The McCain Thread

[The Senator]

Instead of having the debate, can we just have the election tomorrow? I'm really tired of the bickering from both campaigns, but this "campaign suspension" nonsense from the McCain campaign has truly left a sour taste in my mouth. I don't think I can take another month of this.

[Marx]

DESPITE CAMPAIGN 'SUSPENSION', TWO MCCAIN ADVISORS GO ON THE ATTACK
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/despite_suspension_of_campaign.php





You know...McCain should have at least tried to make a convincing effort that he 'suspended' his campaign. Now, he just looks like an even bigger fool. Sad...

[danoyse]

Instead of having the debate, can we just have the election tomorrow? I'm really tired of the bickering from both campaigns, but this "campaign suspension" nonsense from the McCain campaign has truly left a sour taste in my mouth. I don't think I can take another month of this.

I'm leaving the country for a week next month. I cannot wait.

[Gilpesh]

Instead of having the debate, can we just have the election tomorrow? I'm really tired of the bickering from both campaigns, but this "campaign suspension" nonsense from the McCain campaign has truly left a sour taste in my mouth. I don't think I can take another month of this.

I got myself four seasons of House on dvd. I'm definitely skipping out on televised news for the remainder. :up:

If only I could pull myself from the computer and other people... then I'll be fine.

[ShadowBoxing]

My dad still confident in McCain, saying 'he came back [in the primaries]'. Looking over the numbers though, he didn't seem to face much opposition and was the pretty clear front runner from months out.

[jaguarr]

I think McCain has made himself an enemy:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIbK5ZyWUeEJrqOEcChTTkzHi3JgD93E6M080

Letterman keeps up assault on McCain

By DAVID BAUDER – 39 minutes ago

NEW YORK (AP) — "Late Show" host David Letterman kept up a verbal assault on John McCain Thursday, saying he felt like an "ugly date" because the GOP presidential candidate backed out of a scheduled appearance on his talk show.

The night before, Letterman had said McCain's decision to suspend his campaign to deal with the economic crisis "didn't smell right." Letterman substituted MSNBC's "Countdown" host — and critic of the Arizona senator — Keith Olbermann when McCain called him to say he wouldn't appear Wednesday.

The comic was unhappy when McCain sat for an interview with Katie Couric instead of him Wednesday — and even more perturbed to learn that McCain didn't leave New York until Thursday.

He said he felt like a "patriot" to let McCain off his commitment to deal with the economy and "now I'm feeling like an ugly date."

"That's what I feel like, I feel like an ugly date," he said. "I feel used. I feel cheap. I feel sullied."

McCain spokeswoman Nicole Wallace said Thursday that the campaign "felt this wasn't a night for comedy."

"We deeply regret offending Mr. Letterman, but our candidate's priority at this moment is to focus on this crisis," Wallace said on NBC's "Today" show.

The late-night comic banged away at McCain on Thursday from the opening of his monologue.

"You're here on a good night," he told the audience. "So far none of our guests have canceled."

He talked about daredevil David Blaine's feat of hanging upside down in New York's Central Park for 60 hours.

"They just left the guy hanging there," he said. "It's the same thing McCain did to me last night."

He described socialite Paris Hilton — Thursday's guest whose celebrity was once used in a McCain campaign ad to mock Obama — as McCain's first choice for a running mate.

"Here's how it works: you don't come to see me? You don't come to see me? Well, we might not see you on Inauguration Day," Letterman said.

Noting that McCain wanted to postpone Friday's first debate with Barack Obama, Letterman said running mate Sarah Palin wanted to put off her debate with Democrat Joe Biden until after Election Day. Letterman said McCain taking Palin to meet world leaders at the United Nations was like "take-your-daughter-to-work day."

Letterman's Top 10 list was "surprising facts about Sarah Palin," read by citizens of Wasilla, Alaska, where she was once mayor.

No. 10: Palin "sometimes calls John McCain grandpa."

Later in the show, Letterman couldn't resist another mention of "that John McCain" while chatting with Hilton, who replied, "I heard he dissed you. He dissed me."

Milking the moment, Letterman consoled her: "You had a little run-in with him, too, didn't you?"

jag

[Marx]

I think McCain has made himself an enemy:



jag

I think so too...Letterman didn't let it go tonight.

[Gilpesh]

I think McCain has made himself an enemy:

jag

That's what happens when you use someone to announce your candidacy and get free press from... to then diss horribly by lying to them and not just lying to them... BUT DOING AN INTERVIEW ON THE SAME EFFING NETWORK.

Well, let's just say, hopefully this isn't a sign of how he'll treat the American people.

[Marx]

That's what happens when you use someone to announce your candidacy and get free press from... to then diss horribly by lying to them and not just lying to them... BUT DOING AN INTERVIEW ON THE SAME EFFING NETWORK.

Well, let's just say, hopefully this isn't a sign of how he'll treat the American people.

Maybe he'll just 'suspend' being President if he has to handle more than one thing at a time. :cwink:

(Unless that means Palin would step in...)

*shivers*

Maybe he'll just 'suspend' his entire administration instead. :hehe:

[Gilpesh]

Well, at least he has shown he treats his friends just as good as his enemies. :hehe:

[ManofmyWord]

How....How....HOW does Gallup have them tied again?

McCain has pretty much done all he can to screw himself over and no one seems to care.

http://www.gallup.com

[ShadowBoxing]

It's the only poll that does, and remember it's a tracking poll, so that's slightly different. It doesn't include new voters.

[sasquatchs]

“I think that we made progress, and I’m confident we will have a deal. How much I had to do with it, I’ll let you and others be the judge.”

http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=15ff68bcb133a4623eb07fa5cc2a65fcb0cf7576

:whatever:

[kainedamo]

Is it true McCain proposed giving corporations a 2 year break from paying taxes?!?

[Kelly]

Is it true McCain proposed giving corporations a 2 year break from paying taxes?!?

I haven't read, nor have I heard that anywhere....

[Schlosser85]

“I think that we made progress, and I’m confident we will have a deal. How much I had to do with it, I’ll let you and others be the judge.”


Nothing.

note: Edited for "Inappropriate Language".

[danoyse]

Colbert last night was doing an FDR/Teddy Roosevelt comparison. He said that Obama favors FDR because he was president during the Great Depression, and McCain favors Teddy because he spoke at McCain's graduation. :funny:

[danoyse]

Sounds like Rudy Guiliani won't be asked to campaign for McCain anytime soon:


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/25/2008-09-25_rudy_giulianis_crass_opportunism_reflect.html

Rudy Giuliani's 'crass opportunism' reflects on Mac: Dems
BY DAVID SALTONSTALL
DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

Friday, September 26th 2008, 2:45 AM

Rudy Giuliani is positioning his law firm to cash in on Wall Street's train wreck - a move that has become a gift to political enemies of his pal John McCain.

RELATED: TALKS COLLAPSE OVER BAILOUT DEAL
Even as the nation's $700 billion, taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout was still being hashed out, the former mayor announced Thursday his high-powered law firm has set up a task force.

Its mission: to help corporate clients get a piece of the action - or keep the federal wolves from the door.

"Our team of former government officials and experienced attorneys in the fields of legislation, enforcement and finance are equipped to guide institutions in this quickly evolving and complex environment," Giuliani noted in a press release from his law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani.

Giuliani is not the only one poised to profit from opportunities created by the mega-meltdown, but he is the most politically famous.

Giuliani is a prime surrogate for Republican McCain, who has called the economic meltdown "the greatest crisis since the end of World War II" and has assailed Wall Street for "unbridled greed."

Democrats argued that Giuliani's latest business pitch reflected poorly on the Arizona senator, a longtime friend who chose the former mayor to give the keynote speech at the GOP convention.

"Bracewell & Giuliani's crass opportunism raises serious questions about whether John McCain is comfortable with one of his most visible campaign surrogates trying to cash in on what Alan Greenspan called a once-in-a-century economic crisis," Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera told the Daily News.

McCain campaign officials declined to comment.

The Republican National Committee accused Democrats of hypocrisy, noting that Team Obama sent out a fund-raising letter last week that attempted to exploit the current financial mess.

"The hypocritical and ridiculous attacks launched by Democrats demonstrate a lack of seriousness that should concern the American people," RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said.

"Sen. McCain is focused on finding a solution to our economic challenge, while Barack Obama is in debate camp and his minions launch insults."

Members of Giuliani's task force will include a number of Bracewell & Giuliani employees with deep connections to Washington in general and the Bush White House in particular.

They include Marc Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan and the son of U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

The elder Mukasey is one of Giuliani's closest friends and, as a federal judge, swore in Giuliani at both his mayoral inaugurations.

Another task force member will be Robert Clarke, a one-time director of the Resolution Trust Corp. - the government-owned outfit set up in the wake the last major government bailout, the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, to sell off assets.

Bracewell & Giuliani spokeswoman Melanie Hillis declined to say how much the firm would be charging.

Top-shelf firms like Bracewell & Giuliani routinely charge corporate clients fees topping $800 an hour for every senior lawyer's time - or a commission based on the value of transactions that could reach billions of dollars.

[Matt]

Colbert last night was doing an FDR/Teddy Roosevelt comparison. He said that Obama favors FDR because he was president during the Great Depression, and McCain favors Teddy because he spoke at McCain's graduation. :funny:

:lmao: I don't care what anyone says. Colbert has officially overtaken Stewart and was robbed of the Emmy.

[danoyse]

:lmao: I don't care what anyone says. Colbert has officially overtaken Stewart and was robbed of the Emmy.

Well, they did both win this week. :up:

[lazur]

26 years of pushing for deregulation and involvement in one economic scandal that resulted from deregulation on his resume already and you think that the one instance of him siding with regulation makes up for that? that's nuts, my friend. shadowboxing already disproved your claim that dodd killed that bill. it was a republican lead committee, not the dems. why do you pick and choose your facts, even when they're disproven?

Regulation versus deregulation is not as black and white as you're suggesting. Some regulation is good for our economy and our FREE MARKET - some regulation is bad.

And you're wrong. The bill passed the house, but was put on hold in the Senate indefinitely, and since Dodd was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee - the committee that would have had to have at least sponsored the bill - put two and two together and perhaps take a step back and realize that not all Democrats have been beneficial to our economy, just as not all Republicans have been harmful.

Of course, that Dodd was number 1 on the list of those who received big payments from Fannie/Freddie, not to mention that he was in the pockets of Fannie/Freddie lobbyists for years, only further demonstrates that he had absolutely no interest in cracking down on them, even though they were/are quasi-government organizations since their creation was done through a charter of the U.S. government and deserved regulation to ensure the American people didn't get screwed over.

You all gripe about deregulation, but it was Dodd and other democrats (as well as Bush) who were against creating more regulation for Fannie/Freddie, while the Republicans in Congress were those IN FAVOR of additional regulation.

[Schlosser85]

"The hypocritical and ridiculous attacks launched by Democrats demonstrate a lack of seriousness that should concern the American people," RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said.

"Sen. McCain is focused on finding a solution to our economic challenge, while Barack Obama is in debate camp and his minions launch insults."



How? By sitting on his hands in Washington and getting his picture taken with Bush and Obama while the deal is being worked out by committees he is not a member of, in meetings he is not involved in?

The McCain campaign is giving a whole new meaning to "hypocritical and ridiculous".

[sinewave]

Regulation versus deregulation is not as black and white as you're suggesting. Some regulation is good for our economy and our FREE MARKET - some regulation is bad.

And you're wrong. The bill passed the house, but was put on hold in the Senate indefinitely, and since Dodd was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee - the committee that would have had to have at least sponsored the bill - put two and two together and perhaps take a step back and realize that not all Democrats have been beneficial to our economy, just as not all Republicans have been harmful.

Of course, that Dodd was number 1 on the list of those who received big payments from Fannie/Freddie, not to mention that he was in the pockets of Fannie/Freddie lobbyists for years, only further demonstrates that he had absolutely no interest in cracking down on them, even though they were/are quasi-government organizations since their creation was done through a charter of the U.S. government and deserved regulation to ensure the American people didn't get screwed over.

You all gripe about deregulation, but it was Dodd and other democrats (as well as Bush) who were against creating more regulation for Fannie/Freddie, while the Republicans in Congress were those IN FAVOR of additional regulation.

show me proof that dodd was chairman of the senate banking committee at that time, please.

i'd also like to see proof of your claims that dodd pulled in money from fannie and freddie.

how do you feel about mccain's own campaign manager, rick davis, receiving money from freddie mac to buy access to mccain as recently as last month?

[StrainedEyes]

show me proof that dodd was chairman of the senate banking committee at that time, please.

i'd also like to see proof of you claims that dodd pulled in money from fannie and freddie.

how do you feel about mccain's own campaign manager, rick davis, receiving money from freddie mac to buy access to mccain as recently as last month?

Proof? You want lazur to give proof? The nerve of you.

[Marx]

Colbert last night was doing an FDR/Teddy Roosevelt comparison. He said that Obama favors FDR because he was president during the Great Depression, and McCain favors Teddy because he spoke at McCain's graduation. :funny:

That was pretty funny! :funny:

[ShadowBoxing]

Proof? You want lazur to give proof? The nerve of you.
The chairman was Richard Shelby, until late 2006.

[sinewave]

The chairman was Richard Shelby, until late 2006.

thanks. i thought you mentioned that earlier. not sure why lazur chooses to ignore that fact.

[Marx]

WHEN IS A SUSPENSION NOT A SUSPENSION?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/when-is-a-suspension-not-a-suspension/





(Ouch. Looks lilke CNN is calling him out on his campaign 'suspension' that wasn't really a suspension.)

[sinewave]

mccain's back in the debate.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi/index.html

[hitmanyr2k]

Regulation versus deregulation is not as black and white as you're suggesting. Some regulation is good for our economy and our FREE MARKET - some regulation is bad.

And you're wrong. The bill passed the house, but was put on hold in the Senate indefinitely, and since Dodd was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee - the committee that would have had to have at least sponsored the bill - put two and two together and perhaps take a step back and realize that not all Democrats have been beneficial to our economy, just as not all Republicans have been harmful.

Of course, that Dodd was number 1 on the list of those who received big payments from Fannie/Freddie, not to mention that he was in the pockets of Fannie/Freddie lobbyists for years, only further demonstrates that he had absolutely no interest in cracking down on them, even though they were/are quasi-government organizations since their creation was done through a charter of the U.S. government and deserved regulation to ensure the American people didn't get screwed over.

You all gripe about deregulation, but it was Dodd and other democrats (as well as Bush) who were against creating more regulation for Fannie/Freddie, while the Republicans in Congress were those IN FAVOR of additional regulation.

Republicans were foolish to vote for that bill. Those idiots didn't recognize how weak it was. It actually BENEFITTED Fannie and Freddie. Even the dullard Bush administration recognized this and did something right for a change...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr1461sap-h.pdf

The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks ("housing government-sponsored enterprises" or "housing GSEs") and appreciates the considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However, H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.

The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions. This regime is of particular concern given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently hold only about half of the capital of comparable financial institutions. In order for a financial regulator to be respected and credible, it must have the authority and ability to adjust capital requirements of the institutions it oversees as circumstances dictate to ensure prudential operations. An effective oversight regime must also provide for clear review of business activities to ensure the integrity of the housing finance system and consistency with the GSEs' housing mission. The Administration does not believe that the housing GSEs should be exempt from these important standards of world-class regulation.


In other words this bill was a toothless, flawed, giveaway to GSEs. It was right up Fannie and Freddie's alley. To give specifics this bill expanded the maximum loan amount to allow the GSEs to take over the jumbo market. It still mandated affordable housing funds. The bill neither increased capital requirements nor set a cap on portfolio size. Fannie and Freddie could continue to grow their portfolios to cook the books on their earnings. Their new regulator wouldn't have much more say than the old one. And furthermore this bill had an effective date a year later which means Fannie and Freddie would get a full year without anyone looking over their shoulders. Completely worthless. Alan Greenspan said this bill was worse than no bill at all lol. That's how stupid it was.

Do some research or actually READ the freakin bill and you'll see it for what it is. Just because someone (or a party) claims to have passed legislation doesn't make it GOOD.

[The Senator]

Regulation versus deregulation is not as black and white as you're suggesting. Some regulation is good for our economy and our FREE MARKET - some regulation is bad.

And you're wrong. The bill passed the house, but was put on hold in the Senate indefinitely, and since Dodd was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee - the committee that would have had to have at least sponsored the bill - put two and two together and perhaps take a step back and realize that not all Democrats have been beneficial to our economy, just as not all Republicans have been harmful.

Of course, that Dodd was number 1 on the list of those who received big payments from Fannie/Freddie, not to mention that he was in the pockets of Fannie/Freddie lobbyists for years, only further demonstrates that he had absolutely no interest in cracking down on them, even though they were/are quasi-government organizations since their creation was done through a charter of the U.S. government and deserved regulation to ensure the American people didn't get screwed over.

You all gripe about deregulation, but it was Dodd and other democrats (as well as Bush) who were against creating more regulation for Fannie/Freddie, while the Republicans in Congress were those IN FAVOR of additional regulation.

STOP.

Just stop.

You know nothing about Congress, and therefore you should NOT be allowed to comment on the bill you keep praising McCain for co-sponsoring.

Chris Dodd was NOT chairman of that Committee in 2005 and 2006, considering the Republicans were in control of Congress at the time. Richard Shelby was chairman of that Committee, and there were more Republicans on the Committee than there were Democrats.

Which means that two Republicans, as well as every Democrat, on the Committee had to have voted against McCain's bill, considering it was killed in Committee.

So stop scapegoating the Democrats, considering they were not the ones who single-handedly defeated the bill you keep babbling on and on about.

Since you are such a centrist, I would hope that you would start presenting some FACTS in your posts some time in the near future, but something tells me after this three-day lie-fest, that I shouldn't hold my breath.

[ShadowBoxing]

Thank you hitman for actually reading the bill, too. I was considering reading over it myself since it seemed fishy to me that it never made it out of committee.

[kainedamo]

This is crazy mad whats been happening.

Does John McCain's suspension of his campaign then unsuspension of his campaign do anything to make him look positive, or does he just look like an idiot? I don't see how any right minded individual could twist it.

[Raiden]

Since you are such a centrist, I would hope that you would start presenting some FACTS in your posts some time in the near future, but something tells me after this three-day lie-fest, that I shouldn't hold my breath.

Facts from Lazur? Good luck with that. :o

[Mikelus]

It is not the responsibility of the state to dictate how we should live our life or what type of insurance product I must pay for. When the state provides everything for you, they start to control every facet of your life.

One question....does every single country on this planet have to resemble European socialist country life France? Can there be one country on this planet that continues to practice free enterprise and free markets even if the rest of the world falls in line behind socialism? Does European socialism have to be the ideal model for every single Western nation on this planet?

Again, Western Europe has a higher quality of life according to international surveys. American health care could be better than it is, Americans living in France prefer the French system, is cheaper and more efficient, yes, you read it right, efficient. I don't have any major complain about it, while most Americans agree health care reform is needed in the US. But if you prefer your mediocre system and have children and middle class people struggling to be covered, good for your lack of conscience. :o

BTW, France is not a socialist country, nor Germany, UK, Spain , Italy, etc. Don't talk like far-right extremists, using your logic we could say your country has become the United Socialist States of America (USSA), the government rescuing banks to save the economy.
A real socialist country is when the State controls everything and there's no democracy, hope you get it now.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Since you are such a centrist, I would hope that you would start presenting some FACTS in your posts some time in the near future, but something tells me after this three-day lie-fest, that I shouldn't hold my breath.

But...he's "not a centrist" though. :o





:whatever:

[Superman]

STOP.

Just stop.

You know nothing about Congress, and therefore you should NOT be allowed to comment on the bill you keep praising McCain for co-sponsoring.

Chris Dodd was NOT chairman of that Committee in 2005 and 2006, considering the Republicans were in control of Congress at the time. Richard Shelby was chairman of that Committee, and there were more Republicans on the Committee than there were Democrats.

Which means that two Republicans, as well as every Democrat, on the Committee had to have voted against McCain's bill, considering it was killed in Committee.

So stop scapegoating the Democrats, considering they were not the ones who single-handedly defeated the bill you keep babbling on and on about.

Since you are such a centrist, I would hope that you would start presenting some FACTS in your posts some time in the near future, but something tells me after this three-day lie-fest, that I shouldn't hold my breath.:lmao::applaud

[sasquatchs]

McCain made 'huge mistake,' Huckabee says (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/mccain-made-huge-mistake-huckabee-says/?eref=politicalflipper)

(CNN) – Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Friday the John McCain made a "huge mistake" by even floating the possibility he would not appear at the first presidential debate as planned.

“You can’t just say, ‘World stop for a moment. I’m going to cancel everything,” Huckabee told the Associated Press Thursday.

Huckabee, who vied with McCain for the GOP presidential nomination long after it appeared McCain was the party's presumptive nominee, has been an on-and-off critic of the Arizona senator. Earlier this summer he took part in a Washington, DC rally calling on McCain and Obama to highlight more evangelical issues on the campaign trail. He also criticized McCain's campaign when it alleged Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comments was an intended slight at Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.

McCain abruptly announced Wednesday he would travel to Washington in hopes of striking a deal on the economic bailout deal, and said he would not attend a debate unless an agreement had been reached. Late Friday morning campaign aides said McCain felt sufficient progress had been made on the and he would attend the debate.

But the bill itself appears very much up in the air. After what was described by members of both parties as a "contentious" meeting at the White House Thursday afternoon, congressional leaders are still trying to hammer out a compromise on the Bush administration proposal. Speaking to reporters Friday morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said McCain's presence on the Hill helped stall negotiations.

"All he has done is stand in front of the cameras," said Reid, who has long had a chilly relationship with McCain. "We still don't know where he stands on the issue."...

[Marx]

McCain made 'huge mistake,' Huckabee says (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/mccain-made-huge-mistake-huckabee-says/?eref=politicalflipper)

That is in the Debates thread. http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[ShadowBoxing]

You know what, I'm gonna say it: I :heart: Huckabee.

[Mikelus]

At least Huckabee has some integrity unlike McCain.

[Superman4ever]

Kinda old but the ownage is just epic! :woot:

Ajm5JTf7jZs&feature=rec-fresh

[Gilpesh]

I want Tim Russert back... :csad:

[UA-Archangel]

Is it true McCain proposed giving corporations a 2 year break from paying taxes?!?

Corporations don't pay taxes.

Whatever expenses a corporation has, including tax expenses, are simply passed onto the consumer.

[The Senator]

Corporations don't pay taxes.

Whatever expenses a corporation has, including tax expenses, are simply passed onto the consumer.

How horrible. I mean, whatever will our society do if consumers no longer want to buy useless garbage?

[UA-Archangel]

How horrible. I mean, whatever will our society do if consumers no longer want to buy useless garbage?


Starve.

[lazur]

Corporations don't pay taxes.

Whatever expenses a corporation has, including tax expenses, are simply passed onto the consumer.

With exception to the payroll tax, which is passed on to the employee.

Higher prices? Lower wages? (That is, if you're still employed...) Vote Obama.

[Franklin Richards]

And we've been doing so well the last 8 years.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[sinewave]

yeah, the economy was sooooo terrible under clinton. oh wait, that was all the result of bush senior, i forgot :rolleyes:

[lazur]

yeah, the economy was sooooo terrible under clinton. oh wait, that was all the result of bush senior, i forgot :rolleyes:

Clinton had the benefit of following three terms of Republicans, who set a lot of long term economical pluses for the country. And of course, Clinton's biggest claim to fame is also his biggest lie - moving funds out of social security and into the federal deficit, creating this wonderful 'surplus' which some Democrats to this DAY still equate to mean that Clinton 'paid off the national debt.'

And some of these people (and no, I'm not referring to you, Sinewave) then have the gall to comment on economics...

Whatever can be said about Clinton, the man was brilliant at manipulating the politics of the masses.

[The Senator]

Whatever can be said about Clinton, the man was brilliant at manipulating the politics of the masses.

As was Reagan, who managed to manipulate the majority of the country into thinking that he single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union.

[sinewave]

Clinton had the benefit of following three terms of Republicans, who set a lot of long term economical pluses for the country. And of course, Clinton's biggest claim to fame is also his biggest lie - moving funds out of social security and into the federal deficit, creating this wonderful 'surplus' which some Democrats to this DAY still equate to mean that Clinton 'paid off the national debt.'

And some of these people (and no, I'm not referring to you, Sinewave) then have the gall to comment on economics...

Whatever can be said about Clinton, the man was brilliant at manipulating the politics of the masses.

of course you'd give all the credit to the republicans and none of it to clinton. i knew you'd follow that line. you're very consistent, lazur, i'll give you that. check out the book "unequal democracy" by princeton professor larry bartels. it's a legitimately non-partisan study that comes to the conclusion that historically the economy, and society in general, is better off when democrats are in power.

[Raiden]

of course you'd give all the credit to the republicans and none of it to clinton. i knew you'd follow that line. you're very consistent, lazur, i'll give you that. check out the book "unequal democracy" by princeton professor larry bartels. it's a legitimately non-partisan study that comes to the conclusion that historically the economy, and society in general, is better off when democrats are in power.

I remember that when Clinton was battling Bush Sr. in the election, the economy wasn't doing too well. In fact, Clinton's top strategist James Carvill had the famous line "It's the economy, stupid" as one of the reasons why Clinton won. The fact that the economy actually thrived under Clinton and the surplus surfaced after years of national deficit should not be attributed to those 12 yrs. of GOP rule.

[The Senator]

of course you'd give all the credit to the republicans and none of it to clinton. i knew you'd follow that line. you're very consistent, lazur, i'll give you that. check out the book "unequal democracy" by princeton professor larry bartels. it's a legitimately non-partisan study that comes to the conclusion that historically the economy, and society in general, is better off when democrats are in power.

Everyone knows Princeton is where liberal elitists go :cmad:

[Comicfilmer]

lol

[sinewave]

Everyone knows Princeton is where liberal elitists go :cmad:

ha! yeah, i'm sure that's probably most conservatives' reaction to the book, but the guy truly is non-partisan. he hasn't voted since '84 and that was for reagan. it's an interesting book.

[Comicfilmer]

Clinton had the benefit of following three terms of Republicans, who set a lot of long term economical pluses for the country.

Hahahahahahahaha! Yeah, because the economy was in such good shape under Bush Sr. Hahahahahaha! I gotta tell ya - that's the first time I've ever heard that one.

[ShadowBoxing]

Seriously, lazur, no more crack for you.

[lazur]

of course you'd give all the credit to the republicans and none of it to clinton. i knew you'd follow that line. you're very consistent, lazur, i'll give you that. check out the book "unequal democracy" by princeton professor larry bartels. it's a legitimately non-partisan study that comes to the conclusion that historically the economy, and society in general, is better off when democrats are in power.

Nah, I voted for Clinton. Hind-sight is 20/20 though. But I did vote for him, and I believe that gives me the right to be a critic. :)

I'd love to see that study. Do they account at all for Carter?

Also, economies change. Unfortunately, for me, the left has chosen the path of 'taxation overkill' and that is their legacy today. If there's a problem, raise taxes. People need housing? Raise taxes. You need health care? Raise taxes.

Forget about the system of capitalism and free enterprise that was INTENDED TO GO ALONG WITH GOVERNMENT. Why do that when a Democrat will just replace it?

And look at this crap 700 billion bill the Democrats wanted to pass. They didn't even consult the Republicans before making the announcement that they had a deal earlier this week. Remember the headlines? So the Republicans came in and looked at the deal and flew off the handle ... and for good reason. The Democrats are trying to stuff in a nice little 20% payment to ACORN, the organization that shares a MAJOR part of responsibility for the mortgage mess we're in. When Clinton strengthened the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995, it required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to low-income people, and this was propelled by ACORN through activism. This act then allowed community activists to attend yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for massive sums of money.

So the result? The Clinton years, during which the House and Senate attempted several times to reform the act, seeing the potential disaster that we're now facing, combined with no will on the part of Bush, the Republican Congress, the Democratic Congress, or anyone else, except for a few random voices (John McCain's included) who said it was dangerous and should be fixed.

So here we are today, with Democrats blaming Republicans for this mess, when it was Democrat who created it, a Democrat who championed it, a Democrat who signed it into law, and Democrats still in Congress today (Barny Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, to name a few) who continue to sweep the facts under the rug.

I'm not going to argue about whether or not a Democrat or Republican is more capable with the economy. I'm so tired of labels. I believe there are Democrats out there whose purpose isn't to put the screws to the American people with higher taxes and earmarks to PROVEN irresponsible organizations. I mean, even after ACORN contributed greatly to this mess, Democrats STILL want to give them tens of billions of dollars? Can I get a WTF?

And the Republicans are wrong for telling Democrats they must not screw over tax payers? The Republicans are the bad guys for 'blocking progress.' Well SORRRRRRRY for protecting the American people and OUR ECONOMY.

I don't blame McCain for making sure he was there. It shined a huge spotlight up the collective a** of Bush and the Democrats. Not all Democrats, but MANY of them. It's sickening.

It's also funny. Here we have Obama saying 'more of the same McCain' when McCain and the Republican leadership are actually OPPOSED to Bush's plan, while the Democrats are all on board. I guess he can't be called a 'third term of Bush' anymore, eh?

[The Senator]

There is so much centrism coming out of that post, my eyes are watering.

[sasquatchs]

McCain hasn't said a thing about opposing Bush's plan...all he's offered is platitudes about bipartisanship while standing on the sidelines

[ShadowBoxing]

There is so much centrism coming out of that post my eyes are watering.
You see I never realized Paulson was a Democrat.

[The Senator]

You see I never realized Paulson was a Democrat.

I also never realized that the Democrats controlled the Executive Branch and Congress from 2001 through 2006.

I really need to study my history.

[lazur]

McCain hasn't said a thing about opposing Bush's plan...all he's offered is platitudes about bipartisanship while standing on the sidelines

So what it sounds like you're saying is that while the Democrats have been playing the blame game, McCain has been taking a bipartisan position and trying to get everyone to cooperate.

Thanks.

[Franklin Richards]

I believe that traitor Phil Gramm removed alot of safeguards that had been in place since the Depression to prevent just this. Was it me or did that happen? ACORN? Bah!


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[ShadowBoxing]

So what it sounds like you're saying is that while the Democrats have been playing the blame game, McCain has been taking a bipartisan position and tring to get everyone to cooperate.

Thanks.So how come Mighty McMouse got down to Washington, injected his partisan politics into the hearings and now suddenly they aren't in agreement anymore? Boy, he's so great at reaching across the aisle. When he even makes an appearance in Congress and bipartisan bill goes to hell.

[The Senator]

So what it sounds like you're saying is that while the Democrats have been playing the blame game, McCain has been taking a bipartisan position and tring to get everyone to cooperate.

Thanks.

:lmao:

Yeah, because interviewing with Katie Couric and other news agencies for two days and arriving to Washington forty-five minutes after Congress came up with its first bailout proposal really had an influence on things. Oh, and going to a debate tonight in Mississippi and possibly spending tomorrow campaigning is surely influencing the next bailout proposal.

Best. Centrism. Ever.

[Franklin Richards]

He didn't know the Redskins / Cowboys game was at Texas Stadium this Sunday and went to DC by mistake.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/AuntPetunia/captainamerica.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/AuntPetunia/captainamerica.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/AuntPetunia/captainamerica.gif

[lazur]

So how come Mighty McMouse got down to Washington, injected his partisan politics into the hearings and now suddenly they aren't in agreement anymore. Boy, he's so great at reaching across the aisle. When he even makes an appearance in Congress and bipartisan bill goes to hell.

So you're okay with 140 billion going to the organization that caused this mess? You're okay with just handing the federal government 700 billion, and watching your taxes soar as a result?

Have you read the original agreement? Pay particular attention to 3-c:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/draft-bailout-agreement.pdf

[lazur]

:lmao:

Yeah, because interviewing with Katie Couric and other news agencies for two days and arriving to Washington forty-five minutes after Congress came up with its first bailout proposal really had an influence on things. Oh, and going to a debate tonight in Mississippi and possibly spending tomorrow campaigning is surely influencing the next bailout proposal.

Best. Centrism. Ever.

Um, the 'Congress' did NOT come up with the first proposal. The DEMOCRATS in Congress came up with the first proposal WITHOUT consulting with the Republicans they NEED to get it passed.

Duh.

[sasquatchs]

So what it sounds like you're saying is that while the Democrats have been playing the blame game, McCain has been taking a bipartisan position and trying to get everyone to cooperate.

Platitudes about bipartisanship, not a bipartisan position. McCain hasn't taken any position whatsoever on the proposals. All he's attempted to do is create the perception that he's relevant to the negotiations

[The Senator]

Um, the 'Congress' did NOT come up with the first proposal. The DEMOCRATS in Congress came up with the first proposal WITHOUT consulting with the Republicans they NEED to get it passed.

Duh.

¡ Viva la Centrisma!

[lazur]

Platitudes about bipartisanship, not a bipartisan position. McCain hasn't taken any position whatsoever on the proposals

To your knowledge, you mean.

[Franklin Richards]

So you're okay with 140 billion going to the organization that caused this mess? You're okay with just handing the federal government 700 billion, and watching your taxes soar as a result?

Have you read the original agreement? Pay particular attention to 3-c:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/draft-bailout-agreement.pdf

Depends on what I'm buying. A piece of the banking industry? Sounds like a good deal. Those crooks have been fabricating money legally since their inception.

Bout time we got a piece of the action.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[The Senator]

To your knowledge, you mean.

Can you enlighten us as to how McCain has been relevant to these negotiations, when Democrats AND Republicans have said that they really don't want him involved in the bailout plan?

[ShadowBoxing]

Um, the 'Congress' did NOT come up with the first proposal. The DEMOCRATS in Congress came up with the first proposal WITHOUT consulting with the Republicans they NEED to get it passed.

Duh.
Actually Paulson and Bernanke came up with the first proposal. They are the one's who brought it before congress. That's why on the news they kept calling it "Paulson's proposal"...that should've been a hint.

[sinewave]

There is so much centrism coming out of that post, my eyes are watering.


Best. Centrism. Ever.


:lmao:

dude, you don't get it. republicans can do no wrong. whenever the economy is strong it's due to republican policies, whether they're in control of the government or not. if the dems hold the majority in all three branches and the economy is doing great, all you need to do is look to the previous republican administration/majority as the architects of that economy, no matter how far back you have to look. duh! never trust those tax-and-spend dems! they just want to take your money and hand out free abortions and gay marriages on every street corner in america. ****, lazur is the gift that keeps on giving. :oldrazz:

[The Senator]

You forgot "viva la centrisma," I had to go out of my way to figure out how to put an upside-down exclamation point in my post :csad:

[Venom'sDad]

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/draft-bailout-agreement.pdf

Good link Lazur :up: However, I didn't see anything that address the situation that this country is in.

Regardless of popular belief Housing Mortgages is not the main issue here, it's Commercial Mortgages(Corporate & Real Estate)....

Think for a second people.... why would the Gov. and these huge Companies(backed by the U.S. & Intl Governments) buy and take on "FAILED" Commercial Mortgage & Investment Companies who own worthless assets? Think about.

:dry:

[lazur]

Depends on what I'm buying. A piece of the banking industry? Sounds like a good deal. Those crooks have been fabricating money legally since their inception.

Bout time we got a piece of the action.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

So, wait, you're okay with higher taxes (more money YOU have to spend) in order to 'get a piece of the action...'

Sounds like the government is 'getting a piece of the action' from someone, and it's probably you and me. Since, well, ACORN is a non-profit. Their intention is also good. Just not smart. No one bothered to explain to them that we can't just give anyone as much money as they want, whether they have the ability to repay or not.

ACORN also encourages and helps members register to vote. Sounds noble, but to hand them 140 billion by the action of one party is a little questionable, don't you think? Who do you think ACORN encourages people to vote for? Probably anyone who gives them money. Maybe Bush knew that and maybe that's why he was okay with it. Heck, it'll win favor with people and get them to vote Republican since a Republican president was responsible for their getting their goodies. Is that what you want?

Hey, I have an idea ... Let's give the people who helped to cause this mess even more money! I'll vote for that!

[ShadowBoxing]

So you're okay with 140 billion going to the organization that caused this mess? You're okay with just handing the federal government 700 billion, and watching your taxes soar as a result?

Have you read the original agreement? Pay particular attention to 3-c:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/draft-bailout-agreement.pdf
I didn't say whether I was or wasn't, so stop putting words in my mouth. I said, in response to your claim McCain was so bipartisan, that he went down to Washington and accomplished the opposite. He dissolved a bipartisan bill, he didn't move it forward. You still didn't answer my question, at all. That's a nasty habit.

[The Senator]

I think some of us need to learn some anger management.

5513mXmQbw4

[Visionary]

No, no, let them do go on. I like hearing from a bunch of angry people.

[lazur]

I didn't say whether I was or wasn't, so stop putting words in my mouth. I said, in response to your claim McCain was so bipartisan, that he went down to Washington and accomplished the opposite. He dissolved a bipartisan bill, he didn't move it forward. You still didn't answer my question, at all. That's a nasty habit.

No, what you are hearing from Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats is that McCain interfered. You're hearing that it wasn't bipartisan because the Republicans disagreed with paying ACORN (ask Obama who they are ;)) billions of dollars for no reason at all. Remember, this is the organization now being investigated by the feds for voter fraud...

Are you okay with that?

McCain went to DC at the request of the house Republicans. And he accomplished what he went there to do.

/gone for now, watching the debate...

[Gilpesh]

Apparently McCain didn't say he would fire the chairman of the SEC... he called for his resignation.

:whatever:

[Visionary]

So, he would fire the chairman of the SEC, but never mentions he would impeach Bush, for causing us to lose trillions of dollars in an unjust war?

[The Senator]

Apparently McCain didn't say he would fire the chairman of the SEC... he called for his resignation.

:whatever:

Nonsense. The exact words out of his mouth were that he would fire Chris Cox, chairman of the SEC, if he were president.

Perhaps he was having a "senior moment" and instead meant that he would ask for his resignation.

[The Senator]

No, what you are hearing from Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats is that McCain interfered. You're hearing that it wasn't bipartisan because the Republicans disagreed with paying ACORN (ask Obama who they are ;)) billions of dollars for no reason at all. Remember, this is the organization now being investigated by the feds for voter fraud...

Are you okay with that?

McCain went to DC at the request of the house Republicans. And he accomplished what he went there to do.

/gone for now, watching the debate...

Bull ****.

He went to Washington to make a political statement, one which backfired right in his face. If he was so concerned with the economic crisis, he would have suspended ALL campaign activities, which includes putting on $5500 worth of make-up and sitting in front of the cameras to talk about how much of a "maverick" he is, instead of arriving in Washington forty-five minutes after the first bailout deal had been reached.

[Marx]

Can you enlighten us as to how McCain has been relevant to these negotiations, when Democrats AND Republicans have said that they really don't want him involved in the bailout plan?

McCain has been involved (and relevent to the negotiations) because he 'suspended' his campaign and flew back to Washington to work on it.


Duh. :oldrazz:

[lazur]

Bull ****.

He went to Washington to make a political statement, one which backfired right in his face. If he was so concerned with the economic crisis, he would have suspended ALL campaign activities, which includes putting on $5500 worth of make-up and sitting in front of the cameras to talk about how much of a "maverick" he is, instead of arriving in Washington forty-five minutes after the first bailout deal had been reached.

You're not getting it. I don't care what McCain does in a campaign. I'm concerned about the actual, you know, Presidency? You feel it was a stunt. I don't. McCain has a history of doing unconventional things to get results. As to how much he spent on make-up, I could care less. To be honest, I'm not an expert on what make-up artists normally charge, and I doubt you are yourself.

As to when he arrived in Washington, it's irrelevant. The Democrats in Congress worked that deal out with Paulson WITHOUT the involvement of House Republicans. Therefore, it was irrelevant because Democrats intentionally left the Republicans out.

Now here's the thing. Democrats have enough votes ON THEIR OWN to pass this bill. Did you know that? But they won't do it alone, because if it fails (which it will in its current form so sayeth the analysts) they don't want to take all of the blame.

Keeping in mind that it was Bill Clinton who started this. He enabled ACORN, and then Fannie and Freddie came in and bought up ACORN's bad paper. (If you don't know what ACORN is, read up.) They drove home the noble message that 'affordable home loans' needed to be readily available for 'low-income families.' But they didn't stop to think of the cost and the ramifications of making loans available to people who could not afford them, and here we are today. Until the last moment, Democrats continued to resist regulation of Fannie and Freddie, and by extension ACORN, and they continued to reward irresponsible and criminal business practices. They thought it would end in their favor, that they'd be able to brag about how many low-income families now have homes. They made Bush their champion, and even he touted how wonderful it was that more people were able to afford homes of their own. You remember the news footage, I'm sure. And then how about all of the shady associations going on between Obama's campaign (with at least one former CEO of Fannie Mae involved in his campaign, and most likely two), or the $130,000 contribution Obama accepted from Fannie/Freddie. What about the fact that Obama paid made a payment to ACORN for $800,000 to help him on his campaign, but then conveniently forgot to report that payment, or how about that Obama can't even understand the basic concept of raising unemployment with higher business taxes, as ALL business taxes must be passed to the consumer and to the employee.

But instead, just blame the Republicans. Let's come up with some elaborate claim about how cutting taxes on corporations got us to where we are today. Let's ignore the truth and run this country further into the ground. :rolleyes:

What's ironic is that it looks like Bush and the Democrats in Congress agree, and it's McCain who's raising the alarm. So much for McSame...

[Mr Sparkle]

Since McCain's economic policies are similar ( not identical) to Bush's and he was pretty big on de-regulation for a loooong time I don't see how he is "raising the alarm" by simply doing what in any other politician you would admit is an empty gesture.

[The Senator]

You're not getting it. I don't care what McCain does in a campaign. I'm concerned about the actual, you know, Presidency? You feel it was a stunt. I don't. McCain has a history of doing unconventional things to get results. As to how much he spent on make-up, I could care less. To be honest, I'm not an expert on what make-up artists normally charge, and I doubt you are yourself.

The funny part about your argument is that I, too, am concerned about the presidency.

I am concerned when a presidential candidate makes impromptu, sudden, bipolar decisions such as suspending a presidential campaign to work on an economic crisis, then calls to cancel a debate which has been scheduled for over a year in order to do it. I am concerned when he acts slyly and continues to campaign, going against the original conditions of his so-called return to Washington, after he has made such a strong statement. I am concerned when a possible president overreacts on something which, for the most part, was being taken care of without his presence in Washington.

That's what concerns me. His entire stunt was political, and even if you do not consider it political, we will have to agree to disagree about that. Moreover, I believe it was irrational, and he acted as if the sky was falling when that was not the case at all.

So there are obviously two spectrums we are seeing this decision through. You find it noble; great, whatever, that is your opinion. Mine is that this decision was irrational, sudden, and entirely political. It does not show that he is brave, that he is a real "maverick." It shows that he will do anything to try to be on top, he will do anything to try and win the public trust, and he is willing to break that attempt to gain the public trust for his own political gain.

Sitting around, interviewing with people for a day is not comparable to rushing to the airport, getting on a plane and meeting with Congressional leaders when the bailout proposal is being worked on. Instead, he gave interviews, continued to campaign, and only arrived in Washington after the first plan had been finalized. That wasn't leadership, that was parsing.


Now here's the thing. Democrats have enough votes ON THEIR OWN to pass this bill. Did you know that? But they won't do it alone, because if it fails (which it will in its current form so sayeth the analysts) they don't want to take all of the blame.

That statement is more unbelievable to me than if you said the world was flat.

The Democrats do not have enough votes in the Senate to pass that bill. They have enough votes in the House, yes, but in the Senate they have a simple majority. They need sixty votes to ensure that the bill will pass, otherwise the Republicans will filibuster it. The reason why the current bailout plan isn't going to Congress is precisely because of this reason; not because they don't want to take the blame. Maybe you should stop reading your one-sided conservative blogs and actually start reading up on how Congress functions, because this appears to be the second time in two days that you have no idea how Congress works [when you add in the whole "Dodd was Chaiman of the Banking Committee in 2005" argument you tried making and were corrected on not one, not two, not even three, but four times].


Keeping in mind that it was Bill Clinton and ACORN, along with Fannie and Freddie, who came in and bought up ACORN's bad paper, who started this thing. (If you don't know what ACORN is, read up.) They drove home the noble message that 'affordable home loans' needed to be readily available for 'low-income families.' But they didn't stop to think of the cost and the ramifications of making loans available to people who could not afford them, and here we are today. Until the last moment, Democrats continued to resist regulation of Fannie and Freddie, and by extension ACORN, and they continued to reward irresponsible and criminal business practices. They thought it would end in their favor, that they'd be able to brag about how many low-income families now have homes. They made Bush their champion, and even he touted how wonderful it was that more people were able to afford homes of their own. You remember the news footage, I'm sure. And then how about all of the shady associations going on between Obama's campaign (with at least one former CEO of Fannie Mae involved in his campaign, and most likely two), or the $130,000 contribution Obama accepted from Fannie/Freddie. What about the fact that Obama paid made a payment to ACORN for $800,000 to help him on his campaign, but then conveniently forgot to report that payment, or how about that Obama can't even understand the basic concept of raising unemployment with higher business taxes, as ALL business taxes must be passed to the consumer and to the employee.

I am not going to get into the logistics of ACORN right now because frankly, that is irrelevant to this entire discussion. The fact of the matter is, you are trying to pass blame to the Democratic Party is utterly naive. You need to realize that NO party is at fault; both parties are equally responsible for this mess, and if you're going to blame this mess on an act which passed ten years ago, then you are completely blind and there is no reason why anyone should have to take you seriously. The Republicans had SIX YEARS before the current Congress to take control of this mess, and they didn't touch ACORN or look at the lenders because they were blindsided by the same horse **** the President tried selling them years ago. Our economy is strong, it will remain strong, we don't need to change course at all... well, guess what? Here we are, today, with a massive financial meltdown occurring on Wall Street, and where were the Republicans you conveniently seem to leave out of the equation? Where were they when they controlled Congress for twelve years, during the Clinton and Bush administrations? They had every single opportunity available to them to change course and fix the problems facing our economy but they didn't put ONE LEG FORWARD on this.

So stop, just stop passing blame on the Democrats and trying to pinpoint this to one person, when it is obvious that there is a collective, shared responsibility among both parties for this mess. You want to claim to be a non-partisan centrist? You need to start acting like one, and in the past three months on this forum you have not said one damn thing which represents the so-called centrism you represent. You have attacked Democrats left and right, and not touched the Republicans at all with a ten foot flippin' pole. You're blaming every single thing you can on the Democrats, even thing which cannot be tied to the Democrats, even things which ARE UNTRUE and made up by the same conservative airheads you keep promoting on this forum on a regular basis.


But instead, just blame the Republicans. Let's come up with some elaborate claim about how cutting taxes on corporations got us to where we are today. Let's ignore the truth and run this country further into the ground. :rolleyes:

Yeah, much like you blame the Democrats for EVERYTHING. I don't think this needs to be said, but if we were to look at post history here on the Hype, I have much more of a record of questioning the party which I align myself with than you do the party you have unadmittedly aligned yourself with in the past three months. I have said that this crisis is the fault of both parties, and that NO ONE party deserves to have the finger pointed to them. Clinton should have done things better, the current Congress should have done things better... but at the same time, the Republicans were the one who controlled the legislative agenda for twelve years and all three branches of government for six, so for you to plaster the blame on the Democrats is utterly irresponsible and entirely FALSE.


What's ironic is that it looks like Bush and the Democrats in Congress agree, and it's McCain who's raising the alarm.

Great, as if I CARE AT ALL about whether the Democrats and Bush agree on this bill, considering I do not believe Wall Street should be bailed out AT ALL. We have a free market we need to protect, and for us to start spreading "socialistic corporatism" out like candy is not only irresponsible, but goes against the values of this nation.

[gap5ewl]

Haha did anyone notice McCain's facial expression when Obama jabbed him for "Bomb Iran song". lol

[redfirebird2008]

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00YrbXt0Kt3Yl/340x.jpg

[Mikelus]

The funny part about your argument is that I, too, am concerned about the presidency.

I am concerned when a presidential candidate makes impromptu, sudden, bipolar decisions such as suspending a presidential campaign to work on an economic crisis, then calls to cancel a debate which has been scheduled for over a year in order to do it. I am concerned when he acts slyly and continues to campaign, going against the original conditions of his so-called return to Washington, after he has made such a strong statement. I am concerned when a possible president overreacts on something which, for the most part, was being taken care of without his presence in Washington.

That's what concerns me. His entire stunt was political, and even if you do not consider it political, we will have to agree to disagree about that. Moreover, I believe it was irrational, and he acted as if the sky was falling when that was not the case at all.

So there are obviously two spectrums we are seeing this decision through. You find it noble; great, whatever, that is your opinion. Mine is that this decision was irrational, sudden, and entirely political. It does not show that he is brave, that he is a real "maverick." It shows that he will do anything to try to be on top, he will do anything to try and win the public trust, and he is willing to break that attempt to gain the public trust for his own political gain.

Sitting around, interviewing with people for a day is not comparable to rushing to the airport, getting on a plane and meeting with Congressional leaders when the bailout proposal is being worked on. Instead, he gave interviews, continued to campaign, and only arrived in Washington after the first plan had been finalized. That wasn't leadership, that was parsing.



That statement is more unbelievable to me than if you said the world was flat.

The Democrats do not have enough votes in the Senate to pass that bill. They have enough votes in the House, yes, but in the Senate they have a simple majority. They need sixty votes to ensure that the bill will pass, otherwise the Republicans will filibuster it. The reason why the current bailout plan isn't going to Congress is precisely because of this reason; not because they don't want to take the blame. Maybe you should stop reading your one-sided conservative blogs and actually start reading up on how Congress functions, because this appears to be the second time in two days that you have no idea how Congress works [when you add in the whole "Dodd was Chaiman of the Banking Committee in 2005" argument you tried making and were corrected on not one, not two, not even three, but four times].



I am not going to get into the logistics of ACORN right now because frankly, that is irrelevant to this entire discussion. The fact of the matter is, you are trying to pass blame to the Democratic Party is utterly naive. You need to realize that NO party is at fault; both parties are equally responsible for this mess, and if you're going to blame this mess on an act which passed ten years ago, then you are completely blind and there is no reason why anyone should have to take you seriously. The Republicans had SIX YEARS before the current Congress to take control of this mess, and they didn't touch ACORN or look at the lenders because they were blindsided by the same horse **** the President tried selling them years ago. Our economy is strong, it will remain strong, we don't need to change course at all... well, guess what? Here we are, today, with a massive financial meltdown occurring on Wall Street, and where were the Republicans you conveniently seem to leave out of the equation? Where were they when they controlled Congress for twelve years, during the Clinton and Bush administrations? They had every single opportunity available to them to change course and fix the problems facing our economy but they didn't put ONE LEG FORWARD on this.

So stop, just stop passing blame on the Democrats and trying to pinpoint this to one person, when it is obvious that there is a collective, shared responsibility among both parties for this mess. You want to claim to be a non-partisan centrist? You need to start acting like one, and in the past three months on this forum you have not said one damn thing which represents the so-called centrism you represent. You have attacked Democrats left and right, and not touched the Republicans at all with a ten foot flippin' pole. You're blaming every single thing you can on the Democrats, even thing which cannot be tied to the Democrats, even things which ARE UNTRUE and made up by the same conservative airheads you keep promoting on this forum on a regular basis.



Yeah, much like you blame the Democrats for EVERYTHING. I don't think this needs to be said, but if we were to look at post history here on the Hype, I have much more of a record of questioning the party which I align myself with than you do the party you have unadmittedly aligned yourself with in the past three months. I have said that this crisis is the fault of both parties, and that NO ONE party deserves to have the finger pointed to them. Clinton should have done things better, the current Congress should have done things better... but at the same time, the Republicans were the one who controlled the legislative agenda for twelve years and all three branches of government for six, so for you to plaster the blame on the Democrats is utterly irresponsible and entirely FALSE.


Great, as if I CARE AT ALL about whether the Democrats and Bush agree on this bill, considering I do not believe Wall Street should be bailed out AT ALL. We have a free market we need to protect, and for us to start spreading "socialistic corporatism" out like candy is not only irresponsible, but goes against the values of this nation.

Great post as usual, lazur is owned again. ;)

Both parties are responsible indeed, only partisan fanatics blame the other side when is so obvious their party did nothing to change the rules.

[gap5ewl]

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00YrbXt0Kt3Yl/340x.jpg

"Get away from me..NOW"

[bunk]

Yeah. McCain refused to look Obama in the eye when they shook hands. It kind of set the tone for the debate. It's like one of those "lolcats" pictures. "Do not want!"

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU

Anything to this?

[Raiden]

Yeah. McCain refused to look Obama in the eye when they shook hands. It kind of set the tone for the debate. It's like one of those "lolcats" pictures. "Do not want!"

It's funny how McCain keeps saying that he can work with the Dems, when he won't even look at Obama in the eyes.

[Fading]

Both sides double talk, but I found this Mccain video a bit funny, tho you can practically feel the bias from the maker of the video. It's McCain vs. McCain. Not as good as the President Bush vs. Governer Bush video tho.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related


Gotta love his ability to forget what he said moments ago. Agreeing on gay marriage and 11 mins later saying he's against it. Saying Iraq's going to be a cake walk, and then in the next clip saying he knew from the beginning it'd be hard and the ppl who voted for it must not have known what they were voting for. He's as much of a politician as anyone else in Washington, saying whatever will make him popular at the moment regardless of how he really feels on the issue.


Edit - LOL I think this one is even better. That is some massive flip flopping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

[comicgirl]

"If John McCain wins this woman will be one 72-year-old's heartbeat away from being President of the United States. And if that doesn't scare the hell out of you, it should."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/jack-cafferty-if-sarah-pa_n_129724.html

[Matt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1rZBmk0DYU

Anything to this?

It sounds to me like he is saying "of course," or "of course not."

If he said "horse ****," he would've been called on it by the media.

[jaguarr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28rich.html

McCain’s Suspension Bridge to Nowhere
By FRANK RICH

WHAT we learned last week is that the man who always puts his “country first” will take the country down with him if that’s what it takes to get to the White House.

For all the focus on Friday night’s deadlocked debate, it still can’t obscure what preceded it: When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn’t care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign. George Bush put more deliberation into invading Iraq than McCain did into his own reckless invasion of the delicate Congressional negotiations on the bailout plan.

By the time he arrived, there already was a bipartisan agreement in principle. It collapsed hours later at the meeting convened by the president in the Cabinet Room. Rather than help try to resuscitate Wall Street’s bloodied bulls, McCain was determined to be the bull in Washington’s legislative china shop, running around town and playing both sides of his divided party against Congress’s middle. Once others eventually forged a path out of the wreckage, he’d inflate, if not outright fictionalize, his own role in cleaning up the mess his mischief helped make. Or so he hoped, until his ignominious retreat.

The question is why would a man who forever advertises his own honor toy so selfishly with our national interest at a time of crisis. I’ll leave any physiological explanations to gerontologists — if they can get hold of his complete medical records — and any armchair psychoanalysis to the sundry McCain press acolytes who have sorrowfully tried to rationalize his erratic behavior this year. The other answers, all putting politics first, can be found by examining the 24 hours before he decided to “suspend” campaigning and swoop down on the Capitol to save America from the Sunnis or the Shia, or whoever perpetrated all those credit-default swaps.

To put these 24 hours in context, you must remember that McCain not only knows little about the economy but that he has not previously expressed any urgency about its meltdown. It was on Sept. 15 — the day after his former idol Alan Greenspan pronounced the current crisis a “once-in-a-century” catastrophe — that McCain reaffirmed for the umpteenth time that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.” As recently as Tuesday he had not yet even read the two-and-a-half-page bailout proposal first circulated by Hank Paulson last weekend. “I have not had a chance to see it in writing,” he explained. (Maybe he was waiting for it to arrive by Western Union instead of PDF.)

Then came Black Wednesday — not for the stock market, which was holding steady in anticipation of Washington action, but for McCain. As the widely accepted narrative has it, his come-to-Jesus moment arrived that morning, when he awoke to discover that Barack Obama had surged ahead by nine percentage points in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. The McCain campaign hastily suited up its own pollster to belittle that finding — only to be drowned out by a fusillade of new polls from Fox News, Marist and CNN/Time, each with numbers closer to Post/ABC than not. Obama was rising most everywhere except the moose strongholds of Alaska and Montana.

That was not the only bad news raining down on McCain. His camp knew what Katie Couric had in the can from her interview with Sarah Palin. The first excerpt was to be broadcast by CBS that night, and it had to be upstaged fast.

But even that wasn’t the top political threat McCain faced last week. Bigger still was the mounting evidence of the seamless synergy between his campaign and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage monsters at the heart of the housing bust that set off our current calamity. Most of all, it was the fast-moving events on that front that precipitated his panic to roll out his diversionary, over-the-top theatrics on Wednesday.

What we were learning — through The New York Times, Newsweek and Roll Call — was ugly. Davis Manafort, the lobbying firm owned by McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, had received $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac from late 2005 until last month. This was in addition to the $30,000 a month that Davis was paid from 2000 to 2005 by the so-called Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy organization that he headed and that was financed by Freddie and Fannie to fight regulation.

The McCain campaign tried to pre-emptively deflect such revelations by reviving the old Rove trick of accusing your opponent of your own biggest failings. It ran attack ads about Obama’s own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.) By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain’s senior adviser, his campaign’s vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did.

By Wednesday, the McCain campaign’s latest tactic for countering this news — attacking the press, especially The Times — was paying diminishing returns. Davis abruptly canceled his scheduled appearance that day at a weekly reporters’ lunch sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, escaping any further questions by pleading that he had to hit the campaign trail. (He turned up at the “21” Club in New York that night, wining and dining McCain fund-raisers.)

It’s then that Angry Old Ironsides McCain suddenly emerged to bark that our financial distress was “the greatest crisis we’ve faced, clearly, since World War II” — even greater than the Russia-Georgia conflict, which in August he had called the “first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the cold war.” Campaigns, debates and no doubt Bristol Palin’s nuptials had to be suspended immediately so he could ride to the rescue, with Joe Lieberman as his Robin.

Yet even as he huffed and puffed about being a “leader,” McCain took no action and felt no urgency. As his Congressional colleagues worked tirelessly in Washington, he malingered in New York. He checked out the suffering on Main Street (or perhaps High Street) by conferring with Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the Hillary-turned-McCain supporter best known for her fabulous London digs and her diatribes against Obama’s elitism. McCain also found time to have a well-publicized chat with one of those celebrities he so disdains, Bono, and to give a self-promoting public speech at the Clinton Global Initiative.

There was no suspension of his campaign. His surrogates and ads remained on television. Huffington Post bloggers, working the phones, couldn’t find a single McCain campaign office that had gone on hiatus. This “suspension” ruse was an exact replay of McCain’s self-righteous “suspension” of the G.O.P. convention as Hurricane Gustav arrived on Labor Day. “We will put aside our political hats and put on our American hats,” he declared then, solemnly pledging that conventioneers would help those in need. But as anyone in the Twin Cities could see, the assembled put on their party hats instead, piling into the lobbyists’ bacchanals earlier than scheduled, albeit on the down-low.

Much of the press paid lip service to McCain’s new “suspension” as it had to its prototype. In truth, the only campaign activity McCain did drop was a Wednesday evening taping with David Letterman. Don’t mess with Dave. Picking up where the “The View” left off in speaking truth to power, the uncharacteristically furious host hammered the absent McCain on and off for 40 minutes, repeatedly observing that the cancellation “didn’t smell right.”

In a journalistic coup de grâce worthy of “60 Minutes,” Letterman went on to unmask his no-show guest as a liar. McCain had phoned himself that afternoon to say he was “getting on a plane immediately” to deal with the grave situation in Washington, Letterman told the audience. Then he showed video of McCain being touched up by a makeup artist while awaiting an interview by Couric that same evening at another CBS studio in New York.

It’s not hard to guess why McCain had blown off Letterman for Couric at the last minute. The McCain campaign’s high anxiety about the disastrous Couric-Palin sit-down was skyrocketing as advance excerpts flooded the Internet. By offering his own interview to Couric for the same night, McCain hoped (in vain) to dilute Palin’s primacy on the “CBS Evening News.”

Letterman’s most mordant laughs on Wednesday came when he riffed about McCain’s campaign “suspension”: “Do you suspend your campaign? No, because that makes me think maybe there will be other things down the road, like if he’s in the White House, he might just suspend being president. I mean, we’ve got a guy like that now!”

That’s no joke. Bush has so little credibility he can govern only through surrogates (Paulson is the new Petraeus). When he spoke about the economic crisis in prime time earlier that same night, he registered as no more than an irritating speed bump en route to “David Blaine: Dive of Death.”

It’s that utter power vacuum that gave McCain the opening to pull his potentially catastrophic display of economic “leadership” last week. He may be the first presidential candidate in our history to risk wrecking the country even before being voted into the Oval Office.

The original story is riddled with links to supporting stories and articles, btw. They didn't transfer well in the cut and paste process.

jag

[Hole Shot]

^ That's Frank Rich writing about Republicans. That's about as useful as a gay rights education from Mike Savage.

[jaguarr]

^ That's Frank Rich writing about Republicans. That's about as useful as a gay rights education from Mike Savage.

I agree, he's biased as hell. Doesn't make the events he mapped out untrue, though, regardless of the negative slant he puts on them.

jag

[Hobgoblin]

Wow and this coming from Pat Buchanan!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ptjl3ZQwM&NR=1

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Wonder if this will become an issue. NY Times has an agenda, but this could still blow up on McCain.

[jaguarr]

Wow and this coming from Pat Buchanan!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ptjl3ZQwM&NR=1

:eek:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Wonder if this will become an issue. NY Times has an agenda, but this could still blow up on McCain.

Oh, boy....this one could get interesting.

jag

[rdh007]

I don't think anyone will care about the gaming stuff. He's had lobbyists crawling through his campaign the whole time and no one's called him on the hypocrisy.

[Marx]

I don't think anyone will care about the gaming stuff. He's had lobbyists crawling through his campaign the whole time and no one's called him on the hypocrisy.

I agree.

[Hobgoblin]

:eek:

jag

And then there is this:
McCain: Iran War closer than we think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE_DcDsp8hg&feature=related

[jaguarr]

And then there is this:
McCain: Iran War closer than we think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE_DcDsp8hg&feature=related

God he scares me. Everything is framed in the idea of conflict. His diplomacy. His foreign policy. His seeming anticipation of military aggression. Truly frightening.

jag

[Hobgoblin]

God he scares me. Everything is framed in the idea of conflict. His diplomacy. His foreign policy. His seeming anticipation of military aggression. Truly frightening.

jag

And the previous video brings me to this one:
Russia Aiding Iranian nuke ambitions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaF3AtPVRQE

[DorkyFresh]

God he scares me. Everything is framed in the idea of conflict. His diplomacy. His foreign policy.

even his debating style. if he can't even be civilized with a fellow American, what makes people think he'll be civilized with a NON-American?

[Hobgoblin]

Russia Sells New Military Tech to Syria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w24XZavzXIM&NR=1

I wonder what McCain would do about that?

So we have:
1. A presidential nominee who sings "Bomb Iran" and jokes about cigarettes killing Iranians.
2. He believes war with Iran is a much more real possibility than we think.
3. Russia selling new military hardware to Iran and Syria.
4. Even those that are normally his supporters say he would make Cheney look like Gandhi.


Nervous yet?

[The Senator]

Starve.

Yes, because our society will starve if it doesn't buy iPods and 60" plasma screen TVs.

[lazur]

Nervous yet?

Nothing makes me more nervous than the prospect of Obama dealing with Putin or with any other military situation.

[ShadowBoxing]

What makes me nervous is the thought of where we'd be today had McCain handled the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[redfirebird2008]

What makes me nervous is the thought of where we'd be today had McCain handled the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I think if McCain gets in office and bombs Iran like he's promising, we will be facing a nuke crisis with China and Russia. Obama can handle Putin a hell of a lot better than McCain, who won't even look Putin in the eye and will flat-out threaten to nuke Russia.

[ShadowBoxing]

It saddens me to hear Americans say "I don't think you can negotiate with [so and so]" when the truth is most Americans (people) are not to good at handling incidents...or stopping conflicts.

[Marx]

Nothing makes me more nervous than the prospect of Obama dealing with Putin or with any other military situation.

Not even a potential Palin VP mediating a conflict with foreign leaders and dignitaries? That's interesting...even for you Lazur. Then again, I guess I should know better than to expect any objectivity from your 'centrist' views. :cwink:

[lazur]

Not even a potential Palin VP mediating a conflict with foreign leaders and dignitaries? That's interesting...even for you Lazur. Then again, I guess I should know better than to expect any objectivity from your 'centrist' views. :cwink:

Palin isn't the top of the ticket. You sound like a broken record, no offense.

McCain versus Obama, remember? Of the two, McCain is more qualified and more experienced to deal with the mass chaos of today's world.

That's my opinion. Want to call my opinion something other than centrist? Go ahead. Since it appears to be the limit of your interest in the points I've made anyway. Again, broken record and all that...

[Marx]

Palin isn't the top of the ticket. You sound like a broken record, no offense.

McCain versus Obama, remember? Of the two, McCain is more qualified and more experienced to deal with the mass chaos of today's world.

That's my opinion. Want to call my opinion something other than centrist? Go ahead. Since it appears to be the limit of your interest in the points I've made anyway. Again, broken record and all that...

If you're a centrist, I'm an underwater basket weaving champion. Guess what? I'm no basket weaver.

[redfirebird2008]

McCain doesn't have the temperament to be President. He proved it in the debate. Acted like a 10 year old, spoiled brat.

[souvlaki]

If you're a centrist, I'm an underwater basket weaving champion. Guess what? I'm no basket weaver.

:lmao:

[Visionary]

The U.S. needs to stop trying to police the world, it's an impossible task that keeps blowing up in our faces. We barely have allies anymore because we're always pointing out that our balls are bigger than yours, always trying to scare someone with military action. Really, who the hell is going to police us, to stop us from invading more countries. Thus, is the reason why we were secretly laughed at during 9/11, because people finally saw the giant get his ass kicked by less than 50 people. Thanks to lying to the world on why we invaded Iraq, we're taking as joke now. I'm surprised Russia didn't tell the U.S. to "shut up and mind your business" after they invading Georgia, and continue to say that "we didn't say anything when you invaded Iraq, we were just flexing our strength over the inferior like you did." TWO GIANT ass BULLIES. Yeah, this is what the world needs more of.

[redfirebird2008]

George Carlin pretty much summed up McCain's foreign policy back during the Persian Gulf War. It's the "bigger dick foreign policy":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5gsTYniQUk

[jaguarr]

If you're a centrist, I'm an underwater basket weaving champion. Guess what? I'm no basket weaver.

How do you do underwater for long periods? :hehe:

jag

[terry78]

The U.S. needs to stop trying to police the world, it's an impossible task that keeps blowing up in our faces. We barely have allies anymore because we're always pointing out that our balls are bigger than yours, always trying to scare someone with military action. Really, who the hell is going to police us, to stop us from invading more countries. Thus, is the reason why we were secretly laughed at during 9/11, because people finally saw the giant get his ass kicked. Thanks to lying to the world on why we invaded Iraq, we're taking as joke now. I'm surprised Russia didn't tell the U.S. to "shut up and mind your business" after they invading Georgia, and continue to say that "we didn't say anything when you invaded Iraq, we were just flexing our strength over the inferior like you did." TWO GIANT ass BULLIES. Yeah, this is what the world needs more of.

http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Team_America-one-sheet_L.jpg


America....**** YEAH!!!
COMIN' AGAIN TO SAVE THE MUTHA****IN' DAY, YEAH!!!!

[Visionary]

Puppets, very much like Sarah Palin.

[ShadowBoxing]

Palin isn't the top of the ticket. You sound like a broken record, no offense.

...Palin, although, is chosen by the top of the ticket.

[redfirebird2008]

...Palin, although, is chosen by the top of the ticket.

The top of the ticket, aka the oldest person to potentially be elected President and a person who has had 4 bouts of skin cancer while refusing to release his medical records. Questioning whether Palin is ready to be President is not invalid.

[ShadowBoxing]

The top of the ticket, aka the oldest person to potentially be elected President and a person who has had 4 bouts of skin cancer while refusing to release his medical records. Questioning whether Palin is ready to be President is not invalid.
I think the fact that Palin is so unquestionably unfit for the office raises questions more about the judgment of the man who appointed her. The VP nom is his first act as "President" and he failed.

[Gilpesh]

...Palin, although, is chosen by the top of the ticket.

After one meeting and no vetting. If he picked her.

Or...

After one meeting, no vetting, and hours of his campaign people explaining how this was a good idea. If he didn't pick her.



Both versions show his judgment about a very important decision to be incredibly lacking. What else will this judgment rear its ugly head? Nukes? Iran? Bombing Iran? Bombing Spain? Starting the Cold War again?

[The Senator]

Nothing makes me more nervous than the prospect of Obama dealing with Putin or with any other military situation.

Surprisingly, nothing makes me more nervous than putting John McCain in charge of our nuclear missiles.

[rdh007]

Of the two, McCain is more qualified and more experienced to deal with the mass chaos of today's world.

He is more experienced as a function of being 72 years old, there is no doubting that. And he's spent more time legislating than Obama. But leading? Maybe. Having said that, I don't want a guy with his temper with his finger on the trigger. Again, this is why Romney made more sense to me.

He may also have some women problems too. He's also made that joke about Janet Reno being Chelsea's real dad, and called his wife a c*nt. Though there's no video of those two.

[Gilpesh]

Wow... a guy who makes hasty judgments and hates when people start to question him.

LET'S ELECT THIS GUY! :whatever:

[redfirebird2008]

RDH, I don't think either of those bleep videos is real. I'm pretty sure I've seen the video of the one where he's arguing about being asked by Kerry to be his running mate and I don't remember him cussing at the woman. He was pretty rude to her, that's for sure. In Congress, he's been known to drop f-bombs at fellow Senators. John Cornyn from Texas is a good example.

[StrainedEyes]

XCXOZpwT2ek

^I don't know that all those bleeps are covering up swear words, but it certainly appears so when one reads his lips.


Nah, that's just one of those oh-so-great youtube fads, of bleeping out normal words.

za2CRoc_kVc

Still, he is pretty pissed at the reporter.

[rdh007]

Nah, that's just one of those oh-so-great youtube fads, of bleeping out normal words.

za2CRoc_kVc

Still, he is pretty pissed at the reporter.

I shall remove them forthwith. Thank you good sir. Or ma'am for that matter.

EDIT: Done. My apologies to Senator McCain.

[Honey Vibe]

Seriously, what about that question made him so angry? The reporter's question may have been bile-inducing, but nothing close to heated...

[Sentator McCain]

EDIT: Done. My apologies to Senator McCain.

S'ok, we're cool.

[bunk]

Wtf is a "Sentator"?

[Sentator McCain]

Wtf is a "Sentator"?

A spelling error blew up in my face.
I now leave with my head hung in disgrace.

:csad::brucebat:

[Motown Marvel]

Wtf is a "Sentator"?

he's a POW war veteran making his best effort to use the computer box....dont mock him for it. he's a god damn american hero, so get off your sexist liberal media elitist high horse!

[The Senator]

HAHAHAHAHA!

John McCain joined Superhero Hype, and cannot spell "Senator."

I sense a scandal brewing! Almost of "potatoe" [sic] proportions!

[Fading]

HAHAHAHAHA!

John McCain joined Superhero Hype, and cannot spell "Senator."

I sense a scandal brewing! Almost of "potatoe" [sic] proportions!

Hmmm...Sen-tator....sounds like he....no...no....must refrain from using horrible puns and food jokes.

[Honey Vibe]

...:whatever:

[bunk]

he's a POW war veteran making his best effort to use the computer box....dont mock him for it. he's a god damn american hero, so get off your sexist liberal media elitist high horse!


But I can see Russia from up here.

[jaguarr]

Wtf is a "Sentator"?

It's what happens when you cross a potato with John McCain. :hehe:

jag

[The Senator]

It's what happens when you cross a potato with John McCain. :hehe:

jag

And this is what their children look like:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/12/31/PH2007123102068.jpg

[Marx]

And this is what their children look like:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/12/31/PH2007123102068.jpg

:lmao:

[redfirebird2008]

I think Mr. Potato Head has a higher IQ than McCain and Palin combined.

[Hobgoblin]

I think Mr. Potato Head has a higher IQ than McCain and Palin combined.

He is at least smart enough to not run for president.

[jaguarr]

And this is what their children look like:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/12/31/PH2007123102068.jpg

:funny:

jag

[Kelly]

I love Mr. Potato Head.....


Actually, he has very nice looking kids.....

[Whirlysplat]

I don't think McCain is right wing enough. That said, if I was an American he'd get my vote. I also think Palin seems a worldly, moral woman, capable of being a caring mother for America.

[StrainedEyes]

I want to know what situation ends in McCain holding a Mr. Potato Head.

[Gilpesh]

I don't think McCain is right wing enough. That said, if I was an American he'd get my vote. I also think Palin seems a worldly, moral woman, capable of being a caring mother for America.

Then you aren't paying attention.

[Whirlysplat]

Then you aren't paying attention.

I've seen her with more world leaders than anyone else lately.

[Gilpesh]

I've seen her with more world leaders than anyone else lately.

:whatever:

[StrainedEyes]

I've seen her with more world leaders than anyone else lately.

... because she went to the UN and had a brief meet and greet with them?

That's like finding pickles in a pickle barrel.

[Whirlysplat]

... because she went to the UN and had a brief meet and greet with them?


Yes she sensibly prepared herself for the challenges of her future role. Good point. :up:

[danoyse]

Yes she sensibly prepared herself for the challenges of her future role. Good point. :up:

That's why she was so informed about the world during the Katie Couric interview she did afterwards. :whatever:

[ShadowBoxing]

I've seen her with more world leaders than anyone else lately.
That's because all of the other candidates met with those people during their careers whereas she admitted in a Charlie Gibson interview she had never met a foreign head of state before.

[Goddessreicho]

Yes she sensibly prepared herself for the challenges of her future role. Good point. :up:

Wowee, you just loooove getting into it. I'm beginning to thing you're actually joking, but just in case I'll ask you this:

Why do you think that the same exact people in her base are terrified of her debating Joe Biden, a man who has lead TWO major committees that defined American Judicial and Foreign policies?

Also, why is her own conservative base asking that she be removed from the ticket before this week is out?

I'll give you a hint: debate and troopergate! (Ooo that rhymes!)

All of this could have been avoided if McCain went with Ridge Romney or Hutchinsin. But noo, he didn't have the guts.

[AndrewGilkison]

Having ONE meeting with these leaders two months before the Election isn't going to come close to preparing her for the V.P job. Sell that nonsense somewhere else.

[Superman]

I've seen her with more world leaders than anyone else lately.I'm sorry but speed dating at the UN doesn't count.:whatever:

[Matt]

I'm sorry but speed dating at the UN doesn't count.:whatever:

In all fairness, how is what she did any different than what Obama did? He had brief meetings (only on their turf)...the only difference is he followed it up with speeches (and reading speeches to foreigners surely does not qualify you as a foreign policy expert).

I'm not defending Palin's abysmal lack of foreign policy experience, but I am curious, my dear Superman, how on Earth can you vote for Obama in good conscience when foreign policy experience seems so important to you, and Obama has next to none?

[jaguarr]

LOL! Trolling the political forums now, Whirly? Tsk, tsk!

jag

[jaguarr]

I don't think anyone will care about the gaming stuff. He's had lobbyists crawling through his campaign the whole time and no one's called him on the hypocrisy.

I agree.

Looks like the Dem's are trying to draw people's attention to it, though:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/democrats_quest.html

jag

[Matt]

Who cares about Casino lobbyists? They're harmless. Every state ought to legalize gaming. That ad actually made me like McCain more. He's still crazy, but I suppose you could say that ad....UPED THE ANTE.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :lmao: Get it? Uped the ante...:tumbleweed: :csad:

[jaguarr]

Every little bit of damaging evidence counts, Matt. It all adds up. Playing lots of small hands is how you win the tournament, not going all in on a single bet. Oh, God...now you have using gambling metaphors you bastard! :cmad:

jag

[souvlaki]

In all fairness, how is what she did any different than what Obama did? He had brief meetings (only on their turf)...the only difference is he followed it up with speeches (and reading speeches to foreigners surely does not qualify you as a foreign policy expert).

I'm not defending Palin's abysmal lack of foreign policy experience, but I am curious, my dear Superman, how on Earth can you vote for Obama in good conscience when foreign policy experience seems so important to you, and Obama has next to none?

Big difference being Obama actually has a decent grasp of foreign policy. I doubt Palin would be able to hold her own in a foreign policy debate with John McCain. Obama on the other hand did.

[The Senator]

Whirlysplat believes homosexuals and pedophiles are one in the same.

Arguing with him will prove fruitless.

[Marx]

I don't think McCain is right wing enough. That said, if I was an American he'd get my vote. I also think Palin seems a worldly, moral woman, capable of being a caring mother for America.

I honestly have no words for that ridiculous statement. I do, on the other hand, really feel the need to go throw up now.

I've seen her with more world leaders than anyone else lately.

Yes, because that makes up for everything else. You must really not be paying attention. The fact that she can go 'speed dating at the UN' (as was mentioned before) to make up no experience with ANYTHING outside Alaska is more than acceptable to be elected to the second highest public office in this country.

[Marx]

Whirlysplat believes homosexuals and pedophiles are one in the same.

Arguing with him will prove fruitless.

:facepalm:

Are you serious? I don't believe I've come across him in the political forum before. I appreciate the advice Jman.

[Marx]

Looks like the Dem's are trying to draw people's attention to it, though:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/democrats_quest.html

jag

I just think it's stupid. And besides, my state is trying to pass a casino bill this year. I really want it to pass! :cmad:

[The Senator]

:facepalm:

Are you serious? I don't believe I've come across him in the political forum before. I appreciate the advice Jman.

Go the Community Forum, where you'll find "The Politically Incorrect Thread." Read the first post.

Anyway... where were we? Something about a 600-year-old man wanting to be president? :huh:

[The Senator]

Does anyone actually believe that average Americans are buying his goal to get rid of earmarks as the only true economic expertise he can bring to the White House? Do you think Americans realize that McCain is going to have to make concessions on spending bills, otherwise he is going to shut down the government and look like an idiot in the process?

Also, when you consider our budget was over $1.3 trillion, and earmarks count for $18 billion, will getting rid of earmarks really make that much of a difference?

[kainedamo]

Wasn't McCain friends with one of the 12 disciples?

[MattBearPig]

I don't think McCain is right wing enough. That said, if I was an American he'd get my vote. I also think Palin seems a worldly, moral woman, capable of being a caring mother for America.

Not appropriate in the least.

---Matt

[kainedamo]

McCain radio ad overuses the word liberal.

E-YI1w602LI

Seriously, is liberal the new commie?

"Mommy, Tommy said he's a liberal. What's a liberal??"

"He said what???? You're never going to Tommy's house again!"

[kainedamo]

Clean Coal Colorado

E-YI1w602LI


Clean Coal Ohio

y4fOMiGyQK8


Clean Coal Virginia

DMmM6nYEjzg


Clean Coal Pennsylvania

lmuFVYNaxCo

[UA-Archangel]

Clean coal is good technology

[The Senator]

Clean coal is good technology

That is an oxymoron.

No technology is good for the environment. Clean coal is especially awful, considering we are still using coal as a resource and it still emits pollutants into the atmosphere.

[jaguarr]

That is an oxymoron.

No technology is good for the environment. Clean coal is especially awful, considering we are still using coal as a resource and it still emits pollutants into the atmosphere.

Mining coal is also still very damaging to the environment in general. :o

jag

[UA-Archangel]

That is an oxymoron.

No technology is good for the environment. Clean coal is especially awful, considering we are still using coal as a resource and it still emits pollutants into the atmosphere.

Coal is not the problem here, it's the lack of cleaners that would be the problem.

Coal, with the proper emitters hardly pollutes.

[EdRyder]

Mining coal is also still very damaging to the environment in general. :o

jag

Not to mention dangerous for people. How many more trapped miner incidents have to take place before its not a good idea anymore.

[The Senator]

Coal is not the problem here, it's the lack of cleaners that would be the problem.

Coal, with the proper emitters hardly pollutes.

Nonsense.

You are still mining for coal, you are still burning coal, you are still releasing carbon into the atmosphere and affecting air quality overall. There are less toxic emissions, but if I said "Johnny has less pock marks than Billy," that still doesn't erase the fact that Johnny still has chicken pox, does it? :huh:

Clean coal still harms the environment; we need to get off of coal and utilize cleaner energies, such as nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind power.

[UA-Archangel]

Nonsense.

You are still mining for coal, you are still burning coal, you are still releasing carbon into the atmosphere and affecting air quality overall. There are less toxic emissions, but if I said "Johnny has less pock marks than Billy," that still doesn't erase the fact that Johnny still has chicken pox, does it? :huh:

Clean coal still harms the environment; we need to get off of coal and utilize cleaner energies, such as nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind power.

I couldn't afford power that comes from solar and wind. I'd be freezing when it's -35C. It's still about 3 times more expensive than anything else out there, and will be for the next twenty years.

Where are you going to store nuclear power waste? The fourth generation powerplants, which recycle 95% of nuclear power is still 30 years away.

I couldn't afford to drill holes in the ground to install a proper geothermal unit.

Coal works and is cheaper than anything else. The only thing that keeps it dirty is a lack of legislation requiring cleaner power plants.

[The Senator]

I couldn't afford power that comes from solar and wind. I'd be freezing when it's -35C. It's still about 3 times more expensive than anything else out there, and will be for the next twenty years.

Where are you going to store nuclear power waste? The fourth generation powerplants, which recycle 95% of nuclear power is still 30 years away.

I couldn't afford to drill holes in the ground to install a proper geothermal unit.

Coal works and is cheaper than anything else. The only thing that keeps it dirty is a lack of legislation requiring cleaner power plants.

I think this is the fourth time you've proven that you know very little about environmental issues. And this time, you especially prove that you don't know much about power sources.

1) I'm not asking YOU to go out and buy solar panels [because I'm sure we're asking you to go out and buy a clean coal stove :huh:]. I'm talking about using solar and wind as power sources which can fuel an entire grid. In upstate New York, my family lives on a grid which is 15% wind power... and they haven't noticed a change in electrical costs over the past two years.

2) Nuclear waste can be properly stored in containment facilities. They exist, they are safe, very few have been known to damage the environment and we are now in the process of cleaning up those messes. The nuclear industry is THE safest industry in America right now, I wouldn't worry about where the waste is going to go.

3) Again, I'm not asking you to go out and dig a hole in the ground for geothermal power. I'm talking about utilizing Geothermal Power Plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power).

4) Just because "clean" coal is cheaper... that doesn't mean it is best for the environment.

[Matt]

If ever I am president, I am solving all these "clean energy" issues by naming this man the head of the Department of Energy:


http://www.peebeeandjay.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/20060912120223-mr-burns.gif

Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese

[UA-Archangel]

I think this is the fourth time you've proven that you know very little about environmental issues. And this time, you especially prove that you don't know much about power sources.

1) I'm not asking YOU to go out and buy solar panels [because I'm sure we're asking you to go out and buy a clean coal stove :huh:]. I'm talking about using solar and wind as power sources which can fuel an entire grid. In upstate New York, my family lives on a grid which is 15% wind power... and they haven't noticed a change in electrical costs over the past two years.

2) Nuclear waste can be properly stored in containment facilities. They exist, they are safe, very few have been known to damage the environment and we are now in the process of cleaning up those messes. The nuclear industry is THE safest industry in America right now, I wouldn't worry about where the waste is going to go.

3) Again, I'm not asking you to go out and dig a hole in the ground for geothermal power. I'm talking about utilizing Geothermal Power Plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power).

4) Just because "clean" coal is cheaper... that doesn't mean it is best for the environment.

1) I wasn't referring to buying my own solar panels. Even on the grid, it's still too expensive. It's great as a supplement, but my power bill would go up by a good three times if that was the source of power. For people in the lower income brackets, it's still too expensive.

3) Even then, it's still too expensive. It may not concern an political aide that might make a 75 grand or more, but it certainly concerns the more normal people.

4) Sometimes you gotta use what is affordable and not live off your dreams. The problems of coal can be dealt with development of new technology.

[EdRyder]

Coal works and is cheaper than anything else. The only thing that keeps it dirty is a lack of legislation requiring cleaner power plants.

Theres the meat right there.Because clean coal sure the hell aint new.The only reason why they haven't switched over to clean coal firing plants is because the high costs cut into their profit margin.So once again we have to pass legislation that forces Coal to do whats right.And most likely ,give them some money to do it as well.
I dont know if you recall Oil having to appear on the hill still *****ing to this day about the reforms of the nineties cutting into refinery profits.
Because being green makes money, but its not enough money (wah!)

[Marx]

1) I wasn't referring to buying my own solar panels. Even on the grid, it's still too expensive. It's great as a supplement, but my power bill would go up by a good three times if that was the source of power. For people in the lower income brackets, it's still too expensive.

3) Even then, it's still too expensive. It may not concern an political aide that might make a 75 grand or more, but it certainly concerns the more normal people.

4) Sometimes you gotta use what is affordable and not live off your dreams. The problems of coal can be dealt with development of new technology.

Not that I'm trying to ignore what you said...but I'm curious where point 2 is? :oldrazz:

[Marx]

MCCAIN TO HOLD L.A. FUNDRAISER
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/mccain-to-hold-la-fundrai_n_130195.html





(Isn't blatant hypocrisy fun? :whatever:)

[Doomed_hero]

So what stunt will McCain pull this week to get all eyes on him? ITs almost like a TV game show.

[The Senator]

1) I wasn't referring to buying my own solar panels. Even on the grid, it's still too expensive. It's great as a supplement, but my power bill would go up by a good three times if that was the source of power. For people in the lower income brackets, it's still too expensive.

3) Even then, it's still too expensive. It may not concern an political aide that might make a 75 grand or more, but it certainly concerns the more normal people.

4) Sometimes you gotta use what is affordable and not live off your dreams. The problems of coal can be dealt with development of new technology.

Again, I live on a grid where wind power supplies a decent percentage of our energy. My parents make less than $75k combined, yet they can afford it. The price, on American grids, will not fluctuate dramatically.

Not to mention, shouldn't you be arguing that clean coal will be expensive since we will need to create new clean coal processing plants? :huh:

[Goddessreicho]

LOL, as much as I am on the fence with Chris Mathews he hit the nail on the head. When McCain bombed his way into congress this week to "lead" the republicans into passing the bail-out they all scattered and ran like cockroaches.

Ha, McCain leadership = 2/1 republican fail.

[The Senator]

So what stunt will McCain pull this week to get all eyes on him? ITs almost like a TV game show.

Between $300 million car battery extravaganzas, Sarah Palin, and the economic crusader ploy, I am truly clueless as to what could be up his sleeve for this week.

[EdRyder]

Again, I live on a grid where wind power supplies a decent percentage of our energy. My parents make less than $75k combined, yet they can afford it. The price, on American grids, will not fluctuate dramatically.

Not to mention, shouldn't you be arguing that clean coal will be expensive since we will need to create new clean coal processing plants? :huh:

They were planning on building a clean coal plant in Illinois back in 03(funded by a consortium from the Coal industry and the public) It was scrapped when the estimated cost reached over 1.8 billion.

[sasquatchs]

Despite having insisted that his announcement last week of a temporary campaign suspension was not political, Sen. John McCain made it clear today that he plans to use his return to Washington, D.C., as campaign fodder in the last five weeks before election day.

In a hard-hitting speech here before several thousand very enthusiastic supporters, McCain bragged about having played a leading role in the congressional agreement on a $700 billion financial sector bailout package.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/29/mccain_pounds_obama_over_respo.html

LMAO, nice timing there

[Raiden]

LOL, as much as I am on the fence with Chris Mathews he hit the nail on the head. When McCain bombed his way into congress this week to "lead" the republicans into passing the bail-out they all scattered and ran like cockroaches.

Ha, McCain leadership = 2/1 republican fail.

I think a great attack ad would be having footages of McCain's people saying how he was going to the Capitol Hill to rally the troops around the bailout plan, and then a headline that says House failed to vote in favor of the bill, including 2/3 of GOP congressmen. Nothing else needs to be said.

[jaguarr]

They were planning on building a clean coal plant in Illinois back in 03(funded by a consortium from the Coal industry and the public) It was scrapped when the estimated cost reached over 1.8 billion.

This is one of the fundamental issues with nuclear power. It costs something like $10-$15B to build a nuclear facility and that doesn't even take into consideration the waste management and storage problem or operating costs. So when McCain's espousing the virtues of nuclear energy and his plans to build 45 new nuke plants I just scratch my head as to why. The ROI would be non-existent for decades.

jag

[EdRyder]

This is one of the fundamental issues with nuclear power. It costs something like $10-$15B to build a nuclear facility and that doesn't even take into consideration the waste management and storage problem or operating costs. So when McCain's espousing the virtues of nuclear energy and his plans to build 45 new nuke plants I just scratch my head as to why. The ROI would be non-existent for decades.

jag

Jesus H Christ in heaven and hell!!!! 15 billion is like 15 times the costs in the late seventies early eighties!!
Talk about inflation

[jaguarr]

Jesus H Christ in heaven and hell!!!! 15 billion is like 15 times the costs in the late seventies early eighties!!
Talk about inflation

I could be wrong on the costs, but I did read somewhere that it's closer to $10-15B in today's dollars due to inflation and inevitable construction overruns and such.

jag

[sasquatchs]

McCain and the House Republicans
September 29, 2008 3:12

According to the McCain campaign's preferred narrative of last week's unusual events, the GOP nominee swooped into Washington to rescue the rescue plan. And he did that, supposedly, by bringing rebellious House conservatives to the table and getting their concerns addressed. As Bill Kristol wrote this morning, "Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit."

Since the legislation failed and the markets are anything but reassured, should we assume the opposite -- that McCain will be assigned some of the blame for not bringing along those House Republicans?

Ambinder asks the same question here (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/mccains_share_of_the_blame.php).

What this episode has taught us is that the fissures in the GOP are far too deep to have been repaired, lastingly, by the selection of a running mate or even the possibility that the Republicans could hold onto the White House. A McCain loss in November, if it happens, will hasten the reckoning. But the reckoning seems certain to come regardless.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/mccain_and_the_house_republica.html

Wonder if McCain will backtrack. He's yet to make any statement AFAIK

[EdRyder]

I could be wrong on the costs, but I did read somewhere that it's closer to $10-15B in today's dollars due to inflation and inevitable construction overruns and such.

jag

Turns out figuring out the costs is its own whole can of worms.
Seems 'Construction cost' is only the tip of the nuclear iceberg .
Doing a little research here and the one they built in Jersey, 'Shoreham' costs 6 billion initially.
They never used it.
If they had, "operating costs" (waste removal etc) Would have tipped over 27 billion after seven years of operation.

[jaguarr]

Turns out figuring out the costs is its own whole can of worms.
Seems 'Construction cost' is only the tip of the nuclear iceberg .
Doing a little research here and the one they built in Jersey, 'Shoreham' costs 6 billion initially.
They never used it.
If they had, "operating costs" (waste removal etc) Would have tipped over 27 billion after seven years of operation.

Ouch...that's even worse. :o

jag

[The Senator]

I know how we could afford all those nuclear plants.

-Stop funding the war in Iraq
-Stop tax cuts for the wealthiest 10% of Americans; tax the wealthiest 5% and corporations more
-Cut the size of the Departments of Education, Interior, and Homeland Security by at least 1/2
-Stop paying private contractors to do our dirty work in Iraq and Afghanistan
-Stop building detainment facilities we haven't even used
-Stop trying to fund provocative defense systems, such as the multi-billion dollar missile shield in Poland

But naturally... McCain doesn't support any of that.

[Fading]

:facepalm:

Are you serious? I don't believe I've come across him in the political forum before. I appreciate the advice Jman.

Heh, don't feed the whirling troll. I guess he finally hit rock bottom, I think I've seen Whirly troll every subject on the Hype atleast once....atleast every subject I've read personally (seriously, from comics to wrestling, from tv to movies, religion and now politics).

Also suggesting you don't buy in. HIs favorite method seems to be luring ppl into an argument. Kinda like fishing. /derailment of thread done, nothing to see here.

[sinewave]

LMAO, nice timing there

desperation is a stinky cologne.

[Marx]

Heh, don't feed the whirling troll. I guess he finally hit rock bottom, I think I've seen Whirly troll every subject on the Hype atleast once....atleast every subject I've read personally (seriously, from comics to wrestling, from tv to movies, religion and now politics).

Also suggesting you don't buy in. HIs favorite method seems to be luring ppl into an argument. Kinda like fishing. /derailment of thread done, nothing to see here.

I will heed your and Jman's advice. :yay:

I must say though, if that is the way this poster operates? Why haven't they been banned?

[Überlibran]

A comment on the failure of the bailout bill from McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families.

“Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill.

“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.

“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”

[rdh007]

They're great at turning things around. Great. The Democrats need to watch out.

[DorkyFresh]

Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis.
kinda like McCain's efforts to delay the debate was a political stunt.

By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families.
where was this kind of talk from the Republican party a year ago, half a year ago, a few months ago? millions of Americans have been hurting longer than these banks have been.

[Marx]

A comment on the failure of the bailout bill from McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin:

The entire McCain campaign needs to be lined up and b*****slapped! :cmad:

[kainedamo]

Up is down and black is white. The McCain campaign, by laying the blame of the failure of the bill at the feet of Obama and other democrats and saying they have played partisan politics, have themselves played partisan politics. Perfectly predictable and dispicable manouver.

It's really disgusting. McCain's campaign will say and do anything to win the presidency.

I just hope people see through it.

[Fading]

Up is down and black is white. The McCain campaign, by laying the blame of the failure of the bill at the feet of Obama and other democrats and saying they have played partisan politics, have themselves played partisan politics. Perfectly predictable and dispicable manouver.

It's really disgusting. McCain's campaign will say and do anything to win the presidency.

I just hope people see through it.

I really hope so too because this attempt backfired pretty badly. In fact one would think it couldn't be anymore obvious. However powerful the dark side is, be wary of McCain's pull over his base you must /Yoda.

[Marx]

MCCAIN DEFENDS CAMPAIGN 'SUSPENSION'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/29/mccain-defends-campaign-suspension/





:whatever:

[Fading]

BTW about the coal issue, I think it'd be another temporary solution. Even if we did invest money and go hardcore into it, it'd just turn out like oil is now. It may cost more, but unless we just bite the bullet and start investing into long term solutions, we're going to be stuck in a rut forever. We'll never move along, we'll just go from one crisis to the next as long as we keep depending on whatever is cheapest at the moment rather than what's better in the long run.

I mean if 30 years ago we looked into alternative energies we wouldn't be in the trouble we are now. Don't you think it would be better to look back 30 years from now and think, "Glad we used the oil crisis to finally convince ourselves to switch", rather than being in a similar state to what we are now. The harder road may be more expensive now, but in the long run we'll thank ourselves. IMO it's time to stop looking for instant gratification and quick solutions and future proof ourselves.

[DorkyFresh]

of course McCain didn't want to just "phone it in".......he doesn't know how to operate a cell phone and according to some SHH posters, he doesn't have the motor functions in his fingers to be able to use one.

[Superman4ever]

McCain: Don't go to the ER...GO TO WAL-MART!

xfxjL-YjT6U&feature=related

Of all the bull...:cmad:

[Whirlysplat]

Heh, don't feed the whirling troll. I guess he finally hit rock bottom, I think I've seen Whirly troll every subject on the Hype atleast once....atleast every subject I've read personally (seriously, from comics to wrestling, from tv to movies, religion and now politics).

Also suggesting you don't buy in. HIs favorite method seems to be luring ppl into an argument. Kinda like fishing. /derailment of thread done, nothing to see here.

At least is two words.

Typical liberal response. If you don't like what someone says then collectively label them and ignore the issue. Moving on.

Obama will also lose because unlike McCain he has no policy, this was shown recently in how he dealt with the World financial crisis.
Through it all Obama has directed his efforts at pandering to a somewhat misguided U.S. publics discontent, he has stroked the embers of panic, rather than drafting alternative solutions for addressing the economic imbalances that caused the crisis in the first place. For a campaign that was pioneered on the pledge to steer off petty attacks, these types of knee-jerk reactions now define both the man and his campaign as both marked by extreme lapses of cognitive dissonance. His liberal hypocrisy is absolute.

Remember, a vote for Obama will leave your country at risk Americans.

[sinewave]

MCCAIN DEFENDS CAMPAIGN 'SUSPENSION'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/29/mccain-defends-campaign-suspension/





:whatever:

ha!

“I know that many of you have noticed, but it’s not my style to simply ‘phone it in.’

“John didn’t phone this one in. You can’t phone something like this in. Thank God John came back.”

“he’s calling members on both sides, talking to people in the administration, helping out as he can. …He can effectively do what he needs to do by phone,”

i believe the kids call that "pwnage".

[Fading]

MCCAIN DEFENDS CAMPAIGN 'SUSPENSION'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/29/mccain-defends-campaign-suspension/





:whatever:

Gotta love that, "A vote for Obama will leave this country at risk". I remember a similar tactic used against Kerry (not that Kerry was anything great), that voting for him would put the country at risk for terrorism. Gotta love how we're only safe if we voted for Bush and now McCain.

I believe the kids call that "pwnage".
LOL, didn't notice that until you said that :). Indeed, 'pwned' is accurate in this situation. Or maybe 'fail'.

[Fading]

Typical liberal response. If you don't like what someone says then collectively label them and ignore the issue. Moving on.

Obama will also lose because unlike McCain he has no policy, this was shown recently in how he dealt with the World financial crisis.
Through it all Obama Obama has directed his efforts at pandering to a somewhat misguided U.S. pblics discontent, he has stroked the embers of panic, rather than drafting alternative solutions for addressing the economic imbalances that caused the crisis in the first place. For a campaign that was pioneered on the pledge to steer off petty attacks, these types of knee-jerk reactions now define both the man and his campaign as both marked by extreme lapses of cognitive dissonance. His liberal hypocrisy is absolute.

Hehe, sry Whirly you've lost your ability to affect me long ago. Just typing this because I really have no plans to reply to you again until you say something that's worth replying to.

[Whirlysplat]

Hehe, sry Whirly you've lost your ability to affect me long ago. Just typing this because I really have no plans to reply to you again until you say something that's worth replying to.

Yet my words do affect you. You even dedicated a post to me in this thread. Liberals, tsk, tsk. What you say is never what you mean or feel.

[sasquatchs]

Sums things up...


Placing Blame

I don't blame John McCain for not rounding up enough Republican votes to get this bailout bill through the House of Representatives--he's not a member of the House, he's never held a leadership position and therefore doesn't know how to whip votes and finally--well, uh--there is one tried and true method for getting members of Congress to vote aye and McCain opposes it: a sweetener, like say, funding for a bridge in their districts. That is one reason why we have earmarks. McCain is opposed to giving away baubles for the greater good.

I do blame McCain for his puerile histrionics and for dragging this issue--which should have been above partisanship--into presidential politics. Let's make no mistake about it: his various gimmicks had absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the issue. He doesn't know all that much about the substance of the issue. The gimmicks were a failed attempt to make it seem as if he had powers, and knowledge, he didn't have. Clearly, he was in a more difficult position than Obama--the populist conservative wing of House Republicans was unwilling to take responsibility for the fruits of the deregulation that they promoted--and that might have required a more aggressive effort to move votes on his part, but the flailing about only confused Republicans (was he for, was he against?) and made matters worse.

As for Barack Obama, his visceral aversion to showboating did him a service. He laid out four requirements for his support of the bill--requests he had, clearly, coordinated with the Democratic Leadership (and which McCain supported). He made the necessary calls to keep up with the negotiations (as McCain did). He made it clear, without ostentation or fuss, that he supported the compromise. Even today, after the bill failed, Obama warned against panic and advised the Congress to get back to work and, "Get it done."

This was, I believe, eminently rational behavior in a moment of crisis. Obama didn't pretend that he could, or should, do something that he couldn't do. He didn't lead, but then, he wasn't in a position to lead. (McCain's games were the opposite of leadership--they were an unnecessary distraction.) There may be times in the future--in the next few weeks, in fact--when events will call for Obama to be a far more forceful presence. We'll see whether he has it in him. But this wasn't the time for that. It was the time for a cool head, something McCain has yet to demonstrate.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/placing_blame.html

[jaguarr]

of course McCain didn't want to just "phone it in".......he doesn't know how to operate a cell phone and according to some SHH posters, he doesn't have the motor functions in his fingers to be able to use one.

I don't know if he can actually hold a phone up to his ear or not, actually. :o

jag

[Whirlysplat]

I don't know why anyone is working on the assumption that ANYTHING you are told by the lamestream media about Obama is accurate - including all those polls that purportedly show him "ahead". The media is notorious for ignoring the vast majority of Americans while concentrating on the "beautiful people" and the "chattering classes". I feel that in today's dangerous world, the right minded American voter would go for the more trustworthy and experienced candidate; and despite the attempts of the the media to hide and/or play them down.

[DorkyFresh]

I don't know if he can actually hold a phone up to his ear or not, actually. :o

jag

he can, but it makes an awkward visual...

http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w09/img.145274_t.jpg

[jaguarr]

http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w09/img.145274_t.jpg

"Sell! Sell! Dammit, sell! What? Apple's down $23 in one day? They're worth more than that. That IS a good deal. Okay, buy some of that!"

jag

[Marx]

http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w09/img.145274_t.jpg

"Sell! Sell! Dammit, sell! What? Apple's down $23 in one day? They're worth more than that. That IS a good deal. Okay, buy some of that!"

jag

That reminds me of the movie 'Trading Places' with Dan Ackroyd and Eddie Murphy. :funny:

[jaguarr]

That reminds me of the movie 'Trading Places' with Dan Ackroyd and Eddie Murphy. :funny:

I guess the outstanding question is whether McCain is Randolph or Mortimer. :o

jag

[Marx]

I guess the outstanding question is whether McCain is Randolph or Mortimer. :o

jag

That's a good question! :hehe:

[Whirlysplat]

Come on people back to topic please. The community forum exists for this kind of chitter chatter.

[jaguarr]

Come on people back to topic please. The community forum exists for this kind of chitter chatter.

I say "bollocks" to you, good sir! Bollocks!

(And John McCain sure did a great job of riding into Washington and uniting his party to solve this economic crisis, didn't he? :hehe: )

jag

[Whirlysplat]

I say "bollocks" to you, good sir! Bollocks!

(And John McCain sure did a great job of riding into Washington and uniting his party to solve this economic crisis, didn't he? :hehe: )

jag

didn't he?

[Raiden]

didn't he?

He did? That may explain the reason why his party in the House decided to vote against the bill.

[Whirlysplat]

He did? That may explain the reason why his party in the House decided to vote against the bill.

Did he?

[sinewave]

Come on people back to topic please. The community forum exists for this kind of chitter chatter.

yeah guys, enough of this crap. let whirlysplat get back to his generalized attacks on those evil liberals! :cmad:

[Whirlysplat]

yeah guys, enough of this crap. let whirlysplat get back to his generalized attacks on those evil liberals! :cmad:


Yes indeed. Because they are evil you know.

[Arc-Light]

I don't think McCain is right wing enough. That said, if I was an American he'd get my vote. I also think Palin seems a worldly, moral woman, capable of being a caring mother for America.

That is your problem, you aren't American so you don't know.

[sinewave]

Yes indeed. Because they are evil you know.

of course. they should all be more like those wonderful conservative patriots, such as strom thurmond, david duke, joe mccarthy, ted haggard, david vitters and newt gingrich. wonderful men, those were.

[metr0man]

As for Barack Obama, his visceral aversion to showboating did him a service. He laid out four requirements for his support of the bill--requests he had, clearly, coordinated with the Democratic Leadership (and which McCain supported). He made the necessary calls to keep up with the negotiations (as McCain did). He made it clear, without ostentation or fuss, that he supported the compromise. Even today, after the bill failed, Obama warned against panic and advised the Congress to get back to work and, "Get it done."

This was, I believe, eminently rational behavior in a moment of crisis. Obama didn't pretend that he could, or should, do something that he couldn't do. He didn't lead, but then, he wasn't in a position to lead. (McCain's games were the opposite of leadership--they were an unnecessary distraction.) There may be times in the future--in the next few weeks, in fact--when events will call for Obama to be a far more forceful presence. We'll see whether he has it in him. But this wasn't the time for that. It was the time for a cool head, something McCain has yet to demonstrate.

This is a trend by Obama. He has shown many times that he has a real calm temperament for crisis situations. When he went down in the polls, when he was down to HIllary, during the Russia/Georgia crisis, i'm in the minority here but I prefered his rational and temperate response to McCain's blustery response, which if he'd been president, would have been terrible. The man doesn't get rattled.

remember George Will's column about McCain's temperment??? Remember that it was BEFORE McCain's latest histronics?

[Whirlysplat]

The subversive pinky threat is still the danger to America and the free world that it was in the 50's.

[danoyse]

Whirlysplat, stop trolling, please.

[UA-Archangel]

Not that I'm trying to ignore what you said...but I'm curious where point 2 is? :oldrazz:

I don't argue, for the sake of arguing.

If my opponent has brought up a good point that doesn't contravene anything I have to say, I don't challenge it.