Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 10 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#27244 - 02/13/07 05:31 PM Barack Obama
chazman Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/07/02
Posts: 944
Quote:

February 13, 2007
Obama Restructures a Remark on Deaths
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
DURHAM, N.H., Feb. 12 — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said Monday that he had misspoken when he suggested that the lives of more than 3,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq had been “wasted.”
As he arrived in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama said he would “absolutely apologize” to military families if they were offended by a remark he made in Iowa while criticizing the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
“What I would say — and meant to say — is that their service hasn’t been honored,” Mr. Obama told reporters in Nashua, N.H., “because our civilian strategy has not honored their courage and bravery, and we have put them in a situation in which it is hard for them to succeed.”
A New Hampshire reporter asked Mr. Obama whether he regretted the remark, made at a rally on Sunday that “we ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged, and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.”
“Even as I said it,” Mr. Obama said Monday, “I realized I had misspoken.”



Oh well… I was starting to like him. If he’s capitulating like this the DAY AFTER he jumps into the race he won’t be able to say anything without back-peddling for the media. Why does it seem wussy and Democrat are synonymous? I don’t think you need to apologize for saying those 3000+ lives were wasted… if that is what you believe. I see nothing wrong with this statement “we ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged, and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.” The only possible “problem” is the use of the word young… many of those that have died are not young due to W calling up anyone he can.

Top
#27245 - 02/13/07 11:04 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: chazman]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
Quote:

Why does it seem wussy and Democrat are synonymous




Because they are?
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#34393 - 11/15/07 01:05 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
_________________________

Top
#34422 - 11/15/07 10:34 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: chazman]
Fraser Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/15/02
Posts: 700
Loc: New Canaan, CT
 Originally Posted By: chazman
 Quote:
February 13, 2007
Obama Restructures a Remark on Deaths
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
DURHAM, N.H., Feb. 12 — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said Monday that he had misspoken when he suggested that the lives of more than 3,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq had been “wasted.”
As he arrived in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama said he would “absolutely apologize” to military families if they were offended by a remark he made in Iowa while criticizing the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
“What I would say — and meant to say — is that their service hasn’t been honored,” Mr. Obama told reporters in Nashua, N.H., “because our civilian strategy has not honored their courage and bravery, and we have put them in a situation in which it is hard for them to succeed.”
A New Hampshire reporter asked Mr. Obama whether he regretted the remark, made at a rally on Sunday that “we ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged, and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.”
“Even as I said it,” Mr. Obama said Monday, “I realized I had misspoken.”

Oh well… I was starting to like him. If he’s capitulating like this the DAY AFTER he jumps into the race he won’t be able to say anything without back-peddling for the media. Why does it seem wussy and Democrat are synonymous? I don’t think you need to apologize for saying those 3000+ lives were wasted… if that is what you believe. I see nothing wrong with this statement “we ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged, and to which we now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.” The only possible “problem” is the use of the word young… many of those that have died are not young due to W calling up anyone he can.


Chazman,

I think you need some senstivity awareness classes. You don't think that this sort of leftist rhetoric will alienate any moderate person whose kids died? Sure a leftist intellectual (I know that is redundant) can parse each word himself (like that depends upon what the definition of "is" is) to justify that sort of hate speech, but that average Joe voter will just see another Demohater putting his foot in his mouth, especially after the GOP spinmeisters start repeating that language to their core.

Top
#34428 - 11/16/07 01:23 AM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Fraser]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
I don't know... If the war was about curbing global terrorism, which by all measures I'm aware of has only increased since we started these wars, or eliminating WOMD, which seem not to have been there,then I guess you could call that wasted.

If, OTOH, the Iraq invasion was about ousting a regime that held anti-US views in the goal of establishing a more pro-Western government which would provide the US with more stable access to the region's oil reserves, and thereby continue to provide the sort of global business climate where large US corporate interests could thrive in a changing energy economy, then I guess all is well.

After all, in the deepest thinktanks in the nation's capital, what do you suppose they say poses the greatest long term risk to our way of life and the health of our economy - Bin Laden or $300/bbl oil?

Top
#34451 - 11/16/07 07:44 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Fraser Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/15/02
Posts: 700
Loc: New Canaan, CT
That's not the point.

By using the lefty rhetoric, right or wrong, Osama (sic) is going to alienate potential voters. Hence the retraction. If he followed Chazman's logic, he would be another Calvin Coolidge. But at least CC was President once.

Top
#34465 - 11/17/07 02:04 AM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Fraser]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3765
Loc: Ulster County, NY
I for one think he showed character by sincerely admitting that he chose an inappropriate word, and did not try to dance around the apology. That earns respect more than coming up with some damned excuse. If you're wrong, admit you're wrong, and move on.

RR

Top
#34481 - 11/17/07 06:42 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: RangerRob]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764

Well if hundreds of thousands of lives (no I don’t believe god values American soldiers lives more than anyone else’s) and all our other expenditure was worth getting rid of Saddam then those live weren’t wasted. I might agree if we were doing better than he was over there, but so far we’re not. I’m not saying we aren’t trying. But the reality is that our methods of war and keeping peace in foreign countries kills far too many civilians which results in those civilians being against us rather than appreciating us.

Another problem is that far too much of the money that should have helped rebuild Iraq has gone to Bushes “political business partners” including the Iraqi ones, and there is very little to show for it.

You might say that most of the lives have been lost after “the war” while we have been trying to help the country. In that sense you might say our soldier’s lives have not been wasted. If Obama clearly explained it this way I might accept it, but a blanket statement that those lives have not been wasted doesn’t hold water with me.

Finally the argument I hear from the right that obviously the war has worked because Alkaida hasn’t attacked us again is simply nonsense. Alkaida didn’t attack us the year before 9/11 or the year before that. It seems more and more obvious that our presence in the Middle East really is about oil.

In the end it seems difficult for me to feel the war was a waste but not the lives lost in it, and I do not see how anyone running for president will be able to say otherwise and be entirely believable. A Democrat may get away with it only because we as a whole want change from what is now happening.

Top
#34485 - 11/17/07 10:14 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: mworking]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: mworking
I might agree if we were doing better than he was over there, but so far we’re not. I’m not saying we aren’t trying. But the reality is that our methods of war and keeping peace in foreign countries kills far too many civilians which results in those civilians being against us rather than appreciating us.

Two years ago, Representative Murtha called for an immediate redeployment from Iraq and was vilified by the Republicans and the war mongering right. What has happened during those two years?
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#34489 - 11/18/07 01:48 AM Re: Barack Obama [Re: mworking]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: mworking
It seems more and more obvious that our presence in the Middle East really is about oil.

I've written before that I don't buy that argument. If we were there for the oil, we've done a terrible job getting it. Production is still low, and we never put enough troops in to secure it.

Plus if you read about the neocons who pushed this war, it seems to me that most of them were true believers. I think Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, and Rice thought they were really bolstering American power by taking it to Saddam and going to transform the Middle East. Cheney may have mixed motives (who knows what goes on in that brain), but I think if it really was all about oil then maybe those folks wouldn't have screwed it up so badly.

Again, apologies for the thread drift.

Top
#34491 - 11/18/07 01:23 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
If we stayed out of the Middle East, we would not be involved in the Middle East and in general Middle Easterners wouldn’t give a hoot about us. Our continued meddling there is why they care about us. 911 would not have even occured. (Note that I am not necessarily against us being there or anywhere else.)

I agree that Cheney et al were true believers – in many things. Sure they thought the Iraqis’ would welcome us, sure they thought we would gain power in the middle east, sure they thought we would gain power over oil, sure they thought that in the short term war would help the American economy, sure they sure they thought a lot about the money they would control and the power and money that would be funneled back to them, and sure they thought they’d get Saddam, a perk for GW.

There were lots of reasons for us to go to war.

Oh, I forgot we would eliminate the weapons of mass destruction too!

Daniel using you logic I can easily say that the only the things that weren’t botched were the things they profited from directly and in any case I don’t see how the fact that they botched the job so badly changes anything.

Back to Obama

Top
#34557 - 11/20/07 10:49 PM Re: Barack Obama (see the last panel) [Re: empicard]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land


Note : This is misleading. Although Obama wasn't present for the Mukasey confirmation vote, he was said to be agianst confirmation.


Edited by oenophore (11/21/07 12:30 AM)
Edit Reason: post posting lookup
_________________________

Top
#34570 - 11/21/07 02:17 PM Re: Barack Obama (see the last panel) [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Quote:
Note : This is misleading. Although Obama wasn't present for the Mukasey confirmation vote, he was said to be agianst confirmation.


IMHO missing the vote against Mukasey is plenty of justification to satirize him – particularly if he missed it specifically so as not to be on record.

Top
#34574 - 11/21/07 03:07 PM Re: Barack Obama (see the last panel) [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I think it's unfair to castigate Democrats for not blocking the Mukasey nomination. Even if Mukasey may be unwilling to stand up to Bush (which isn't entirely clear), critics have not put forward a single scenario which would put a less compliant person in the office. If Mukasey were rejected, Bush would have appointed without Senate confirmation an interim caretaker AG until the end of his term, who would be even less likely to stand up to him.

I really don't see the sense in criticizing someone for choosing the lesser of two bad choices when there isn't a better option on the table. I understand the frustration, but stamping one's feet and saying "We don't like Mukasey" won't make a better nominee come along.

Again, apologies for the thread drift.

Top
#34577 - 11/21/07 04:51 PM Re: Barack Obama (see the last panel) [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
You have a point and I agree, but if that what Obama thought, then Obama should have said exactly that. (Did he?) He could even have missed the vote saying he would have to help confirm him for just this reason.

Almost sounds like that might have occurred, but it isn't clear here.

Top
#34614 - 11/24/07 08:52 PM Re: Barack Obama (see the last panel) [Re: mworking]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I wasn't implying anything about what Obama was thinking; I was responding to the last panel of the comic strip that took Dems to task for not blocking the Mukasey nomination.

Top
#34615 - 11/24/07 10:26 PM Re: Barack Obama (see the last panel) [Re: Daniel]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3765
Loc: Ulster County, NY
Does anyone here climb anymore?

Top
#34616 - 11/24/07 11:19 PM Re: Barack Obama (see the last panel) [Re: RangerRob]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
 Originally Posted By: RangerRob
Does anyone here climb anymore?


Soon...soon.

Top
#34941 - 12/22/07 12:25 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#36346 - 04/07/08 10:24 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Fraser]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#36376 - 04/08/08 10:48 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: chazman]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 208
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
February 13, 2007
Obama Restructures a Remark on Deaths
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
DURHAM, N.H., Feb. 12 — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said Monday that he had misspoken when he suggested that the lives of more than 3,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq had been “wasted.”


They were wasted. We all know that the Iraq war is wrong and now it's like 4000 lives wasted.

A war based on lies is always wrong. But, at least we will be there for another 10 years. Then the world will know that we aren't quiters and cut and runners.
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#36391 - 04/09/08 11:57 AM Re: Barack Obama -- silly cartoons [Re: acdnyc]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#36434 - 04/10/08 05:24 PM Re: Barack Obama -- silly cartoons [Re: oenophore]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Damn right those lives were wasted. Let's see, what's the reason we invaded Iraq and not every other petty dictatorship that didn't like us and might have been developing weapons? Oh, right: Iraq has oil. Others don't. Now look at Iraq's production: 3 million barrels/day during Saddam's heydey. 1 million barrels/day during the latter part of the second Gulf war. Because of poor security under US control and extremist attacks on oil infrastructure. So I'd say we've done a real "bang-up" job.


Edited by pedestrian (04/10/08 05:25 PM)

Top
#36442 - 04/10/08 10:40 PM Re: Barack Obama -- silly cartoons [Re: pedestrian]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Yea, but even at that depressed production rate, it 30 BILLION DOLLARS/year of oil that now we control.

(Unfortunately the war costs 3X that amount...)

Top
#36444 - 04/10/08 11:43 PM Re: Barack Obama -- silly cartoons [Re: Mike Rawdon]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
at that depressed production rate, it is 2 million barrels per day less than it could be, that's 2 million barrels that could be flowing into the world market, keeping prices down, but aren't. whether we control it isn't as important: oil is a global commodity and the global supply affects global prices.

Top
#36512 - 04/18/08 12:02 AM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Daniel]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 208
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
It is about oil.

The pipe line through Afghanistan, that was the USSR's goal, didn't work. Now it's our goal.

Along with permanent bases in Iraq to control the oil and a staging area to get the rest in Syria and Iran. (Anyone catch C-span on 4/15)

Just because we, who am I kidding, we, (HA) the oil barrens, have control of the largest reserves of oil in the world doesn’t mean we will ever have cheap oil ever again. By cheap, $1.00 a gallon, not $2.25 a gallon. $2.25 isn't cheap by our standards it's just less expensive then what we are paying and what we will be paying soon. $4.00
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#36539 - 04/19/08 03:59 AM Re: Barack Obama -- silly cartoons [Re: pedestrian]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
If it were really about oil, then wouldn't there have been a higher priority in getting production back up and functioning? Or getting whatever troops were necessary to provide the security to make it happen? Even now, production is barely above the pre-invasion levels.

Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, I don't these guys had oil on the mind. From what I've read, they were true believers in the neocon dream of using Iraq as a staging point to transform the Middle East into a series of democracies. Bush too, probably. (I won't assume anything about Cheney.) I think they believe it so much that they bought their own b.s. and saw what they wanted to see, discounting any evidence to the contrary.

Because if it were really all about oil, I don't think that even these guys would have botched it so badly.

Top
#36580 - 04/21/08 04:43 PM Re: Barack Obama -- silly cartoons [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#36638 - 04/22/08 09:25 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Fraser]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
#37005 - 05/13/08 03:37 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: oenophore]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 208
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
Daniel,

You missed my point. It's about control, not production. Production levels in the US are somewhere around post WWII levels right now. Also, I've heard but not confirmed that they are selling Alaskan oil overseas.

It's about keeping the price of gas high, so they have this as a selling point to invade Iran and other oil countries. It's about building up mercenary armies to fight these wars if they can't get the numbers from the general population. This is way more calculated then any of us realize.

The banking industry is making trillions on the loans and they will not give it up for any reason. More war or fighting means more loans to pay for the weapons and oil to fight. It may already be an endless cycle. In eight years, look what has happened to our economy. $4.00 diesel fuel. That hasn't even reached the stores yet and when that does our cams and stoppers we need to replace will even go up. Not to mention the need to use those high end metals to make the war material.

This election is so important, it may be the last free election, not that the last two were free or without corruption.

I love to climb and spend time in the out doors so much that I find myself ignoring what is happening because I feel I can't make a change. I hope everyone really looks to the issues before voting, you may not get another chance.
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#37033 - 05/14/08 09:57 AM Re: Barack Obama [Re: acdnyc]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
Alex... if you want to discuss things with people it would be helpful if you logged on and posted more than once every 3 weeks.

Most people have moved on by now... It's ok...
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#37103 - 05/18/08 03:26 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: acdnyc]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: acdnyc
It's about control, not production. Production levels in the US are somewhere around post WWII levels right now. Also, I've heard but not confirmed that they are selling Alaskan oil overseas.

It's about keeping the price of gas high, so they have this as a selling point to invade Iran and other oil countries. It's about building up mercenary armies to fight these wars if they can't get the numbers from the general population. This is way more calculated then any of us realize.


Oil production levels in the US are low because there is very little easily accessible oil left in the US. Whatever stuff that's left is harder to extract, and doing so would raise the price. If it were cheaper to get it here than to import it, we would get it here.

Even if it were true that Alaskan oil is being exported, it wouldn't matter. Oil is a truly global commodity, and the price is set by global demand and global supply. If Alaskan oil is being exported, that supply would bring down the price of oil overall--including the massive amounts of oil we'd need to import regardless of whether we kept all the Alaskan oil for ourselves or not.

I don't buy the theory that the US is invading other countries to take oil off the market and keep prices high. Such actions are motivating polices to get us off of oil; lower demand in the long term will not increase profits (and it may force the price to drop).

There are many far simpler explanations for high oil prices. There have been disruptions in places other than Iraq (where production today is at about pre-war levels). The demand in China and India is going up substantially. As for US gas prices, there's a bottleneck at refineries which are operating at capacity. The dollar is weak, so all imports, including oil, get relatively more expensive.

And there is plenty of evidence that Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and many others who pushed for the Iraq war were true believers in the neocon fantasy of using Iraq as a beachhead for a democratic transformation of the Middle East. And when you've got true believers, those beliefs exacerbate the tendencies we all have to accept data that support our view and reject what does not (such as with WMDs).

Yes, some conspiracy theories are plausible, but many theories are plausible; the ones that have credibility have to be backed up by evidence more than speculation.

Top
#37104 - 05/18/08 03:51 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Er, what does all this stuff about petroleum have to do with Sen. Obama?
_________________________

Top
#37106 - 05/18/08 10:28 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Daniel]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
 Originally Posted By: Daniel


And there is plenty of evidence that Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and many others who pushed for the Iraq war were true believers in the neocon fantasy of using Iraq as a beachhead for a democratic transformation of the Middle East.


Further proof of this in W's address to the Knesset this past week, when he said he sees a future where the region is totally democratic. I'm sure the Saudis just loved that.

Top
#37107 - 05/18/08 10:36 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Daniel]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
 Originally Posted By: Daniel
Oil is a truly global commodity, and the price is set by global demand and global supply.


That being the case, why were US gas prices around $1/gal pre-9/11 while Euros were paying $3-$5 at the pump?

Top
#37109 - 05/19/08 12:22 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: pedestrian]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
Tax structure perhaps?
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#37110 - 05/19/08 02:57 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: pedestrian]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: pedestrian
why were US gas prices around $1/gal pre-9/11 while Euros were paying $3-$5 at the pump?


Yup, it's taxes. Europeans tax the hell out of gas. They're now paying about $8 per gallon. (By the way, 2001 US gas prices averaged $1.41)

By comparison, Budwieser is $11/gallon.

Top
#37113 - 05/20/08 03:45 AM Re: Barack Obama [Re: Daniel]
tokyo bill Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/24/00
Posts: 793
Loc: Tokyo
I paid JPY 171/liter for gas on a trip to the crags this past weekend. Call it USD 6.50/gallon or so.

A political impasse caused a special supplementary gas tax to temporarily lapse over here a few weeks ago, and the price instantly dropped around JPY 25/liter - a bit under a buck a gallon for regular. And that was just a supplementary gas tax; all the normal gas taxes remained in place. When they rammed a replacement bill through, the price popped right back up again.

Folks in the States have no clue....

Top
#38932 - 08/09/08 10:44 AM Re: Barack Obama [Re: chazman]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Call him O'Bama.
_________________________

Top
#39780 - 09/16/08 03:44 AM Re: Barack Obama [Re: oenophore]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 208
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
"Alex... if you want to discuss things with people it would be helpful if you logged on and posted more than once every 3 weeks."


Who the hell are you posting my name and not posting yours? I post when I get a chance and I will comment anytime I want.

Is that ok with you...dillbag.

If you have a problem with a post send it to me personally, or if you have a problem with people posting after a certain time maybe you should just meet at Starbucks and keep your comments to yourself. Right?

Yeah, I know I'm right. But, thanks anyway.
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#39781 - 09/16/08 03:47 AM Re: Barack Obama [Re: acdnyc]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 208
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
"I don't buy the theory that the US is invading other countries to take oil off the market and keep prices high."

Umm...Iran? Venezuala? Do you think that they are a real threat and conventional wisdom is Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office.

We can handle a 3 to 4 front war, right, with no tax increase or the draft.
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#39786 - 09/16/08 01:19 PM This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: acdnyc]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
This stunt by photographer Jill Greenburg.(Who is one of the more sought after portrait photographers in the business) used her assignment to shoot a portrait of McCain for the cover of Atlantic Magazine to get some pretty unflattering images of McCain (Pretty much with out his knowledge due to the fact you can light of a portrait shot with really bad lighting and since a flash and image is taken in mere 1/200 of a second you would have no idea what is looks like unless you are looking at the actual results which on the those shots she withheld from McCain and the magazine)

Here is an article on it.

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/09/how-jill-greenb.html

She now is using the outtakes that she purposely made John McCain look a certain unflattering way as to push her hatred of the Republican Party. Here is one example from her site: http://www.manipulator.com/

Unfortunately as much as I HATE McCain this is a perfect example of the unprofessional crap that will backfire on the intended purpose and draw sympathy for McCain. She is a *beep*ing idiot. Completely unprofessional as a photographer. Wait until the main stream media gets its hand on this. This will not look good for Obama. (Even knowing he had 100% nothing to do with it)

Top
#39791 - 09/16/08 02:12 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: acdnyc]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: acdnyc
"I don't buy the theory that the US is invading other countries to take oil off the market and keep prices high."

Umm...Iran? Venezuala? Do you think that they are a real threat and conventional wisdom is Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office.


I have heard no "conventional wisdom" to that effect. I have heard speculation, but it's not backed up by anything other than speculation.

Moreover, I heard former Defense Secretary William Perry say that the military would not support such a move. And it's opposed so much that if an attack were planned, someone would leak it and the outcry from the public (and hopefully Congress) would make it impossible for the administration to carry it out.

Check back in January, and we can see which of us was right.

Top
#39799 - 09/16/08 04:17 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Smike]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Exactly where are these supposedly "monstrous" portaits published? Anywhere other than on the photog's own site?

Another example of the McSame camp generating hysteria to keep the public from talking about the issues. Just more lipstick...

Top
#39800 - 09/16/08 04:31 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
Sorry Mike, this isn’t some kid photoshopping an image and posting it on some blog. She was a hired professional that use that position to be deceptive.

I guess I have a little more interest in this as a photographer. But the outrage is huge in that community right now about this stunt. I could not believe (or I guess I could) seeing so many comments of people undecided on a candidate that were expressing backlash against the Democratic Party for this. Just what I fear will ultimately bring down the election of Obama.

Backlash against the Dems has happened with Palin when she was announced, now with this half ass investigation against her. Now crap like this. Can’t wait until some celebrity opens their drunk mouth at some live event on national television and makes a fool of the democrats by slandering McCain. Anyone remember Sharon Stones comment about the China earth quake being punishment for China’s government regarding civil rights?

Here more photos from Greenberg:

http://gawker.com/5049776/mag-photographers-grotesque-mccain-trick

Top
#39801 - 09/16/08 04:51 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Smike]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
The title of Smike's post (This is why Barack Obama will not be elected) suggests to me that one of those election bets might be initiated here. Recall that an election bet is not usually one of money or anything else of value but rather that the loser must do something publicly humiliating. Any ideas?
_________________________

Top
#39805 - 09/16/08 07:02 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Smike]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend the photog here. I'm just aiming to better understand the situation. The magazine did get their cover shot, after all, and it was not a bad one. So we shouldn't elevate this to a GOP version of the infamous Time magazine cover shot that was digitally altered to make OJ Simpson appear more sinister.

I watched just enough TV last night to see that the magazine editor was really upset, but if they were offered the pics and turned them down, I don't know why they're so eager to fall on their sword over this. Fire the photog, sure, but it's all on her, not the magazine. Or am I missing something?

Top
#39806 - 09/16/08 07:23 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Mike Rawdon]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
It is all on Jill Greenberg, way to maintain your prfessionalism. She's through as far as most publications are concerned. When someone agrees to be photographed under the auspices of your publications masthead, and your magazine has hired the photographer to take the pics, this kind of irresponsible crap makes the mag look culpable. No publication can afford to be in such an incriminating position. I hope Jill enjoys her new venue.


Edited by alicex4 (09/16/08 07:23 PM)

Top
#39807 - 09/16/08 07:24 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
Greenberg was under contract with the magazine. They hired her to shoot a portrait of McCain for the cover. She did that and then during the contracted photo shoot took several images with the full intent of using those as PR against McCain in other ways without his knowledge. (One way is on her site, the other with the full in intent to sell these to other magazines, which she assumed would be possible after the embargo on the outtakes was over) She has fully admitted to all this. The Atlantic is seeking litigation against Greenberg and has formally apologized to McCain.

One statement from her was: "I am a pretty hard core Democrat. Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me."”

http://www.timesoftheinternet.com/2071.html

If she is any representation of Democrats ideals, count me out. Of course I know she is not, but the public comments from what I read are siding with he victim on this one – McCain. Kind of the opposite effect of what she was going for.

Top
#39808 - 09/16/08 07:40 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Smike]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
And once again we have flash, smoke, mirrors, and shiny keys distracting us from the important issues. Feign all the outrage you like, but the McCain campaign loves this crap. As long as we talk about this, or lipstick, or the massive distraction that is Palin, we won't be talking about his cluelessness on the economy, staying in Iraq for decades, the infinitesimal energy gains by drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, or his election being the disastrous equivalent of a 3rd Bush term.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#39810 - 09/16/08 08:21 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: MarcC]
MurphysLaw Offline
gumby

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 2308
Loc: Hudson Valley, NY
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
And once again we have flash, smoke, mirrors, and shiny keys distracting us from the important issues. Feign all the outrage you like, but the McCain campaign loves this crap. As long as we talk about this, or lipstick, or the massive distraction that is Palin, we won't be talking about his cluelessness on the economy, staying in Iraq for decades, the infinitesimal energy gains by drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, or his election being the disastrous equivalent of a 3rd Bush term.


x2.

Sheesh, so much ado about NOTHING.

There are plenty of REAL issues that could be getting discussed, but no, we have this ridiculous nonsense.

IF McSame gets elected (which, frankly, I cannot imagine there being even a remote possibility, but yet, somehow, there actually is), then you who vote for him will get exactly what you deserve.

I still don't understand just how electing an old white Republican man who has been in DC for decades, in any way, shape, or form, represents "change".
_________________________
"Flailing?" "Flail on!"

Top
#39812 - 09/16/08 09:29 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: MurphysLaw]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: MurphysLaw
I still don't understand just how electing an old white Republican man who has been in DC for decades, in any way, shape, or form, represents "change".


Well, one could say just about the same about Biden (though he's not at the top of the ticket). I think it's possible to be in DC for decades and be a force for change; it depends on what policies that person has pushed for.

But I really don't know what has happened to McCain. I used to respect him even when I disagreed with him. Now I think he'll say anything to get elected.

I don't see how he could have opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2003 on the grounds that (1) they weren't paid for and (2) they went mainly to the wealthy, and support them in 2008 when (1) they're still not paid for and (2) they still go mainly to the wealthy. As we've discussed above, we're not paying our bills as a nation, and the response is...more tax cuts? I'm not crazed about Obama's fiscal plans, but at least he's willing to have those of us who have benefited over the past seven years to pay what we were paying under Clinton.

On immigration, McCain says he would now no longer vote for his own bill.

And while some amount of distortion is inherent in every campaign, some of the McCain ads have been truly extreme in their sophistry.

I think the McCain of 2000 might have been a force for change. But--and maybe I'm buying too much into the Obama rhetoric here--the McCain of 2008 doesn't seem to offer much in the way of different policies. Earmarks are an easy target, but they're a drop in the federal budget and don't touch on larger issues such as the economy, the budget, health care, or foreign policy. As Biden said, it's hard to come up with one major policy area where McCain offers anything significantly different from what we have now.

So I don't fault McCain for his longtime service in the Senate; I fault him for his policies. One can prefer McCain's policies to Obama's ("change" doesn't necessarily mean change for the better), but for McCain to present himself as representing some significantly different approach seems pretty ludicrous to me.

Top
#39813 - 09/16/08 10:02 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Daniel]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
You are right about McCain backing down from his previous "I've seen the immigration light, no amnesty" vision. He's a total sell out on that point and said as much this weekend.

The rich get the tax cuts because they pay the taxes, poor people don't. The top 50% of the wage earners pay 96% of the federal taxes. The lowest fifth still got a tax REBATE of $250 because people who make 16,000 pay little to no federal tax. I am against raising taxes. The govt. wastes too much money now heaving it's bloated, over employed self through my life.

I am appalled at the lack of media access of both candiadates. I don't want photo ops, staged speeches, or sound bite(sp?) bilge. Where are the press conferences, with Q&A, for the candidates. Where are the debates? It disgusts me what passes for election "dialogue" in 2008. They should call this the campaign of Dumb and Dumber.

Top
#39814 - 09/16/08 10:40 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
They should call this the campaign of Dumb and Dumber.

Nice summation of McBush/Moose-in-the-headlights Palin
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#39815 - 09/16/08 11:40 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
The rich get the tax cuts because they pay the taxes, poor people don't. The top 50% of the wage earners pay 96% of the federal taxes. The lowest fifth still got a tax REBATE of $250 because people who make 16,000 pay little to no federal tax. I am against raising taxes. The govt. wastes too much money now heaving it's bloated, over employed self through my life.


I have to say I think that argument is a canard. First, the top half of wage earners would pay more than half of income taxes even under a "flat" tax. They're in the top half because, well, they make more. (For instance, the top 10% of wage earners make about 40% of the nation's income, so even under a true flat tax they'd pay 40% of income taxes.) Add a little progressivity (few people think poor people should pay any income taxes) and it's no wonder that the top half pay 96% of income taxes. It's not because the system is so terribly progressive; it's because the very wealthy make a lot more than everyone else, and that gap has gotten much bigger over the past 7 years.

Moreover, the stats usually leave out wage taxes, which apply only to the first $100k of income and so are regressive. And when property taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes are figured in, the entire system comes out pretty flat--which strikes some people as unfair, since it's harder for someone making $20,000 to pay, say $4,000 in taxes than for someone making $200,000 to pay $40,000 in taxes.

Believe me, the wealthy have done quite well. And they'll continue to do well if they pay the rates they paid during the Clinton years (when they also did quite well). Some people argue that the H.W. Bush and Clinton tax hikes helped create the investment climate where everyone benefited because less government debt meant lower interest rates.

 Originally Posted By: alicex4
The govt. wastes too much money now heaving it's bloated, over employed self through my life.


Well, one has to look at programs that would be cut. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and debt service constitute about 2/3rds of the budget. There's not much appetite for cutting any of those programs, so any other cuts would have to be extremely deep to make much of a difference. No one has proposed such cuts.

Sure, there's some waste. But as a percentage of the entire budget, it's not very much (given the recent fiscal problems on Wall Street, one might argue that there's just as much waste and fraud in the private sector). We're not going to get to fiscal responsibility by eliminating earmarks. We have to do something to get our fiscal house in order, and I really don't see the problem in requiring those who have benefited the most to pay a little more.

Top
#39816 - 09/16/08 11:45 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Daniel]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
The funny thing is, the Obama campaign has become the campaign for small government in this election... they're going to go a little more towards fixing the budget balance sheet then McCain will. At the end of the day, we'll be less in the red and therefore the Fed will have more headroom to implement economic stimuls if necessary if their hands aren't tied simply buying up Treasury paper.

Top
#39820 - 09/17/08 02:08 AM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Daniel]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
You are a socialist, admit it

Top
#39821 - 09/17/08 02:28 AM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: pedestrian]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: pedestrian
The funny thing is, the Obama campaign has become the campaign for small government in this election... they're going to go a little more towards fixing the budget balance sheet then McCain will. At the end of the day, we'll be less in the red and therefore the Fed will have more headroom to implement economic stimuls if necessary ..


Now with the Feds Taking over AIG (hum #1 insurer in the world)the landscape is looking a lot more dim for either of the two village idiots waiting to take office.

Stimulus was news of 6 months ago, now all they or we can hope to do is prevent world economic chaos. God speed America, this is now truly uncharted waters....

Top
#39824 - 09/17/08 03:26 AM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
You are a socialist, admit it


Did I say anything that indicates that I want government control over private property? It's convenient to throw the term "socialist" around, but you'd better define what it means instead of just using it as an epithet.

If Bill Clinton wasn't a "socialist" regarding his tax policies, I don't see how I can be since I'm not advocating any higher rates than those that existed during his presidency. And, as I recall, those rates were not serious impediments for solid economic growth that benefited all income groups.

I do believe that we should be willing to pay for the programs we say we want. My position is that one shouldn't let Democrats propose programs without making then explain how they'd pay for it, nor should one let Republicans propose tax cuts without making them explain how they'd pay for it.

And I don't see how that's "socialist" in the slightest.

Top
#39827 - 09/17/08 11:30 AM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: MarcC]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
"Nice summation of McBush/Moose-in-the-headlights Palin"

I was referring to McCain and Obama

Top
#39828 - 09/17/08 11:50 AM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Daniel]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
I call you a socialist because you espouse the Clinton years as the end all be all for great taxes, govt, etc. IMO, taxes in the Clinton years were too high, only one of the problems with the administration. Here from MSNBC last night is Robert Reich, In the latter years of the Clinton administration -- when I was not there any longer, I should add -- there was an attempt by Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin and a few others to deregulate financial markets, and they did. They split commercial banking off from investment banking. And many people say, "Well, that was the beginning of the problem," and then, of course, in 2003-2004, Alan Greenspan reduced short-term interest rates to the point where every single bank wanted to lend money. I mean, if you could stand up straight you could get a bank loan because there was so much pressure to get that money out the door. Money was so cheap. So, yes, there is some responsibility on Democrats, some responsibility on Alan Greenspan and the Fed." So, finally a truthful answer from a former Clinton cabinet member as to how this system all got into place.

Top
#39829 - 09/17/08 12:06 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Look up Franklin Delano Raines and see the tentacles reaching back to the Clinton administration. He got his start in the Carter Administration. In 1991 he became Fannie's Mae's Vice Chairman, a post he left in 1996 in order to join the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. In 1999, he returned to Fannie Mae as CEO. On December 21, 2004 Raines accepted what he called "early retirement" from his position as CEO while U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigators continued to investigate alleged accounting irregularities. He is accused by The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of abetting widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses In 2006, the OFHEO announced a suit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $50 million in payments made to Raines based on the overstated earnings initially estimated to be $9 billion but have been announced as 6.3 billion.

Civil charges were filed against Raines and two other former executives by the OFHEO in which the OFHEO sought $110 million in penalties and $115 million in returned bonuses from the three accused. On April 18, 2008, the government announced a settlement with Raines together with J. Timothy Howard, Fannie's former chief financial officer, and Leanne G. Spencer, Fannie's former controller. The three executives agreed to pay fines totaling about $3 million, which will be paid by Fannie's insurance policies. Raines also agreed to donate the proceeds from the sale of $1.8 million of his Fannie stock and to give up stock options. The stock options however have no value. Raines also gave up an estimated $5.3 million of "other benefits" said to be related to his pension and forgone bonuses.

An editorial in The Wall Street Journal called it a "paltry settlement" which allowed Raines and the other two executives to "keep the bulk of their riches." In 2003 alone, Raines's compensation was over $20 million.
In June 2008 Wall Street Journal reported that Franklin Raines was one of several politicians who received below market rates loans at Countrywide Financial because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo". He received loans for over $3 million while CEO of Fannie Mae.

Follow the money, it has Democrat hands all over it.

Top
#39831 - 09/17/08 12:39 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
From Investors Business Daily today
Push Is On To Undo New FHA Loan Rules

In the midst of a housing crisis with its roots in easy money, Democratic lawmakers want taxpayers to once again back loans to borrowers putting up no money of their own.

The House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday marked up legislation to let the Federal Housing Administration guarantee mortgages when the seller helps out with the down payment.

Supporters contend the new legislation contains adequate safeguards. But critics say down payment assistance loans are far more likely to default, raising losses for the FHA — read taxpayers.

It comes on the heels of the Treasury's takeover of quasi-private mortgage finance giants Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae. (FNM) Taxpayers may end up paying $200 billion for the emergency move.

Down payment assistance lets buyers unable to put sufficient money down to buy a house do so anyway. Seller-funded assistance often entails the seller giving the down payment to the buyer via a nonprofit, which earns a fee.

But buyers who don't put up any of their own money default more often. Further, sellers may inflate the price in such situations, knowing FHA insurance will cover the loan if the buyer defaults. The down payment essentially is added to the price the seller otherwise would accept, critics argue.

Fully 22% of FHA-backed seller-funded assistance mortgages that were three years old were delinquent, according to a 2007 Government Accountability Office study. The compares with 13% of nonseller assistance and 9% of those without assistance.

Since then, home prices have fallen sharply, leading to a big rise in delinquency rates overall.

The FHA is projected to lose $4.6 billion this year. Commissioner Brian Montgomery largely blames that on seller-financed down payments. In 2007, such mortgages accounted for 35% of FHA's loans.

Congress scrapped the program as part of the broad housing rescue bill passed this summer.

Yet Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, already wants to reinstate it.

Rep. Spencer Bauchus, R-Ala., ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, told the panel that reviving down payment assistance is "unwise."

Housing and Urban Development spokesman Lemar Wooley said, "We have deep reservations about the legislation in its current form."

Green says, "Those concerns have been dealt with."

Under his plan, a buyer with a credit score of 620 to 679 could qualify for a seller-funded down payment mortgage backed by the FHA with a 3% initial premium and a 1.25% annual premium on the original principal. Those with credit scores 680 and over could qualify without paying the additional premiums. The FHA would have the option of developing a seller-funded program for those with credit scores below 620.

Lenders deem credit scores over 700 to be a sign of good financial health, while those under 600 are high risk, according to the Consumer Federation of America.

Those safeguards may be inadequate. "The problem is perverse incentives," said John Berlau, director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute. "The sellers and banks have an incentive to cheat since they know the taxpayers will be left holding the bag."

The FHA faces other problems as well. The housing bailout requires the agency to insure up to $300 billion in subprime loans to try and curb foreclosures.

To ease pressures on homeowners, the FHA will back loans only when lenders write down the principal to 90% of the current property value.

"Congress hopes the FHA will save the housing industry, but who's gonna' save the FHA?" asks Alex Pollack, a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and former president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago. "No one says it, but the FHA is the government's subprime lender."

Berlau noted, "Because of the bailout, banks now have an incentive to dump their loans that are most likely to default on the FHA."

The second-quarter delinquency rate for FHA loans was 12.6% vs. 18.7% for subprime, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bailout would cost taxpayers $24 billion over 10 years, but that's just a stab in the dark.

"$50 billion? $100 billion? No one knows," said Guy Cecala, president of Inside Mortgage Finance.

Cecala points to what he believes is an even more immediate risk for the FHA.

"The FHA is accounting for one-quarter of new mortgages this year, at a time when home prices are still declining. Many of those mortgages could be underwater by next year."

Top
#39832 - 09/17/08 01:05 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Er, and this is why Barack Obama will not be elected?
_________________________

Top
#39834 - 09/17/08 01:14 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: oenophore]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
If Mr. Obama, in the short time he has been in the Senate, is the number 2 or 3 recipient of donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we know how corrupt that organization was/is with Democratic crooks, no he should not be elected. Follow the money.

Top
#39835 - 09/17/08 01:42 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
I call you a socialist because you espouse the Clinton years as the end all be all for great taxes, govt, etc. IMO, taxes in the Clinton years were too high, only one of the problems with the administration.


I don't see any connection between those items and socialism. Just because you think taxes were too high doesn't imply that we were "socialists" in the 1990s.

Labels are not a substitute for analysis. I invite you to say what you'd cut to not only balance the budget but compensate for the lower taxes you advocate. We've talked about the necessity for making hard choices. What would yours be? (And, as I noted, eliminating earmarks and getting rid of the Department of Education won't get the job done.)

Top
#39836 - 09/17/08 01:43 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
If Mr. Obama, in the short time he has been in the Senate, is the number 2 or 3 recipient of donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we know how corrupt that organization was/is with Democratic crooks, no he should not be elected. Follow the money.


Oh please. I believe it's well-known that the regulatory failure regarding Fannie/Freddie was a completely bipartisan effort.

Top
#39837 - 09/17/08 01:46 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
It has always been my belief that idea that everyone should own there own home is flawed. The Clinton Administration moved this idea ahead dramatically in ways that started the crisis that the financial markets are in today. There were attempts to pull back on this by the Bush Administration but they failed at controlling this mess as much as the Clinton Administrations failed to see the long effects of shoving everyone into a mortgage. This is a classic case of social programs going into effect for the ‘good and ‘welfare’ of the people but creating long term destabilization in the free markets.

Any legislation that attempts to bolster the trend of mortgage welfare should be met with strong resistance as this will only contribute to the lingering housing crisis. The idea that government needs to create more buyers through legislation by making it easier to get a mortgage so as to fill all these empty homes on the market is a very bad idea and the major factor why we are where we are today.


Top
#39841 - 09/17/08 02:57 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Smike]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1041
Loc: hamlet\'s hand
uhahahahahaha...free markets...uhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha: S & L bailouts, Asian bank bailouts, grazing subsidies, farming subsidies, logging subsidies, mining subsidies, oil subsidies, welfare professional sports arenas, investment back bailouts, insurance industry bailouts.

Please, let's start calling it what we have here in the US of A: state subsidized capitalism.
_________________________
Shongum ain\'t Indian,
it\'s Shawank-unk.

Top
#39842 - 09/17/08 03:05 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: yorick]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Please, let's start calling it what we have here in the US of A: state subsidized capitalism.

And only "third party" candidates, if elected, will work to cease and desist.
_________________________

Top
#39846 - 09/17/08 04:16 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: oenophore]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
 Quote:
And only "third party" candidates, if elected, will work to cease and desist.


surely you don't think the Greens will fix the problem, and the Libertarians won't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

Top
#39851 - 09/17/08 04:35 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: pedestrian]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
I'm naive enough to vote for the like; yes, I think so.
_________________________

Top
#39852 - 09/17/08 04:54 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Smike]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Smike
It has always been my belief that idea that everyone should own there own home is flawed. The Clinton Administration moved this idea ahead dramatically in ways that started the crisis that the financial markets are in today.


To my understanding, the theory behind promoting home ownership is that owners have more of an interest in their property and neighborhood than renters, so they take better care of the property and raise values in the area, leading to a virtuous cycle of stability, lower crime, higher property values, and higher tax revenues.

I'm not sure how the Clinton administration pushed people into mortgages any more than any other administration, but perhaps someone can fill me in on specifics. Credit has been cheap, but that's not unique to the mortgage industry.

But there certainly has been a spate of people induced into buying mortgages who couldn't afford them, and those mortgages being packaged and bought by financial institutions who had no idea how bad those loans would be if housing prices dropped.

Even if home ownership is a good thing, which can be disputed, my gripe is with the home mortgage interest deduction. There's no reason why people who can afford a million dollar home should get any tax break for it. If the purpose is to get people into their first houses, it would be phased out with income. Instead, the higher your tax bracket, the bigger your subsidy. That's just perverse. I think it's just a sop to the construction industry, which gets to raise housing prices because they know buyers will be able to deduct the mortgage interest from their taxes.

The deduction is in essence a government subsidy of over $70 billion (at least as of 2005). Hard to say we couldn't do better things with that money.

Slate articles on the home mortgage interest deduction here and here. Chances of getting rid of it are probably slim to none since you've got homeowners, realtors, and the construction industry behind it.

Top
#39917 - 09/20/08 05:31 AM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: alicex4]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
Follow the money, it has Democrat hands all over it.

Not entirely:
 Quote:
To The Editor:

Yesterday, Senator John McCain released a television commercial attacking Barack Obama for allegedly receiving advice on the economy from former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. From the stump, he has recently tried tying Senator Obama to Fannie Mae, as if there is some guilt in the association with Fannie Mae's former executives.

It is an interesting card for Senator McCain to play, given that his campaign manager, Rick Davis, was paid by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several hundred thousand dollars early in this decade to head up an organization to lobby in their behalf called The Homeownership Alliance. ...

I worked in government relations for Fannie Mae for more than 20 years, leading the group for most of those years. When I see photographs of Sen. McCain's staff, it looks to me like the team of lobbyists who used to report to me. Senator McCain's attack on Senator Obama is a cheap shot, and hypocritical.

Sincerely,

William Maloni
Fannie Mae Senior Vice President for Government and Industry Relations (1983-2004)
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#39918 - 09/20/08 12:13 PM Re: This is why Barack Obama will not be elected. [Re: Smike]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
So far, we have here three reasons "why Barack Obama will not be elected."

  • The GOP ticket has more qualified candidates.
  • Events in Obama's past show he isn't the man he's cracked up to be.
  • The Bradley Effect.

If Obama loses, I wonder which reason the usual pundits will specify; if he wins, then it's all as good as used food opinionwise.
_________________________

Top
#39986 - 09/23/08 04:56 PM Re: Barack Obama [Re: chazman]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
Sep 22, 2008 11:55 pm US/Pacific

Marin County Town Changes Name To 'Obama'


OLEMA (AP) ― Motorists entering the quaint, woodsy town of Olema near the sea in Marin County may notice a subtle change as they enter: it appears the burg's name has been changed to ''Obama.''

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama supporter and bed and breakfast owner Kelly Emery created a perfect mirror of the green sign people read as they enter the town's limits.

Now people unfamiliar with the area may think they are entering the town of Obama, population: 55.

Emery's sign has created little fuss in this politically liberal area, but the county said there are laws regulating such behavior.

Marin County senior planner Curtis Havel said county code allows for political signs on one's residence or place of business not more than 45 days prior to an election.


===============================================================

The Wikipedia article about Olema bears this information:

2008, a town resident put up a sign reading "Obama", playing on the similarity of the name of Presidential Candidate and U.S. Senator Barack Obama with the town's name and leading to erroneous reports that the town had changed its name.[citation needed]



Edited by oenophore (09/23/08 08:16 PM)
Edit Reason: research
_________________________

Top
#41285 - 11/06/08 08:11 PM Impeach Obama? [Re: chazman]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land
The man hasn't been formally elected, much less inaugurated, and there's agitation for his impeachment!

Whadda country!
_________________________

Top
#41994 - 11/26/08 10:50 AM Re: Impeach Obama? [Re: oenophore]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5968
Loc: 212 land

Top
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored