The ..2012.... Political thread
-
I am not for women being in politics really, but I am really proud of the image Ms. Palin portrays. I hope McCain and Palin make it in.
-
Andy_Shofar:
McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie 10/10/2008 Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below. McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail." Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973
McSames letter was written in May 2006 while the rethugs had all the power in the 3 branches of the govt. He knew nothing would be done. His campaign manager Rick Davis is still on the payroll of Freddie and Fannie as a lobbyist. http://www.rollcall.com/news/28629-1.html the article says the association with Davis is only now being terminated because of the govt. takeover.
-
Miss_Color:
I am not for women being in politics really, but I am really proud of the image Ms. Palin portrays. I hope McCain and Palin make it in.
with incredible respect, miss color... 1...If you are not for women being in politics...why are you posting in this thread? 2...What image of Sarah are you proud of? (for me...she seems to be a woman who is promoting male ideals.......we need an "actual" woman in office 3...There are and have been forever only 2 religions and politics on earth.......when half the seats in congress and the senate are equally and mutually held by men and women...then...the first day of paradise will begin! Believe It! ...It's True!
-
Miss_Color:
I am not for women being in politics really, but I am really proud of the image Ms. Palin portrays. I hope McCain and Palin make it in.
I'm not against women in politics But, I likewise share your hope Welcome to the Macca Board
-
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie 10/10/2008 Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below. McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail." Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973
McSames letter was written in May 2006 while the rethugs had all the power in the 3 branches of the govt. He knew nothing would be done. His campaign manager Rick Davis is still on the payroll of Freddie and Fannie as a lobbyist. http://www.rollcall.com/news/28629-1.html the article says the association with Davis is only now being terminated because of the govt. takeover.
I don't know about that But, I do know that Barack has been on the "feeding" end receiving contributions from Fanny which are much higher than anything received by John McCain
-
mccain is richer than obama and doesn't know how many houses he owns...he dumped his special needs wife for a rich girl and you are saying that obama is on "the receiving end" ???
-
Andy_Shofar:
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie 10/10/2008 Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below. McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail." Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973
McSames letter was written in May 2006 while the rethugs had all the power in the 3 branches of the govt. He knew nothing would be done. His campaign manager Rick Davis is still on the payroll of Freddie and Fannie as a lobbyist. http://www.rollcall.com/news/28629-1.html the article says the association with Davis is only now being terminated because of the govt. takeover.
I don't know about that But, I do know that Barack has been on the "feeding" end receiving contributions from Fanny which are much higher than anything received by John McCain
McSames letter was dated May 5, 2006 and addressed to Bill Frisk who was than the rethug majority leader of the senate (look it up on the internet) the rethugs suspected they were going to be trashed in Nov. and they were. It was all for show. They all knew Bush would veto Now you know. Re the contributions you need to prove it when you make a statement like that with credible links.
-
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie 10/10/2008 Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below. McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail." Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973
McSames letter was written in May 2006 while the rethugs had all the power in the 3 branches of the govt. He knew nothing would be done. His campaign manager Rick Davis is still on the payroll of Freddie and Fannie as a lobbyist. http://www.rollcall.com/news/28629-1.html the article says the association with Davis is only now being terminated because of the govt. takeover.
I don't know about that But, I do know that Barack has been on the "feeding" end receiving contributions from Fanny which are much higher than anything received by John McCain
McSames letter was dated May 5, 2006 and addressed to Bill Frisk who was than the rethug majority leader of the senate (look it up on the internet) the rethugs suspected they were going to be trashed in Nov. and they were. It was all for show. They all knew Bush would veto Now you know. Re the contributions you need to prove it when you make a statement like that with credible links.
It was met by opposition by a Democrat controlled Senate and/or Congress, including Barney Frank, etc. another Democrat on the feeding end from Fanny! Leave the President out of it - it never got that far in a Democrat controlled Senate and/or Congress. And you should know that - unless you are in the business of creating propoganda
-
You missed the point of the post and that was that the letter was written and dated May 5, 2006 and addressed to Bill Frist who was the majority(than repub) leader. There was a repub controlled House, Senate and President at that time. More to the truth of the matter is this article: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53802.html
-
jaipur:
And what if it is?? I must tell you that humans live in ambiguity all the time....some adapt to that, others , like yourself, want to live in a "black & white" world...which it isn't.
O.K., I'm going to get a bit technical and probably long winded, here, but I feel it's necessary to understand where I'm coming from. We're getting into an area where we're getting a bit technical, and off-topic, so let me try and clear it up... What if it is contradictory? Then the statement is worthless, for two things which are contradictory cannot be the same thing at the same time. In other words, it has the same amount of worth as if I told you: "I am currently listening to "Band On The Run" and I am not listening to "Band On The Run," right now." Either you are or either you are not; you cannot be doing both at the exact same time. It might sound good in song lyrics or poetry, but it still makes no sense. And that's my issue. Of course some things are not black and white; I never said otherwise despite, ironically, your black and white assumption that either one (in this case, myself) finds the world completely black and white or that another (in this case, yourself) finds everything to be grey and to where everything is not black and white. I readily admit that there is plenty of grey area in this world; but I don't extend that to everything, as you do, for it's incoherent, and not just because I say so. For instance, if you say that "everything is not black and white," then you are stating this as an absolute, unequivocal, objective truth. In other words, there is no grey area about that truth. But wait a minute; there's also another universal statement in this: that everything has a grey area to it. And to say that something has a "grey area" to it is to say that something is not clearly one thing or the other. Do you see the contradiction? The problem with this is that it also includes your statement. If it includes your statement, then that statement itself becomes a grey area and, thus, the statement renders itself as meaningless. And if it doesn't include your statement, then not everything is black and white, thus wiping out your statement. A simpler explanation is like when someone says "everything is an opinion." Sure, that sounds nice, but they're stating this as an absolute truth; in other words, a fact (i.e. "it's an absolute truth and fact that everything is an opinion"... see the contradiction?). But if everything is an opinion, then it includes their statement. And if it includes their statement, then that itself is merely an opinion (therefore also rendering itself as worthless) and if it's not, then not everything is an opinion. So the point was never beyond "the realm of my comprehension." It just never made sense, to begin with. Which is also my problem when you use logic to disprove logic. If we take your argument right now, that humans live in ambiguity and that some adapt to that, etc. you're still using logic. In other words, you have a premise to state your reasons (i.e. humans live in ambiguity all the time), and then state your conclusion (i.e., therefore, logic doesn't always prevail). It doesn't have to be good or bad logic for it to still be logic. But it's still logic. Now, since we're getting into a much different path than the intentions of this thread, I'll try and steer back on the course.
jaipur:
I am not complaining about criticism in that slightlest. I'm sorry you misninterpreted it that way. I don't understand why giving Obama some points for acknowledging McCain's point is such a problem for you Not a big deal in my point of view....just as I give points to McCain for correcting the woman in that town hall meeting about Obama.
If you said something of the sort vis a vis McCain correcting a woman in the last debate, then I didn't see it. Nonetheless, my issue is giving brownie points for "acknowledging" or, to use a word you said before, "respecting" someone's ideas they disagree with. Those two words imply giving validity or truth to something and if McCain feels that the ideas are wrong/bad, then he shouldn't feel the need to give either. And if Obama agrees with McCain then McCain agrees with Obama and Obama shouldn't get any brownie points for saying it. Neither should McCain, by the way, who actually did do the aforementioned "acknowledging" and "respecting" at least once during the last debate. My other issue was arguing how Obama would just say that he would agree with something, only to counterpoint it, which makes no sense. But as I said earlier in this post, we're arguing semantics and so I agree to disagree.
-
Fan Since 1964:
Like I said in my original post, my only purpose is to inform the undecided voter. Take care.
Inform without wanting to actually respond to any challenges or disagreements with the point of view. Convenient...
-
I am still determined that change is best I am voting for obama. love doris.
-
Matthew_Montoya:
Fan Since 1964:
Like I said in my original post, my only purpose is to inform the undecided voter. Take care.
Inform without wanting to actually respond to any challenges or disagreements with the point of view. Convenient...
Hello M_M, With all due respect, your reputation of goating people into never-ending diatribes ad nauseum preceeds you as well as your tag team tactics. I will not be goated by you, nor do I have the time to play games. You know as well as I do that nothing I say will change your mind. You know my point of view and if you don't, read my replies to other members' non-provoking posts. We are all only accountable to ourselves. I will, however, try to inform the undecideds so that they can make an educated choice. You say this is "Convenient" for me. Actually, you have that bass ackwards, my friend. Now, let's move on. Take care.
-
NADER 'O8 scuttle butt i'm hearing is Dems are mostly responsible for the fannie may/freddie mac problems... : by tomorrow someone else will be...
-
The Republican Fisherman A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He spotted a man in a boat below so he decreased his altitude. He shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am." The fisherman consulted his GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude." The balloonist rolled his eyes and said, "You must be a Republican." "I am," replied the man. "How did you know?" "Well," answered the balloonist, "I'm sure everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me." The fisherman smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat." "I am," replied the balloonist, "how did you know?" "Well", said the man, "You don't know where you are or where you are going. You've risen to where you are due to a large volume of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position as you were before we met, but somehow now you think it's my fault!"
-
Interesting endorsement of Obama from The Pittsburgh Post Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08286/919151-183.stm I think newspaper endorsements are interesting to read because generally the editorial boards really think through their endorsements. The candidates are interviewed by the editorial boards and that is how they make their decision. They are usually well written by intelligent people.
-
My nomination for Obama: Much Dumber than Dan Quaile Winner in the use of the word "Uhh" or "Umm". The only President canditate whose been in all 58 States except for Alaska & Hawaii, with one more to go. Absolutely lost without a teleprompter. And sometimes not knowing where in the world he is. And there's much more of the above available for public consumption!!! I think that's worse than not being able to properly spell "potato" Obama is winner hands down
-
mustangsally10:
Interesting endorsement of Obama from The Pittsburgh Post Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08286/919151-183.stm I think newspaper endorsements are interesting to read because generally the editorial boards really think through their endorsements. The candidates are interviewed by the editorial boards and that is how they make their decision. They are usually well written by intelligent people.
I feel the very opposite -- I think good balanced journalism has died. The press seems to have an agenda - and will close their eyes to anything that differs from this goal. They should be upfront and honest - by putting their position with the article or rename their paper --- for example the New York Obama Times.
-
The_Fool:
mustangsally10:
Interesting endorsement of Obama from The Pittsburgh Post Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08286/919151-183.stm I think newspaper endorsements are interesting to read because generally the editorial boards really think through their endorsements. The candidates are interviewed by the editorial boards and that is how they make their decision. They are usually well written by intelligent people.
I feel the very opposite -- I think good balanced journalism has died. The press seems to have an agenda - and will close their eyes to anything that differs from this goal. They should be upfront and honest - by putting their position with the article or rename their paper --- for example the New York Obama Times.
That is why I used the words generally and usually in my post sometimes the boards have their own agenda. Especially when their owners are corporate entities who benefit by the economic policies of one side or the other. As far as balanced journalism that should not exist (Fox anyone) how can you 'balance' the truth?
-
mustangsally10:
The_Fool:
mustangsally10:
Interesting endorsement of Obama from The Pittsburgh Post Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08286/919151-183.stm I think newspaper endorsements are interesting to read because generally the editorial boards really think through their endorsements. The candidates are interviewed by the editorial boards and that is how they make their decision. They are usually well written by intelligent people.
I feel the very opposite -- I think good balanced journalism has died. The press seems to have an agenda - and will close their eyes to anything that differs from this goal. They should be upfront and honest - by putting their position with the article or rename their paper --- for example the New York Obama Times.
That is why I used the words generally and usually in my post sometimes the boards have their own agenda. Especially when their owners are corporate entities who benefit by the economic policies of one side or the other. As far as balanced journalism that should not exist (Fox anyone) how can you 'balance' the truth?
The Fox slogan is "fair & balanced news" not "truth" as you appear to presume.