Obama and Bush not so far apart...
-
zbrown;242102 wrote:
Gosh..... maybe we should have a socialized food program, where the Gov. has to provide for ALL of our nutritional needs......after all who needs health care if you don't have food right??That has to "help ensure the safety of the people of the United States"
Better have one for clothing and shelter too.........
LOL... atleast i will lay in bed with a smile on my face till i fall asleep thinking of how misleaded and overly dependant people have become....... and how sorry i feel for those people
you dont think this country is pretty socialist already?
weird..
you work in an industry where the govt supplements income to reduce risk or influence prices. they pretty much already provide for our nutrition because if they didnt step in and keep them from going broke half of the farmers wouldnt be farming anymore. anyone have crp land?
socialist shelter and clothing programs? already exist, bud.
i feel sorry for a lot of people too, mainly the ones that were immorally or unethically dismissed because their well being didnt fit into the profit margin.
-
torbs;242109 wrote:
So apparently Chuck is ignorant enough to not even watch a debate...Chuck spread a falsicy? No way...
No, Chuck didn't watch the debate. He was busy getting his home ready for sale.
Do I agree with everything the man says? No. Do things get said during debates that are not as thorough as their published health plans. As for what I saw in your clip....what I heard was this "If you have health insurance, you shouldn't have to fight for them to cover your ass if you get sick. You have health insurance to protect you in the event of a major crisis and if you have this coverage, you have the right to be protected under the policy."
Maybe that isn't exactly how it was worded, but I feel that was the intent.
-
I'll elaborate more later.
-
I still haven't heard anyone come up with some good logical argument for the fact that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS were the ones who pushed through policies allowing people with little to no income to recieve mortgages they'd never be able to afford. On top of the fact that Obama is the 3rd largest recipient of lobbying funds from fannymae and freddiemac...AND when McCain wanted to investigate them because he knew they were lieing about their profits, the DEMS, including Obama, said "NO NO nothing's wrong with them!"
Between the Dems, Acorn, and Fannie/Freddie, a large chunk of the recent $700+ Bil we just spent is their fault. Sure, lenders willing to sign off on them are largely at fault too, but they wouldn't have even been allowed to if the Dems hadn't been so pushy in getting their poor constituients into houses they couldn't afford.
Not to mention that gas prices spiked ~ $2/gal in the months after the DEMS took control of office. They were flirting in the high 1 range and then magically shot up to near $4/gal soon afterwards! Interesting correlation there...
-
StangerBanger96;242131 wrote:
I still haven't heard anyone come up with some good logical argument for the fact that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS were the ones who pushed through policies allowing people with little to no income to recieve mortgages they'd never be able to afford. On top of the fact that Obama is the 3rd largest recipient of lobbying funds from fannymae and freddiemac...AND when McCain wanted to investigate them because he knew they were lieing about their profits, the DEMS, including Obama, said "NO NO nothing's wrong with them!"Obama has been a senator for what? 4 years....his party has had political power for 2 years (majority house/senate)... MOST of these sub-prime mortgages came during the early 2000's when interest rates were incredibly low....back when the Republicans had FULL control of house/senate/whitehouse....and before Obama was in the senate. Nobody said "You HAVE to give loans to everyone, regardless of ability to pay", that was a market decision by the businesses themselves and not a mandate....if it were EVERY bank in America would be screwed right now and facing the same problems....but they aren't. Locally, the banks have been fiscally sound.
Are you saying you WANT more regulation? That's not very Republican of you....I mean...free market and stuff, right?
Between the Dems, Acorn, and Fannie/Freddie, a large chunk of the recent $700+ Bil we just spent is their fault. Sure, lenders willing to sign off on them are largely at fault too, but they wouldn't have even been allowed to if the Dems hadn't been so pushy in getting their poor constituients into houses they couldn't afford.
Fannie/Freddie...yes, the funneled a ton of money to Obama...that is something he'll have to live with and struggle through. No argument from me.
As for the dems...see above.
As for ACORN...here are some stats (from their website...so take that for what it is worth)
Maude Hurd, ACORN’s National President, issued the following statement in response to Senator McCain’s attack: "We appreciate that Senator McCain's effort to stir up the Republican base by attacking a community organization working to increase public participation in our democratic process. However, these attacks reflect an increasingly panicked candidate; unfortunately the Senator McCain we saw tonight is very different than the Senator McCain who stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN at a February 20, 2006 immigration reform event
It is clear for us to see that John McCain was for ACORN before he was against ACORN; he was for reform before he was against reform; and he was a maverick before he became erratic. What is really going here is that Senator McCain and his allies are part of a coordinated effort to engage in what appears to be an unprecedented effort to suppress voter turnout. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, and the McCain campaign has resorted to the worst type of deceptions in regards to ACORN."
The Facts:-
ACORN has helped 1.3 million citizens from all parties and all walks of life apply for voter registration.
-
<u>**In most states, ACORN is required by law to turn in every voter registration card - even in cases where the cards are not valid. **</u>
-
<u>* It is ACORN that has reported almost all of the issues regarding voter registration cards.**</u>*
-
** Invalid voter registration cards do NOT constitute voter fraud. <u>Even RNC General Counsel Sean Cairncross has recently acknowledged he is not aware of a single improper vote cast</u> as a result of bad cards submitted in the course of an organized voter registration effort. **
-
ACORN hired 13,000 field workers to register people to vote. In any endeavor of this size, some people will engaged in inappropriate conduct. ACORN has a zero tolerance policy and terminated any field workers caught engaging in questionable activity. At the end of the day, as ACORN is paying these people to register voters, it is ACORN that is defrauded.
So basically, Obama is being blamed for voter fraud because he felt it was necessary to get more people out to vote and stood behind the core principles of that organization...and some people at the field level decided to provide falsified documentation? Am I guilty of embezzelment because I used to work for Tyco and their CEO (Dennis Kozlowski) was found guilty of these crimes as well as tax evasion?
Not to mention that gas prices spiked ~ $2/gal in the months after the DEMS took control of office. They were flirting in the high 1 range and then magically shot up to near $4/gal soon afterwards! Interesting correlation there...
See quote below...then see my comments below it.
The Nov. 17 Lundberg Survey of about 5,000 gas stations across the country showed the average price of a gallon of self-serve regular gas was $2.23, a penny lower than the same week a year ago, publisher Trilby Lundberg told CNN.
Yes, the cost of gas did rise, as did the price of every commodity due to the weakening dollar and the fact that we were borrowing money to fund wars and other programs. When the dollar devalues, it means we can't buy as much of a product for a given amount of money as we were able to before. Now, which party is responsible for the HUGE deficit spending/borrowing and which one left the whitehouse 8 years ago w/ a projected surplus and balanced budget?
When I had my bachelor party on August 4, 2001 I paid $.97 for gas in Sykeston, ND. Yes....97 CENTS, not a typo (nationally gas was $1.27 at that time). So gas prices doubled from August 4, 2001 to around $2.50 back when the democrats won the midterms...at least according to this index:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html
Now, here is what I will say...if you don't like Obama or his tax plan, that is fine. I'm not a huge fan of it either. If you feel that strongly, I suggest you all send your stimulus package checks back as well....all that was designed to do was stimulate the economy by putting money in the pockets of citizens who will spend it on businesses....but I'm guessing each and every one of us that got one, spent it and thought nothing of it. Hypocrites.
-
-
SmitEvo;242130 wrote:
Chuck is turning into a communist....I really can see how you went from liking Ron Paul to even agreeing with Obama. The antichrist must have you under his powers....I seem to recall a conversation at your house one night where, when I asked you who you voting for if Paul didn't get the nomination and you said............ "Probably Obama"
Again, I see this as a stimulus package w/ a plan to pay for it. It SHOULD be short term at best....and likely will be as tax code gets changed yearly.
I'd prefer to see flat taxes...how is this communist/socialist? That is the most fair way of paying taxes....period.
But, with Ron Pauls plan, he called for the end of Personal Income Tax (along with appropriate cuts in spending to match) but maintaining all of the existing corporate and other taxes. OMFG did Ron Paul just say he wants the rich corporations to fund this country so that the working class can keep their hard earned money in their pockets!?!?!?!?! What a communist!!! Oh....wait, that is kinda what Obama is proposing.
-
QFT Dave^^^
And Chuck, quit typing...you're digging yourself into a deeper hole...you aren't going to change any of our minds about Obama and apparently we aren't going to change yours either. You don't need people to admit you are right all the time...
P.S. I'm sorry that moving stuff for your house is more important than your country...every single day I take time to watch the news...whether I have 3 exams the next day or not. It's part of your duty as a citizen to be informed, and until you can take the time to watch a debate (have you ever heard of youtube?) anything you say holds no validity because it's simply an opinion based on partial truths or whole hearted lies.
-
DaveH;242140 wrote:
Personally I'd prefer that people DON'T vote if they don't know wtf they are voting for and have no clue on the issues. Acorn is just messing with the election process./playing devils advocate here
Getting people registered to vote who weren't presently doesn't mean that they don't have a clue on the issues necessarily. It MIGHT spur them to get more involved and work towards their agenda....however right/wrong that agenda may be.
Every year, thousands of voters are turned away at the polls nationwide because they haven't properly filled out their voter registration cards or didn't know that they had to fill out a voter registration card. Making sure that everyone who chooses to vote is able to is not a bad thing IMHO.
But in principle, I agree that people shouldn't vote if they are not up on the issues.
-
torbs;242145 wrote:
QFT Dave^^^And Chuck, quit typing...you're digging yourself into a deeper hole...you aren't going to change any of our minds about Obama and apparently we aren't going to change yours either. You don't need people to admit you are right all the time...
Quit typing? Are you telling me to give up my freedom of speech? Are you challenging me to say that my opinion doesn't matter? I challenge you to quit breathing...no that is not a threat, I'm just asking you to voluntarily give up your right to breath.
P.S. I'm sorry that moving stuff for your house is more important than your country...every single day I take time to watch the news...whether I have 3 exams the next day or not. It's part of your duty as a citizen to be informed, and until you can take the time to watch a debate (have you ever heard of youtube?) anything you say holds no validity because it's simply an opinion based on partial truths or whole hearted lies.
Yes, getting things packed was more important than this debate...more important than my country? Hell no, but the debate wasn't going to swing my vote. And just because McCain/Obama said something about the other doesn't mean that that information is true/accurate and isn't a whole hearted lie.
Do you honestly think that I am not informed on issues? Me? The guy who has an opinion on EVERYTHING! You bring me the issue, I'll answer it or research it until I'm informed.
I chose not to watch a debate....big deal. I knew who I was voting for before the debates. I know WHY I am voting the way I am. Now, tell me about my partial truths & whole hearted lies. I've given you plenty of ammo. Prove me wrong!
FWIW Torbs, I've only voted Dem for pres 1 time thus far (2004). In 2000 I had McCain yard signs in my yard when he was running for the Republican nomination against Bush. This was back when I thought McCain was a common sense politician who wouldn't hesitate to do the right thing because it was the right thing to do. A man who stood on his principles, even if they contradicted his party. Now, he has essentially (in my mind) sold his soul to get the republican nomination....flip-flopped if you will (I know you know that term).
-
mistercmk;242154 wrote:
yes.shit!!!
-
tjamz;242138 wrote:
I seem to recall a conversation at your house one night where, when I asked you who you voting for if Paul didn't get the nomination and you said............ "Probably Obama"Again, I see this as a stimulus package w/ a plan to pay for it. It SHOULD be short term at best....and likely will be as tax code gets changed yearly.
I'd prefer to see flat taxes...how is this communist/socialist? That is the most fair way of paying taxes....period.
But, with Ron Pauls plan, he called for the end of Personal Income Tax (along with appropriate cuts in spending to match) but maintaining all of the existing corporate and other taxes. OMFG did Ron Paul just say he wants the rich corporations to fund this country so that the working class can keep their hard earned money in their pockets!?!?!?!?! What a communist!!! Oh....wait, that is kinda what Obama is proposing.
Last paragraph....think about it. More money in our pockets to spend on businesses. Hmm...I wonder how the economy would look then.
One question Tjamz: What is OBAMA going to do to fix our economy? What is his plan? What is this CHANGE?
-
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=
Some snippits...You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left “community organizers” called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness...
...I’ve already told the story of Obama’s close ties to ACORN leader Madeline Talbott, who personally led Chicago ACORN’s campaign to intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers. Using provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Chicago ACORN was able to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards ...
...At this point, both ACORN and the Clinton administration were working together to impose large numerical targets or “set asides” (really a sort of poor and minority loan quota system) on Fannie and Freddie. ACORN called for at least half of Fannie and Freddie loans to go to low-income customers. At first the Clinton administration offered a set-aside of 30 percent. But eventually ACORN got what it wanted. In early 1994, the Clinton administration floated plans for committing $1 trillion in loans to low- and moderate-income home-buyers, which would amount to about half of Fannie Mae’s business by the end of the decade. Wall Street Analysts attributed Fannie Mae’s willingness to go along with the change to the need to protect itself against still more severe “congressional attack.” News reports also highlighted praise for the change from ACORN’s head lobbyist, Deepak Bhargava.
This sweeping debasement of credit standards was touted by Fannie Mae’s chairman, chief executive officer, and now prominent Obama adviser James A. Johnson. This is also the period when Fannie Mae ramped up its pilot programs and local partnerships with ACORN, all of which became precedents and models for the pattern of risky subprime mortgages at the root of today’s crisis. During these years, Obama’s Chicago ACORN ally, Madeline Talbott, was at the forefront of participation in those pilot programs, and her activities were consistently supported by Obama through both foundation funding and personal leadership training for her top organizers....
...Up to now, conventional wisdom on the financial meltdown has relegated ACORN and the CRA to bit parts. The real problem, we’ve been told, lay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, however, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess. ACORN used CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards. And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.
HMMMM...seems as though Obama and the Dems have some pretty bloody hands when it comes to the whole banking/financial mess we're in right now...Thank GOD for ACORN!
-
SmitEvo;242163 wrote:
Last paragraph....think about it. More money in our pockets to spend on businesses. Hmm...I wonder how the economy would look then.One question Tjamz: What is OBAMA going to do to fix our economy? What is his plan? What is this CHANGE?
-
Isn't that what the Obama tax plan is trying to accomplish as well?
-
See question #1
-
What is MCCAIN going to do to fix the economy?
-
-
Well if the Dem's and Obama hadn't stopped McCain and other Republican requests to investigate (Read: not more government expansion, just investigation) Fan&Fred we might have lessened the blow to the economy and not be up shit creek so far at the moment!
-
StangerBanger96;242169 wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=
Some snippits...HMMMM...seems as though Obama and the Dems have some pretty bloody hands when it comes to the whole banking/financial mess we're in right now...Thank GOD for ACORN!
Fair enough, you bring valid points about Fannie/Freddie and ACORN's involvement with them. I will CONCEDE that point.
Johnson is no longer an advisor for Obama...or at least isn't listed as such, I believe he resigned in July.
-
Now, time for some John McCain shots:
John McCain is a maverick senator, Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war for 5 years in North Vietnam. In 2000, he nearly beat George W. Bush by being an outspoken, even honest politician, which stunned everybody, and only a vicious, fraudulent campaign of lies and racial attacks by George Bush and his political hit men stopped him. McCain is also known for crafting bipartisan approaches to issues such as smoking and campaign reform.
This time around though, at 72, he apparently decided "now or never" and seems to have sold his soul, kissing up to his enemies, hiring the same sleazy political aides who defeated him in 2000, and even abandoning his principled opposition to torture, which was based on his own POW experience. Now, conveniently, he's even claiming to be a Baptist instead of an Episcopalian, and picked a far-right Christian running mate to make peace with conservatives.
It didn't look like anyone was buying it for a while there, but danged if he didn't come back and taken the lead in the race for president. McCain went from Republican front runner to 3rd or 4th in various polls, spent all of his huge pile of cash and lost most of his staff, and worked his way back to win the nomination and lead for president at the beginning of September. Now, it's not looking all that good, and the REAL test of John McCain's character will be how he responds.
And let's not forget his old fashioned regular scandals -- Adultery, gambling, the Keating 5, religious pandering, mafia ties, and his junkie wife.
Quotes
-
"The thought of McCain being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." -- Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known McCain for 35 years.
-
"Look, is this guy, Bin Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before." McCain in 1998, after Clinton shot missiles at Osama
-
"Craps is addictive. ... This is a very, very supersitious game." -- John McCain
-
"You know why Chelsea Clinton's so ugly? Because her dad is Janet Reno." -- McCain
Adultery
For a guy campaigning on family values, John McCain has broken up a lot of marriages. When he met his first wife (a swimsuit model), she was married to naval academy classmate of his. After he broke that marriage up, she stuck by him loyally as he went off to war and was a prisoner for 5 and a half years. When he returned to America, though, he found out that she had been in a car wreck and wasn't as pretty. So he had a series of affairs, by his own admission, and dumped his wife and adopted family for a younger, very rich blond (now Cindy McCain.) Cindy, the daughter of a wealthy Budweiser beer distributor, was addicted to prescription narcotics and even stole hard drugs from a medical charity that she ran. In February, 2008, the New York Times ran a big article about the unusually close relationship between John McCain and a young telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman (who looks uncannily like Cindy McCain did when SHE was 25). They became so close that his staff, convinced they were having an affair, confronted both McCain and Iseman, telling them to back off. Now, a lot of people have criticized the Times for hinting without actually saying that McCain had sexual relations with that woman. But really, it doesn't matter. It's a matter of record that he accepted money and favors from her, spent a lot of time for her, and did favors for her clients. Among other things, McCain wrote two letters -- from a draft provided by Vicki Iseman -- to the head of the Federal Communications Commission -- which was way out of line, since McCain headed the Senate Commmerce Committee, which controls the FCC. McCain's pressure was so outrageous that, even though McCain was in charge of funding his commission, the FCC commissioner wrote a letter back rebuking him for his interference, at the height of McCain's "ethics in government" campaign.
So, was McCain sleeping with her, hoping to sleep with her, or being subconsciously manipulated by a cute young woman? It doesn't really matter. He was being led by his groin into ethical violations. Let's face it, he was 64 at the time and is 72 now. Whether he is still cheating or not, he seems to be led by his dick; witness the videos of McCain checking out Sarah Palin's butt during the speech where he introduced her.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login