Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Why Obama will lose in the fall  (Read 82146 times)

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #730 on: September 18, 2008, 12:00:45 AM »
If the Republicans are more interested in tax breaks for oil companies recording record profits in this economic crisis than in securing the off-shore drilling they have been telling working people will help them so much, that's on them.

aye think some of the pubs and the american people want to secure off shore drilling...they don't want a botched excuse for some weak muddied democratic coffee stained/hurricane relief/pork barrel/mileage and state restrictive bill.


lets start drilling 30 miles off the coast of california...then aye'll take the democrats seriously...



hell...obama isn't backing this...mccain is...and americans are watching.
If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
  if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison  
  us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not  
  revenge? m.of v. w.shaka                                             speare

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #731 on: September 18, 2008, 01:25:09 AM »
If the Republicans are more interested in tax breaks for oil companies recording record profits in this economic crisis than in securing the off-shore drilling they have been telling working people will help them so much, that's on them.

aye think some of the pubs and the american people want to secure off shore drilling...they don't want a botched excuse for some weak muddied democratic coffee stained/hurricane relief/pork barrel/mileage and state restrictive bill.


lets start drilling 30 miles off the coast of california...then aye'll take the democrats seriously...



hell...obama isn't backing this...mccain is...and americans are watching.

For all of your interest in the topic, you obviously understand the legislative and public relations aspects, not to mention the science, very little.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

vercingetorix

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #732 on: September 18, 2008, 07:43:36 AM »

are you equating fetuses with tumors? really?  so an unborn child is a tumor? i'm pretty sure that's not what you are saying, you're way too clever for that Miss P.  and is it really like a rabbit? so you find it objectionable to eat a cow but you have no problems ending a human life?  you state that you don't eat mammals. why? is it immoral to kill a mammal? but it's OK to kill humans? or that which will become human with a little time and sunshine? it seems incongruous to me that some of the most rabidly pro-abortion people are also vegans who think swatting at flies somehow upsets the cosmos. 

Weren't you in the Marines?

 :)

No, that was jeffislouie.  In case you haven't noticed, vercingetorix is Canadien.

Actually, he may have some association with Canada (he presents himself as everything from white South African to a non-white Quebequois to a back-wood Wisconsiner), and, yes, he was in the military.  Spent most of his time on helicopters in Asia, though he did at one point make some noise about being in Iraq (which was debunked by some blogger on whose blog he trolls.)  He's somewhere in his early-to-mid 30s, according to his earlier posts  His sexism and racism (he doesn't think very highly of Asians or Latinos) is fairly profound.  All and all, engaging him is probably a waste of valuable time and energy.

Fry.  I don't give a toss what you think about my "sexist" or "racist" thoughts.  I do however take umbrage when you attack my military record.  Even if this is a totally anonymous board and people can say whatever the hell they want about themselves, I have never and will never lie about my time in the Marines.  I was in Iraq and Afghanistan. I saw combat in both places.  I haven't a clue when you could ever have possibly seen this debunked by anyone since it actually happened and I would never in a million years and under any circumstance tell anyone that I wasn't were I really was, doing what I did (how's that for a Rumsfeldism?).  If you must continue with the facile ad hominem attacks (like calling someone a racist, always a safe attack, in this case groundless but safe) that's fine but let's leave my military record out of it.

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #733 on: September 18, 2008, 08:38:20 AM »
If the Republicans are more interested in tax breaks for oil companies recording record profits in this economic crisis than in securing the off-shore drilling they have been telling working people will help them so much, that's on them.

aye think some of the pubs and the american people want to secure off shore drilling...they don't want a botched excuse for some weak muddied democratic coffee stained/hurricane relief/pork barrel/mileage and state restrictive bill.


lets start drilling 30 miles off the coast of california...then aye'll take the democrats seriously...



hell...obama isn't backing this...mccain is...and americans are watching.

For all of your interest in the topic, you obviously understand the legislative and public relations aspects, not to mention the science, very little.

 :D :D :D :D...if you only knew how ironic that last post is...
If you prick us, do we not bleed?  
  if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison  
  us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not  
  revenge? m.of v. w.shaka                                             speare

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #734 on: September 18, 2008, 04:12:34 PM »
:D :D :D :D...if you only knew how ironic that last post is...

Perhaps we should put it to a vote.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

fbartela

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #735 on: September 18, 2008, 04:19:16 PM »
Sure lets leave energy policy to the rebuplicants, maybe they'll do as good a job with it as they did with the economy.

jeffislouie

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #736 on: September 18, 2008, 06:15:50 PM »
Sure lets leave energy policy to the rebuplicants, maybe they'll do as good a job with it as they did with the economy.

Ah yes, yet another loyal blind democrat who believes everything their lying party tells them.  Pelosi says the democrats had nothing to do with the economic crisis and you fools buy in without bothering to check.

So, I checked for you.  I know, I'm a liar and couldn't possibly be telling the truth because what I am about to tell you proves that the democrat party is made up of liars (ever since Dr. Dean took it over).
from boortz.com

1.  Almost all of the financial problems we see today are based on bad mortgage lending.  That would be lending money to people to buy homes who didn't qualify for a loan.

2.  The Democrats, under Clinton, strengthened a government-created monster called the "Community Reinvestment Act."  This law was then used by "activists" and "community organizers" (like Obama?) to coerce lending institutions to make these bad loans ... millions of them.

3.  Now we see what happens when political "wisdom" supplants good loan underwriting.  When private financial institutions are virtually forced to make loans to people with a bad credit and job history .. this is what you get.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586

"A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee. Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980.

According to OpenSecrets.com, from 1989 to 2008, Dodd received $165,400 in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, including contributions from PACs and individuals, followed by Obama, who received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004.

In contrast, McCain warned of the coming mortgage crisis as he pressed in 2005 for regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"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," McCain said on the floor of the Senate in 2005, speaking in favor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.

McCain pointed out Fannie Mae's regulator had stated 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 bill passed the House but was never brought up for a vote in the Senate, largely because of Democratic opposition to change in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory structure that remained in place until the Treasury takeover two weeks ago.

As evidenced by the failure to pass the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, the Democrats in Congress have repeatedly fought back Republican Party efforts to reform the two mortgage banking giants.

Instead, Democrats in Congress have sought to preserve the quasi-governmental status of the mortgage giants, seeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as places to locate former top Democratic Party operatives, where they have earned millions in compensation, despite a continuing series of financial scandals. Enron-like accounting manipulation, for example, boosted earnings to a level at which massive executive bonuses could be paid.

In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.

All three Obama-related executives earned millions in compensation from Fannie Mae.

Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003, according to author David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

All three have been involved in mortgage-related financial scandals.

In 1998, according to the Washington Post, Gorelick, as Fannie Mae vice chairman, received a bonus of $779,625, despite a scandal in which employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions to manipulate books to meet 1998 earning targets. The moves, in turn, triggered multi-million-dollar bonuses for top executives.

Gorelick was embroiled in another controversy over an alleged conflict of interest when a 1995 memo she authored as deputy attorney general surfaced while she was a member of the 9/11 commission.

The memo, which became known as the "Gorelick Wall," appeared to establish barriers that barred federal anti-terrorist criminal investigators from accessing various federal records and databases that may have assisted them in their criminal investigations.

According to the Associated Press, Raines and several other Fannie Mae top executives were ordered in a civil lawsuit to pay nearly $31.4 million for manipulating Fannie Mae earnings over a period of six years to trigger their massive bonuses.

Raines was also forced in the settlement to give up Fannie Mae stock options valued at $15.6 million.

Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Freddie Mac had engaged in accounting fraud from 2000 to 2002, imposing a $50 million fine on the company and on four executives fines for amounts ranging from $65,000 to $250,000.

Raines currently advises Obama on housing policy.

Johnson was appointed to head Obama's vice presidential selection committee, until a controversy concerning an alleged $7 millions in questionable real estate loans he received on favorable terms from failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial surfaced and forced him to step down.

WND previously reported a panel chaired by Elena Kagan, dean and professor of law at Harvard Law School, speculated at the June two-day meeting of the American Constitution Society that Gorelick was a possible attorney general cabinet appointment if Obama should be elected president."

Yup.  It's all Bush's fault.  Never mind that Obama took fat money from the now failed organizations.  Never mind that the executives who destroyed these financial institutions and caused this mortgage and credit meltdown now work for Obama.  Never mind that McCain called for reforms and the dems fought him tooth and nail.  Never mind that this all started under Clinton, when dems forced legislation that demanded lenders dole out loans to people who have absolutely no business buying homes. 

The dems had 'nothing' to do with it!  It's all Bush's fault!  Those folks who destroyed fannie mae and freddie mac?  Those are Obama people.  People who bought their way on to his campaign as 'advisers' and who just can't wait to get their sweet cabinet appointments.

Wake up liberals!  Your party is lying to you while looking you square in the face and you are either unwilling or just too plain stupid to see it.....
Justice is tangy....

fbartela

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #737 on: September 18, 2008, 09:36:00 PM »
haha wow, you are an angry human being

pig floyd

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #738 on: September 18, 2008, 09:40:32 PM »
Wait, so... a hardcore rightist is pushing for a remake of history in which we would have regulated something more instead of less?

roflcopters.
I hate science because I refuse to assume that a discipline based in large part on the continual scrapping and renewal of ideas is unconditionally correct in a given area.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« Reply #739 on: September 18, 2008, 11:55:24 PM »
Wait, so... a hardcore rightist is pushing for a remake of history in which we would have regulated something more instead of less?

roflcopters.

:D  Right, right.

For a more, erm, realistic view of the crisis, see http://www.prospect.org//cs/article=seven_deadly_sins_of_deregulation_and_three_necessary_reforms.

Note that the article does not claim that Democrats have clean hands.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.