Page 20 of 53 FirstFirst ... 10151617181920212223242530 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 1043
  1. #381  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The Iraqi leader did have a connection with Obama...
    That would give Obama some real foreign policy experience, which would be a good thing.
  2. #382  
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_mae

    For those who need a simple answer - see the above. It is heavily regulated in some aspects and must meet certain criteria set by the government. Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm...red_enterprise.

    So to respond, you are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Umm, you do realize that Fannie and Freddie aren't government programs, right? (If you didn't, don't feel bad, neither did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_maeSarah Palin.)
  3. #383  
    My stupid - make that the Iraqi leader did have a connection with Osamas bin Laden's group.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    That would give Obama some real foreign policy experience, which would be a good thing.
  4. #384  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    For those who pay more attention than I:

    Obama and McCain are both Senators. They are active participatns in the body that has direct responsiblity for the budget (i.e. deficit), authorization and funding of war (i.e. Iraq), taxes (i.e. economy)....

    What is it about the Presidency that will allow either of these men to do anything different?

    I recognize the power of the veto. But the legislature will simply load the business as usual stuff on to legislation that is important to the President to get it through.

    So, if these guys really wanted to effect change, wouldn't it more effective to redoulbe their effort in their current offices?
    Even in the narrow context of legislation, the President has much more power than a single Senator. Because of his executive control over most of the federal government, his de facto leadership role in his own party, and his veto, he has the power to negotiate with Congress over legislation, and in effect, "set the agenda".

    But beyond that is the President's leadership of the massive federal government and his ability to appoint judges. The Dept of Defense, the State Dept, the Treasury Dept, the Justice Dept, etc. all report to the President. Various Congressional committees have oversight over different areas, but that's the difference between influence and control.
  5. #385  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    My stupid - make that the Iraqi leader did have a connection with Osamas bin Laden's group.
    A telling freudian slip? I've stopped reading your stream of consciousness tirades about Osama Bin Obama. The same half truths over and over and over again. What a guy. Have fun! I'm off to enjoy my "feel good" day. Tah tah.
  6. #386  
    How did I forget apointing judges? In this era, that is the real power in this.
  7. #387  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    My stupid - make that the Iraqi leader did have a connection with Osamas bin Laden's group.
    I hate to interrupt proclamations with a silly thing like facts: Links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, as claimed by the Bush Administration (which formed a crucial part of the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion), were non-existent or exaggerated, according to the report of both the United States Government's 9/11 Commission(1) and the Pentagon(2).

    (1) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec10.pdf
    (2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_mae

    For those who need a simple answer - see the above. It is heavily regulated in some aspects and must meet certain criteria set by the government. Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm...red_enterprise.

    So to respond, you are wrong.
    Hmm... based upon your link: "Some of the GSEs, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are privately owned but publicly chartered". Regulated by the government is a far cry from "communist inspired". The fact is that it came into the direct conservatorship of the government last week.

    So if they are, in your words, "communist inspired", then the fact that they are under direct government control is due to the recent actions of the current administration. I wasn't aware that George Bush was a communist, but I guess I'll bow to your logic in this matter.

    By the way, Fannie Mae was first created by FDR as a government program (so perhaps he was a communist) prior to being made an independent entity in 1968. Freddie Mac was created in 1970, during the Nixon administration...he undoubtedly became a communist during his visit to China.


    Last edited by Bujin; 09/09/2008 at 08:54 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. #388  
    I have seen comments taken out of context - you really have done a great job there. Regardless, if you think the government will fix the mortgage situation without costing a fortune to everyone, then good luck.
  9. #389  
    Half truths? Point out the half truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo View Post
    A telling freudian slip? I've stopped reading your stream of consciousness tirades about Osama Bin Obama. The same half truths over and over and over again. What a guy. Have fun! I'm off to enjoy my "feel good" day. Tah tah.
  10. #390  
    I see none of our liberal members are saying anything about prosecuting the Fannie guys. Far worse than Enron, but no punishment.

    What a day. I believe I read something about Obama sending 30 people to Alaska to look in to Palin. Didn't we hear that Oberman and Matthews were "removed" from anchor positions? The librarian in Alaska, did anyone look further in to this? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,3537053.story - blown up a bit was it not?

    Obama wants change - then why did he vote the party line 97% of the time?

    Did not someone say at one time that the Democrat party was the party of the people? Then why is the Democrat party slamming a working person? Name calling? Was not going to participate in divisive politics? (Palin/pig). I heard it and thought it rather funny - he was "on his own" and the number of uuhhhs was uncountable. Thing is, his trashing her is like trashing all women in this country, all women who are mothers and either have to or decide to work and we all thought he was above this. Frankly, this is really above his pay grade.

    She supported the Highway to Nowhere then reversed her stance on it; buddy Obama and Biden voted for the Highway to Nowhere. Amazing.
  11. #391  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Half truths? Point out the half truth.
    Lets start here:

    "Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
  12. #392  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I see none of our liberal members are saying anything about prosecuting the Fannie guys. Far worse than Enron, but no punishment...
    ...

    BARYE has been ensconced in the Sweat Lodge of Mournful Contemplation these last few days, and as such has had a limited view of the world, the news, or the intertubes... but I'm wondering Ben -- after you finish prosecuting those Fanny Mae boys, what are your plans for junior ??

    that genius came to office with the professed desire to do away with the fanny maes -- to privatize the whole shebang.

    Then as his housing bubble went kapluey, he insisted that they buy even more mortgages, bigger and riskier ones too. They were going to be the buyers of all that paper -- they were going to save the mortgage system.

    They were not thieves -- they were more dumb and unlucky.

    junior's best buds Enron, were a whole different kind of fish.

    Their corruption was rooted in theft, exploitation, and lies.

    in other words, the GOP's dark arts ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #393  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    However, since we are at war, it is convenient to tout how Obama intends to divert the current 90 billion per year spending because he simply doesn't really have to answer to the increase, just where it goes.

    --snip--

    No, Obama isn't some great leader, he's just another politician taking advantage of a decision he really doesn't have to answer for.
    What? No one going to defend Barack's plan to keep the 90 billion?
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  14. #394  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Half truths? Point out the half truth.
    Well, I won't speak for anyone else, but I did post (in most cases, with links to the actual facts) that the

    • Bin Laden / Saddam connection wasn't true,

    • your statements about Obama back-pedaling about Iraq progress weren't really accurate
    • Fannie/Freddie weren't "government controlled, communist-inspired programs"
    • he whole "Russia being close to Alaska" argument against Obama was distorted

    • the Iraq Study Group was a bipartisan group with strong Republican representation
    • Your issues about the Public Allies and Troopergate weren't accurate


    I truly believe that there are actual policy differences that can and should be debated. Both sides have very positive aspects to their policies and to the character of the candidates. However, it's important to separate the fact and spin from the issues.

    My challenge to all here is to try to refrain from the blaming / character assassination of the candidates, and to focus on those important issues that will impact all of us.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  15. #395  
    Bayre, I also believe the Maes need to be privatized - that we should not have to bail them or any other institution out for this trash. Both sides are guilty with this and acknowledging it is not difficult. What I did though was to point out in this situation how heavily the ship was laden with big guys in the Democrat world and unlike Enron where prosecutions occurred, there appear to be none in the works with the Maes.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    BARYE has been ensconced in the Sweat Lodge of Mournful Contemplation these last few days, and as such has had a limited view of the world, the news, or the intertubes... but I'm wondering Ben -- after you finish prosecuting those Fanny Mae boys, what are your plans for junior ??

    that genius came to office with the professed desire to do away with the fanny maes -- to privatize the whole shebang.

    Then as his housing bubble went kapluey, he insisted that they buy even more mortgages, bigger and riskier ones too. They were going to be the buyers of all that paper -- they were going to save the mortgage system.

    They were not thieves -- they were more dumb and unlucky.

    junior's best buds Enron, were a whole different kind of fish.

    Their corruption was rooted in theft, exploitation, and lies.

    in other words, the GOP's dark arts ...
  16. #396  
    Trooper Gate not accurate? How? Did he make a threat about shooting someone? Was he violating department policies more than a couple of times? Did he taser a relative?

    Bin Laden / Saddam connection wasn't true? Some say yes and some say no. There really is more to support the yes than the no.

    Back peddling on Iraq not correct? Did you listen to the interview on O'Rielly? Listen to it. He has issues there.

    Look at what the study group left out - not an accurate response no matter how many were on it.

    Public Allies - do you want funding of a group that pushes socialism? The anti-racial connotations stick up like a sore toe when you read further into its history.

    You speak of character assassination - does that go down with making decisive remarks? Pigs with lip stick and old fish? This time around it is heavily pointing toward Obama's side and what appears to be his move to discredit Palin - the more attention he pays to her though, the more he highlights her to the public. His judgment has issues here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, I won't speak for anyone else, but I did post (in most cases, with links to the actual facts) that the

    • Bin Laden / Saddam connection wasn't true,

    • your statements about Obama back-pedaling about Iraq progress weren't really accurate
    • Fannie/Freddie weren't "government controlled, communist-inspired programs"
    • he whole "Russia being close to Alaska" argument against Obama was distorted

    • the Iraq Study Group was a bipartisan group with strong Republican representation
    • Your issues about the Public Allies and Troopergate weren't accurate


    I truly believe that there are actual policy differences that can and should be debated. Both sides have very positive aspects to their policies and to the character of the candidates. However, it's important to separate the fact and spin from the issues.

    My challenge to all here is to try to refrain from the blaming / character assassination of the candidates, and to focus on those important issues that will impact all of us.
  17. #397  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Trooper Gate not accurate? How? Did he make a threat about shooting someone? Was he violating department policies more than a couple of times? Did he taser a relative?

    Bin Laden / Saddam connection wasn't true? Some say yes and some say no. There really is more to support the yes than the no.

    Back peddling on Iraq not correct? Did you listen to the interview on O'Rielly? Listen to it. He has issues there.

    Look at what the study group left out - not an accurate response no matter how many were on it.

    Public Allies - do you want funding of a group that pushes socialism? The anti-racial connotations stick up like a sore toe when you read further into its history.
    I think you're making the point about repeating half-truths again and again. Despite having evidence to the contrary (see previous posts), you feel the need to continue to say things like "There really is more to support the yes than the no". That's exactly in opposition to the facts. If that were true, then our own Pentagon certainly wouldn't come to the conclusion you're making.

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    You speak of character assassination - does that go down with making decisive remarks? Pigs with lip stick and old fish? This time around it is heavily pointing toward Obama's side and what appears to be his move to discredit Palin - the more attention he pays to her though, the more he highlights her to the public. His judgment has issues here.
    I'll try one last time with the facts: the actual quote was ""John McCain says he’s about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is ‘Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education, policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove style politics -- we’re really going to shake things up in Washington...That's not change. That's just calling the same thing something different. But you know, you can ... put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change; it's still going to stink. After eight years, we've had enough of the same old thing. It's time to bring about real change to Washington."

    Anyone can see that he was referring to repackaging old policy under the name of change, using a very common phrase. The manufactured outrage and accusation that he was referring to Palin is not supported by any facts. It's political theater.

    As much as I like to discuss issues, . I tend to operate under the assumption that people tend to see reason when presented with facts that contradict their own misperceptions, but it's obvious that you have no interest in facts that don't confirm your own preconceived notions.

    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  18. #398  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    ...As much as I like to discuss issues, . I tend to operate under the assumption that people tend to see reason when presented with facts that contradict their own misperceptions, but it's obvious that you have no interest in facts that don't confirm your own preconceived notions.
    I find that when Democrats and Republicans debate, neither seems able to recognize the logical inconsistencies inherent with their own party. The criticisms each side receives from the other are frequently spot on...but the debate seems to devolve into which flaws are less ridiculous, rather than a 3rd option which doesn't suck.

    The only real irritation is have with 3rd party candidates is the stupid responses they always give when asked about stealing votes. I would LOVE for one of them to point out that they didn't steal anyones else's vote. It's their damn vote...not someone else's. "Yeah, but if you weren't on the ticket, they would have voted for X." That is exactly the reason that a 2 party system is flawed, rather than an exoneration of flawed policy.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  19. #399  
    Quote Originally Posted by ****-richardson View Post
    I find that when Democrats and Republicans debate, neither seems able to recognize the logical inconsistencies inherent with their own party. The criticisms each side receives from the other are frequently spot on...but the debate seems to devolve into which flaws are less ridiculous, rather than a 3rd option which doesn't suck.

    The only real irritation is have with 3rd party candidates is the stupid responses they always give when asked about stealing votes. I would LOVE for one of them to point out that they didn't steal anyones else's vote. It's their damn vote...not someone else's. "Yeah, but if you weren't on the ticket, they would have voted for X." That is exactly the reason that a 2 party system is flawed, rather than an exoneration of flawed policy.
    Right on the money.
  20. #400  
    Which Obama did not support. As for Keyes, it really makes no sense to support one and not the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo View Post
    Lets start here:

    "Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...fanticide.html

Posting Permissions