1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

John McCain on The View - Is he really ready to be president?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by gregdavidson, Sep 12, 2008.

  1. jkjazz

    jkjazz Peon

    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #221
    jkjazz, Sep 19, 2008 IP
  2. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #222
    Nope was responding to his statements that Bush couldn't of done it in 7 years, yet in another thread places all blame on the dems such as Clinton.

    :rolleyes:
     
    GRIM, Sep 19, 2008 IP
  3. jkjazz

    jkjazz Peon

    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #223

    Nice of you to clean up your post. :rolleyes:
     
    jkjazz, Sep 19, 2008 IP
  4. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #224
    Ah, actually, it kinda does. Unless you spend time watching MSNBC, CNN, the National Barrack Channel, or what other one sided outlets you keep watching.

    No, that is not entirely true. Clinton did in fact continue to aid the problem with Fannie and Freddie, as Carter had originally initiated. We are talking about two different things again here.

    See, what you do not realize GRIM is that Fannie and Freddie were Governmental bodies. The were sponsored by and created by the US government. They were publicly traded companies, but by no means privately owned. Fannie dates back to FDR's New Deal. Freddie was created in the 70's.

    My contention is that the problems with Freddie and Fannie began when the then Democratic congress and president Carter and Clinton. I'll be specific, since you just don't seem to get it.

    Democrats were the ones that forced Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other lenders to make high-risk loans to under qualified borrowers. These so called, "sub prime mortgages" where then funneled through the Community Redevelopment Act initiated by President Jimmy Carter and later continued and accelerated by President Bill Clinton.



    Both Freddie and Fannie became gigantic as a result. They were both allowed to borrow money at lower rates than any other lender in the US and were subsequently immune from state and local income taxes as well as bankruptcy laws.


    My suggestion is that you take a long break from P/R and whatever else it is you waste your time thinking about and visit http://www.ofheo.gov


    Look up the following report "Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae" In it you will find all of this and more, including information about the corrupt democrats involved from Raines, to Obama's head of his VP recruiting team, Johnson, both of which ran these companies into the ground and pocket millions. The level of coruption, lies is almost never ending. Since 98 almost 5 Billion alone in monies from Fannie and Freddie was funneled to near 60% of democratic campaigns. People like Kerry, and Obama.. People that Fannie and Freddie wanted, NO, needed around to continue this illegal behavior.




    Yes, he did. Stop playing dumb.

    No, I think you miss the point. It's, "Everything bad = Bush's fault."

    I can see why.

    Of course he can. He's been the biggest flip flopper on DP when it comes to almost every issue. I mean no offence, but the reality here is, GRIM likes being on the popular side of every issue, or at the very least the side that would appear to be the popular side at the time.

    I'll admit, it's easier that way. But IMO it lacks integrety and resolve.

    I think what happens is he just misinterprets what some here say and often times takes other posts from other threads out of context and in the confusion mixes them all together to dervie a completely different meaning. He'd make a great speach writter or commercial writter for Obama.

    Thank you, but she be a he...
    I think where he is going with that is my past posts which elude to the very facts I presented above about the "Community Redevelopment Act". The problem is, GRIM and many others had no idea what this was, that it exists, or that Fannie and Freddie are not private firms that got bent by Bush.

    Good luck. Logic and reason both went out the door a long time ago for some reason.
     
    Mia, Sep 19, 2008 IP
  5. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #225
    Mia I'm not even going to respond to most of your garbage, as that's all it is, garbage.

    'flip flopper' 'popular' wow taking gtech's play book yet you can never show where I flip flop or take the 'popular' side.

    You are the most biased poster on here, you consistently show that good things happen = republican, bad things happen = democrat.

    I am well aware what freddie and fannie are/were, how they came to be.

    :rolleyes:

    Bush had more votes the first election? Really? You sure about that?

    I forgot though Bush can take credit for record home ownership, but none of the blame when it falls apart. Wake me when you stop being so biased..

    I think both sides suck, you however can not even see that if you take credit for something, when that something falls apart you must also take some of the blame.
     
    GRIM, Sep 19, 2008 IP
  6. pizzaman

    pizzaman Active Member

    Messages:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #226
    pizzaman, Sep 20, 2008 IP
  7. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #227
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26831560

    Well if you believe in guilt by association and blame Obama for the crisis, I sure hope you also blame McCain as well.
     
    GRIM, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  8. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #228
    Not to be critical or anything (suure)... which on of the candidates themselves was personally the #2 recipient in the Senate of money from those two special interests?
     
    robjones, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  9. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #229
    Good.

    No, I'm taking credit for the "popular" comment. I'm the first to ever say it. I've just bitten my tongue while other's ran with it. Sadly, it had to be said.

    Yes, I am consistent. I don't flow with popular trends to be on the popular side. I'm have pretty strong convictions, and as such and not swayed by the the draw of being with the cool kids. Good leaders make unpopular decisions. Popular decisions are rarely if ever the right decision. I'll stick to the side of the underdog and continue to remain consistent as you have so graciously pointed out.

    Could have fooled me. If you were you would have understood my Carter/Clinton comments.

    Yes. I stake my life on it. Even after several recounts. Were you hiding under a rock or something the last 8 years?

    Here you go again with your made up quotes. Do you ever produce anything that has a basis in fact, or do you write down little haikus with various political quotes and pin them on the wall and throw darts at them for use in your next set of responses?

    I'm consistent, not popular. You can bitch and bitch all day, but never once do you offer up a single alternative or solution to any of the problems discussed here. You'd rather hide behind the most popular position of the day and then chuck stones from behind that wall of popularity while others are looking for solutions.

    What's happened to you lately?
     
    Mia, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  10. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #230
    Uh huh, and where have I changed to go with the 'popular'. Please enlighten me Mia.

    I am consistent Mia, I have not gone to the 'popular' side like you try to claim. Far from it. I have been against the Iraq war since the beginning, I have not liked Bush from pretty much the beginning of his presidency, I have not changed much at all. Everyone however if proven wrong will change, 'or should' I guess you like to remain wrong, even when proven you are wrong without a shadow of the doubt?

    Ahh what I have a problem with is your biased stance, trying to take ALL BLAME away from republicans and placing it only on democrats. It has nothing to do with not knowing the past, it has everything to do with your lack of being able to admit when your side makes a mistake.

    http://americanhistory.about.com/od/elections/p/election2000.htm


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#National_results
    Not made up in the least, do you follow politics at all? You honestly can not tell me you do not remember Bush and his cronies using the 'record home ownership' angle last election.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/bush.homes/index.html
    Even on the White house page of his glorious achievements.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap7.html

    Show me where I am taking the 'popular' side, where I have changed. I discuss more than you, and actually hit the topic head on where it's 'not popular' I have my own ideas which I put out there. You on the other hand never fail to admit when the side you are on is wrong, you use copy and paste from right wing sources and that's about it.

    Yet you have the absolute nerve to call me going for the 'popular' side and never offering a solution on anything? How about this election now, I am not supporting either side, I have laid out why I am not, which is in my eyes a solution to many of our problems if enough others would stop supporting the lesser of two evils.
    :rolleyes:
    I see you have not changed, bias, bias and more bias.

    ----
    BTW if I was going for the 'popular' side I would not be as hated as I am on these forums. Nice scape goat attack though, covers ones own blinded bias I suppose.
     
    GRIM, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  11. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #231
    The point is both sides are in on it, neither is 'innocent'
    You however can't tell me the little time Obama was in the senator he could have caused the current situation.
     
    GRIM, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  12. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #232
    My view:

    The current President is the most consistent idiot in the history of the nation. I don't equate arrogant, shortsighted stubbornness to leadership.

    Al Gore won more votes than George Bush in the 2000 election. To the tune of over half a million more people voting for Gore than for Bush. In the Florida tally alone, with the ridiculous charade of the recount process, Bush "took" the electoral votes but independent studies (WARNING: PDF, and dense stats) have shown that were a full Florida recount to have been taken, Gore would have taken the state, and the Presidency.

    Regardless, it simply isn't true that Bush received more votes than Gore. By Supreme Court decision, he received more electoral college votes, by the partial recount methods employed at the time. But half a million more people voted for Gore than for Bush.
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  13. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #233
    Grim - At least now we're going to get agreement that he really wasnt there long enough to have done much of anything.

    I still find it rather odd that a junior Senator was personally the number two recipient of money from the special interests he's trying to hang McCain with. Kinda funny. Any idea why he took the money from these special interests in larger quantity than any single member of the Senate except the Democrat in charge of overseeing their regulation as the head of the Banking committee (Chris Dodd) if he is so opposed to special interest money?

    Doesnt seem to wash with his campaign rhetoric.

    ADDED:
    Hey Northpoint -
    You know we dont elect presidents by the popular vote, and Bush won Florida electoral vote despite transparent partisan attempts to change the outcome in Broward and surrounding counties. Its a little late to argue the 2000 election, and since I assume you still support the Supreme Court ruling on Rowe v Wade as being the enforceable law of the land... dont suggest that their ruling in Florida is any less so.
     
    robjones, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  14. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #234
    Plus I don't know of a single person who claims the generic 'votes' to be that of the 'electoral college vote'
     
    GRIM, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  15. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #235
    Unless you can show where he actually voted for them, did something with it, I don't see why taking money is a bad thing.

    Show the votes that caused it, until then it's just guilt by association.

    2 years is nowhere long enough to do anything of this magnitude. He could do stuff, he could try to bring bills up, etc. 2 years as a single senator though to even be a possible cause to this mess? That's simply so out there, it boggles my mind to think anyone could blame it on him.
     
    GRIM, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  16. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #236
    Rob, that logic doesn't hold with me. Yes, the Supreme Court decision was the law of the land, and Gore ceded to that law in a formal address - though he disagreed with that decision, and said so, in that same address.

    But to say my agreement with Roe v. Wade necessarily forces my agreement to the Supreme Court decision in 2000 is illogical. I also don't agree with Plessy v. Ferguson, for example. In this case, I feel the Court simply blew it. It should be telling that an independent, rigorous study concludes that across many different methods of "interpretation," Gore would have won Florida had a full state recount been initiated.

    Yes, past history. But to try to construct an argument that "more voted for Bush than for Gore" is going to fall flat - obviously, 543,000 more voted for Gore, and, again, a full state recount of Florida would have yielded an opposite result.

    I understand your point, but I think you're missing that he also just gets a ton of money from everyone. In percentage of his total contributions, Obama's contributions from the financial services sector are less than McCain's:

    Obama (4th post):

    1 Lawyers/Law Firms $24,060,136
    2 Retired $23,180,767
    3 Education $10,375,038
    4 Securities & Investment $9,873,356

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?id=N00009638&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=11&goButt2.y=10

    McCain (3rd post):

    1 Retired $23,536,345
    2 Lawyers/Law Firms $7,959,446
    3 Securities & Investment $6,893,293
    4 Real Estate $6,796,844

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?id=N00006424&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=8&goButt2.y=6

    Here's Obama's breakdowns for top contributors:

    Goldman Sachs $691,930
    University of California $611,207
    Citigroup Inc $448,599
    JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
    Harvard University $435,769
    Google Inc $420,174
    UBS AG $404,750
    National Amusements Inc $389,140
    Microsoft Corp $377,235
    Lehman Brothers $370,524
    Sidley Austin LLP $350,302
    Moveon.org $347,463
    Skadden, Arps et al $340,264
    Time Warner $338,527
    Wilmerhale Llp $335,398
    Morgan Stanley $318,070
    Latham & Watkins $297,400
    Jones Day $289,476
    University of Chicago $278,885
    Stanford University $276,038

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

    And here's McCain's:

    Merrill Lynch $298,413
    Citigroup Inc $269,251
    Morgan Stanley $233,272
    Goldman Sachs $208,395
    JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975
    AT&T Inc $174,487
    Blank Rome LLP $150,426
    Credit Suisse Group $150,025
    Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787
    UBS AG $140,165
    PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120
    US Government $137,617
    Bank of America $129,475
    Wachovia Corp $122,846
    Lehman Brothers $117,500
    FedEx Corp $113,453
    Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250
    US Army $103,613
    Bear Stearns $99,300
    Pinnacle West Capital $97,700

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00006424&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=11&goButt2.y=4
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  17. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #237
    Grim - I wouldnt even say he was really a senator for 2 years, and I agree that he wasnt there long enough to accomplish much of anything good or bad... he was trying to get elected to a different job half of that time. Just saying he took money from the special interests he's trying to say he opposes, yet he speaks ad nauseum about how evil such a practice is. Not gonna look good on his permanent record.

    If he has votes that favored them, I'm sure it'll be brought up. The money itself isnt gonna help him, kinda looks like he doesnt practice what he preaches, but we already knew that.
     
    robjones, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  18. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #238
    Northpoint - If the popular vote was pertinent it would mean something. It isnt, it doesnt. The electoral system was designed to spread the power of the vote to insure less populous areas had a say too.

    If you dont like that ya gotta argue with the guys that framed the system. Its the way it is, popular vote doesnt rule the day. Frankly I think Gore is an idiot, so its fine by me that he lost. Yeah, I know, liberals have showered him with honors since then, I'm glad they gave him consolation prizes, but the Taliban got their ass kicked instead of a strongly worded note precisely because that drip didnt win. You dont like it maybe, but Bush won by winning more votes in the system as designed by the people that set up the system.

    May I suggest we stick with the current election instead of rehashing DNC sore spots from almost a decade ago?
     
    robjones, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  19. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #239
    Rob, let's be clear. I was responding to another poster's comment, that Bush received more votes than Gore, which needed clarification. So, I clarified, Gore received more popular votes, by a substantial amount - half a million; and had he received a full state recount, he would have taken the state, and the Presidency. These are the facts. It wasn't to relive DNC bitterness, but to clarify a misstatement, that I posted.

    I agree with your reasoning on the electoral college and less populated areas and more broadly, I'd argue, the electoral system was ushered in out of the Framers' fear of direct democracy and "mob rule" generally.

    The Taliban did not get their ass kicked. Any ass kicking that was to have a permanent effect has been completely diluted by this reckless hip-shootin' foray into Iraq. Which is precisely my point, made earlier. Bush has been as "consistent" as any man could be. His "consistency" amounts to a stubbornness and arrogance, to the point of idiocy. To our enemies, far from showing the world an "American Hegemon," as Charles Krauthammer once erroneously commented, we have only demonstrated to the globe, and to those who wish us harm, just how thinly stretched we are.

    To our friends, we have shown, we don't give a damn about any efforts outside of a very limited toolbox. With Von Klausewitz, I see war as a cudgel. A costly, obtuse, last-choice tool of international relations. That this administration blows its military wad so readily, thinking so little of anything else - in Iraq, "Mission Accomplished" without any thought, apparently, as to what the hell to do once the vacuum of Hussein's toppling picks the scab of formerly latent schisms until it suppurates into fullblown civil war, well, I call that stupid.
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  20. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #240
    Northpoint - We agree on the purpose of the electoral college. We agree that it is how presidents are elected. Thats why I'm perplexed that anyone thinks saying 'Bush got more votes' is incorrect. Electoral votes are the measure used to determine the outcome, and Bush DID get the highest number of those, stating that he got less in the popular count is more of an asterisk than a point. If someone says "Bush got more popular votes than Al Gore"... correct them. If they sat Bush got more votes than Al Gore... look at any list of Presidents and you'll note the correctness of the statement. Gore isnt on the list because Bush got more votes.

    Going on to rehash the age old DNC bit about how Florida was a travesty of justice has nothing to do with that anyway. It isnt true for starters, and it has zip to do with the difference between the electoral and popular vote. It is seriously time to get over that. Gore lost.

    Time to let that stuff go.
     
    robjones, Sep 22, 2008 IP