What exactly are they afraid of?

[packinpatland]

In 42 days we will vote..........and they are still shielding Palin from the public and from the press.
She has not held a press conference since being chosen by McCain four weeks ago, and has not done the traditional local interviews when traveling into media markets.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/23/1436401.aspx

[texaspackerbacker]

3 weeks by my calendar is October 7. Oh. 3 weeks became 42 days. Isn't that "edit" function wonderful.

What are you planning on voting on then, packinpatland?

If you meant 2 months, that's a major difference--plenty of time. Palin will be debating Biden on national TV--leftists should be scared shitless about that. She has had two major televised interviews--one with Fox News, one with an unabashed leftist shill from ABC TV--and she did an excellent job.

The supposed gains in the polls over the last several weeks for Obama correlate with Palin NOT having much access for voters to hear her. Perhaps you should check with your leftist leaders and ask them if they want Palin to be articulating her positions in front of more people.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I've already posted this several times, but the dumbest thing the Dems can do is draw attention to Palin. It just invites comparison to Obama, who is equally unqualified to be President, and he is at the top of the ticket.

You don't hear that many attacks on Biden by the Republicans, they are smarter. The VP really doesn't matter.

[packinpatland]

3 weeks by my calendar is October 7. Oh. 3 weeks became 42 days. Isn't that "edit" function wonderful.

What are you planning on voting on then, packinpatland?

If you meant 2 months, that's a major difference--plenty of time. Palin will be debating Biden on national TV--leftists should be scared shitless about that. She has had two major televised interviews--one with Fox News, one with an unabashed leftist shill from ABC TV--and she did an excellent job.

The supposed gains in the polls over the last several weeks for Obama correlate with Palin NOT having much access for voters to hear her. Perhaps you should check with your leftist leaders and ask them if they want Palin to be articulating her positions in front of more people.


Good Lord......talk about 'senior moments'.........sure got me on that one tex :lol: ......
On everything else you have to say............. :bs2:

[HowardRoark]

Still waiting for the hour long Charlie Gibson interview of Joe Biden. What time do Joe's press conferences come on T.V.?

[MadtownPacker]

Maybe they are worried about a wardrobe malfunction? :lol:

[MJZiggy]

Ok, that was funny... :lol:

[MadScientist]

I've already posted this several times, but the dumbest thing the Dems can do is draw attention to Palin. It just invites comparison to Obama, who is equally unqualified to be President, and he is at the top of the ticket.

You don't hear that many attacks on Biden by the Republicans, they are smarter. The VP really doesn't matter.
The flip side of your argument is that the republicans can't claim that Palin is unqualified and unready to lead, or that experience is all that critical so their attacks on Obama are undermined. With those eliminated, you are left with judgment and temperament, giving Obama the advantage.

I would however agree with you that the Democrats should not focus on Palin. The vice presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. The Democrats should only acknowledge the existence of 2 republicans, Bush and McCain.

[texaspackerbacker]

I've already posted this several times, but the dumbest thing the Dems can do is draw attention to Palin. It just invites comparison to Obama, who is equally unqualified to be President, and he is at the top of the ticket.

You don't hear that many attacks on Biden by the Republicans, they are smarter. The VP really doesn't matter.

The ONLY thing I would change in your post would be to take the "un" off of "unqualified".

Obviously, Palin is well qualified to be president--only leftists who HATE her positions on the issues would think otherwise. And as for experience, she has a helluva lot more than Obama.

However, I would NOT oppose Obama on the grounds that he is UNQUALIFIED to be president. Advisors, etc. can more than mitigate the lack of experience. The reason it is so unthinkable for Obama to be president is HIS POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES--the strong probability he would NOT prevent repeats of 9/11--since he opposes literally EVERYTHING that has worked so successfully so far. Obama also would tax and spend the country into oblivion, and he would inflict a bunch of leftist programs on the American people which would result in severe curtailment of freedom. And last, but certainly not least, he would appoint leftist activist judges and justices who would tear down whatever remains of traditional values and morality after the havoc reaked by earlier leftist courts. THOSE are the reason an Obama presidency would be horrendous for America.

His lack of experience has very little to do with it. An equally inexperienced person who has decent views on the issues would do just fine.

[mraynrand]

I've already posted this several times, but the dumbest thing the Dems can do is draw attention to Palin. It just invites comparison to Obama, who is equally unqualified to be President, and he is at the top of the ticket.

You don't hear that many attacks on Biden by the Republicans, they are smarter. The VP really doesn't matter.
The flip side of your argument is that the republicans can't claim that Palin is unqualified and unready to lead, or that experience is all that critical so their attacks on Obama are undermined. With those eliminated, you are left with judgment and temperament, giving Obama the advantage.

I would however agree with you that the Democrats should not focus on Palin. The vice presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. The Democrats should only acknowledge the existence of 2 republicans, Bush and McCain.

What do you think best defines Obama's advantage in judgment? If you want to say position on the war, you will have to acknowledge that at the time his position was inconsequential and that he also supported Bush's handling of Iraq at least in 2004. What other judgment is there to convince anyone that Obama is a good leader? The asbestos he didn't really get removed as community organizer? The 50 million Annenberg dollars he blew with (by their own admission) no tangible results on student performance in Chicago schools, but with likely left-wing politicalization of classrooms? Voting present in the State Senate? Latching on to a couple of bills in Congress before running for president? Supporting partial birth abortion? What judgment?

[HowardRoark]

The flip side of your argument is that the republicans can't claim that Palin is unqualified and unready to lead, or that experience is all that critical so their attacks on Obama are undermined. With those eliminated, you are left with judgment and temperament, giving Obama the advantage.

I would however agree with you that the Democrats should not focus on Palin. The vice presidency isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. The Democrats should only acknowledge the existence of 2 republicans, Bush and McCain.

Ayers
Rezko
Pfleger
Powers
Jim Johnson

And the crème de la crème……”I was against the invasion of Iraq, therefore; we should leave now…..no matter what is going on there at this time”(or something)..... obvious lack of judgement (to say nothing of the lack of logic). Even though he was obviously pandering to the MoveOn.org types during the primaries.

The guy is unbelievably malleable.

Didn't the "post-partisan" candidate tell his minions the other day to "get in people's faces?" Nice temperament.

As far as th Bush/McCain thing....you must be on the email talking points list.

[oregonpackfan]

Sarah Palin is back in Alaska expanding her knowledge of foreign affairs by "Looking at Russia from my house." :)

[Kiwon]

In 42 days we will vote..........and they are still shielding Palin from the public and from the press.
She has not held a press conference since being chosen by McCain four weeks ago, and has not done the traditional local interviews when traveling into media markets.

Yeah, "they" hid her away from the public at rallies attended by 10,000 in Green Bay and 60,000 in Florida. She wanted to go to the anti-
Ahmadinejad rally in NYC but Democratic activists threaten to go after the sponsors if she appeared. Interviews with ABC, Fox, and CBS somehow don't count as press appearances?

Seems to me that the almighty MSM is already doing a good job of commenting on all things Palin. Between the Hollywood nitwits constant trashing and SNL skits about incest in the Palin's home it's little wonder why she should make time for journalists who don't care about objectivity but are primarily looking to impress their friends and score big for Obama's campaign with their "gotcha" questions.

Good question, PIP, what exactly is the MSM so afraid of?

The election is between McCAIN and OBAMA!!

[HowardRoark]

The Man Who Never Was
By Tony Blankley

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign.

While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08, for the first time, the major media consciously are covering for one candidate for president and consciously are knifing the other. This is no longer journalism; it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Völkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.)

And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly or even halfway honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs -- the press. The image of Obama that the press has presented to the public is not a fair approximation of the real man. They consciously have ignored whole years of his life and have shown a lack of curiosity about such gaps, which bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct.

Thus, the public image of Obama is of a "man who never was."

I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real-life World War II British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece rather than Sicily in 1943. Operation Mincemeat involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as "Major William Martin, R.M.," which was put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a briefcase containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.

To make the operation credible, British intelligence concocted a fictional life for the corpse, creating a letter from a lover and tickets to a London theater -- all the details of a life, but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media have presented to the nation as Obama is not the real man.

The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeat any McCain gaffes while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Web sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventually clear sentence from Obama. You don't see Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the U.N. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.

More appalling, a skit on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" last weekend suggested that Gov. Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That show was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate in Minnesota for the U.S. Senate. Talk about incest.

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting are the shocking gaps in Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply have not reported on Obama's two years at New York's Columbia University, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter-mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks, the media have focused on all the colleges Gov. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago, and the close criticism of the political opponents Gov. Palin had when she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

But in two years, they haven't bothered to see how close Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Obama's rise in Chicago politics. How did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great -- and unflattering -- details on Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book on Obama, the mainstream media continue to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, The Economist, to give Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Obama, his publicist (David Axelrod) and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor wrote, "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis."

That conspiracy not only has Photoshopped out all of Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent McCain's image) but also has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.

The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.

[packinpatland]

All of this would be totally not even 'talkable' if McCain weren't so damn old!

Being 'hid' at rallies of 10,000 and 60,000 (quesitonable numbers, but that's not the point)..........that's like comparing her to a football player or a member of a rock band. Being in front of people doesn't mean you're accessible. And yesterday in NY was a joke. She made small talk with world leaders......now she's qualified. :roll:

[SkinBasket]

Best thing is I heard the same shit yesterday from a couple of democrat heads on the TV. Oh, she thinks she's qualified now she's meeting foreign leaders. One of them then went on to assert Obama was far more qualified in this area because he's been talking about foreign affairs for months. I thought that was a perfect summation of Obama's entire campaign.

Kind of seems Palin can't do anything right in some people's books. No matter what she does, she draws rolling eye happy face thingies. Angry, desperate, sad little rolling eye happy face thingies.

[LL2]

All of this would be totally not even 'talkable' if McCain weren't so damn old!

Being 'hid' at rallies of 10,000 and 60,000 (quesitonable numbers, but that's not the point)..........that's like comparing her to a football player or a member of a rock band. Being in front of people doesn't mean you're accessible. And yesterday in NY was a joke. She made small talk with world leaders......now she's qualified. :roll:

Between yesterday and today she probably will have talked to more world leaders than Obama has...you make the point she isn't opening up to the press after the meetings...she isn't there to make position statements...which is what the press want...but rather introduce herself to the world leaders and have good discussions with them.

[packinpatland]

The GOP campaign, applying more restrictive rules on access than even President Bush uses in the White House, banned reporters from the start of the meetings, so as not to risk a question being asked of Palin.

McCain aides relented after news organizations objected and CNN, which was supplying TV footage to a variety of networks, decided to pull its TV crew from Palin's meeting with Karzai.

Overheard: small talk.
"Palin is studying foreign policy ahead of her one debate with Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, a senator with deep credentials on that front. More broadly, the Republican ticket is trying to counter questions exploited by Democrats about her qualifications to serve as vice president and step into the presidency at a moment's notice if necessary.

There was no chance of putting such questions to rest with photo opportunities Tuesday.

But Palin, who got a passport only last year, no longer has to own up to a blank slate when asked about heads of state she has met.

She also got her first intelligence briefing Tuesday, over two hours.

[SkinBasket]

She also got her first intelligence briefing Tuesday, over two hours.

ZOMG! We're all going to DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zool]

Isnt it bizarre how Dems know 100x more about Rep candidates than they do the Dem candidates, and vise versa? Constantly trying to find something in the "evil other half" to either ridicule or expose so their guy/girl looks better in their own eyes.

God I cant wait for December.

[SkinBasket]

Isnt it bizarre how Dems know 100x more about Rep candidates than they do the Dem candidates, and vise versa? Constantly trying to find something in the "evil other half" to either ridicule or expose so their guy/girl looks better in their own eyes.

God I cant wait for December.

I think your obvious mental limitations (i.e.: retardation) are clouding your views on this debate.

[Zool]

Isnt it bizarre how Dems know 100x more about Rep candidates than they do the Dem candidates, and vise versa? Constantly trying to find something in the "evil other half" to either ridicule or expose so their guy/girl looks better in their own eyes.

God I cant wait for December.

I think your obvious mental limitations (i.e.: retardation) are clouding your views on this debate.

I think your morning breakfast of coffee and dick are sperming up your objectivity. I'm not talking about just this debate, its politics in general.

[SkinBasket]

Isnt it bizarre how Dems know 100x more about Rep candidates than they do the Dem candidates, and vise versa? Constantly trying to find something in the "evil other half" to either ridicule or expose so their guy/girl looks better in their own eyes.

God I cant wait for December.

I think your obvious mental limitations (i.e.: retardation) are clouding your views on this debate.

I think your morning breakfast of coffee and dick are sperming up your objectivity. I'm not talking about just this debate, its politics in general.

That's what I'm talking about. You're obviously just not smart enough to understand politics. It's sad really. I would feel sorry for you if I had the capacity to feel for mongoloids.

[packinpatland]

Just curoius...........don't these children have school that needs attending?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09242008/news/politics/dad_at_play_on_sarahs_big_day_130473.htm

[SkinBasket]

Sarah Palin is back in Alaska expanding her knowledge of foreign affairs by "Looking at Russia from my house." :)

While Biden is (re)writing history books:

WASHINGTON — Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says today’s leaders should take a lesson from the history books and follow fellow Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to a financial crisis.

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened,”‘ Barack Obama’s running mate recently told the “CBS Evening News.”

Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929. There also was no television at the time; TV wasn’t introduced to the public until a decade later, at the 1939 World’s Fair.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/biden-slips-suggests-fdr-was-president-when-market-crashed/

[oregonpackfan]

Just curoius...........don't these children have school that needs attending?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09242008/news/politics/dad_at_play_on_sarahs_big_day_130473.htm

The Palins are on a "Task from God." They don't need no education. :roll:

[Kiwon]

Just curoius...........don't these children have school that needs attending?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09242008/news/politics/dad_at_play_on_sarahs_big_day_130473.htm

The Palins are on a "Task from God." They don't need no education. :roll:

You two are acting like real jerks today.

Obama's handwritten prayer from July:

"Lord — Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/ap/3a4ba638-c3b7-47a6-bd7d-ed366a6b4f42.hmedium.jpg

[SkinBasket]

Just curoius...........don't these children have school that needs attending?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09242008/news/politics/dad_at_play_on_sarahs_big_day_130473.htm

The Palins are on a "Task from God." They don't need no education. :roll:

Good to see it's not just the liberal portions of the media going after Palin's children and family, but also the rank and file dems as well. They've got you guys well trained already and it's only September.

[packinpatland]

Just curoius...........don't these children have school that needs attending?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09242008/news/politics/dad_at_play_on_sarahs_big_day_130473.htm

The Palins are on a "Task from God." They don't need no education. :roll:

Good to see it's not just the liberal portions of the media going after Palin's children and family, but also the rank and file dems as well. They've got you guys well trained already and it's only September.

I asked an innocent, honest question.............

[Harlan Huckleby]

I asked an innocent, honest question.............

To use your own favorite emoticon: :roll:

You made a snotty reference to a very snotty article questioning Mr. Palin's parenting.


Wasn't Obama a terrible parent for using his kids out for a political TV interview? Terrible, Shocking.

(Of course Obama apologized two days later, saying with a concerned-parent face that he regretted having dragging his children into the fray.
Sort of reminiscent of how the Obama campaign dishonestly savaged Hillary's Bobby Kennedy remark, and then two days later, after the political gain was harvested, Obama went on TV to sensitively express his outrage at the ugly distortions "in the media" about Mrs. Clinton.)

The Obama train has taken the cake for sleazy behavior, and the attacks on Palin by Obamaniacs are just more of the same.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ok, I actually read the whole article, and it wasn't so snotty, so probably your comment was indeed innocent. Sorry.

I will leave my angry tirade in place, because it was so darn enjoyable to blast off, and I want to savor that feeling.

[SkinBasket]

I asked an innocent, honest question.............

I would guess the innocent honest answer would be homeschooling. It's not very difficult to match the level of education you receive in most public schools.

[Freak Out]

I'm assuming they must have a tutor or two traveling with them. Home schooling on the campaign trail. What a life. I'm curious if anyone knows who is paying Todd for his time? Is he on paid leave from BP? Is he compensated in anyway with campaign funds? I know both campaigns are awash in $$$$. Where the hell are Husseins kids? Who's following them around?

[Freak Out]

I asked an innocent, honest question.............

I would guess the innocent honest answer would be homeschooling. It's not very difficult to match the level of education you receive in most public schools.

Maybe where you live.

[packinpatland]

I asked an innocent, honest question.............

I would guess the innocent honest answer would be homeschooling. It's not very difficult to match the level of education you receive in most public schools.

Seriously........are they being homeschooled?

When my kids were in school.....the standing rule in our house was no..none..nada...television the entire month of Sept. Getting off to a good start, and all that. I understand taking kids with you on business trips, travel is a good learning experience...but a week off, in the first weeks of school?

[mraynrand]

I asked an innocent, honest question.............

I would guess the innocent honest answer would be homeschooling. It's not very difficult to match the level of education you receive in most public schools.

Seriously........are they being homeschooled?

When my kids were in school.....the standing rule in our house was no..none..nada...television the entire month of Sept. Getting off to a good start, and all that. I understand taking kids with you on business trips, travel is a good learning experience...but a week off, in the first weeks of school?

I believe that you really care and are truly concerned about the education of Sarah Palin's children. Thank you.

[packinpatland]

Then someone answer my question!!!!!

[mraynrand]

Then someone answer my question!!!!!

I would suggest you investigate on your own. With your compassionate liberalism as your loving guide, the answers should present themselves to you in a glorified, soft-focus light.

[packinpatland]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Priceless

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The conservatives are test as the poll numbers are not to their liking. Mac keeps fumbling..and even the Fox Polls like who would you trust more and who is running more neg ads continue to favor Obama.

Add in the complete failure of the free market in our financial sector..well, they are getting crankier by the minute.

You'll notice that Sheep hasn't posted his once daily anti O screed!! Prolly quivering in his basement.

[Freak Out]

Considering this is not a national election the polls in the States that matter now are dead even....and that means Hussein could be toast.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Considering this is not a national election the polls in the States that matter now are dead even....and that means Hussein could be toast.

True. But, most polls and pundits still have Obama getting the electoral votes in order to win.

To me, this is playing out just like 92.

And, even the Fox Polls show that more people believe Obama can solve the economy issues better than Mac.

To be relentlessly honest, i wouldn't be surprised if this admin is cooking the books..and that the october-january surprise will be that we are indeed in a recession.

[mraynrand]

Add in the complete failure of the free market in our financial sector..

Fanny and Freddie were free?

[Freak Out]

Considering this is not a national election the polls in the States that matter now are dead even....and that means Hussein could be toast.

True. But, most polls and pundits still have Obama getting the electoral votes in order to win.

To me, this is playing out just like 92.

And, even the Fox Polls show that more people believe Obama can solve the economy issues better than Mac.

To be relentlessly honest, i wouldn't be surprised if this admin is cooking the books..and that the october-january surprise will be that we are indeed in a recession.

I hope you are right.

[SkinBasket]

To be relentlessly honest, i wouldn't be surprised if this admin is cooking the books..and that the october-january surprise will be that we are indeed in a recession.

I'm sure it will be a one-two punch where they also introduce the secret sub-atomic weather control particle beam weapon they used to destroy New Orleans.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Add in the complete failure of the free market in our financial sector..

Fanny and Freddie were free?

Strawman argument. You and i both know we will never be in a text book def of free market.

The free market failed before and it has done it again. You take away reg and oversite..and you let the wolves run free.

You can flail around, but it all comes back to the same thing for you and the rest of you free marketers..privatize profits, socialize losses.

You hem and haw and talk about what would happen if we let them collapse..but, that certainly isn't the free market.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

To be relentlessly honest, i wouldn't be surprised if this admin is cooking the books..and that the october-january surprise will be that we are indeed in a recession.

I'm sure it will be a one-two punch where they also introduce the secret sub-atomic weather control particle beam weapon they used to destroy New Orleans.

Exactly. :roll:

Yep, this admin hasn't lied before. :oops:

Stop pretending that the goal of the conservs isn't to destroy the federal gov't. What better way than to show it doesn't work thru complicit malfeasance.

Should we not take Norquist at his word?.."to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Considering this is not a national election the polls in the States that matter now are dead even....and that means Hussein could be toast.

True. But, most polls and pundits still have Obama getting the electoral votes in order to win.

To me, this is playing out just like 92.

And, even the Fox Polls show that more people believe Obama can solve the economy issues better than Mac.

To be relentlessly honest, i wouldn't be surprised if this admin is cooking the books..and that the october-january surprise will be that we are indeed in a recession.

I hope you are right.

Regardless of who wins..dems will control both houses...and whoever is prez is gonna be in a world of shit for 1-2 years..gonna be hard to implement any new ideas with the lack of money.

[mraynrand]

Add in the complete failure of the free market in our financial sector..

Fanny and Freddie were free?

Strawman argument. You and i both know we will never be in a text book def of free market.

The free market failed before and it has done it again. You take away reg and oversite..and you let the wolves run free.

You can flail around, but it all comes back to the same thing for you and the rest of you free marketers..privatize profits, socialize losses.

You hem and haw and talk about what would happen if we let them collapse..but, that [b]certainly isn't the free market.
Strawman argument? A question is an argument? Do you know the difference? You made the foolish 'free market' statement when you know it isn't. You know that at least there was an attempt to restrain 'the wolves' that were running free in the mortgage market. Who proposed the changes and who blocked them? What failed was an unfree market - a market that was forced to make bad loans and was forced to mark to market by the government. The fault of the financiers was to bundle and sell, but otherwise government intrusion in the market played a huge role in the crisis. Or is that just a 'straw man?'

[mraynrand]

Stop pretending that the goal of the conservs isn't to destroy the federal gov't. What better way than to show it doesn't work thru complicit malfeasance.


I see. So now you are arguing that New Orleans was deliberately destroyed and Freddie and Fanny were deliberately allowed to fail to bring down the federal government? And that's why the Federal government is pushing for a 700 billion dollar buyout of the mortgage market - to have less involvement and to shrink the size of government? I guess all conservatives didn't get the same 'destroy the fed' memo that you did.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Add in the complete failure of the free market in our financial sector..

Fanny and Freddie were free?

Strawman argument. You and i both know we will never be in a text book def of free market.

The free market failed before and it has done it again. You take away reg and oversite..and you let the wolves run free.

You can flail around, but it all comes back to the same thing for you and the rest of you free marketers..privatize profits, socialize losses.

You hem and haw and talk about what would happen if we let them collapse..but, that [b]certainly isn't the free market.
Strawman argument? A question is an argument? Do you know the difference? You made the foolish 'free market' statement when you know it isn't. You know that at least there was an attempt to restrain 'the wolves' that were running free in the mortgage market. Who proposed the changes and who blocked them? What failed was an unfree market - a market that was forced to make bad loans and was forced to mark to market by the government. The fault of the financiers was to bundle and sell, but otherwise government intrusion in the market played a huge role in the crisis. Or is that just a 'straw man?'

Your question isn't a question..it is a loaded question with a perspective. Like i said, strawman.

And, again, your point isn't valid..as pointed out..we will never have a truly free market.

Yeah, they were forced to make ridiculous loans. They were forced into creating the subprime market and and giving no doc loans.

i love how you absolve the repubs...paging mr. gramm.

The problem, as it always is with the financial sector is that they care about making money, not about creating anything. So, after the tech bubble, the biggest area that could make obscene profits was construction. No one forced them into this area..they chose it. They coulda invested in things that would have made money and created jobs. But, that isn't what they wanted to do.

There is nothing inherently wrong about making money, but there is a huge difference between taking over a company and profitting from destroying it (selling off its parts) and giving great returns for your investors and creating/sustaining a company that actually produces something.

[SkinBasket]

Stop pretending that the goal of the conservs isn't to destroy the federal gov't. What better way than to show it doesn't work thru complicit malfeasance.


I see. So now you are arguing that New Orleans was deliberately destroyed and Freddie and Fanny were deliberately allowed to fail to bring down the federal government? And that's why the Federal government is pushing for a 700 billion dollar buyout of the mortgage market - to have less involvement and to shrink the size of government? I guess all conservatives didn't get the same 'destroy the fed' memo that you did.

But at the same time, they're trying to "hide" a recession, because only the federal government has access to this country's financial information. In fact, I think Dick balances the budget in a checkbook and keeps track of the GDP in a notebook he keeps under his mattress.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Stop pretending that the goal of the conservs isn't to destroy the federal gov't. What better way than to show it doesn't work thru complicit malfeasance.


I see. So now you are arguing that New Orleans was deliberately destroyed and Freddie and Fanny were deliberately allowed to fail to bring down the federal government? And that's why the Federal government is pushing for a 700 billion dollar buyout of the mortgage market - to have less involvement and to shrink the size of government? I guess all conservatives didn't get the same 'destroy the fed' memo that you did.

No, i never said that. How could they destroy NO..are they in charge of hurricanes. What they are in charge of they did poorly, which only gives ammo to the conserv position that gov can't do anything right.

I notice that you can't deny the mr. norquist. For the past 30 odd years conservs have waged war against the federal gov't. You can't deny it.

Freddy: Never said that as well. You have to thank yourselves for that. Free market. Once again you guys screw the pooch..and inadvertently lead us down the path to socialism.

And dividing the repub party. Thank you!!!!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Stop pretending that the goal of the conservs isn't to destroy the federal gov't. What better way than to show it doesn't work thru complicit malfeasance.


I see. So now you are arguing that New Orleans was deliberately destroyed and Freddie and Fanny were deliberately allowed to fail to bring down the federal government? And that's why the Federal government is pushing for a 700 billion dollar buyout of the mortgage market - to have less involvement and to shrink the size of government? I guess all conservatives didn't get the same 'destroy the fed' memo that you did.

But at the same time, they're trying to "hide" a recession, because only the federal government has access to this country's financial information. In fact, I think Dick balances the budget in a checkbook and keeps track of the GDP in a notebook he keeps under his mattress.

Oh, you are saying that the info is all there..i can just ask for it. LOL

Deny it all you want, but the gov't regularly distorts budgets, etc.

[mraynrand]

Freddy: Never said that as well. You have to thank yourselves for that. Free market.

Freddy was free?

[SkinBasket]

Deny it all you want, but the gov't regularly distorts budgets, etc.

Who's distorting a budget? I thought we were hiding a recession.

[mraynrand]

The problem, as it always is with the financial sector is that they care about making money, not about creating anything. So, after the tech bubble, the biggest area that could make obscene profits was construction. No one forced them into this area..they chose it. They coulda invested in things that would have made money and created jobs. But, that isn't what they wanted to do.

There is nothing inherently wrong about making money, but there is a huge difference between taking over a company and profitting from destroying it (selling off its parts) and giving great returns for your investors and creating/sustaining a company that actually produces something.

You're a little confused and all over the place here. The financial sector finances businesses, which then create. Sure, there is a huge element of making money, but your example of buying an selling of pieces of companies is more like the 80s phenomenon (Read "America: What went wrong" for details). There were and are Wall Street profiteers at present, but the industry we're talking about is the housing industry, where a lot of homes were constructed (somehow without creating anything, making money or creating jobs, as you seem to believe). Why were all these homes created? Low interest rates, easy loans, ARMs, etc. right? And why was credit easy - Greenspan lowered interest rates and the CRA had the requirement to give out high risk loans. People bought homes above their means, trying to make a profit, presumably by fliiping the house in a few years, and others simply built or moved into homes above their pay grade. It wasn't sustainable. People got rich investing in the bubble. Not enough oversight and when repubs tried to reign in Freddy and Fanny, it was blocked. How is that an exclusively republican problem and how is that exclusively the fault of 'the free market?'

[Freak Out]

I think it's time for a visit from...

http://www.khaaan.com/

[Freak Out]

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/aa29_slave_leia-poster.jpg

Slave Leia anyone?

[HowardRoark]

The problem, as it always is with the financial sector is that they care about making money, not about creating anything. So, after the tech bubble, the biggest area that could make obscene profits was construction. No one forced them into this area..they chose it. They coulda invested in things that would have made money and created jobs. But, that isn't what they wanted to do.

My spleen hurts after reading this gibberish. Is it happy hour already in Scottsdale?

[falco]

man i can't wait for the election to be over

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Deny it all you want, but the gov't regularly distorts budgets, etc.

Who's distorting a budget? I thought we were hiding a recession.

Your statement was essentially that info was available...and i stated simply that info isn't available nor is the info correct.

[Kiwon]

Add in the complete failure of the free market in our financial sector..

Fanny and Freddie were free?

Strawman argument.

BTW, why is it always a "strawman" with you.

Why not "hayman" or "grassman?"

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Add in the complete failure of the free market in our financial sector..

Fanny and Freddie were free?

Strawman argument.

BTW, why is it always a "strawman" with you.

Why not "hayman" or "grassman?"

Because that is the correct term. You should really learn it, since you create them all the time.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position. Hmmm, sound like anything you continually do? :oops:

Straw man fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Which you just did in the thread about the courts in San Fran. :oops:

[Kiwon]

You are a god among mere mortals, TB.

We aren't worthy.

:knll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are a god among mere mortals, TB.

We aren't worthy.

:knll:

Are you telling me something i don't know. Every post of yours reaffirms that.

[packinpatland]

I can't believe there's been no mention of McCain seemingly 'bailing out' of Friday's election...........

[falco]

I can't believe there's been no mention of McCain seemingly 'bailing out' of Friday's election...........

certainly a unique situation - the economy and financial sector in a crisis only weeks before the election

i understand what McCain's doing, but it will remain to be seen what the general public will think of it

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I can't believe there's been no mention of McCain seemingly 'bailing out' of Friday's election...........

Election? Senior moment?

[packinpatland]

I can't believe there's been no mention of McCain seemingly 'bailing out' of Friday's election...........

Election? Senior moment?

No, this time it's not a senior moment....it's that second glass of wine..... :oops:

To get back to my question about the no show at the debate........

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I can't believe there's been no mention of McCain seemingly 'bailing out' of Friday's election...........

Election? Senior moment?

No, this time it's not a senior moment....it's that second glass of wine..... :oops:

To get back to my question about the no show at the debate........

I can see both sides to this one.

But, i find it hard to believe Mac or Obama can really do much...so, i think the debate should go on.

[digitaldean]

I personally think that it's not that big of a deal to just postpone a debate.

Considering this bailout will cost every American man, woman and child $2,300 at just the present estimates , I think waiting a few days won't matter.

McCain suspending campaigning can be interpreted two ways:
1.) A purely political move to regain some bump in the polls
or
2.) A necessary move to help end this mess before it gets even worse than it is now.

This will affect the average person a lot more than we may think. No one, including these 2 candidates show no real leadership on this issue, until McCain did today. You do not just suspend campaigning in a neck & neck election on a whim.

There is MORE than enough blame to go around. To be honest, it lays at the foot of the institutions that doled out the bad loans or invested incorrectly; Congress - which provided ZERO real oversight, the President and his appointed heads at the SEC and the Fed who also did next to nothing to avoid this mess.

[SkinBasket]

Deny it all you want, but the gov't regularly distorts budgets, etc.

Who's distorting a budget? I thought we were hiding a recession.

Your statement was essentially that info was available...and i stated simply that info isn't available nor is the info correct.

How do you know it's not correct if it's not available?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Deny it all you want, but the gov't regularly distorts budgets, etc.

Who's distorting a budget? I thought we were hiding a recession.

Your statement was essentially that info was available...and i stated simply that info isn't available nor is the info correct.

How do you know it's not correct if it's not available?

Right. I'm suppose to prove a negative. :roll:

The point, regardless of party, is that info from the gov isn't available...certainly not the present spending...and that often what they do present is not truthful..the costs. For example, Bush's medicare plan will cost almost double from what he stated. And, that isn't a simple miscalc...it was intentional.

Based on past history with Cheney, we can expect a big run-up in outlays. I'd be willing to bet the Pentagon is up to that again.

[SkinBasket]

Right. I'm suppose to prove a negative. :roll:

No. You're supposed to back up your statement that you believe the government, no not even the government - this administration - is hiding a recession from everyone, including economists, the legislation, the media, wall street, foreign markets, and every one of the millions of democrats in all walks of life looking for any reason to demonize this administration further. Like most of your arguments, you back it with a theory that would require you to prove a negative. Instead of seeing that as a flaw in your argument, you ask everyone else to prove you wrong while you construct several of your beloved "straw men" and disregard anything that contradicts you.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find that weather control beam. Unreasonable mistrust of a Republican government? Check. A general assumption the sky is falling? Check. Tinfoil hat? Check. Okay, I'm good.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Right. I'm suppose to prove a negative. :roll:

No. You're supposed to back up your statement that you believe the government, no not even the government - this administration - is hiding a recession from everyone, including economists, the legislation, the media, wall street, foreign markets, and every one of the millions of democrats in all walks of life looking for any reason to demonize this administration further. Like most of your arguments, you back it with a theory that would require you to prove a negative. Instead of seeing that as a flaw in your argument, you ask everyone else to prove you wrong while you construct several of your beloved "straw men" and disregard anything that contradicts you.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find that weather control beam. Unreasonable mistrust of a Republican government? Check. A general assumption the sky is falling? Check. Tinfoil hat? Check. Okay, I'm good.

No, i said they were hiding it. As defined...we aren't in a recession, but by cooking the books it can be delayed. You can't argue that.

I've given you an example of past lies, so, it isn't a huge leap to guess that it could happen again. People on this forum speculate all the time, yet i dont' see you jumping down their throats...Obama will do this, etc.

Recession: Is the worst over? Are we on the road to recovery? Or has something deeper and more intractable gone wrong?

We have seen attempts to stimulate the economy..tax rebates based on slowdown was short-term and that a "stimulus" package should be "targeted and temporary."

Military spending is up. And, based on Cheney's past..we should expect big run-up in outlays. Like i've said, i'd be shocked if the pentagon isn't up to that trick again.

Ben Bernanke cut interest rates relentlessly from August 2007 through the spring of 2008. I don't accuse Bernanke of playing politics. But it's worth noting that this is what usually happens. In presidential election years when Republicans are in office, the Fed regularly and predictably pursues a more expansionary policy than when Democrats rule.

But much of the ordinary effect of interest cuts on new lending—like a rebound in construction and automobile sales—didn't happen this time. That's because the fall in home prices (and therefore the value of collateral) overwhelmed the benefit of cheaper money to the banks. And the banks barely cut mortgage rates, so consumers saw no benefits at all. Lower interest rates did cut the value of the dollar, however, and that promotes exports and foreign investment.

No matter how effective the stimulus, two enormous clouds remain for whoever becomes president: the housing slump and the banking crisis.

The problem with a housing slump is inventory. Unlike factories and Internet startups, shuttered houses don't go away. No one declares them obsolete. They aren't boxed up and sent to China. They remain, a drag on the market, decaying and pulling down property values for years.

Nationally, the subprime debacle is blowing away the homeownership gains of the last few years. Those abusive mortgages were deliberately targeted at vulnerable, even desperate, people who could be steered into financial death traps. Lenders didn't care, because with the help of fraudulent appraisals, the loans could be off-loaded quickly in packages bought by greedy or gullible investors, including your pension fund.

Incidents of the foreclosed expressing themselves to their lenders by yanking the plumbing and the wires on the way out the door are on the rise, as is arson by desperate homeowners, according to the Los Angeles Times. Will students, small businesses, and other borrowers still be able to get credit when this is over?

The mechanisms of mortgage finance and home-equity drawdown haven't simply been damaged. That well has been poisoned. Having largely outsourced mortgage originations to companies like Countrywide who didn't care whether the borrowers had good credit, the banking system cannot easily go back to its old method of making loans to creditworthy people and contenting itself with the interest paid back over many years.

I'd go into more detail..but, no matter what i write..you'll just pooh pooh it.

[mraynrand]

Having largely outsourced mortgage originations to companies like Countrywide who didn't care whether the borrowers had good credit, the banking system cannot easily go back to its old method of making loans to creditworthy people and contenting itself with the interest paid back over many years.

Why not? Isn't that exactly what has to happen? Or will the government just continue the same practice of giving loans to bad risks? It's interesting how you always tell the story from one side - as though all loans were 'predatory' loans and only 'desperate' people took the loans. You hardly give a mention to government policy to enforce risky loans nor people who tried to make money flipping homes. Why not?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Having largely outsourced mortgage originations to companies like Countrywide who didn't care whether the borrowers had good credit, the banking system cannot easily go back to its old method of making loans to creditworthy people and contenting itself with the interest paid back over many years.

Why not? Isn't that exactly what has to happen? Or will the government just continue the same practice of giving loans to bad risks? It's interesting how you always tell the story from one side - as though all loans were 'predatory' loans and only 'desperate' people took the loans. You hardly give a mention to government policy to enforce risky loans nor people who tried to make money flipping homes. Why not?

Who said it wouldn't go back..i said easily. Try and follow along.

One side: I used Countrywide..and that is what they were doing. Is your problem that i'm being to specific and not talking in generalities? Plus, i said i could go on, but i would just be pooh poohed. Of course other situations happened.

Middle-class homeowners are now getting hit a second way: in the declining value of their homes. You don't have to be holding a subprime to find yourself underwater. That means that home-equity loans will dry up. (As of April, California homeowners in default were already a median of eight months behind on those loans.)

The banks no longer trust each other. Last August, as mortgage-backed securities unraveled, finances froze up worldwide. Why? Because banks knew how much undisclosed junk they had on their own books. Who could say what the next fellow had? Overnight lending between banks fell apart. That is a very big deal. If banks will not lend money to each other, why (except for the blessings of federal insurance) should anyone else leave their money to them? Economists wait entire careers to study events such as these.

Remember this convo isn't about the mortgage industry..it is about hiding a recession..theory. So, all your points aren't really germane to this conversation. Got it?

[mraynrand]

Remember this convo isn't about the mortgage industry..it is about hiding a recession..theory. So, all your points aren't really germane to this conversation. Got it?

Yet, you talked about mortgages. So I guess your own points aren't relevant. Got it?

[Cheesehead Craig]

I can't believe there's been no mention of McCain seemingly 'bailing out' of Friday's election...........
To me it's a stunt. It's not like suddenly Congress is going to say "All right, John's here! He's got all the answers to fix this bill." Not going to happen.

[SkinBasket]

You can't argue that...

I'd go into more detail..but, no matter what i write..you'll just pooh pooh it.

Actually you were right. I did not read anything in between these two statements. What's the point? If I can't argue against your conspiracy theory, then I suppose there's not much hope for the rest of it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Remember this convo isn't about the mortgage industry..it is about hiding a recession..theory. So, all your points aren't really germane to this conversation. Got it?

Yet, you talked about mortgages. So I guess your own points aren't relevant. Got it?

Is your point related to the point, no. And, your point wasn't even germane to what i said. You invented an argument where there was none.

[SkinBasket]

Remember this convo isn't about the mortgage industry..it is about hiding a recession..theory. So, all your points aren't really germane to this conversation. Got it?

Yet, you talked about mortgages. So I guess your own points aren't relevant. Got it?

Is your point related to the point, no. And, your point wasn't even germane to what i said. You invented an argument where there was none.

http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/birds/images/de_blue_hen_chicken.jpg

OR

http://www.bonappetit.com/images/tips_tools_ingredients/ingredients/ttar_egg_03_v_launch.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

pssst, Skinbasket, that's a rooster. No such thing as a rooster and egg argument, that would be like, "which came first, the hen or the testicle?"

[mraynrand]

pssst, Skinbasket, that's a rooster. No such thing as a rooster and egg argument, that would be like, "which came first, the hen or the testicle?"

Given it's skinbasket, I have to believe the choice of a rooster was intentional. It is probably a hen with a superficial sex change operation.

[SkinBasket]

"which came first, the hen or the testicle?"

Excellent question!

http://northernhorse.com/coyoteacres/upload/barred%20rock%20hen.jpg

OR

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg1/MALE130.jpg