| Author | Post |
|---|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 8th, 2008 01:16 am |
|
You do realize that there are almost 200 ambassadors serving at any point in time, so even if there were a bipartisan group, those numbers don't mean a whole lot.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: You tend to generalize your opinion and demand specificity on any opionion that differs. Just a point of information
Terrance wrote:
Playing the Game wrote: Your words...........................
Terrance wrote:
You do know that Republican Presidents appoint Republicans as ambassadors and Democratic Presidents appoint Democrats.
I'm sure there are exceptions. Would you be more comfortable if I had said "most of the time?" Regardless, my point still stands.
You missed my point. My point was that it's no big deal for Republican appointees to Ambassadorships to support the current Republican candidate for President.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:22 pm |
|
You tend to generalize your opinion and demand specificity on any opionion that differs. Just a point of information
Terrance wrote:
Playing the Game wrote: Your words...........................
Terrance wrote:
You do know that Republican Presidents appoint Republicans as ambassadors and Democratic Presidents appoint Democrats.
I'm sure there are exceptions. Would you be more comfortable if I had said "most of the time?" Regardless, my point still stands.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:17 pm |
|
| This is ridiculous. Who cares if a couple of the appointees at some time were from the other party? For the most part the statement is accurate and makes the point. I suggest you two don't get together to watch the two fools debate tonight.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Your words...........................
Terrance wrote:
You do know that Republican Presidents appoint Republicans as ambassadors and Democratic Presidents appoint Democrats.
I'm sure there are exceptions. Would you be more comfortable if I had said "most of the time?" Regardless, my point still stands.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
Your words...........................
Terrance wrote:
You do know that Republican Presidents appoint Republicans as ambassadors and Democratic Presidents appoint Democrats.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:09 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Present facts and you won't be questioned.
I didn't make the assertion.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:09 pm |
|
| Present facts and you won't be questioned.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:08 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Not entirely true TErrance. Google before you speak.
Present your facts.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:05 pm |
|
| Not entirely true TErrance. Google before you speak.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:02 pm |
|
Newshound wrote: More than 100 former American ambassadors are endorsing John McCain and Sarah Palin for president and vice president. The endorsements counter Barack Obama’s claims that McCain is inflexible when it comes to diplomacy and negotiations with other countries.
You do know that Republican Presidents appoint Republicans as ambassadors and Democratic Presidents appoint Democrats.
I'm sure that all the current and former Republican appointees are supporting McCain and that all the current and former Democratic appointees are supporting Obama.
What's you next mind numbing revelation going to be? Perhaps, the majority of current and former Republican appointees to cabinet positions are going to support McCain?
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 10:00 pm |
|
| You don't suppose they might be auditioning for a job?
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 957 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 09:54 pm |
|
[url=http://news.newsmax.com/?KKIvXZhQ3J9Eqot1I5TfYjUvkxbztfUAK&http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/?s=al&promo_code=6C73-1%20]100-Plus Former Ambassadors Endorse McCain[/url]
More than 100 former American ambassadors are endorsing John McCain and Sarah Palin for president and vice president. The endorsements counter Barack Obama’s claims that McCain is inflexible when it comes to diplomacy and negotiations with other countries.
[url=http://news.newsmax.com/?KKIvXZhQ3J9Eqot1I5TfYjUvkxbztfUAK&http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/?s=al&promo_code=6C73-1%20]Read the Full Story — Go Here Now.[/url]
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 03:14 pm |
|
I don't agree with all the points here, of course, but a pretty good summary of what McCain could do to pull this out...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzRjMDk4MmVhZWFmODI2ZTg4MDIyM2NhMGNmMWI1NGU=
With a falling stock market shedding hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth seemingly every other day, and with headlines dominated by a financial crisis threatening banks all around the world, no one is going to be distracted from the economy for long.... Few things are quite as important to their material well-being.
It wasn’t McCain’s fault that, after pulling even with Obama, a bunch of toxic collateralized debt obligations fell on his head. “Life isn’t fair” was McCain’s diagnosis of the politics of the financial mess the other day, and he’s right... But all Obama has to do in this environment is not be a Republican.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 02:45 am |
|
Notice the large number of Congressional Republicans who stood up and thanked McCain for his help in getting the deal done?
No?
You mean there wasn't one Republican on the Hill who had their candidate's back on this issue? Who might have thrown the media a bone about how they needed his leadership on this issue, and were grateful for his stunt,er, his focus on this issue?
No? None?
I'm thinking that more than a few are thinking tha payback is a ........
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 125 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 28th, 2008 06:09 am |
|
Not to add fuel to the fire but it sure is the truth.
 Last edited on Sun Sep 28th, 2008 06:15 am by Lavitakus
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27th, 2008 03:45 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: What's the difference?
Terrance wrote:
McBush (substitute Obama) is a grandstanding, self centered, opportunistic, exploiter who is willing to leave us in the hands of a complete moron if something should happen to him.
He's a loose canon and he wants to sail the ship of state. He is supported by a bunch of desperate toadies who would rather anything than lose - ideologues, neocons and fools.
McBush cancelled his campaign. Oh, excuse me. McBush didn't cancel his campaign, he cancelled the debate. Oh, excuse me McBush went to the debate. McBush said he wouldn't attend the debate until the Congress agreed on a plan to resolve the economic crisis so Congress must have agreed on a plan - that's it. Oh, excuse me. Congress didn't agree on a plan.
Oh and a few days ago McBush said the fundamentals of our economy are strong. Hmmm... Even Tinkerbelle can't spread enough pixie dust to cover this one over.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27th, 2008 01:57 am |
|
What's the difference?
Terrance wrote:
McBush (substitute Obama) is a grandstanding, self centered, opportunistic, exploiter who is willing to leave us in the hands of a complete moron if something should happen to him.
He's a loose canon and he wants to sail the ship of state. He is supported by a bunch of desperate toadies who would rather anything than lose - ideologues, neocons and fools.
|
Tinkerbelle
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 217 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 11:57 pm |
|
I suppose that there are some Democrats who would rather leave us in the hands of a committed Marxist whose criminal friends got us into the economic disaster we are now trying to extract ourselves from. These very same people are now negotiating a "bailout" and no doubt involve themselves to the point where their crimes are kept hidden from the majority of the public. It is amazing that these leftist Democrats who permeate these forums are so willing to forget and/or ignore the genesis of the problems. They are also unwilling to expose those responsible so Obama can get elected and continue the cover up. The lunatics are now running the asylum.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
LA Times article on May 31, 1999
It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.
In 1992, [a majority Democratic] Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets.
Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.
The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers.
MP: Government policy turned million
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University in Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. Since 1997, Professor Perry has been a member of the Board of Scholars for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan research and public policy institute in Michigan.
Last edited on Sat Sep 27th, 2008 12:04 am by Tinkerbelle
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 10:13 pm |
|
Tinkerbelle wrote: McCain knew what would happen to the economy due to the sub-prime loan situation created by the Clinton administration in the '90s. He tried to warn us, and tried to do something about it. What happened? What happened was.... Democrats continued to line their pockets, block reform, and get sweetheart mortgages. Now, they are excited and overjoyed that the financial sector is in trouble because they see it as opportunity to foist blame on the current administration as a campaign issue.
McBush is a grandstanding, self centered, opportunistic, exploiter who is willing to leave us in the hands of a complete moron if something should happen to him.
He's a loose canon and he wants to sail the ship of state. He is supported by a bunch of desperate toadies who would rather anything than lose - ideologues, neocons and fools.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 09:31 pm |
|
Here's a little twist on the crap the MSM and Fox along with our elected Representatives and the President have been spinning to us.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/73110/McCain%27s-Brilliant-Play-Bets-Presidency-on-Blocking-Bailout-Deal?tickers=
|
Tinkerbelle
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 217 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 08:43 pm |
|
McCain knew what would happen to the economy due to the sub-prime loan situation created by the Clinton administration in the '90s. He tried to warn us, and tried to do something about it. What happened? What happened was.... Democrats continued to line their pockets, block reform, and get sweetheart mortgages. Now, they are excited and overjoyed that the financial sector is in trouble because they see it as opportunity to foist blame on the current administration as a campaign issue.
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 290 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 06:45 pm |
|
Warren Buffett has compared the current financial crisis to an "economic Pearl Harbor." The U.S. is facing a financial crisis that is publicly drawing comparisons to the Great Depression. So why is Senator Barack Obama seemingly missing in action with regard to this crisis in his day job in the Senate? Rather, Mr. Obama ushered a halfhearted response to Congress that was not unlike, "Keep me posted. I've got a debate to attend on Friday."
Is Senator Obama in effect telling the American people that a presidential campaign takes precedence over his elected position in the Senate?
On the other hand, Senator John McCain, wrapped up meetings with financial experts, as well as foreign leaders at the United Nations, and then announced suspending his campaign and television show appearances to resume Senate business by addressing the financial crisis in Washington. The announcement was met in swift response by Barack Obama, who questioned Senator McCain's ability to multitask and criticized his potential absence in the upcoming opening Presidential debate in Mississippi.
Federal Election Commission records reveal that in his three years in the Senate, Mr. Obama was in fact the second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of $126,349. Obama follows Senator Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who received a total of $165,400. Senator Dodd also reportedly received preferential treatment from Countrywide Mortgage.
While Sen. Obama was receiving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign funds, Senator John McCain was working to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the Senate floor.
http://stellaca.newsvine.com/
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 05:49 pm |
|
It does suck, but the situation we could wind up in could suck a whole lot more. If there are good alternatives, let's hear them, but Paulson and his crew have been working on this "contigency", as they call it, for months. I doubted the urgency, but with Wa-Mu going down, I bet there are others that the administration knows will follow unless something is done.
All McCain has left is the posturing. He didn't propose anything different, and he didn't even endorse or probably read the other plan. His goal is to tap into that 60% of people who don't like any bail out plan. I get that, but sometimes when you are a poltician you've got to do the unpopular thing, to quote you, CR.
The plan sucks less than the one proposed last week, and there are some interesting aspects of it, but no one is putting lipstick on a pig and saying this is good. It is probably a desperate move to stave off or limit a recession, but there will be consequences.
Look....I don't like too many of President Bush's policies, and don't really like this one, either. Heck, I don't think HE likes it...he looked terrible the other night. Maybe that is why I believe him, this time. Here is why.
1. Conservative Ire: The administration had to know this would piss off a lot of people. Maybe he doesn't care about pissing off the liberals (many of whom are dead set against this MORE so than the conservatives, I think), but he certainly didn't want to piss off a generally pissed off group to start with.
2. Timing: He has less 116 days left in office, according to my countdown calandar. If he thought he could skate out without doing anything this drastic, he certainly would have. Heck, I think some of these things were done in the hope they would stave off anything major until next January, or at least until the election. The fact that the Administration is doing this now should scare people. If it could have waited until after the election and would not have had an effect, he would have done so.
3. Pundits: Now, pundits can be wrong, but I haven't heard too many say that a recession would be good for us. Be they left or right wingers, most people decry what has to be done. Lefties think that this bailout is upside down; why not prop up the mortgages at the bottom end rather than the top? I like the idea, but realize that it would not help quick enough to stave off more panics.
I hope, as one of our frequent posters says, that we are not doomed.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 511 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 05:48 pm |
|
Was it the importance of the Presidential debates that Senator Obama saw fit to prioritize, or was he actually attempting to distance himself from a more hands-on approach to the crisis for other reasons?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 05:24 pm |
|
Actually the bailout plan sucks and McCain is siding with 60% of the American people on this one. Even Bezoar Reid admitted today that their offices are swamped with calls from the people against the plan.
Isn't that government of, by and for the people? Isn't McCain actually reprsenting the American people?
If it wasn't for us darn taxpayers it would be much easier for politicians to rule and get rich.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
If McCain had not shown up and had continued doing what he was doing, he could have done just as much influencing from wherever he was. He didn't do squat in DC, and BOTH Republicans and Democrats are saying he helped kill the deal.
This reminds me of other times when we've got a crisis, and we don't quite know what side to root for. We don't want to root for the "wrong" thing, because it is in our nature to oppose what the other side wants.
I think McCain was trying for triangulation, and we'll see what happens. You are a Republican, the Admiinistration is Republican, so what can you do? You can show that the Dems and the White House are "on the same side" and he is fighting couragously for the common man.
He gambled big on Palin, and it paid off...initially. He is gambling again, but with our economic future in his hands...he will truly do anything to get elected.
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 03:34 pm |
|
McCain will presume all activities only after Dodd and Reid and other Democrats were playing the blame game.
As if they were trying to keep McCain from showing up to the debate or holding to his word .
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1450 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 03:24 pm |
|
Fred wrote: About the only thing McCain wanted to "suspend" was the debate with Obama. Fund raising continued, and although he lied to the Letterman show (saying he had to catch a plane to NY when he was down the street on another interview)...another political move that I think will backfire. Fred, I really don't think you buy that. McCain was never afraid to debate since it was Obama who turned down at least ten town hall style debates over these past months. Obama wants and needs a controlled debate where the liberal moderators will be assured to ask him softball questions or those that they are assured that the answers will be to his liking. McCain, after what he went through, is not a man AFRAID of a debate or anything else. I didn't think that you would be that far left. As a soldier, you should know better than to accuse McCain of being afraid of anything.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 02:47 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: The mass of voters is not listening to pundits Fred, or politicians. The voters this year are going to vote with their gut, and Obama gives many of us the dry heaves.
If the dry heaves could keep a wingnuts mouth from talking it would be life threatening and end global warming all in one easy step. That would be one of the few positives from a B.O. campaign.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 11:38 am |
|
In a Liberal, that could be life threatening.
counting coup wrote:
While B.O. may give me the dry heaves McBush gives me something that comes from another orifice.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 02:14 am |
|
About the only thing McCain wanted to "suspend" was the debate with Obama. Fund raising continued, and although he lied to the Letterman show (saying he had to catch a plane to NY when he was down the street on another interview)...another political move that I think will backfire.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24th, 2008 01:59 pm |
|
| While B.O. may give me the dry heaves McBush gives me something that comes from another orifice.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 3982 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 11:10 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: The mass of voters is not listening to pundits Fred, or politicians. The voters this year are going to vote with their gut, and Obama gives many of us the dry heaves.
The dry heaves is an absolutely PERFECT description!!!!
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 10:01 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: The mass of voters is not listening to pundits Fred, or politicians. The voters this year are going to vote with their gut, and Obama gives many of us the dry heaves.
Fred wrote:
Here is a not so recent (7 months ago) post from the National Review....
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTQ0MjgxZmIyOTM1MTM1ZDM4YTQ0N2ZlMDMwNzVjZjU=
McCain reaches too hard and too transparently to turn everything into a contest about military service. When Romney observed that Bob Dole wouldn’t necessarily be the one he’d want an endorsement from, McCain pronounced himself “very sad and disappointed to see that kind of comment about a person who was an American war hero” and demanded that Romney apologize.
There is a strutting self-righteousness about McCain that goes hand-in-hand with a nitroglycerin temper. He flatters himself that his colleagues in the Senate dislike him because he stands up for principle, while they sell their souls for pork. Not exactly. He is disliked because on many, many occasions he has been disrespectful, belligerent, and vulgar to those who differ with him.
Now, the point of Charen's piece is moot; conservatives have grown a collective woodie at McCain's pick of a VP, but her comments on how the right wing saw him (and this was probably not a minority view) are interesting.
It does take guts to vote for McBush and Palin. It also takes guts to be a suicide bomber. Hmmm.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 09:39 pm |
|
The mass of voters is not listening to pundits Fred, or politicians. The voters this year are going to vote with their gut, and Obama gives many of us the dry heaves.
Fred wrote:
Here is a not so recent (7 months ago) post from the National Review....
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTQ0MjgxZmIyOTM1MTM1ZDM4YTQ0N2ZlMDMwNzVjZjU=
McCain reaches too hard and too transparently to turn everything into a contest about military service. When Romney observed that Bob Dole wouldn’t necessarily be the one he’d want an endorsement from, McCain pronounced himself “very sad and disappointed to see that kind of comment about a person who was an American war hero” and demanded that Romney apologize.
There is a strutting self-righteousness about McCain that goes hand-in-hand with a nitroglycerin temper. He flatters himself that his colleagues in the Senate dislike him because he stands up for principle, while they sell their souls for pork. Not exactly. He is disliked because on many, many occasions he has been disrespectful, belligerent, and vulgar to those who differ with him.
Now, the point of Charen's piece is moot; conservatives have grown a collective woodie at McCain's pick of a VP, but her comments on how the right wing saw him (and this was probably not a minority view) are interesting.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 3982 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 06:25 pm |
|
Fred wrote:
Hey, this is a REPUBLICAN talking about a REPUBLICAN, Hab. THAT is the difference....and it hasn't been George's only issue with him.
So what that it is a Republican saying it? You don't think Democrats have never said such things about members of their own party? And in public?
Please note, I did not say the comments about McCain are untrue, from what I've read they are pretty accurate. My remark in regard to the description sounding like it was about Biden was based upon personal experience.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 04:05 pm |
|
Habanero wrote: Fred wrote: He is disliked because on many, many occasions he has been disrespectful, belligerent, and vulgar to those who differ with him.
Gee, sounds exactly like Joe Biden..............
Hey, this is a REPUBLICAN talking about a REPUBLICAN, Hab. THAT is the difference....and it hasn't been George's only issue with him.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 03:22 am |
|
| Or King George and Queen Dick.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 3982 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 01:52 am |
|
Fred wrote: He is disliked because on many, many occasions he has been disrespectful, belligerent, and vulgar to those who differ with him.
Gee, sounds exactly like Joe Biden..............
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 12:35 pm |
|
Here is a not so recent (7 months ago) post from the National Review....
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTQ0MjgxZmIyOTM1MTM1ZDM4YTQ0N2ZlMDMwNzVjZjU=
McCain reaches too hard and too transparently to turn everything into a contest about military service. When Romney observed that Bob Dole wouldn’t necessarily be the one he’d want an endorsement from, McCain pronounced himself “very sad and disappointed to see that kind of comment about a person who was an American war hero” and demanded that Romney apologize.
There is a strutting self-righteousness about McCain that goes hand-in-hand with a nitroglycerin temper. He flatters himself that his colleagues in the Senate dislike him because he stands up for principle, while they sell their souls for pork. Not exactly. He is disliked because on many, many occasions he has been disrespectful, belligerent, and vulgar to those who differ with him.
Now, the point of Charen's piece is moot; conservatives have grown a collective woodie at McCain's pick of a VP, but her comments on how the right wing saw him (and this was probably not a minority view) are interesting.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 04:14 pm |
|
Here's a recent link I found on McCain:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 02:36 pm |
|
The Insyder wrote: Whoopi Goldberg fears McCain will bring slavery
When answering a question about what type of judges he will elect, McCain is thrown a curveball from Whoopi Goldberg on 'The View'. Whoopi wants to know if McCain is elected, will that mean the eventual return of slavery? That's the kind of high brow questions (Elisabeth aside) that you get from the liberal ladies on 'The View'. Sounds familiar----oh yeah, that's right---remember in 2004 when the military draft was rumored to return? Ah, isn't election time just wonderful? Read the transcript here.
Do you understand the give and take and what the question was really about? The slavery question was not specifically about slavery, but about how John sees the Constitution. The questions before were about something else, and she was using that as an example.
The real story is that John actually missed an opportunity to school her on the Constitution. Slavery was changed by an amendment, which, as bad as it was, was the only way to eliminate if from the Constitution.
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 684 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 12:47 pm |
|
| http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_clinton_backer_1
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 511 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 09:21 pm |
|
Whoopi Goldberg fears McCain will bring slavery
When answering a question about what type of judges he will elect, McCain is thrown a curveball from Whoopi Goldberg on 'The View'. Whoopi wants to know if McCain is elected, will that mean the eventual return of slavery? That's the kind of high brow questions (Elisabeth aside) that you get from the liberal ladies on 'The View'. Sounds familiar----oh yeah, that's right---remember in 2004 when the military draft was rumored to return? Ah, isn't election time just wonderful? Read the transcript here.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 02:19 pm |
|
What doesn't make sense is calling me a liberal. Maybe I need to put this in simpler terms for those that think every voter is either liberal or conservative.
Both of the major parties candidates make me want to vomit.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 12:19 am |
|
Actually it still doesn't make sense even though any third grader knew you couldn't spell "doomed".
I had to laugh because in 1972 Richard Nixon was quoted as saying "F#&K the doomed".
Nice to hear it from a Liberal too.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 10:41 pm |
|
| Sorry about the misspelled word, but if you don't get it, it really doesn't matter.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1799 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 10:01 pm |
|
Whatever that means...................................
counting coup wrote:
We are "All Domed" because the electorate including you will be forced to choose between the current party candidates de jour, by gosh.
|
counting coup
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 09:40 pm |
|
| We are "All Doomed" because the electorate including you will be forced to choose between the current party candidates de jour, by gosh. Last edited on Tue Sep 16th, 2008 10:33 pm by counting coup
|
Current time is 12:26 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5   |
|