Sarah Palin Interview

[Professor S]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YD3Yk9RZRF0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YD3Yk9RZRF0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

How do you think she did? So far the pundit consensus has been mixed, but mainly due to political issues and not performance. Did she make any gaffes, or was she confident and professional in her answers?

[TheGame]

She was good in the respect that she knew how to keep her mouth jabbing and kept her composure. But bad in the respect that her answers were defensive/evasive. Doesn't make her much different from others who get into politics.

[GameMaster]

I didn't see the whole interview yesterday but that one part where Charlie asks if we have the right to cross the border with or without the consent of the Pakistani government... she fails to ever answer the question specifically and Charlie calls her out on that 2 or 3 times. He just asks her again because she just makes this real round-about ambiguous statements.

[Jason1]

All I can say is I cant wait for the Vice Presidential debate. Oh my yes...Biden will eat this ho for dinner!

[The Germanator]

I didn't think she did a very good job. She tried to exude a false sense of confidence that just came across as arrogant and nervous.

The "Bush Doctrine" question was a total debacle for her. "In what respect, Charlie" sounded exactly like a high school kid who doesn't have a clue what the answer is and is trying to stall for time.

She was generally evasive on national security questions as she kept referring "what I bring to the table" in terms of energy policy even though that's not what Gibson was asking her. The fact that she seriously thinks being able to see Russia from Alaska is a qualification is an absolute joke and I'm surprised the McCain campaign still is trying to use this. She also was a bit trapped by the NATO question regarding Georgia and Ukraine. I guess we're going to war with Russia...

There was another great moment where Gibson called her out on her "the war on Iraq is a mission from God" quote.

PALIN: Well, Charlie, I'm not sure those were my exact words...

GIBSON: Exact words

Way to go Sarah. She tried to play it off with the Abraham Lincoln nonsense, which was a pretty good dodge, but she kind of bungled that too.

She also mistakenly said that "if you look at the history of VP's, many have never met a world leader before taking office." A nice notion, but wrong. The VPs for the last 44 years had at least met a world leader, even Dan "effing" Quayle.

It wasn't a huge train wreck, but it wasn't good either. I think we know why McCain has hid her from any media event without a prepared speech. Seriously, how many times did she say "Charlie" and how obnoxious was that?

Definitely looking forward to October 2nd with her and Biden. Should be interesting.

[Professor S]

I didn't think she did a very good job. She tried to exude a false sense of confidence that just came across as arrogant and nervous.

The "Bush Doctrine" question was a total debacle for her. "In what respect, Charlie" sounded exactly like a high school kid who doesn't have a clue what the answer is and is trying to stall for time.

Actually, it turns out her response to that question was more appropriate than the media or Charlie Gibson would have you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

She was generally evasive on national security questions as she kept referring "what I bring to the table" in terms of energy policy even though that's not what Gibson was asking her. The fact that she seriously thinks being able to see Russia from Alaska is a qualification is an absolute joke and I'm surprised the McCain campaign still is trying to use this. She also was a bit trapped by the NATO question regarding Georgia and Ukraine. I guess we're going to war with Russia...

Here's the thing: I agree with her. Both Georgia and the Ukraine should be in NATO and if they are attacked all NATO allies should respond as is demanded by the NATO charter.

There was another great moment where Gibson called her out on her "the war on Iraq is a mission from God" quote.

PALIN: Well, Charlie, I'm not sure those were my exact words...

GIBSON: Exact words

Actually, those werwen't her exact words.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9H-btXPfhGs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9H-btXPfhGs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Here is what she said, and she said to pray that our War in Iraq was part of God's plan, because if it isn't then we would obviously being working and commiting violence against His wishes. If anything, it shows that she has doubts and conflicts about the war if she is asking people to pray that it is God's will.

I agree with the rest of your criticism's, but Charles Gibson was obviously hostile during the entire interview, and either was ignorant or deceitful in representing her stances on many issues. I thought she did well, considering.

Conversely, I find it hilarious that it has taken the media two weeks to dig more information up about Sarah's past and family while it took over a YEAR for them to even mention Reverend Wright, William Ayers or any of Obama's scandalous relations, and two seconds to forget them. I honestly NEVER want to hear anyone state that there isn't severe liberal media bias. That argument is bankrupt.

[Jason1]

There isnt severe liberal media bias. Its all a bunch of bull. The media tells it how it is, simply put. The truth hurts sometimes, Professor.

[Professor S]

There isnt severe liberal media bias. Its all a bunch of bull. The media tells it how it is, simply put. The truth hurts sometimes, Professor.

I mean, if YOU say there is no bias, well then, it must not exist... you being the arbiter of all things fair and balanced

[The Germanator]

I don't think there is bias. I feel like both sides get a lot of guff from the media. If anything, the main stream media is just horrible these days.

This article sums up a lot about how I feel about it. Of course, the author is probably just a "liberal", right? The facts he mentions about the media won't matter I guess.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/28/mcclellan/

EDIT: And I got the Palin quote wrong, I was going from memory. Remind me why "task from God" is any better than "mission from God?" I kind of get what you're saying, but not being a very religious person, it's a bit weird for me. A bit too "holy war" for me I guess.

And Charlie being harsh? He asked her a simple question about the Bush Doctrine. High schoolers are taught what the Bush Doctrine is in their text book these days and she has no clue what it is. I don't think he was harsh, I think he was absolutely befuddled that this woman might be our VP.

Remember Gibson at the Democratic debates?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html

He was horrible. This time he actually asked questions about a candidate's policies which people haven't been doing enough of lately.

McCain on the View today was fairly humorous as well...

[Bond]

And Charlie being harsh? He asked her a simple question about the Bush Doctrine. High schoolers are taught what the Bush Doctrine is in their text book these days and she has no clue what it is. I don't think he was harsh, I think he was absolutely befuddled that this woman might be our VP.
This is humorous.

I, personally, could not give a cut-and-dry answer if asked to define the "Bush Doctrine." Perhaps this is because: 1) the "Bush Doctrine" has changed throughout Bush's presidency and 2) Bush's presidency is not yet over.

I can, however, give you a nuanced and intricate answer as to what the "Bush Doctrine" is... sound like anyone else we may know?


And the polarization begins.

[Teuthida]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/anxkrm9uEJk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/anxkrm9uEJk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Professor S]

I find Matt Damon's comments to be a direct reflection of the sheer hippocracy of many Obama supporters. How do you criticize her experience, as she is running for Vice President, and not Barack Obama who is running for PRESIDENT who has barely more experience on a national stage and less than her as an elected official?

Its this kind of willful blindness that drives me nuts, and honestly, drives a lot of independent minded voter's nuts. All they're doing is bringing more attention to Barack Obama's inexperience, as he is the one running for national office.

And Germ, you make decent mpoints that center on one event in American history, but you must remember that ther majority of politicians, both right AND left were for the Iraq War as it began, so I really don't you can call that as an example of media bias. That and Scott McClellan was and is an idiot who was given the position as more of a favor to his daddy, a practice I've always disliked that Pres. Bush took part in. Still, how do you explain the run-up to this election and the severe, and I mean SEVERE disparity in the coverage in both time given AND the tone in which the news is given?

[TheGame]

I find Matt Damon's comments to be a direct reflection of the sheer hippocracy of many Obama supporters. How do you criticize her experience, as she is running for Vice President, and not Barack Obama who is running for PRESIDENT who has barely more experience on a national stage and less than her as an elected official?

Its this kind of willful blindness that drives me nuts, and honestly, drives a lot of independent minded voter's nuts. All they're doing is bringing more attention to Barack Obama's inexperience, as he is the one running for national office.

I don't know about all that the hippocracy isn't in his opinions on it, its in the fact that Mccain chose her dispite using inexperience as a weapon against Obama. He picked someone less experienced on the national stage, and who a lot less people even know about. I think anyone who was bashing Obama for lack of experience, but who is now strongly supporting Palin are the biggest hypocrites there are personally.

(Yes, I'm twisting it back.)

The truth of the matter is the majority of the people are going to vote off of who's in the party they support regardless of how unfit they are for the job. They'll find every reason to defend their canadate and bash the others even if they share in the same downfalls. Most "democrats" and "republicans" are guilty of this.

I think that palin's a cool person with a cool story, but I really think Mccain picked her for all the wrong reasons. It just makes a bigger joke of what this whole election is. If Obama and Mccain are the only two people left fit to be president, then this country is pretty sad right now.

[Dyne]

Hahaha, they were bashing that Damon interview on the Adam Carolla show, I think it was. Let me point out one thing that completely invalidates his opinion:

"McCain has a 1/3 chance OR MORE of surviving his first term and then oh look IT'S PRESIDENT PALIN."

The actual number was that McCain's chance of survival was 1/3 for two terms, not one term. I think someone got a little upset and rushed to judgements a little early.

[Dylflon]

I have a really good idea for a drinking game.


Every time a right-wing, ultra-biased television personality or reporter whines about the "liberal media", everyone takes a drink.

And since there are so many ultra-conservative TV personalities, who are ultra-biased, and straight out maliciously attack the left wing, we'd all get really drunk.

I think we could call it

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black: Drinking Game Edition

[Dylflon]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/dylflon/experience.jpg

[Jason1]

Nice Dyflon, tru dat.

[The Germanator]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6lA3bgHc11ISwLz7m

This had to be done. Tina Fey is perfect.

[Jason1]

yea, I watched that last night. My dad actually thought it was really Sarah Palin for a few seconds.

[Professor S]

I don't know about all that the hippocracy isn't in his opinions on it, its in the fact that Mccain chose her dispite using inexperience as a weapon against Obama. He picked someone less experienced on the national stage, and who a lot less people even know about. I think anyone who was bashing Obama for lack of experience, but who is now strongly supporting Palin are the biggest hypocrites there are personally.

(Yes, I'm twisting it back.)

The truth of the matter is the majority of the people are going to vote off of who's in the party they support regardless of how unfit they are for the job. They'll find every reason to defend their canadate and bash the others even if they share in the same downfalls. Most "democrats" and "republicans" are guilty of this.

I think that palin's a cool person with a cool story, but I really think Mccain picked her for all the wrong reasons. It just makes a bigger joke of what this whole election is. If Obama and Mccain are the only two people left fit to be president, then this country is pretty sad right now.

I agree with most of what you you say here. I'm not a fan of the Palin pick either, but the way that the media has lost its mind over her pick, when Obama barely has more experience than her, is just an example of how rediculous the media is. I agree, the Republicans went after Obama's ionexperience, but the media never did or never did with much care or vigor, and just the opposite is true for the Palin nomination. Also, how they have dug up and attacked her family is beyond the norm, especially considering the most they've done as a public face for the campaign was stand next to her on stage.

Dyflon, Germ and Jason, you can hoot and howl all you like about claims of media bias, but a spade is a spade. No amount of jokes or mocking can erase the OBVIOUS bias that the media has shown since the Palin pick. That doesn't mean that I am defending her pick, it just means I'm pointing out the obvious. At some point you'll have to look at a situation and recognize it for what it is.

The problem with how the left is reacting to this, is that its working for McCain. The more the Palin pick receives such hollywood and media backlash, the more they alientate the country from the cause, and point out Obama's own inexperience and the fact that he is the PRESIDENTIAL candiate with little experience, and not the VP candidate and thats a big difference.

In the end, if they continue with such wolfpack tactics, this is going to be 2004 all over again: The Republicans will win and the Democata will be left scratching their heads, wondering how the hell they lost.

[TheGame]

I agree to an extent, but there's one key difference between Obama and Palin. Obama, as inexperienced as he may be, actually was VOTED in to be where he is now. He went up against more experienced people and what not, and he BEAT them. He actually "earned" his sponsor from the democratic party by appealing to the people.

Palin on the other hand, well.. The problems I have with her are similar to yours so it goes without saying. But the difference is, her being VP is a direct reflection of Mccain's decision making ability. It doesn't fall on the voters shoulders whatsoever outside of the fact that they picked Mccain and believed in his judgement. And he made a bad decision to me personally.

The media can sound 'bias' all they want, but the fact remains there is no face you can put out as the 'person who made a bad judgement and picked Obama' because his party voted him in. Most republicans I know were not too happy with Palin being the choice, though some have warmed up, most of them still don't think it was a good idea.

[The Germanator]

Dyflon, Germ and Jason, you can hoot and howl all you like about claims of media bias, but a spade is a spade. No amount of jokes or mocking can erase the OBVIOUS bias that the media has shown since the Palin pick. That doesn't mean that I am defending her pick, it just means I'm pointing out the obvious. At some point you'll have to look at a situation and recognize it for what it is.

The problem with how the left is reacting to this, is that its working for McCain. The more the Palin pick receives such hollywood and media backlash, the more they alientate the country from the cause, and point out Obama's own inexperience and the fact that he is the PRESIDENTIAL candiate with little experience, and not the VP candidate and thats a big difference.

In the end, if they continue with such wolfpack tactics, this is going to be 2004 all over again: The Republicans will win and the Democata will be left scratching their heads, wondering how the hell they lost.

Okay...You call it obvious bias and I say that it's not obvious bias. Where have we gotten with this? You know who first called out the "liberal media?" It was segregationists. They were upset that Blacks were getting an equal say opposing Jim Crow laws. But, no, I guess they shouldn't have reported that because it was biased against the segregationists. I understand this doesn't really have to do with current times, but there's been nothing to show me coverage has been biased. It seems like the Right knows they have the media in their back pocket and are afraid when the left makes any kind of intrusion on it.

I love your term, "wolfpack tactics." I guess that means FLAT OUT LYING from the McCain campaign. They were even called out by FACTCHECK.ORG for mis-quoting one of their articles. They said Palin went to Iraq, she didn't. Their attack ads have been downright shameful. They said Obama taught sex-ed to kindergarteners, but it was really just a bill to teach them how to avoid approaching threatening strangers. And guess what? The media hasn't given McCain nearly as much shit as he deserves for it. You can say it's as effective as it is, but you can't deny that it makes McCain lose a hell of a lot of integrity. You can stand by these so-called "wolf-pack" ideals if you want, but I don't know how you live with yourself by supporting them, just like I don't know how McCain does. Case in point from the McCain campaign

'We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.’

They don't care about people or the issues. Sad.

Palin is a fad. The post-convention bump has already showed itself. Gallup has it at 47% to 45% McCain, a statistical tie. Smart people will tire of the negative campaign run by the countless D.C lobbyists and Karl Rove. Just because the media calls them out on his lies doesn't mean they are biased. Have you ever thought that maybe Palin just has a hell of a lot more dirt on her than Obama?? It's been 19 months, maybe Obama has a lot less skeletons in his closet than you want him to. McCain cheated on his bed-ridden wife, I haven't heard much about this. I wonder why...

EDIT: And I posted the SNL thing because I thought it was, you know, funny. There's no reason to get bent out of shape about it.

[Bond]

Stop polarization!

[The Germanator]

Stop polarization!

Tell that to the "Straight Talk Express." Seriously. Back in 2000 (if I could have voted) I might have gone for McCain instead of Gore, but the guy has really lost his integrity.

[Dylflon]

Prof: The reason I mock is because anyone on the right wing can do as much mudslinging at anyone they choose. And they do it extensively. The anti-Kerry swiftboat commercials come to mind.

I see so much right wing mud slinging yet when it comes from the other direction, republicans just boo-hoo because it's not fair and the media is biased.

I hear this liberal bias argument FAR TOO OFTEN, and it honestly just sounds to me like whiny spoiled child syndrome. Don't dish it if you can't take it.

[TheGame]

Tell that to the "Straight Talk Express." Seriously. Back in 2000 (if I could have voted) I might have gone for McCain instead of Gore, but the guy has really lost his integrity.

Mccain on the view was the funniest thing ever. This video sums up a lot of thoughts:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rwMyYaTvjXY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rwMyYaTvjXY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Professor S]

1) If you read all of factcheck.org, you'll see a lot of dirt coming from Obama as well. The mud-slinging has gone both ways.

here is an excellent example:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EQobIUE1zTU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EQobIUE1zTU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The truth is that the hunting was culling wolf overpopulation that was destroying Carilbou herds. So I guess not the McCain camp should come out and attack Obama as anti-caribou? Do you see how silly all of the claims that McCain has been more negative than Obama? They've both been negative.

As for the sex-ed claim: Did you read the bill, or just repeat what Obama said? Read the legislation, and then get back to me. It was a LOT more than avoiding predadators.

2) What does segregation have to do with any of this? Do you honestly think that argument holds any water in today's political media scene? Why won't anyone challenge the points I made instead of dismissing them because "you've heard it before"? Once again, a spade is a spade, regardless of whther or not you've seen one before.

3) Palin was not my first, second or fourth choice, but you can't argue with the pick, politically. Now McCain is winning where he was being handed a drubbing before. Palin gave him a 10 point swing, got the Obama campaign on the defensive, mobilized the conservative base, raised a ton of money and will launch him into the debates. He needed that if he wanted to win. If you don't win you don't get to make any judgements, and with McCain's long history of independently minded legislation, I'm willing to forgive some actions taken during the heat of a campaign because I feel he is by far rthe superior candidate based on the issues (namely healthcare tax rebates, energy policy, vetoing earmarks, and international issues).

You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.

Anbd haven't they figured out this doesn't work?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13433.html

The strategy of attaching Bush to McCain HAS NOT WORKED. Voters over 30 with a memory remember the 200 campaign. They remember McCain coming out against certain Bush policies and a long history of centrist legislative leadership, and they aren't buying it. "McSame failed at the convention and it will fail again. You don't have to believe me, look at the polls:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7360265.stm

Obama was slipping against McCain since the beginning of the summer, and now he's losing. YET they are going to go back to more of the same. I don't think they've figured out that McCain is bulletproof on that point.

Obama should be attacking McCain on where THEY differ, and leave Bush out of it. He should be putting out ads, with more specifics (all you need is a single sentence blurb as McCain has shown), about healthcare, taxes, Iraq strategy, etc. He needs to give more than just "lower taxes for 95% of Americans". "provide healthcare", and "get out of Iraq in a timely manner".

Instead, they'll continue with more of what has done nothing for them to gain new support. Once again, this shouldn't even be close.

[The Germanator]

1) If you read all of factcheck.org, you'll see a lot of dirt coming from Obama as well. The mud-slinging has gone both ways.

here is an excellent example:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EQobIUE1zTU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EQobIUE1zTU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The truth is that the hunting was culling wolf overpopulation that was destroying Carilbou herds. So I guess not the McCain camp should come out and attack Obama as anti-caribou? Do you see how silly all of the claims that McCain has been more negative than Obama? They've both been negative.

As for the sex-ed claim: Did you read the bill, or just repeat what Obama said? Read the legislation, and then get back to me. It was a LOT more than avoiding predadators.

2) What does segregation have to do with any of this? Do you honestly think that argument holds any water in today's political media scene? Why won't anyone challenge the points I made instead of dismissing them because "you've heard it before"? Once again, a spade is a spade, regardless of whther or not you've seen one before.

3) Palin was not my first, second or fourth choice, but you can't argue with the pick, politically. Now McCain is winning where he was being handed a drubbing before. Palin gave him a 10 point swing, got the Obama campaign on the defensive, mobilized the conservative base, raised a ton of money and will launch him into the debates. He needed that if he wanted to win. If you don't win you don't get to make any judgements, and with McCain's long history of independently minded legislation, I'm willing to forgive some actions taken during the heat of a campaign because I feel he is by far rthe superior candidate based on the issues (namely healthcare tax rebates, energy policy, vetoing earmarks, and international issues).

You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.

Anbd haven't they figured out this doesn't work?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13433.html

The strategy of attaching Bush to McCain HAS NOT WORKED. Voters over 30 with a memory remember the 200 campaign. They remember McCain coming out against certain Bush policies and a long history of centrist legislative leadership, and they aren't buying it. "McSame failed at the convention and it will fail again. You don't have to believe me, look at the polls. Obama was slipping against McCain since the beginning of the summer, and now he's losing. YET they are going to go back to more of the same. I don't think they've figured out that McCain is bulletproof on that point.

Obama should be attacking McCain on where THEY differ, and leave Bush out of it. He should be putting out ads, with more specifics (all you need is a single sentence blurb as McCain has shown), about healthcare, taxes, Iraq strategy, etc. He needs to give more than just "lower taxes for 95% of Americans". "provide healthcare", and "get out of Iraq in a timely manner".

Instead, they'll continue with more of what has done nothing for them to gain new support. Once again, this shouldn't even be close.

Did I miss something, Professor? Explain to me where the ad you posted says that it is approved by Barack Obama. It doesn't? Oh yeah, it doesn't. It actually specifically says it is not affiliated with any candidate. Nice try though. All of the ads I mentioned were specifically endorsed by McCain. The things dismissed by Factcheck were about smears from liberal blogs, not anyone in Obama's camp.

Here is an article about the Obama legislation...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/sex-ed-for-kids/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314

He wasn't even a sponsor, but he voted for it. Parents didn't have to agree to it and it didn't teach anything explicit. What exactly is the problem here? I couldn't find the full legislation, but only every major news organization denouncing it as absurd. Spin it your own way though, go ahead.

In the end, yeah I agree, in the short term, the Palin pick has worked. I don't think the enthusiasm will last for more than another week or so, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never said that the Obama was running a great campaign, and yeah, the point is to win, but I respect Obama's take on it. He called the media's bullshit on the "lipstick on a pig" story when McCain ran with it and he immediately said Palin's family was off-limits from the get go. The Republicans cry sexism every time a criticism has run against Palin, but didn't feel that way when Hillary was a threat. In the end, the Republicans will do whatever they can to win, whether that means bending the truth or taking any position when it favors them. Yes, this is politics, and if they need to play dirty to win, great, but it feels better to root for the good guys who actually seem to have the country's interests in hand rather than their own power. Call me naive if you want, but nothing about McCain's borderline untruthful campaign tells me he's going to help this country. When is the last time he mentioned a specific policy of his own and how it will help America? I wish I was being facetious in asking this question, but I really can't remember. In the end, I'd rather believe in truth and hope than fear and lies, but I suppose we differ there.

And I did challenge your assertion on the "liberal media." I asked you whether it's possible that Palin just really has more skeletons in her closet than Obama. The media has had 19 months to run at Obama and they've dug up what they could (secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, anti-American wife, Jeremiah Wright, etc). The media was presented with somebody the general public didn't know with just 60 days left in the election and you expected nothing to happen? Palin has had a questionable past (Troopergate, congressional earmarks, Bridge to Nowhere, hiring friends to high-level positions in Alaskan government) and these are all legitimate concerns.

[TheGame]

You want to question McCain's judgement because of the Palin pick? Fine. He was losing, now he's winning. How's that for judgement? Obama picked Biden because he needed experience on the ticket and he was scared to death of the Clintons. The truth is, if Obama had picked Clinton, this race would be OVER right now.

:ohreilly:

That's a good point, however it goes against what he stood for in the begining. He didn't pick her because she's fit to be president in case he dies. He picked her to scoop up a few extra votes and to get more attention. Basically Mccain has sold completly out to try and win this election.

[Professor S]

Did I miss something, Professor? Explain to me where the ad you posted says that it is approved by Barack Obama. It doesn't? Oh yeah, it doesn't. It actually specifically says it is not affiliated with any candidate. Nice try though.

Honestly, I missed that. I don't try and "slip things passed". I thought it was an approved Obama ad, and I'll concede the point.

All of the ads I mentioned were specifically endorsed by McCain. The things dismissed by Factcheck were about smears from liberal blogs, not anyone in Obama's camp.

Here is an article about the Obama legislation...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/sex-ed-for-kids/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314

He wasn't even a sponsor, but he voted for it. Parents didn't have to agree to it and it didn't teach anything explicit. What exactly is the problem here? I couldn't find the full legislation, but only every major news organization denouncing it as absurd. Spin it your own way though, go ahead.[/quote]

I never said that there was a porblem, I said that the statement the Obama campaign made in saying it was only about child protection was dishonest, AND IT WAS regardless of what anyone says about it. I never made value judgements on the legislation, only Obama's dishonest response to it. The fact is the legislation involved teaching chjildren as young as 5 about intercourse, same-sex couples, etc., and not just protection. No spin needed.

In the end, yeah I agree, in the short term, the Palin pick has worked. I don't think the enthusiasm will last for more than another week or so, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never said that the Obama was running a great campaign, and yeah, the point is to win, but I respect Obama's take on it. He called the media's bullshit on the "lipstick on a pig" story when McCain ran with it and he immediately said Palin's family was off-limits from the get go. The Republicans cry sexism every time a criticism has run against Palin, but didn't feel that way when Hillary was a threat.

I agree completely. I think the Republicans have lost their mind in trying to push everything as an attack against women/age/etc. Republicans don't do well playing themselves as victiums, nor should they do so.

In the end, the Republicans will do whatever they can to win, whether that means bending the truth or taking any position when it favors them. Yes, this is politics, and if they need to play dirty to win, great, but it feels better to root for the good guys who actually seem to have the country's interests in hand rather than their own power. Call me naive if you want, but nothing about McCain's borderline untruthful campaign tells me he's going to help this country. When is the last time he mentioned a specific policy of his own and how it will help America? I wish I was being facetious in asking this question, but I really can't remember. In the end, I'd rather believe in truth and hope than fear and lies, but I suppose we differ there.

My biggest complaint here is the willful blindness you show in this post. You blame Republicans for doing whatever it takes, and not Democrats? Obama has been dishonest down to his policies, renaming government grants as "tax breaks" when they are really redistributiuon of wealth programs. He has said that McCain was against Bush's tax cuts, without explaining that he was against the tax cuts not being associated with cuts in spending, and not against the tax cuts themselves. That is a lie of omission and a misrepresentation.

And I did challenge your assertion on the "liberal media." I asked you whether it's possible that Palin just really has more skeletons in her closet than Obama. The media has had 19 months to run at Obama and they've dug up what they could (secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, anti-American wife, Jeremiah Wright, etc). The media was presented with somebody the general public didn't know with just 60 days left in the election and you expected nothing to happen? Palin has had a questionable past (Troopergate, congressional earmarks, Bridge to Nowhere, hiring friends to high-level positions in Alaskan government) and these are all legitimate concerns.

No, you aren't arguing my point. My point wasn't about whether or not the media addressed Obama's skeletons, but how they did so. It took over a YEAR from Obama's announcement that he was running for the media to even mention William Ayers or Reverend Wright. It took 4 DAYS for them to dig up everything on Palin. If you can't see the difference, nothing I say will help you see it.

And for the record, the media never claimed that Obama was a secret Muslim, they debunked the assinine e-mail that went around claiming that he was a secret Muslim.

And as long as we're posting SNL skits, remember thje debate parody when Obama was asked if he needed a pillow? Yeah, its like that.

[Professor S]

Did I miss something, Professor? Explain to me where the ad you posted says that it is approved by Barack Obama. It doesn't? Oh yeah, it doesn't. It actually specifically says it is not affiliated with any candidate. Nice try though.

Honestly, I missed that. I don't try and "slip things passed". I thought it was an approved Obama ad, and I'll concede the point.

All of the ads I mentioned were specifically endorsed by McCain. The things dismissed by Factcheck were about smears from liberal blogs, not anyone in Obama's camp.

Here is an article about the Obama legislation...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/09/sex-ed-for-kids/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314

He wasn't even a sponsor, but he voted for it. Parents didn't have to agree to it and it didn't teach anything explicit. What exactly is the problem here? I couldn't find the full legislation, but only every major news organization denouncing it as absurd. Spin it your own way though, go ahead.

I never said that there was a problem, I said that the statement the Obama campaign made in saying it was only about child protection was dishonest, AND IT WAS regardless of what anyone says about it. I never made value judgements on the legislation, only Obama's dishonest response to it. The fact is the legislation involved teaching chjildren as young as 5 about intercourse, same-sex couples, etc., and not just protection. No spin needed. It is what it is.

In the end, yeah I agree, in the short term, the Palin pick has worked. I don't think the enthusiasm will last for more than another week or so, but maybe I'm wrong. I've never said that the Obama was running a great campaign, and yeah, the point is to win, but I respect Obama's take on it. He called the media's bullshit on the "lipstick on a pig" story when McCain ran with it and he immediately said Palin's family was off-limits from the get go. The Republicans cry sexism every time a criticism has run against Palin, but didn't feel that way when Hillary was a threat.

I agree completely. I think the Republicans have lost their mind in trying to push everything as an attack against women/age/etc. Republicans don't do well playing themselves as victiums, nor should they do so.

In the end, the Republicans will do whatever they can to win, whether that means bending the truth or taking any position when it favors them. Yes, this is politics, and if they need to play dirty to win, great, but it feels better to root for the good guys who actually seem to have the country's interests in hand rather than their own power. Call me naive if you want, but nothing about McCain's borderline untruthful campaign tells me he's going to help this country. When is the last time he mentioned a specific policy of his own and how it will help America? I wish I was being facetious in asking this question, but I really can't remember. In the end, I'd rather believe in truth and hope than fear and lies, but I suppose we differ there.

My biggest complaint here is the willful blindness you and many other Obama supporters show reflected in this post. You blame Republicans for doing whatever it takes, and not Democrats? Obama has been dishonest down to his policies, renaming government grants as "tax breaks" when they are really redistributiuon of wealth programs. He has said that McCain was against Bush's tax cuts, without explaining that he was against the tax cuts not being associated with cuts in spending, and not against the tax cuts themselves. That is a lie of omission and a misrepresentation.

And I did challenge your assertion on the "liberal media." I asked you whether it's possible that Palin just really has more skeletons in her closet than Obama. The media has had 19 months to run at Obama and they've dug up what they could (secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, anti-American wife, Jeremiah Wright, etc). The media was presented with somebody the general public didn't know with just 60 days left in the election and you expected nothing to happen? Palin has had a questionable past (Troopergate, congressional earmarks, Bridge to Nowhere, hiring friends to high-level positions in Alaskan government) and these are all legitimate concerns.

No, you aren't arguing my point. My point wasn't about whether or not the media addressed Obama's skeletons, but how they did so. It took over a YEAR from Obama's announcement that he was running for the media to even mention William Ayers or Reverend Wright. It took 4 DAYS for them to dig up everything on Palin. If you can't see the difference, nothing I say will help you see it.

And for the record, the media never claimed that Obama was a secret Muslim, they debunked the assinine e-mail that went around claiming that he was a secret Muslim.

And as long as we're posting SNL skits, remember thje debate parody when Obama was asked if he needed a pillow? Yeah, its like that.

[Bond]

This wonderful economic news developing today will certainly help Obama. Greedy. Greedy. Greedy.

[Professor S]

This wonderful economic news developing today will certainly help Obama. Greedy. Greedy. Greedy.

He's already jumped on this as a talking point. If this ends up directly impacting everyone's pocketbooks (meaning, if shit doesn't get better FAST), McCain is going to have a hard uphill climb.

A 500 point drop in a day is a game changer.

[TheGame]

Looks like the polls just switched back to normal and Obama is back in the lead according to msnbc. I don't tend to trust poll numbers, but yeah. Guess palins effect wore of fthat fast.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26763744/

[GameMaster]

Palin used Yahoo Mail. Anonymous hacked it. Her personal and business exchanges EXPOSED!

Why wasn't Palin using her government issued email address? Hmm?

[Bond]

Looks like the polls just switched back to normal and Obama is back in the lead according to msnbc. I don't tend to trust poll numbers, but yeah. Guess palins effect wore of fthat fast.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26763744/
I think it has more to do with the recent economic news. McCain enjoyed a very sizable and long-lasting bump from his VP decision.

[Professor S]

Looks like the polls just switched back to normal and Obama is back in the lead according to msnbc. I don't tend to trust poll numbers, but yeah. Guess palins effect wore of fthat fast.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26763744/

I agree with Bond that this has more to do with a 700 point drop in the stock market in 3 days than Palin's effect wearing off. Also, I don't buy the assertion in the article that McCain's alleged association with Bush is hurting him, either. Obama's camp has been trying to do that for months, and while it speaks to people who were going to vote for Obama anyway, I haven't seen anything that shows it has swayed undecided voters in the least.

The fact is McCain is a Republican and the economy is associated with the party in power... the Republicans, and that hurts McCain even though he has been railing against the the inequities of our financial powers for some time:

May 25, 2006:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

This bill would have set the following:

1/26/2005--Introduced.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish: (1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.

Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation.
Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&tab=summary

This bill never made it out of committee because it was killed by Democrats, who were recipients of HUGE amounts of money from Fanie and Freddie.

GUESS WHO WAS #2 ON THAT LIST?

All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000
Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500
Bachus, Spencer H AL R $103,300 $70,500 $32,800
Blunt, Roy H MO R $96,950 $78,500 $18,450
Kanjorski, Paul E H PA D $96,000 $57,500 $38,500

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Keep in in mind this list goes back to 1989... Obama caught up to #2 in only 4 years while it took a lot longer for other members to receive that money.

EDIT: To be fair, McCain is also on that list, but far lower and his ticker goes back 20 years, not 4, and none of his contributions cam from PACs (Political Action Committees)

McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550

[TheGame]

I agree with Bond that this has more to do with a 700 point drop in the stock market in 3 days than Palin's effect wearing off. Also, I don't buy the assertion in the article that McCain's alleged association with Bush is hurting him, either. Obama's camp has been trying to do that for months, and while it speaks to people who were going to vote for Obama anyway, I haven't seen anything that shows it has swayed undecided voters in the least.

I think overall his link with Bush has hurt him. I know many people who were for Bush last election, and are now for Obama this one simply for that fact alone. (Since Bush was extremely misleading, and acted a lot without the approval of the people, kowing good and well that most people were against his actions.) Though I don't think that it changes things NOW, it just initially hurt Mccain.

As far as the market droping off so bad, I can't see how that directly caused polls to change. I think Palin just caused some excitement and it wore off after she stopped being the headline.

[TheGame]

Just saw these videos this morning, not that I didn't already know about most of the situations. Mccain just seems like a sell out these days to me.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ioy90nF2anI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ioy90nF2anI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And sorry if its somewhat off subject. But I'm bored. lol

[Professor S]

I think overall his link with Bush has hurt him. I know many people who were for Bush last election, and are now for Obama this one simply for that fact alone. (Since Bush was extremely misleading, and acted a lot without the approval of the people, kowing good and well that most people were against his actions.) Though I don't think that it changes things NOW, it just initially hurt Mccain.

As far as the market droping off so bad, I can't see how that directly caused polls to change. I think Palin just caused some excitement and it wore off after she stopped being the headline.

I'm sorry, but this post ignores history.

1) The polls just don't support your opinion on the Bush association, and thats all we have to go on for evidence. I think the it makes those likely to vote for Obama more likely, but nothing has shown that it has affected this election as McCain had been creeping up on Obama for months while they ran ads assiciating McCain to Bush. Sorry, it just doesn't convince the undecided, IMO.

2) Most people were not against his actions. In fact, most people supported the war in Iraq on both sides of the political isle. As for acting without the approval of the people, he acted on the budget approval of the people's representatives and the President doesn't need approval to go to war. It's in the constitution.

As for Bush being misleading, well, that depends on what part of the timeline you speak of: Running up to the war, we acted on bad intelligence from across the globe. Thats not misleading people, thats simply being incorrect. Mying and misleading at that stage inplies that he knew they had no WMD's and told the world that they did. There is no evidence of that.

Switching our reason for being there after we didn't find WMD's? He misled when he should have just said "Well we were wrong about the WMD's, but now we have to finish this (we have no other choice, really), but there can benefit from this situation and in the end, the world is one less in the despot category."

3) The polls evened up to the DAY when the stock market dropped. Thats what happened. There is a direct correlation. I simply don't see how you can see it any other way. The argument that "Palin's effect wore off" when at the same time we tip-toe close to a depression-era crisis is nonsensical.

But what is you opinion of the information included in my above post? Does that sway any opinion on the candidate, not party, that has been on the right track when it came to this crisis?

[Professor S]

Just saw these videos this morning, not that I didn't already know about most of the situations. Mccain just seems like a sell out these days to me.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ioy90nF2anI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ioy90nF2anI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GEtZlR3zp4c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And sorry if its somewhat off subject. But I'm bored. lol

If you're so bored, read my post on his stance on the economy and Fannie and Freddie. Who do you think is right, and who is the sell-out?

And honestly, if you want to post films by Robert Greenwald as fair arguments in an election, I don't see what arguments anyone could make that would sway you. He's a propogandist, pure and simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Greenwald

[TheGame]

I'm sorry, but this post ignores history.

1) The polls just don't support your opinion on the Bush association, and thats all we have to go on for evidence. I think the it makes those likely to vote for Obama more likely, but nothing has shown that it has affected this election as McCain had been creeping up on Obama for months while they ran ads assiciating McCain to Bush. Sorry, it just doesn't convince the undecided, IMO.

Name an Obama vs Mccain poll that existed before Bush was a factor. You can't, because there isn't one. I put very clearly that that it hurt him initially, not that I think it makes a huge difference now.

2) Most people were not against his actions. In fact, most people supported the war in Iraq on both sides of the political isle. As for acting without the approval of the people, he acted on the budget approval of the people's representatives and the President doesn't need approval to go to war. It's in the constitution.

They supported him because he was misleading about it in the first place. When the truth came out, where did his approval rating go?

As for Bush being misleading, well, that depends on what part of the timeline you speak of: Running up to the war, we acted on bad intelligence from across the globe. Thats not misleading people, thats simply being incorrect. Mying and misleading at that stage inplies that he knew they had no WMD's and told the world that they did. There is no evidence of that.

Switching our reason for being there after we didn't find WMD's? He misled when he should have just said "Well we were wrong about the WMD's, but now we have to finish this (we have no other choice, really), but there can benefit from this situation and in the end, the world is one less in the despot category."

Do you know how long it took him to admit he was wrong? Initially yes I can see how he may have thought they were there, but he was still barking the WMD thing years after we had entered and had nothing to show for it. Did Bush appologize about putting us into that situation? If he did I haven't seen it yet.

3) The polls evened up to the DAY when the stock market dropped. Thats what happened. There is a direct correlation. I simply don't see how you can see it any other way. The argument that "Palin's effect wore off" when at the same time we tip-toe close to a depression-era crisis is nonsensical.

Like I said earlier, I don't trust polls t begin with. I think they're only there to get ratings. However, I don't think that the drop is what caused the shift. Yes its big news, yes it happend around the same time, but no I don't think it had a direct effect. Why would a Mccain supporter go back to voting for Obama because of this event? If you can give me a good answer without directly indirectly linking it to Bush, then maybe I will be able to see why. If you can't make an answer without at least some link, then that explains why there's articles like the one I posted above.

I just don't see the answer other than people thinking the bush whitehouse is screwing up, and they're worried Mccain would take the torch. Thus the reason for that article.

But what is you opinion of the information included in my above post? Does that sway any opinion on the candidate, not party, that has been on the right track when it came to this crisis?

I read it, I just didn't have much of an opinion on it. But with info like that, it just further begs the question to why the polls would suddenly go into Obama's favor if it had a lot to do with this event?

[Professor S]

.They supported him because he was misleading about it in the first place. When the truth came out, where did his approval rating go?

He wasn't misleading anyone in the first place. He was misleading everyone in the SECOND place. :)

Do you know how long it took him to admit he was wrong? Initially yes I can see how he may have thought they were there, but he was still barking the WMD thing years after we had entered and had nothing to show for it. Did Bush appologize about putting us into that situation? If he did I haven't seen it yet.

To my knowledge he has never admitted to being wrong. thats a reason why i dislike him as a President. Then again I can't remember Obama ever admitting he's been wrong about anything either...

Like I said earlier, I don't trust polls t begin with. I think they're only there to get ratings. However, I don't think that the drop is what caused the shift. Yes its big news, yes it happend around the same time, but no I don't think it had a direct effect. Why would a Mccain supporter go back to voting for Obama because of this event? If you can give me a good answer without directly indirectly linking it to Bush, then maybe I will be able to see why. If you can't make an answer without at least some link, then that explains why there's articles like the one I posted above.

They're called the undecided. Its the same group that went up after the Democratic covention, and the same group that switched after the Republican one, except that one seemed to last far longer. Now the financial industry goes in the tank, and the same day the polls switch after 2-3 of McCain beating Obama in the polls, and you think its Palin and Bush and not an association with Republicans who have been made synonymous with Big Business?

If you can't see this, I can't help you see it any clearer. You'll believe what you want to, regardless.

I just don't see the answer other than people thinking the bush whitehouse is screwing up, and they're worried Mccain would take the torch. Thus the reason for that article.

I agree that people do feel that way, but that has nothing to do with the swing in the polls recently, and thats what you were referring to when you brought up the polling change. There is no evidence that it has had any impact in the election recently. NONE. You can make it whatever you like, but it has no relation to the information we have to base our opinions.

I read it, I just didn't have much of an opinion on it. But with info like that, it just further begs the question to why the polls would suddenly go into Obama's favor if it had a lot to do with this event?

Because information like this requires people to read and be informed on more than what political ads say. And for this to not inform your opinion on any level, I don;t know what to say to that. I call it willful ignorance.

[Jason1]

NEWS ALERT!

The polls mean nothing! The person with the most votes might not win!

Looks like Obama has the advantage on the electoral map...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html

[Professor S]

Jason, any opinion on the info about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that I posted above?

[Jason1]

Jason, any opinion on the info about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that I posted above?

Well it does sound like those companies were using some extremely unethical practices. Maybe Mcain was on to something, that being said, this dosent change my opinion that the terrible performance of the economy is the fault of the Republicans.

And any comment on that political map I just posted?

[Professor S]

Well it does sound like those companies were using some extremely unethical practices. Maybe Mcain was on to something, that being said, this dosent change my opinion that the terrible performance of the economy is the fault of the Republicans.

Really? What about the fact that the top three recipients of Fannie and Freddie contributions were all democratic presidential nominees, including Barack Obama? Still all the Republicans fault? Even so, doesn't that show McCain as an individual who is a lot more qualified to recognize economic crisis than Barack?

And any comment on that political map I just posted?

Sure, I was aware. I'm also aware thet the electoral maps can change as well as the polls can. Its just a different kind of polling. Your biggest concern should be the historical fact that a considerable percentage of voters who poll for African American candidates do not vote for them. I think Obama needs a 5-10% lead to win.

[Jason1]

Sure, I was aware. I'm also aware thet the electoral maps can change as well as the polls can. Its just a different kind of polling. Your biggest concern should be the historical fact that a considerable percentage of voters who poll for African American candidates do not vote for them. I think Obama needs a 5-10% lead to win.

This arguement holds no relevance because we have never had a legitimate black candidate for president. Nobody voted for Al Sharpton because they knew he had no chance. This election is different, all bets are off.

[Professor S]

This arguement holds no relevance because we have never had a legitimate black candidate for president. Nobody voted for Al Sharpton because they knew he had no chance. This election is different, all bets are off.

I was talking about elections in general. Even Republican candiates like Michael Steel had the same thing happen. And all bets are never off, especially when it comes to elections. Historical trends always play a part.

BTW, what about my first question in that post you quoted? And if the bad economy is solely the responsibility of the Republicans, then I guess they're also solely responsible fo the 410 point gain in the stock market today?

[Jason1]

a 410 point gain dosent make up for years and years of a bad economy. Its a start, but it could drop 400 points tomorrow...

[Seth]

I don't see how you can blame the republican party for the current economic downturn. It's an inevitable outcome that has been ignored for over half a century. It's a shame that the feds are using tax dollars to bail out wallstreet, cuz it's only postponing the harsh truth of our situation. Now is the time to stock up(out of practical precaution) on some delicious non-perishables cuz winter ain't kind when combined with a condemned currency.
got a question for you professor S
What good is a relative rebound in the market if it's only creating false security for a short time?

yo read this (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10279)

another interesting article (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10268)

This is the economic tonkin bay. justification for a federal takeover and set future of economic enslavement never before seen in the western world. yeeha

[Professor S]

Seth, you mistook my argument. I never said a short term upswing was an answer to the crisis, I was commenting on how foolish it is to think that only one party is responsible for it.

As for the root of the issue, I believe it is because of the overturn of previous regulation that separated wallstreet from the mortgage industry. Mortagge debt should never have been treated like stocks, but always more like bonds, which are much more stable and not prone to the types of speculation that takes place in the market.

But in the end, every level is at fault for this from the buyer all the way to the Fed who should have raised interest rates YEARS ago to stabalize the dollar and make money more expensive to borrow. Increased risk is the best regulation against leveraging one's self to the point of bankruptcy.

It needed be a consipracy, Seth. Wallstreet got greedy and got in the pockets of enough legislators to repeal regulations that helped stabalize housing.

And Jason, you still ignore my points and have fabricated your own. You say the economy has been terrible for the last eight years? That ignores the last eight years. You cannot replace our reality for one that fits with your talking points.

And by the way, your still not responding to large chunks of my posts where I directly ask you questions.

[Seth]

you say conspiracy. ok. Why didn't the feds take action sooner? Are you saying that these turn of events were unpredictable? Was this outcome the only possible scenario for those legislator's in Washington? There's power consolidation happening because of this, and I don't believe that it wasn't at least hoped for. Do you agree with the bailout prof?

[Professor S]

you say conspiracy. ok. Why didn't the feds take action sooner? Are you saying that these turn of events were unpredictable? Was this outcome the only possible scenario for those legislator's in Washington? There's power consolidation happening because of this, and I don't believe that it wasn't at least hoped for. Do you agree with the bailout prof?


Not in the least. Leaning toward free markets, I believe that businesses should be free to succeed and free to fail. But also, there is a lot of retirement and pension money holed up in these investment organizations, so allowing them to fail would hurt a lot of people. Its a double edged sword.

The bottom line is that the deregulation that allowed this to happen took place in the 70's and events over multiple administrations and cultural time periods spanning decades.

Just because something is predictable does not make it intentional. Weather is predictable, but there is no weather machine controlled by the Freemasons that created Katrina. Greedy people over time and the betterment of their own pocket created this situation because they needed to cook books to keep their jobs or even worse, justify bonuses. To say that this has been planned over the last few decades honestly gives governing bodies far too much credit. It also begs the question of why more malicious action wasn't done sooner by these muysterious forces during the OPEC oil crisis, the new Deal or the recession of the early 90's. Why now and not then? This attitude assume that all capitalist and socialist events are completely under the control of forces so banal we cannot ever fully realize or be consumed by wild, sulferous flame.

[Professor S]

I don;t know whats funnier: The look on Clinton's face used for this pick, or that the pic came from a "legitimate" news source...

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/092308_billpalin3.jpg

[TheGame]

I knew she looked fami..err.. *cough* Which news source was that from? lol

[Professor S]

Why, FoxNews of course...:mischief:

[TheGame]

Lol, I could have suspected it was Fox. They try to be "Neutral" on things, but end up always sounding extremely biased one way or the other.

[TheGame]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T-oRIxw8y-0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T-oRIxw8y-0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Jason1]

hah, I just think its funny that 9 times out of 10 these girls that are all into god and religious and shit are always the sluts. Palin preaches abstinence and all that and her own 16 year old daughter goes and gets pregnat. Maybe if you told your daughter about safe sex this wouldnt have happened? I mean obviously a child like that is a bastard child in most cases, but oh not if its Palin's daughter. Its obviously a blessing from god!!!!

[Professor S]

Did you guys really re-open this thread to slam Palin's pregnant daughter? Really?

[TheGame]

Nope. Slamming Palin herself.

[Professor S]

Nope. Slamming Palin herself.

By slamming her daughter. All class. Pat yourself on the back.

[TheGame]

By slamming her daughter. All class. Pat yourself on the back.

How did I slam her daughter? Her daughter makes her own decisions and are accountable for them herself. I only brought up the whole idea that it might have been a fake pregnancy, which was news to me. IF this is true, then that's a lot worse for Palin. Her daughter doesn't deserve a slap on the wrist for that, only she herself would.

[Jason1]

And I was just slamming Palin herself for not being able to instill enough values into her daughter to at least have safe sex.

I have nothing against slutty girls. :)

[Professor S]

Both of your arguments are pretty pathetic, quite honestly. And the whole "fake pregnancy" thing was widely debunked and considered tabloid nonsense. I'm done even responing to this type of garbage anymore.

If you want to discuss Palin's pick honestly, keep to actual issues. You don't see me continually harping on Reverend Wright, Tony Rezco or William Ayers, do you? Bringing up such muck is beneath you, Game.

[TheGame]

Both of your arguments are pretty pathetic, quite honestly. And the whole "fake pregnancy" thing was widely debunked and considered tabloid nonsense. I'm done even responing to this type of garbage anymore.

It was debunked?

If you want to discuss Palin's pick honestly, keep to actual issues. You don't see me continually harping on Reverend Wright, Tony Rezco or William Ayers, do you? Bringing up such muck is beneath you, Game.

There's problems you create, and problems that create you. I'm not above talking about either or, because it helps build someone's character. As I expressed earlier, I do respect Palin and what she's done before. I have cousins who were pregnent at that age, and good friends from HS.

The only place this thread could really go now is to the interview Palin just had. While I did express before, some of the questions were a strech to ask of her, I do think the interview went horrible. I think she has just lowered herself to being a complete joke with doing that bad, and I think Mccain should probably consider changing his decision before it gets too late. The VP debate will likely see Palin being KOed many times.

[Bond]

Here is Palin's biggest issue:

"In 1982, Palin enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester. From there she transferred to North Idaho College, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major. From there, she then transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters. She then left the University of Idaho and attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term. The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987."

[Professor S]

Here is Palin's biggest issue:

"In 1982, Palin enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester. From there she transferred to North Idaho College, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major. From there, she then transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters. She then left the University of Idaho and attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term. The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987."

Really? My issue is her complete lack of any foreign relations experience in this hightened time of international tensions.

[GameMaster]

<embed width="440" height="420" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://v4.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=2eld0s1&s=4"><br><font size="1"><a href="http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2eld0s1&s=4">Original Video</a> - More videos at <a href="http://tinypic.com">TinyPic</a></font>

[TheGame]

Rofl.

[KillerGremlin]

And I was just slamming Palin herself for not being able to instill enough values into her daughter to at least have safe sex.

I have nothing against slutty girls. :)

"Safe sex is in the palm of your hand."


Because, even the pill is only 99% effective.

Abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control.

[Angrist]

<embed width="440" height="420" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://v4.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=2eld0s1&s=4"><br><font size="1"><a href="http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2eld0s1&s=4">Original Video</a> - More videos at <a href="http://tinypic.com">TinyPic</a></font>

That wasn't really her?

[Xantar]

Really? What about the fact that the top three recipients of Fannie and Freddie contributions were all democratic presidential nominees, including Barack Obama? Still all the Republicans fault? Even so, doesn't that show McCain as an individual who is a lot more qualified to recognize economic crisis than Barack?


Ok, I'm going to stay out of most of the argument because I have better things to do than get drawn into a lengthy debate. However, I can't let this one slide.

Barack Obama is one of the top recipients of donations from Fannie and Freddie because lots of lower level employees who happen to work for Fannie and Freddie have donated to his campaign. Every donor is required to state their employer so that the campaigns can be sure that they are allowed to accept the donation. If you actually take a look at the numbers, (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html) you will see that out of the $126,000 Obama has received from Fannie and Freddie, only $6,000 comes from PACs and $120,000 comes from individuals (i.e. people who are donating as private citizens and not as Fannie and Freddie lobbyists). It's pretty clear that Obama has simply received lots of $50 and $100 donations from people who happen to state that they work for Fannie and Freddie on their donation forms -- they are otherwise no different from the general public. To imply that the donations of several hundred individual donations from Fannie and Freddie employees to Barack Obama has anything to do with his policy positions is absurd.

[Professor S]

Ok, I'm going to stay out of most of the argument because I have better things to do than get drawn into a lengthy debate. However, I can't let this one slide.

Barack Obama is one of the top recipients of donations from Fannie and Freddie because lots of lower level employees who happen to work for Fannie and Freddie have donated to his campaign. Every donor is required to state their employer so that the campaigns can be sure that they are allowed to accept the donation. If you actually take a look at the numbers, (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html) you will see that out of the $126,000 Obama has received from Fannie and Freddie, only $6,000 comes from PACs and $120,000 comes from individuals (i.e. people who are donating as private citizens and not as Fannie and Freddie lobbyists). It's pretty clear that Obama has simply received lots of $50 and $100 donations from people who happen to state that they work for Fannie and Freddie on their donation forms -- they are otherwise no different from the general public. To imply that the donations of several hundred individual donations from Fannie and Freddie employees to Barack Obama has anything to do with his policy positions is absurd.

I have issues with the main point of your argument, as there is some evidence of shenanigans (albeit legal shenanigans) when it coms to these donations but lets put that aside. $6,000 came from PAC. How much of F&F's money to McCain came from PAC?

[Xantar]

Well, according to the table I linked, $0.

I'm sure you'll make some political hay out of that fact, and you're welcome to do it. It's beside my point. I don't think Fannie and Freddie have any more influence over Obama than they do over McCain (well, they paid a lot of money to Rick Davis who is a campaign advisor to McCain, apparently, but that's a whole other issue). My point is I think both McCain and Obama are free to do whatever they want with regard to Fannie and Freddie because the vast majority of their donations are from individual people who aren't trying to curry favor for their employer (and besides, the amounts they've received are chump change).

[Professor S]

Well, according to the table I linked, $0.

I'm sure you'll make some political hay out of that fact, and you're welcome to do it. It's beside my point. I don't think Fannie and Freddie have any more influence over Obama than they do over McCain (well, they paid a lot of money to Rick Davis who is a campaign advisor to McCain, apparently, but that's a whole other issue). My point is I think both McCain and Obama are free to do whatever they want with regard to Fannie and Freddie because the vast majority of their donations are from individual people who aren't trying to curry favor for their employer (and besides, the amounts they've received are chump change).

I'm not concerned over $6,000, thats chump change, as you said. I was intentionally quuibbling over small points, just to be a smart ass, and the fact that so many news organizations have made such a big deal out of it.

My concern over the donations is much more from other large financial houses, and I think I have another post about that somewhere around here. Ah, the follow the money thread.

[Xantar]

My concern over the donations is much more from other large financial houses, and I think I have another post about that somewhere around here. Ah, the follow the money thread.

Nice try. I'm on my lunch break and I have more important things to read. :D

[TheGame]

I don;t know whats funnier: The look on Clinton's face used for this pick, or that the pic came from a "legitimate" news source...

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/092308_billpalin3.jpg

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KTkqosRiyYo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KTkqosRiyYo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Sorry, there's no fox news sucks thread yet, but I wanted to share this somewhere. lol

[Jason1]

its split, if split now means everyone voting for Obama

[Professor S]

I love the old lady snatching down her husbands hand when asked who will vote for Obama. "No, honey... they'll key our car!"