FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

What evidence do you have that Dodd and the other Democratic Senators didn't support it? I have seen no evidence that says they did or didn't. The only thing we know for sure is that it never made it out of GOP the controlled committee. That doesn't mean the Democrats didn't support it. It could mean the GOP committee chairman didn't support it so it never made it on the agenda for the committee. You are making things up because you want to believe them.

Why is it "interesting" that Pelosi and Frank voted against it? It doesn't support your contention that no democrat supported it. Nor does it provide any evidence that no democrat in the Senate supported it. The only thing "interesting" about it is how you are trying to use it to smear all democrats as being at fault when you have no evidence.

THREE WEEKS TO GO in this election.

The polls have tightened a bit since last week though Obama remains ahead 6.8 on the RCP average, 5 points via Rasmussen, 4 points by a weekend Gallup poll of likely voters.

Interesting commentary on early TV this morning that Tina Faye's regularly skewering of Sarah Palin is having an effect on young voters who don't read newspapers or watch newscasts but do watch Saturday Night Live and believe what they see there. What do you think? Are America's youth that dumbed down?

I'm not confident that the last debate this week will have much effect one way or the other. Some good financial news could, so look for the MSM to skewer or downplay that as much as possible to prevent McCain gaining any advantage there.

Good grief Parados. The evidence is in the record, in the Youtube clips, in the headlines, and source after source after source posted in this thread and in other threads discussing this all over A2K. You're putting me on that you haven't seen all that right? Please tell me you're kidding.

But here are some sources--some from less biased sites than others--the first five I came to--not that I think you will be swayed. There are hundreds more. But maybe those who actually want to know the truth will see it. We can always hope.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-democrat-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-financial-crisis-949653.html

http://www.thenextright.com/category/blog-tags/fannie-mae

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDp93LOxc2Y

http://beltwayblips.com/video/explosive_ceo_calling_obama_dems_family_of_fannie_mae/

http://www.borderfirereport.net/warner-todd-huston/media-not-reporting-failed-financial-agencies-are-big-donors-to-obama.html

As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail....

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Evidence of Dodd not supporting it is
1. Evidence of Dodd voting against it.
2. A statement by Dodd not supporting it
3. A news story (not an op ed) from the time period of 2003-2005 in which someone complains about Dodd not supporting it.

Obama is great with words, but I'd like him to answer just one question about all his rhetoric.

How?

How will he change Washington D.C.? How will he do any of the things he says he is going to do?

Obama is long on what, short on how.

Then you haven't been listening.

He just spelled it all out clearly again this morning.

McCains speech on the other hand was the one short on how. Lots of "more jobs" and "I know how to..' but no explanation of how.

Funny, I hear him talk about exactly how he intends to change things with pretty much every speech.

I mean, do you want him to say, 'I'm going to talk to my secretaries, who are going to get the proposals printed, who are going to fax them to Congress...' ? What do you mean 'how?' He's going to do stuff the same way every prez. does: make proposals, gauge reactions, bend Congress to his will.

Did you mean something different?

Cycloptichorn