I'm so tired of personal slander in this campaign. Who cares anymore what happened in the 60s? Most of us would just as soon forget it. It was a bad time for our country. A lot of people did things that were not right because it's what we thought was right at the time. That was over 40 years ago. WE GREW UP - we ARE different now....

Today we have NOW issues... Our economy has just fallen apart and we NEED to talk about that - not who we might know and what they were doing 40 years ago or who we met with in the 80s that we might have influenced Congress in their favor.

My question to Sen. McCain would be -- if you're such a Mavrick, WHY did you vote for a bill with 150 Billion in PORK in it. Why didn't you raise holy hell about the pork in it and vote AGAINST it? This bill just added to bigger govt. and hurt the little people that you're saying you're going to help. It's exactly what you've been campaigning against for the past year or so.

And Sen. Obama why didn't you do the same? It's a BAD bill. Why didn't you come up with a Better Idea for a bailout? What's this going to do for ME?

The hell with name calling - let's get back down to basics.

Hugs BD

I think the "pork" part had already passed.  They took it and added the first section, the bailout, and revoted on it.

I think the pols all wanted to be seen as "doing something" so badly, they would have passed anything.

Although Ayers and his underground bombed (or attempted to bomb) US Government organization in the 60's, he is unrepentant for it to this day.

It was mid-90's when Ayers hosted the Obama party, which Barack attended, at his house.


Quote:

Let’s have some perspective here. What do you suppose the mainstream media reaction would be had McCain been associated with an abortion clinic bomber? You know what it would have been. The big media would be editorializing that McCain was not fit to be president. But Obama can associate with a man who belonged to Weatherman, a Communist-driven splinter faction of Students for a Democratic Society. Characterizing Weatherman as “an American Red Army,” Ayers summed up the organization’s ideology as follows: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.” He has never apologized for those remarks or said he has a different world view today. As recently as 2001, Ayers said America makes him “want to puke.” Nice. Ayers boasts that he “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972.” Of the day he bombed the Pentagon, Ayers says, “Everything was absolutely ideal. … The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”

Character is always an issue.

McCain lost my respect when he voted for that damn bill.

As for Obama, I could give a rats butt where he was in the 60's, but I really think he's a good guy headed up by a rotten party.

I am voting with a clean conscience this year for a 3rd party candidate.


edited for spelling

Because NONE of them would get elected if we knew where they actually stood on the issues that matter to most of us.  If you can't be the best, make your opponent look the worst.  

I didn't like McCain before he got the Republican nomination.  That hasn't changed, but I also can't in good conscience vote for a young idealistic socialist for president.  Change is only good if it is change for the better.  I don't see pushing the US farther down the socialist path as being better.

I am not a member of any political party.  I read and research and vote for who I think is the better of the candidates (or in this case - the lesser of two evils).  If there were a viable third party candidate with a chance of winning, I might readily vote for him or her, but right now the independents only serve to draw votes away from one candidate or another and I'm won't throw away my vote and help send this country to hell to make a political statement.

Bob and Gator,

I couldn't have said it better.  How about you two run?

Jerry

Bob and Gator,

I couldn't have said it better.  How about you two run?

Jerry

wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 10:12am:

Character is always an issue.

I wish that were true in the eyes of all voters..........

I sincerely believe that the left wing nutjobs that run our media machine will be responsible for electing our next glorious leader.  Anybody with half an ounce of common sense would realize that Obama is a socialist.  Lefties want a socialist in office, so it doesn't matter to them.  The problem is the people in the middle who don't understand just how bad socialism is and what it will do to America.

I'm with you Mel, and I am narrowing down my choices too!

The "problem" I am having is no matter which independant one looks at, there is a big descrepany from the main parties, so there always is a main party person to say "that guy is nuts becasue of *X*".

Well, I guess that is the point - I am voting 3rd party becasue there IS actaully a difference!

So to the people who say they won't vote for a 3rd party because there isn't chance to win - All I can say is that if people do not vote for what they want - they will never get what they want - that is the only thing that is for sure.

In other words - if you are voting for the lesser of two evils, do not dare complain when you are stuck with "evil" after the election - you helped make it that way.

FU - for every situation you can claim the left is socialist, someone can claim the right is Nazist, it is that simple.
I am sure if I made millions in the stock market at a tax-rate lower than working wages are taxed, like you, I would want republicans in office as well.
And If I was on welfare (which doesn't even exist in WI anymore, but for the sake of arguement) I would want democrats in office.

It's going to be nothing but dirty now. It's what happens today. I will say though that compared to the elections of 200 years ago, it's more than tame. That's not to say that we deserve this crap.

True socialist have never won anything significant here. It goes against our grain. If Obama were a socialist, Republicans would be slamming him constantly calling him just that all day long. To say that they are putting up with his being a socialist would be the greatest of slams against Republicans.

Fantasy land worthy of the late Dennis Miller.

Charlie

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Okay, Charlie, Obama isn't a socialist...he's a liberal.  


Quote:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate and one of the founders of the ACLU.

Quote:

"The goal of socialism is communism." -Vladimir Lenin

Quote:

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism. We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within". -Nikita  Khrushchev, Chairman of the Communist Party of the USSR

The end result of splitting that liberal/socialist hair and blindly accepting the liberal (read - socialist) agenda is that America will end up as a third-world communist nation and we'll all be scratching our heads wondering how it happened.

The reason they dont stick to the issues is simple.  

First, they have to pander to the core of their party to get the nomination.  then, they have to find a way not to contradict themselves too much while pandering to the middle of the road to win the election.

Hence, the big dilemma .  How do we ever get a true candidate who is interested in the best interest of the country over their own party when the only way to get elected is to make your party happy first.

Anyway, guys like George H W Bush and McCain had to move much more right to win primaries than they really used to be while the dems keep bringing us guys much further to the left every time.

Anyway, I wont be voting for 3rd party cand because it is and will always be a waste of a vote.  I will most likely vote for McCain for 2 main reasons.

1.  Before the last 8 years, he was the guy I wanted to see as President.  I hope that guy returns once he is in office because incumbent Presidents rarely lose primaries.

2. Congress promises to be a larger majority democrat.  If Obama wins, the liberal agenda will be pushed beyond what is good for this country.  The 2 parties need to check and balance each other.

Finally, while we can all admit Bush has done a rather poor job, I still think he was the better man for the job in 2004.  His opponent would not have been good for this country.  So maybe people should blame BOTH parties for giving us choices that are sub-par.

superhawk2300 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 4:59pm:

FU - ... I am sure if I made millions in the stock market at a tax-rate lower than working wages are taxed, like you, I would want republicans in office as well.

That was a totally clueless comment.  First of all, I didn't make any money in the stock market.  If you bothered to read my posts, instead of deciding I'm part of some elite class of millionaire, you'd know.  What the fuck makes you think I was taxed at a lower rate than 'working wages'?  How many times do I have to explain this shit?  I was taxed at an obscenely HIGHER rate than working wages (whatever that is).  DO THE MATH.  I didn't keep anything at all... not my home, not my business, not my RV, not my cars.  Nothing.  Oh, but I did get a nice fat tax bill for money I didn't ever see or spend.

Spare your class-envy bullshit for somebody who deserves it.

What's ironic here is I am carrying a captial loss of millions of dollars which I can write off at a rate of $3000 per year until I'm about 3 million years old.  What that means (silver lining) is I can make capital gains and not pay any taxes for a long, long, long time.  So, my pissing and moaning about this really isn't about the taxes I am going to pay, because I've already paid them for the next $10 million of captial gains.

I guess that makes me a rich bastard.

Nothing like relying on Nikta Kruschev, Lenin and Norman Thomas for vindication. Other than using them to make points against liberals, you would have zero faith in anything they say. There has never been a true communist goverment. It doesn't work...especially here. Norman Thomas spent a lot of time in prison because of his politics. He was a serious socialist. I differ with his interpretation in any case. I wonder when he made the comment? Prison or before?

Nonetheless: If Obama were a socialist, he would be reviled 24/7 in endless tv spots by the GOP. It would never cease. Republicans are not stupid. This is the most crucial election for them in 56 years. If true,  they would pull out all the stops. They know better.

Charlie

Charlie,

Bringing up the people I did is quite relevant because it helps explain the roots and purpose of the socialist agenda to those young liberals who may not be aware of where their leaders are trying to blindly take them.  The Soviets believed they could bring about the end of this country by corrupting just one generation of our youth.  I believe that was what the 60's was all about.  The seeds of our destruction have already been planted.  We have to choose to not to cultivate them.  Unfortunately, the momentum is slowly swaying in their favor because of the apathy of the American people.  The old Soviet Union is gone, but the damage they sought to cause still looms in our future.

As to talking about Obama, the Republicans know they have to tread lightly on him or be accused of launching racial attacks.  Sarah Palin's statements about Obama's association with the admitted and unrepentant terrorist Ayers, while true, have already been denounced as being racially motivated.  You can bet your sweet ass that if McCain associated with a known abortion clinic bomber, it would be relevant to show his character, but Obama's knowingly associating with Ayers is an irrelevant racial attack.  Yeah, right.   :o

The Obama campaign have no such constraints hampering their attacks on McCain.  Old white men are fair game for anything.  All the ills in the world can be laid at the feet of old (or dead) white men.   ::)

Why hasn't anyone brought up McCain's involvement with the Keating 5?

Liberal = Socialist = Communist?   I don't think so.

And if those Wall Street money geniuses didn't keep crashing the economy, we could get by with little regulation and without a 'New Deal' ... but history has shown that we go through cycles of irrational exuberance, where they kite up $20 of derivatives for every dollar of real wealth, they pocket their share, and things fall apart.  

deltadarlin wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 8:04am:

Why hasn't anyone brought up McCain's involvement with the Keating 5?

Deregulation at it's finest... but that's picking on an old white man.... ;)

It has been brought up, but is a non-issue.

The independent council that investigated the matter recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. The Ethics Panel disagreed and in February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence."

monty wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 11:59am:

Liberal = Socialist = Communist?   I don't think so. I didn't say a person with liberal values was a communist.  Not everyone in the old Soviet Union was a communist.  They just suffered under the communist system and THAT is the original and ultimate goal of political liberalism - to turn the country into a communist state.  The perpetrators are counting on individuals to slowly give up their rights and freedoms under the illusion that the government will take care of all their needs.   And if those Wall Street money geniuses didn't keep crashing the economy, we could get by with little regulation and without a 'New Deal' ... but history has shown that we go through cycles of irrational exuberance, where they kite up $20 of derivatives for every dollar of real wealth, they pocket their share, and things fall apart.

Everyone wants to cash in on a "good thing."  It's not just those greedy bastards on "Wall Street."  The major markets in Europe are having trouble as well because the allure of easy money.  Both Russian stock markets had to close yesterday to keep them from crashing.  Other European and Asian markets were hit pretty hard as well.  Many companies in markets around the world did everything they could to cash in on the sub-prime mortgage bubble and are now scrambling to keep the house from falling on their heads.

BarbaraD wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 9:46am:

My question to Sen. McCain would be -- if you're such a Mavrick, WHY did you vote for a bill with 150 Billion in PORK in it. Why didn't you raise holy hell about the pork in it and vote AGAINST it? This bill just added to bigger govt. and hurt the little people that you're saying you're going to help. It's exactly what you've been campaigning against for the past year or so. And Sen. Obama why didn't you do the same? It's a BAD bill. Why didn't you come up with a Better Idea for a bailout? What's this going to do for ME? The hell with name calling - let's get back down to basics. Hugs BD

PORK - EARMARKS, call it what you want.  The reason many really good bills are voted against is because of the PORK add ons.  Example, let's say there is a really good, needed bill guaranteeing that all children get health care.  Who would vote against something like that???  Well, now let's take that really good bill, and have Senator Joe Blow tack on his little million or two to grow a Marigold garden in his state capita.  Then Senator Jane Dumwit tacks on her few million for research into why frogs croak in her state.  And on and on.  

At this time, with all the PORK added to a really good and needed bill, all congress has to look at the entire bill and think to themselves "well, if I vote for it I'm a hero because children's health care is necessary.  But, if I vote against it because of all the crap that has been added that adds additional tax to the American Public, I will be thought of as someone who either doesn't care about childrens health care, or someone who doesn't care about adding more tax to the American public".  

So before you castigate those in congress who vote NO on a really necessary bill, check what PORK was added to that bill.

I don't know if it requires an amendment to the constitution or not, but, in my humble taxpayer opinion.....

If there is a bill on the table that has to be debated and voted on.....
that bill is the ONLY thing to be voted on - up or down.  NO PORK.  NO EARMARKS.

If some Senator or congressman has a special little "something" he or she wants my tax dollars to pay for - present a bill for it - all by itself, and let both house and senate vote yea or nay.  It must stand on it's own.

Here was my thought just last night on this subject.  Let's pull up every bill in 2008 that house and senate voted on and read it from top to bottom.  Make a list of each piece of PORK added to that bill and how much that PORK cost the American taxpayer.  Then, divide the total amount of PORK on the bill by the number of taxpayers.  Total up for the entire year.  When we all file our tax returns, deduce our fair share of the PORK spending.  If the IRS howls and tries to come after us, tell them to kiss our butts.

Sandy


The question

Quote:

Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of $2 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many elderly investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions that Keating had made to each of the senators, totalling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

In the Keating 5, the 2 Republican Senators were found to have done no wrong, the 3 Democratic Senators had acted improperly.

Quote:

Here was my thought just last night on this subject.  Let's pull up every bill in 2008 that house and senate voted on and read it from top to bottom.  Make a list of each piece of PORK added to that bill and how much that PORK cost the American taxpayer.  Then, divide the total amount of PORK on the bill by the number of taxpayers.  Total up for the entire year.  When we all file our tax returns, deduce our fair share of the PORK spending.  If the IRS howls and tries to come after us, tell them to kiss our butts.

I'll be right behind you in that line at the IRS - about 25 people behind you, but I'll be behind you. Cheering you on. Go, Sandy! Give 'em what-for! Kiss Sandy's butt!

I'll be the one positioned just outside the door. ;)

[smiley=moonwiggle.gif] [smiley=moonwiggle.gif] [smiley=moonwiggle.gif] [smiley=moonwiggle.gif] [smiley=moonwiggle.gif] [smiley=moonwiggle.gif]


;D ;D

Sandy

Bob P wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 2:23pm:

In the Keating 5, the 2 Republican Senators were found to have done no wrong, the 3 Democratic Senators had acted improperly.

Incorrect.  None of them were found guilty of any crime; Cranston was reprimanded (slap on wrist), Riegle and DeConcini were criticized for acting improperly (finger-wag), and Glenn (D) and McCain (R) were criticized for poor judgment (tut-tut).

I'm done. Put me away. This thread and the prospect of the debate tonight has done me in.   START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Charlie START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Quote:

Incorrect.  None of them were found guilty of any crime

Who said anything about convicted of a crime?  I think you have incorrectly, incorrected me.

Why can't they just stick to the issues???

This thread couldn't even stick to the issue.  Controversy makes headlines and is more interesting to people than discussing issues.

The 60 minutes with McCain and Obama was a much better discussion of the issues than any debate or commercial will ever be.  I also thought the Saddleback forum was 1000000 times better than a debate.  May I suggest catching those on youtube or cbs.com if you want to hear the closest thing to discussing issues.

Interesting article in the economist - a survey of economists shows most think that Obama's policies are better for promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth.  

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


Bob P wrote on Oct 7^th, 2008 at 4:42pm:

Who said anything about convicted of a crime?  I think you have incorrectly, incorrected me.

Nope - although I did point out that no one was convicted of a crime, I did not say that you were wrong about that.  You were wrong in saying that 2 Republicans were 'found to do no wrong' while 3 Democrats acted improperly. It's clear all five did wrong, and that the investigation let it all slide - none of them got more than a 'don't do it again' warning.  

McCain and a Democrat were found to be least involved, and they were criticized for poor judgment.  In McCain's case, for a conflict of interest and intervening with regulators on behalf of his friend and business partner Charles Keating, who disappeared billions of dollars of savings and loan money that was government insured.  

At the end of the day, I don't think that the Keating 5 scandal will be a deal breaker for most people - I would agree that McCain was probably the least involved of the 5.  But McCain's overall economic knowledge and polices are not so inspiring.