Obama goes Orwellian, threatening legal action against media outlets that criticize him. The Missouri governor is having none of it..
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.."
You're right there, Westie! But, the more I look at it, domestically I don't think either McCain or BHO are that far apart. Put them in office and BHO is off and running with just brainiacs as Pelosi, Reid, NEA, Kos, the whole spectrum of lefties. The Blue Dogs would revolt against some of it, but not all. I predict BHO, if elected, will sign a budget with a $1 trillion deficit. Absolutely, unsustainable. McCain is, at least, likely to listen to a free market, limited government, low tax, no bailout mentality. Yes, GTF, I think that a plus. On foreign policy, a BHO presidency is gonna get rolled by some thug government. If we survive a nuclear showdown with Iran, we'll be lucky. He has the wrong instincts in a nasty, dangerous world.
If the GSEs had been completely privatized, as Gramm wanted in '99, they would have fallen under the Fed for oversight and today looked a lot more like JP Morgan Chase and CitiGroup than been sucked into the leftist agenda of Dodd and Frank pushing unsustainable mortgage-backed securities out the door.
Keep digging and just keep watching NoBama just keep losing.
"New USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better.
Obama scored even better -- 52%-35% -- when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country's problems. "
If we survive a nuclear showdown with Iran, we'll be lucky.
A wee bit of hyperbole, GF ?
Quote:
If the GSEs had been completely privatized, as Gramm wanted in '99, they would have fallen under the Fed for oversight...
Now you're in fantasyland. Privatize what was started with public money and then that mysterious oversight (that has been missing in action for the last 8 [more like 27] years) would have saved the day ? I don't think so. Regardless, it didn't happen that way.
As its absolutely pointless, I haven't weighed in on the debate because, as was stated earlier, you saw what you thought you'd see from each candidate depending on his/your viewpoint.
Obama was much more polished and at ease with the format. However, honestly, listening to his words, he just didn't say anything of substance. He was glib not informative.
McCain was stiff, appeared uncomfortable with the setting, and stumbled speaking a lot. He had more specifics to say, but said them badly, usually.
That said, while normally a fan of Lehrer (the moderator), I did not like his constant trying to get the candidates to mix it up. Ask the questions, call time when required, but stay the hell out of the equation.
I think Biden-Palin will be more interesting both for form and substance.
The last McCain-Obama debate might be a little more dramatic as a 'make or break' campaign event.
GTF, you said it only took that six months for 'another union' to form. Two points, I thought NATCA was an 'association,' not a union. Secondly, if it is a union, it seems to lack any balls. The President's work order seems to have NATCA unhappy but unwilling to do anything in response. (I would too if I were earning an average of well over $100K per year as well). NATCA or its 'aggrieved' members could say 'no' and quit. Curious how most are going for the retirement at the ripe old age of 55. FAA management, to be sure, is very Keystone Cop-ish, but the problems lie with both management and labor. I'm sure you disagree. Is there more to the situation than that?
Also curious how some of the ATC functions are done by SSgt Smith and co. who make a hell of lot less at those facilities where DoD handles ATC functions for military and civil traffic.
I still believe that when it comes time to press the button, punch the ticket, pull the lever, etc, etc, most folks (of those voting, still will be less than half of the eligible population, I predict) will do a gut check and ask themselves who do they trust more to keep them safe and (somewhat) secure.
I don't believe Obama will win that last evaluation. I could very well be wrong, but I don't think so.
As an example, my oldest - the youth vote so coveted by the Democrats and trumpeted by the media - was at one time a Ron Paul fan. As that caught me offguard, I did some research on Congressman Paul and learned much. Enough to believe he was a one-trick pony (also mentioned here previously). My son was very interested in the political process, made sure he registered to vote so he could vote in the primary, etc. etc. Now, however, he's off to his first year of college and I'm getting "uh, whatever" when I try to talk politics (ok, anything really) with him. His interest is with the bright shiny objects (co-eds) near to hand, not the election.
Come to think of it, the boy's brilliant! But I digress...
But, again, should Obama lose, those here in his camp, particularly the non-US ppruners who know what's best for the US and thus, themselves, will put it down to Obama's race, not his policies or lack thereof.
Anyone on that side prepared to say publicly they won't make that claim?
In the 2004 U.S. presidential election campaign, McCain was once again frequently mentioned for the vice-presidential slot, only this time as part of the Democratic ticket under nominee John Kerry.
Forgive me. Lord, I Apologize. That wasn't nice was it ? Oh well, take comfort in the fact that it isn't from a "primary source." It's just Wikipedia again.
Yep, polls always, without fail predict the winner.
Absolutely, polls have never been wrong.
Oops, what happened?
Nixon won the debate against Kennedy, Kennedy won.
If I wanted a great debater as President I would be supporting some brain dead professor from Harvard or Yale, they may dumber than a box of rocks, but they sure speak pretty. Case in point, do you what defines a great debater?
'Some one who can win a debate with absolutely no knowledge of the subject at hand, against an expert in said subject'.
Now, an example.
There was a very popular person that was running for Governor of Oklahoma. One of the most important issues in the election was that of a law that many people in the urban areas wanted the next Governor to put their weigh behind and support a bill ending what was termed 'Open range'. 'Open range' allowed ranchers and farmers to allow their livestock to range openly on their land and if a county road or state highway happened to cross their land, their livestock were allowed to wander across the roadway, which had a history of causing accidents and/or delays in traffic. Obviously the logical solution was to pass a law prohibiting this 'Open range' practice.
However, in the southeast part of the state the people were dead set against any change in the law. Mainly because the people in the southeast part of the state are against any change of any kind, they're just that way. So, our budding very popular politician decides to go to the southeast part of the state to win their vote in the upcoming election. He was told that the folks in southeast part of the state were for 'Open range' and did not want to change the law. And off he goes.
As it turns out he is over an hour late arriving where he is to speak. Never the less he gives a rousing speech supporting 'Open range', he tells the people that 'Open range' is as American as mom's apple pie, only commies and hippies would be against 'Open range' (commies and hippies being interchangeable in the minds of our friends in the southeast part of the state, to be feared, hated and never trusted), that change the law would be against all that had made America great and that them there fancy city folks had no business telling the good people of the southeast what to do.
Well, my God he brought the house down, women were crying, men were yelling and clapping, people were standing on chairs, all cheering out in great passion for our friend to become the next Governor, there were shouts for him to be the next president of the United States of America. Yes, he had them in the palm of his hand.
After the crying, the yelling and shouting died down our friend bid goodbye, and in doing so he said the following.
"My friends, before I take your leave I must apologize for being late this evening, but on my way down here we were delayed by a bunch of durn cows on the road. As soon as I am elected Governor, with your help, I'm going to pass a law stopping this nonsense."
He lost the election because 99.9% of the people in the southeast part of the state voted for his opponent.
So, enjoy the debates.
Who I desire for President is some with experience in business, leadership, dealing with foreign governments, management and knows how to delegate. This election that would have been Bill Richardson (D) of New Mexico or Rudy Giuliana (R) of New York. It would have been a very hard decision for me on whom to vote for if the two of them had been nominated.
Unfortunately we ended up with Obama and McCain. McCain is the only choice, even if his running mate was Popeye.
Anyway, as long as you are having fun posting polls, you just go right ahead.
Location: not the @r$& end of the earth but can see it from here.
Posts: 319
tv debates
TV debates are nonsense.Neither candidate will go out on a limb and say anything for fear of making a mistake.better to say nothing rather than make a blunder.Its the way it it is.Sadly.
From my reading of history and briefings now three years old--a thoughtful NO! They realized after Desert Storm and the three week march up the Euphrates that any confrontation with America required a nuke in the back pocket and no bluffs. The real battle in the ME is with the Persians and their historic desire for hegemony in the Gulf. And that hegemony requires the US out. They may not desire a nuclear confrontation, but, if the reward is hegemony, they'll do it. I'll end that there.
But overflying Iran is quite pleasant, friendly radar-equipped ATC, that apologizes for descending us out of F470 to F390 "due to Karachi".
GF
PS: I do not think a military attack on Iran is wise, either. It and Pakistan are THE foreign policy problems for the next administration. I guarantee the war games on this one make the ones on Pakistan/India look like the local Sunday polka party.
Last edited by galaxy flyer : 29th September 2008 at 03:34.
Earlier I tried to argue for limited government, guided by the US Constitution. Democrats and some Republicans (unfortunately, only "some") scream "unconstitutional" at some of Bush's moves. The NYT says, paraphrasing here, that Bush is tearing up the Constitution.
Well, doing some research, President James Madison, who wrote it, had this to say about a bill presented to him authorizing "internal improvements" (infrastructure in today's terms).
"I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it...to the House of Representatives, in which it originated. The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section on the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed (internal improvements, roads in this case, my addition) to be exercised by bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States."
IOW, Article I, Section 8 says what it says and it is binding. He wrote it, should know what he meant it to say.
So when anyone, ANYONE cries big tears that the President or Congress is acting unconstitutionally-read that one. The Government, run by both parties have been destroying the Constitution relentlessly. Obama and McCain are not likely to break the chain. The bailout is only the latest outrage!!
Yes, GTF, he might, just might, be the last President that didn't betray us. All is forgiven about the War of 1812, if the Canucks can forgive us? How 'bout it, rotornut?
Really strolling the web tonight and came across this one. Jeff Jacoby, liberal writer for the liberal Boston Globe owned by the house organ of lefty politics says Barney Frank is the one responsible for the meltdown.
For those that think the Sage of Omaha is a great investor, here's why:
Without in any way impugning his motives, let me state the impact on Warren Buffett personally if the bailout is enacted.
Think of the mortgage securities market as the World Series of Poker. In fact, a great book about it is Liar's Poker, by Michael Lewis. Lewis was a trainee at Salomon Brothers, and he learned phrases like "Big Swinging D___," which describes a swaggering, aggressive mortgage banker. Henry Paulson fits the model.
The best players in this World Series of Poker are the folks at Goldman. They hired Fischer Black and other geniuses back when the markets were first getting going. They have typically had the best squad of geeks around.
Buffett just bought a stake in Goldman. That stake would be a lot more valuable if there were actually a poker game--that is, if mortgage securities were still trading. Right now, they're not trading. So Goldman is sitting there ready to play and no one is ready to play with them.
Along comes Uncle Sam, who wants to take a one-hour lesson in poker and then sit down and play in the World Series with $700 billion in chips. And whaddaya know? Warren Buffett thinks Uncle Sam really has to get in the game.
I didn't say Shadow Stats had a Democrat or Republican agenda, just an agenda, his own. I don't doubt the USG numbers can be off some, but there are waaaay too many people looking at the US economy, world-wide, to fooled by bad US numbers. The arbitrage opportunities are simply too great for errors of his magnitude to go unnoticed by the financial world. We're talking trillions in opportunities If Williams had better numbers on the US, running a website would be the least of his desires.
Talk about Hobson's choice.I wont be voting.McCain(nice guy) is unsuitable as President and Obama is unqualified.Both their VP selections are woefully unsuitable(Biden) /unqualified(Palin).Last good Pres we had was Reagan.Last great one was FDR.I see 4 more years of real uncertainty.Frankly,its embarassing as an American that this is the best we can come up with.Giuliani and Clinton were the 2 best candidates.If McCain can persuade Powell to join his team,there might be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I've always admired the gumption of folks like you Rananim who will vote for a no snowballs chance in hell of winning candidate, brings out the romantic dreamer in me.
As a luke warm Republican (because a libertarian will never be elected) and equally luke warm McCain supporter (lesser of the two evils) I do wonder the pragmatism of a third party vote when viewed against the backdrop of a two horse race that is neck in neck in the final stretch.
Now if I can only get my Mom, a life long Dem to write in Hillary's name as a protest vote.
Privatize what was started with public money and then that mysterious oversight (that has been missing in action for the last 8 [more like 27] years) would have saved the day ? I don't think so. Regardless, it didn't happen that way.
Linear Mode
