Aww come on gbaji we all know you are Smash's alter ego and you two are halves of one skitzophrenic whole that likes too argue with itself.
The Smash half is just pissed it can't post so refused to let the gbaji half near a PC.
Edited, Sep 26th 2008 3:53pm by tarv
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- McCain chicken?
McCain chicken?Follow
#77gbaji,
Posted: Sep 26 2008 at 11:54 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) In my case, I've been out of town for the last few days, and I'm still catching up on work.
gbaji wrote:
I find it more interesting that it immediately got turned into a political issue by Obama ...
Yeah... "good little lemmings"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
And in my case, Dame, I have been on my off week where I spend most of my time outdoors rather than being here making my eyes bleed from reading your posts.
Seeing where we are economically, I'm almost of the mind that it'd be better to lose this election and let Obama and Congress fall on their swords over the next four years and pick up the pieces later were it not for the looming massive tax increases we are likely to get from such a combination of Dem administration and Congress.
This is further exacerbated by Mrs Totem and me living in Kalifornia, where our supposedly Republican governor hasn't met a tax increase he hasn't liked. He's the Austrian version of the Manchurian candidate.
:/
Whatever happens, it's gonna get seriously ugly.
It makes me think that after decades of political hyperbole from both sides of the aisle, warnings that this is a financial crisis that eclipses the Great Depression is bouncing off the domes of the American populace. It doesn't seem to be registering that global economic meltdown is not only possible, but quite likely. Electing the Black Neo or the PoW isn't going to change the outcome of this calamity from my perspective.
Yeah. My outlook is that gloomy. And I have a job and skill set that should be disaster-proof too.
Totem
Seeing where we are economically, I'm almost of the mind that it'd be better to lose this election and let Obama and Congress fall on their swords over the next four years and pick up the pieces later were it not for the looming massive tax increases we are likely to get from such a combination of Dem administration and Congress.
This is further exacerbated by Mrs Totem and me living in Kalifornia, where our supposedly Republican governor hasn't met a tax increase he hasn't liked. He's the Austrian version of the Manchurian candidate.
:/
Whatever happens, it's gonna get seriously ugly.
It makes me think that after decades of political hyperbole from both sides of the aisle, warnings that this is a financial crisis that eclipses the Great Depression is bouncing off the domes of the American populace. It doesn't seem to be registering that global economic meltdown is not only possible, but quite likely. Electing the Black Neo or the PoW isn't going to change the outcome of this calamity from my perspective.
Yeah. My outlook is that gloomy. And I have a job and skill set that should be disaster-proof too.
Totem
Quote:
were it not for the looming massive tax increases we are likely to get from such a combination of Dem administration and Congress.
I'm not in favor of massive tax increases, but hey. If you're gonna spend it like a drunken sailor, you're gonna have to pony up somehow.
We're in deep, deep debt.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
And deep deep ****.
Totem
Totem
Luckily there are visionaries among us!
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I find it more interesting that it immediately got turned into a political issue by Obama ...
/shrug
You can look at it that way. Obama could have taken several approaches though. He choose to attack McCain rather than join in the process. Was there a political aspect to McCain's action? Sure. But that's like saying that any politician choosing to do something is being "political". Um... That's what he was elected to do. I just think it's a bit absurd to make a huge fuss calling what McCain did politicking.
Again. McCain is attempting to do something positive. Obama is standing on the sidelines sniping at him. Which one do you think is playing politics? I suppose the short answer is that they both are, but I think there's a world of difference between attempting to curry political favor by doing the right thing and attempting to gain that favor by attacking the guy doing the right thing.
How about judging Obama by the same standard. What exactly has he done? Anything? Other then scheduled PR-like meetings, he hasn't actually been involved in the process of this thing at all. He was invited only because he's one of the two candidates for President. McCain would have been doing what he's doing right now even if he were not running. That's the key difference here, and it's a really big one.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Well it looks like he's not a chicken anymore, but he's getting quit cocky! 
McCain camp releases ad claiming debate victory
Edited, Sep 26th 2008 6:14pm by DSD
McCain camp releases ad claiming debate victory Edited, Sep 26th 2008 6:14pm by DSD
Haha someone reported Scrooge McDuck.
Probably Palin, that *****.
Probably Palin, that *****.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
You can look at it that way. Obama could have taken several approaches though. He choose to attack McCain rather than join in the process. Was there a political aspect to McCain's action? Sure. But that's like saying that any politician choosing to do something is being "political". Um... That's what he was elected to do. I just think it's a bit absurd to make a huge fuss calling what McCain did politicking.
McCain tried to declare himself Savior of the Moment and said the debates should be postponed. Obama said "Umm... no" and called McCain's bluff. McCain blinked and is running off of Mississippi with some "Oh, Congress is working hard enough!" and you're crying out Obama out-manuvering McCain and saying that Obama was all "political" while McCain's politics were just his job. Mind you, part of their jobs as elected candidates is to get their *** to tonight's debate but let's ignore that.
Sure, man. Whatever.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
McCain, like Obama, is being so closely scrutinised right now you CAN track exactly where he's been and what he's done since "suspending the campaign". It basically involves avoiding Washington for another day, giving a TV interview and a speech and then arriving just in time for Repub hardliners to back out of the bill, probably inspired by McCain's appearance and apparent dislike of it as it stands.
It's arrogant in the extreme for him to assume he can single-handedly contribute to this when he has admitted himself he knows **** all about economics. It also shows how little he trusts Palin to even manage his campaign for a few days. But maybe she's going to come along and inspire congress to come to an agreement with lovely anecdotes about hockey and "some people don't like us and they're bad"?
We have about 3 scenarios.
A) McCain never intended to help the bill or had realistic expectations that he would, is entirely uninvolved in the decision making process; his actions whilst having an effect have been entirely political.
B) McCain did think he could help and was completely wrong.
C) McCain did think he could help and its yet to become apparent how he's done this.
It's really not looking good for him whichever one you pick.
It's arrogant in the extreme for him to assume he can single-handedly contribute to this when he has admitted himself he knows **** all about economics. It also shows how little he trusts Palin to even manage his campaign for a few days. But maybe she's going to come along and inspire congress to come to an agreement with lovely anecdotes about hockey and "some people don't like us and they're bad"?
We have about 3 scenarios.
A) McCain never intended to help the bill or had realistic expectations that he would, is entirely uninvolved in the decision making process; his actions whilst having an effect have been entirely political.
B) McCain did think he could help and was completely wrong.
C) McCain did think he could help and its yet to become apparent how he's done this.
It's really not looking good for him whichever one you pick.
Youshutup wrote:
It's arrogant in the extreme for him to assume he can single-handedly contribute to this when he has admitted himself he knows @#%^ all about economics.
He didn't say that. He said that he doesn't know as much about economics as he knows about foreign policy. He knows a lot about foreign policy though, so that doesn't say that he knows nothing about economics. He has sat on a number of economic based committees (housing and commerce for two right off the top of my head), so it's massively misleading to take his quote to mean he knows nothing on the subject.
And judging from his actions in the past, and his reactions to economic events over the last year (oil prices and the credit problems) he sure seems to have a more firm grasp of what's going on than Obama does. By a long shot...
Quote:
C) McCain did think he could help and its yet to become apparent how he's done this.
Maybe it's not apparent to you. But for those of us who'd like a solution that doesn't saddle us with yet more debt and financial problems down the line, he's helping quite a bit. On this area, the Dems have shown a pattern of using each "crisis" to push yet more of their spending onto the taxpayers in one form or another apparently without any regard to the future cost. Someone at some point has to yell "No more!". And that's what McCain (and many Republicans thankfully) are finally doing.
You can call that politicking if you want. I'd call that doing the right thing at the right time.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Youshutup wrote:
McCain, like Obama, is being so closely scrutinised right now you CAN track exactly where he's been and what he's done since "suspending the campaign". It basically involves avoiding Washington for another day, giving a TV interview and a speech and then arriving just in time for Repub hardliners to back out of the bill, probably inspired by McCain's appearance and apparent dislike of it as it stands.
It's arrogant in the extreme for him to assume he can single-handedly contribute to this when he has admitted himself he knows @#%^ all about economics. It also shows how little he trusts Palin to even manage his campaign for a few days. But maybe she's going to come along and inspire congress to come to an agreement with lovely anecdotes about hockey and "some people don't like us and they're bad"?
We have about 3 scenarios.
A) McCain never intended to help the bill or had realistic expectations that he would, is entirely uninvolved in the decision making process; his actions whilst having an effect have been entirely political.
B) McCain did think he could help and was completely wrong.
C) McCain did think he could help and its yet to become apparent how he's done this.
It's really not looking good for him whichever one you pick.
It's arrogant in the extreme for him to assume he can single-handedly contribute to this when he has admitted himself he knows @#%^ all about economics. It also shows how little he trusts Palin to even manage his campaign for a few days. But maybe she's going to come along and inspire congress to come to an agreement with lovely anecdotes about hockey and "some people don't like us and they're bad"?
We have about 3 scenarios.
A) McCain never intended to help the bill or had realistic expectations that he would, is entirely uninvolved in the decision making process; his actions whilst having an effect have been entirely political.
B) McCain did think he could help and was completely wrong.
C) McCain did think he could help and its yet to become apparent how he's done this.
It's really not looking good for him whichever one you pick.
ive got another scenario. McCain wants to come out on top of this. What better way than to have his proposal be the one accepted than the one everyone else has been working on? Would that not be a huge economic coup for the campaign? And the fact that everything was looking great until he showed up in DC and now everything has fallen apart kind of makes me wonder. The house republicans standing off this entire bail out package when the rest of congress and house, plus Bush are all in favor of this just seems odd.
gbaji wrote:
He has sat on a number of economic based committees (housing and commerce for two right off the top of my head)
Edited, Sep 26th 2008 7:06pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The flaw in your theory DSD is that the only reason you think that "everything was working great" is because a string of Democrats went on TV and repeated that very statement over and over yesterday. It was the most obvious "push the talking points to the media" ploy I've seen in a long time. When 8 different people all use almost the exact same language in their interviews so quickly after an event, it's a good indication that the whole thing was staged.
They walked into that meeting with a plan that went well beyond what the GOP would accept. They knew this going in. The GOP didn't. Hence why when the meeting broke up over the plan they were already prepared with a scripted response for all their people to say to the media.
And it largely worked. You get a half dozen or so people all saying the same thing immediately after the meeting fell apart and it gives the appearance that they must be right, doesn't it? It was designed that way. They knew that the GOP would never go for the plan as presented and used the whole thing as a cheap way to score political points.
I'll again ask those who are still confused to look up the phrase "poison pill". It's a very old political tactic. You have some bill that needs to be passed. Something that the public is clamoring for. You stick something in that you know the other side wont agree to and when they don't agree to it, you blame them for holding up this incredibly important and necessary thing. Then you go back to the drawing board, remove some of the poison from the bill and make it appear as though it was your compromising that allowed the plan to go forward and save the day, while painting your opponents as hardliners who were willing to put the country at risk for their own evil-greedy ends...
Sound familiar? Wanna take bets that Dems play the "we compromised and that's why the plan's going forward" card over the next few days? Just wait for it...
They walked into that meeting with a plan that went well beyond what the GOP would accept. They knew this going in. The GOP didn't. Hence why when the meeting broke up over the plan they were already prepared with a scripted response for all their people to say to the media.
And it largely worked. You get a half dozen or so people all saying the same thing immediately after the meeting fell apart and it gives the appearance that they must be right, doesn't it? It was designed that way. They knew that the GOP would never go for the plan as presented and used the whole thing as a cheap way to score political points.
I'll again ask those who are still confused to look up the phrase "poison pill". It's a very old political tactic. You have some bill that needs to be passed. Something that the public is clamoring for. You stick something in that you know the other side wont agree to and when they don't agree to it, you blame them for holding up this incredibly important and necessary thing. Then you go back to the drawing board, remove some of the poison from the bill and make it appear as though it was your compromising that allowed the plan to go forward and save the day, while painting your opponents as hardliners who were willing to put the country at risk for their own evil-greedy ends...
Sound familiar? Wanna take bets that Dems play the "we compromised and that's why the plan's going forward" card over the next few days? Just wait for it...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
He has sat on a number of economic based committees (housing and commerce for two right off the top of my head)
Yup. My bad on that one. He was just interested enough in this specific issue to co-sponsor a bill in that committee. I mistakenly assumed that he was on the committee as well.
The point is that on this particular issue facing us right now, McCain has a record showing that he attempted to make changes designed to directly deal with the growing sub-prime problem. Does Obama have any such record? Has he ever taken a position on this prior to it becoming a crisis (last year or so)?
If McCain has at least taken a stance that may have prevented this, and Obama hasn't, what does that say? If McCain's attempts to help fix it failed, at least he tried, right? Shouldn't we place blame on the party that has systematically prevented attempts to prevent this crisis?
It's just staggering to me that so many people buy the whole "The Bush administration did it" line, apparently purely because the Democrats are so willing to jump out in front of the public and say it. When you do any research on this at all, it becomes abundantly clear that while there's blame enough to spread around, it's was pretty clearly the things that the Dems wanted that caused the bulk of the problem, while the Republicans didn't do enough to prevent it.
This whole thing is even more absurd in the context of the current presidential race, with the Dems basically trying to convince the public that we should vote for them because the Republicans failed to prevent them from doing something that screwed up the economy. Um... How's that again? In what universe does this logic work? I guess in one where the media is basically in the tank for one party and manages to avoid actually doing any investigation into the cause of the crisis in front of us. Isn't is interesting how many really easily researched problems are magically "unknown" as far as the media is concerned when the root cause doesn't help some Liberal talking point of the day?
Kinda reminds me of how as far as the media is concerned, no one knows why 9/11 happened. Off topic I know, but how many times have I linked to that one interview where OBL tells us what he's doing and why (in 1998 no less). It's the same kind of thing. The media turns a blind eye in terms of investigation when they know that the facts might not help their cause. They don't like the war in Iraq, and knowing why 9/11 happened might damage that argument, so they don't cover that interview. They like the Dem housing programs, and they know that revealing that it's those programs that caused this crisis would be bad for them, so they don't tell the public what caused the crisis.
It's amazing how unbiased our media is, isn't it? Oh wait! It's the other way around...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
The flaw in your theory DSD is that the only reason you think that "everything was working great" is because a string of Democrats went on TV and repeated that very statement over and over yesterday
The funny thing is watching Dems try to spin McCain as being Cheney's hatchetman in the Senate, as if he wasn't the Left's Republican darling back when Dubya was running for office. Lol, all of a sudden McCain is being tied to Bush as if they held secret planning conferences for the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of the global economy.
But hey, don't let your political frothing at the mouth keep you from clearly enunciating how McCain is George W. Bush, Act III.
Totem
But hey, don't let your political frothing at the mouth keep you from clearly enunciating how McCain is George W. Bush, Act III.
Totem
gbaji wrote:
He was just interested enough in this specific issue to co-sponsor a bill in that committee.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
The funny thing is watching Dems try to spin McCain as being Cheney's hatchetman in the Senate,
Who does? I've never heard anything remotely like that.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Who does? I've never heard anything remotely like that.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Poor McCain. His white horse ride into Congress and *cough*"hard work"*cough* didn't do much to impress people. According to a Gallup poll of how people approved of folks handling the crisis, Obama beats everyone and Democrats in general do better than the Republicans.
Obama scored a 46% approval, beating Democratic Congressional Leaders (by 7 points), McCain (9pts), Republican Leaders (15pts) & Bush and Paulson (by 18pts for each). Obama was also the only person(s) to get a net positive rating (+3) vs -16pts for McCain. Ouch.
No one is doing "great" in this but Obama clearly has the advantage in this situation.
Obama scored a 46% approval, beating Democratic Congressional Leaders (by 7 points), McCain (9pts), Republican Leaders (15pts) & Bush and Paulson (by 18pts for each). Obama was also the only person(s) to get a net positive rating (+3) vs -16pts for McCain. Ouch.
No one is doing "great" in this but Obama clearly has the advantage in this situation.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 288
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (288)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- McCain chicken?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC