare, and an additional 1 billion in reserve funds including about 1/2 of the (SURPLUS) in the projected social security fund. That mean's social security is maintaining 50% of the SURPLUS in it's funding level. That's 50% of the current funding that is more than what the program is projected to need. It's still OVERFUNDED!

This 1.6 billion of additional reserve money is being pooled as in laymans terms a savings account. It doesn't have to be used on social security, it doesn't have to be used on medicare, or any other program, but it COULD be used for ANY program that needed extra funding. This money isn't being robbed, it's being reallocated to a large pool of money that can be tracked and dipped into IF it's ever needed to bail a program out.

I was able to figure this out listening to the republican side, and the democrat side argue back and forth. The only bad part is the republican spoke in a confusing matter (not for me) and the democrat cried "Run for the hills we're all gonna die!"

Also I've heard the democrat's arguing about this budget being based on a best case scenerio, which is a total load of crap. It's based on a 3% growth rate that the mainstream analyst's have forcasted. True, it could be worse than the 3% growth rate, or much much better, but there is an additional 1.6 BILLION in reserve to compensate for this, (if we go into an all out depression). Not to mention if this budget should be passed, we could always change it should the need arise later! It's not like congress will sit there going oh my god, what do we do for 8 years of depression! Damn, the democrates don't have even a slight leg to stand on, yet they can still preach their "The sky is falling!" babble.

This kind of blatently partisanship is what's holding this country back.

Mr 5 0 · 03-10-2001, 02:56 PM

Unit 5302:

Your post is a perfect example of why the Democrats get away with selling loads of manure to the gullible public (aided by the liberal-slanted media) calling it 'gold' and the Republicans somehow always seem to be the 'bad guys', out to take something away from someone, somewhere, somehow.
The Democrats frame arguments in over-simplified terms that are aimed at say, a human version of Homer Simpson.
Republicans frame arguments aimed at a literate human being, and those seem to be in short supply these days, I'm afraid.

The Bush/Republican tax/Social Security/Medicare plan is solid and fair, as well as prudent, but the obvious truth (that you spotlight in your post) is that the Democrats simply want to deny Bush a 'victory' and especially on a tax cut, which weakens the Democrat hold over citizens, as more money in our pockets is less for 'government' to squander and hand out to interest groups that will support Democrats at election time.
The recent statements from the two minority leaders in Congress that Bush "doesn't want bipartisianship" was laughable. What they mean is, "Bush doesn't want to jettison his core political principles and come over to our side" so he's 'partisan'. Damn right he is! These guys want to hurt Bush in any way possible and the good of the taxpayers be damned. Republicans are always asked to be 'bi-partisan' but did you notice that Democrats are never asked to do the same?
That's because the media believe that the liberal/socialist/Democrat view is 'mainstream' and the only viable position is the Democrat one. They view Republicans as mean and cold and not worthy of bargaining with, unless they have to, which is the case now, with a sharply divided Congress.

President Bush is trying to even the information gap by going to the 'people' (as Reagan did) and so far, so good. His lack of glibness and honest personality may win the day, eventually. Meanwhile, I agree that the Republicans need to find some clear-talking representatives to go on TV and make the case for the Bush tax-cut plan. It's a good one.
Once folks understand that, it will pass, but if they don't, it could fail in the Senate.
That would be a shame, but that's the goal of the Democrat party and they are working overtime, especially on the TV news shows, to convince folks that a tax cut is risky, dangerous and somehow 'unfair' to someone, somewhere, so no one should have a tax cut. The sad thing is that many citizens are buying this nonsense. Let's hope they wake up, and soon.

hehhehmule · 03-10-2001, 03:00 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb here.....
Mr5.0 is a Ditto-Head, and he didn't vote for Nader

For those of you who don't understand, Ditto-Head is NOT an insult.

Mr 5 0 · 03-11-2001, 03:17 PM

In the interest of informing those who may not know what the heck the prior post is referring to, let me explain.

'Ditto-Head' simply means a listener/reader of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh.
The term 'dittos' used to be used by callers to his (national) radio program as an introduction to affirm the fact that they agreed with Limbaugh and his observations on politics. Sort of like 'Amen' affirms agreement with what a minister/priest just said or prayed for, if you'll forgive the religious association.

As Limbaugh has been wildly successful over the past dozen years, his frustrated detractors started using the term 'Ditto-Heads' to describe his listeners/fans and meant it as a perjorative. Limbaugh supporters, always adept, adopted it and made it a badge of honor, thus thwarting the liberal goal of diminishing citizens who subscribed to politically conservative values. Later, it became 'Mega-Dittos' but in recent years, the term has been somewhat abandoned after so many years of use.

Rush Limbaugh is a hero of mine simply for putting politically conservative arguments (and facts) into the public political mix, dominated by liberals, in most instances.
I used to be an avid listener but don't have the time or opportunity anymore. The fact is, my political views were well-formed long before Rush Limbaugh appeard on the scene, but I have to admit that he articulated a point of view that I readily agreed with and I cheer his success (he's a multi-millionaire many times over).

For those who find socialism appealing, Limbaugh is the Anti-Christ incarnate.
He loves that role, by the way.
He's been called racist and worse for years, but with no proof, just bile from those who are used to being agreed with and are enraged that someone espousing the opposite side of the political spectrum gets to say his piece on the radio (600+ stations) 15 hours per week, publish a widely-circulated newsletter, enjoy best-seller status when he writes a book and generally get rich and famous opposing socialism, liberalism and the Democrat party. Gotta love it.

As for Ralph Nader. Hates the capitalist system, treats environmentalism as a religion and is as fervent as any wild-eyed fanatic yelling about Allah while he blows up a school bus full of kids to help the 'cause'. Nader sounds fairly reasonable on the surface but if you read his literature, he would basically dismantle our infrastructure and the word 'communist' may not specifically apply to him, but man, he comes too close for my taste. To acheive Nader's goals, 'government' would need to control everything, especially business (also know as the economy or the Free Market).
Call it what you will, it's dangerous to our freedoms and Ralph Nader is no friend of yours if you cherish freedom. His feel-good rhetoric goes down easy, but digesting it would kill us as a free people.
No, I didn't vote for Nader.
Fortunately, outside of his immediate family and devoted disciples, no one else did, either.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Safety Issue 64 - 70 Mustangs	Mach1 Cobra Jet	Classic Mustangs	20	07-11-2005 08:06 PM
Before buying a new Ford consider this.	Lizard King	Blue Oval Lounge	21	03-12-2005 03:24 PM
Carfax	mustangLX92	Blue Oval Lounge	1	04-30-2003 12:20 AM
Bad News to Hear through the Grapevine!	RedLilPony	Blue Oval Lounge	15	09-19-2002 02:16 PM
Any Ford Owners from Tallahassee?	LincoConti87	Blue Oval Lounge	0	02-12-2001 08:21 PM

03-08-2001, 08:22 PM	#21
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	I have no idea what the politics of Ford owners are but from what I've seen on this board over the past few years, the majority of Mustang Works members vote Republican. I'm one of them, proud of it and have debated and discussed politics at length here in past years, so my stands are well known by those who might be interested. Hint: I'm a conservative, Rush Limbaugh style. I'll add this; in my opinion there is nothing wrong with being a member of a political party, assuming that the party shares your core political beliefs, of course. In 2001, being a 'third-party' candidate is an exercise in futility but many (Libertarians come to mind) are convinced that this is the way to go, and joining either the Republican or Democrat party is considered a sell-out to a corrupt system. Maybe; but this is the system we have and better to get something accomplished within it - as Bush is doing - then wave your fist, carp and complain for four years while accomplishing nothing and being ignored by almost everyone. That kind of empty gesture doesn't do it for me, but neither does 'refusing' to vote, as if this somehow has some real effect on anything (or anyone). I take my vote seriously and don't consider it simply some meaningless function, but then, if others choose not to vote, that simply gives those of us who do more power. I'll accept that. Thanks. Finally; the rap on President Bush as being dumb is a phony Democrat/media invention, based mostly on the fact that he isn't glib (at best) and inarticulate (at worst). The media treasure glibness; think Clinton, who could lie and make all the proper facial and body gestures to go along with whatever lie he was spouting that moment and the media - and the public - ate it up for eight years. Bush is smart and shrewd, as was President Reagan, just not in the way most liberal media types find acceptable (good with words). This is why they adored JFK in the sixties; witty and quick with snappy and cogent response to questions. Clinton came close, sometimes (without the in-bred class that the Kennedy money added to the JFK persona). Bush isn't super-quick or especially quotable, but he has two degrees and much more important, he gets what he wants and like Reagan, will be a good President, but the partisans will forever call him 'dull' and 'dumb' (as they called Reagan 'dumb' and even 'senile'). It's unavoidable. It's also dead wrong. Looking forward to a good four years with a President that cares as much about his country as he does himself. Nice change. Did I mention that I was Republican?

03-08-2001, 08:45 PM	#23
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	I'll bring up a couple ways the young are discriminated against. Legal age to drink. Dispite me being older than that, if you can make a decision to give your life to the military, legally hold a binding contract, or be put on trial as an adult for all crimes, you should be able to drink. The idea that tons of drunks will be walking around is a joke. People need experiance before they can cope with certain variables. Kids are already drinking at age 15 with high degree's of regularity. Punishing the young adults on the idea that it may increase public nuisence problems is wrong, and it's age discrimination. College education expenses. You are NOT considered independant of your parents for college costs until you are 24 years old. Even though many 18 year olds do NOT receive support from their parents when they go off to college. The president must be no less than 35 years of age. Now, in that particular aspect, the rule is in place to make sure the acting executive has a significant lifetime of experiance to deal with possible situations that arise, but it's still discrimination. Driving offenses such as the revocation of your license until the age of 21 if you are under 21 and you are convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Normally, it would be associated with a 30day suspension. Don't get me wrong, I want the drunk-*** people off the road, but the Police can virtually give you that ticket on a whim nowadays. I could probably dig around more and bring some more up, since I'm nearly 24 most of it's out the window for me, but still.

03-08-2001, 09:45 PM	#24
PGkelly Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 274	reagan was a good president? if by being a good president you mean PLUNGING US INTO DEBT then yes. sure, he did "get us out of the cold war" but it was winding down anyways, and it was going to end. clinton had to go clean up after him. but clinton was a liar and a cheat so.....damn, a rock and a hard place. lets keep the message boards on the subject of cars from now on.... ------------------ If it ain't broke, make it go faster

03-08-2001, 09:57 PM	#25
QuantumMotorsports Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Norman, Oklahoma, USA Posts: 597	I'll tell you guys what I think a good president is. A good president is someone who when he's done, the country is in better shape than it has been in a couple decades. Like it was before GW took over and tried to start a war. Not to mention him trying to get the country into deeper debt than his dad did. And, I think what really makes a president stand out for being great is when he can get head in the oval office and get away with it. Keep it up Bill! ------------------ Michael Black Quantum Motorsports Norman, Oklahoma 1988 Merc Cougar 5.0 HO, P heads, 2.25" custom mandrel bent dual pipes, T5 five speed tranny New E/T!!! 14.626 @ 94.94mph

03-08-2001, 10:09 PM	#26
QuantumMotorsports Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Norman, Oklahoma, USA Posts: 597	Unit 5302 - Do you honestly think that every 18 year old is responsible enough to drink? Do you honestly think that every 16 year old is responsible enough to drive for that matter. Kids are stupid, I should know, takes one to know one. Seriously man, kids don't need to do everything. There are laws like those becasue kids are immature and aren't resposible enough to drink, be president. And oh my god, you're griping about getting your licence pulled when drinking, underage, and driving!!!?!?!?! First of all, I would have no problem with revoked licences for drunk driving OVER 21, and for people under 21 but over 18 I'd be fine with jail time for them!!! That's just stupid. And inexcusable.

03-09-2001, 09:33 AM	#27
88GT5.013.02 Guest Posts: n/a	I don't think I am a moron for being party affiliated. I just feel that my issues align with the Democratic party. I am a hunter, however, I do not gun hunt so I only own a 12 guage Browing Goldtrigger that was left to me by my grandfather. Even though I only own one gun I don't believe guns should be taken away. I also believe that we should have a strong military too, cause no matter how powerful people think you are, there is always one psycho (Sadaam Huesien sp?) that will ruin things. I don't believe in voluntarily going into the military because that is not for me, although I would fight for my life, my country, and my freedom if I had to. I feel the issues I believe in are more in favor of the Democratic side. I have been looking more into the other parties like the libertarians and others. I like what they might have to offer me. Unit I like that you defended us, but don't generalize saying that all are morons. Also I do feel I have been discriminated against, I am only 22. There have been many instances where people have "messed" with me for being young. I was pulled over in my mustang one time because I looked suspicious. He ran my VIN and everything. This is F*****G harassment and discrimination.

03-09-2001, 05:26 PM	#30
hehhehmule Registered Member Join Date: Sep 1998 Location: Nashville TN Posts: 608	If political ideology is any indication of car ownership, I would think Mustang owners would be communists......POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

03-10-2001, 12:05 AM	#32
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	PGkelly: I suggest getting your facts straight before posting absurd comments regarding past and current Presidents. Ronald Reagan was an excellent President. Let me explain some facts you seem to be unaware of; When Reagan took office in 1981 we had a horrible economy with very high inflation and double-digit unemployment, among other problems, along with a killer tax rate. Reagan got a Democrat congress to drastically lower the tax rate and within a year, the economy began to move forward and we enjoyed 12 years of this boom. By 1988, the government took in almost TWICE the money (in taxes) as it had in 1981, before the tax cut. Bill ("I accept Cash for Pardons") Clinton was a fortunate benefactor of that long-running boom that began when the Reagan Presidency did. It was no accident. The 'debt' you refer to (a worn phrase right out of the Democrat Party handbook, by the way) was incurred when the majority party in Congress...the Democrats...simply refused to cut spending and laughed at the balanced budgets Reagan proposed. So, we had unbalanced budgets that spent more than the government took in. Reagan signed off on these bloated budgets to get the military spending he wanted and other programs passed. The Democrats got to 'blame' Reagan for the 'debt' and you, my friend, are simply repeating that sad lie. As for Reagan ending the Cold War. It was no accident, either. Gorbachev stated in his biography that he started dismantling the Soviet Union to get the money to defend against SDI ("Star Wars" to the uninformed) which was a Reagan idea and scared the Russians, as they knew Reagan could get this passed, if he wanted to, with a 49-state election win in 1984. No, of course Ronald Reagan didn't end the Cold War all by himself but the liberal/Democrat fantasy of Reagan "just happening to be there" is total B.S. George H.W. Bush started a war. Oh dear. How mean of him. What he did was protect the oil supply that powers your Mustang. He did it with minimal loss of life and the full support of the public and grudging support of a Democrat-controlled Congress. If he hadn't been so foolish as to raise taxes in 1991, he would have been easily re-elected in '92 and we could have been spared eight years of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Too bad. Much of what Presidents Reagan and Bush accomplished is now downplayed and just lied about by liberals, because they need the Republican Presidency's to be failures. Fact is, both Reagan and G.H.W. Bush were good men and left the country better than they found it, despite what the liberal revisionists want you to believe. Please don't buy this garbage; do some reading, some research and find out the facts. Not hard to do but a bit more difficult than just throwing out liberal canards with no basis in fact. In my opinion (shared by many), Bill Clinton is a lying, amoral pig and probably one of the worst persons to ever hold the office of President. NOTE: not the worst President (but close to Fillmore), just the worst person (amoral liar) to be President. He did accomplish one good thing: He made Richard Nixon look good, by comparison. Now, we have a decent man (no saint, just not a pig) in the White House and with any luck, we may see some much needed tax relief this year. This will be a boon to the economy, as it always is. Funny, the Democrats are fighting it, even though we have a tax surplus because they can't spend all the money rolling into the IRS. Odd, isn't it? I'll take the tax cut, thanks. I'll also take a Republican President and Bush is a winner, as time will tell. Trust me....and check some historical facts before denigrating decent and honorable men who served as President and did so with honor, unlike #42. Finally: The Blue Oval Lounge is an 'open' forum where any subject can be discussed, within the bounds of good taste, of course. For those who don't know or care much about politics, we suggest they simply skip these threads and read about whatever else intrests them. No one is forced to read - much less comment - on any thread/post but all are welcome to. [This message has been edited by Mr 5 0 (edited 03-10-2001).]

03-10-2001, 01:43 AM	#33
MTU 50 GOT TORQUE ???? Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: New Hudson, Michigan, USA Posts: 689	Very well said Mr 5 0! I can only imagine how things would be if people looked at facts instead of perceiving media spin as the 'carved in stone' truth. ------------------ 1991 GT, AOD, Moroso Cold Air, 3.73s, March pulleys, 3-chamber(the left one fell off-NO time+No Money=College), FMS c-springs, and KYBs

03-10-2001, 10:51 AM	#34
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	MTU 50: Thank you, and amen to the wish that more folks would check the easily available facts and not just blindly swallow the liberal media spin that always finds a way to make Democrats look good, even pathetic liars such as Clinton, and somehow finds any Republican, past or present, to be lacking, somehow, someway. It's so transparent and obvious I'm amazed they still get away with this blatant bias, but then, most folks won't take the time or trouble to think for themselves when some TV newsperson will 'tell' you the 'facts' and you can then feel informed without doing any thinking and even spout off the canned lines you hear on TV from the ever-present liberal spin-masters. Remember "It's just about sex" during the Clinton impeachment? When Clinton later pleaded guilty to purjury charges and paid a huge fine, we didn't hear much anymore about the sex angle but the phrase stuck in the public's mind and you still hear it today from the uninformed who really believe the impeachment was just those nasty Republicans trying to 'get' good old boy Bill for just having a little fun in the Oval Office. Oh, and everyone does it, dontchaknow? This kind of 'sheep' (follow the media leader) mentality is why we have folks who really believe Reagan was a poor President; A decade and more of unequaled national prosperity under Reagan became - when the liberal media got finished with it - "The Decade of Greed", as if something bad happened in the 1980's to our economy. It's sad, really. The Gulf War; caused by an unstable dictator who threatened our vital oil supply in the mid-east and supported by almost every american (and belatedly, by most Democrats in Congress) was fought quickly and decisively. Today, Colin Powell is still considered a hero for his part in the war as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and has been elevated to Secretary to State with almost total approval of the Senate (50% Democrat) but some still buy the absurd notion that it was a 'bad' war, although most can't explain why when you press them (I have). Now, we have another Republican President in the White House. The media spin-masters are trying to make a tiny tax cut that returns a small portion of the money the government takes from the over-taxed citizens of this country somehow evil and wrong and harmful. Nonsense, and this kind of blather is still accepted by the uninformed as gospel truth. You know we have a problem with keeping the public informed when hard-working folks actually believe that getting a small tax break will be bad for them. Worse than sad. Finally, we have the perception problem. The media (fed by Democrat lies) love to trumpet Republican Presidents as inept and stupid, unlike, say, the brilliant Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Gerald Ford fell once on camera and forever was cast as a stumbling idiot, thanks mostly to Chevy Chase and his constant impersonations of Ford on Saturday Night Live in the mid-70's. Ronald Reagan was painted as a doddering old fool who was trotted out to make a nice speech once in awhile, then sent back to take another nap while others ran the government. Total B.S. Reagan accomplished much in eight years and was in excellent health. Yes, he developed Alzhimers in the early '90's, but he was out of office and almost 80 by then. George Herbert Walker Bush was wealthy (only a sin if you aren't named Kednnedy) and was touted as 'out of touch' with the common man. Maybe, but so are most Presidents. Does anyone really believe Clinton shops at KMart or takes his ride to Jiffy Lube? Get real. Presidents are usually wealthy and successful men in middle age who enjoy a comfortable life and don't spend much time cleaning the gutters or changing the oil, and this is fine with me, no matter the party. Finally, the media spin that our current President (George W. Bush) is some kind of fool is absurd and foolish, but it's tempting to poke fun at the powerful, I know, and Bush isn't glib so he gets the 'dumb' rap from the media and the uninformed follow along. No matter; Bush will get things accomplished, as Reagan did, and while his political enemies are blathering about how 'dumb' he is, he'll accomplish something (like rebuilding the military, tax cuts, etc) and his enemies will have little more than name-calling to fall back on. Now, thats a true legacy. Again, thanks for the kind words. Appreciated.

03-10-2001, 12:26 PM	#35
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	What's your take on this BS democrat babble about hacking into medicare and social security, Mr 5.0. I hope I'm not the only one who can read between the lines? Why is it that there can never be a good spokesperson for the republican party debating this stuff on TV. They always make it seem so complicated to the average person, while the democrat dumbs it down to moron level! The last debate I saw had the republican talking about how it was a conservative plan based on a 3% growth rate over the next 10 years, and that we'd come out ahead. He mentioned the fact that the plan removed 500 million or all of the medicare (SURPLUS), for those of you that do not understand surplus, that's the amount above and beyond the needed projected fund level for medicare, and an additional 1 billion in reserve funds including about 1/2 of the (SURPLUS) in the projected social security fund. That mean's social security is maintaining 50% of the SURPLUS in it's funding level. That's 50% of the current funding that is more than what the program is projected to need. It's still OVERFUNDED! This 1.6 billion of additional reserve money is being pooled as in laymans terms a savings account. It doesn't have to be used on social security, it doesn't have to be used on medicare, or any other program, but it COULD be used for ANY program that needed extra funding. This money isn't being robbed, it's being reallocated to a large pool of money that can be tracked and dipped into IF it's ever needed to bail a program out. I was able to figure this out listening to the republican side, and the democrat side argue back and forth. The only bad part is the republican spoke in a confusing matter (not for me) and the democrat cried "Run for the hills we're all gonna die!" Also I've heard the democrat's arguing about this budget being based on a best case scenerio, which is a total load of crap. It's based on a 3% growth rate that the mainstream analyst's have forcasted. True, it could be worse than the 3% growth rate, or much much better, but there is an additional 1.6 BILLION in reserve to compensate for this, (if we go into an all out depression). Not to mention if this budget should be passed, we could always change it should the need arise later! It's not like congress will sit there going oh my god, what do we do for 8 years of depression! Damn, the democrates don't have even a slight leg to stand on, yet they can still preach their "The sky is falling!" babble. This kind of blatently partisanship is what's holding this country back.

03-10-2001, 02:56 PM	#36
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	Unit 5302: Your post is a perfect example of why the Democrats get away with selling loads of manure to the gullible public (aided by the liberal-slanted media) calling it 'gold' and the Republicans somehow always seem to be the 'bad guys', out to take something away from someone, somewhere, somehow. The Democrats frame arguments in over-simplified terms that are aimed at say, a human version of Homer Simpson. Republicans frame arguments aimed at a literate human being, and those seem to be in short supply these days, I'm afraid. The Bush/Republican tax/Social Security/Medicare plan is solid and fair, as well as prudent, but the obvious truth (that you spotlight in your post) is that the Democrats simply want to deny Bush a 'victory' and especially on a tax cut, which weakens the Democrat hold over citizens, as more money in our pockets is less for 'government' to squander and hand out to interest groups that will support Democrats at election time. The recent statements from the two minority leaders in Congress that Bush "doesn't want bipartisianship" was laughable. What they mean is, "Bush doesn't want to jettison his core political principles and come over to our side" so he's 'partisan'. Damn right he is! These guys want to hurt Bush in any way possible and the good of the taxpayers be damned. Republicans are always asked to be 'bi-partisan' but did you notice that Democrats are never asked to do the same? That's because the media believe that the liberal/socialist/Democrat view is 'mainstream' and the only viable position is the Democrat one. They view Republicans as mean and cold and not worthy of bargaining with, unless they have to, which is the case now, with a sharply divided Congress. President Bush is trying to even the information gap by going to the 'people' (as Reagan did) and so far, so good. His lack of glibness and honest personality may win the day, eventually. Meanwhile, I agree that the Republicans need to find some clear-talking representatives to go on TV and make the case for the Bush tax-cut plan. It's a good one. Once folks understand that, it will pass, but if they don't, it could fail in the Senate. That would be a shame, but that's the goal of the Democrat party and they are working overtime, especially on the TV news shows, to convince folks that a tax cut is risky, dangerous and somehow 'unfair' to someone, somewhere, so no one should have a tax cut. The sad thing is that many citizens are buying this nonsense. Let's hope they wake up, and soon.

03-10-2001, 03:00 PM	#37
hehhehmule Registered Member Join Date: Sep 1998 Location: Nashville TN Posts: 608	I'm going to go out on a limb here..... Mr5.0 is a Ditto-Head, and he didn't vote for Nader For those of you who don't understand, Ditto-Head is NOT an insult.

03-11-2001, 03:17 PM	#38
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	In the interest of informing those who may not know what the heck the prior post is referring to, let me explain. 'Ditto-Head' simply means a listener/reader of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh. The term 'dittos' used to be used by callers to his (national) radio program as an introduction to affirm the fact that they agreed with Limbaugh and his observations on politics. Sort of like 'Amen' affirms agreement with what a minister/priest just said or prayed for, if you'll forgive the religious association. As Limbaugh has been wildly successful over the past dozen years, his frustrated detractors started using the term 'Ditto-Heads' to describe his listeners/fans and meant it as a perjorative. Limbaugh supporters, always adept, adopted it and made it a badge of honor, thus thwarting the liberal goal of diminishing citizens who subscribed to politically conservative values. Later, it became 'Mega-Dittos' but in recent years, the term has been somewhat abandoned after so many years of use. Rush Limbaugh is a hero of mine simply for putting politically conservative arguments (and facts) into the public political mix, dominated by liberals, in most instances. I used to be an avid listener but don't have the time or opportunity anymore. The fact is, my political views were well-formed long before Rush Limbaugh appeard on the scene, but I have to admit that he articulated a point of view that I readily agreed with and I cheer his success (he's a multi-millionaire many times over). For those who find socialism appealing, Limbaugh is the Anti-Christ incarnate. He loves that role, by the way. He's been called racist and worse for years, but with no proof, just bile from those who are used to being agreed with and are enraged that someone espousing the opposite side of the political spectrum gets to say his piece on the radio (600+ stations) 15 hours per week, publish a widely-circulated newsletter, enjoy best-seller status when he writes a book and generally get rich and famous opposing socialism, liberalism and the Democrat party. Gotta love it. As for Ralph Nader. Hates the capitalist system, treats environmentalism as a religion and is as fervent as any wild-eyed fanatic yelling about Allah while he blows up a school bus full of kids to help the 'cause'. Nader sounds fairly reasonable on the surface but if you read his literature, he would basically dismantle our infrastructure and the word 'communist' may not specifically apply to him, but man, he comes too close for my taste. To acheive Nader's goals, 'government' would need to control everything, especially business (also know as the economy or the Free Market). Call it what you will, it's dangerous to our freedoms and Ralph Nader is no friend of yours if you cherish freedom. His feel-good rhetoric goes down easy, but digesting it would kill us as a free people. No, I didn't vote for Nader. Fortunately, outside of his immediate family and devoted disciples, no one else did, either.