Obama mocks McCain's call to fire SEC chairman

EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
"I think that's all fine and good but here's what I think," Obama said. "In the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path.

"Don't just get rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration," he said. "Get rid of this philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who's going to fight for you."
So is he suggesting we get rid of the Democrat majority in congress? And not re-elect a democrat president again as it was the CRA and the change in laws that allowed commercial banks to merge with investment houses under Clinton that caused this mess?
 
Rugger

Rugger

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
No no no, he believes it's the Bush doctrine (which is what, exactly?) and all of the decisions Bush and his cronies have made that put us where we are today. Or, at least that is what he would like you to believe.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
guys, I know your dislike of the dem. party is so strong that it might cloud judgement a bit. Either way, please realize that both parties are guilty of the issues, some for theorigin of it and some for doing nothing about it, and both for greasing their palms while it all happened
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
In 2005 McCain said this would happen, yet the democrat led congress refused to do anything about it.... Obama's attempt is pitiful
 
Rugger

Rugger

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
In 2005 McCain said this would happen, yet the democrat led congress refused to do anything about it.... Obama's attempt is pitiful

In 2003 Bush said it would happen with Fannie and Freddie. He pretty much spelled it out.
 
Fastone

Fastone

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
In 2005 McCain said this would happen, yet the democrat led congress refused to do anything about it.... Obama's attempt is pitiful

In 2005 the republicans still controlled congress, just a small tidbit. Yeah bush called the freedie mac fannie mae debacle cause it was his policies that helped to engineer it. Not a hard call.

:bruce3:
 
slow-mun

slow-mun

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
In 2005 the republicans still controlled congress, just a small tidbit. Yeah bush called the freedie mac fannie mae debacle cause it was his policies that helped to engineer it. Not a hard call.

:bruce3:
Name the policies that Bush was directly responsible for creating, that allowed this to happen. Maybe Obama is going to ask his advisers what happened, b/c I'm sure they might have the inside scoop.
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac execs now offering advice to Obama

Thursday, September 18, 2008
ELECTION 2008
WorldNetDaily
Look who's advising Obama!
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac execs
Senator's links to mortgage giants
also include campaign contributions
Posted: September 17, 2008
9:10 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
WorldNetDaily


Fannie Mae headquarters in Washington, D.C.
NEW YORK – Campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made to Barack Obama may backfire if the Democratic presidential hopeful wages an aggressive campaign to cast blame on rival John McCain and the Republicans in Congress for the mortgage-related losses that forced the U.S. Treasury to take over the quasi-governmental mortgage giants.

A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee. Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980.

According to OpenSecrets.com, from 1989 to 2008, Dodd received $165,400 in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, including contributions from PACs and individuals, followed by Obama, who received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004.

In contrast, McCain warned of the coming mortgage crisis as he pressed in 2005 for regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

(Story continues below)

"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – known as government-sponsored entities or GSEs – and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market," McCain said on the floor of the Senate in 2005, speaking in favor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.

McCain pointed out Fannie Mae's regulator had stated the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The bill passed the House but was never brought up for a vote in the Senate, largely because of Democratic opposition to change in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory structure that remained in place until the Treasury takeover two weeks ago.

As evidenced by the failure to pass the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, the Democrats in Congress have repeatedly fought back Republican Party efforts to reform the two mortgage banking giants.

Instead, Democrats in Congress have sought to preserve the quasi-governmental status of the mortgage giants, seeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as places to locate former top Democratic Party operatives, where they have earned millions in compensation, despite a continuing series of financial scandals. Enron-like accounting manipulation, for example, boosted earnings to a level at which massive executive bonuses could be paid.

In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.

All three Obama-related executives earned millions in compensation from Fannie Mae.

Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003, according to author David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

All three have been involved in mortgage-related financial scandals.

In 1998, according to the Washington Post, Gorelick, as Fannie Mae vice chairman, received a bonus of $779,625, despite a scandal in which employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions to manipulate books to meet 1998 earning targets. The moves, in turn, triggered multi-million-dollar bonuses for top executives.

Gorelick was embroiled in another controversy over an alleged conflict of interest when a 1995 memo she authored as deputy attorney general surfaced while she was a member of the 9/11 commission.

The memo, which became known as the "Gorelick Wall," appeared to establish barriers that barred federal anti-terrorist criminal investigators from accessing various federal records and databases that may have assisted them in their criminal investigations.

According to the Associated Press, Raines and several other Fannie Mae top executives were ordered in a civil lawsuit to pay nearly $31.4 million for manipulating Fannie Mae earnings over a period of six years to trigger their massive bonuses.

Raines was also forced in the settlement to give up Fannie Mae stock options valued at $15.6 million.

Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Freddie Mac had engaged in accounting fraud from 2000 to 2002, imposing a $50 million fine on the company and on four executives fines for amounts ranging from $65,000 to $250,000.

Raines currently advises Obama on housing policy.

Johnson was appointed to head Obama's vice presidential selection committee, until a controversy concerning an alleged $7 millions in questionable real estate loans he received on favorable terms from failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial surfaced and forced him to step down.

WND previously reported a panel chaired by Elena Kagan, dean and professor of law at Harvard Law School, speculated at the June two-day meeting of the American Constitution Society that Gorelick was a possible attorney general cabinet appointment if Obama should be elected president.

The decision by the U.S. Treasury to take over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could end up costing the U.S. taxpayer as much as $100 billion, although the extent of losses at the two giant mortgage companies remains to be determined.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Freddie and Fannie own or guarantee about $5.2 trillion worth of mortgages.

The riskiest loans held by Freddie and Fannie are known as "Alt-A" and sub-prime mortgages, worth about $780 billion, or about 15 percent of the total portfolio.

The federal government takeover of Freddie and Fannie passes to U.S. taxpayers the contingent liability for failures in the entire $5.2 trillion loan portfolio held by the two mortgage giants.

Over the past four quarters, Freddie and Fannie have suffered losses of about $14 billion, as the mortgage market has been hit by a wave of defaults and foreclosures not seen in the U.S. since the 1930s.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
you do realize that while all this was going on (and starting in the 90's) who was in control of congress????????

remember, it has only been 2 years of the dem. controlled congress (yes, 2 horrible years), but 2 years none the less.

Point being, both parties are in pretty deep with this. For either party to completely blame the other is downright laughable.
 
Iron Warrior

Iron Warrior

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
you do realize that while all this was going on (and starting in the 90's) who was in control of congress????????

remember, it has only been 2 years of the dem. controlled congress (yes, 2 horrible years), but 2 years none the less.

Point being, both parties are in pretty deep with this. For either party to completely blame the other is downright laughable.
That's the sad part about many of these politicians because they'd rather spend their time on blaming others rather than doing their jobs. I know some aren't in this category but we'd be further along if some whack jobs would just be banned from politics
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I agree IW, there are so many that are in this for the $$$ and power, that they lose sight of why they were elected in the first place
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
guys, I know your dislike of the dem. party is so strong that...
I think it is more accurately a dislike for "Obama", not necessarily for the "Democratic Party".
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
In case anyone is interested, here is The Wall Street Journal's editorial on the McCain comment: McCain's Scapegoat - WSJ.com

"McCain's Scapegoat

John McCain has made it clear this week he doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does. But on Thursday, he took his populist riffing up a notch and found his scapegoat for financial panic -- Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, we'll quote at length: "Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground.

"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him."

Wow. "Betrayed the public's trust." Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.

Take "naked" shorting, in which an investor sells a stock short -- betting that it will fall in price -- without first borrowing the shares he is selling from an investor who owns them. The SEC has never condoned the practice, and since 2005 it has clamped down on short selling in any stock that shows evidence of naked shorting. The SEC further tightened its rules against naked shorting just hours before Mr. McCain excoriated Mr. Cox for doing nothing.

The rules announced Wednesday will increase penalties and close loopholes that exempted broker-dealers from the rules against naked shorting. They also make it clear that deliberately selling short a stock whose shares cannot be borrowed is fraud under the Securities Exchange Act. That's all to the good, we suppose; fraud is fraud. But regular short selling is not fraud. It adds valuable information to the market about what investors believe to be the price direction of a stock. Demonizing short-sellers as a band of criminals, or barring short-selling outright in financial stocks, as regulators in the U.K. did Thursday, removes information from the market.

Then there's Mr. McCain's tirade against the "uptick rule," a Depression-era chestnut that investors could only short stock after a rise in that stock's price. The SEC staff studied the effect of the uptick rule on prices for years, in a controlled experiment involving thousands of stocks. It found the rule had no effect. Other studies, including those that examined the uptick rule's effect on stocks disclosing bad news, also found that it "protected" no one. The SEC's permanent staff has long supported repeal and the SEC's commissioners voted to do so unanimously in June 2007.

While he was at it, Mr. McCain added the wholly unsupported assertion that "speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground." It wasn't very long ago that he blamed speculators on the long side for sky-high oil prices. Then oil prices fell. Now Mr. McCain wants voters to believe speculators are responsible for driving mismanaged financial companies to ruin. The irony is that this critique puts Mr. McCain in the same camp as some of the Wall Street CEOs who have led their firms so poorly. They also want someone (else) to blame.

In case Mr. McCain is interested, overall short interest in financial companies actually declined by 20% between July and the end of August. That's right: Far from driving this crisis, shorts were net buyers of financial stocks this summer, as they must buy stocks back to close their positions and realize their gains (or losses).

In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000."
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
note this is an "editorial" not an investigative article by the WSJ staff, so also just an opinion piece. also pretty comical
The SEC further tightened its rules against naked shorting just hours before Mr. McCain excoriated Mr. Cox for doing nothing.
Yes, I could see how closing the barn gate after the cows escape is really a sign of doing something.

This is all a standard case of the difference between more regulations vs better and enforced regulations. You dont need tons of new regulations if the previously existing ones weren't being enforced.
Amazing that Obama's financial advisors are all ex-ceo's + CFOs of the companies we are currently bailing out.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
note this is an "editorial" not an investigative article by the WSJ staff, so also just an opinion piece. also pretty comical


Yes, I could see how closing the barn gate after the cows escape is really a sign of doing something.

This is all a standard case of the difference between more regulations vs better and enforced regulations. You dont need tons of new regulations if the previously existing ones weren't being enforced.
Amazing that Obama's financial advisors are all ex-ceo's + CFOs of the companies we are currently bailing out.
Considering the Wall Street Jr. is basically in bed with those who run the SEC, its not surprising they disagreed. However, the issues McCain have brought up have been echoed in the trading community for the last 2 years. Cox is horrible. The banning of shorts is moronic. The blatant abuse of naked short selling is something you as the public should never want (which he let run rampant) and the reintroduction of the "uptick" rules has been called for by almost everyone.

The Wall Street Journal simply doest like one of their guys being called out for the complete idiot that he is.


..but it seems strategicmove has become the new McCain basher so I'm not surprised. If someone explained to people what has been going with the SEC in the last 2 years, they would all agree with McCain.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
the funny thing is, if you look at the ownership of the Wall St. Journal, and their history, specifically in their editorials, which has been predominantly biased towards the conservatives, this is a bigger story.

However, as much as the Repubs here will bash anything Obama, and the Dems anything McCain, I am not overly surprised that many are not seeing this story for what it is. I guess looking at the history of the paper and its biases is not important.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
umm hello editorial. not a staff writer.
umm hello, I noted that in the response :think:


the funny thing is, if you look at the ownership of the Wall St. Journal, and their history, specifically in their editorials, which has been predominantly biased towards the conservatives, this is a bigger story.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
the funny thing is, if you look at the ownership of the Wall St. Journal, and their history, specifically in their editorials, which has been predominantly biased towards the conservatives, this is a bigger story.
In which McCain has disagreed with many times. Do you think the Wall Street Jr. was in favor of McCain regulating Fannie and Freddie in 2003 and 2005? They hammered him. Don't you wish that actually went through now?

However, as much as the Repubs here will bash anything Obama, and the Dems anything McCain, I am not overly surprised that many are not seeing this story for what it is. I guess looking at the history of the paper and its biases is not important.
How am I not seeing for what it is? Cox is a Republican. I am a Republican. Cox is an idiot and is completely incompetent. How is that not seeing what the story is?


If you want to go down this issue by issue then lets do it because I guarantee after the fact you will agree with everything McCain has proposed here...simply because its been echoed for years.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
umm hello, I noted that in the response :think:
well, I dont see how occasionally printing an opposing view in a periodical effects their long term standings or overall feeling.

Fox had obama on, does that make them a liberal station now?
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
well, I dont see how occasionally printing an opposing view in a periodical effects their long term standings or overall feeling.

Fox had obama on, does that make them a liberal station now?
I dont see how this relates. The WSJ is known for being a bastion of conservatism, as has been displayed throughout the paper for years, as well as in their editorial section. I am not claiming that they are liberal, I am saying that since a typically CONSERVATIVE paper is bashing the republican candidate for President, it could be noted as a big deal.

See, that is why your above quoted comment makes little to no sense
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I think it is more accurately a dislike for "Obama", not necessarily for the "Democratic Party".

Actually its the opposite for me. If you got rid of Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Dodd, Biden, Frank, Dean, Rangle, and all the people who run the DNC, I would be just fine.

When Obama starts to cater to those above, that's when the problem occurs. The reason he was acutally considered by many (even Republicans) is because he wans't tightly tied with the list above. That seems to be changing which is unfortunate.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Actually its the opposite for me. If you got rid of Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Dodd, Biden, Frank, Dean, Rangle, and all the people who run the DNC, I would be just fine.

When Obama starts to cater to those above, that's when the problem occurs. The reason he was acutally considered by many (even Republicans) is because he wans't tightly tied with the list above. That seems to be changing which is unfortunate.
I actually agree here, especially with people like Reid, Dodd and Pelosi. However, back in 2000 many dems were interested in McCain as he was seen as a bit of a centrist, however the 2000 version and the 2008 version are entirely different, and he has really bent to the religious right. Which is a shame, as 8 years ago the title of Maverick was true, and he would have had my vote
 
CryingEmo

CryingEmo

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I actually agree here, especially with people like Reid, Dodd and Pelosi. However, back in 2000 many dems were interested in McCain as he was seen as a bit of a centrist, however the 2000 version and the 2008 version are entirely different, and he has really bent to the religious right. Which is a shame, as 8 years ago the title of Maverick was true, and he would have had my vote

Personally I think McCain had to sell his soul to get to the position where he's at now. Maybe he would like to have a different running platform, but the money wouldn't be there if he was a true Maverick.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I actually agree here, especially with people like Reid, Dodd and Pelosi. However, back in 2000 many dems were interested in McCain as he was seen as a bit of a centrist, however the 2000 version and the 2008 version are entirely different, and he has really bent to the religious right. Which is a shame, as 8 years ago the title of Maverick was true, and he would have had my vote

I think there are many instances in the last 8 years that can easily confirm the "maverick" title. This idea that he himself has gone to the religious right is extremely overblown. The social issues that drive liberals crazy when it comes to the right will never be implemented. If they haven't during George Bush and a Republican Congress, they certainly will not under John McCain. As some feminists are starting to state, Democrats have routinely used them as wedge issues based solely on fear rather than reality. Its the same as the extreme right making you completely fearful that someone is going to bomb you tomorrow.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Personally I think McCain had to sell his soul to get to the position where he's at now. Maybe he would like to have a different running platform, but the money wouldn't be there if he was a true Maverick.

Have you even listened to him in the last 3-4 weeks? His platform isn't even close to being one of a true conservative or someone of the religious right. Its pure populist.

I don't understand how anyone can state he sold his soul when he criticized his own party in his acceptance speech. He gave the right a figurehead with Palin.....that's about it.
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
...
Amazing that Obama's financial advisors are all ex-ceo's + CFOs of the companies we are currently bailing out.
And conveniently forget that at least two former lobbyists of "the companies we are currently bailing out" are still McCain campaign advisers. You always see what you want to see!
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
...

..but it seems strategicmove has become the new McCain basher so I'm not surprised....
I do not want to be called a "McCain basher". I am just upset that he is given benefit of doubt on every possible subject, while Mr. Obama is subjected to a completely different type of rigorous assessment. Rigourous assessment is fine. I just insist that both candidates should be subjected to it, not just Mr. Obama.

If someone explained to people what has been going with the SEC in the last 2 years, they would all agree with McCain.
McCain is suddenly the voice of reason in terms of Wall Street. I'll leave it a that!
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
...however the 2000 version and the 2008 version are entirely different,.... Which is a shame, as 8 years ago the title of Maverick was true, and he would have had my vote
This is exactly the same point I made in a different thread! McCain has transformed himself! I wonder if this transformation has anything to do with political opportunism?!
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
This is exactly the same point I made in a different thread! McCain has transformed himself! I wonder if this transformation has anything to do with political opportunism?!
And obama never does that. Like the one day he's talking to the israeli group and says no way jerusalem would ever be divided and wreck israeli sovereignity and the next day talking to a palestinian group that jerusalem must be split as palestinians have a right to their holy land? That wouldnt be political opportunism would it? You as well only see what you want to see.
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
And obama never does that. Like the one day he's talking to the israeli group and says no way jerusalem would ever be divided and wreck israeli sovereignity and the next day talking to a palestinian group that jerusalem must be split as palestinians have a right to their holy land? That wouldnt be political opportunism would it? You as well only see what you want to see.
Perhaps! I usually refrain from arguments like this because they can be continued forever. Let me just conclude my contribution in this thread by saying concepts such as "Group think", "Deduction", and "Induction", can help clarify a lot of things! And I say this without any intention of sounding pedantic.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
And obama never does that. Like the one day he's talking to the israeli group and says no way jerusalem would ever be divided and wreck israeli sovereignity and the next day talking to a palestinian group that jerusalem must be split as palestinians have a right to their holy land? That wouldnt be political opportunism would it? You as well only see what you want to see.
Easy, you sound like an angry sibling. "Well I did it b/c Obama did".

Both sides are guilty of this, that is why this is a choice of two bad candidates
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
true but of the 2 mccain has been far more willing to go against the wishes of his party, which that alone makes him a better candidate. He has really worked reaching across the aisle to create bipartisan bills. Obama is the most liberal voting senator, voting strictly as he is told to by party leaders. Not innovative and new and "shaking up washington" as his rhetoric says.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
true but of the 2 mccain has been far more willing to go against the wishes of his party, which that alone makes him a better candidate. He has really worked reaching across the aisle to create bipartisan bills. Obama is the most liberal voting senator, voting strictly as he is told to by party leaders. Not innovative and new and "shaking up washington" as his rhetoric says.
honestly, that does not make him a better choice IMO. They both are bending over for their parties, so lets face the facts, neither are a good choice

also, going against hte republican party at this time, is probably the best thing to do, considering the soon to be gone administration and its current ratings
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
So let me get this straight....you should go against your party so you can appeal to the 10% independent swing vote at risk of alienating the 30% that agree with Bush?

I guess that political opportunity is showing itself again as it did with the surge.

:lol:
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
which is still 50% higher than the rating of the democrat led congress....
wait, I am the first to hit the dem lead congress about being a waste of time. Read some of the other threads, however, Congress and President are 2 entirely different things at this point. Both that are in power now have been a disgrace to their respective offices
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
So let me get this straight....you should go against your party so you can appeal to the 10% independent swing vote at risk of alienating the 30% that agree with Bush?

I guess that political opportunity is showing itself again as it did with the surge.

:lol:
As a matter of fact it was a good strategic move. He knows that many, many republicans are fed up with what they see, so any moderate republican, indy, or just a republican that is tired of what they see will respond. It was great for him, and for the maverick image, which he has not truly had in years IMO.

Also, that 30% you speak of are not a concern. Where are they going to go? Vote for Obama? Highly unlikely
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
As a matter of fact it was a good strategic move. He knows that many, many republicans are fed up with what they see, so any moderate republican, indy, or just a republican that is tired of what they see will respond. It was great for him, and for the maverick image, which he has not truly had in years IMO.

Also, that 30% you speak of are not a concern. Where are they going to go? Vote for Obama? Highly unlikely

As a matter of math, you don't piss off 30% to gain 10-15% no matter how you want to try and justify it...especially with generalities about the complete mood of a party.

It is obvious that whatever McCain does, you simply will think his motive is not one of truth.

It is simply amazing the standard you set for McCain is completely ignored when applied to Obama.

Saying the 30% was of no concern is ludicrous.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
As a matter of math, you don't piss off 30% to gain 10-15% no matter how you want to try and justify it...especially with generalities about the complete mood of a party.

It is obvious that whatever McCain does, you simply will think his motive is not one of truth.

It is simply amazing the standard you set for McCain is completely ignored when applied to Obama.

Saying the 30% was of no concern is ludicrous.
you are so wrong it is ridiculous. He did not piss anyone off. If he pissed off a fraction of a percent that would be alot. Again, where are those 30% going? A good portion of middle america (part of that 30%) think Obama is: Osama, a Muslim, a Socialist, or whatever else they see in an email. So regardless they were voting republican, they were not going to stay home
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
you are so wrong it is ridiculous. He did not piss anyone off. If he pissed off a fraction of a percent that would be alot.
You are so clueless on this issue its astonishing. You're NOT a Republican. You do NOT follow the party as those involved. If you actually think that McCain didn't piss off the majority of Republicans with his stance on immigration and campaign finance reform then you are a complete idiot. Limbaugh, Ingraham and the rest of the right wing radio hammered him for months on end. They don't like him. They still don't like him but they are giving him a free pass because of Palin. Why don't you check the RNC funding of McCain pre and post Palin.


There was a reason the base was looking at Fred Thompson to be their savior only to have that completely fall apart. In July he raised a whopping 11.2 million...compared to 32.5 for Obama and 27 million for Hillary. Yeah the base and that 30% who approve of Bush REALLY supported him. Seriously, get a clue.
Again, where are those 30% going?

As many stated, staying the f u c k home. Not all, but clearly enough to make this is landslide in Obama's favor.

A good portion of middle america (part of that 30%) think Obama is: Osama, a Muslim, a Socialist, or whatever else they see in an email. So regardless they were voting republican, they were not going to stay home
Bullshit. If you actually followed the Republican side of things you were actually understand that in terms of voting, there was a 22% shift in the base after the Palin pick. You are so clueless on this issue its embarrassing.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
You are so clueless on this issue its astonishing. You're NOT a Republican. You do NOT follow the party as those involved. If you actually think that McCain didn't piss off the majority of Republicans with his stance on immigration and campaign finance reform then you are a complete idiot. Limbaugh, Ingraham and the rest of the right wing radio hammered him for months on end. They don't like him. They still don't like him but they are giving him a free pass because of Palin. Why don't you check the RNC funding of McCain pre and post Palin.
so I guess Limbaugh and his bag of wind are now the true spokesmen of the Republican party. Good to know:rolleyes:

Furthermore, yes Republicans did not like him, which I have said in numerous other threads, but at the end of the day, staunch republicans disliked Obama with a greater passion. The thought of an Obama white house, was more than enough to make sure that they showed up in November.

Also, as I recall you were a self prefessed moderate in a previous conversation, or did that change with Limbaugh and his bag of wind?:fool2:


There was a reason the base was looking at Fred Thompson to be their savior only to have that completely fall apart. In July he raised a whopping 11.2 million...compared to 32.5 for Obama and 27 million for Hillary. Yeah the base and that 30% who approve of Bush REALLY supported him. Seriously, get a clue.

As many stated, staying the f u c k home. Not all, but clearly enough to make this is landslide in Obama's favor.
again, I think you miss the point. He has done moderately well in funding in comparison early on to other republicans. Yes Romney had more, but much of that was his own. Also, he was a foregone conclusion as candidate since what March, it was an easy road for him and thus there was no urgency in his campaign.

Once again however, you really think the republicans would be staying home? Interesting support for your party

Bullshit. If you actually followed the Republican side of things you were actually understand that in terms of voting, there was a 22% shift in the base after the Palin pick. You are so clueless on this issue its embarrassing.
Opinions vary. I agree and have said as much in several threads that the Palin pick gave a boost as it was a bend over to the far right. He needed to give them what they wanted. As I recall, it was you making reference prior to the pick to Ridge and Leiberman being a Maverick style pick. This was the pick he needed to get that 30% which he was never, EVER at risk of losing.

Again, if you think they would have stayed home you are a tad confused.

Here is what I will do, as I have stated on several occassions, I am not a fan of either ticket at all (except for Loud mouth Joe Biden). However, I do believe Obama will walk away with this come November if the debates go well.

I will do the same. I will walk away till November, because as has been a consistent trait of yours, these discussions turn more into a pissing match with you once your base has been challenged. So I will see you in November after the election of the Obama/Biden ticket.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Ummm obama is a socialist. Well a marxist to be specific.
 
slow-mun

slow-mun

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
However, I do believe Obama will walk away with this come November if the debates go well.
Obama doing well in those debates seems like about a likely as a John not being able to find a whorehouse in Tijuana. If Obama was confident in his skills as a debater then he would have taken up John McCain on his offer for Town Hall Debates earlier this Summer.
 
Dwight Schrute

Dwight Schrute

I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
so I guess Limbaugh and his bag of wind are now the true spokesmen of the Republican party. Good to know:rolleyes:
Typical of you...associating Limbaugh's views to the whole Republican party. I thought you could come back with something a bit better than that.

On occasion, Republicans listen to him and he also reflect some of their views. I know its a stretch for you to understand, but it does happen sometimes.


Furthermore, yes Republicans did not like him, which I have said in numerous other threads, but at the end of the day, staunch republicans disliked Obama with a greater passion. The thought of an Obama white house, was more than enough to make sure that they showed up in November.
Yeah, those "Obamacans" really hated him. Unfortunately you have the ridiculous perception that all these Republican hate Obama. You also haven't dealt with many conservative Republicans who basically will not vote for someone whom they do not agree with, Republican or not. They simply will stay home as many of the base claimed they would do. Palin changed that. IF you can't see that...well, its obvious you don't and shows how clueless you are on this subject.

Also, as I recall you were a self prefessed moderate in a previous conversation, or did that change with Limbaugh and his bag of wind?:fool2:
No, that was you. Moderate...which is a laugh. I've stated I'M Republican with a more moderate approach to social issues. I think I specifically told you that not so long ago. Might want to pay attention next time.


again, I think you miss the point. He has done moderately well in funding in comparison early on to other republicans.
We're you asleep for most of the primary? McCain was basically bankrupt before New Hampshire. He was flying around in coach with almost zero money. He had to let go half his campaign before he won in New Hampshire. You seriously don't know what you're talking about.

Yes Romney had more, but much of that was his own.
The extreme right didn't like his Mormonism as well as his flip flops on abortion and most Republicans didn't like his socialized health care in Mass. Do your homework.



Once again however, you really think the republicans would be staying home? Interesting support for your party
Yes, as they stated in many polls due to candidates they didn't like and a Congress that completely failed when it came to conservative principles (2006). They did the same then..STAYED HOME.

And please don't' act like happens in one party. But then again, you're not interested in facts are you? You just claim to be non partisan and objective which is downright laughable.

Opinions vary. I agree and have said as much in several threads that the Palin pick gave a boost as it was a bend over to the far right.
So what? That hasn't' stopped you from continuing to focus on every little negative about Palin. I'm looking around for the same criticisms of Obama but I can't seem to find any. Your opinions have less to do with McCain or Palin and more to do with anyone who has anything positive to say about evangelicals or religion in general. The far left get a free pass to you but if religion comes up, oh no....Its quite obvious where your bias stands. McCain is fine...as long as he doesn't acknowledge the religious right.

And nice "bend over" reference when it came to Palin. Real classy.

Again, if you think they would have stayed home you are a tad confused.
That's what they did in 2006 with the majority of the congressional races. It seems the one confused and clueless on the subject is you.

Here is what I will do, as I have stated on several occassions, I am not a fan of either ticket at all (except for Loud mouth Joe Biden). However, I do believe Obama will walk away with this come November if the debates go well.

Wow..big prediction. Seems someone said that if it was Obama and McCain that it would be a landslide for Obama....oh, that was me.

Palin was a game changer and is the only reason he will win barring some blunder by Obama.

If the Democrats don't win, they are even more incompetent than they are now.

I will do the same. I will walk away till November, because as has been a consistent trait of yours, these discussions turn more into a pissing match with you once your base has been challenged. So I will see you in November after the election of the Obama/Biden ticket.

Challenged? Can you let me know when that happens?

If they win, I'll be sure to send you pom-poms. A cheerleader has to have some pom-poms!
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
wait, I am the first to hit the dem lead congress about being a waste of time. Read some of the other threads, however, Congress and President are 2 entirely different things at this point. Both that are in power now have been a disgrace to their respective offices
Its not completely about left and right this election cycle. McCain is not a conservative, he's basically a moderate that occasionally leans left or right based on the issue. Obama is the most liberal senator in congress. His voting record in Illinois shows that.

By voting Obama, people are giving the keys to the country to a liberal (some would say Socialist) president, with a democrat congress that would support his policies. When there is one party in charge of congress and the presidency, there are very few checks and balances limiting government. This was the case from 2000-2006, and I know there was a lot of things that happened at that time you weren't a fan of.

McCain has shown he can work across the aisle to get important bills passed. He can also veto the crazy, over the top bills that come across his desk.

Split power can be the best of both worlds.
 
strategicmove

strategicmove

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Ummm obama is a socialist. Well a marxist to be specific.
Define "Socialist"! Define "Marxist"! Define both in the classical sense!
 
RobInKuwait

RobInKuwait

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Define "Socialist"! Define "Marxist"! Define both in the classical sense!

Socialist-
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Marxist-
Marxism is the political philosophy and practice derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

The main ideas to come out of Marx and Engels' collective works include:

* Exploitation: Marx refers to the exploitation of an entire segment or class of society by another. He sees it as being an inherent feature and key element of capitalism and free markets. The profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value of their labor, in order to enable the capitalist class to turn a profit. This profit is not however moderated in terms of risk vs. return.
* Alienation: Marx refers to the alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature" ("Gattungswesen", usually translated as 'species-essence' or 'species-being'). He believes that alienation is a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to the employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and in so doing generate alienated labour.[6] Alienation describes objective features of a person's situation in capitalism - it isn't necessary for them to believe or feel that they are alienated.
* Base and superstructure: Marx and Engels use the “base-structure” metaphor to explain the idea that the totality of relations among people with regard to “the social production of their existence” forms the economic basis, on which arises a superstructure of political and legal institutions. To the base corresponds the social consciousness which includes religious, philosophical, and other main ideas. The base conditions both, the superstructure and the social consciousness. A conflict between the development of material productive forces and the relations of production causes social revolutions, and the resulting change in the economic basis will sooner or later lead to the transformation of the superstructure.[7] For Marx, though, this relationship is not a one way process - it is reflexive; the base determines the superstructure in the first instance and remains the foundation of a form of social organization which then can act again upon both parts of the base-structure metaphor.[citation needed] The relationship between superstructure and base is considered to be a dialectical one, not a distinction between actual entities "in the world".[citation needed]
* Class consciousness: Class consciousness refers to the awareness, both of itself and of the social world around it, that a social class possess, and its capacity to act in its own rational interests based on this awareness. Thus class consciousness must be attained before the class may mount a successful revolution. Other methods of revolutionary action have been developed however, such as vanguardism.
* Ideology: Without offering a general definition for ideology[8], Marx on several instances has used the term to designate the production of images of social reality. According to Engels, “ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming motive forces”.[9] Because the ruling class controls the society's means of production, the superstructure of society, as well as its ruling ideas, will be determined according to what is in the ruling class's best interests. As Marx said famously in The German Ideology, “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force”.[10] Therefore the ideology of a society is of enormous importance since it confuses the alienated groups and can create false consciousness such as commodity fetishism (perceiving labor as capital ~ a degradation of human life).[citation needed]
* Historical materialism: Historical materialism was first articulated by Marx, although he himself never used the term. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human societies in the way in which humans collectively make the means to life, thus giving an emphasis, through economic analysis, to everything that co-exists with the economic base of society (e.g. social classes, political structures, ideologies).
* Political economy: The term "political economy" originally meant the study of the conditions under which production was organized in the nation-states of the new-born capitalist system. Political economy, then, studies the mechanism of human activity in organizing material, and the mechanism of distributing the surplus or deficit that is the result of that activity. Political economy studies the means of production, specifically capital, and how this manifests itself in economic activity.
 

Similar threads


Top