For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Obama's campaign finance flipflop:
Barack Obama is abandoning public financing for his presidential campaign, reversing his earlier stance in bold certainty he can raise millions more on his own as the first major-party candidate to bypass the tax-checkoff system that was hurried into place after the Watergate scandal...McCain told reporters in Minnesota on Thursday, "We will take public financing." As for his opponent, he said Obama "said he would stick to his word. He didn't."
What are your thoughts on this flipflop? Was it so predictable that it's unimportant? Will people care? How will the flipflop element impact voters if at all? From a financial perspective, does this give Obama an almost insurmountable monetary advantage?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Scott McClellen Indictment
June 20, 2008 - 10:01 ET by HermanoTaking bets on how long it will take for a Grand Jury to indict McClellen.
Sen. McCain
June 20, 2008 - 10:12 ET by j. frank wilson"qualified" for the primary ballot in Ohio and Delaware simply because he had applied for public campaign financing (there may have been other states, as well). Then he decided to opt out of the public financing system for the general election.
Once he used the public financing system to avoid the expensive and time-consuming signature collection process, how can he then decide not to stay in it? Talk about a one-night stand. He used and abused the system and then tried to slink out the door before it woke up. That's not a "flip-flop" - that's breaking the law.
Additionally, loan documents readily available online describe his line of credit collateral - including agreeing to keep going in the primaries and apply for public funds if he didn't do well in the voting (how cynical - poor performance = continuing in order to raise enough money to pay off his loan, not to stay in it to win).
Once a candidate uses public funds as loan collateral they must stay in the system - yet Sen. McCain wants to break the law and get out?
Now that's a real story.
Huh? BHO wants out, not McLame
June 20, 2008 - 10:14 ET by SouthJersey1953McLame is in...it is BHO that backed out of it....
Lefty kool-aid drinkers can
June 20, 2008 - 10:31 ET by mattmLefty kool-aid drinkers can get themselves to believe anything - except the truth.
Yeah right...
June 20, 2008 - 10:51 ET by DooperAnybody that doesn't toe the line is considered lefty and liberal. Well I don't consider myself liberal having worked on Wall Street and in the financial services industry for the past 15 years and frankly, I am voting for anyone besides a Republican this year. 80% of Americans think this country is on the wrong path and in want of change and I guarantee you most of them would not consider themselves liberal.
So I guess you don't mind a
June 20, 2008 - 10:57 ET by HermanoSo I guess you don't mind a doubling of the capital gains tax, eh? That will lead to fewer people making trades and less money for you.
@Hermano:
June 20, 2008 - 11:03 ET by j. frank wilsonClearly this is the #1 problem equity investors face today: Capital gains. Boy, look at how the market has just gone up and up - investors awash in unrealized profits. Thanks to the Bush Administration the US economy is on quite a roll here.
PS: Sen. Obama has specifically stated he does not support an increase in the capital gains tax to its previous level. But it won't be long before someone here comments how lowering capital gains taxes increases revenues - what a crock!
I take it you don't work in
June 20, 2008 - 11:07 ET by contraryI take it you don't work in the investment managment industry?
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Obama does support higher capital gains...
June 20, 2008 - 11:45 ET by HermanoObama said he would "look at increasing the capital gains tax" because appartently there were 50 fund managers who made about "$29B" between them and they paid less in taxes than their secretaries. So because of these 50 people, he wants to punish the 100,000,000 other people who have money in the stock market with a higer tax rate on their more risky investments.
BTW, every time the CGT was lowered during the last 8 years, the revenues from CG DID increase. Not a crock, but reality. Taxes have a negative impact on the economy. Look at the UAE - No income taxes and the hotest economy on earth by far.
Another thing, our economy is going south because our money is going offshore. It is really tough to maintaiin a strong dollar when you are shipping off all your money to the Middle East and Venezuela in return for oil. We got plenty here - Let's Drill!
@Hermano:
June 20, 2008 - 12:20 ET by j. frank wilsonFirst you commented Sen. Obama wanted to "double" capital gains - now you say "increase?" Which is it.
It is a crock that lowering the capital gains tax increases revenues. If that were the case, why not reduce the tax to Zero? Do you honestly think investors have no choices? When capital gains taxes are low they elect to push income over there. Some of the apparent increase was temporary (one-off), because people saw the change coming and simply waited for it to take effect.
You have to look at overall government revenues - because investors can shift from one form of income to another.
The hedge fund manager exception is an absolute joke - and starting with Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Repugz don't have the guts to face it and close the loophole.
BTW - haven't you read the House Committee on Natural Resources June 2008 report? There is ample opportunity for oil companies to explore and exploit the gas and oil on public lands. What's the figure - 25 wells drilled in Alaska since 2000 on how many million acres?
"It is a crock that
June 20, 2008 - 13:03 ET by ckc1227"It is a crock that lowering the capital gains tax increases revenues. If that were the case, why not reduce the tax to Zero? "
So, you really are a moron? At least we know.
Now, I'm off to eat a 1,000 cheeseburgers. I mean, if eating one can cure my lunch time hunger cravings, why not eat 1,000?
OK - it used to be 28%.
June 20, 2008 - 13:46 ET by HermanoOK - it used to be 28%. From 15-28% is not double, I will give you that - but it is still an 86% increase. It never ceases to amaze me how obtuse people can be when they believe the government can do more with their money than they can. The same thing goes when there are many instances of something happening (revenue increase) as a result of some action (lower the tax rate). If we look at overall government revenues (which are far too high as it is, IMO) history shows time and time again that lowering taxes helps the economy. How many times do we have to see this before we believe it - 10, 50, 1000? In the 80s when the CGT was raised, revenues decrease. When your hero Bill Clintoon lowered it to 20% from 28% revenues increased. When Bush lowered it to 15% the revenue increased again. Obama proposes raising it in spite of the history. I could explain the reasons this does happen, contrary to Obama's insistance that it might not in simple terms, but I am afraid you might still not get it. But here it goes anyway.
I invest $1000 and earn $100 on that money. I pay $15 to the gov leaving me $85. I invest the $85 and make $8.50 and pay $1.27 to the gov leaving me $7.23. I spend it on lunch which allows someone else to make $1 which the gov gets $0.25 (depending on that persons income - I want to use simple numbers to help you here.) Gov take from me- $16.27
I invest $1000 and earn $100. Pay the gov $28 leaving me with $72. I invest that making $7.20 and give the gov $2.02 leaving me with $5.18. I buy a gallon of gas and the money goes overseas. Gov take from me- $30.02.
With me so far? Looks like the gov makes out, eh? Well if I am making 8.5% on my money, I may continue to invest. If I am making on 7.2% I may choose to do other things with my money, like choose offshore investments that make a lot more money and don't get taxed. So the government then gets $0. $16 is more than $0. Of course, then their are ancillary issues - since I am no longer investing my money or am sending it offshore, there will be one less person working in the US and needing to collect unemployment.
OK, one person investing $1000 cannot make that much of an impact, but for every dollar you take out of this system - by taxing or otherwise - has an impact. As soon as the gov starts making wise investments, taxing will always have a negative impact on the economy. Lowering the CGT to 0? - that would be great! But we do have this Great Governmental Beast which must be fed. As an American, I believe it is OUR job to find a way to control our government, and we have been doing a lousy job for 73 years.
And lastly, the Reps are not currently in control of the Legislature (say it with me - Leg-i-sla-ture) which writes the laws. They are more worried about the price of a sandwich in their cafeteria than they are about the US economy. Of course, you could have the Legislature write a law that forces everyone to invest their money so the gov can get their 28%. I guess that would be OK.
@Hermano & BD:
June 20, 2008 - 17:35 ET by j. frank wilsonAt least be honest enough to state that the goal of reducing capital gains tax is to reduce revenues and shrink the size of the federal government - drown in the bathtub, as Grover Norquist put it.
Tax cuts don't "pay for themselves" - Council of Economic Advistors Edward Lazear (September 26, 2006, Senate testimony) "As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves." Alan D. Viard, former Council of Economic Advisors senior economist (October 17, 2006 Washington Post article) "...federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush Administration] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." Secretary Paulson at his confirmation hearing "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." Federal Reserve Chair Ben Mernanke (April 27, 2006 Congressional testimony) "I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves."
Do you see a pattern here? Unless you're as closed-minded as Sheer Insannity, you'll spot the trend.
JFW,
June 20, 2008 - 19:26 ET by Indiana JoeThe only pattern I see is you quoting what people "think." You don't offer any numbers, merely what people "believe." The only quote that doesn't include one of those words is the one claiming "...federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush Administration] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that." So it's a consensus, huh? Not a fact. No one can know what revenue would have been in a theoretical scenario.
But it is a fact that revenues have increased with tax cuts in the past. See here, here, and here. This is after-the-fact analysis, not what someone "thinks."
Just thought I'd jump in with that. Carry on.
Tax cuts don't "pay for
June 20, 2008 - 19:35 ET by HermanoTax cuts don't "pay for themselves" - Council of Economic Advistors Edward Lazear (September 26, 2006, Senate testimony) "As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves."
But he actually says this in the same briefing:
The tax cuts passed the Congress and signed into law by President Bush have helped the economy grow. Probably most significant was the cut in dividends and capital gains taxes enacted in 2003. However, the lowering of marginal tax rates on labor income was also an important contribution to economic growth.
Lower tax rates enable workers to keep more of their earnings, stimulating work effort and labor force participation. Lower tax rates also encourage greater innovation, entrepreneurial activity, and small business formation. Lowering the tax rate on capital income has encouraged greater investment, which is seen as the main driver of economic growth.
Of course, Lazear points out the tax cuts spurred the economy. It is interesting to note that the graph that he refers to to "suggest" that tax cuts do not pay for themselves shows an excess revenue stream for the fed after the Clintoon tax cuts to capital gains of 8% and a negative trend from 2000-2003. The rebound in revenues takes place after the tax cuts go into effect. EXPLAIN THAT! BTW, he later goes on to talk about the "high economic growth and enhanced revenues." I will be among the first to admit that the economy is a complex thing, but if Lazear truly believed that tax cuts do not pay for themselves, then why does he recommend "continuing our pro-growth tax agenda" instead of recommending that the tax cuts be revoked.
I can spot trends, but I also know when there is a high correlation amond data. It is interesting that all these experts happen to use the same words when dealing with a Democrat-run congress. I will give you a bone here, though. They are right. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. The economy runs stronger, providing more jobs, more income, more consumer confidence and spending. The result IS HIGHER REVENUES. Small government is the key to success.
@Hermano & BD:
June 23, 2008 - 09:21 ET by j. frank wilsonIt's relatively simple math - tax cuts can't pay for themselves. Even if one accepts the premise that reducing taxes increases growth, the bulk of the economic activity will be taxed at the reduced rate - and the taxes generated from the new (resulting) activity can't be high enough to make up for the shortfall.
Suppose a tax cut increases overall economic growth by 25% - and that would be a remarkable result, indeed. There is still that pesky 75% of activity being taxed at the lower rate - additional taxes collected on the increase (25%) can not cover the loss on the tail (75%).
BD - I certainly realize you are the second coming of John Maynard Keynes, and we commentators at NB are fortunate to be able to grovel at the alter of your economic knowledge. But please do look at the numbers - they really aren't that hard to figure out...
You are completely wrong J Frank - you are ignoring
June 23, 2008 - 09:57 ET by Dee Bunkthe fact that economic growth does not = reported income growth. For your theory to even have any validity, income growth reported to the IRS would have to remain equal to the income growth and it doesn't.
It doesn't because more people agree to pay taxes instead of sheltering their income. GDP has nothing to do with income reported to the IRS. It's calculated by adding Consumer spending, Industry Investments, Exports (less imports), and Government Spending. Income reported on tax returns has nothing to do with GDP.
You do not have any understanding of Economics. Most Dems don't. You can't argue with the fact that total tax receipts have increased after the tax cuts. You are trying to play some sort of Svengali by assuming the same amount of income would be reported (just less the growth). Even with your first false assumption, you also couldn't even assume positive growth. If there were not tax cuts it could have been negative growth. No one can know that for sure. The only thing we can know is that when taxes are reduced, the treasury takes in more money every time.
@DeeBunk:
June 23, 2008 - 11:25 ET by j. frank wilsonSo it should be a relatively simple matter for you to draw a stright line from specific Bush tax cuts to specific increases in tax revenues.
Otherwise you are at risk of conflating coincidence with causation.
J Frank - it's your own previous logic that proves it
June 23, 2008 - 11:35 ET by Dee BunkThe reported income went up disproportionately to GDP growth. And that salary increases as reported by businesses were way off the mark also. It's not coincidence and it happened the same way when Regan did it.
You either have to admit that the economy had much bigger gains than was reported in GDP or that the tax cuts worked. Either way, Bush worked miracles with the economy that was on a decline when he came in and then took a huge nose dive of unprecedented nature (since the depression) due to the Sept 11th attacks. He kept us from going into a recession or depression.
It is NOT relitively simple
June 23, 2008 - 10:00 ET by BDIt is NOT relitively simple in that Tx cuts do not pay for themselve. Laying aside that the do not need to pay for themselves, you miss the obvious fact that revenues to the fed actually INCREASE to record levels post tax cuts to get the Laffer curve down to the optimal level.
You can do all the mathematical projections you want, historically it is true that the optimal tax rate is just over 10%.
John Mayndard Keynes? Me? Boy do you have it wrong. I do not believe federal outlays in the form of spending are the way to an improved economy that hods tot he Keynsian model.
I prefer the Friedmen model in which private citizens hold and spend the welth of the nation rather than the beauracracy in the Federal government.
You obviously are holding to the falacious argument that all money belongs to the Fed Government and the fed returnign tax money ot the public or failing to take it in in the first place is an OUTLAY when it clearly is NOT.
@BD:
June 23, 2008 - 11:29 ET by j. frank wilsonOnce again you miss the point. I commented that it's a crock to claim cutting taxes increases revenues. For you to state that is not the point shows you are more concerned with responding and yelling than actually reading and understanding.
We have clearly demonstrated the serious flaws in J. Franks
June 23, 2008 - 11:38 ET by Dee Bunkarguments. He can't respond so he only states that it's a crock even though he has no logical argument for why tax receipts increased much larger than could be accounted for in the small GDP growth.
But the effect is that
June 23, 2008 - 12:22 ET by BDBut the effect is that decreases in tax rates DOES equal higher revenues to the treasury.
The claim that not following the Laffer Curve and maintaining minimal rates means you are the one adhering to the "Crock."
→ BD
June 23, 2008 - 12:28 ET by Cool ArrowJ. Frank Wilson (and The Cavaliers) doesn't understand the WalMart concept of increased revenue from high volume at lower prices.
Give that "Crock" one Last Kiss
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
@Cool Arrow:
June 23, 2008 - 13:40 ET by j. frank wilsonNicely done - after 80 weeks you are the first person to get it...
→ Got it J. Frank
June 23, 2008 - 13:45 ET by Cool ArrowI commented on it once last year. A reference to your "cavalier" attitude, I think.
They were from here in my Home Town.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Uh... I got it a long time
June 23, 2008 - 13:51 ET by Clear thinkerUh... I got it a long time ago, but it never seemed important enough to comment on.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
"Wait for me, Wild Bill!"
June 23, 2008 - 16:33 ET by j. frank wilsonI'm sure you did.
Just don't hold your breath waiting for someone to figure out why you call yourself "Clear Thinker."
Gee, thanks for the nasty remark...
June 23, 2008 - 16:40 ET by Clear thinkerNow we all know the real you.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
@Clear Thinker:
June 24, 2008 - 09:42 ET by j. frank wilsonI apologize for any hurt feelings. If you were to read the comments that follow mine, you would readily see that insults, name-calling, miscellaneous schoolyard invective, etc., are the coin of the NB realm. [The rules to the contrary are rather loosely enforced here.]
If I have permitted those miasmas of ill feeling to permeate my personal atmosphere, that is not a good thing and I do apologize to you for it.
"PS: Sen. Obama has
June 20, 2008 - 12:56 ET by ckc1227"PS: Sen. Obama has specifically stated he does not support an increase in the capital gains tax to its previous level. "
Was that before or after he said he would take public financing?
Hey, the market must have
June 20, 2008 - 13:54 ET by BDHey, the market must have been dreadful , right, cause I only paid several thousand dollars in Cap Gains and I am small fish.
Reinstate Higher Capital gains and the capital needed to keep things going will go offshore even faster.
But it won't be long before someone here comments how lowering capital gains taxes increases revenues - what a crock!
First off, don't worry about me (but thank you)...
June 20, 2008 - 11:08 ET by DooperSecond of all, it would result in MORE trading since the incentive to hold positions over a year would be taken away if short term capital gains are taxed at the same rate as long term capital gains. But that has nothing to do with my position.
Trust me, I wont. Of course,
June 20, 2008 - 11:15 ET by HermanoTrust me, I wont. Of course, if you are looking for short term gains, perhaps this is a great strategy. Just don't look for people to invest in much after that. Everything I would do would be related to 401Ks, IRAs and Stock Purchase Plans for the long term. I would certainly not want to take as many hits on trading commissions.
You work on Wallstreet,
June 20, 2008 - 10:58 ET by OldSailor88You work on Wallstreet, and you're going to vote for Obama?
Wow. You must not want to continue to be successful. Good luck in your future employment. Whatever field that may be.
Postatem obscuri lateris nescitis
If the country is on the
June 20, 2008 - 11:04 ET by JerryIf the country is on the wrong path, it is because of LIBERAL policies. Abortion, soft on crime, welfare state, inner city turmoil, appeasment of terrorists, public edcuation/indoctrination fiasco, no drilling, no new refineries, no new nuclear power, no new hydro power, moral decay.... you name it.
If you're gonna vote for Obama, you certainly aren't a conservative.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
It's not liberal nor is it conservative...
June 20, 2008 - 13:11 ET by SyriusJerry,
It's God's plan. He has a plan for all of us, this country, and the world. If he wants abortions to exist, by golly, they will exist. Who are we to question God and his plan for us? If he wants crime to happen as a test for you to experience being a victim then sit back and let it happen...You shouldn't question God. If Obama wins in November, well, that's just part of God's plan. Kneel down and pray for forgiveness, I'm sure he's listening to you.
Syrius
Yawn.
June 20, 2008 - 13:16 ET by MassConservYawn.
Yeah right
June 20, 2008 - 11:04 ET by contrary"80% of Americans think this country is on the wrong path..."
Are you going to be intellectually honest enough to admit
1.) without a link to a reputable poll this is pure BS and opinion. Look, I can do the same thing: 99% of people on this site think your statements are without merit.
2.) Assuming there is some truth to the number you just threw out, it should be obvious not every American thinks we're on the "wrong path" (whatever that is defined as) for the same reasons, or that Democrats automatically can put us on the "right path."
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Not sure what difference it makes...
June 20, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Doopersince you all think the MSM is a liberal mouthpiece but here you go...
http://ap.google.com...
Came out today.
- Political affiliation:
June 20, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Jerry- Political affiliation: (D) 37%, (I) 23%, (R) 23%.
- 60% thought so because of the economy, mainly high gas prices.
- Congressional ratings: 23 percent approved, 72 percent disapproved.
So, you have a leftward politically skewed poll, with the majority of respondents dis-satisified with gas prices (directly attributable to democrat policies), who are even more dis-satisfied with the democrat Congress.
BTW, Republicans don't call themselves Independents, although, many Democrats do, to flee from the "liberal" tag, so it is probably even more skewed than it appears.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
"Those who said the country
June 20, 2008 - 14:20 ET by contrary"Those who said the country was on the wrong track totaled 76 percent of the people contacted in the survey, which was taken from June 12-16. That's up from 71 percent in April and 66 percent near the end of 2007."
"Six in ten of those who chose wrong track blamed the struggling economy, with gasoline prices hovering above $4 a primary reason. "Poor leadership" accounted for 23 percent, while 20 percent said the war in Iraq."
So an opinion poll shows gas prices/struggling economy being the primary reason we are on the "wrong track" (specifically, .76*.60 = 45% of those polled.) This would seem to be a consequence of both parties in Congress. Assuming the right track would be low gas prices, that would satisfy 45% more people. What we really should be asking is why its the government's role to "fix" gas prices and the economy.
The nebulous "poor leadership" reason could apply to anyone in Congress, the White House, or Supreme Court. How does this exactly translate to just Republicans.
Look, I agree with you the direction of the country is not where I would like to see it. The blame is not just one party or solely the President. The reasons why people think the US is sinking are varied and numerous.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Here's a sampling of reasons
June 20, 2008 - 14:50 ET by contraryHere's a sampling of reasons people have given me.
Loss of freedoms
Bad Supreme Court decisions
Partisan bickering in Congress
Low salaries
High cost of living
War in Iraq not ending quickly enough
Just being in Iraq
Our image in Europe
Illegal immigration
Taxation without representation
Expensive and inefficient social programs
Unconstitutional use of taxpayer’s money
Global Warming
Too many environmental regulations
Media bias affecting important issues
Laws that favor some special interest group
Voter disenfranchisement
Big business making too much money
Gun control measures ineffective
Racial discrimination
Looks like the Federal Government has some explaining to do.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
And one more...
June 20, 2008 - 11:48 ET by DooperFrom that bastion of liberal minded agendas...CBS
http://www.cbsnews.c...
LOL
June 20, 2008 - 13:05 ET by MassConservLOL
"From that bastion of liberal minded agendas...CBS", and you don't even realize how right you are.
I'm considering voting
June 20, 2008 - 11:05 ET by mattmI'm considering voting independent myself... but your statement "Anybody that doesn't toe the line is considered lefty and liberal" is not correct. You're making a generalization about me that isn't true, and using it as a way of backing up your argument. That's not very good logic, but no biggie.
You say 80% think the country is on the wrong path. Maybe so, but why blame only republicans? Democrats stole the majority in the Senate in 2000, have filibustered and obstructed the republican agenda (which is their right to do), and they won all of Congress in 2006 - yet now their approval numbers are lower than Bush's even though they haven't been getting bashed in the media every five minutes.
So, why are the Dems not in worse trouble than the Republicans? I say it's for one reason - which the GOP establishment probably won't admit to - because too many republicans have compromised and betrayed the GOP platform.
"80% of Americans think
June 20, 2008 - 12:52 ET by ckc1227"80% of Americans think this country is on the wrong path and in want of
change and I guarantee you most of them would not consider themselves
liberal."
Most of them wouldn't consider themselves dumb either, but if they're voting for a Marxist promising change just because they want change, then they aren't very smart.
Different "Back Out"
June 20, 2008 - 11:03 ET by zeestephenSouthJersey - I forget the exact details, but before the Primaries McCain agreed to some form of public finance which I believe applied only for the Primaries - by doing that he automatically qualified for a place on the ballots of several states, without having to go through the usual signature petition sort of things - thus, some people now claim that McCain's name is (or was) illegally on those ballots, since McCain later rejected public finance for the Primaries - also, in that same time period, McCain applied for some sort of private campaign loan - the allegation is that the federal matching funds he applied for were a form of implicit "collateral" for the private campaign loan - when McCain later rejected Primary matching funds, some people allege he used "fraud" to obtain his private campaign loan
@SouthJersey1953:
June 20, 2008 - 12:46 ET by j. frank wilsonNope.
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/mccainletter.pdf
I think Joseph Farah (WND.com) is right
June 20, 2008 - 10:12 ET by SouthJersey1953The more I think about it (and hear from our two candidates), the more I think Joseph Farah is right:
WRITE IN "None of the Above" this November. Maybe if 20% of the electorate votes for None of Above someone "might" get the hint.
I heard a McLame ad last night touting his "strong stand" on Global Warming. If I didn't know better, I would think he was the Democrat's candidate....
ARGHHHHH!!!!!
2 reasons to vote for the
June 20, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Dan The Man 22 reasons to vote for the GOP, both SCOTUS picks. The Presidency lasts for 4 years while SCOTUS lasts for 20 or more. Im sure you dont want more GITMO decisions coming in. I this fear mongering, yes and if it doesn't work then you will know the real meaning of fear the Lord your God.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
that's what I thought until....
June 20, 2008 - 13:04 ET by SouthJersey1953I was for McCain for the sole reaosn of SCOTUS choices, but last week he was talking to Dems, trying to get their vote, and he told them that he voted FOR Ginsburg.......makes me worry about who he would name.....
More reason we should pray
June 20, 2008 - 13:10 ET by Dan The Man 2More reason we should pray hard and long.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
South Jersey, McCain had the chance to support conservate judges
June 23, 2008 - 16:53 ET by jefflebowskiand he opted to form the gang of 14. Why anyone believes that McPain will fight Charlie Schumer to seat a conservative on the SC is beyond me. Again, McCain is a Democrat!!!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
1st
June 20, 2008 - 10:13 ET by cvgbuckeyeIf I were on McCain's staff, the 1st commercial I would make would be a remake of that old Holiday Inn commercial.
It would feature taking about 10 seconds out of one of Osama Obama's haughty speeches. He would be interrupted by someone asking "Are you really someone with great leadership experience"?
He would quietly answer, "No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night".
Anybody remember those commercials?
More appropriate for Bush...
June 20, 2008 - 10:54 ET by DooperOnly problem is its not a commercial!!
I
June 20, 2008 - 11:19 ET by cvgbuckeyeI stand humbly corrected dooper
MORE AP CRAP First of
June 20, 2008 - 10:13 ET by mattmMORE AP CRAP
First of all, he's not a "former aide" he was a spokesman. Secondly, they portray his unsubstantiated hearsay as if it were credible.
Somebody ought to sue this puke for slander, and take the crAP down with them.
Too Complicated
June 20, 2008 - 10:15 ET by PurdueMattI don't think the voting public will care, because they won't be able to understand what it means.
Faux Noise
June 20, 2008 - 10:15 ET by j. frank wilsonwon't cover it, but you can read it here:
http://www.responsibleplan.com/o/2757/images/responsible_plan.pdf
A clear, cogent, sensible plan to unwind the Iraq debacle.
Something defeatists and
June 20, 2008 - 10:42 ET by mattmSomething defeatists and other BDS opportunists won't heed:
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010665
@mattm:
June 20, 2008 - 11:13 ET by j. frank wilsonOn the one hand we have Frederick Keagan; on the other we have Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (ret.), Lawrence Korb, and many others...Now there's a tough choice!
Well, j. frank, you're just
June 20, 2008 - 11:29 ET by mattmWell, j. frank, you're just going to believe what you want, listen only to that which you agree with.
It doesn't seem to matter to you that since the so-called "surge" we have dramatically turned the tide. Everyday the situation improves, and the media fail to cover it.
The people in the report you cited were Nixon/Ford-esqe establishment types or ex-democrat administration (Carter or Clinton) people who were basically against the Iraq plan from day one.
I don't disagree that there is a case to be made that we should have taken a different approach in the beginning, but the fact that wars don't always work out exactly as planned seems to be lost on people who have an anti-Bush agenda and couldn't care less that 20,000+ terrorists are dead and Iraq is a democracy which could provide an inestimably valuable amount of stability and security to a region that has produce the exact opposite for decades.
It's too bad that so many people would rather see America retreat if it means humiliating Bush than to see the WOT end with a U.S. victory.
@mattm:
June 20, 2008 - 12:33 ET by j. frank wilsonYou read and digest a 50+ page report in an hour and then have the gall to comment about me "... you're just going to believe what you want, listen only to that which you agree with?"
As to the Surge working, you conflate causation with commonality or coincidence. We didn't have to send over more troops to make the Surge work. All the had to do was ship even more pallets of cash to bribe the milita forces. The problem with this "solution" is that we can't pay them forever, and in the meantime no stable government has been established.
PS: I certainly see your point - what could Gen. Eaton possibly know about the military situation in Iraq? Or Gen. Sanchez? Or Gen. Petraeus?
If you honestly suggest "Iraq is a democracy" that can function on its own you are a blind fool who refuses to see the truth standing on your shoetops.
I saw that report long
June 20, 2008 - 12:46 ET by mattmI saw that report long before you posted it.
I tried to be civil in my response, but the ridiculous and unreasoned tone of your responses, plus the inclusion of bogus claims like: "All the(y) had to do was ship even more pallets of cash to bribe the milita forces," confirms to me that you have no intention of engaging in legitimate debate.
You're just a, B.S.-filled, flame-throwing troll, who's not worth the time to argue with.
I concur with that point.
June 20, 2008 - 14:06 ET by BDI concur with that point. Even when we are winning with improved Intelligence gathering provided by the improved comfort level of a more secure population, the BDS types attempt to stigmatize the hard work of my brothers in arms by saying we are bribing people.
But then again, perhaps that is how liberals handle things - Bribing people. Seems to fit actually :
@BD:
June 20, 2008 - 17:40 ET by j. frank wilsonYou commented "The Mortgage situation means that people who did not deserve mortgages were not getting em. They bitch - so libs bribe them by forcing the Mortgage Companies to make bad loan decisions."
Liberals bribed mortgage companies to make bad loans? You write that and then assert other people have "BDS?" You really aren't very bright, are you?
Re-read the statement, JFW:
June 20, 2008 - 19:38 ET by Indiana JoeRe-read the statement, JFW: "The Mortgage situation means that people who did not deserve mortgages were not getting em. They bitch - so libs bribe them by forcing the Mortgage Companies to make bad loan decisions."
What BD was asserting was that the "libs bribe" the "people who did not deserve mortgages." THAT is the "them" referred to. They did this "by forcing the Mortgage Companies to make bad loan decisions," thereby resulting in the mortgage "crisis."
It's a little clumsy in the construction, but the meaning is clear. And I won't make any comment on how "bright" you may or may not be.
@IndianaJoe & BD:
June 21, 2008 - 10:23 ET by j. frank wilsonOK - I'll read it your way. Who "forced" mortgage companies to make bad loans? It was the growth of securitization that permitted brokers and table-funding mortgage companies to crank out huge volumes of bad loans. The brokers and companies did it for the points, not because they were forced to do it. They were allowed to do it. Dangle 3 or 4 points in front of the average residential mortgage broker and you'll lose your hand when it grabs the bait.
It was very lax federal regulation of the entire industry - both on the mortgage (retail) side and on the securitization (Wall Street and overseas) market side that permitted this debacle to take place.
About 18 months ago the Wall Street Journal ran an article about CMO's that stated origination "underwriters" (they were really brokers, as well) were keeping larger and larger portions of the CMO's they had been selling, primarily to overseas investors. I read that and concluded the party was over - the sales people were beginning to believe their own line of b.s. and the end was coming...
So: Please expain how the "libs" (whoever they are? They weren't in the White House or running Congress, we know that for sure - despite Hermano commenting that 2006 Congressional testimony was before a Democratic-majority House or Senate) forced mortgage companies to make bad loans?
Read it the way it was written
June 21, 2008 - 11:18 ET by Indiana JoeWell, I believe the modern "it's everyone's right to have affordable housing" liberal meme caused mortgage lenders to provide high-risk mortgages. Who and how do you decide what's "affordable?" And I seem to remember some kind of "community re-investment" act that required lenders to make so many loans in such-and-such area.
But imagine if these lenders hadn't made these high-risk loans. The cries of "racism" and "red-lining" would have been raised at least as loudly (and by the same people, i.e. Jackson et al) as the cries of "racism" and "taking advantage" are being raised now.
There's more than one way to skin a bank.
@Indiana Joe:
June 23, 2008 - 09:30 ET by j. frank wilsonClearly you don't know anything about the lending industry. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) has been on the books for many, many years. And it is a regulatory requirement that makes a great deal of sense - banks and thrifts (do you know the difference between the two?) should loan money in the communities from which they gather deposits. All such loans are to be "safe and sound" - that's part of the law, as well.
High-risk (for the borrowers, not for the loan agents and brokers who originated them) home mortgage loans were not driven by community lending requirements. They were driven by greedy points-driven front people and an extraordinarily lax regulatory environment (another gift from the Republicans).
Do you understand that the unregulated hedge fund / overseas investment / "private money" market is greater today than the regulated stock market? Does that make sense to you? Thank Sen. McCain's economic advisor Phil Grahm for that one...
@J Frank
June 23, 2008 - 09:59 ET by bassndudeCommunity Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, under Jimmy Carter. Carter thought it was a good idea to. The CRA requries banks to meet the lending needs of the entire community. Clinton, in 1995 substantially increase the number of loans to small businesses and to low and moderate income borrowers for home loans. It was this inane act that created the subprime debacle. These newer acts in the CRA forces banks to loan to otherwise non credit worthy borrowers.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
@bassndude:
June 23, 2008 - 11:38 ET by j. frank wilsonIt always comes back to Clinton and Carter, doesn't it?
First of all, the concept that lenders must actually loan money in the communities from which they draw deposits is quite reasonable. It is also very good business. For a couple of years I made excellent loans in a Northern California city redlined (illegally, of course) by many lenders. They were all good loans, and we had the opportunity because many other lenders were bigots.
Are you seriously suggesting that a 1995 change in the law triggered the sub-prime debacle ten years later? That the revised CRA rose from the dead, zombie-like, to wreck havoc on the residential lending industry?
Where is the option-ARM and 4 points upfront mandated by CRA? Gee, I missed that Reg. while preparing for our most recent exam. Could you cite it for me?
No regulation on the books requires lenders to make bad loans. No Reg. permits it, let alone demands it. That's a remarkably stupid claim from someone who clearly has no understanding of the business.
Vintage 2005, 2006 and Q1-Q3 2007 home mortgages are imploding at a record pace. Show me where lenders were required to make these bad loans.
J Frank, anyone, and I mean
June 23, 2008 - 13:58 ET by bassndudeJ Frank, anyone, and I mean anyone that would sign a mortgage with anything like Adjustable Rate in it anywhere, has no business even looking for a loan. As for the 1995 changes in the CRA, that is exactly what they did. It required lenders to make loans to some of those who were bad risks. Any law that is made that dictates how one should spend their money is a bad law. The communities that deposit their money into these institutions, expect those institutions to keep their money safe and have the expectitation of making some intrest on their money. It used to be called a users fee, or a usury fee. Bad loans do just the opposite.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
@bassndude:
June 23, 2008 - 16:45 ET by j. frank wilsonPlease show us all where CRA requires lenders to make loans to people who are bad risks. I can't wait to read that. If it were true - and obviously it isn't - what did it take a dozen or more years for the chickens to come home to roost? You have yet to explain that one.
The concept of CRA is perfectly fair. Banks and thrifts gather deposits using federal deposit insurance (are you against that, as well?) - in turn, they are obliged to loan money in the communities that supply the funds. What the heck is wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with an ARM loan. It is a tool - the right one for some people, the wrong one for others. If you need a hammer, a hammer is a wonderful thing to have. If you need a screwdriver, that doesn't make a hammer a bad tool - just the wrong tool.
Now, an option ARM with significant neg am probably isn't the right tool for very many borrowers - particularly if its a refi. But if a broker can pocket 3 or 4 points steering a client into one, and make at best a point for a 30-year fixed - I don't have to wonder which loan gets sold.
Fraud is fraud. Much of the sub-prime mess was created by fraud - fake rental agreements, false income information, false loan applications and appraisals, etc., etc. Did CRA mandate fraud as well?
But, back to the original point. I can't wait to read where CRA requires a federally-regulated lender to make bad loans...Next time I'm running an exam and OTS is due in this will make my job so much easier (actually it won't because (1.) you're full of bs and (2.) there is never a good time to make a bad loan). But I'm still looking forward to how you squirm and weasel out of this one...
1.) Read the original
June 23, 2008 - 17:02 ET by BD1.) Read the original legislation.
2.) Read the comments by the people sponsoring the legislation.
3.) read the comments about the CRA program by the "Community Organizers" who supported them.
It is obviuos at every turn that security of the loan was not paramount, "Racial Equity" was.
@BD:
June 23, 2008 - 20:28 ET by j. frank wilsonIt's obvious you know absolutely nothing about institutional, federally-regulated lending - particularly CRA. Probably precious little about any other compliance matters. Have you been in the business long enough to know "BOB?" Have you ever read it?
Do you honestly think there was no such thing as redlining or other discriminatory behavor - intentional or not? Do you support that? Do you think Black folks shouldn't be able to borrow money? It's bad business, bad social policy, and just plain wrong.
I have yet to sit through a loan review, audit, or examination (can you tell me the difference between the three?) and have anyone express the slightest interest in "community activitists."
Safety and soundness is at the core of federal banking regulation because the federal government insures deposits. And regulators are not wild about seeing the insurance funds drawn upon to cover bank and thrift failures. You probably don't even know the difference between a bank and a thrift.
The root causes of the sub-prime debacle are well known and easily identified. Anyone in the industry could see this coming - and elect to not participate in the activities that led to it. Again, how could a 1970's law adjusted in the mid-1990's cause an August 2007 meltdown?
There may be topics you are qualified to offer an intelligent opinion on. It's painfully obvious federal regulatory lending compliance is not one of them.
Do you honestly think there
June 24, 2008 - 07:19 ET by BDDo you honestly think there was no such thing as redlining or other discriminatory behavor - intentional or not? Do you support that? Do you think Black folks shouldn't be able to borrow money? It's bad business, bad social policy, and just plain wrong.
I have yet to sit through a loan review, audit, or examination (can you tell me the difference between the three?) and have anyone express the slightest interest in "community activitists."
Safety and soundness is at the core of federal banking regulation because the federal government insures deposits.
And regulators are not wild about seeing the insurance funds drawn upon to cover bank and thrift failures. You probably don't even know the difference between a bank and a thrift.
The root causes of the sub-prime debacle are well known and easily identified. Anyone in the industry could see this coming - and elect to not participate in the activities that led to it. Again, how could a 1970's law adjusted in the mid-1990's cause an August 2007 meltdown?
There may be topics you are qualified to offer an intelligent opinion on. It's painfully obvious federal regulatory lending compliance is not one of them.
@BD:
June 24, 2008 - 09:52 ET by j. frank wilsonBased on their financial results, there are remarkably few well-managed banks or other lenders out there. I'm happy to report that I do not sit on any Board(s). For many years, however, I have made a living as a loan underwriter, asset reviewer, compliance officer, and loan officer. I've never lost a disagreement over a loan grade with a regulator. To state that FDIC covers deposits but not loans while obvious also manages to miss the point. Depositors can't be repaid if the loans go bad. As for your research "over many years," and your complete failure to demonstrate a link because CRA and the sub-prime debacle - one the silliest things ever claimed on NB, and that is certainly saying something - the results of your "research" speak for themselves.
Based on their financial
June 24, 2008 - 10:33 ET by BDBased on their financial results, there are remarkably few well-managed banks or other lenders out there.
Depositors can't be repaid if the loans go bad.
@BD:
June 24, 2008 - 14:46 ET by j. frank wilsonFed gov't doesn't. Poor loan underwriting is illegal, immoral, and bad business. Stupid. When you can demonstrate the Fed gov't has done this - instead of simply repeating that it has - you'll have a case. You can't so you won't. PS: If what you state were true, Fannie & Freddie would have taken huge hits in the sub-prime debacle. They didn't. Why not? Because they didn't buy the loans. If the problem were driven by CRA the agencies would have purchased them. But they didn't...
Who forced the mortage
June 21, 2008 - 23:26 ET by BDWho forced the mortage companies to make the bad loans to pwople that wree unqualified to get them?
Why, it was the COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS who claimed racism was the real reason for filure for some people to get loans.
And they have been PROUD of this, claiming it as a victory, some even were able to get it codified into legislation.
@BD:
June 23, 2008 - 09:36 ET by j. frank wilsonAnother expert who just heard about CRA? Please - a reasonable regulatory requirement that has been on the books for decades caused this problem? Could you be a little more clueless? Do you not understand CRA, redlining, Fair Credit, the right to receive an appraisal, and the numerous other protections that have been the law for years and years?
Four points to the broker and table-funding mortgage company had a heck of a lot more to do with this situation. Not to mention the ability to securitize the loans for overseas investors chasing yield and not understanding risk. There's nothing like greed and an unregulated market to inflate a bubble, is there?
But I kept reading on NB that the housing price bubble was another liberal media myth. What happened to all those posts - they seem to have disappeared?
We didn't have to send
June 20, 2008 - 14:00 ET by BDWe didn't have to send over more troops to make the Surge work. All the had to do was ship even more pallets of cash to bribe the milita forces.
I don't think he cares
June 20, 2008 - 14:54 ET by contraryI don't think he cares about debating at all. Pearls to swine. I ignore his kind.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Obama is brilliant! He
June 20, 2008 - 10:19 ET by goldbarObama is brilliant! He will get so much more money this way. He's rapidly approaching a warchest of $300 million. McCain has a fraction of that and republicans are reluctant to donate to his campaign.
Obama didn't "flip-flop" he merely changed his mind when he realized he didn't have to tap the government coffers for public funds. Bravo for him! McCain, on the otherhand has flip-flopped more than a fresh caught tuna! He's flip-flopped on EVERY issue!
As far as I can tell, McCain
June 20, 2008 - 10:31 ET by Roger the ShrubberAs far as I can tell, McCain has not "flip-flopped" on numerous foreign policy stances, such as Russia and Iran. Not to mention his stands on social security and free trade.
When you use absolutes, be prepared to be called an idiot, because only idiots use absolutes.
Which is why they are
June 20, 2008 - 11:32 ET by Jack BauerWhich is why they are legitimately known as "absolute idiots!"
And I am absolutely sure of
June 20, 2008 - 12:08 ET by Dan The Man 2And I am absolutely sure of this "only idiots use absolutes". The other day I was talking to a friend and he said to me holding up 2 fingers aboput an inch apart "You are about this close to an idiot". To which I stepped a foot away and said there I'm not that close any more.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Classic! When asked if he
June 20, 2008 - 12:19 ET by JerryClassic!
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
McCain hasn't flip-flopped
June 20, 2008 - 12:17 ET by goldbarMcCain hasn't flip-flopped on anything!?
Take your pick!
He's got more positions than the kama sutra!
Reading if fundamental,
June 20, 2008 - 12:39 ET by Roger the ShrubberReading if fundamental, Pumpkin. I said (try to keep up this time):
As far as I can tell, McCain has not "flip-flopped" on numerous foreign policy stances, such as Russia and Iran. Not to mention his stands on social security and free trade.
This next part is very important, so I will bold it as well as italicize it, so hopefully spare you from embarrassing yourself in the future:
When you use absolutes, be prepared to be called an idiot, because only idiots use absolutes.
So, let's sum this up:
You said an absolute.
I called you on it, exposing your absolute idiocy.
You replied by attacking my post for something it didn't say (hint: I never said McCain has NEVER flip-flopped)
Are you beginning to sense the same pattern of dumbassity that the rest of us have already noticed?
Had enough yet?
Awww, I guess Goldie took
June 20, 2008 - 17:38 ET by Roger the ShrubberAwww, I guess Goldie took his Hufftard talking points and ran home to mommy.
Yeah
June 20, 2008 - 10:47 ET by cvgbuckeyeYeah, he's brilliant alright. Just take a look at all his old friends;; it reads like a poster you would see in the post office of "The 10 most Wanted", not to mention admirerers like goldbar.
Yeah, he is sooooo brilliant.
I for one am glad that B.
June 20, 2008 - 11:05 ET by OldSailor88I for one am glad that B. Hussein Obama decided to forego public funding. Now we can look at all of his private contributors and use that to prove how unworthy he is. Besides, it will be interesting to see the special interest groups that he will be beholden to.
Another thing. He claimed the high road saying that he wanted to defend himself against the "smears" of the 527 groups that will be putting out anti Obama ads. At the same time he's saying this, MoveOn.org is broadcasting two anti McCain ads. Irony at it's finest.
Postatem obscuri lateris nescitis
Before it is over with, he
June 20, 2008 - 12:36 ET by general companyBefore it is over with, he will have way more people under his bus the even McCain
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Man, remember when
June 20, 2008 - 11:13 ET by JerryMan, remember when democraps were screaming about "too much money in politics", "out of control campaign contributions", "money = corrupt politicians", etc. Oh, I forgot, that's only when Republicans would collect more money than democrats. Now it's a virtuous expression of freedom of speech.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
@Jerry:
June 20, 2008 - 17:47 ET by j. frank wilsonIt's George Will and his ilk who argue that giving money is speech - that's a right wingnut arguement. The issue with money in politics isn't just how much - it's where it comes from. Sen. Obama has raised millions from hundreds of thousands of people giving twenty, fifty or a hundred bucks. They won't be lined up in the White Lobby with their hands out for favors like Jack Emup Andripemoff.
You're right, goldbar! He
June 20, 2008 - 11:50 ET by motherbeltYou're right, goldbar! He promised us a "new kind of politics" and this is it! The politics of "raise more money than anyone in history."
I guess those that said there was "too much money in politics" were all wet....thank heaven the Obamessiah came along to show us the right way to do it!
The republicans are running
June 20, 2008 - 12:20 ET by goldbarThe republicans are running scared! I don't think I've ever seen them this scared in my entire life! The racist rightwing is shivering, huddled in the fetal position at the very thought that Obama will be the next president!
Goldbar, I agree
June 20, 2008 - 12:29 ET by jefflebowskithat the Republicans (Mr. Wussypants) are running scared. They have been scared the last 16 years. They let the libs push them around and dictate the goings on in congress even when the Repubs had the majority.
If the Repubs were real leaders and had any cojones they would damn the torpedoes and expose Balack Osama for the fraud leftist that he is. McCain is a lib and doesn't have the guts to stand up to the left. He wants to be their fwiend....ahhhhh.
Just as Carter brought out Reagan, Osama will bring out the next conservative wave. Libs are not leaders...they just get in the way.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
The republicans are running
June 20, 2008 - 14:44 ET by motherbeltThe republicans are running scared! -goldbar
Way to change the subject!
It's easier that than trying to defend Obama's breaking his pledge, isn't it? Are you falling for his excuse that taking all the contributions is really "public money"???
Got another non-sequiteur up your sleeve?
Proof
June 20, 2008 - 16:00 ET by JDWI have not been around for 6 months thus this is the first I have seen of gbar. Regardless, he's proof that we have not won the war on drugs.
JDW
Will Ted Kennedy help write the universal health care bill?
And now, today's Shrub
June 20, 2008 - 10:20 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's Shrub Report®:
Happy World Refugee Day!
You stay classy, Rolling Stone!
It's time to learn the latest techniques in voter registration fraud. Yes, it is time for the ACORN convention!
Today's Religion of Peace Update.
Could ice have been found on Mars?
Chimpy McHitler outwits the witless Congress again?
Mugabe vows not to step down until his country is 100% in the shitter. Only 5% more to go, Bobbie!
Mookie's boys celebrate another HUGE victory!
Uh-oh, looks like John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) is not too popular in his home state anymore.
I guess someone has been receiving all those eveeeel right-wing talking points.
I thought we were in a recession? Economic indicators rose .1% in May. How does AP report this non-recession news? Why, with such colorful verbs as hobbled and limping. Hide the razor blades before reading the article. Oh, and memo to some of our socialist, er, progressive folks who think that liberal media bias does not exist: this is a good example of the media shaping the news and portraying it in a biased manner.
The Hopeful Changer eschews public financing. Skellator was on with Anderson Cooper last night, and reminded everybody how pristine and holy Mr. Hope and Change was, not accepting ANY PAC money. Ironically, Mr. Hope and Change runs a PAC of his own. Oh. Also, here is the latest person Obama will be disavowing any day now.
While we are on the topic of the Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Player, if this mental midget cannot even handle a simple situation like this without appeasing, how in the hell will he be able to handle foreign powers and terrorists?
Today's Ron Paul Update. Huh? What a douche.
Here's a sad story: a woman involved in one of PacMan, er, Adam Jones' many legal problems (and apparently linked to Giants RB Ahmad Bradshaw) was found perished, thrown off the top of a building in NYC.
It seems the Great Britain is waaaaaay ahead of the US in the pussification of our kids. This might help explain England's poor showing at Euro 2008…
President Tom claims Divine Intervention saved him from eveeeeel America. I wonder if he can bowl or play golf as good as this guy?
Oh-oh, more unintended consequences of Liberalism…
Well, at least one of the feet washing ashore in Canada was a hoax!
And finally, The Worst Album Covers of All Time.
Rog, I don't get the Ron
June 20, 2008 - 10:26 ET by balboaRog, I don't get the Ron Paul one..?
Votes to condemn violence in Congress
June 20, 2008 - 10:28 ET by sarcasmoAlways stop it. Didn't you know that??
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
But the second link is a
June 20, 2008 - 10:31 ET by balboaBut the second link is a Chi Chi Rodriguez thing, or is that unrelated?
BTW, I MUST see "Don & Seymour." That was hilarious.
My guess is
June 20, 2008 - 10:38 ET by sarcasmoThat it's a dumb vote congress shouldn't even be taking, since it fills up pages on the Congressional Record at enormous expense even if nothing gets spent on Chi Chi, but who knows? Clearly Ron Paul is the main problem Republicans will have for the next 2 years in Congress, because he's obviously the main threat today to small government.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I am glad you are behind Ron
June 20, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am glad you are behind Ron Paul agreeing that Robert Mugabe should not be criticized for murdering his own people. Just another example of your Hulk-like grasp of foreign policy and reality. You are truly a genius.
Hallucinations, again
June 20, 2008 - 11:06 ET by sarcasmoI never said that. I mocked you, instead, so you predictably hallucinated. What he actually says is more like a condemnation of a dictator & an expensive system of foreign aid that has supported him, but you'd never want to see that, I'm sure.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Why didn't he vote for it,
June 20, 2008 - 12:31 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhy didn't he vote for it, genius? The only "NO" vote? Even Kucinich is smarter than your God! Paul should be embarrassed. Pulling a 2005 article from your well-padded behind is supposed to be some sort of excuse? Pathetic.
But, hey, as usual, you jump to your Lord and Master's defense like always. Ron Paul's rabid toy poodle.
Oh, don't forget to add "inability to mock somebody" to the list of "Things Sarky Sucks At".
Uh, Whiner
June 20, 2008 - 13:22 ET by sarcasmoIf he's my "God," what does that make Walter Williams? Dimwit.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Your God is a bowler?
June 20, 2008 - 13:44 ET by Roger the ShrubberYour God is a bowler?
Nope. But you CLEARLY worship
June 20, 2008 - 13:46 ET by sarcasmoObese government, whether or not you try to deny it.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Laughable. Prove it. Or Shut
June 20, 2008 - 13:53 ET by Roger the ShrubberLaughable.
Prove it. Or Shut up.
You cannot do either.
You prove it yourself.
June 20, 2008 - 14:02 ET by sarcasmoAnd everyone can see it, in your literally "whine a day" hysteria over Ron Paul, who is totally irrelevant at this point but in your hysteria you're too stupid to see that obvious fact. It's dimwitted, as I've told you, but you keep making a fool of yourself anyway.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I gave you two resonable,
June 20, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Roger the ShrubberI gave you two resonable, sensible options: either put up or shut up. Apparently you chose a third option: cry like a little girl.
Come back when you have wipe the spittle off your chin. You have been easy bait the past couple of days, and you rarely fail to disappoint. You must really rock at poker, with that amazing intuition.
Toodles, boy-toucher!
Hulk-like grasp of
June 20, 2008 - 11:58 ET by Jack BauerHa ha. Funny dude. I shall have to steal that.
Mind you, even that's better than Obama's Winnie the Pooh grasp.
Thanks, Jackson.I would
June 20, 2008 - 13:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberThanks, Jackson.
I would prefer you leave the pooh grasping to the multitudinous lefty trolls, er, experts on this board.
Why would Ron Paul be the
June 20, 2008 - 10:44 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhy would Ron Paul be the only congressperson to NOT vote for a symbolic gesture comdemning one of Africa's worst tyrants? Yet, Paul WILL vot for another symbolic gesture honoring Chi-Chi friggin Rodriguez?
The guy is in idiot. He has no ability to discern when to spare himself the ridicule he knows he will receive.
Ah, I get it now. Little
June 20, 2008 - 10:53 ET by balboaAh, I get it now. Little slow on the uptake today...
Album covers....
June 20, 2008 - 11:57 ET by motherbeltRoger, the album covers are a hoot...but this one wasn't done by stupidity....it's a takeoff on this oldie
(Yeah, I'm old enough to remember that....)
We had that album
June 20, 2008 - 13:11 ET by SouthJersey1953MB - thanks for the flashback to younger days.....I remember that album
Whipped Cream
June 20, 2008 - 14:37 ET by BurroCrane 3098A in A&M Records, Herb Alpert. And I still have that one in my collection. Damn...what a drag it is getting old.(R/S)
And that whipped cream looks
June 20, 2008 - 17:28 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd that whipped cream looks so much better than sour cream! I looked it up and the Herb Albert album came out a year before the scary, ugly one. Once again, MB is 100% correct!
actually, that was shaving
June 21, 2008 - 07:54 ET by mister josephactually, that was shaving cream, not whipped cream, on the original cover. apparently the whipped cream didn't have the stiffness to work for the concept. apparently the only whipped cream is on her head. if i remember correctly, the model had a rash for a week after from the shaving cream
[/nerding]
Shocking! A politician who doesn't keep his "promises"...
June 20, 2008 - 10:21 ET by c5thenWow. Go figure. Now McCain will have no choice but to back out of the public system too. Otherwise he'll be limited to $85 million and Obama will be unlimited.
Watch the FEC rule that the campaign for a party nomination and a campaign for the office as the nominee are two different and seperate campaigns. This will allow all of Obama's past donnors to re-contribute an additional $2,500.
I wouldn't be surprized if Obama raised $500 million for his Presidential campaign when it's all over in November.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
The sad thing is, Hussein
June 20, 2008 - 11:34 ET by JerryThe sad thing is, Hussein Obama doesn't need ANY campaign contributions. He get's 24/7 P.R. spin on every media outlet and within the so-called public education system. He wouldn't have to spend a dime to get elected, IF he were electable.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Question: So if God sent
June 20, 2008 - 10:24 ET by balboaQuestion: So if God sent Katrina to punish New Orleans...what'd Iowa do?
2 words...
June 20, 2008 - 10:25 ET by sarcasmo"Ethanol pork."
And IMO God has let 'em off easy.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
The difference is in Iowa
June 20, 2008 - 10:40 ET by goldbarThe difference is in Iowa the residents weren't driven back into the devastation at gunpoint by the National Guard.
Were guns confiscated in Iowa
June 20, 2008 - 10:42 ET by sarcasmoAs they were in New Orleans, in a total contravention of the Second Amendment which featured 0 political consequences as a bonus for the perps?
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
What are you guys talking about ? The National guard didn't
June 20, 2008 - 11:09 ET by Dee Bunkdo that. The Black Dem Mayor of New Orleans overreacted and spread rumors about grave lawlessness including murder and mahem by his citizens. The Dem News media ran with those rumors despite having no real evidence. People inside and outside were in a Democrat and media created panic. The Black Dem Mayor and Woman Dem Governor called in the National guard (which gives them the right to use guns for protection) and they didn't keep anyone from leaving despite the media and Mayor created panic. This same Dem Black Mayor and Dem Woman Governor wouldn't allow federal help at an earlier time before there was the Democratic created panic.
There were some local people in surrounding cities that tried to keep these "lawless murders" out. Those people were acting on the misinformation spread by the Black Dem Mayor and the Dem Media. You can't blame them for wanting to keep the murderous thugs (as the Dem media and the Dem Black mayor described them) out.
Does anybody else notice
June 20, 2008 - 11:24 ET by jefflebowskithat all of the cities with tons of scandals and huge problems are cities with black leadership? Atlanta, Baltimore, DC, Detroit, New Orleans, etc.
Go ahead Balboa, call me a racist. I don't care.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Um...wasn't going to, but
June 20, 2008 - 11:31 ET by balboaUm...wasn't going to, but thanks for the shout-out.
I never said the national guard did it, Dee.
June 20, 2008 - 11:30 ET by sarcasmoRead again. I said gun confiscation was done, which it was despite our Second Amendment being the highest law of the land. I also said there were 0 consequences for the perps, which there were, despite the blatant illegality of their actions. I'm trying to upset the lefties here, wait for it and I'll find a way to upset the right again, I'm sure.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc - I'm not being sarcastic - I really don't know what you
June 20, 2008 - 11:37 ET by Dee Bunkare talking about. I don't remember any gun confiscation so I guess that's why I misunderstood that you were agreeing with goldbar.
What kind of gun confiscation was done and by who's authority? Maybe I knew about it before and just forgot. Can you refresh my memory?
This covers the gun grab
June 20, 2008 - 11:44 ET by sarcasmoPretty well, but it says the NG cooperated. Basically, I'd have been happier if they'd retaken the guns from the (famously corrupt) police department and returned them to the citizens who owned them. This is one of those instances where Clinton couldn't have gotten away with something the Bush admin managed to get away with (an exception proving the media bias rule, if you will, much like Bob Packwood losing his job for doing less sexual harrassment than Bill Clinton obviously did). The NRA mostly fell down on their job with this grab just like NOW did on Clinton's behavior. Later, the proposed solution, instead of obeying the Second Amendment, was "let's pass yet another law!" Needless to say, I wasn't impressed...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Thanks for the article Sarc
June 20, 2008 - 12:09 ET by Dee BunkSo it was Nagin who ordered it as I suspected. I don't remember the busting in to homes part. They had every right to check if people legally owned guns and to keep all guns out of the shelters but busting into homes (if they really did it) wasn't acceptable. Nagen was the most responsible for all of this panic and misinformation.
But the feds (National Guard) went along with it.
June 20, 2008 - 13:17 ET by sarcasmoLike I said, in my ideal world, they'd have resisted an obvious violation of our Constitution. And also as I said, the idea of another law to solve the problem of not obeying the highest law of the land is stupid to the point of laughable. Like the Second Amendment? Obey it, for once. And I love my Packwood-Clinton/NOW sex vs Bush/NRA grab comparison, even though Republicans & Democrats probably DON'T, because it hits home so beautifully, if I do say so myself. Both the NRA and NOW clearly fell down on their respective jobs, and I love saying-so now because I also did at the time.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
"This is one of those
June 20, 2008 - 12:38 ET by ckc1227"This is one of those instances where Clinton couldn't have gotten away with something the Bush admin managed to get away with"
Except that it wasn't the Bush administration doing it.
Isn't the National Guard
June 20, 2008 - 13:21 ET by sarcasmoFederally controlled, in the end?? That's the Commander In Chief, which makes this gun grab a bipartisan scandal (funny how I keep exposing those, eh?) unless someone can prove otherwise. Our President should have been ENFORCING the Second Amendment, even if that meant fighting the (famously-corrupt, as I said) New Orleans police & their mayor. People like me would have massively supported such action. M16s beat police sidearms, too, so it was an obvious one.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I'm not 100% sure, but I
June 20, 2008 - 17:16 ET by Indiana JoeI'm not 100% sure, but I think the National Guard only answers to the President when the Prez activates them for federal purposes. In the case of Katrina, I'm pretty sure LA's governor activated them. They were LA guard units, right? If they were from another state, maybe that would require presidential activation. But I think governors control their NG units unless "called up" federally.
So, what's this about goldbar's claim that people were forced to go back to NO at gunpoint? New one on me.
I agree, it's a good question
June 21, 2008 - 04:28 ET by sarcasmoIt ultimately comes down to "what does a guardsman, who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, do when he gets an order that clearly & obviously violates the terms of said Constitution?" I wish there'd been more official resistance, because I think ordinary citizens with guns are the only thing that prevents looters reliably. But no matter who was responsible, what we needed was more widespread respect for the Bill of Rights among law enforcement & military leadership, not one more law (which was proposed instead) for them to ignore.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
No
June 20, 2008 - 10:52 ET by cvgbuckeyeNo, the difference is that Katrina in New Orleans was an excellent example of what happens when a bunch of people have become addicted to sitting on their backsides and letting the rest of the world wipe their backsides for them.
When the wipers go away, the wipees can't survive.
Its not complicated.
I was told there was a Gay Parade...
June 20, 2008 - 11:42 ET by Syriuscvg,
...and God didn't take kindly to it.
Does this mean all the people of New Orleans were gay?!?
From your logic...All of the people of New Orleans are waiting for Gov't handouts and baby wipes?!?
Wowwwww...
Syrius
WRONG, the difference is,
June 20, 2008 - 11:37 ET by Jerry"The difference is in Iowa the residents weren't driven back into the devastation at gunpoint by the National Guard"
WRONG, the difference is, Iowans aren't waiting around to suck on the government's teat.
The Iowans aren't sitting around, looking for someone to blame, and wondering who's going to fix things.
The Iowan politicans aren't trying to cover their inadequate preparations by blaming Bush, which the press readily laps up and amplifies.
The Iowan politicans didn't include the Superdome as their one big evacuation plan, and then leave it totally without food, water, or medical supplies.
The Iowans take care of themselves, because they are used to taking care of themselves and are not dependent on government.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Uh, those Iowa corn farmers
June 20, 2008 - 11:47 ET by sarcasmoDo quite a bit of suckin' on that obese government tit, just as I said. I've come to think their first in the nation primary leads to excessive pork such as the pervasive ethanol-pork we've seen raising food prices. IMO they shouldn't always be first to vote. This isn't excusing all the welfare in New Orleans, which also caused rot, but the idea that Iowans are icons of all American independence is laughable.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
The Iowans could get in
June 20, 2008 - 11:48 ET by goldbarThe Iowans could get in their cars an go east on multiple freeways. They could stop and get food along the way. They weren't driven back at gunpoint into the flooded area. In New Orleans there were 1800 deaths. In Iowa maybe four or five. You can't compare the two.
The people who drove them back
June 20, 2008 - 11:59 ET by Dee Bunkwere the locals, not the Federal Government. The whole panic was caused by the Black Dem Mayor and the Dem media as I explained above. You first made up stories about the national guard. Now you try to compare death tolls as if it proved wrong doing by the Fed Government. The Federal Govt and the media warned for days for people to get out and they ignored it and that's why they died. More died than had to (despite not heading warnings) because of The Black Dem Mayor and the Women Dem Governor who didn't allow the Feds in early enough and also created panic through the media that kept volunteers out too.
Yes, you CAN compare the
June 20, 2008 - 14:16 ET by BDYes, you CAN compare the two. Or how about three....
My home town was even MORE destroyed by a combined flood and fire in 1997. The people virtually all self evacuated and helped those who could not. No Fed authorities or even state folks required to do it.
We evacuated all of the invalids at the nursing home below the levee - no feds or state needed to do that.
The key point is that we have bred a culture of "No self reliance needed" amongst a huge portion of people who wanted the feds to come and carry them to safety in New Orleans. This does not exist in North dakota nor Iowa where the population would be mortified to even hear those positions voiced in their midst.
Most of you dont know what
June 20, 2008 - 14:54 ET by general companyMost of you dont know what the heck your talking about. What information do any of you have other then what the agenda driven media gave you? You guys think folks down here are any diffent then in any other large city, well they are not. MOST folks got along just fine without any assistance, and MOST of the one's that did recieve it were very thankful and did not have much choice. I hope none of you ever have everything you ever knew washed out from under you.
But you goldbar are super ignorant of anything that happend down here. Why dont you crawl back in your hole and find a clue.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I DO know what I am talking
June 20, 2008 - 16:28 ET by BDI DO know what I am talking about when it comes to a hometown being destroyed (1979 Flood of the century, and 1997 - 500 year Flood and fire that devastated everything above the waterline.)
While most citizens of New Orleans probably are upstanding individuals who have a sense of self reliance and worked hard to prevent tragedy and recover from it, it cannot be overstated that thousands did NOT display any form of this. And when compared to the populace of other locations who have suffered tragedies of similar scale, New Orleans comes up wanting.
During the coverage of the New Orleans events you did not see mile long lines of citizens passing sandbags to gaps in the levees in attempts to shore them up.
What did we see? People bitching at the camera saying "Why hasn't anyone come to rescue me?" when they were free to get up and walk to safety.
Even within the Katrina tragedy, the coverage showed us the populations of southern Mississippi and Alabama who suffered more from the event actually getting on with rescue and recovery as a negative image from the less self reliant New Orleans population.
BD knows? How?
June 20, 2008 - 19:39 ET by general companyI DO know what I am talking about when it comes to a hometown being destroyed (1979 Flood of the century, and 1997 - 500 year Flood and fire that devastated everything above the waterline.)
You do? Well you may know the logistics of the devastation but you don't know anything about what happened here. The reason you don't, is because it hasn't been on the news. Lots of people here worked very hard to bring relief and many more of us helped our neighbors rebuild.
Quick question, how many stories did CNN and the rest of the gang write about your natural disaster? Did they skew the stories to make you look helpless and the government look like bumbling idiots?
Sure our local Gov were the biggest part of all failures. Sure their were people who took advantage of the situation. But I don't think any other city would not had similar problems.
You have NO idea what it is like to be under the microscope of the media like they were. The media lied about how we treated each other, and how the Gov didn't want to help us. I was in a neighborhood in Kenner when CNN came asking questions, those folks wanted them to leave, because of the helpless way they were being portrayed on their news programs. And it continues today, most of us are very upset how the rest of the country thinks of us, we have no venue to show our appreciation. We are at the mercey of the MSM, what ever they say will be how we are thought of. We are very thankful that the rest of the country had our backs, you cannot even imagine how many people I have personally thanked for helping our communities.
I am here, when those that are not suggest we are selfless and unworthy, sorry I get offended. I know how hard folks worked and continue to work, I know how much people gave of themselves. I have many personal stories of folks loosing every thing, folks that have never known anything else. Most folks in this country have made up their opinion of us by what the agenda driven media has told them. I hear folks here and else where say they will never visit us again or worst. Who else will speak in our defense if not me? Their are a lot of good folks here, but as always the squeaky wheel get the grease, and the press.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Quick question, how many
June 21, 2008 - 23:48 ET by BDQuick question, how many stories did CNN and the rest of the gang write about your natural disaster?
Did they skew the stories to make you look helpless and the government look like bumbling idiots?
You have NO idea what it is like to be under the microscope of the media like they were.
most of us are very upset how the rest of the country thinks of us,
I am here, when those that are not suggest we are selfless and unworthy, sorry I get offended.
More for BD
June 20, 2008 - 19:53 ET by general companyDuring the coverage of the New Orleans events you did not see mile long lines of citizens passing sandbags to gaps in the levees in attempts to shore them up.
The levees gave way very quickly, who do you think should had been their waiting with sand bags in 100mph winds? This is a Hurricain, not a flood.
Even within the Katrina tragedy, the coverage showed us the populations of southern Mississippi and Alabama who suffered more from the event actually getting on with rescue and recovery as a negative image from the less self reliant New Orleans population.
As I have stated before
I agree some what with this. Plaquemines Parish was completely leveled, never seen anything like it. But the other states had leadership, they told the fed they wanted relief. Our Governor and Mayor refused to call a disaster and made political hay for the Dems, this continues today BTW.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
The levees gave way very
June 22, 2008 - 00:05 ET by BDThe levees gave way very quickly, who do you think should had been their waiting with sand bags in 100mph winds? This is a Hurricain, not a flood.
But the other states had leadership, they told the fed they wanted relief. Our Governor and Mayor refused to call a disaster and made political hay for the Dems, this continues today BTW.
Let's make sure this time the Gov't is there in the beginning...
June 20, 2008 - 11:54 ET by SyriusJerry,
The flooding hasn't stopped. Let's just wait and see. Time will tell if the Iowans start yammering for assistance from the Feds. Time will tell.
I do wonder what God has planned for them...What do you think? What have they done wrong? Maybe we shouldn't support them since God is bent on making their lives harder and tougher. Maybe it's a test by God for them and for the rest of the country? If only he would give us a sign...if God creates more hardship for the Iowans and the rest of the people down river, well, we should heed God's warning and not help them. We don't want to piss off God he might raise the price of gas again and then we'll all be in a pickle...well...not the oil companies, God likes them!
Syrius
Syrius and balboa get their religion from the school of Rev
June 20, 2008 - 12:01 ET by Dee BunkWright. How scary.
Actually....
June 20, 2008 - 12:25 ET by SyriusGod hates levees!!!
It's a fact, he told me!!!
Syrius
I get my religion from old
June 20, 2008 - 12:33 ET by balboaI get my religion from old episodes of "Kung Fu."
Now THAT is a fact I am
June 20, 2008 - 14:19 ET by BDNow THAT is a fact I am familiar with.
That and Trailers in the midwest - he has a real hatred of trailers in Tornado alley.....
Syrius, You are right in
June 20, 2008 - 12:57 ET by JerrySyrius,
You are right in your first paragraph. I'm sure groups will begin seeking government assistance eventually, that is inevitable. And government should help out, they just should not be the first and only option.
Now, just when I was thinking you were seeking a reasonable discussion, you go and blow it with your second paragraph.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Nominated Obama in their
June 20, 2008 - 12:59 ET by BuffNBoneNominated Obama in their primary?
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Neither were the New
June 20, 2008 - 14:10 ET by BDNeither were the New Orleans residents. Those who had the gumption to walk out - did.
Wait wait, wait......, I thought THERE WERE NO NATIONAL GUARDSMEN, I THOUGH THEY WERE ALL IN IRAQ instead of at home - isn't THAT the favored Lib talking point.
You really gotta get your talking points together.
I don't know balboa
June 20, 2008 - 10:27 ET by Dee BunkAsk Obama and Rev Wright. They should be able to tell you. They believe in the whole God Dam America thing. Bush doesn't. Conservatives don't.
Why not ask McCain about the
June 20, 2008 - 10:38 ET by goldbarWhy not ask McCain about the Keating Five? Now there's some serious bribery.
Wow.
June 20, 2008 - 10:49 ET by Roger the ShrubberWow.
What does that have to do with anything Goldbar?
June 20, 2008 - 10:55 ET by Dee BunkAsk Obama about the Real Estate deal he made with Rezko. That's some serious bribery. Ask Obama about the Corruption and the mob style Chicago politics that "made" him. Ask him about how he can support Mayor Daley when he participated in large scale cover up of police brutality while acting as States Attorney at the time. Ask Obama why he serves on boards that funnel money to Palestinians and his fellow board member participated in terrorists acts himself? Ask Obama why he supports children being killed even when they are born alive and can survive during a botched abortion. Ask Obama why he calls himself a moderate when he always takes the far left position. I'm sure you won't ask him any questions because you worship him.
I'm under no disillusions about McCain. I don't like him at all.
If Obama did anything that
June 20, 2008 - 11:06 ET by goldbarIf Obama did anything that was illegal go ahead and address it.
Obama did plenty of illegal things golbar
June 20, 2008 - 11:19 ET by Dee BunkI mentioned some of them above. If you mean "convicted for" then why are you mentioning the Keating five? McCain wasn't convicted of any crime regarding that or anything else. In fact he wasn't even admonished. He was only found to have used "poor judgment". This is what the Senate committee had to say about it according to this recent AP article
""But the Senate ethics committee also determined McCain's actions "were not improper nor attended with gross negligence.""
We have had someone who used
June 20, 2008 - 11:32 ET by goldbarWe have had someone who used "bad judgement" in the Whitehouse for seven years. We don't need another offender like McCain and his drug-addled wife following up the disasterous Bush years.
Goldbar - Obama outdoes just about anyone in bad judement
June 20, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Dee Bunknice how you just change the subject everytime because you can't respond to any points. You have to get more and more general each time so that proof can't be given against you. We know your warped mind sees Obama as the Messiah and Republicans as the evil Satan no matter what.
edit: I missed the "drug addicted wife" the first time. How hysterical. Obama himself has admitted to ILLEGAL drug use and you are condeming the spouse of one candidate while excusing the candidate himself. Hysterical.
"Hysterical." And typical
June 20, 2008 - 12:28 ET by ckc1227"Hysterical."
And typical of many libs.
No, much better to have a
June 20, 2008 - 12:27 ET by ckc1227No, much better to have a drug-addled, cocaine using Marxist who never did anything of note except attend a racist, America-hating church for 20 years.
Dubya became a Saint after he turned 40...
June 20, 2008 - 12:52 ET by SyriusDee,
It was God's plan to have Dubya experience what it was like to be a drug-abusing drunk before 40. God whispered to him,"It's time for you to be President. I will erase the sins of your past and make you a Saint in the eyes of your followers. Let it be said, let it be written!" and the rest is history. I wonder when the "Book of Bush" will be written to replace the outdated "New Testament"? God bless George Bush!
Syrius
I believe it also was God's
June 20, 2008 - 13:33 ET by Roger the ShrubberI believe it also was God's wonderful plan to have the Democrat(ic) candidate for president be a hard drug user before he was 40, too.
Jesus hearts you, Syrius!
shrubbster.. pick up of the
June 20, 2008 - 13:37 ET by Jack Bauershrubbster.. pick up of the day! Snort, snort.
Did you catch the excellent Johnny Rotten interview and the Sex Pistols on Red Eye?
Don't say "excellent"
June 20, 2008 - 13:40 ET by sarcasmoRotten revealed on Jay Leno's show that he's a fan of the eeeeeevil Ron Paul, which made the good Doctor visibly uncomfortable.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
As Joe E, Brown (Osgood
June 20, 2008 - 13:49 ET by Jack BauerAs Joe E, Brown (Osgood lll) said to Jack Lemmon (Jerry) in the most famous last line in movies...
"We" are rumored to be all over.
June 20, 2008 - 13:56 ET by sarcasmoWant another? Try Luke Russert, a guy I'm proud to say had a Dad like mine, who let his sons think for themselves. And for anyone who missed it, here's Uncle Tony's excellent acoustic guitar work on the day of the memorial service. Bruce himself followed Uncle Tony, but I was more impressed with the unadorned acoustic version from the family. Damn, I wish I could play like that...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
So now Syrius brings Bush into it
June 20, 2008 - 13:37 ET by Dee BunkWhile still ignoring Obama's and McCain's wife's Drug abuse. These liberals are so funny. They are just a hoot. They think Presidents compare to God and that God Damns America. What a bunch of physcos
That's not the Rev Wight he
June 20, 2008 - 13:30 ET by red_dragon311That's not the Rev Wight he knew
That's not the Tony rezco he knew
That's not the Bill Ayers he knew
That's not the Father Pfleger he knew
Barack H-word Obama Bastion of Great Judgement
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
Dee, why don't you run for President
June 20, 2008 - 12:32 ET by jefflebowskiYou've got more cojones than any of the Republicans on the scene.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Thanks Jeff!
June 20, 2008 - 13:41 ET by Dee Bunkyou do too. We've got pretty sorry representation that is for sure.
Got anything this century?
June 20, 2008 - 12:21 ET by ckc1227Got anything this century?
One thing they didn't do is
June 20, 2008 - 10:37 ET by mattmOne thing they didn't do is take the opportunity to rape, pillage, murder and shoot at rescue helicopters, like those exemplary New Orleanians did.
Maybe God did this to show the difference between the wrong (New Orleans) way to behave during tribulation, and the right way.
"Question: So if God sent
June 20, 2008 - 12:19 ET by ckc1227"Question: So if God sent Katrina to punish New Orleans...what'd Iowa do?"
Used the phony man-made global warming scheme to lobby for and profit from corn-based ethanol subsidies that are responsible in part for people facing food shortages all over the planet.
Neal Boortz (I really don't
June 20, 2008 - 10:26 ET by Chris NormanNeal Boortz (I really don't like this guy) had a reporter on his show yesterday (who's a regular guest) by the name of Jamie Somethingorother, who, when asked, dismissed Obama's flip flop as something people would "forget about" in a couple of months - my reply to which is - of course they will because the news media won't be reminding them of it every hour on the hour, like they would if he was the GOP nominee.
Exactly Chris - just like all his other lies
June 20, 2008 - 10:31 ET by Dee BunkThey won't be bringing them up either. They also won't be calling on him to condemn the nasty 527 ads against McCain that Obama claims will be happening against him (despite none yet) and the only attack ad against him in NC was condemned by McCain.
DB,I have written
June 20, 2008 - 10:56 ET by Chris NormanDB,
I have written repeatedly that the MSM is able to create an alternative reality - if their viewers rely solely on them for their information. In this case they are creating a virtual reality where McCain and the GOP are guilty of vicious campaign tactics and Obama is the gentle innocent lamb in the woods. I wish that McCain and the GOP were half as tough as they are made out to be - based on absolutely nothing real.
Chris - the saddest thing is that no matter how high a road
June 20, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Dee BunkRepublicans take, they are bashed as if they are the ones with the dirty tricks. McCain is finding out that his high road about the 527's is only hurting him and helping Obama. McCain doesn't stand a chance. Bush took a high road and was still demonized by the media and even McCain. McCain is trying to take an even higher road and is still being demonized. The high road just doesn't work unfortunately.
Obama will get the Presidency with the low road.
Jamie Dupree.
June 20, 2008 - 10:53 ET by UphillJamie Dupree.
That's it. Thanks. Who is
June 20, 2008 - 11:05 ET by Chris NormanThat's it. Thanks. Who is he, anyway?
CH -- sorry but it's a
June 20, 2008 - 13:24 ET by Jack BauerCH -- sorry but it's a nothing issue for most voters isn't it?
McCain has been gifted two massive real issues that people actually care about. He needs to shut up right now about funding and concentrate ALL his fire on drilling. Day after day, relentlessly.
If he wants to be President, that is.
Great slips of the tongue on TV
June 20, 2008 - 10:32 ET by balboahttp://gawker.com/tag/clips/?i=396651&t=the-best-of-tv-news-lip-slips&autoplay=true
Thanks, Bal!
June 20, 2008 - 11:13 ET by SyriusBal,
It's not as if the current verbal masher in chief would have mangled or misused the amurikan langauge in any of the past 8 years...
How soon we forget...
Syrius
Yet, unlike the current
June 20, 2008 - 12:12 ET by ckc1227Yet, unlike the current messiah of mumble, no one wrongly labels President Bush as well-spoken, articulate etc. like they wrongly label Obamason as well-spoken, articulate(oh wait, can't use that one.. it's racist), etc.
I'm sure it's just an innocent oversight though.
Take away the teleprompter, or script, and he's
June 20, 2008 - 12:58 ET by BEGRUNTstuttering, stammering fool, unable to put even a simple thought forward without stepping all over himself. Well, I , um,um,um,ah,ah,ah, should have, um, um, um......................Can he make a decision without a script? I wonder. Damn Soros sock puppet!!
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
begrunt -- and don't forget
June 20, 2008 - 13:07 ET by Jack Bauerbegrunt -- and don't forget the RF earpiece whispering in his ear.
Remember the embarrassing stumblebum performance from a couple of weeks ago where he's all over the place about healthcare...
The best bit is where he can't remember what to call an "inhaler" and is talking about um.. uh... err.. breathalyzers and um... uh... err inhalators.. it's very funny (unintentionally) and it's bizarre.
But it's the point where he says to the near silent crowd ... "hold on one second I can't HEAR myself."
I'm thinking, NO what you can't hear is the RF transmission of WHAT TO SAY from his handlers in the control booth! Or am I am just a hopeless cynic?
After 8 years of verbal
June 20, 2008 - 13:09 ET by balboaAfter 8 years of verbal gymnastics you want to criticize Obama?
On the contrary, I am
June 20, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Jack BauerOn the contrary, I am looking forward to seeing Obama try to speak when he's asked questions on the spot.
Hasn't happened much yet outside the free ride debates.
But every..uh... time it has...um... errr happened, Ob--am-- uh--a.. managed to um... make.. ahhh... Bush sound... um... ahhh... hang on... eloquent.
Some feat huh?
bal.....I figured you say that.....
June 20, 2008 - 13:21 ET by BEGRUNThe may butcher words, but he can speak without a script, although with difficulty, but he gets his point across. Obama cant say anything unless it is scripted. Why do you think he wont do open town hall debates? Because there UNSCRIPTED, and he's deathly affraid of what I mentioned above.....that you cant refute. BTW, Bush isnt running, so that is a non issue.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
"Obama cant say anything
June 20, 2008 - 13:55 ET by goldbar"Obama cant say anything unless it is scripted."
You're joking, right? You will see Obama eviscerate John McCain in the debates. Bring a lot of towels, because there will be blood, and it ain't gonna be Obama's!
"I drink you milkshake!"
You're not that stupid.
June 20, 2008 - 14:01 ET by PeskyDaneYou're not that stupid. We've all seen B. Hussein without the teleprompter. The frantic grasping for thoughts can be utterly cringe inducing at times.
Pesky - I hate to agree with Goldbar
June 20, 2008 - 14:06 ET by Dee Bunkbut Obama will probably do much better than McCain in the debates. Part of the advantage will come from the fact that Obama won't be asked tough questions. McCain did not do well in the Republican debates either. I'm still shocked that we got stuck with him.
Obama will totally rip
June 20, 2008 - 14:13 ET by goldbarObama will totally rip McCain limb from limb in the debates. "Songbird" will think he's back in Viet Nam!
You underestimate McCain.
June 20, 2008 - 14:19 ET by sarcasmoHe has been doing this for decades, and if McCain's handlers have him well rested (as they should) he won't be a pushover no matter how well Obama does. He would not have survived & prospered after something like the Keating 5 mess if he wasn't good at this stuff.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Pump him full of Geritol and
June 20, 2008 - 14:25 ET by goldbarPump him full of Geritol and Metamucil, get him plenty of sleep, tune up his walker....yeah, he'll do just fine! LOL!!
leadbar... Only if Obama
June 20, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Clear thinkerleadbar...
Only if Obama lies!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
He has shown no capability
June 20, 2008 - 14:23 ET by BDHe has shown no capability to so far. His off prompter talking has only gotten him into trouble - hence McCains effort to get him into MORE rather than less debates/town hall meetings.
You know, I would pay BIG money to watch Fred Thompson vs Obama in a debate.
The time to spend that money was
June 20, 2008 - 14:32 ET by sarcasmoAbout 8 months or so ago. Nobody got excited about Fred when it came to the money, though, and Fred didn't seem that excited himself.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
He did well in the
June 20, 2008 - 14:42 ET by BDHe did well in the debates. Showed logic rather than talking points....
To me he seemed
June 20, 2008 - 14:49 ET by sarcasmoHalf asleep, so I guess it's "eye of the beholder." But none of his online fans seemed to want to do much in the real world, or with their checkbooks. The real problem is that McCain's campaign was allowed by FEC rules to go into debt. I think that's a bad policy. Campaigns, and countries, should run on what they've got. Need more? Get more donations or tap the wife.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Me too BD...
June 20, 2008 - 14:32 ET by Clear thinkerIt would be a blood bath!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Goldbrick........I would love to....no I would pay good
June 20, 2008 - 14:21 ET by BEGRUNTmoney to see an UNSCRIPTED, un-earphoned Obama go up against McCain. Goldbrick, without a script your guys an empty suit.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
McCain can't say anything
June 20, 2008 - 14:27 ET by goldbarMcCain can't say anything right without his ventriloquist Lieberman on his arm to get him out of trouble. I can't wait for the debates.
Bring'em on!!
Well goldbrick......if thats your analogy...then
June 20, 2008 - 14:33 ET by BEGRUNTObamatron cant say anything without Soro's hand up his back. Minus a script, he looses. Defeat the Soros sock puppet!!!!
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Dream on gruntman!
June 20, 2008 - 14:41 ET by goldbarDream on gruntman!
I can't wait for someone to
June 20, 2008 - 14:45 ET by BDI can't wait for someone to ask Barack O the simple questions of:
"Are we at war with Islamo fascism'?
If yes....
"What is our enemies Center of Gravity, and how do you propose moving it?"
Are we at war with Islamo fascism?
June 20, 2008 - 18:22 ET by j. frank wilsonHuh? The muslims are trying to establish cartels - "private" enterprise and the government? I have never heard a muslim economic pronouncement - other than the objection to money earning interest, of course.
As to the GWOT or similar poor ideas, read "Knowing the Enemy" (The New Yorker, December 18, 2006). I would suggest Mr. Kilcullen knows what he's talking about - and apparently the US military does, as well, as he is a cited consultant to the most recent counterinsurgency manual.
"A war on terror suggests an undifferentiated enemy. Kilcullen speaks of the need to 'disaggregate' insurgencies: finding ways to address local grievances in Pakistan’s tribal areas or along the Thai-Malay border so that they aren’t mapped onto the ambitions of the global jihad. Kilcullen writes, 'Just as the Containment strategy was central to the Cold War, likewise a Disaggregation strategy would provide a unifying strategic conception for the war—something that has been lacking to date.'"
The GWOT concept appears to be antithetical to Disaggregation.
So, your assessment of the
June 22, 2008 - 00:12 ET by BDSo, your assessment of the Strategic Center of Gravity is that we need to further devide the Islamic world. Disagregation as it were?
Is this correct?
Because, in fact that has already happened. In fact, the ideology of Islamic Fascism is about the only thing holding many muslism together, the dream of the Caliphate.
Therefore I would say it is NOT the COG or the desired outcome would have laready occurred.
@BD:
June 23, 2008 - 11:20 ET by j. frank wilsonFrom The New Yorker article about Mr. Kilcullen (op. cit.):
He chose as his dissertation subject the Darul Islam conflict, conducting research over tea with former guerrillas while continuing to serve in the Australian Army. The rebel movement, he said, was bigger than the Malayan Emergency—the twelve-year Communist revolt against British rule, which was finally put down in 1960, and which has become a major point of reference in the military doctrine of counterinsurgency. During the years that Kilcullen worked on his dissertation, two events in Indonesia deeply affected his thinking. The first was the rise—in the same region that had given birth to Darul Islam, and among some of the same families—of a more extreme Islamist movement called Jemaah Islamiya, which became a Southeast Asian affiliate of Al Qaeda. The second was East Timor’s successful struggle for independence from Indonesia. Kilcullen witnessed the former as he was carrying out his field work; he participated in the latter as an infantry-company commander in a United Nations intervention force. The experiences shaped the conclusions about counter-insurgency in his dissertation, which he finished in 2001, just as a new war was about to begin.
“I saw extremely similar behavior and extremely similar problems in an Islamic insurgency in West Java and a Christian-separatist insurgency in East Timor,” he said. “After 9/11, when a lot of people were saying, ‘The problem is Islam,’ I was thinking, It’s something deeper than that. It’s about human social networks and the way that they operate.” In West Java, elements of the failed Darul Islam insurgency—a local separatist movement with mystical leanings—had resumed fighting as Jemaah Islamiya, whose outlook was Salafist and global. Kilcullen said, “What that told me about Jemaah Islamiya is that it’s not about theology.” He went on, “There are elements in human psychological and social makeup that drive what’s happening. The Islamic bit is secondary. This is human behavior in an Islamic setting. This is not ‘Islamic behavior.’ ” Paraphrasing the American political scientist Roger D. Petersen, he said, “People don’t get pushed into rebellion by their ideology. They get pulled in by their social networks.” He noted that all fifteen Saudi hijackers in the September 11th plot had trouble with their fathers. Although radical ideas prepare the way for disaffected young men to become violent jihadists, the reasons they convert, Kilcullen said, are more mundane and familiar: family, friends, associates.
Sorry my friend......it still stands...
June 20, 2008 - 14:54 ET by BEGRUNTwithout a script, he looses. If he does pre-scripted debates, ya, he'll sound great........but without a script.................um,ah,um,ah,ah,ah,um,um.....great speaker huh?? Yep..OMumbles for president!!!
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Exactly Begrunt... He's
June 20, 2008 - 15:03 ET by bigtimerExactly Begrunt...
He's dumber that a box of rocks without a script...it would be hilarious if he weren't running for Prez, it's bad enough he is a US Senator.
Soros picked another loser.
Spend away Soros and friends...invest big...invest often.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Good Afternoon bt.......as you can see we have been having
June 20, 2008 - 15:19 ET by BEGRUNTa good time today.....good debates....I love it... ;-)
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
BREAKING NEWS!! This just
June 20, 2008 - 15:52 ET by goldbarBREAKING NEWS!!
This just in from Fred Thompson:
"Zzzzzzzzzzz"
When asked to comment further his reply was:
"Hmphhgrumphzhooo"
goldieb... Just worry
June 20, 2008 - 16:01 ET by bigtimergoldieb...
Just worry about your leftist empty headed leader.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
goldbricks only hope, is that.......
June 20, 2008 - 17:54 ET by BEGRUNTObamatron will only participate in SCRIPTED debates. Or we get "well, um, ah , um, um ,um, ah, you know, um, ah...that depends on the, um, ah ,ah, um, gee I cant hear my handler....opps I mean myself"..................
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
So, it's okay to rip on
June 20, 2008 - 13:29 ET by Roger the ShrubberSo, it's okay to rip on Bush's (lack of) speaking skills, bit Obama is off-limits?
You almsot sound appalled that someone would dare criticize Obama, Bal.
Like Bush, Obama is fair game, is he not?
Right Roger
June 20, 2008 - 13:44 ET by Dee Bunkand unlike Republicans, Liberals won't be able to admit any of his flaws. We don't try to say Bush is some great speaker, just that substance is more important than fumbling a few words.
Obama will be fumbling empty words.
I think it's fine to poke
June 20, 2008 - 17:23 ET by balboaI think it's fine to poke fun at both. Neither deficiencies mean anything in the long run, and I never thought Bush's inability to speak off the cuff kept him from performing his duties.
I just think it's funny to go off on Obama for the exact same problems Bush had. And when liberals made fun of Bush, tons of people complained that liberals were reacting in a knee-jerk fashion. But it's OK to criticize Obama for the same things.
Sure, poke fun at both
June 20, 2008 - 19:57 ET by Indiana JoeBut, ever hear "what goes around comes around?" Or "payback's a b*tch?"
That's the problem with lots of liberals. When you turn their own strategy back on them, they scream bloody murder. It suddenly becomes "unfair," or, better yet, "meaningless."
And Bush was never sold or promoted as a "captivating" speaker. No one ever (I'm sure) called him "articulate." And I don't remember any women swooning when he spoke.
Bush can take criticism of his speaking skills in stride. Hell, he's had 8 years to get used to it. But don't mess with the Obama!
I don't mind payback. That's
June 20, 2008 - 20:32 ET by balboaI don't mind payback. That's to be expected. But people here are doing the exact same thing to Obama that they claimed was nonsense to do to Bush.
Bal, you're talking in a
June 20, 2008 - 21:19 ET by Indiana JoeBal, you're talking in a circle. This is the exact same thing you said in your previous post, which brought up the subject of payback, which you claim is "expected." You say you "don't mind" payback, this can be seen as payback, so why do you keep harping on it? And yes, I consider two consecutive posts with the same basic phrase to be "harping." There are some differences between Bush and Obama in re how they're sold. I went over that.
It's the left's turn in the barrel. Deal with it.
But that is not what you
June 20, 2008 - 20:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberBut that is not what you said. You said (paraphrasing) "that after 8 year of Bush goofing up speeches, mispronouncing words, etc, etc, etc, how can Republicans have the audacity to criticize Obama?"
Now you have changed your tune to "Republicans are being hypocritical for criticizing liberals for ripping on Bush, but now are ripping on Obama for the same thing".
Perhaps you have gotten a taste of what it's like having your candidate treated like a retard, and you ain't likin' it.
Your first paraphrase
June 20, 2008 - 20:30 ET by balboaYour first paraphrase basically leads into the second one. I think it's interesting that as Bush goofed up all the time, people pointed it out, and you said, "Bah, that's nothing of import, you silly liberals worried about how Bush speaks."
Now it is you guys who are doing the same thing to Obama, and it suddenly seems to imply more than when Bush did it.
So which is it?
Me, personally I think it's nice to have an eloquent president. But it's not the end of the world if they're not. I really don't care how much you hammer on Obama about this, other than to make this point.
Big difference bal.....one needs a script.......
June 20, 2008 - 20:54 ET by BEGRUNTthe other, not a well spoken man, doesn't. As I said before, Bush mangles words, but he at least get's his point across, unlike Obamatron, without his script.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
You mean like Bush did when
June 20, 2008 - 20:59 ET by balboaYou mean like Bush did when he so cleverly explained what a "sovereign nation" was? C'mon.
As I said "scripted", "non-scripted"
June 20, 2008 - 21:05 ET by BEGRUNTI said he wasn't a "well spoken" man, and that he "mangles" words, but he gets his point across, as opposed to someone that has to have it written down for him....or um,um,um....you know what I'm talking about.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Tell ya' what. I'll have to
June 20, 2008 - 21:14 ET by balboaTell ya' what. I'll have to pay more attention from here on out. I understand your distinction and will look out for it.
OK bal.....deal......
June 20, 2008 - 21:24 ET by BEGRUNTJust a little more scrutiny, and you will see what I'm talking about.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
"Pay more attention?"
June 20, 2008 - 21:44 ET by Indiana JoeThen what are you talking about? If you haven't been paying attention, what's the basis for your argument?
I've always wondered what struck me strange about your posts, and I think this thread illustrates it: you ignore points that rebut you until they're repeated 2 or 3 times and you're forced to acknowledge them. Roger, Begrunt, and I have explained the same basic points to you several times. So, you finally acknowledge that you "understand the distinction" and will watch for it.
You usually sound intelligent in your posts. You seem reasonable. I'm sure you understood "the distinction" earlier. If you lay off the verbal legerdemain we can save some bandwidth, okay?
No offense. ;^)
What am I talking about? I
June 20, 2008 - 22:16 ET by balboaWhat am I talking about? I think that the verbal gaffes by both have been about the same thing and that many on here have treated the two quite differently. If BEGRUNT thinks something is subtly different about the too, I'm more than willing to revisit the situation.
I still maintain my point, but am willing to allow for future amendments. :-)
Your right Jack......
June 20, 2008 - 13:40 ET by BEGRUNThe hasnt quite managed to get used to the wispering voices, that throws him off too.
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Black And Gus
June 20, 2008 - 11:42 ET by SouthJersey1953was my favorite......."lost her tittle" was good too!
I didn't understand the "money shot" (I don't know what that means)
"Money shot" is defined as...
June 20, 2008 - 12:14 ET by SyriusSouthJ,
...according to the Urban Dictionary, ....to ejaculate on a woman's body, other than inside a crevice. Usually on the face or in the eye.
here's the link...
http://www.urbandict...
I hope this did not offend anyone...this was only for educating SouthJ.
Syrius
some things I guess I didn't want/need to understand
June 20, 2008 - 13:22 ET by SouthJersey1953Thanks, but I guess I eally didn't want to know that...
This SHOULD NOT be characterized as a "flip flop"
June 20, 2008 - 10:55 ET by krendlerThis isn't a shift in policy that the term "flip flop" is normally associated with. This is much worse. Obama went back on a very high-profile commitment he made because it has become financially expedient to do so.
Words and platitudes versus deeds, folks. Obama has a very sparse record on which to base a judgment (other than a liberal voting record, when he's been "present"). This is another piece in the puzzle, though.
When push came to shove, Obama demonstrated what he's all about. Predictable that he blames his "need" to do so on the big, bad Republican attack machine, a day after blaming McCain for not stopping the "attacks" against his campaigner-in-chief wife.
Didn't he know about the big, bad Republican attack machine way back when, when he made his initial promise? LOL. What a lame cop-out.
Obama is an utter fraud, a perpetual "victim" and a hypocrite.
Hammer Obama HARD during the debates
June 20, 2008 - 10:59 ET by krendlerBTW, I hope McCain goes after Obama big-time during the debates on this. McCain and Co should put together a Russert-esque plan to keep him in the corner regardless of any diversions he might try (e.g., Obama: "You know. The American people want to talk about issues....This is typical, divisive, Republican tactics...." blah blah blah...
won't happen ...
June 20, 2008 - 11:47 ET by SouthJersey1953The way McLame has been acting, he won't "go after" BHO. He is spending most of his time trying to make the Dems happy (who cares what Repubs think) so he will play nice with BHO so he doesn't 'offend' any of the potential Dem voters for him....
The Repubs couldn't have found a weaker candidate if they tried....
WRITE IN "None of Above" in November
SJ -- pleaase... it's
June 20, 2008 - 12:56 ET by Jack BauerSJ -- pleaase... it's BO...
The H-initial is verbotten
so noted
June 20, 2008 - 13:26 ET by SouthJersey1953Silly of me to even walk close to insulting "the chosen one"
I will refrain from BHO and go with "BO" (I might even like that better)
I suppose B-ha-ha-O is also out????
I like to say Barack H-word
June 20, 2008 - 14:16 ET by red_dragon311I like to say Barack H-word Obama it's more respectful
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
Ahhh...the use of the term "Flip Flop" once again...
June 20, 2008 - 11:07 ET by SyriusMcCain would never, ever 'flip flop' on any issues.
Trying to label either candidate with the 'flip flop' term will be interesting this time. McCain, if I'm not mistaken, has the most 'flip flops' of the two.
Why would either of the two want to be restricted by a measly $84 million in public funds? We can now use the $168 million from the campaigns to possibly fund the clean up of the National Mall!(h/t Noel!) or the GWOT! or the Great Fence of the Southwest!
Send McCain your bucks, he's going to need 'em!!!
Godspeed, John McCain, Godspeed!
Syrius
Midwest Flooding
June 20, 2008 - 11:15 ET by billbI wonder how the poor souls of the great breadbasket of the US feel after hearing Wolf Blitzer say,"bad as it seems, Katrina was in a class by it's self." CNN warned that if the levees held in Iowa and Missouri, New Orleans could be in for more trouble. As the levees were breaking I could hear the sigh of relief from CNN. Are we now picking the victims we will cheer for?
Any sign
June 20, 2008 - 11:20 ET by MOONSTRUCKof the "reverends" in Iowa??
I'm with Thomas & Scalia
June 20, 2008 - 12:07 ET by sarcasmoIf he's competent to stand trial, he has a right to do what may be the dumbest possible thing he could do. VERY bad decision, Supremes. I dissent, too.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Yep -- it's yet another
June 20, 2008 - 12:43 ET by Jack BauerYep -- it's yet another importation of the nanny state philosophy to replace the U.S. constitution.
What next? Defendents whose IQ is less than the mean for lawyers are also deemed incompetent to defend themselves.
Why not? You can use exactly the same logic. Intelligence is a mental capacity. So why should the SCOTUS not also set an arbitrary level decided by them?
That's the thing. Hard cases make bad law.
June 20, 2008 - 13:26 ET by sarcasmoClearly, this guy, even though initially adjudicated competent, probably wasn't, as his choice of defense counsel proved. Trying to "protect" him is, in effect, an attack on the 6th Amendment for the rest of us. And this isn't 5 to 4, either, I've only got 2 of the Supremes on "my" side. This ruling sucks far more than the one that's getting all the attention, IMO.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I'm not sure what's worse,
June 20, 2008 - 12:26 ET by Chris NormanI'm not sure what's worse, the gnats that have invaded my office or the gnats that have invaded this thread.
How about the gnats in your brain...
June 20, 2008 - 12:39 ET by Dooper"I have written repeatedly that the MSM is able to create an alternative reality."
Yes, its all a left wing conspiracy!!
Good one - er - "Dooper".
June 20, 2008 - 12:43 ET by Chris NormanGood one - er - "Dooper". What does one have to be to have a name like that?
One has to have a dog named
June 20, 2008 - 12:53 ET by DooperOne has to have a dog named "Cooper", i.e. the Dooper.
I don't understand it either but my neighbor dubbed him that!!
Feel free to hit back.
That's fairy not very
June 20, 2008 - 13:05 ET by Chris NormanThat's fairly not very interesting.
Lol Chris!
June 20, 2008 - 13:30 ET by Dee BunkGlad you can always bring a chuckle to the table even with the most boring of gnats!
Co-dependency on a thread...
June 20, 2008 - 14:32 ET by DooperWhy don't you two exchange emails and then you can really dream up your reality together with no outside interference. Bzzzz.
Democrats totally CAVE on
June 20, 2008 - 13:12 ET by Jack BauerDemocrats totally CAVE on Telecoms Terrorist Surveillance bill.
Trial lawyers suicidal as they watch billion dollar lawsuits disappear down their rat hole. Must be an election soon?
Is it really true Jack?
June 20, 2008 - 13:25 ET by Dee BunkThey finally stood up and did the right thing? Are they hoping that their left wing crack pot donors won't notice?
dee -- Just heard it on a
June 20, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Jack Bauerdee -- Just heard it on a news break.
But there aren't any elections scheduled in the near future are there?
So I guess the Democrats decided to "do the right thing" for its own sake!
You guys need to start checking out fashion mags
June 20, 2008 - 13:48 ET by greenfairieI know, it's mostly a male crew on NB but you are missing out big time on some of the worst excesses of media bias by not covering women's/fashion mags. Some like InStyle and Lucky aren't particularly political most of the time, but all of the others, i.e. Elle, Marie Claire, Glamour, Cosmopolitan, Allure, Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar are uniformly pro-promiscuity, pro-abortion, anti-Christian, anti-Republican, anti-small town/middle America, and anti-gun. They fawn over Democratic and liberal politicians, activists, and celebrities. RINOs get slightly better coverage than conservatives, who are either non-existent in their pages or made out to be freaks.
The July ish of Elle with Mary Kate Olsen on the cover was a puke inducing left-wing love fest. There was a letter to the editor praising an article on the "FBI's bias" in pursuing animal rights/ecoterrorist nutburgers, a "patriotic" quote about "letting your freak flag fly" from Sarah Jessica Parker, and a feature on highbrow/lowbrow culture that named a left-wing blog as "highbrow" and a blog by John McCain's daughter as "lowbrow."
You guys are ignoring a real gold mine.
greenfairie... Why don't
June 20, 2008 - 18:49 ET by Clear thinkergreenfairie...
Why don't you consider covering it for NB?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
I have often suspected as much...
June 21, 2008 - 07:27 ET by Britcomand, I have always wanted to know what drives women to buy these rags. Their purchases are supporting their own indoctination into the Marxist agenda. Can't women see that?
---
Lets fix the Supreme Court for good!
Communist vs. Statist '08
15 point spread...
June 20, 2008 - 18:42 ET by ckc1227Apparently, Obama has opened up a 15 point lead on McCain. Not sure I'm buying it, but there it is. If legitimate, this country is already gone. Obama will simply seal the deal.
ckc... There is a long
June 20, 2008 - 18:56 ET by bigtimerckc...
There is a long time to go yet in the polls and the election, politically speaking...I remember they said the same thing about Kerry always being in the lead too...even up to the day of the election.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
Switch Hitter vs. Switch Hurler Leaves Umps Scratching Heads
June 21, 2008 - 07:21 ET by BritcomSource: WorldNetDaily
---
Lets fix the Supreme Court for good!
Communist vs. Statist '08