Text Size

No Holds Barred

Dear Mr. Obama

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:32 am

And now Obama goes behind the elected administration in an attempt to prevent them from negotiating a US withdrawal with the Iraqi government.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/po ... 129150.htm

I can't remember which at it is, but it is against the law for someone not appointed by the sitting President's Administration to attempt to negotiate with foreign powers.

Did Obama do this in an attempt to get credit for it in case he's elected?

And the Obama camp admitted to the tampering.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9 ... iFYsnbIl3A

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.


Then she goes on to say that he never asked them to delay withdrawal. The problem is that the logistics of a 2010 withdrawal would not be able to be laid out if they wait for Bush to leave office.

I think it's despicable that he would go behind the back of the Bush Administration in an attempt to score political points for himself. If Palin is getting investigated for firing a state police chief who refused to adhere to here budget policies (the emails were just released) then why not a criminal investigation into Obama's tampering?

It won't happen unless the President appoints a special prosecutor and he won't do that. The media won't latch onto this either. It's a shame that few will inform that American people of his possibly illegal attempt to undermine the Administration.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Ziner » Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:45 am

Mr. MacPhisto wrote: If Palin is getting investigated for firing a state police chief who refused to adhere to here budget policies (the emails were just released) then why not a criminal investigation into Obama's tampering?

It won't happen unless the President appoints a special prosecutor and he won't do that. The media won't latch onto this either. It's a shame that few will inform that American people of his possibly illegal attempt to undermine the Administration.


Wouldnt that be something... not that we would ever hear about it, but after all the investigation they learn that he was fired because she wanted him to keep a budget... oh the humanity... how dare her...

Bush's rating isnt going to lower anyways, he should say screw it and stick it to Obama about this. I have no doubt he wants any credit about a withdrawl, he is a slimeball... thats Chicago politics for you. When he isnt out making fun of McCain for not using a computer when he cant type because of POW injuries he is out there undermining our troops and the commander in chief. I sure hope people wake up because he really is a dishonorable dirtbag.

I was thinking about this this morning. Why does McCain want to be President? he doesnt need it, he is 72 and can ride off in to the sunset as a great senator, I think he honestly wants to serve his country.

Obama however seems like his entire adult life has been geared to become president, just talking bs and making stops at the appropriate levels of government while carefully calculating votes to lead up to this moment. I dont feel his motives are as honorable.

What are your opinions on this?
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:07 pm

Ziner wrote:Wouldnt that be something... not that we would ever hear about it, but after all the investigation they learn that he was fired because she wanted him to keep a budget... oh the humanity... how dare her...


Monegan was apparently very insubordinate, going behind Palin's back on budget matters and allying with French, the Obama supporting Democrat that has been pushing this investigation forward.

http://www.adn.com/front/v-printer/story/527346.html

And now Monegan has changed his story and says that he believes Palin canned him because of his failure to fire Wooten. Exactly what I'd think a bitter guy who went behind the Governor's back and got assistance from her political enemies to say. My guess is that Hollis French, adamant Obama supporter, is encouraging it and he's the one in charge of the investigation. How convenient. Maybe the GOP controlled Alaska House should launch an ethics investigation into him.

Bush's rating isnt going to lower anyways, he should say screw it and stick it to Obama about this. I have no doubt he wants any credit about a withdrawl, he is a slimeball... thats Chicago politics for you. When he isnt out making fun of McCain for not using a computer when he cant type because of POW injuries he is out there undermining our troops and the commander in chief. I sure hope people wake up because he really is a dishonorable dirtbag.


Bush won't do anything and he really shouldn't because they'll believe he's acting as a surrogate to McCain. The press would attack that angle and Obama would come out looking like a victim.

I was thinking about this this morning. Why does McCain want to be President? he doesnt need it, he is 72 and can ride off in to the sunset as a great senator, I think he honestly wants to serve his country.

Obama however seems like his entire adult life has been geared to become president, just talking bs and making stops at the appropriate levels of government while carefully calculating votes to lead up to this moment. I dont feel his motives are as honorable.

What are your opinions on this?


I'm in that camp. Obama's record indicates that he's just interested in gathering power and influence. It's possible that a big motivator could be his desire to be loved and adored. We saw that in Bill Clinton and it isn't odd for it to exist in men abandoned or unloved by their fathers. Obama seeks a validation and wants to do it on the national stage. It seems that everything he has done has been calculated to get him here, including his position changes to try to make himself look more moderate for a national audience.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Doc » Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:09 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk[/youtube]
Doc
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:42 pm
Favorite Player: Matthew Dellavedova
Least Favorite Player: Chris Bosh

Unread postby Ziner » Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:16 pm

Doc wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk[/youtube]


Hey Matt you know what is crazy... that you are arrogant to think we give two flying shits what you think.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:54 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYMl0hke3T8[/youtube]
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Madre Hill, Superstar » Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:01 pm

No worries, man.

Ziner wrote:you have to admit that Clinton is the current godfather of democratic party. In the eyes of Democrats he can do no wrong


If that was the case, it'd be Hillary/Obama not Obama/Biden. ;) There's a lot of Dems who still think that way, but there's just as many of us who're just as tired of him.
"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT
User avatar
Madre Hill, Superstar
Eternal Optimist
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:06 am
Location: Parma, OH
Favorite Player: The Playa
Least Favorite Player: The Game

Unread postby winker » Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:27 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye9ud5s2Iv8&feature=related[/youtube]
User avatar
winker
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:21 pm
Location: My chair
Favorite Player: Jim
Least Favorite Player: Mike

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:36 pm

winker wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye9ud5s2Iv8&feature=related[/youtube]


Yes, Olbermann is such a great refutation. The man is so angry and crazy that only the nutroots think he has any credibility.

Good job on Keith getting thrown off the MSNBC news desk because of how obviously biased and nasty he was.

But he hit a grand slam right there. Out of the park. Greatest hit in history. Amazing.

Sorry, that was his reaction to Hillary's speech. I think he jizzed in his pants when Obama talked, though I prefer how speechless he was after Palin spoke, as he tried to find something bad to say. That was priceless.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby winker » Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:57 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmUKGDUirBE&NR=1[/youtube]
User avatar
winker
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:21 pm
Location: My chair
Favorite Player: Jim
Least Favorite Player: Mike

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:45 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBH7LfGK8A0[/youtube]
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Ziner » Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:10 pm

Winker,

Posting Keith Olbermann is about as effective as me posting Rush Limbaugh for you. Olbermann is the most arrogant commentator on air... and keep in mind I did not say journalist because that he isnt. It would be alot easier for you to post your own thoughts instead of some left wing hard-on's
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby projectmayhem » Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:44 pm

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:I can't remember which at it is, but it is against the law for someone not appointed by the sitting President's Administration to attempt to negotiate with foreign powers.


The Logan Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

" § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)."
User avatar
projectmayhem
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:11 pm
Favorite Player: Grady Sizemore
Least Favorite Player: Tim Tebow

Unread postby projectmayhem » Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:59 pm

winker wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmUKGDUirBE&NR=1[/youtube]


couldn't watch this past wolf telling mccain what iraq is like.
User avatar
projectmayhem
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:11 pm
Favorite Player: Grady Sizemore
Least Favorite Player: Tim Tebow

Unread postby WarAdmiral » Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:28 pm

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBH7LfGK8A0[/youtube]


I've read the book, and it is a very good read.
User avatar
WarAdmiral
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Mantua, oh

Unread postby davemanddd » Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:48 pm

Ziner wrote:
Mr. MacPhisto wrote: If Palin is getting investigated for firing a state police chief who refused to adhere to here budget policies (the emails were just released) then why not a criminal investigation into Obama's tampering?

It won't happen unless the President appoints a special prosecutor and he won't do that. The media won't latch onto this either. It's a shame that few will inform that American people of his possibly illegal attempt to undermine the Administration.


Wouldnt that be something... not that we would ever hear about it, but after all the investigation they learn that he was fired because she wanted him to keep a budget... oh the humanity... how dare her...

Bush's rating isnt going to lower anyways, he should say screw it and stick it to Obama about this. I have no doubt he wants any credit about a withdrawl, he is a slimeball... thats Chicago politics for you. When he isnt out making fun of McCain for not using a computer when he cant type because of POW injuries he is out there undermining our troops and the commander in chief. I sure hope people wake up because he really is a dishonorable dirtbag.

I was thinking about this this morning. Why does McCain want to be President? he doesnt need it, he is 72 and can ride off in to the sunset as a great senator, I think he honestly wants to serve his country.

Obama however seems like his entire adult life has been geared to become president, just talking bs and making stops at the appropriate levels of government while carefully calculating votes to lead up to this moment. I dont feel his motives are as honorable.

What are your opinions on this?


i think obama is the anti-christ. armageddon is nigh. it's the end of days. go ahead & elect him, but be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. by the way, just because mccain is 72 years old doesn't mean his age will be a hindrance. ronald reagan was 78 in his last year as president. besides, the constitution doesn't put an upper age limit on how old a president can be, just an age minimum of 35 because a younger man just doesn't have enough of the experience or the wisdom necessary to run the country. obama is only 12 years older and is a first term senator with no prior chief executive experience. he is by far the least qualified of the 4 president & vice-president nominees. any black person who picks him simply because he is black would be stupid to do so and by the same token, any woman to pick mccain with palin simply because she's a woman, would be ignorant as well. go strictly by the issues and not race, age or gender and you will clearly see that mccain is the best candidate for the job. not that it matters, i am neither republican nor democrat. i am an american and i am a christian too. like it or not, this country was founded on christian principles. seperation of church and state was never a part of the constitution. it was incorporated by thomas jefferson in a letter he sent while in office to someone who's name escapes me. besides that, the concept wasn't seperation "from" church and state, but seperation "of". our founding fathers very much understood the concept of having god in their lives as it very clearly states in the declaration of independence: "we are bestowed by our 'creator' certain unalienable rights". what they intended was not to have the "church" govern them as the church of england did then. once again, it's freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion that is of utmost importance. keep this in mind when you go to the voting booth in november.
dave . . .
davemanddd
 
Posts: 2043
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:07 pm
Location: mansfield, ohio
Favorite Player: joe thomas
Least Favorite Player: lebron james

Unread postby WarAdmiral » Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:10 pm

Obama's take on the economy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtKTUsHrcm4[/youtube]
User avatar
WarAdmiral
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Mantua, oh

Unread postby Guest » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:31 pm

davemanddd wrote:
i think obama is the anti-christ. armageddon is nigh. it's the end of days. go ahead & elect him, but be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.


Why I don't post on this lunatic fringe reacharound. Nothing like a religious fundaMENTAList idiot to put things into their correct perspective.
Guest
 

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:04 pm

Mitch wrote:
davemanddd wrote:
i think obama is the anti-christ. armageddon is nigh. it's the end of days. go ahead & elect him, but be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.


Why I don't post on this lunatic fringe reacharound. Nothing like a religious fundaMENTAList idiot to put things into their correct perspective.


Yeah, I don't dig this stuff either and I'm categorized as an evangelical.

I've had to spend quite a bit of time debunking emails about Obama being the Anti-Christ. For one, St. John actually says in his epistles that there are several anti-Christs. By nature they would be those who fly in the face of Christ's teachings and persecute His followers. While Obama may not like some of the more traditional teachings of Christianity he is far from persecuting members of the church.

I find it amazing that people attempt to read Revelation in a way in which it was never meant to be read. When John speaks to the churches in Asia Minor of something coming "soon" he literally means SOON. The Greek is not ambiguous. John was writing to the people of THAT time, not our time. While we can use the teachings from Revelation we must be wary not to get involved in the crazy paranoia that sees the Beast of Revelation in every newspaper headline or every politician that surfaces on the scene.

The Beast of Revelation was pretty clearly Nero Caesar. Ancient languages used their letters to denote numbers back in the first century and Nero Caesar rendered in the Greek totals Six Hundred and Sixty Six. There is another number in ancient copies of Revelation and it is Six Hundred and Sixteen. Nero Caesar rendered in Hebrew totals 616. The people of the first century knew who John was speaking about. Revelation internally and externally appears to have been written around 60-65 AD. It is a warning of coming persecution and destruction, something the people it was written to would know "very soon" as John indicated. The book does fast forward to the Last Judgement at the end, but much of it deals with what happened in 70 AD with the utter decimation of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the end of the age. Nero was the sixth king of Rome, as John indicated. All the pieces fit for anyone who pays attention to history but too many love the allure of cutting newspaper clippings to identify the Beast.

Barack Obama is a politician. He is not the Anti-Christ. I disagree with his stances on many, many things because my political philosophy is radically different from his, but I do not like mixing my political philosophy with my faith. My faith does inform many social stances that I have; my belief that life is sacred, that we are all called to be charitable and loving towards one another, even those that are engaged in bad or sinful behavior.

I'm a free market guy. I think government involvement in the mortgage market, in the stock market, etc has actually helped to cause many of our economic problems just as it did in 1929. It was the Fed back then that failed to keep the money supply in step with the economy, causing massive deflation (nearly 33% of all US Dollars in the economy by 1928 were out of the economy by 1932). It imposed a tariff in 1929 that raised tariffs by 20% and caused European nations to jack up their tariffs on US goods in an economy where the money supply was constricted. That means booming businesses began to downsize, knowing that Europeans would not buy goods. They could not get loans to expand anyways because the money supply was thin, so they stagnated and ended up shrinking. The tariff is what really caused the crash in 1929 and thus caused the panic. Coolidge's laissez faire approach had created an economy that was a juggernaut and Hoover tore it down by introducing programs that FDR would continue. The Fed lost control of the money supply at the end of Coolidge's tenure, though they failed to replace money in the supply even earlier when regional banks failed due to bad loans to farmers. The money just ended up disappearing and the Fed didn't issue new currency to compensate which is what should be done.

The Fed actually has caused some problems now by keeping interest rates too low for too long. That encourages more lending than is good to have. That coupled with the Clinton Administration getting Fannie and Freddie to take on far more bad loans than they should on the secondary market (a trend that was continued in the Bush Administration, though Clinton's appointed head still stayed on top of Fannie) caused an inflationary trend on home prices and loans to be written for very risky applicants. Jimmy Carter was the first one who did this and it was a disaster. It all comes from the idea that everyone is entitled to home ownership regardless of any shown ability to pay for it or work for it.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:55 pm

McCain in Ohio:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZqn2nog_S8[/youtube]
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby idoctribefan » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:04 am

I don't give a shit what matt damon thinks, but it is funny (funny :roll :roll: not funny HAHA) that he says this about Palin when he first announced his support for Obama for President when Obama had only been a U.S. Senator for 22 months.
"And three of the better guys in franchise history, Daugherty, Z and now Kyrie could get hurt in a rubber room full of cotton balls." - Leadpipe
User avatar
idoctribefan
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Joe Haden
Least Favorite Player: #6

Unread postby skatingtripods » Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:38 am

idoctribefan wrote:I don't give a shit what matt damon thinks, but it is funny (funny :roll :roll: not funny HAHA) that he says this about Palin when he first announced his support for Obama for President when Obama had only been a U.S. Senator for 22 months.


Sadly, there's people that do. Like Lindsey Lohan ripping Cindy McCain on her mySpace. Somebody out there actually gives a shit about these things and sees the Hollywood windbags like Angelina Jolie and Matt Damon and wants to vote the same way.

Seriously, they should stick to acting. At least Chuck Norris wrote a book about patriotism. That gives him some free range to say what he wants, as he's studied up on certain topics. But it's sad how people like Oprah have such influence with the opinions of people. Those are the people that should not get a vote, because they can't even think for themselves.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby Doc » Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:41 am

For Alex and others...I'm pretty sure this isn't real. I think it's more of a joke than anything...I haven't read the whole story on it, but I'm pretty positive that it's a joke. That's why I posted it. A lot of emotions flying around here. I was trying to lighten it up a bit. People get pretty tense about this political stuff...and with it being very pro-McCain from what I've seen...just trying to give the other side.

You republicans can't take a joke. :lol:
Doc
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:42 pm
Favorite Player: Matthew Dellavedova
Least Favorite Player: Chris Bosh

Unread postby skatingtripods » Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:51 am

Doc wrote:You republicans can't take a joke. :lol:


Maybe not. But you Democrats have no problem nominating one.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby winker » Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:59 am

Skating Tripods wrote:Those are the people that should not get a vote, because they can't even think for themselves.


Mega-dittos :lol:
User avatar
winker
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:21 pm
Location: My chair
Favorite Player: Jim
Least Favorite Player: Mike

Unread postby WarAdmiral » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:24 am

After what has taken place this week, anybody who still claims the need for free market needs their voting rights taken away. Deregulation was and is a failure and your boy McCain with Gramm was and is a deregulation lover. No debate needed, No more spin, GOP with your goddamn lies you will not win.


:P :-P :razz:
User avatar
WarAdmiral
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Mantua, oh

Unread postby El Heffe » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:49 am

Actually, some of the blame belongs to Clinton on this one, as well. It was intiative that "every American has the right to own a home" that opened up the sub-prime mortgage mess. Which is what a lot of htese failed baks invested in. Why do you think Goldman Sachs is fine? Becuase they didn't touch these sub-primes. It allowed for these horrible mortgages and the companies to invest in them. Now there still should have been some education on consumers' & banks' parts, but let's not blame whole GOP for this.
User avatar
El Heffe
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:47 pm
Location: Boston
Favorite Player: Bob Golic
Least Favorite Player: Welkahh!!!!

Unread postby Ziner » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:28 am

WarAdmiral wrote:After what has taken place this week, anybody who still claims the need for free market needs their voting rights taken away. Deregulation was and is a failure and your boy McCain with Gramm was and is a deregulation lover. No debate needed, No more spin, GOP with your goddamn lies you will not win.


:P :-P :razz:


Regulating and taxing the shit out of companies is not the way to keep jobs here. Everyone can bitch all they want about this whole mortgage debacle, but it is ultimately the assholes who took these loans fault. They bought something they couldnt afford. Clinton and Bush (and yes I mean BOTH of them) thought that it was an American right to own a home. Owning a home is a privilege, not a right. The other person I fault is Greenspan, the fucking Maestro himself tries to keep his paws off of this trying to act like he was perfect, but he loved the praise about how great the economy was as he continued to keep rates low. Keeping rates low and passing laws forcing companies to give people loans (not getting racial, but alot of them were designed to get minorities in to homes, and let me add homes they could not afford). Everyone wants to pin this on Bush and he deserves his blame, but there are alot of other factors that led to this perfect storm. Clinton, Bush, Greenspan, heads of Fannie and Freddie who got HUGE amounts of money throughout this ordeal (most of the democrats, look it up) and also all the jackasses in Congress.

This is not a shock to anyone in the industry what is happening. I worked as an intern in 2002 for a mortgage banker and even then we talked about how amazing it was the amount of home people wanted to buy on salaries that could not sustain it with out the low rates. But what could you do? not lend to them? someone else will.

I am going to stop now because most of the people here dont need a lesson on what happened next, however I currently work as a Financial Analyst who looks as Mortgage Backed Securities all day long and it isnt good and it is getting worse. We have alot of deals with Lehman, but I would be suprised if there werent more to fall. For example I have a deal that last month had 40,000,000 in losses on a 640,000,000 balance. Anyone can see that isnt good, btw this month is was 24,000,000 so it is getting better, haha.

The point is this, some regulation is needed, however to regulate these companies to the hilt will not help. What government regulations actually work? They are bureaucratic BS that never do their job. Hopefully the banks who stay afloat will learn from this, that is the best regulation you can have. The govt should not bail out any of them because they need to reap what they sow to learn their lesson... however for Democrats to sit back and say they had nothing to do with it and will not accept any blame like Pelosi did, is just straight up bullshit. They are all at fault.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby CP » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:55 am

WarAdmiral wrote:After what has taken place this week, anybody who still claims the need for free market needs their voting rights taken away. Deregulation was and is a failure and your boy McCain with Gramm was and is a deregulation lover. No debate needed, No more spin, GOP with your goddamn lies you will not win.


:P :-P :razz:


Yes, let's setup massive regulatory agencies that grow larger and larger over time and then over time get in bed with the entities which they are regulating.

This is the problem that I have with the belief that government can fix our problems by oversight.

I also find it convenient that the left is demonizing McCain and lumping him in there with this mess when he warned in 2005 about the Fannie/Freddie fallout and about their practices.

McCain is not a regulator at heart, his goals are always laced with attempts at transparency. Flawed or not, that is much of the basis for McCain-Feingold, the 9/11 commission and anything else he has setup. I know it is appalling that he holds the belief that if you give people the necessary information, they will make informed decisions.

I have no problem with some government-mandated corporate transparency: that is to say, government stays out of the way and lets decisions be made by the private sector, but forces corporations to disclose some necessary items. Our own regulations are killing us... why is it that overseas financial institutions are making all the plays for our floundering institutions and the ones we have left aren't stepping up to the plate? It's something more than a pure money issue.
User avatar
CP
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Stow, Ohio
Favorite Player: Bernie Kosar
Least Favorite Player: Colt McCoy

Unread postby WarAdmiral » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:40 pm

Thanks to your guys way of thinking, for the mess we are in. Capitalism is a great system, but without sufficient oversight, greed runs amok. It needs a good dose of non-ethical practice penalties. Conservatives have destroyed this country with damn greed and warmongering.
User avatar
WarAdmiral
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Mantua, oh

Unread postby Ziner » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:49 pm

WarAdmiral wrote:Thanks to your guys way of thinking, for the mess we are in. Capitalism is a great system, but without sufficient oversight, greed runs amok. It needs a good dose of non-ethical practice penalties. Conservatives have destroyed this country with damn greed and warmongering.


Yup, our country is doomed... run now
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby WarAdmiral » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:47 pm

Ziner wrote:
WarAdmiral wrote:Thanks to your guys way of thinking, for the mess we are in. Capitalism is a great system, but without sufficient oversight, greed runs amok. It needs a good dose of non-ethical practice penalties. Conservatives have destroyed this country with damn greed and warmongering.


Yup, our country is doomed... run now



I am investigating my options.
User avatar
WarAdmiral
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Mantua, oh

Unread postby Ziner » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:07 pm

WarAdmiral wrote:
Ziner wrote:
WarAdmiral wrote:Thanks to your guys way of thinking, for the mess we are in. Capitalism is a great system, but without sufficient oversight, greed runs amok. It needs a good dose of non-ethical practice penalties. Conservatives have destroyed this country with damn greed and warmongering.


Yup, our country is doomed... run now



I am investigating my options.


I'd look in to France if I were you. They dont even warmonger in their own wars... :P :-P :razz:
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Stu » Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:36 pm

WarAdmiral wrote:Thanks to your guys way of thinking, for the mess we are in. Capitalism is a great system, but without sufficient oversight, greed runs amok. It needs a good dose of non-ethical practice penalties. Conservatives have destroyed this country with damn greed and warmongering.


Capitalism with government protection from failure is communism. The whole point being that companies need to have the threat of failure in order to stop them from becoming so greedy as to collapse. If they are that irresponsible, then they deserve what they get.

In the rarest of circumstances governments need to step in to prevent a major catastrophe (such as yesterday).

but in order to have the success stories, you need to have the failures. otherwise you end up with socialist run countries where the only winners are the leaders, and the people of the country are forced to suffer.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Unread postby hermanfontenot » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:37 pm

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:I've had to spend quite a bit of time debunking emails about Obama being the Anti-Christ.


I don't know why, but this made me laugh. How long could this possibly take you, Mac?
User avatar
hermanfontenot
History Buff
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:52 am
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Big Z
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:54 pm

WarAdmiral wrote:Thanks to your guys way of thinking, for the mess we are in. Capitalism is a great system, but without sufficient oversight, greed runs amok. It needs a good dose of non-ethical practice penalties. Conservatives have destroyed this country with damn greed and warmongering.


Actually, it was the government that caused the problem.

Who backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Federal Gov't did. You see, Bill Clinton made an appointment to Fannie Mae and they decided to start giving loans to people that didn't qualify. The amount of $$$ lent out greatly increased while Fannie and Freddie had less and less money to back it up. All the while the Democrats were running the show in those two companies. George W. Bush asked for reform and Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Chris Dodd all said it was unnecessary and they fought against oversight.

You see, Fannie and Freddie have been cash cows for the Dems. They appointed people to oversee them and those execs handed millions of dollars to the. Barack Obama has gotten tons of money from those execs and his chief economic advisers were the ones that helped cause the mess.

Many GOP members asked for reform and were rebuffed by Democrats.

And as Fannie and Freddie took more risks in the secondary mortgage markets, private entities had to take more risks as well in order to make money.

The Democrats caused this mess with their greed and philosophy of government bailouts. The GOP did not do enough to force reform. Bush certainly didn't, but the Dems didn't want reform and they really still don't.

Under regulation is not the problem here. The problem is having a government backed secondary loan market that attempts to push a social agenda with the taxpayers' money. Fannie and Freddie need to be divided up and sold to private entities. If they were fully private with no government backing then this would not have happened.

Can you really vote for a man in Barack Obama that is trusting the very men that greatly contributed to this mess as his chief economic advisers?

We need less regulation, not more. The problem with regulation right now is that it is the wrong kind of regulation. It is inefficient bureaucracy that is designed to line pockets of politicians and bureaucrats. We need to thin the bureaucracy and get rid of the government backed secondary mortgage market.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby idoctribefan » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:34 pm

Doc wrote:For Alex and others...I'm pretty sure this isn't real. I think it's more of a joke than anything...I haven't read the whole story on it, but I'm pretty positive that it's a joke. That's why I posted it. A lot of emotions flying around here. I was trying to lighten it up a bit. People get pretty tense about this political stuff...and with it being very pro-McCain from what I've seen...just trying to give the other side.

You republicans can't take a joke. :lol:


I'm not pissed or anything. But it just drives me crazy how celebrities think their viewpoint is more important than the average American citizen's. Also bothers me that media outlets keep giving them a forum to try and enlighten us.

When I said "i don't give a shit".......it was not an angry "i don't give a shit".....it was a spend more time working on your fake accents so you become a better actor Matt Damon "i don't give a shit".
"And three of the better guys in franchise history, Daugherty, Z and now Kyrie could get hurt in a rubber room full of cotton balls." - Leadpipe
User avatar
idoctribefan
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Joe Haden
Least Favorite Player: #6

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:51 pm

HermanFontenot wrote:
Mr. MacPhisto wrote:I've had to spend quite a bit of time debunking emails about Obama being the Anti-Christ.


I don't know why, but this made me laugh. How long could this possibly take you, Mac?


A goodly amount of time when people send around emails that either misquote various books of the Bible or take it out of context. The emails I've been sent are from people asking me if these claims about Obama are true, if they mesh with scripture. I like to be thorough when I refute a claim and also like to try to reveal a better interpretation because there are a lot of people that fall into that "antiChrist" trap for more than just Obama. I've gotten Bush as AntiChrist, Saddam as AntiChrist, Gorbachev as AntiChrist, etc emails or questions.

Can't you tell from my posts that I'm quite verbose?
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby SteelersStillSuck » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:09 pm

Cannot believe some sack of scum actually hacked into her account and posted all her personal stuff. Code pink connected from what I saw on the site. I found it, and auctually was so disgusted I refuse to link the images.

Hopefully whichever "script-kiddie" did this gets thrown into jail
Swerb wrote:Tough to win when you have the worst head coach in the league and a QB that stares into his fridge every morning for a half hour cause the orange juice says "concentrate" on it.


Woody Hayes wrote:Without winners, there wouldn't even be any god damned civilization."
User avatar
SteelersStillSuck
 
Posts: 844
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:31 pm

Unread postby BadBecks » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:17 pm

Next time this guy decides to go YouTube and use his military service as a platform, he should at least shave his nasty face and tuck in his shirt. Last I checked, no matter what branch, the military does still have uniform standards whether you are in uniform or not.

Also, don't forget it was the Dems (led by Jim Webb) who pushed through the new G.I. Bill...opposed by McCain. I can tell you personally that money is a huge help to our service members who have to deal with the rising college costs.

My point is not to buy too much into the "only McCain cares for our troops" routine. They all care. It's just a perception and for the record, McCain has voted against many bills that would help vets in the past.
"Don't Hassle Me...I'm a Local" - Bob Wiley (shirt)
User avatar
BadBecks
Kid Cleveland
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:15 pm
Location: Chippewa Lake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Eric Turner
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Unread postby Ziner » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:27 pm

BadBecks wrote:Next time this guy decides to go YouTube and use his military service as a platform, he should at least shave his nasty face and tuck in his shirt. Last I checked, no matter what branch, the military does still have uniform standards whether you are in uniform or not.

Also, don't forget it was the Dems (led by Jim Webb) who pushed through the new G.I. Bill...opposed by McCain. I can tell you personally that money is a huge help to our service members who have to deal with the rising college costs.

My point is not to buy too much into the "only McCain cares for our troops" routine. They all care. It's just a perception and for the record, McCain has voted against many bills that would help vets in the past.


it is late and I am lazy, but here is a link that partially describes why McCain opposed the bill

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/ ... index.html

And to be honest I really feel that Obama could give two shits about the troops, to him they are props to help him get elected in anyway. For example, look how he tried acting like McCain opposed the bill to make him look better with his quote in the article. If he cared about the troops he wouldnt downplay their successes and while calling their mission misguided
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Ziner » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:28 pm

BadBecks wrote:Next time this guy decides to go YouTube and use his military service as a platform, he should at least shave his nasty face and tuck in his shirt. Last I checked, no matter what branch, the military does still have uniform standards whether you are in uniform or not.

Also, don't forget it was the Dems (led by Jim Webb) who pushed through the new G.I. Bill...opposed by McCain. I can tell you personally that money is a huge help to our service members who have to deal with the rising college costs.

My point is not to buy too much into the "only McCain cares for our troops" routine. They all care. It's just a perception and for the record, McCain has voted against many bills that would help vets in the past.


it is late and I am lazy, but here is a link that partially describes why McCain opposed the bill

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/ ... index.html

And to be honest I really feel that Obama could give two shits about the troops, to him they are props to help him get elected in anyway. For example, look how he tried acting like McCain opposed the bill to make him look better with his quote in the article. If he cared about the troops he wouldnt downplay their successes and while calling their mission misguided
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby BadBecks » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:59 pm

Ziner wrote:
BadBecks wrote:Next time this guy decides to go YouTube and use his military service as a platform, he should at least shave his nasty face and tuck in his shirt. Last I checked, no matter what branch, the military does still have uniform standards whether you are in uniform or not.

Also, don't forget it was the Dems (led by Jim Webb) who pushed through the new G.I. Bill...opposed by McCain. I can tell you personally that money is a huge help to our service members who have to deal with the rising college costs.

My point is not to buy too much into the "only McCain cares for our troops" routine. They all care. It's just a perception and for the record, McCain has voted against many bills that would help vets in the past.


it is late and I am lazy, but here is a link that partially describes why McCain opposed the bill

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/ ... index.html

And to be honest I really feel that Obama could give two shits about the troops, to him they are props to help him get elected in anyway. For example, look how he tried acting like McCain opposed the bill to make him look better with his quote in the article. If he cared about the troops he wouldnt downplay their successes and while calling their mission misguided


Guess what, I would say 70% of the military are in their first term and most usually only stay for 4 years. I would say a good percentage of those who stay could care less about the G.I. Bill in the first place. They stay because they choose to make a career out of it and have no urge to go to school. Don't get me wrong, several who stay still take night classes and do care about a degree. As someone who served in the Marine Corps both before and after 9/11, I think I have an idea what I am talking about.

In other words, I will bet the new G.I. Bill will have no real effect on retention...that's the war's job. I like McCain, but I disagreed with him then and still do now on that subject.
"Don't Hassle Me...I'm a Local" - Bob Wiley (shirt)
User avatar
BadBecks
Kid Cleveland
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:15 pm
Location: Chippewa Lake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Eric Turner
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Unread postby Ziner » Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:06 am

BadBecks wrote:
Ziner wrote:
BadBecks wrote:Next time this guy decides to go YouTube and use his military service as a platform, he should at least shave his nasty face and tuck in his shirt. Last I checked, no matter what branch, the military does still have uniform standards whether you are in uniform or not.

Also, don't forget it was the Dems (led by Jim Webb) who pushed through the new G.I. Bill...opposed by McCain. I can tell you personally that money is a huge help to our service members who have to deal with the rising college costs.

My point is not to buy too much into the "only McCain cares for our troops" routine. They all care. It's just a perception and for the record, McCain has voted against many bills that would help vets in the past.


it is late and I am lazy, but here is a link that partially describes why McCain opposed the bill

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/ ... index.html

And to be honest I really feel that Obama could give two shits about the troops, to him they are props to help him get elected in anyway. For example, look how he tried acting like McCain opposed the bill to make him look better with his quote in the article. If he cared about the troops he wouldnt downplay their successes and while calling their mission misguided


Guess what, I would say 70% of the military are in their first term and most usually only stay for 4 years. I would say a good percentage of those who stay could care less about the G.I. Bill in the first place. They stay because they choose to make a career out of it and have no urge to go to school. Don't get me wrong, several who stay still take night classes and do care about a degree. As someone who served in the Marine Corps both before and after 9/11, I think I have an idea what I am talking about.

In other words, I will bet the new G.I. Bill will have no real effect on retention...that's the war's job. I like McCain, but I disagreed with him then and still do now on that subject.


That is fine and I am not debating that, my basic premise is that McCain was not opposed to a GI Bill or doesnt support the troops, he simply disagreed with the bill that was voted on. So using it as a point against McCain just doesnt seem fair.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby BadBecks » Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:25 am

Ziner wrote:
BadBecks wrote:
Ziner wrote:
BadBecks wrote:Next time this guy decides to go YouTube and use his military service as a platform, he should at least shave his nasty face and tuck in his shirt. Last I checked, no matter what branch, the military does still have uniform standards whether you are in uniform or not.

Also, don't forget it was the Dems (led by Jim Webb) who pushed through the new G.I. Bill...opposed by McCain. I can tell you personally that money is a huge help to our service members who have to deal with the rising college costs.

My point is not to buy too much into the "only McCain cares for our troops" routine. They all care. It's just a perception and for the record, McCain has voted against many bills that would help vets in the past.


it is late and I am lazy, but here is a link that partially describes why McCain opposed the bill

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/ ... index.html

And to be honest I really feel that Obama could give two shits about the troops, to him they are props to help him get elected in anyway. For example, look how he tried acting like McCain opposed the bill to make him look better with his quote in the article. If he cared about the troops he wouldnt downplay their successes and while calling their mission misguided


Guess what, I would say 70% of the military are in their first term and most usually only stay for 4 years. I would say a good percentage of those who stay could care less about the G.I. Bill in the first place. They stay because they choose to make a career out of it and have no urge to go to school. Don't get me wrong, several who stay still take night classes and do care about a degree. As someone who served in the Marine Corps both before and after 9/11, I think I have an idea what I am talking about.

In other words, I will bet the new G.I. Bill will have no real effect on retention...that's the war's job. I like McCain, but I disagreed with him then and still do now on that subject.


That is fine and I am not debating that, my basic premise is that McCain was not opposed to a GI Bill or doesnt support the troops, he simply disagreed with the bill that was voted on. So using it as a point against McCain just doesnt seem fair.


Of course it's fair. It is a fact that he was against it. I'm not making a personal jab at the guy, just stating that I thought he was wrong to oppose the raise in the G.I. Bill.

My point earlier, which I admit should have been more clear, is that McCain shouldn't be considered bulletproof on veteran issues just because he's the guy "who cares most about the troops."
"Don't Hassle Me...I'm a Local" - Bob Wiley (shirt)
User avatar
BadBecks
Kid Cleveland
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:15 pm
Location: Chippewa Lake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Eric Turner
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:36 am

BadBecks wrote:Of course it's fair. It is a fact that he was against it. I'm not making a personal jab at the guy, just stating that I thought he was wrong to oppose the raise in the G.I. Bill.

My point earlier, which I admit should have been more clear, is that McCain shouldn't be considered bulletproof on veteran issues just because he's the guy "who cares most about the troops."


Actually he really didn't oppose a raise in the GI Bill. He opposed that specific raise and offered an alternative that he felt would not damage the corps of non-comm officers. It is clear that he had a well reasoned argument against the bill. I'm sure that Webb had his reasons as well for supporting the bill as mentioned too. I do agree with McCain's stance because he's right about dwindling non-comm officer numbers. McCain's proposal to have a sliding scale based on service time seems pretty fair too me.

I'm sure there are people out there who care more about the troops. I think McCain's experience does give him a leg up on his opponents in the Presidential race when dealing with veteran affairs. Comparing him to Webb would be a very different story, though his philosophy and Webb's are different

What is clear from the GI Bill issue is that McCain is not a guy who just casually decides to throw money at a problem like many other politicians do. He actually thinks through the implications of the legislation, something that even Webb didn't really want to discuss much about.

It also shows that McCain once again is willing to put his neck on the line for a stance that might not be popular; one that opponents can attack him on. His opposition to that GI Bill is far ballsier than anything Obama has ever done in his career and shows McCain's character. Obama would've voted against it if his fellow Dems thought it best to vote it down. He's shown that he's just a go along to get along politician.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:09 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYI0mHWQeD8[/youtube]

Obama's economic advisor:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar30.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00184.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washbi ... ges_a.html

Obama still uses Raines advise, even after he was disgraced. Another Fannie Mae alum, Jim Johnson, is another advisor.

Obama is taking advice from some of the people that caused this problem in the first place. Change we can believe in. Why would he want to change the culture of Fannie and Freddie when he's second only to Chris Dodd in gifts from them? He's ignored them until now because he's piled up cash from them and he will continue to ignore them in the future because he's bought and paid for by corrupt banking execs.

McCain pushed for change a couple of years ago for Fannie and Freddie. He predicted this meltdown and warned Congress. The Democrats blocked the reform efforts because they didn't want to kill their cash cow. They said everything was fine despite both McCain and the Bush Administration saying it was not.

It is the Democrats in Congress and the Clinton Administration that have the most culpability in this. Some GOPers do to because they decided not to fight.

From McCain's speech in Iowa today:

Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae’s CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie’s former General Counsel is a senior advisor to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn’t lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments. That’s not change, that’s what’s broken in Washington.


Obama only cares now because it could affect his political future. I hope McCain continues to hammer him hard on this and let the American people know that Obama has helped this crisis progress and did nothing to avert it when he had a chance. Once again, the man has a record of going with the flow and never stepping a toe out of line with what his Democratic Overlords want. He's the ultra-partisan man in this election. He's the guy with a thin resume. He's the guy who's lying to the American people about actually doing anything to help them. I loved how he claimed that the tax rebates were all his idea. Even his fellow Democrats called him on that one - and the many didn't even show up to vote on the package.

Who's the liar again?
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby CP » Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:58 pm

I am quickly growing tired with the partisanship in the media. No one appears above the fray, and that is on either side. Unless you read 85 different takes on an issue and do your best to decipher what is really going on, all you get is partisan spin and BS. From right-leaning Fox News to fringe left MSNBC and everything in between (which I maintain is nearly ALL to the left of center), they are fostering the nasty campaign that we are currently seeing, but it's what they play and what sells.

You don't see anything anti-Obama at this point unless it's Fox News and the media's critiques of McCain don't ever actually get to the point and to the issues.

Sorry, had to rant here. This is absolutely terrible, and helps foster the stupidity that is abound amongst the American electorate.
User avatar
CP
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Stow, Ohio
Favorite Player: Bernie Kosar
Least Favorite Player: Colt McCoy

Unread postby Ziner » Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:45 pm

CP wrote:I am quickly growing tired with the partisanship in the media. No one appears above the fray, and that is on either side. Unless you read 85 different takes on an issue and do your best to decipher what is really going on, all you get is partisan spin and BS. From right-leaning Fox News to fringe left MSNBC and everything in between (which I maintain is nearly ALL to the left of center), they are fostering the nasty campaign that we are currently seeing, but it's what they play and what sells.

You don't see anything anti-Obama at this point unless it's Fox News and the media's critiques of McCain don't ever actually get to the point and to the issues.

Sorry, had to rant here. This is absolutely terrible, and helps foster the stupidity that is abound amongst the American electorate.


I 100% agree with you. It sounds nuts, but if I want the truth to something I go online.

For shits and giggles I have been watching Olbermann a bit lately, it is unreal how he doesnt get bored sucking off Obama for an hour every night. Let me sum up his show, Obama is God, McCain is the anti christ, Obama is on the correct side of every issue ever and McCain doesnt know his ass from a whole in the wall. Then that less obnoxious chick (and I use the term lightly) that started after him is nothing more than a less angry version of Olbermanns show.

I understand you Libs hate Foxnews, and I dont really like many shows on there, but I actually like Hannity and Colmes. At least there is a slight representation for both sides and you can hear both articulate their points. I will however admit that Hannity runs that show and get his points across more than Colmes, but at least they let a lib on the network. MSNBC's late night is pathetic, I understand they think they are balancing out Foxnews and I get democrats want their version of talk radio so they can just hear their thoughts reenforced for a few hours a day, but at least Rush, Hannity, and the rest of them dont try to lie about who they are. MSNBC is more left than Foxnews is right, and i could care less except they try to pose as a real news channel
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby stretch51 » Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:10 pm

then there's Glenn Beck.....
User avatar
stretch51
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:50 am
Location: Dayton, OH area
Favorite Player: Joe Jakubick
Least Favorite Player: Loy Vaught

PreviousNext

Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests