Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

McCain chicken?Follow

#27 Sep 24 2008 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama, from a conference earlier tonight, wrote:
OBAMA: I believe that we should continue to have the debate.

I think that it makes sense for us to present ourselves before the American people to talk about the nature of the problems that we're having in our financial system, to talk about how it relates to our global standing in the world, what implications it has for our national security, how it relates to critical questions, like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, you know, obviously, if it turns out that we need to be in Washington, we have both got big planes. We have painted our slogans on the sides of them. They can get us from Washington, D.C., to Mississippi fairly quickly.
Well, at least someone gets it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Sep 24 2008 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not to keep bumping but this was pretty funny. McCain cancelled his appearance on Letterman today because he had to OMG RUN TO WASHINGTON AND SAVE TEH ECONOMY!!!

Only, he didn't. He went on Katie Couric's show instead. Letterman kind of noticed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Sep 24 2008 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Good lord.

It's like they just gave up.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#30 Sep 24 2008 at 6:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Good lord.

It's like they just gave up.
Did yu see the Couric/Palin interview?

"Senator John McCain has been in Congress for 26 years and has consistantly opposed regulations for businesses..."

"Ummm.... Maverick?"

Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Sep 24 2008 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
Good lord.

It's like they just gave up.
Did yu see the Couric/Palin interview?

"Senator John McCain has been in Congress for 26 years and has consistantly opposed regulations for businesses..."

"Ummm.... Maverick?"

Smiley: oyvey


Holy **** she's an idiot.
#32 Sep 24 2008 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
Now, I knew it was only a matter of time until McCain showed his true colors and let you all glimpse the massive circlejerk that is his decision-making process, but this is above and beyond.

Not only are we fed stories about how great the economy is doing for months on end, job growth, no such thing as a recession no siree bob. He decries the liberal media for blowing things out of proportion. He talks about his great dedication, his resiliency and ability to lead, but now he wants to "take a break", like he's a teenage boy whose girl just told him she's not really on the pill but it's okay because he loves her, right? I suppose he could choose to go ahead and try to do what he could in the Senate and count on Palin to help him keep campaigning, because she's a Governor of The Great State of Alaska and Qualified to Manage, right? But no. The truth is that when the opportunity to vet her in the public's eye, he barely trusts her to do more than put together a flattering outfit and give the political equivalent of a Miss America "world peace" speech.

Then that asshat Dubya goes and tells us not to worry, that the money we're ponying up to bail out FM&FM will "mostly" be paid back, and with interest! I'm flabbergasted at the idiocy of that statement, of this administration, and of anyone who chooses to go along with this aneurysm of a government. Christ. I can't *wait* for election day. I'd like to think we still have a prayer in hell, but not with this bunch. Morans.
#33 Sep 24 2008 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,632 posts
I'm hoping that pussying out of the debates will ***** him over as much as the actual debates would. Hopefully more, because more people are probably going to hear about this than would actually watch a debate.
#34 Sep 24 2008 at 7:57 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
I was curious as to why they're pushing this particular economic stimulus plan so heavily. I went and looked up the legislation, and found this gem:
Quote:
Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.


Wow. The last amendment on record increased from $7,384,000,000,000 to $8,184,000,000,000. That was a $8 billion difference. Amendments from 1989-2004 have run it up about $3 billion to about a trillion at a time. This would push the statute up a record $3.1 trillion. Estimates for the bailout so far are at about 1.5 trillion. There goes half of it right there. WTF?
#35 Sep 24 2008 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
I literally lol'd @ both those clips.

Then I realized there's still about a 50/50 shot John "the economy is not my strong suit" McCain could be President for a couple years before he turns the country over to Sarah "MILF" Palin on his deathbed.

I'm now getting drunk.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#36 Sep 24 2008 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
Good lord.

It's like they just gave up.
Did yu see the Couric/Palin interview?

Wowee.

I can't stand her and that was still almost too painful to watch.

#37 Sep 24 2008 at 8:46 PM Rating: Decent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Damn, Jophiel beat me to it.

Edited, Sep 25th 2008 12:42am by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#38 Sep 24 2008 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
I'm beggining to think that my theory about Obama not wanting to win may be a bit off....

After seeing Palin/Couric.......

I don't think anyone wants America any more!!
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#39 Sep 24 2008 at 11:51 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
paulsol wrote:
I'm beggining to think that my theory about Obama not wanting to win may be a bit off....

After seeing Palin/Couric
.......

I don't think anyone wants America any more!!

That woman should not try to walk and talk at the same time.
#40 Sep 25 2008 at 1:10 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Pikko wrote:
Oh damn!

CNN wrote:
McCain also said he would not attend Friday night's debate with Democratic rival Barack Obama unless an economic bailout deal is reached by then.


Quite literally the most one-sided debate ever.

PS: Watched that Palin/Couric interview. Painful. I'm concerned at both how few interviews she gives, and at the same time, how brutal the few she does give are to watch.

Edited, Sep 25th 2008 4:11am by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#41 Sep 25 2008 at 1:45 AM Rating: Excellent
It's funny because here, in the UK, the media have been painting McCain as this sort of debate genius, a "streetfighter with a knife", who mastered the art of brutal putdowns and scathing comebacks, presumably during his time as POW, since that's apparently where he's learnt everything there is to be learnt. Whereas they say Obama is a bit long-winded and too thoughtful for these kind of debate frameworks.

And now McCain's chickening out, and he'll probably want some rustic fries with that.

What's not so funny is this $700 billion pay-out for those poor investment banks. Where do they find the money? Universal healthcare is too expensive, welfare is a drain on the system, taxes are rape, army veterans don't get proper pensions, people can't get help after a hurricane, and yet they have no problem funding a 5 year-long war in the ME, or finding $700 billion to rescue some bankers. Where was that money? Behind the couch? Under the matress?

The system is clearly broken. It's always the same, nobody gives a **** until a major catastrophe happens. This is what is happening with the economic crisis. The system was, and is still, fundamentally flawed. It's one huge circle-jerk between the bankers, investors and regulators. The more I read about it, the more shocked I am. It's insane to think that investment companies can employ the very people who rate their own bundles of stocks/mortgages, so that they devise ways in which to achieve those AAA ratings. That's just one exemple, but it shows how the whole "Don't regulate the financial markets" was just a way of enabling this scam to go on for as long as it did. There aren't many other industries where such collusion would be allowed to happen.

And now we're going to spend $700 billion to save them? What a joke. What a waste of money. And maybe it's just me, but I don't feel like ordinary people have gained much from all these money-making schemes. Salaries haven't increased. Tax revenues haven't increased proportionally. Maybe the luxury sector has seen its revenue increased, but that's about it. And now it's going to cost us another $700 billion? Is this the biggest rip-off in the history of rip-offs?

The worst is that the system will probably not change fundamentally, even after this debacle. I'm feeling more and more lefty these days...
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#42 Sep 25 2008 at 3:20 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
What's not so funny is this $700 billion pay-out for those poor investment banks. Where do they find the money? Universal healthcare is too expensive, welfare is a drain on the system, taxes are rape, army veterans don't get proper pensions, people can't get help after a hurricane, and yet they have no problem funding a 5 year-long war in the ME, or finding $700 billion to rescue some bankers. Where was that money? Behind the couch? Under the matress?
It's being added to the national debt. What a pity for us you can't vote Americano, Frenchy.
#43 Sep 25 2008 at 3:28 AM Rating: Good
***
2,293 posts
Quote:
Where do they find the money?


Commie Bush is going to print it.

If Bush let "them" all go bankrupt that probably destroy a few pensions and cause massive unemployment.

But pumping money in it is keeping it artificially alive, completly detaching capitalism from reality.
Itll 100% surely makes the problem worse over time then the alternative, the majority of the 700 billion HAS to be taken back out of the economy within the decade thats not going to happen with current economy forecasts, there is no plausible "exit strategy" for printing this money.

Because of this the plan maybe causes hyper inflation almost immediately which would make the US a 3rd world country. What foreign investor would want to keep theyre dollars if the US prints 700 billion more, Arabs were already pondering of letting oil be paid in euros, etc, hello snowball effect.
Germany tried the same after the first world war "fines", to pay for them with printed money, take a bit of inflation and "repair it later", that plan didnt work then either.

And a lot of "branch" people (ecnomic) feel that the bankruptcys so far is still the tip of the iceberg.
Eg: no insurance company went belly up so far afaik, due to loan protection insurance (the bank-side version) its bound to happen, is Bush going to bail them out too? Where does it end?

Imo, best to be a big boy think on the long-term for once and let "them" go bankrupt, suck it up and be a 2nd world country for the next 2 decades. Since the alternative isnt structural at all, or guaranteed to work even on the short term.

Printing money without a solid exit strategy is a guaranteed economic apocalypse.

Edited, Sep 25th 2008 1:32pm by Sjans
#44 Sep 25 2008 at 3:46 AM Rating: Good
Atomicflea wrote:
What a pity for us you can't vote Americano, Frenchy.


It's a pity for me too, I live in the 51st state of the US.

Quote:
If Bush let "them" all go bankrupt that probably destroy a few pensions and cause massive unemployment


I realise that's the argument, and it makes sense. I don't think allowing people's pensions to be simply "lost" is fair either. People's savings and retirement plans shouldn't be allowed to go to waste because some people were criminally careless with them. I understand we have to save some of these insurance companies, and somewhere it is the right thing to do.

But at the same time, this shouldn't have been allowed to happen. Some things are too important to be gambled with on such a scale. I'm a bit torn, to be honest. On the one hand, it feels like we should let the system fail: it's the principle of capitalism, and supposedly what makes it so great. Things that are good survive, things that suck don't. Clearly, this system sucked. But at the same time, I'm not heartless enough to think we should let people's pensions disappear for what is fundamentally a question of principle. It's too important for that to happen. And I don't buy the argument that people knew what they were getting into. When people saved up for retirement, what percentage actually understood what was being done with their money? 1%? Probably even less.

I don't mind saving insurance companies, or certain banks, if the alternative is that ordinary people lose all their savings and pensions. But let's at least recognise that the system we have in place currently is fundamentally flawed. Markets mechanisms should be allowed to work unregulated when the worst possible outcome isn't too bad: consumer goods, for exemple.

But certain thigns are too important to be gambled with, or left to market forces that can destroy them overnight.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#45 Sep 25 2008 at 3:52 AM Rating: Good
***
2,293 posts
Quote:
I don't mind saving insurance companies, or certain banks, if the alternative is that ordinary people lose all their savings and pensions.


Biggest problem of the $700 bil plan that still is that it isnt garantueed to prevent that at all. Inflation can do the same. Bush ofcourse sells it like a time-share salesman, and Joe Sixpack doesnt realize it.

Rule no 1 of investing / economy, if someone cant explain exactly why he's doing what he's doing and completly ignoring the negative effects, its an extremely bad idea and/or youre getting scammed, see sub-prime loans and short-selling.

Edited, Sep 25th 2008 1:56pm by Sjans
#46 Sep 25 2008 at 4:03 AM Rating: Decent
Sjans wrote:
Rule no 1 of investing / economy, if someone cant explain exactly why he's doing what he's doing and completly ignoring the negative effects, its an extremely bad idea, see sub-prime loans and short-selling.
One thing's for sure - if you can't understand how short selling works, you have no business in the financial sector.

It's not exactly the world's most complicated concept on the surface. (The regulations on it make it more complicated, but even so, it amounts to "we loan you the stock, you sell it and hope it goes down in price, you pay us back the loan with the shares you buy back".)
#47 Sep 25 2008 at 4:09 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,293 posts
Quote:
(The regulations on it make it more complicated, but even so, it amounts to "we loan you the stock, you sell it and hope it goes down in price, you pay us back the loan with the shares you buy back".)


Ask the question: "What do you do if that doesnt ever happen, youre loan expires you have to buy higher and with money you dont have in the first place" and see the blank stare.

And that is only 1 of the negative effects that is/was ignored.

ps: I edit bc my english grammatic is teh suck.

Edited, Sep 25th 2008 2:13pm by Sjans
#48 Sep 25 2008 at 4:38 AM Rating: Good
****
4,632 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Obama should go to the debate and put a sock on his hand if McCain isn't there.


Well, let's be honest here. What's the difference?
#49 Sep 25 2008 at 4:53 AM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
Good lord.

It's like they just gave up.
Did yu see the Couric/Palin interview?

"Senator John McCain has been in Congress for 26 years and has consistantly opposed regulations for businesses..."

"Ummm.... Maverick?"

Smiley: oyvey
Ouch.
#50 Sep 25 2008 at 5:04 AM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
Better yet:

"Ummm, I'll try and get some examples [of McCain's support of more regulation] and send 'em on over to ya."

Hi-LAR-ious.
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#51 Sep 25 2008 at 6:15 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Sjans wrote:
Commie Bush is going to print it.

I believe he's borrowing it, and it's going straight on the treasury deficit. private foreigners and American citizens will loan the money to the US government, and the government/taxpayers will pay it back with interest.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 185 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (185)