29
   

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 01:26 pm
@okie,
okie, Your ignorance continues to be confirmed with every post.
okie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 01:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Your demeanor is not getting any better, ci. I'm serious, your wonderful Dems don't need us stupid Republicans. Just fix the problem. Go ahead. Get your messiah, Obama, to do something, tell the great Harry Reid from the great town of Searchlight, Nevada, and dear old Nancy to get with the program. After all, they believe in Obama, why wouldn't they want to move on this?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 01:33 pm
@okie,
okie wrote: "...messiah, Obama..." and he thinks his posts has any meaning.
okie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 01:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
They do have meaning. Too bad you can't grasp it. Have a great day, ci.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 01:41 pm
@okie,
Okay, I'll bite; what does "messiah Obama" mean, and what does "messiah Palin" mean in the same "context."
JamesMorrison
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 01:57 pm
@Foxfyre,
Bill Clinton speaking about Sarah Palin this week:
Quote:
"I come from Arkansas. I get why she's hot out there, why she's doing well. People look at her, and they say: 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family. I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married. . . .' [Voters will think] I like that little Down syndrome kid. One of them lives down the street. They're wonderful children. They're wonderful people. And I like the idea that this guy does those long-distance races. Stayed in the race for 500 miles with a broken arm. My kind of guy." From WSJ 9/25/08 issue of “Notable and quotable”


The following is some musings from David Brooks of the NYTimes who is considered a conservative. I find him to be rather level headed towards both sides of the campaign. Though I don't think anyone in this thread will be converted, I do think Brooks sums up my feelings about McCain, Cromwellish warts and all, his ethics, and moral fiber. Brooks, like our fellow poster Asherman, and others, feels disappointment in campaign tactics but points out their inevitability in such a contest but sees the man manifest in words and deeds of the past.

Quote:
September 26, 2008
Thinking About McCain
By DAVID BROOKS
I’ve been covering John McCain steadily for a decade. A few years ago, I worked on a book, which I foolishly never completed, on the U.S. Senate with McCain as the central character. So when I step back and think of McCain, even in the heat of this campaign, I still think of him first in the real world of governing, not in the show-business world of the election.
I think first of the personal qualities. He was an unfailingly candid man. When other politicians described a meeting, they always ended up the heroes of the story. But McCain would always describe the meeting straight, emphasizing his own failings with more vigor than his accomplishments.
He is, for a politician, a humble man. The most important legacy of his prisoner-of-war days is that he witnessed others behaving more heroically than he did. This experience has given him a basic honesty when appraising himself.
His mood darkened as the Iraq war deteriorated, but his accomplishments mounted. I don’t think any senator had as impressive a few years as McCain did during this span of time.
He lobbied relentlessly for a change of strategy in Iraq, holding off the tide that would have had us accept defeat and leave Iraq to its genocide. He negotiated a complicated immigration bill with Ted Kennedy. He helped organize the Gang of 14 and helped save the Senate from polarized Armageddon over judicial nominations.
He voted against opportunist bills like the pork-laden energy package and the prescription drug plan. He led a crusade against Jack Abramoff and the sleaze-meisters in his own party and exposed corrupt Pentagon contracts.
I could fill this column with his accomplishments during this period, and not even mention the insights. At a defense conference in Munich, I saw him diagnose and confront Russian hegemony. Week after week, I saw him dissent from G.O.P. colleagues as their party lost its way.
Some people who cover the campaign seem to have no knowledge of anything but the campaign, but I can’t get these events " which were real and required the constant application of judgment, honor and courage " out of my head.
Do I wish he was running a different campaign? Yes.
It’s not that he has changed his political personality that bothers me. I’ve come to accept that in this media-circus environment, you simply cannot run for president as a candid, normal person.
Nor is it, primarily, the dishonest ads he is running. My friends in the Obama cheering section get huffy about them, while filtering from their consciousness all the dishonest ads Obama has run " the demagogic DHL ad, the insulting computer ad, the cynical Rush Limbaugh ad, the misleading Social Security ad and so on. If one candidate has sunk lower than the other at this point, I’ve lost track.
No, what disappoints me about the McCain campaign is it has no central argument. I had hoped that he would create a grand narrative explaining how the United States is fundamentally unprepared for the 21st century and how McCain’s worldview is different.
McCain has not made that sort of all-encompassing argument, so his proposals don’t add up to more than the sum of their parts. Without a groundbreaking argument about why he is different, he’s had to rely on tactical gimmicks to stay afloat. He has no frame to organize his response when financial and other crises pop up.
He has no overarching argument in part because of his Senate training and the tendency to take issues on one at a time " in part, because of the foolish decision to run a traditional right-left campaign against Obama and, in part, because McCain has never really resolved the contradiction between the Barry Goldwater and Teddy Roosevelt sides of his worldview. One day he’s a small-government Western conservative; the next he’s a Bull Moose progressive. The two don’t add up " as we’ve seen in his uneven reaction to the financial crisis.
Nonetheless, when people try to tell me that the McCain on the campaign trail is the real McCain and the one who came before was fake, I just say, baloney. I saw him. A half-century of evidence is there.
If McCain is elected, he will retain his instinct for the hard challenge. With that Greatest Generation style of his, he will run the least partisan administration in recent times. He is not a sophisticated conceptual thinker, but he is a good judge of character. He is not an organized administrator, but he has become a practiced legislative craftsman. He is, above all " and this is completely impossible to convey in the midst of a campaign " a serious man prone to serious things.
Amid the stupidity of this season, it seemed worth stepping back to recall the fundamentals " about McCain today and Obama on some other day in the near future.


Lately many in the press have expressed McCain's possible absence at tonight's debate (apparently he will now attend) and his meeting with Bush, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, et.al. on the financial bailout thing on Thursday as nothing more than a "gamble" and political posturing. I see it as pure McCain trying to do the right thing by the American people. Remember too, Obama was not inclined to go to that meeting until Bush requested that both be present (At this point one could make fun of one of the candidates' voting proclivities). Was it because Obama didn't want to be seen as using the event as a political ploy or because he did not understand the gravity of the situation or, perhaps, both?

If Obama didn't quite understand how serious the financial bailout situation is he can, maybe, be forgiven since he is so young and inexperienced. After all we have at least a generation and a half gap between those who have heard from witnesses or actually experienced The Great Depression. Witness a discussion started by FreeDuck entitled "Let it crash" http://able2know.org/topic/123012-1
Quote:
Yes, I am advocating letting our market crash and heading straight for recession and maybe even the D word. I know, it will suck. We'll all lose a lot. It will have global implications. We'll all get hit hard and lose savings and houses. There will be higher crime and prices and everything will just really really suck.

For a while. But maybe if we take it on the chin now we can save our kids and grandkids from having to take it in the gut later. At some point, our debts will catch up to us and the mess will be too big to clean up. That can be now or it can be later. I'm proposing we suck it now. (please don't take that last bit as a sig line without context)

Who's in?


Can you imagine? Well, apparently FreeDuck and some other posters can't. But perhaps they may be forgiven also because they have not lived through such an apocalyptic event. Neither did I, but I listened intently as both my Mom, Dad, and Grandpop told matter of fact stories that were absolutely hair raising in my eyes. They soldiered dutifully through all the while suffering all manner of indignities today's young adults wouldn't countenance for a minute just to provide for themselves and their families. As a reward for their efforts they were obliged to bail Europe out of WWII, and that was considered better times.

Maybe its the historical disconnect, the European weariness of conflict, that somehow allows many liberals to reject real world threats of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Putin, and ,the next big one, Iran. But the aforementioned reasons are luxuries the American or any other democratic nation can not afford. Diplomacy will not be worth the paper it's codified on without the threat of sanctions, both economic and military. Freedom and democracy may be initially won through blood and treasure but those are just the down payment, the initial equity of a free nation. The citizens must forever pay the monthly mortgage of eternal vigilance.

If Liberals wish to forever wallow in the warm fuzziness of Rodney King's "Why can't we all just get along?" , if Harvard, who has banned the ROTC from their campus since 1969, wants to still bask in the opportunity to do so, if Harry Reid and his ilk want to concede the losing of wars in the interests of political expedience they all will have to find American leaders like John McCain that recognize that is nice to be loved but the question that must always be asked first is "Do they respect us?". If we are perceived as weak by the likes of Iran and Putin we might as well place ourselves on the ice flow of historical oblivion.

But if we are lucky, all of us, John McCain will be our next president. Obama's young he could have another chance, meanwhile he can "Watch and Learn".

JM
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 02:23 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Hi JM,

Quote:

Lately many in the press have expressed McCain's possible absence at tonight's debate (apparently he will now attend) and his meeting with Bush, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, et.al. on the financial bailout thing on Thursday as nothing more than a "gamble" and political posturing. I see it as pure McCain trying to do the right thing by the American people.


Okay, let me ask you: what did McCain do, when he went back to Washington? Specifically. I only ask, because he personally said he was going to go back and work until the deal was done; and that he wasn't going to debate until the vote had been cast. Well, the deal is farther away than it was before he arrived, and there has been no vote; yet he is going to the debate. I do not see the consistency between his words and his actions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 02:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I would try to explain it to you, ci, if I thought it would help. The tag does stick because it didn't happen accidentally. There are specific reasons why Obama fits the tag, messiah. Ponder it over, and someday I might explain it to you.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 02:29 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

I would try to explain it to you, ci, if I thought it would help. The tag does stick because it didn't happen accidentally. There are specific reasons why Obama fits the tag, messiah. Ponder it over, and someday I might explain it to you.


Pitiful attempt at a dodge, Okie. You call him that in order to disparage people like me. It's not Obama you are insulting, it's me. Own up to your ****.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 02:38 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Pitiful attempt at a dodge, Okie. You call him that in order to disparage people like me. It's not Obama you are insulting, it's me. Own up to your ****.

Cycloptichorn

I'm sorry if you can't figure it out. But here are some hints. Read his book, check his record, his associations, from the church, etc. Obama mixes his supposed religion with politics, being our brothers keeper, blah blah blah, his vague but grand chants of change, the religious like fervor of his supporters to the point of being like worshipers, not supporters of a mere politician, the expectation of some grand utopia here in the U.S. if he is elected. Add to that the suggestions by certain supporters comparing Jesus to a community organizer, of all things, which is bizarre at its least and plain wrong at its core, and that Pilate was a governor, hinting that Palin is a traitor to people.

This is just a sampling off the top of my head, cyclops, there is lots more out there in regard to this. I would say Obama is an insult to lots of us out here that love this country. You have it turned around. And if you are insulted due to my post, sorry, it wasn't me that came up with this, and it has credence and reasons all brought on by Obama himself and his supporters or worshipers.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 02:48 pm
@okie,
okie, You can't even interpret " our brother's keeper" correctly.
okie
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 02:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It is you that is misguided. A hint, being a brothers keeper has nothing to do with playin Robin Hood. Example, Obama and Biden could give alot more of their money to good causes if he cared. That would be better than taxing the bejeebers out his serfs out here to give to poor people so that poor people will elect him. And just maybe Obama could help his brother in Africa that is living in a mud hut, if he cared about being his brothers keeper, instead of insinuating that we need to pay more taxes so that he can promise all of his voters more pork.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 02:56 pm
@okie,
Here again, your opinion about corporate laws contradicts your current statements.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 02:57 pm
@okie,
At least, the McCain's are supporting our economy and bought a Volkswagen.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 03:36 pm
@okie,
Dude. When you call him 'the messiah,' you are disparaging those of us who support him, by implying that we do not have rational reasons to do so. That's what that means. I don't care that you 'didn't make it up.' You spread it, own up to what you are doing.

I have 'checked his record' and read his books. Nothing in them makes me think that he's anything other than a man. He doesn't expect a utopia, but he does expect us to try harder to fix problems than we have been under Conservative rule.

Your slur has no credence, and what it really is at it's heart, is jealousy.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 04:21 pm
@okie,
Okie :some answers to your questions from Chuck:

Quote:
"Congress has every duty to be careful with taxpayers' money and to suggest improvements in the administration plan. But part of Congress's reaction has nothing to do with improving the proposal and everything to do with assuaging the rage of constituents -- even if it jeopardizes the package's chances of success, either by weakening it or by larding it up with useless complicating provisions designed solely to give the appearance of sticking it to the rich.

Window dressing such as capping pay packages, which the Bush administration has already caved in to. I've got nothing against withholding golden parachutes from failed executives. But artificially capping the pay of people brought in to lead these wobbly companies back to health is a fine way to tell talented executives to look elsewhere for a job. In the demagogic parlance of this election year, it is a prescription for outsourcing our best financial minds to London and Dubai.

The mob is agitated but hardly blameless. While the punch bowl -- Alan Greenspan's extremely low post-Sept. 11 interest rates -- was being held out, few complained about cheap loans and doubling home values. Now all of a sudden everything is the fault of Wall Street malfeasance.

I have little doubt that some, if not many, cases of malfeasance will emerge. But what we conveniently neglect is the fact that much of this crisis was brought upon us by the good intentions of good people.

For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.


By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 26, 2008; A23
Washington Post

JM

P.S. Representative Barney Frank (D. MA) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D. CT) were major supporters of Fan and Fred. Frank was still promoting the expansion of both's portfolio's of sub primes even after the implict government backing of Fan and Fred became explicit. His words when asked about their almost eminent downsizing: "Good luck with that!"
Government picking favorites always has unintentioned consequences.
Foxfyre
 
  4  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 04:30 pm
That would be the very same Barney Frank that fought tooth and nail and blocked the Bush Administration's attempt to put stronger regulation on Freddie and Fannie back in 2003 when the alarm bells were first sounded? The same Barney Frank, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, who now is attempting to blame the Republicans for deregulation causing all this mess?

Quote:
In 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration and Congressional Republican efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis.[28] Under the plan a new agency would have been created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


The source is Wiki but the information is correct and it was easier going for the condensed version there than hunting up another one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 04:53 pm
@Foxfyre,
And that's also when the republicans controlled both houses and the administration. What a handicap for the republicans!
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 04:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yup, but the filibuster is alive and well and the House can't pass a bill all by itself. It was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who led the opposition for putting tighter controls on Fannie and Freddie though. At least the Republicans who joined them did so on the basis of opposition to regulation, not making sure people who couldn't afford to buy a house would be able to buy one. Now Frank and Dodd hypocritically blame the Republicans for deregulation when it was their opposition that prevent more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

It was another case of presumed good intentions producing bad unintended consequences. (Not to mention that Freddie and Fannie were giving both of them very large donations for their campaigns.)
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  4  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 04:59 pm
This is interesting.

Obama has prosecutors ready to prosecute ANYONE that says anything that is critical of Obama.

http://stlcofcc.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/obamination-obama-suppoerters-bob-mcculloch-jennifer-joyce-threaten-to-prosecute-people-for-criticizing-obama/

Quote:
KMOV Channel 4’s TV newscast night before last at 6 PM had a story, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are implying that they will bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President


This sure seems like censorship to me, or maybe they are afraid of what people can say.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:59:37