Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
McCain: 'Not the time for blame', then blames Obama and Dems
politico.com — "Now is not the time to fix the blame. It's time to fix the problem," McCain says, not long after his campaign blamed Obama and Pelosi for killing the bill. Then he blames Obama and the Democrats: "Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process."
peticsu- 3106 diggs
- digg it
- paintgrl, on 09/29/2008, -5/+239What? How can any reasonable person make such a statement. It is a total oxymoron. Moron being the key word here.
Maybe we should call McCain the Cry Baby instead of the maverick.
Also I like to point out that McCain says I will save and Obama says We. So who is the Bi-Partisan here?- ChloeMS, on 09/30/2008, -1/+19Your right... "he's an ox AND a moron!"
Sylvester Stallone in "Oscar"- BuryHuffPost, on 09/30/2008, -39/+4With comments like that I can't believe you don't write Obama's speeches.
- TruthinessHurts, on 09/30/2008, -1/+19@buryhuffpost
And with the pathetic defense of McCain's hypocrisy like that I can't believe you are not a GOP campaign manager.
- macdady843, on 09/30/2008, -32/+3McCain is as his record shows going bi-partisan much more while Obama has only "reached across the aisle" 17% of the time.
- youliveinfear, on 09/30/2008, -1/+27bi-partisan doesn't mean voting with Bush 90% of the time.
- bbatsell, on 09/30/2008, -1/+22That depends entirely on how you quantify "[reaching] across the aisle", and the fact that you reduce it to something as silly as an arbitrary percentage shows that you don't really care about conveying facts, just a talking point.
- fmaxwell, on 09/30/2008, -1/+13If you belong to a party which shares your ideals and vision for America, you don't need to "reach across the aisle" in order to enact legislation that you believe is good for our country.
But Saturday Night Live, in their parody of the Presidential debate, summed up McCain's record nicely:
"My opponent knows that isn't true. I've never supported President Bush. I have undermined President Bush. Just ask any Republican. I have always been disloyal to this President --a disloyal, unreliable, untrustworthy renegade who has abandoned my party whenever it most needed me. The fact is, you simply can't count on John McCain. That's why, on November fourth, the American people will elect me their next President." - hiriumi, on 09/30/2008, -1/+11What matters the most is whether the candidate has been working for the people instead of the big corporate. With 7 houses he didn't even know he owned and his wife wearing $300k worth of clothes, I just don't see him on the people's side.
- macdady843, on 09/30/2008, -14/+1To all of you who asked for some proof of my previous statement:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/re ...
@ youliveinfear
Gee nice fact there!! Where'd you get yours, off of a liberal television ad? That's a good source!!!
And @ hiriumi
I guess you didn't hear about Obama's ties to Fannie Mae among other Democrats. Here's a site with a pretty graph so you can see for yourself.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate ...
The truth hurts doesn't it? - 26thMARINES, on 09/30/2008, -15/+1@hiriumi... are you jealous? shut the ***** up you poor prick. stop whinning because you dont have 1 house. so what if he has that many, his wife is rich and he and she deserves what ever they want. you panzy liberals always want distribution of wealth AS LONG AS ITS NOT YOUR WEALTH!. suck it up.
- Charlotte_Web, on 09/30/2008, -6/+2This vote was a political setup by the Democrats. 40% of Democrats voted against the bill. Democrats were told on the House floor that they could vote "no".
Listen to Karl Rove describe how the vote went:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdGpxUEN4RU
Pelosi wanted vulnerable Republicans to take the heat, and vulnerable Democrats got a pass.
Once the Republicans saw what was going on, they bailed out on the bill as well. - Bith8654, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2@Charlotte_Web: Right so this whole thing was a setup? I bet the crisis was all a setup too huh? So was Bush saying we need this bill part of the conspiracy or was he just stupid enough to buy into the whole thing?
- Gerz1219, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4@Charlotte_Web -- We're never going to know exactly what happened with the bill. According to House Majority Whip James Clyburn, the deal he made with the Republican whip was for each caucus to deliver half of their votes. The Democrats were supposed to gather 118 votes, and the Republicans were supposed to get 100 votes. You can watch him tell the story here.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/#26954133
The Democrats got 140 votes, so they more than fulfilled their end of the bargain. Since the bailout is going to be wildly unpopular, it was important that the Democratic caucus allow conservative Democrats in unsafe districts to vote against the bill. If the Democrats had whipped up enough votes for the measure to pass, with only 65 Republicans voting yay, the bailout would become a Democratic mess for Republicans to run against for a generation. The deal was for bipartisan shared blame and the Republicans reneged at the last minute.
So the way I see it, nobody actually laid a trap here for anyone. Both parties were worried the other side was laying a trap, which caused the bill to fail. - macdady843, on 09/30/2008, -2/+1The democrats or maybe I should say Obama supporters on this site are nothing but ridiculous. Even after I face them with 2 sound sources of my argument against Obama, they offer no rebuttal comment and bury me. So obviously you can't trump my facts, and I agree it is hard to disprove reason, facts, and logic. I'll say it again... The truth hurts doesn't it?
- Gerz1219, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2The Republicans have been demonstrably wrong on every single twenty-first century issue of any importance, and your argument against Obama is that he hasn't worked more closely with the people who have been wrong about everything?
I'm not going to argue with your facts. I'm going to argue that Obama's reluctance to work with Republicans is proof of his superior judgment. - 26thMARINES, on 09/30/2008, -2/+1@GERZ.... LMFAO.... Wrong on everything ehh?? funny. What was left right on then?
you say "I'm going to argue that Obama's reluctance to work with Republicans is proof of his superior judgment"
thats funny since his entire campaign is about crossing the aisle on both sides to work together. dude, you are as dumb as the idiots on msnbc... wait, maybe they hired some smart guys now after the last 2 got canned lol.. Your boy if elected, wont get ***** passed. He has no choice but to work with the right dumbass. but it doesnt matter, your words will soon be extinct in nov... - macdady843, on 10/01/2008, -1/+1@ gerz
funny post there.. I mean i can somewhat agree with you that iraq wasn't the best policy decision (even though it was approved by the dems) but other than that i fail to see where the republicans have been wrong on every single twenty-first century issue.
I can tell you one big one where the dems were wrong though.. giving more power to the Community Re-investment Act under the Clinton administration. That's proving to be almost as expensive as this war Bush is in that all you America haters hate so much. - Gerz1219, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1Well, obviously my post was meant to be funny, but I still haven't seen either of you tell me one position on which the Republicans have been right in the twenty-first century. They were wrong about starting the war in Iraq, wrong about deregulation, wrong about cutting taxes for the rich while raising spending, wrong on putting cronies in charge of FEMA, wrong on torture, wrong on everything. Seriously, tell me what they have been proven right about. Iraq still isn't a Jeffersonian democracy and the federal government is bankrupt. Everything about this country has gotten worse over the last eight years. Our entire banking system is collapsing all around us. Please, tell me what's gotten better.
- macdady843, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1Well i can tell you right away that it wasn't deregulation of banks that caused this collapse. It was over legislation (CRA) forcing banks to make risky loans. On the raising spending issue i'm sorry that Bush didn't plan for a war during his presidency but it was necessary. Maybe Iraq wasn't the best idea but that attack still warranted military action. As far as torture goes im sure you have a better idea on how to get information out of terrorists? I mean there are worse things in the world than simulated drowning or sleep deprivation.. give me a break. What do you want to do ask them nicely, give them a steak, and hope they give up their friends?
- RichardSwingman, on 09/30/2008, -47/+4Im a dem and new here at digg. cant believe all the obama dick sucking goin on everyday...
i hope people read comment on real news so they dont sound stupid on comments.- bpoteat, on 09/30/2008, -0/+24"Im a dem..."
Apparently, you you don't realize people can see your Digg history. - SupaFlyTNT, on 09/30/2008, -0/+6I so wish I could dig him up so everyone could see how far people will go just to try to justify a point; flat out lies :(
- RichardSwingman, on 09/30/2008, -15/+0Obama dick lickers again of course wakekeke
- 3anthony, on 09/30/2008, -8/+2though RichardSwingman is not the right person to say it, its true that digg has been a place where news media is distorted and comments have very onesided and uneducated reasons
- Jeeum, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3What would you know about not looking stupid in comments?
- bpoteat, on 09/30/2008, -0/+24"Im a dem..."
- MammasMilk, on 09/30/2008, -1/+16Way to dodge the absurdity and contradiction of McCain's statements.
- Homerr, on 09/30/2008, -1/+10John McCain suffers from cognitive dissonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance - Arkons24, on 09/30/2008, -22/+2It was Pelosi's fault and anyone who keeps up with this and isn't so biased they would let Obama stick a fork in their eye knows it.
- apothekari, on 09/30/2008, -1/+6Yeah bias...I forgot to count that in, Wait...O.K.....nope!
Republicans still ***** up dude sorry. - EarlOfLade, on 09/30/2008, -1/+10*****!
If the 12 republicans really was offended by her speech they should resign from congress.
And if you actually had bothered to listen to the republican leadership rather than the ***** you do listen to, you would have heard them say it had nothing to do with Pelosis speech - Arkons24, on 09/30/2008, -3/+2Providing details of your incorrect viewpoint is not needed. Obama says to go stick a fork in your eye. GO!
- apothekari, on 09/30/2008, -1/+6Yeah bias...I forgot to count that in, Wait...O.K.....nope!
- solboldi, on 09/30/2008, -15/+3McCain is however, correct.
Barney Frank is right in the center of the meltdown.
He has strong ties to Fannie Mae and has resisted reforming Mae and Mac for years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529 ...
Why is the MSM not reporting about Barney's role in the mess???
http://digg.com/politics/Media_Mum_on_Barney_Frank ...- pintomp3, on 09/30/2008, -0/+7mccain might have some room to throw stones if he didn't have people like phill gramm and rick davis running his campaign.
- macdady843, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1Why are they not reporting this? Because the majority of TV media is owned by liberals. Talk radio is last thing us conservatives have.
- jayzfans, on 09/30/2008, -2/+12stop the drama, vote obama.
- R3VOLV3R, on 09/30/2008, -8/+2Obama = McCain.
They share the same platform. Pro war, pro Patriot Act, pro larger government, pro more taxes, Pro NWO, and much more. If you think you're going to get "change" with Obama, you're dead wrong. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
- R3VOLV3R, on 09/30/2008, -8/+2Obama = McCain.
- Andysan, on 09/30/2008, -11/+4Speaker Pelosi intentionally tanked the bailout bill so that Republicans would look bad in November. She claims the Republicans didn't help pass it -- so it failed. Some of her own committee chairmen voted against the bill.
She knew exactly what she was doing -- she sold out the American public for her political gain. If there is another attempt to pass a similar bill, she will do it again.- simplyskeptic, on 09/30/2008, -2/+12wow, 228 Republicans voted against this bill, and you blame Pelosi? You're ***** hilarious !
- pintomp3, on 09/30/2008, -0/+11how'd she tank it? by pointing out the very ideology and policies that caused this mess?
- ChronicColonic, on 09/30/2008, -13/+1Democrats could have passed this on their own...without Republicans. Democrats are the majority. They did not need the Republicans to get it passed. So why did it not pass? Because it was designed to fail from the beginning. Many Democrats did not vote yes on this bill because if they did, they would have lost. Pelosi did not try to persuade them to vote yes.
So, how is it again the Republican's fault? The Republicans would not even had to show up and it would have failed. - SupaFlyTNT, on 09/30/2008, -0/+9If we have people in the government who will change a vote based on a speech they didn't like before voting why the ***** are they there?
Your belief/opinion should not change because your feelings were hurt and to make a 700 Billion dollar point? Thats just flat out retarded and I'm technically on their side as I don't like this bailout either; but for a whole other set of reasons than getting my feelings hurt :( - ChessPieceFace, on 09/30/2008, -0/+10So, mean old Nancy Pelosi has more power over how House Republicans vote than John "here I come to save the day" McCain?
wow - LBTS, on 09/30/2008, -3/+4Dear chroniccolonic, are you Sarah Palin? I have to ask that because what you wrote was so confused that it sounded like something she might say.
- fluxion, on 09/30/2008, -6/+3@simplyskeptic
228 against total...92 of them democrat
pelosi ***** this up, along with plenty of democrats and republicans who voted against for reasons that had NOTHING to do with the bill in question. but she didnt mastermind this, she overestimated its chances of passing and used the opportunity to twist the needle and play some politics, and it backfired.
but plenty voted it down because of the bill itself. and that shouldnt be chastised...this is not something that should have been rushed like this.
- solboldi, on 09/30/2008, -12/+3Now Obama is saying the economy is fundamentallly strong!!
http://sooshisoo.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/obama-sa ...- oscenester, on 09/30/2008, -1/+6OMG! He said fundamentals! He must mean that the they're strong!
Your an idiot. over. - LBTS, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3sol, you've got a listening comprehension problem. Go immediately to BestBuy and get a pair of headphones. Then plug them in. See if that helps.
- sockpuppets, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2sol's campaign of disinformation:
http://digg.com/users/solboldi
- oscenester, on 09/30/2008, -1/+6OMG! He said fundamentals! He must mean that the they're strong!
- CannedMango, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1paintgrl meet the far-right, far-right meet paintgrl.
Now do you see?? - Pedestrian101, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1Who's being bi-partisan? Definitely the one blaming all of these problems on the GOP.
- betheturtle, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1More @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4
- ChloeMS, on 09/30/2008, -1/+19Your right... "he's an ox AND a moron!"
- eyepatch100, on 09/29/2008, -4/+200My fellow Americans, now is not the time to blame me. Now is the time to blame the Democrats...
- ericdano, on 09/30/2008, -36/+5Blame Pelosi. She really poisoned the whole thing on Monday. It might maybe have squeaked by on Monday if she had NOT gone and started blaming the President for all this. Congress is equally to blame.
- IphtashuFitz, on 09/30/2008, -0/+32You really believe that Republicans were so hurt by Pelosi's speech that they risked destroying the US economy over it? That's pretty arrogant.
- Hamletlere, on 09/30/2008, -1/+28So, you say that the Republicans are willing to let the total US economy collapse because they were personally offended by Pelosi, and wanted to see her suffer?
And you see this as a better reason to re-elect them next term than if they were "standing on their principles" against a very unpopular plan? - roddack, on 09/30/2008, -7/+5Yeah lets not talk about how 60ish democrats voted it down no its all those "hurt" republicans fault.
I am glad the stupid bailout got shot down. - chichris, on 09/30/2008, -0/+7maybe there was some truthfulness in her speach if it was able to pull republicans away from their party...
if it was such a partisan speach then why did republicans get swayed to the democrat side? - 26thMARINES, on 09/30/2008, -8/+2This whole thing was caused soley by the liberals back in the day. They caused all these issues and it is time fingers are pointed at them. Only reason the liberals are willing to work with bush is because they KNOW they were at fault on this. If this was caused by the right, you know they would be pitbulls on the whitehouse. they are kissing bush's ass now. i dont want them bailed out. The market will recover over time on its own, through consumers, not govt. screw these idiots that want to spend my money on this junk. i want my money spent on defense and killing crazy muslims! Again, its time for the president to tell the American people who started this, and who benefited the most from it... Obama, CBC, Dodd, Kerry, Raines, Gorelick, Johnson benefited the most out of this. They are to blame big time! so thanks liberals, again your socialist behavior has screwed us again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0 - bacon_skoda, on 09/30/2008, -1/+8is pelosi now the republican leader?
according to you, she moved 60% of republicans to vote no. - 4321234, on 09/30/2008, -1/+7Blaming people didn't kill the deal, you retard, voting against it killed it. If you voted against it because you got called a name, you should go back to kindergarten.
- DangerCollie, on 09/30/2008, -1/+9Somebody wake up grandpa.
- Hoodooz, on 09/30/2008, -1/+13Exactly...oh, and be sure not to notice that Wall street is way up this morning and the economy doesn't seem to be exactly imploding yet - almost 2 weeks since it became a "national emergency".
The whole bail-out is to protect the richest 0.01% who own over 40% of the bad paper at risk...screw them and screw McCain.- JuXtaPoZd, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1i brought that exact same point up today in one of my classes about the stock market and the bailout only protecting the richest .01%. most people did not even believe me when i pointed this out
- Aliendude, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1You both need to provide support for your point. The other side would say that if these banks go out of business, no one will be able to get loans. This includes potential home buyers and small businesses. On top of that, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost at these financial institutions. Now, only the rich will be able to go forth with new business ventures because the poor won't be able to get loans. The rich will gobble up all of the super cheap houses because no one else will be able to get mortgages for them.
Also, I'm a poor college student and the bailout would help me. Not as much as those .01%, but my stocks have taken a hit like everyone else. What about individuals with their retirement tied up in stocks? Should we let them crash?
I'm playing devils advocate... I don't really support one side or the other just yet. But simply saying that the bailout is intended to make the rich richer, without any support or reasoning, is useless. - phike, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1Commercial paper will freeze up if no bailout is made. Good companies will not be able to raise money. I know, because I work for a small investment firm with less than 1% of write-downs on total committed capital, a firm that invests in small venture-stage life science and tech companies, yet my company cannot get any capital from the markets unless a bailout is approved for the big banks. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, you have NO IDEA the magnitude of congress doing nothing will have on America and even your own job. The auto loan and consumer loan markets are next if nothing is done. Again, you have NO IDEA and will eat your own words if congress is ignorant enough to listen to people like you.
- twoyups, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3I think the actually quote is "My friends, now is not the time..."
- latrosicarius, on 09/30/2008, -7/+3Yeah well digg me down, but Obama, Hillary, John Kerry and a number of other democrats took campaign money from Fannie/Freddie and voted to pass legislation for the federal government to back up Fannie/Freddie's "guarantees" to banks so they could continue sub prime lending.
1. Sen. Dodd, Christopher J (D-CT) - $133,900
2. Sen. Kerry, John (D-MA) - $111,000
3. Sen. Obama, Barack (D-IL) - $105,849
4. Sen. Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) - $75,550
5. Rep. Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA) - $65,500
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Clinton_and_Demo ...- MacEnvy, on 09/30/2008, -0/+5And since McCain has benefited from FM&FM as much (or more), that simply proves his hypocrisy. No one is claiming to be a saint here (except McCain).
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/ ... - fluxion, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4those numbers dont include contributions from lobbyists and directors (the argument was that these groups generally work for multiple companies). when you factor those in, McCain's campaign has recieved far more contributions than Obama since they started campaigning. think about that...you're citing numbers that dont include LOBBYIST contributions or contributions from the board of directors... it's so ridiculously misleading its not even funny.
i have a link for this somewhere...if you actually have a genuine interest in facts let me know and ill find it for you.
- MacEnvy, on 09/30/2008, -0/+5And since McCain has benefited from FM&FM as much (or more), that simply proves his hypocrisy. No one is claiming to be a saint here (except McCain).
- ericdano, on 09/30/2008, -36/+5Blame Pelosi. She really poisoned the whole thing on Monday. It might maybe have squeaked by on Monday if she had NOT gone and started blaming the President for all this. Congress is equally to blame.
- DuggDowner, on 09/29/2008, -11/+70What's the difference between a pitbull and John McCain? Lipstick.
- Dipsomaniac, on 09/30/2008, -0/+24I would have said it was that a pitbull has basic honesty of purpose.
- greenroom628, on 09/30/2008, -1/+37please stop insulting pit bulls and lipstick.
- wild, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1You know, my buddy has a pitbull. Its always showing me its "lipstick."
- DangerCollie, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2What's the difference between Sarah Palin and an albatross?
- Nathan187, on 09/30/2008, -7/+0an albatross is tossing your butt crack?
- Calinthalus, on 09/30/2008, -0/+7You do realize that an albatross was a sign of good luck until some moron killed it....right?
- SirRobertJoseph, on 09/30/2008, -1/+0You do realize albatross are still around, right?
- Calinthalus, on 09/30/2008, -1/+1Do sailors still think they are souls of lost sailors?
- PandoraMMXVIII, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1... yes, I've actually read a poem.
Shiny
- kismetropolis, on 09/30/2008, -0/+6Hey now, Pitbulls have the trait of being loyal like most dogs. I would say that's not a trait Mr. McCain has displayed much of lately.
Pitbulls have the sense to look ashamed when they've done wrong. When you point out Mr. McCain has lied, he acts like:
* He's deaf
* You're stupid
* You misunderstood
* You're playing gotcha games
* You're sexist
So summing up -- what'd pitbulls ever do to you that you'd compare them thusly?- avidlinuxuser, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1You forgot
*He says it's in his book
- avidlinuxuser, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1You forgot
- Recluse84, on 09/30/2008, -0/+9McCain died 5 years ago and is actually a heavily sedated zombie with a VERY good makeup artist.
- jakem1, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4Would a McCain presidency be as funny as Weekend At Bernie's?
- tdclark23, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3One of them can be trained to go into the ring to growl, bark and bite at an opponent, cannot be trusted and is popular in states with low standards of education. The other one is a dog.
- eklife, on 09/30/2008, -0/+0lol.
http://www.doesmccainwearadiaper.com/
- lweissberg, on 09/29/2008, -6/+98I'm starting to think he's as dumb as Palin. Does he even know that totally contradicted himself and acted like a complete hypocrite in his speech? Or maybe he does know, but thinks no one no one else will notice?
- dinot, on 09/30/2008, -0/+20You know, I was thinking about this the other day: when was the last time anyone had a conversation with a 72-year-old man and did it make any sense?
- EhBlueDuck, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2A really old man and a beauty contestant is just the kind of cute/cuddly image make over this country needs right now damn it!
If you think otherwise your a communist.
- EhBlueDuck, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2A really old man and a beauty contestant is just the kind of cute/cuddly image make over this country needs right now damn it!
- Coffeedemon, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3They might notice but they will also forget. Jezuz man, its a new season of TV!
- nbcaffeine, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but they're preempting my shows for some stupid debate this Thursday. The only loudmouth and Milf I want to see is Michael and Jan!
- azhura, on 09/30/2008, -1/+4Like when he was like "veterans know that I care for them..." Nevermind that he voted against helping veterans.
May 26, 2008, 1:53 pm
McCain Defends Opposition to Veterans Bill
Laura Meckler reports from Albuquerque, N.M., on the presidential race:
Sen. John McCain used Memorial Day to defend his opposition to a Senate bill that vastly expands education benefits for veterans. The bill passed the Senate last week 75-22 over the objections of Sen. McCain, and President Bush, both of whom argued the benefits were too generous and likely to discourage reenlistment.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/26/mccain-de ... - mydigg1012, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Or may be he is having short term memory loss!
- dinot, on 09/30/2008, -0/+20You know, I was thinking about this the other day: when was the last time anyone had a conversation with a 72-year-old man and did it make any sense?
- ChessPieceFace, on 09/29/2008, -4/+119It's also a plainly ridiculous charge! Whether you were for this bill or not just look a the numbers: 60% of Democrats voted for it, whereas 33% of Republicans did.
McCain showed a total lack of any ability to lead! He "suspended" his campaign last week, parachuted into Washington, blew up the negotiations, had an aide (Steve Schmidt) say yesterday on Meet the Press; "What Sen. McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this,"; then today the House Republicans cut-an-ran.
McCain is totally impotent when it comes to his own party, how the hell could anybody expect him to lead the country?- jusccoj, on 09/30/2008, -0/+5Because of the idiocy precedent already set?
I'm just sayin... - Edudris, on 09/30/2008, -2/+1I was wondering when this point would be brought up after seeing so many digg articles where Republicans blame Nancy Pelosi bringing partisanship into this.
60% of Democrats voted for it. That's hardly a landslide. Who is blaming the other 40% of Dems for voting for it?- Hamletlere, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4Given how unpopular the bailout is with constituents, I'm not sure who is doing this "blaming".
- rednip, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1I don't think that there was anyone who really 'loved' the bill. The public has expressed great outrage over a 700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout and there is an election only a month away. Which is too soon for any good result to come of it, but it is perfectly tailored for attack ads, by both Republican and Democratic challengers. Honestly, I'm glad it failed, likely it'll be a better bill in a couple of weeks, and perhaps the public will understand the need better.
- Edudris, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Whoops, typo
"Who is blaming the other 40% of Dems for voting for it?"
should have been
"Who is blaming the other 40% of Dems for not voting for it?"
- Vandon, on 09/30/2008, -6/+1ChessPieceFace wrote: McCain is totally impotent when it comes to his own party, how the hell could anybody expect him to lead the country?
Why don't you ask the question, 'Why couldn't Obama get more than 60% of his party to vote yes?' He was also for the bill passage. Democrats control a majority and could have passed this bill 234-199 even if EVERY GOP voted no.- StarlessKnight, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14088.ht ...
Who was taking credit for being the champion before the vote failed? McCain. Who wasn't trying to pretend like he was all that and a bag of chips before the votes were in? Obama. Who showed more sense as a result?
"John McCain understands that had he looked like he was going to be the key to the success, that Democrats would attack him and kill the deal," Holtz-Eakin said. "That's what you saw today. They were not going to let John McCain do the job that he was trying to do: deliver a bill that would help the American people."
That's leadership? The Republicans scuttled the bill. Republicans. John McCain's party. His party. In theory the ones that are suppose to be most inclined to follow his lead...and they turned against him. You see where Obama doesn't enter into this situation at nearly the same level? Democrats, arguably, responded considerably more if you were going to argue Obama was gunning hard and long for the Bill. Are you sure you want to try matching self-party response? - dynamojoe, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Obama got a bigger percentage of his party to go along (and more real votes). Kind of easy to blame McCain for coming up short percentagewise.
Then again, I suppose we're used to 40% of conservatives completely abandoning their principles.
- StarlessKnight, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14088.ht ...
- Taiyoryu, on 09/30/2008, -1/+4What's further damning is that McCain, assuming he talked to them, couldn't convince a single representative from Arizona to vote for the bill, and four of them were Democrats.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/sto ... - momomathew, on 09/30/2008, -6/+1And Obama rallied the Democrats???
- jgzman, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3No, but I don't recall him claiming that he did.
- momomathew, on 09/30/2008, -1/+0But he is now........
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09 ...
- jgzman, on 10/01/2008, -0/+2No, now he is trying to rally them, not claiming that he already did.
That seems to be a Republican error; claim that you won, without actually winning. I remember a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Republicans: do not count your chickens until they are hatched.
- singularityv, on 09/30/2008, -1/+3I think McCain just sealed his fate in November.
Even the Republicans won't support him now. He's done. - hivoltage815, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2I think McCain secretly didn't want the bill to pass, but remained vague on his stance because he is worried about his political career.
If he would have come out and said that this bill was not best for the American people, I might be more likely to support him.
- jusccoj, on 09/30/2008, -0/+5Because of the idiocy precedent already set?
- tcbishop12, on 09/29/2008, -4/+54McCain - who boasted and took all credit for saving the accord over the weekend -- failed to lead his own party. The vote against the measure was 228 to 205, with 133 Republicans voting against. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and only 65 Republicans.
- macdady843, on 09/30/2008, -7/+6He didn't "fail to lead" his own party. Those republicans actually listened to their fellow citizens (most of which are largely against this bill) and voted according to their wishes. That's how politics is supposed to work if you didn't know that. The power comes from the people and it's nice to see that their wishes were granted this time around. Maybe if you stopped listening to biased TV reports you would have realized that.
- rednip, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1They listened to the angry calls, and thought that while every major player feels this is needed to avoid a credit meltdown, that there was too high of a political price to play for voting for it. "Country First, but only it doesn't blow the reelection".
Maybe in a couple of weeks, if (when) credit tightens to obscene levels, and more of the public understands the need (or the elections are over), they'll be able to get a better bill passed. Hopefully it won't be too late. - fmaxwell, on 09/30/2008, -3/+4No, it's not supposed to work like that. Our elected leaders are supposed to enact legislation for the good of the nation, not just do whatever their most vocal yahoo constituents say. They are supposed to be getting economic guidance from economists, leaders of industry, and the financial sector -- not from their average moron constituent who's carrying more than $8,000 in credit card debt at 21% interest.
Like you, those constituents have no understanding of how the economy works. They don't understand that a failure to bail out the lending institutions would ripple through the economy as it became impossible for businesses and individuals to get loans. They don't understand that it might mean that they could not get their next car loan despite having good credit or that their own bank could collapse. They don't recognize that we could be plunged into a depression. They don't know that they might even be laid off when their employer, who borrows against future revenue to fund payroll, suddenly finds the bank unwilling to loan them money.
Shame on those representatives who chose to do the popular thing rather than the right thing.
But, since you are so opposed to this bailout, I guess that McCain, who has been lobbying for it, won't be getting your vote, right? - macdady843, on 09/30/2008, -3/+4@ faxwell
"No, it's not supposed to work like that. Our elected leaders are supposed to enact legislation for the good of the nation, not just do whatever their most vocal yahoo constituents say."
Really? Enact legislation for the good of the nation. Kinda like the Clinton Administration giving more power to the Community Re-investment Act which gave loans to under qualified people and totally ***** us and got us in this situation in the first place? Where were you economists then?
Oh that's right being paid off by the democratically controlled organizations like Fannie Mae who were making money off bad loans. It doesn't take an "economist" to realize that you can't give loans to people that can't afford them. No matter how "unfair" it may be to minorities who can't afford them.
***** it's unfair that I can't own a 10,000 sq ft mansion but you don't see me crying to the government to pass legislation that forces banks to give me a loan I can't afford. You're the moron for believing that these politicians walk around with halos over their head and never make an ill-advised decision that might blow up in their face in 10 years, at which point they'll blame it on the current administration. - fmaxwell, on 09/30/2008, -1/+4You Republicans are amazing! Bill Clinton has been out of office since 2000 and you're still trying to blame him!
But, time to school you: A study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP of 2006 mortgage loan data shows that the CRA probably lessened this crisis because it actually deterred banks from engaging in the kinds of risky lending practices that are provoking the foreclosures and by forcing banks to make loans in their communities, kept a number of borrowers out of the hands of predatory subprime lenders.
Compared to other lenders in their communities (read as subprime lenders and brokers not covered by the CRA), banks making loans in their CRA assessment areas were less likely to make a subprime loan, charged less for the subprime loans they did make, and were more likely to retain the loans in portfolio. Foreclosure rates were also lower in metropolitan areas with proportionately greater numbers of bank branches.
Basically because the CRA requires banks to actually make loans in their communities, loans which that bank keeps in its own portfolio and therefore have a long term economic interest in, they are more concerned with making sure that the loans are good loans and that the remain good neighbors so they don’t make predatory junk loans.
Contrary to the line that the CRA is the cause of the problem, it is actually the lack of applicability of the CRA to all lenders that is the problem. In his testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives on September 20, 2007, Federal Reserve Board ChairmanBen S. Bernanke placed the blame where it rightfully belongs, the mortgage brokers, non CRA lenders, and the whole mortgage securitization process.
Nice try, weasel boy. - macdady843, on 10/01/2008, -1/+1@ fmaxwell
You are obviously too stupid for me to explain this to you. Basically what you just said is that the CRA deterred banks from engaging in risky loans? That's ***** retarded. It forced banks to give loans to people that couldn't pay them back or face a bad rating from the government. On top of this the legislation was altered in Clinton's administration and yes I can blame him because it takes time for ***** like this affect our economy. Our economy is huge and complicated, it isn't just going to feel the effects of ***** legislation after 1-2 years, as we can see it took at least 10 years. The free market is perfectly capable of handling itself it is only government intervention that ***** it up. - fmaxwell, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1@macdady843
Are you so stupid that you could not understand what I wrote? Apparently so, since you provided no logical or factual counters to my claims. Here's a link to support what I just told you:
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blo ...
See that? Business Week? Not some nut-case GOP blogger like you read. A respected, conservative, national magazine. And here's what they said:
Investing Insights
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Aaron Pressman, September 29, 2008
Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.
The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.
____________________________
Congratulations on Business Week referring to you as one of "the know-nothings." Moron.
- rednip, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1They listened to the angry calls, and thought that while every major player feels this is needed to avoid a credit meltdown, that there was too high of a political price to play for voting for it. "Country First, but only it doesn't blow the reelection".
- ericdano, on 09/30/2008, -8/+1Gee, go figure, when you have the Democrats in Congress being all nice and working together, and then just before the vote Pelosi goes out and ***** on them by blaming everything on the President. Stupid. She should really take a lot of the heat for this not passing as she totally threw away all the effort people put into it by going out and bringing politics into it. Congress is equally to blame on this whole mess.
- ChessPieceFace, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4So, mean old Nancy Pelosi has more power over how House Republicans vote than John "here I come to save the day" McCain?
wow - Hamletlere, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3So, I'll say it again: you think Republicans are more worthy of office because they are willing to let the US economy collapse because they were personally offended (given that you seem to feel that bailout should have passed)? These are the people you want in office?
Face it, this is a VERY unpopular bailout, and those voting for it may well lose their job at the end of their term. - momomathew, on 09/30/2008, -1/+0How is the leadership thing going for Nancy Pelosi? She lost this, she caved on the off-shore oil drilling..... THAT is leadership...
- 26thMARINES, on 09/30/2008, -1/+0repubs are willing to let the economy collapse? lol, the left let it collapse by socializing loans in the past.... plain and simple... the right has no blame in this whatsoever... as usual, its the left trying to dig themselves out of a hole they dug themselves.
- ChessPieceFace, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4So, mean old Nancy Pelosi has more power over how House Republicans vote than John "here I come to save the day" McCain?
- macdady843, on 09/30/2008, -7/+6He didn't "fail to lead" his own party. Those republicans actually listened to their fellow citizens (most of which are largely against this bill) and voted according to their wishes. That's how politics is supposed to work if you didn't know that. The power comes from the people and it's nice to see that their wishes were granted this time around. Maybe if you stopped listening to biased TV reports you would have realized that.
- RuinousRight, on 09/30/2008, -4/+37'Anything to win' McCain.... pathetic!
- izolutionz, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1I love this:
"I would hope that all our leaders — all of them — can put aside short-term political goals and focus on what’s best for the American people."
There are two ways you can interpret this:
1) If HE actually considers himself a leader, then he's being an absolute hypocrite
--- this is like your teacher telling you "You should never curse... You hear me you fu**in little creep."
2) he's simply not a leader and he's pretending to take leadership for political gain
----this is like your newbie political opportunist (eg, Arnold Schwarzenegger) calling out the leaders for seeking political gain, while he himself seeks political gain.
- izolutionz, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1I love this:
- holesome, on 09/30/2008, -2/+21Karl Rove would be proud of him -- but McCain's mom? Probably not.
- Gutterpunk, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3Karl Rove IS McCain's mom
- amoirae, on 09/30/2008, -0/+8Eve was never proud of Cain...
- DekarCorvus, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2he wasn't born...he was spawned from the dark prince himself....
- KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -52/+6Vince Lombardi, Bill Parcells, and other great football coaches sometimes make decisions during a game that don't succeed, but the point is that they make the decisions.
Yes, John McCain supported a bill that didn't pass, but at least he stood up and supported it. Barack Obama sat back and did nothing, and amazingly his supporters are praising him for it.
I'd rather support a leader who is willing to make a decision and stand by it, than support someone who's going to sit idly by, watch everything happen, and then take the side that's popular or successful at the time. That's not leadership, leadership is making a decision and standing by it.
Many people are calling this a loss for McCain, but I don't see it that way. I see this as nothing but further proof that Obama is all sizzle but no steak.- dinot, on 09/30/2008, -1/+34"I'd rather support a leader who is willing to make a decision and stand by it, than support someone who's going to sit idly by, watch everything happen, and then take the side that's popular or successful at the time. That's not leadership, leadership is making a decision and standing by it."
That's just a ***** stupid justification. You'd rather support someone who crosses the street without looking both ways first? Last time I checked, we've already had 8 years of a "decider" in the office, and look where it got us.- KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -20/+3First off, there's no need to curse.
Onto the issue, McCain's not "crossing the street before looking both ways", he's making a decision based on the situation at hand. Is that decision always going to be right? No, but atleast it's a decision.
Obama doesn't do that, Obama does what's best for his image. When McCain was taking a risk in getting involved in the bailout, Obama was sitting around, watching the situation unfold, afraid to get involved one way or the other.
Yeah, Barack vocalized "support" for the bill, but he did it in such a generic manner. He positioned himself so that if it succeeded he could say he was behind it, but if it failed he put himself in a position where he can give himself distance. Which is exactly what he's doing now.
People criticize the Republicans for playing politics constantly, but that's exactly what Obama does. He says what people want to hear, staying generic and trying not to upset people, and amazingly people rally around him. People fail to realize that all of these outlandish promises he's making will never come to fruition, they're caught up in his charisma and hype.
Remember, Hitler was a charismatic individual too, and he got people behind him by saying what they wanted to hear. Look how that turned out.
Besides being a charismatic speaker, looking good on television, and being about as popular in Germany as David Hasseloff, what qualities does Obama have that makes you believe he's qualified to run this country? - greenroom628, on 09/30/2008, -1/+6sometimes, waiting and seeing is the best approach to the situation. had the bill passed, would the market have reacted the same way? would we not get the reaction and the additional urgency to get some kind of credit relief bill passed?
yes, obama's a politician, but so i john mccain. don't be fooled into thinking that he isn't. that "maverick" talk is pure bs. if he was really a maverick, he'd have enough courage and conviction to become an independent a long time ago.
you lost me on the hitler argument. name me a leader that isn't charismatic. obama is charismatic -- so was kennedy, clinton, gandhi, king, and churchill. you need to be charismatic to be a good leader. i know i'd like a leader to be charismatic. and that's not to say that mccain doesn't have charisma, either. there are people willing to vote for him and support him, despite being proven a liar and making bad decisions. - macdady843, on 09/30/2008, -10/+3@ KenSPT.. I completely agree with you
Obama is the king of not taking sides to make sure it doesn't hurt his image. I don't think it is a bad quality of McCain to make a decision and go with it even if it is wrong, at least he was decisive and rose up to the occasion. Better than sitting on the sidelines and then saying ohh well I just wanted to stand by and watch, key word watch what happens before I say if I was for or against it. That way he can criticize the other side for being wrong while he never took a position. Is Obama that stupid that he can't make up his mind if he likes the bailout or not? Maybe haha, but I would say No he's not. He's just worried about losing his prestigious image in front of the American people. And those that don't realize that are just stupid, but hey they already drank the kool-aid and there's no changing their minds about their Messiah.
@ dinot
"That's just a ***** stupid justification."
"Last time I checked, we've already had 8 years of a "decider" in the office, and look where it got us."
Yea look where it got us.. not a single attack on this country in the last 7 years. As opposed to Bill Clinton who sat by idly when the USS Cole was bombed and the WTC building was bombed and did nothing about it. Look where it got us... 2 planes flying into some buildings that killed over 3,000 people. Good point there buddy. - enclaved, on 09/30/2008, -2/+8hahahahahahahahahahha
hhahahahahahhaahah
macdaddy
you are a failure.
'It was clintons fault stuffed happened while he was in office oh and while bush was in office.
I'll take that one step further. It was BUSH1's fault stuff happened in during clinton!!!! omg what now.
You need to shut the ***** up and get a clue.
I wonder how many memos clinton ignored with the headline of OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK THE US right before those attacks. - fmaxwell, on 09/30/2008, -0/+5"Besides being a charismatic speaker, looking good on television, and being about as popular in Germany as David Hasseloff, what qualities does Obama have that makes you believe he's qualified to run this country?"
He graduated from Columbia University with a B.A. in Political Science with specialization in international relations. His thesis topic was Soviet nuclear disarmament. He went on to Harvard Law School where he graduated Magna Cum Laude, having been elected the President of the Harvard Law Review, one of the most respected scholarly journals on constitutional law.
Organizing and other work experience
* 1983-1984 Writer/Researcher for Business International Corporation. Helped companies understand overseas markets in the “Financing Foreign Operations” service and wrote for the “Business International Money Report”
* 1984-1985 Community Organizer for New York Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), promoting personal, community, and government reform at City College in Harlem.
* 1985-1988 Director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland on Chicago's South Side. While director grew the DCP staff from 1 to 13 and their budget from $70,000 to $400,000.
* 1992 Led Chicago's Project Vote! push. This effort resulted in a record number of voter registrations, over 600,000 in Chicago.
Teaching
* 1993-2004 Visiting Law and Government Fellow, then Senior Lecturer, in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Taught courses on the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law, on voting rights, and on racism and law. Helped develop a casebook on voting rights.
Law Practice
* 1993-2002 Worked as an associate attorney with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Represented non-profits and private individuals in urban development projects, voting rights cases, and wrongful firings. Filed major suit that forced the state of Illinois to enforce the Motor Voter Law and successfully argued a wrongful firing case before the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Illinois Senate 1996-2004
* Chairman, Health and Human Services Committee
* Spearheaded a successful bipartisan effort in Illinois to pass the broadest ethics-reform legislation in 25 years, and gained bipartisan support for his successful bills reforming death penalty interrogations and ending racial profiling by police. Worked with the Republican-led effort to reform welfare.
* Also sponsored successful bills expanding tax credits and child-care subsidies for low-income working families, protecting overtime pay for workers, expanding health care for children, and providing job skills training for juveniles.
United States Senate 2004-present
* Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
* Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs
* Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
* Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
* Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
* Shares responsibility for the bipartisan Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, requiring full online disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds, and the bipartisan Lugar-Obama Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006, deepening non-proliferation work with WMD and including surface-to-air missiles, land mines, and other weapons that may be used by terrorists. Also worked with Coburn to end the abuse of no-bid contracts in the wake of disasters.
* Barack Obama has introduced nearly 300 bills during his time in the U.S. Senate, and cosponsored close to 1,000 others.
____________________________________________________
But I guess you'd rather support the guy who graduated 894 out of a class of 899 at the Naval Academy, got shot down down five times, and, upon his return from Vietnam, had an extramarital affair and divorced his wife (she was disfigured in a horrible auto accident while he was a POW, but she never let anyone tell him about the accident while he was in captivity because she did not want to cause him more stress). - KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -7/+3... that's a great resume, but tell me how it proves he can lead our country.
- greenroom628, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3in my opinion, being president of the u.s. is about a bunch of things. one of those things is motivating. being able to motivate people to do something. whether it be part of a community that needs to get back up on its feet or part of the senate to get people to vote against their party line. i think obama can do that as president.
i don't think mccain can anymore. mccain's become too far entrenched in what's really sullied up the republican name -- meaning the excessive influence of lobbyists, evangelicals, and neo-conservatives. i'm not saying obama hasn't been sullied by it, but at least to lesser degree. mccain is so far up into it, he can't get out, as much as he (looks like) wants to.
i also think being president is about character. i want a president that can judge when action is needed or when further study and introspection is needed. i don't want someone to go blindly forward just because his handlers are telling him to go (see bush & iraq). being calm and rational when everything flying around you is chaos is essential when you're dealing with 2 wars, a bad economy, lack of good world opinion, unemployment, healthcare, retirement (a LOT of baby boomers, like mccain, are retiring in the next few years), etc. i don't want someone who will "suspend" a problem, to deal with a bigger one. i want someone who knows when and how to delegate. which leads me to another point.
obama knows how to pick people. he knows to ask help and how to ask for help from really knowledgeable people and bring that consensus to the table. he knows that when the economy is in trouble, you ask people that have led economic recoveries from previous times of distress. he knows that you ask help from nobel prize winners in economics if you're unsure of what to do. he knows that you have to stop and consider your options and the implications of those options before you say anything. as opposed to mccain, who will charge forward, telling everyone to stop while he interjects himself, stop his campaign, and have only former ceo's (of failed companies and got fired) and lobbyists at his ear to advise him. this is like choosing between a doctor and a healthcare agent for what kind of treatment you should take for cancer. i know who i would pick. do you?
there are more, but my boss is eyeing me right now, so i'm going back to work. - fmaxwell, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2"... that's a great resume, but tell me how it proves he can lead our country."
I did not say that it "proves" he can lead our country -- since that's not something you can "prove" in advance. But it certainly shows that he's the most qualified.
Think about it: He's a black man in a country that has never even had a black Vice President. He is named "Barack Hussein Obama." And he is leading in the polls. That he is able to motivate people is beyond question at this point.
We need a charismatic, inspiring, intelligent, educated leader. We need someone who has a more nuanced view of foreign policy than to just bumble from one failed military action to the next. We need someone who has actually studied constitutional law, economics, and foreign policy in an Ivy League university. We've tried the whole average Joe routine with Bush and it hasn't worked out so well, has it? - enclaved, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3"First off, there's no need to curse."
***** - macdady843, on 09/30/2008, -2/+1@ enclaved
'It was clintons fault stuffed happened while he was in office oh and while bush was in office."
Stuffed happened? hahaha good one there i didn't know you could use stuffed in that context.
"You need to shut the ***** up and get a clue. I wonder how many memos clinton ignored with the headline of OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK THE US right before those attacks."
You're right there probably weren't any memos that said that, but after the second attack in Clinton's tenure I would think that he would do something, the point is that he let Bin Laden run wild and shrugged it off and our country paid for it later. I think I have a clue that Clinton's soft stance against Bin Laden had something to do with why they planned an even larger scale attack in the future. You're arguments make little to no sense, but that's right as long as I write a post that is anti-republican on digg i'll get dugg up no matter how stupid or senseless the comment is. - greenroom628, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3@macdady843
did you ever wonder where bin laden got any of the weapons and resources for these activities? where the taliban got their weapons and resources?
not clinton. try a little earlier.
- KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -20/+3First off, there's no need to curse.
- jusccoj, on 09/30/2008, -1/+9So...what are you going to do when Obama becomes President?
- loganro, on 09/30/2008, -12/+1Lmao, are there really many of you out there that actually think Obama will become President?
- KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -11/+2Sadly, yes.
Digg is going to be an angry, hate-filled place on November 5th ... I can't wait ... - troyfoley, on 09/30/2008, -1/+3http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
yes.
- loganro, on 09/30/2008, -12/+1Lmao, are there really many of you out there that actually think Obama will become President?
- Gutterpunk, on 09/30/2008, -0/+13He didn't make a decision and "stood by it", it made a decision and then blamed others for it's failure.
When you stand by your decision you don't try to find people to blame about it.
When Vince Lombardi and Bill Parcells make decision on a play and it doesn't succeed, they don't turn around and say that it failed because the other team had better cheerleaders.- KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -5/+1"When Vince Lombardi and Bill Parcells make decision on a play and it doesn't succeed, they don't turn around and say that it failed because the other team had better cheerleaders."
Yes, but Bill Parcells also doesn't have his team deliberately trying to cause a play to fail for their own selfish ( political ) reasons. When Bill Parcells calls a play to his QB, prior to going into the huddle his QB doesn't make a speech stating that the play is a terrible thing; yesterday, that's what John McCain was going against, and it was all a political ploy to make it seem as if John McCain can't rally his "team" behind him.
- KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -5/+1"When Vince Lombardi and Bill Parcells make decision on a play and it doesn't succeed, they don't turn around and say that it failed because the other team had better cheerleaders."
- razor150, on 09/30/2008, -0/+5McCain showed a complete lack of leadership. He couldn't even get his Republicans to vote for it, not even the ones from his own state.
Plus his involvement in the process, if you actually read into it, was exactly the same as Obama's. He didn't take part in negotiations, or any of the bill's creation, he "monitored" the situation while talking to people over the telephone. Everything else was a political stunt. - licnyc, on 09/30/2008, -1/+5You are skipping over the part where he is a total hypocrite.
- bsmang, on 09/30/2008, -2/+3Where is your home planet? (I'm just curious.)
- KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1Next time you try to type a response, make an attempt to add something intelligent to the conversation, otherwise shut up ...
- bsmang, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2I left it out on purpose, trying to be fair.
- KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1This from a guy whose profile photo makes him look like one of the the pedophiles from To Catch A Predator ...
Basically, you can't speak intelligently on anything, so do the internet a favor and shut your mouth. - bsmang, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2Lol, and this from a guy who claims to be "a 25 year old, laid back, guy"? Chill man. I just suggested that you feel so differently from me that it's as if you're from a different planet. I really wasn't looking for a fist fight.
- jayzfans, on 09/30/2008, -1/+3I know some people that could sell you a brain, if you're interested lemme know.
p.s. stop the drama, vote obama.- KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1Congratulations on not adding anything to the conversation. Enjoy your Kool-Aid ...
- Firgof, on 09/30/2008, -1/+1Delicious, refreshing, and completely devoid of poisons or harmful toxins. Mmmmm.
Do you do requests for aiding others' enjoyment of Snickers?
Oh, and I've been meaning to ask: how's the 48 ounce styrofoam cup of dehydrated water that nice man with the bald head sold you an hour ago?
- beesaretasty, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3He decided to fly to DC immediately to help negotiations. He neither flew to DC immediately nor did he help negotiations (even the Republicans have said this). He decided to suspend his campaign to get it done and not participate in the debate. Instead he spoke politics the whole time and took pot shots at Obama and later went back on his tough talk and participated in the debate.
Obama decided not to let partisanship get in the way of this bill. He flew to DC at the request of the President for a meeting and spoke his mind (and had much more input than McCain by the way). He did not inject himself into the center of things. He supports the passage of a bill (which I oppose) and has said that he will do what he can to help get it done without getting in the way.
The one who made a decision and is standing by it is Obama. Look at it objectively Ken.- KenSPT, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1I am the one looking at it objectively, you're the one looking at it from a skewed Obama-esque perspective ...
- will2000, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3dude, ken, do you have some sort of disease that makes it impossible for you to listen to rational thought?
- fani, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2The worst part about McCain is he couldn't multitask his 2 hour debate and the crisis which was already being worked on by the best and brainiest. You don't interfere in such a meeting and try to micro-manage.
He said "fundamentals are strong" only to later claim they're risky.
He claimed to suspend his campaign and not debate till it passed only to debate and have campaign running.
He claimed to be bi-partisan only to keep blaming Obama
He claimed to bring this bill to a conclusion only to be unable to control his own party.
Yep, he claims a lot but does nothing good.
Obama, like a true leader, gauged the situation and took in all the facts before laying his 7-point plan. He didn't jump to speak, jump to decisions and thought carefully before he spoke or act.
Obama is who I need for the top spot.
He is very well qualified.
- will2000, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1why are you a fan of obama on your profile if he's "all sizzle and no streak"? and wtf does that even mean anyway
- KiminCA, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2Senator McCain could not convince the House GOP members to vote for this bill as is demonstrated by the fact that only 65 of them did. Senator McCain thought he had, though-- and took credit prematurely.
I have no idea who is leading the House GOP members right now-- but it certainly is not Senator McCain. If you want to vote for someone who is this lame duck on arrival, that is your right.
Personally, we need to start finally solving some of our long festering problems and there is ONLY one candidate who can do that-- Barack Obama. - Vorphlack, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1It's just so cute when morons use sports similes.
- Peekman, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1"McCain was taking a risk in getting involved in the bailout"
"Many people are calling this a loss for McCain, but I don't see it that way."
Isn't this a contradiction???... If he took a risk, and it didn't work out, isn't it a loss???.... How could he have taken a risk if either result would mean a win???...
- dinot, on 09/30/2008, -1/+34"I'd rather support a leader who is willing to make a decision and stand by it, than support someone who's going to sit idly by, watch everything happen, and then take the side that's popular or successful at the time. That's not leadership, leadership is making a decision and standing by it."
- Rusty626, on 09/30/2008, -2/+19McCain can barely put a coherent sentence together. How long before he starts foaming at the mouth?
- amoirae, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4He's already there. At the debate last Friday I saw the rabid crazy in his eyes as he didn't recognize the cameras were still on him while Obama was talking. Only a crazy person would make the faces he did and not think it would hurt his insane ass.
- loganro, on 09/30/2008, -7/+1Actually, he talked much better than Obama did in the debate. Uh, Um, Uhm, Um, Um, Jim, Tom, I mean John, Uh, UM uh, I agree with you.
- Elranzer, on 09/30/2008, -1/+3Wow that's all you got? You're just grasping for straws there. Face it, your guy's gonna lose in November.
- bamatime, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3He actually did at the debate. He started getting that disgusting white spittle in the corner of his mouth if you watched it in HD. Gross.
- hiriumi, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2Neither can Palin. And the fact that these two could be elected scares the ***** out of me.
- pennsykid2000, on 09/30/2008, -2/+35In the past week, McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong on Monday, said we were in a crisis and he would appoint a commission to study the problem on Tuesday, promised to fire the Republican head of the SEC on Wed, "suspended" his campaign so he could grandstand on Thurs, then reversed course and continued his campaign when that gambit was panned by everyone on Fri. Yesterday, he took credit for the bailout up until it was rejected, then tried to blame Obama and Dems for it. The best description I saw of this performance was a headline: "McCain's economic prescription: Blurt out random crap".
- jusccoj, on 09/30/2008, -1/+4IF by blurt you mean 'spew wildly', then yes, I agree.
- BuryHuffPost, on 09/30/2008, -9/+15While I completely agree that what McCain said contradicted himself, the Digger is inaccurate.
He blamed Obama THEN said it's not the time to blame. Ben Smith also incorrectly orders these two things.
McCain's comments are clearly contradicting, there's no need to use lies and falsehoods to make it any more ridiculous than it already is.- MerlintheTuna, on 09/30/2008, -2/+1So does that make this the political equivalent of "No tag-backs!" then?
- BuryHuffPost, on 09/30/2008, -2/+1Technically, it's the political equivalent of "lying." Since the peticsu and Smith intentionally mis-ordered his statements to gain more victory on an already won blunder of McCain's.
- LukasSmith, on 09/30/2008, -3/+2Everyone is commenting around your facts. Few are aware that the title of this article is wrong. Personally I don't think they care. The way the title is written now is more pleasing to the fanatics.
- MerlintheTuna, on 09/30/2008, -2/+1So does that make this the political equivalent of "No tag-backs!" then?
- cmjM67, on 09/30/2008, -1/+21old man is old
- roddack, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2outdated meme is outdated
- Solkre, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Correct statement is correct.
- DasTroll, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2hypocritical douche is hypocritical
- NegativeDigg, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2Two of my friends died when I accidentally that old man
- troyfoley, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1wow, that didn't come out right.
- R3VOLV3R, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Last night I had a dream that McBlinky died (he had a heart attack).. I was sad when I woke up, realizing that war-happy lunatic was still alive. Oh well, one can dream..
- roddack, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2outdated meme is outdated
- isuisorisuaint, on 09/30/2008, -29/+7i am so sick of seeing nothing but anti-mccain "stories" posted on the digg front page.
- dondara, on 09/30/2008, -3/+11Leave McCain alone! WAAAAAAAAAA
Jackass - Gnar04, on 09/30/2008, -3/+11well maybe if there was anything positive to say, then maybe.....
- xartion, on 09/30/2008, -3/+7Justin Timberlake - Cry Me a River.mp3
- FazS, on 09/30/2008, -2/+6Joe Public is 'digging' these articles and blog posts up to the top. These are the people speaking, voting and commenting. You can't blame that on 'the liberal media' for these articles being on the front page.
No one is stopping pro-McCain, anti-Obama, anti-Biden blog posts and articles being dugg up (and yes. there are lots). - BigDigg55, on 09/30/2008, -2/+6Then leave!
- hiriumi, on 09/30/2008, -2/+6Then maybe you should just watch Fox News? But the thing is that all these anti-McCain articles are based on facts, and they are not swift boat ads. You see the difference?
- momomathew, on 09/30/2008, -7/+2Leave Obama alone! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Damn crybabies........................ - momomathew, on 09/30/2008, -7/+2Leave Nancy Pelosi alone! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
- isuisorisuaint, on 09/30/2008, -7/+3bunch of ***** sheep...the lot of you.
- bothaus, on 09/30/2008, -2/+2Not sheep. Educated common sense. The entire country is starting to finally see that the GOP is nothing but an illusion circus for the dimwitted.
The only supporters I know still think the repubs stand for small government and low taxes. The last 50 years should be enough to show otherwise. But the GOP's greatest weapon is the PAST. It's even their political spearhead. - RyFo18, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2Socialists...
- bothaus, on 09/30/2008, -2/+2Not sheep. Educated common sense. The entire country is starting to finally see that the GOP is nothing but an illusion circus for the dimwitted.
- R3VOLV3R, on 09/30/2008, -5/+1Well maybe if McCain (and Obama) weren't corrupt puppets, then you wouldn't see them on the front page of Digg.
- fani, on 09/30/2008, -2/+4I'd rather see these anti-McCain stories for 40 days than have a problem the next 1460+ days after Jan 09
- KiminCA, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1Well, when the truth is against Senator McCain and the people are as well that has a way of making it to the front page.
- dondara, on 09/30/2008, -3/+11Leave McCain alone! WAAAAAAAAAA
- bluehouse, on 09/30/2008, -19/+4seeing as this guy offers no source or proof McCain ever said this I'd like to say I actually heard the interview. McCain did say we shouldn't play the blame game and then blamed the democrats for messing up the bill
- KiminCA, on 09/30/2008, -1/+1I heard Senator McCain purposefully blame Senator Obama. It came out of his own mouth-- just like his statements that payroll tax increases were on the table, that we could be in Iraq for 100 years and that the fundamentals of our economy are strong (that one came out of his mouth at least 22 times that I can find). Should I disbelief what my own ears hear? I don't think so-- but nice try.
- joe7845, on 09/30/2008, -1/+1WTF? It was all over the news.
- bluehouse, on 10/01/2008, -0/+1you two are idiots. If you actually read what I wrote you would notice I was agreeing with the article.
- KiminCA, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I misunderstood you-- I re-read it and with your clarification I can see what you meant and my reply was off. Yet, you could make certain you are clear the first time and then perhaps we would not have to go through these name-calling, apology games???
- greenroom628, on 09/30/2008, -1/+20lies, lobbyists, and hypocrisy -- the foundations of the mccain campaign.
- sultanica, on 09/30/2008, -9/+2[VIDEO] God Bless Our Two-Party System
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcEuhi7KKHA - dildoolielly, on 09/30/2008, -7/+105It's the liberals. It's the ACLU. It's Clinton. It's Monica. It's the "climate of permissiveness". It's France. It's the liberal media. It's Clinton's p*nis. It's Hillary. It's Gov. Dean. We never could have known they'd fly planes into buildings. "No actionable intelligence". They didn't tell us to do anything. O'Neill's lying. Clarke's lying. General Shinseki's lying. The Union of Concerned Scientists is lying. Our own weapons inspector David Kay's lying. Wilson's lying. John Dean's lying. Newsweek lied! CBS lied! Everyone's lying but us. We had to lie. We never lied.
Plame outed herself. Her husband outed her. The liberals outed her. No one outed her, since everyone already knew her covert identity. Rove had nothing to do with it. No comment. Lib'ral, lib'ral, lib'ral.
It's the libs that tried to pull Schiavo's feeding tube. It doesn't matter that DeLay pulled his own dad's feeding tube. "Culture of life". It's Janet Jackson's boobs; it's the Statue of Justice's boobs. Reading the news might cloud my judgement. It's the "decade our government...blinded itself to our enemies". It's the homosexuals wanting to marry. "Restore honor and dignity to the White House". A decision to go to war wasn't a decision to go to war. "No actionable intelligence". It's the pledge of allegiance. They're taking God out of America. Osama didn't tell us when, how, where, and by what means he'd attack, and he didn't leave a forwarding address. The 9/11 panel is biased against us. Saddam = Al Qaida. Saddam = Al Qaida.
Chalabi's an honorable man and I believe everything he says about WMDs. Chalabi's a crook and he passed secrets to Iran. Chalabi's the liberals' fault because they didn't shoot us when we started using his "intelligence". Chalabi? I don't know any 'Chalabi'!
It's just a few dead-enders. They'll be gone when we capture Saddam. They'll be gone when we capture Saddam's sons. They'll be gone when we hand over "sovereignty". They'll be gone when Iraq has elections. They'll be gone in 12 years. They'll never be gone.
We fight them in London so we don't have to fight them, er, uh, well, can't get fooled again!
Bolton didn't lie! He just knowingly gave inaccurate answers under oath!
Aw, so what's another ISLAMIC STATE in the mideast? It's not like Bush has made it a home for terrorists or anything!
It's all these former staffers hawking their books. Money never corrupted anyone. "I'm a uniter, not a divider!" It's the stem cells. It's the feminazis, the intellectual elitists, and the ecoterrorists.
It's the Hurricane, It's the victims. It's the poor. It's the dead. It's the disabled... the elderly. It's those that didn't evacuate. It's the buses.
It's Cthulhu. It's the martians, It's Mickey Mouse, It's The Tooth Fairy, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,
It's ALWAYS anyone but the GOP!!- wafla, on 09/30/2008, -0/+19EPIC. 400 digs from my robot army of enslaved Windows computers.
/To-do: get robot army - Ricemanstm, on 09/30/2008, -22/+2No dildo, it's always the Democrats. If there is defeat to be found, bring in a Democrat. It's there's blame to be assigned, bring in a Democrat. If there's gloom and doom, bring in a Democrat.
- JosefK88, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4"[If] there's blame to be assigned, bring in a Democrat."
Ironic. John McCain is clearly assigning blame. What's his political affiliation again? - fmaxwell, on 09/30/2008, -0/+6Yeah, why all this doom and gloom? I guess it's because we're "a nation of whiners" even though "the fundamentals of the economy are strong."
Yeah, doom and gloom -- that's what Barack Obama is known for. His gloomy, foreboding, and depressing speeches. He just can't seem to be uplifting.
LOL! - Ricemanstm, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1Yeah, funny isn't it? The Democrats caused most of this and now they're trying to ride in like the Calvary. Led by Saints Nancy, Harry, Barney,and Barry. Yeah, what a ridiculous sight that would be.
- mikesoba, on 10/01/2008, -0/+2How can there be defeat. Mission Accomplished 7 years ago dude.
- JosefK88, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4"[If] there's blame to be assigned, bring in a Democrat."
- momomathew, on 09/30/2008, -10/+0Its a vast Right Wing Conspiracy?
- JosefK88, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4Not a conspiracy...for that would require some semblance of organization and competence.
- momomathew, on 09/30/2008, -2/+0Just like the organization and competence the House Leadership showed on this fiasco......
- Ricemanstm, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2Touche mom!
- coyote1284, on 09/30/2008, -4/+2Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
- Ricemanstm, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2 qaStaH nuq? ! Hab SoSlI' Quch! Sujatlh 'e' yImev!
http://www.kli.org/tlh/phrases.html
- Ricemanstm, on 09/30/2008, -1/+2 qaStaH nuq? ! Hab SoSlI' Quch! Sujatlh 'e' yImev!
- freq, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1golf clap.
- shiftclick, on 09/30/2008, -3/+1Except for the proof...
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMouthPeace
(sources are cited in the video) - pilobilus, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4Bucking frilliant.
- KiminCA, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Wow, excellent job.... there is obviously more....
like Carol Lam sending an e-mail on May 10, 2008 telling the Justice Department she was going to expand her probe to include not only disgraced ex-CIA man Dusty Foggo, but also Republican fundraisers and potentially Republican Congressional member Darrell Issa and then on May 11, 2008, Kyle Sampson of the Justice Department saying "the very real problem we have right now with Carol Lam" led him to conclude she needed to be fired..... but that happened because Carol Lam failed to bust folks who were crossing our border illegally, even though she busted more of the people called "coyotes" who bring people over the border illegally and the drug-runners.... yup, that was the lib'rls too.
You do a much funnier job of it-- but can you work that one into your rant? That one truly angers me as an attorney who took AND OBEYS my oath to uphold our laws, my State's Constitution and our U.S. Constitution.
Carol Lam was one of the fired U.S. attorneys if anyone has forgotten. - phantom_mullet, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3I'm printing this, framing it, and putting it on my wall next to my Megan Fox poster.
- wafla, on 09/30/2008, -0/+19EPIC. 400 digs from my robot army of enslaved Windows computers.
- ericdano, on 09/30/2008, -24/+5Lets see, Monday...........our "effective" Congress (must not laugh) were about to vote and most likely pass a bill, when, who speaks...........Nancy Pelosi. She starts ranting about this and that and blaming everyone.
Hello Nancy. You are equally to blame. Your Congress is the worst, and you are it's leader. You couldn't keep your mouth shut ONCE to get something to pass? All this talk about working together, and then you ***** on them when you were expecting to get their vote?
Stupid.- johnhummel, on 09/30/2008, -0/+12Wahh - Nancy Pelosi hurt my feelings, so I decided to take it out on America!
Or, they could have grown a pair and said "I'm not voting for this because I disagree with the basic premise."
Not voting for it because a girl made them cry isn't showing leadership. It's cutting and running. - darkmachina, on 09/30/2008, -0/+7Does that mean that Republicans voted against the interests of the people and the country, because Pelosi hurt their feelings?
or
Does that mean that John McCain was such an ineffective leader that the support he got from his own party in regards to the bill was so trivial that the house Republicans could swing either way depending on what a Democrat said? - momomathew, on 09/30/2008, -5/+0No, that shows the lack of leadership on Nancy Pelosi's part and her acting like a child.
When you ask to borrow money from someone and they are reaching in their wallet, you don't call them a dumbass for giving you the money. I hardly believe (no matter who said it) that they voted against the bailout just because Nancy Pelosi spewed.- darkmachina, on 09/30/2008, -0/+5Did you actually hear what Nancy Pelosi said during her speech before the vote?
I'm just curious because it seems like many people think she spit out pure hatred and slander which was not the case. What she did say is that some conservative ideas about the economy (particularly de-regulation) have not worked and have contributed to this crisis
Now I understand how a conservative might get slightly peeved by this, but even the most conservative person must admit that the lack of regulation and oversight contributed (if only partially) to this mess. - momomathew, on 09/30/2008, -0/+0Am I depending on the Democrats to provide or ask for this regulation and oversight??
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinio ...
- darkmachina, on 09/30/2008, -0/+5Did you actually hear what Nancy Pelosi said during her speech before the vote?
- KiminCA, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2Yup, these guys are so thin skinned on the GOP side of the House that a couple of words got them to vote against stabilizing our economy.....
I still cannot believe this particular excuse was even floated, and I have greater difficulty believing any American bought it..... but, then, you did. wow.
- johnhummel, on 09/30/2008, -0/+12Wahh - Nancy Pelosi hurt my feelings, so I decided to take it out on America!
- shiftclick, on 09/30/2008, -27/+4Oh My Gosh! The Republicans are now spreading THIS trash around (read all the way to the bottom). Can you believe it!!??!!
"Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pre ssure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner."&nb sp; These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did ma nipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street?"
POOR PEOPLE HAVE BEEN VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS FOR OVER 50 YEARS, AND THEY ARE STILL POOR. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND OSAMA IS A LITTLE -B-S-.- DiggasWAttitude, on 09/30/2008, -2/+3Shift, just so you know, people can look through your previous comments. (read all the way to the bottom)
You Fail. - Hamletlere, on 09/30/2008, -0/+3To an extent, your comment was interesting. If you had stuck to facts, and provided references, it might have caused me to research more, and perhaps be put off.
Instead, you decided to make unsubstantiated claims (poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last 50 years) which I find hard to believe, and your last statement attempts to link Obama with a terrorist due similarity in names.
If you want to be effective (and are honest in what you claim), you'd do better to stick to the facts rather than turn people off as a extremist nut-job.- shiftclick, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1I apologize, and here are your facts:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMouthPeace
- shiftclick, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1I apologize, and here are your facts:
- momomathew, on 09/30/2008, -2/+0Except for his last sentence why does he fail?????
- shiftclick, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMouthPeace
Note the sources - this is no Huffington post... er... post. - KiminCA, on 09/30/2008, -0/+2Mr. Raines has never worked for Senator Obama. Your inability to do a simple google search is rather astounding-- and I'm someone still using training wheels on these "tubes." Perhaps you have forgotten about all of the accounting "errors" at Enron??? Perhaps you have forgotten that our current President does not enforce Sarbanes-Oxley???? Perhaps you do not care-- and just like spinning, spinning, spinning your way to your own particular partisan reality. That is your right-- but living in some surreality won't help any of us get our Country back on the right track.
- Hamletlere, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Snopes says you above text is untrue...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp
- DiggasWAttitude, on 09/30/2008, -2/+3Shift, just so you know, people can look through your previous comments. (read all the way to the bottom)
- Coven, on 09/30/2008, -1/+27It's like McCain handed the vid of this to Jon Stewart with a note "To Jon, Love John"
- LukasSmith, on 09/30/2008, -22/+2Ok so the Democrats including Obama blame Republicans for the economy then clamor for a trillion or so total to bail out banks. Pelosi and Obama blast Republicans in fiery speeches and McCain was supposed to respond with? The fact is he was goaded into response and he did. Later he decided that blaming others for the bills failure was less important then getting something workable passed. If anything this proves McCain can work across party lines because he went against die-hard Republicans to support a trillion in debt the Democrats mostly love(which is puzzling as hell. These people want to be called fiscally responsible? ha.)
Makes sense to me.
Why are Obama fanatics so blind?- dextrocardia, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4You do realize the $700B idea came from Pres. Bush, right? (Well, his treasury secretary.) He made a speech just like week urging us to accept it. Last time I checked, Bush was a Republican.
Also, if McCain is so easily goaded that he goes against the very principle he had just stated, that does not speak well of his judgment. - LukasSmith, on 09/30/2008, -2/+2Actually Obama is even worse. He basically voted present. Though it was obvious he supported the bailout his position was such a whisper nobody was really sure. If he had been as dedicated to swinging votes in favor as McCain he might have garnered a few more democratic votes for the bill. Instead he decided to play it safe. Thus the bill failed. Possibly what McCain was referring to. but this is typical Obama. Signs of a true Politician yes. But true leader? not.
- dextrocardia, on 09/30/2008, -0/+4You do realize the $700B idea came from Pres. Bush, right? (Well, his treasury secretary.) He made a speech just like week urging us to accept it. Last time I checked, Bush was a Republican.
- AndrewDB, on 09/30/2008, -1/+4This blame game makes me sick. If (God forbid) John McCain get into Office.. whose he going to blame for all the ***** that goes wrong when he's president?
- uppitydiggers, on 09/30/2008, -9/+1Does it only make you sick when a Republican is doing it, though? That's the important question.
- uppitydiggers, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1I guess that answer is yes.
Good to know.
- uppitydiggers, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1I guess that answer is yes.
- djdole, on 09/30/2008, -0/+8He'll blame the democratic congress.
...or those damn kids that won't stay off his lawn! - garblefung, on 09/30/2008, -1/+3uppitydiggers?
uppity, diggers. great name. Says a lot about you. The way you're using it goes so far beyond anti-PC or provocative, it's overtly racist. You might even think it's funny, but it's monstrous.
I've been around Klan and I've lived in the South, I've also lived in conservative hotbeds. While there are ugly, ugly people on the far right, there are many that would not tolerate your insulting username if thrown around in public. Some of my most conservative white friends have stepped in to stop fights that involved drunk racists participating in a minority beat down. While I argue politics with those friends, I have nothing but respect for them because I realize that they hold principled positions that they truly believe in and not a thin veil for hate.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/visibleman/2008/09/how_ba ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/peopleevents/e_l ...
Don't you think a username like greedyhonkies, used in provocative threads would offend people? Even if this site was called Honk instead of Digg?- uppitydiggers, on 09/30/2008, -1/+1"The way you're using it goes so far beyond anti-PC or provocative, it's overtly racist. "
Thanks for demonstrating that you're a ***** idiot. You're also the exact type of user what my name refers to. Judging from the sense of overly high self-esteem you have, and your rush to make some ***** long-winded post about me.
"Don't you think a username like greedyhonkies, used in provocative threads would offend people? Even if this site was called Honk instead of Digg?"
No, because had I known then what I know now, I'd have gone with uppitygarblefung, regardless of the site. Secondly, the word is diggers, not *****. Sorry it sounds so similar, blame Kevin Rose for his choice of site names. Maybe it says a lot about you t
- uppitydiggers, on 09/30/2008, -1/+1"The way you're using it goes so far beyond anti-PC or provocative, it's overtly racist. "
- uppitydiggers, on 09/30/2008, -9/+1Does it only make you sick when a Republican is doing it, though? That's the important question.