PDA

View Full Version : Barack Obama's Closing Argument


Bravo
10-30-2008, 10:51 AM
phenomenal speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc56ySnsIek

it's pretty long so if you dont have time listen to about 23:00 onwards.

here's the transcript:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gGgfGj

Bravo
10-31-2008, 01:22 AM
when i say something is a great speech, 95% of scientists agree with me.

trust me.

willfulone
10-31-2008, 02:11 AM
I cannot watch vids. But, I think (I could be wrong for it may be some other speech he was on TV for last night) I saw some of this on TV - between commercials while surfing looking for something good on. I had the following to pick from: This speech x3, America's Next Top Model, This Old House, Pushing Daisies, The 24 hour Weather Channel, and the A-Team. I watched This Old House.

I read the script. You are right, it was a well given speech - as speeches go.

Really good place to give that speech too - Ohio. Perfect place. Especially since so many people have recently been given the right to vote that could not prior. I mean, since they can now use park benches as home addresses. That was a good population to hit with this speech.

So, two thumbs up on delivery - but no one doubted his ability to deliver a well planned speech I don't think - no?

It is his ability to deliver what he promises that should cause pause. If he gets in (and I do not believe he will), let's see if he can hold up to that. I doubt he will be able to do all he says - not even half. Not by a stretch. And, we'll see how much people really care about delivery of a speech when they realize they are in no different boat than they were 2 years prior when they voted him in.

Christine

Bravo
10-31-2008, 02:15 AM
you're right, no one doubts his ability to speak well.

i just think its very telling that in obama's closing remarks, he talks about working together about bridging gaps and about how america must make sacrifices to get us through the crisis.

mccain's closing remarks are of him railing over a tape of obama having dinner with a muslim.

i think it speaks volumes at the level of discourse mccain has engaged in and what his presidency would look like.

MoonWriter
10-31-2008, 02:28 AM
mccain's closing remarks are of him railing over a tape of obama having dinner with a muslim.

i think it speaks volumes at the level of discourse mccain has engaged in and what his presidency would look like.

Those aren't Senator McCain's closing remarks. But I think he may be as shocked as many of us are that 1+1+1+1+1 = 0.

whistlelock
10-31-2008, 03:16 AM
It is his ability to deliver what he promises that should cause pause.
you know, I don't really understand this point.

I mean, that can apply to anyone and does apply to every politician.

I consider it a miracle when any of them deliver on any of their stump speechs- for two reasons. The first is I assume they are saying most of this to get elected but don't really believe in it. And, the second is the very nature of our government.

By design it is one of compromise and consession. So, it is systematically unlikely that any bill will pass through unchanged or unaltered given the sheer size and scope of our process. To even get it considered requires wheeling and dealing. And, I do not mean dealings that are illegal or corrupt but just simple trades of support (the old addage of scratching backs comes to mind).

So, really, I don't get it.

willfulone
10-31-2008, 03:32 AM
no no one doubts his ability to speak well.

i just think its very telling that in obama's closing remarks, he talks about working together about bridging gaps and about how america must make sacrifices to get us through the crisis.

mccain's closing remarks are of him railing over a tape of obama having dinner with a muslim.

i think it speaks volumes at the level of discourse mccain has engaged in and what his presidency would look like.

Did you post the McCain one? I did not see that thread. I would like to review the transcripts to see if they state what you purport. For, I do not remember such. Not saying it is not so, just that I do not remember that being the closing remark. I will have to search that link up and read it.

But, let's say it was. For discussion. That does not mean that one does not hold many skill sets to show their value as Commander. Even with lack of a bit of tact or good writers or eloquent delivery in speaking.

I would rather have one who can act in the face of decision, rather than one who can talk in prose but does not make decisions - only talks about them. That is voting with emotion, not sense (imo) if I am swayed emotionally to make a decision for charisma only.

If one votes with emotion, then they do. If one votes for they disliked a slam from one side and thus, make up their mind, they do.

If anyone is surprised and upset by political shennanigans, slurs and the like, they do not look at the situation analytically and based upon facts. That is all based in emotion. The pointing out of McCain's lacks (just as the pointing out of Obama's) is just perpetuation the same that one says they despise watching.

I do not buy into one is better for speaking ability. But, that is just the analytical gal in me.

Christine

Bravo
10-31-2008, 03:36 AM
mccain hasnt made an official closing statement, but these last few days are it, and in them he is bringing up something as irrelevant and idiotic as a dinner obama went to 5 years ago.

is that really the argument you want to end on right before the election?

just more of the same with him.

willfulone
10-31-2008, 03:41 AM
you know, I don't really understand this point.

I mean, that can apply to anyone and does apply to every politician.

I consider it a miracle when any of them deliver on any of their stump speechs- for two reasons. The first is I assume they are saying most of this to get elected but don't really believe in it. And, the second is the very nature of our government.

By design it is one of compromise and consession. So, it is systematically unlikely that any bill will pass through unchanged or unaltered given the sheer size and scope of our process. To even get it considered requires wheeling and dealing. And, I do not mean dealings that are illegal or corrupt but just simple trades of support (the old addage of scratching backs comes to mind).

So, really, I don't get it.

You are right and that is my point - which was the part you left below and did not quote with the one sentence you took out to respond to.

People BELIEVE what he says for his ability to speak well. And expect it to come for they are swayed by the talk. Rather than taking into account the actuality that (regardless of it not being his fault for all the other mechanics involved) he cannot deliver on said promises. People are thinking and reacting emotionally, rather than thinking logically.

Christine

roncouch
10-31-2008, 03:43 AM
Obama is a terrific orator, no doubt about it. He appears to be exactly what many voters want/deserve. I think he is wrong for the economy and national security. His tax re-distribution plan borders on Marxism.

donroc
10-31-2008, 03:49 AM
Congress will tax and spend perhaps even more than Obama intends, and if it has a veto free majority, it will do so with no restraint. Then, pigs will indeed fly to the trough.

MattW
10-31-2008, 04:00 AM
Congress will tax and spend perhaps even more than Obama intends, and if it has a veto free majority, it will do so with no restraint. Then, pigs will indeed fly to the trough.And with both candidates lined up to spend less responsibly, and neither beholden to deliver on any campaign promises, I'd prefer to have some impediment to the gorging that will ensue.

rugcat
10-31-2008, 04:02 AM
It wasn't so much Obama's ability to speak that was on display, it was about presenting himself and making an emotional connection to people. To me, it really worked. Now, part of that is that he has the best creative people around crafting that ad. But what I got from it was a strong feeling that he is a truly decent guy, as well as a smart politician. I'd be proud to have him representing me as the president.

People who don't care for him will not be moved. Their inner cynic will dismiss it as so much smoke and mirrors. But it's possible that a few undecideds, if there really are such things anymore, will look at it and have their doubts erased about what kind of man he is and what kind of president he'd make.

I'm beginning to think this election is a lot more important than I'd assumed at the start of the campaign.

Bravo
10-31-2008, 04:05 AM
i look at this election as the choice between someone who will probably put me in an internment camp and another guy who will at least listen to other options before putting me in one.

willfulone
10-31-2008, 04:17 AM
i look at this election as the choice between someone who will probably put me in an internment camp and another guy who will at least listen to other options before putting me in one.

That is pretty extreme if you believe such. And if you feel that way, I can certainly understand your views on how you may vote or have already voted.

I want the dude with the biggest balls to stare down enemies, intimidate them and make those foes not even consider screwing with us.

I don't want someone who needs to talk his way out of a situation once the enemy is camped outside my door. It is too late then.

Christine

AncientEagle
10-31-2008, 04:23 AM
I'm always a little surprised when the ability to speak eloquently is brushed aside as something of little significance, or maybe worse, something indicating a lack of ability to act. To me, communication is one of the most important skills for a leader of any kind, and especially a president. It was Reagan's strong suit. FDR excelled at it. And in neither case did it mean the leader was less suited for action because he reached the citizenry through words.

If Obama wins the presidency, I believe his eloquence and ability to inspire with words will be one of his most needed and most useful characteristics. If McCain wins, I fear his lesser ability in that area will be a severe detriment.

We need action and words. We as writers surely must understand that.

Inarticulate Babbler
10-31-2008, 04:36 AM
Wow. Obama's propagandist plan (right out of Mein Kampf) has snowed almost as many people as the media. He's pointed fingers at Bush (who he could not possibly run against) and McCain for the Housing Bubble--which he and Freddy Mack (His buddy that ran Fanny Mae into the ground while making millions off of it)--are the cause of, and swears he'll force banks to cease foreclosures on those who make "good faith" payments. Yet, he's touted as an economist and McCain's blamed?

Interesting how we haven't heard many reports of the War in Iraq since their was a successful surge (planned by McCain), except that Obaman outright lied and stated he said they should do that two years ago. What he proposed (and still does) is to pull out without a victory, and prove Osama Bin Laden's prophecy that "If you kill enough Americans, they'll back down". And do you really think that proving we will do exactly that will not increase their recruiting (which has been at a low), their sponsorship and their threats on American soil? Right. They murdered our guys live when we were a threat--how do you think we'll fair when we've proven we're not?

AncientEagle
10-31-2008, 04:55 AM
Wow. Obama's propagandist plan (right out of Mein Kampf) has snowed almost as many people as the media. He's pointed fingers at Bush (who he could not possibly run against) and McCain for the Housing Bubble--which he and Freddy Mack (His buddy that ran Fanny Mae into the ground while making millions off of it)--are the cause of, and swears he'll force banks to cease foreclosures on those who make "good faith" payments. Yet, he's touted as an economist and McCain's blamed?

Interesting how we haven't heard many reports of the War in Iraq since their was a successful surge (planned by McCain), except that Obaman outright lied and stated he said they should do that two years ago. What he proposed (and still does) is to pull out without a victory, and prove Osama Bin Laden's prophecy that "If you kill enough Americans, they'll back down". And do you really think that proving we will do exactly that will not increase their recruiting (which has been at a low), their sponsorship and their threats on American soil? Right. They murdered our guys live when we were a threat--how do you think we'll fair when we've proven we're not?

(My bold.) Pretty strong stuff, that Mein Kampf bit. Have you read Mein Kampf? I have a copy sitting here in sight, English translation, and I haven't seen anything in it that connects with Obama. You're suggesting he's a Nazi? And he has a buddy named Freddy Mack who ran Fannie Mae into the ground?

This is all getting funnier by the minute.

odocoileus
10-31-2008, 05:01 AM
Obama's propagandist plan (right out of Mein Kampf)


Prove the Obama campaign has any connection whatsoever to Mein Kampf. MK is on line at various places, so you can provide some relevant quotes. I'll wait.



He's pointed fingers at Bush (who he could not possibly run against) and McCain for the Housing Bubble--


It's clear that the Republicans - policies they enacted and legislation they supported - are partly responsible for the financial crisis. Democrats are partly responsible too. Are you willing to demand that both parties take responsibility for their blunders?


which he and Freddy Mack (His buddy that ran Fanny Mae into the ground while making millions off of it)--are the cause of,


Prove that Raines is Obama's "buddy" as you put it. That is to say, demonstrate that Raines played any kind of role in the Obama campaign or had any meaningful relationship with Obama.

Also justify your decision to leave out of your analysis the role of private mortgage brokers like Countrywide, who built up their business on huge piles of bad debt even as FNMA was taking a more conservative approach to mortgage lending - an approach they later abandoned. You also left out the role of credit default swaps. Is there a good reason, or are you more interested in expressing your frustation than examining the issue fully?

Could you provide specific examples as to your claim that Obama was the cause of the current financial crisis? Some Obama supporters do attribute superpowers to their candidate. If he really was the cause of the current crisis, he really is superman.

Inarticulate Babbler
10-31-2008, 05:03 AM
(My bold.) Pretty strong stuff, that Mein Kampf bit. Have you read Mein Kampf? I have a copy sitting here in sight, English translation, and I haven't seen anything in it that connects with Obama. You're suggesting he's a Nazi? And he has a buddy named Freddy Mack who ran Fannie Mae into the ground?

This is all getting funnier by the minute.


Nazi? No. But using the same tactics.

Freddy Mack, YES. He's Obama's buddy. In fact, Obama has received extensive payoffs as a headhunter of banks that didn't make "unlikely" loans.

As far as Mein Kampf: All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

Inarticulate Babbler
10-31-2008, 05:05 AM
"CHANGE" - Eerie, right?

Bravo
10-31-2008, 05:08 AM
Eerie, right?

yes, you are.

Inarticulate Babbler
10-31-2008, 05:16 AM
It's clear that the Republicans - policies they enacted and legislation they supported - are partly responsible for the financial crisis. Democrats are partly responsible too. Are you willing to demand that both parties take responsibility for their blunders?

Really? How many times were McCain and the Republicans (Including the president) try to make Fanny Mae accountable? How many times was it blocked? And..*clears throat* By whom? Yeah, you got it, The Democrats and Obama.

Inarticulate Babbler
10-31-2008, 05:17 AM
yes, you are.

And you are a sheep.

odocoileus
10-31-2008, 05:19 AM
Freddy Mack, YES. He's Obama's buddy. In fact, Obama has received extensive payoffs as a headhunter of banks that didn't make "unlikely" loans.



There isn't a person called Freddy Mac. That's the nickname of the organization based on its acronym.

You do realize that Obama's time as a corporate headhunter was nearly two decades ago, right? You wrote "didn't make unlikely loans". Did you mean "banks that made unlikely loans"?

You don't have the basic facts of your argument straight.

mscelina
10-31-2008, 05:27 AM
Propaganda is the greatest weapon any politician can wield. Although it's very easy to fall victim to extremist propaganda and make the illogical leap that would compare either of these candidates to Marx or Hitler or...yes, I'm saying it...George Bush. *shrug* After all, Inarticulate, you're spouting off the same rhetoric as a whole bunch of other sheep. No matter what side of the fence you're on, 'baaaaaaaaaa!' still means 'baaaaaaaaaaa!'

Just sayin'...

Bravo
10-31-2008, 05:28 AM
holy crap!

you scared the hell out of me celina.

Bravo
10-31-2008, 05:29 AM
And you are a sheep.

i'm a carnivore.

mscelina
10-31-2008, 05:30 AM
holy crap!

you scared the hell out of me celina.

*wink*

I thought I might. Now give me candy or I'll quote sources at you.

Damn, I miss Haskins.

odocoileus
10-31-2008, 05:32 AM
Really? How many times were McCain and the Republicans (Including the president) try to make Fanny Mae accountable? How many times was it blocked? And..*clears throat* By whom? Yeah, you got it, The Democrats and Obama.

Both Republicans and Democrats resisted attempts to regulate the system.

Fanny Mae was not the cause of the crisis, and definitely not the biggest player. Private mortgage brokers had been piling up and selling of bad debt for years before Fanny Mae got into the game.


http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/355_transcript.pdf


Linking Obama to ex Fannie Mae Cheif Fannie Mae is a stretch. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903604.html)


You've got your basic facts wrong on this.

roncouch
10-31-2008, 05:36 AM
I wouldn't lable Obama a nazi, but his campaign has been orchestrated skilfully; as though Josef Goebbels was writing his speeches. I've met a few excellent speakers in my time - speakers that can not only hold your attention, but lead in certain directions (political, religious, economic) that makes one tend to follow. Words, and the manner in which they are delivered can be extremely powerful.

Inarticulate Babbler
10-31-2008, 05:41 AM
There isn't a person called Freddy Mac. That's the nickname of the organization based on its acronym.

You're right. For some reason, my head mixed up Franklin Raines and Freddi Mac (Probably in relation--in my head--to Bernie Mack)

You do realize that Obama's time as a corporate headhunter was nearly two decades ago, right?

And we're paying for it now.

You wrote "didn't make unlikely loans". Did you mean "banks that made unlikely loans"?

No. I meant what I said. Here's some fact for you, let me know if you want more:



This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/03/do_facts_matter) "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

willfulone
10-31-2008, 05:41 AM
I'm always a little surprised when the ability to speak eloquently is brushed aside as something of little significance, or maybe worse, something indicating a lack of ability to act. To me, communication is one of the most important skills for a leader of any kind, and especially a president. It was Reagan's strong suit. FDR excelled at it. And in neither case did it mean the leader was less suited for action because he reached the citizenry through words.

If Obama wins the presidency, I believe his eloquence and ability to inspire with words will be one of his most needed and most useful characteristics. If McCain wins, I fear his lesser ability in that area will be a severe detriment.

We need action and words. We as writers surely must understand that.

The ability to speak IS important. But, when one does not back their own words with their own actions it is just "lip service". Could I believe more of what he says if he had taken a stand more times when he could have voted yes/no rather than present? Hell yeah. It would not change my vote, but I would respect the man at least.

Christine

odocoileus
10-31-2008, 05:52 AM
Here's some fact for you, let me know if you want more:



No, that's an opinion piece by novelist Orson Scott Card, published in a minor publication. Not a fact checked piece in a reputable newspaper.

He got the name of FNMA's former head wrong too.

When you can't be bothered to get the names right of the people you're smearing, it's a sign that you aren't paying close attention.

There are only two possibilities here. Either the real roots of the crisis, in private mortgage brokers, bad loans on properties with wildly inflated values, repackaged debt, credit default swaps, and international money markets, are too complex for you to grasp, or you're deliberately leaving those parts of the story out for propaganda purposes.

Which is it?

AncientEagle
10-31-2008, 06:17 AM
I wouldn't lable Obama a nazi, but his campaign has been orchestrated skilfully; as though Josef Goebbels was writing his speeches. I've met a few excellent speakers in my time - speakers that can not only hold your attention, but lead in certain directions (political, religious, economic) that makes one tend to follow. Words, and the manner in which they are delivered can be extremely powerful.

Let me make sure I understand you. If someone runs a political campaign that "has been orchestrated skilfully," that fact makes it seem as if Goebbels is writing his speeches. And if he is a mesmerizing speaker, that's a strong mark against him too. So the fellow to follow is the one who runs an inept campaign and speaks unskilfully as well.

Okay. I think I understand.

Inarticulate Babbler
10-31-2008, 08:17 AM
No, that's an opinion piece by novelist Orson Scott Card, published in a minor publication. Not a fact checked piece in a reputable newspaper.

Define...reputable. Is it one that constantly twists the "facts" in favor of Obama? You know, OSC--very Like I was--was all about Obama at the beginning. Obama changed my mind.


He got the name of FNMA's former head wrong too.

When you can't be bothered to get the names right of the people you're smearing, it's a sign that you aren't paying close attention.


Interesting word "smearing". I haven't seen any real evidence to disprove anything but minor details. I'm not perfect--never claimed to be--but I'm not buying what's forced down my throat either.




There are only two possibilities here. Either the real roots of the crisis, in private mortgage brokers, bad loans on properties with wildly inflated values, repackaged debt, credit default swaps, and international money markets, are too complex for you to grasp, or you're deliberately leaving those parts of the story out for propaganda purposes.

Which is it?

Wrong. There are more than two possiblities. That's absolutism, and tells me that, like Obama, you think you know the way it has to be based on a close-minded and biased view. Where is your source (and don't bother showing me to the Obama website or his media camp). I haven't forgotten the lies spread by the media during the last election. (At the cost of some pretty "trustworthy newsmen's" careers.) I'm not the one intentionally obfuscating the simple truth. The question is why are you denying that the Democrats blocked the Republicans from making them accountable for the "bad loans"? Are you afraid to actually follow the money trail?

Inarticulate Babbler
10-31-2008, 08:21 AM
Ahh, politics and religion, the two most peacefully debated subjects. :Hug2:

donroc
10-31-2008, 08:29 AM
Ahh, politics and religion, the two most peacefully debated subjects. :Hug2:

Not two, politics is religion for most. Would you let your daughter marry a ___________ or llet your son bring home a ______? Arrrgggghhhh.

Inarticulate Babbler
10-31-2008, 08:49 AM
Lol. Wow.

Not for me. Of course, I'm non-partison. Each election the candidates convince me--and a bit of research.

But I wouldn't hold how a person voted (and whether my choice won or lost) against them. You or I won't decide, elections don't come down to one vote, and I outgrew thinking life was fair when I reached adulthood.

Inarticulate Babbler
10-31-2008, 08:53 AM
And this is supposed to be "Softcore," huh? The description under this sub-heading wasn't accurate. I have only checked this out today, and I've seen elitists, insults and bullying.

Far too intense to be "Softcore".

Bravo
10-31-2008, 09:09 AM
i can never get into softcore stuff.

rugcat
10-31-2008, 09:27 AM
You or I won't decide, elections don't come down to one vote, and I outgrew thinking life was fair when I reached adulthood.I've posted this before, but it's fun.

I used to vote in a small town. One year, on election day, a vote for a town council position was tied,158-158, with one absentee ballot still outstanding. Mine.

donroc
10-31-2008, 09:28 AM
God for a day. Detoxing must have been painful.

rugcat
10-31-2008, 09:39 AM
God for a day. Detoxing must have been painful.What makes you think I ever detoxed?

donroc
10-31-2008, 09:41 AM
Damn, I hate playing straight man (except when making moofky-foofky).
So many gods, so little space in the Pantheon.

mscelina
10-31-2008, 09:57 AM
And this is supposed to be "Softcore," huh? The description under this sub-heading wasn't accurate. I have only checked this out today, and I've seen elitists, insults and bullying.

Far too intense to be "Softcore".

Hey! We're not all Democrats!

;)

Joe270
10-31-2008, 10:26 AM
Damn it, she left. I can't leave that up now, because folks might think I'm serious.

It could have been a fun thread drift. Oh, well.

aruna
10-31-2008, 12:38 PM
(My bold.) Pretty strong stuff, that Mein Kampf bit. Have you read Mein Kampf? I have a copy sitting here in sight, English translation, and I haven't seen anything in it that connects with Obama. You're suggesting he's a Nazi? And he has a buddy named Freddy Mack who ran Fannie Mae into the ground?

This is all getting funnier by the minute.

Godwin's Law.

roncouch
10-31-2008, 05:44 PM
Let me make sure I understand you. If someone runs a political campaign that "has been orchestrated skilfully," that fact makes it seem as if Goebbels is writing his speeches. And if he is a mesmerizing speaker, that's a strong mark against him too. So the fellow to follow is the one who runs an inept campaign and speaks unskilfully as well.

Okay. I think I understand.

A skilfully orchestrated campaign and a mesmerizing speaker do not necessarily equate into a candidate who is best for America. May the most qualified man win!
Ron

mscelina
10-31-2008, 06:57 PM
Damn it, she left. I can't leave that up now, because folks might think I'm serious.

It could have been a fun thread drift. Oh, well.

Even political vampires such as myself need sleep occasionally, Joe. Try it again.

lakotagirl
10-31-2008, 07:22 PM
I want the dude with the biggest balls to stare down enemies, intimidate them and make those foes not even consider screwing with us.

I don't want someone who needs to talk his way out of a situation once the enemy is camped outside my door. It is too late then.

Christine

Perfectly said.

One guy is very likable. The other is not. But, which guy will protect us better in the world that we fear? Which guy will stop them before they bring it here?

I am still comfortable going to the mall, the movies, the grocery stores. I want to stay that way.

endless rewrite
10-31-2008, 07:34 PM
One guy is very likable. The other is not. But, which guy will protect us better in the world that we fear? Which guy will stop them before they bring it here?

I am still comfortable going to the mall, the movies, the grocery stores. I want to stay that way.

I still think McCain is likable, less so then he used to be perhaps, but as a man he can be charming, direct and sharp. It is possible to be likable and strong.

who do you want stopped from 'coming here' and what do you think they are going to bring with them? What are you afraid they might do in your grocery store? What are you going to be scared of at the movies?

Don't feed fear, even from the grocery store.

AncientEagle
10-31-2008, 07:42 PM
A skilfully orchestrated campaign and a mesmerizing speaker do not necessarily equate into a candidate who is best for America. May the most qualified man win!
Ron

Quite true. But a skilfully orchestrated campaign shows considerable organizational and leadership ability in and of itself, and being a mesmerizing speaker can be a positive attribute for a leader. (See: Winston Churchill, 1940-1945.) So those two factors also do not necessarily equate into a candidate who is NOT best for America, either.

I agree--may the most qualified man win.

LaceWing
10-31-2008, 09:58 PM
Propaganda is the greatest weapon any politician can wield. Although it's very easy to fall victim to extremist propaganda and make the illogical leap that would compare either of these candidates to Marx or Hitler or...yes, I'm saying it...George Bush. *shrug* After all, Inarticulate, you're spouting off the same rhetoric as a whole bunch of other sheep. No matter what side of the fence you're on, 'baaaaaaaaaa!' still means 'baaaaaaaaaaa!'

Just sayin'...


Today in particular, I find it not illogical at all to compare McCain to Bush, having just come across this article.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081030_hell_to_pay/

It asserts that in 1997, as president of a particular organization*, McCain initiated the articulation of long term military goals, that lined up very neatly with Cheney's plan put together previously with the elder president Bush (son of Prescott Bush, who, last I looked, had an "interesting" wiki page.)

The article lists several statements made by Bush the younger during his campaigns, and compares them to statements in the document that McCain had a hand in before Bush's campaigns.

The article also links to Source Watch, for those who like following who's who in the think tank world.

*http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Citizenship_Project

Inarticulate Babbler
11-01-2008, 09:49 AM
I've posted this before, but it's fun.

I used to vote in a small town. One year, on election day, a vote for a town council position was tied,158-158, with one absentee ballot still outstanding. Mine.

I bet there wasn't an electoral college. Besides, a small town's election process (especially one with 317 voters) would be a much easier process. And the candidates probably knew all of your names...

;)

blacbird
11-01-2008, 09:56 AM
Two years ago we had a state legislator race decided on a coin flip. No lie. Dead flat tie in the voting, after at least two recounts. And state law mandates a coin flip.

Although that wasn't as much fun as the state leg race in Anchorage four years ago, decided by something like three votes, between Republican Steve Strait and Democrat Becky Gay. No, folks, I didn't make that up.

caw

whistlelock
11-01-2008, 10:32 AM
Two years ago we had a state legislator race decided on a coin flip. No lie. Dead flat tie in the voting, after at least two recounts. And state law mandates a coin flip.

Although that wasn't as much fun as the state leg race in Anchorage four years ago, decided by something like three votes, between Republican Steve Strait and Democrat Becky Gay. No, folks, I didn't make that up.

caw
OMG, that is awesome.

More states should do this.

ricetalks
11-02-2008, 07:31 AM
Let be clear about what fundementally cause this mortgage crisis.

The idea was to loan money to people who had difficulty getting a loan to buy a house but were paying rent anyway. For the amount of money that they paid in rent, they could make mortgage payments for teh same amount and buy a house. Many of these people had regular income but could never seem to manage to save up a down payment. The idea is that when you are paying rent, you are simply paying someone else's mortgage for them anyway, so why not pay for your own mortgage?

Good idea? So far, yes. Obviously, these loans would be consdiered a little more risky and the mortgage brokers would be allowed to charge a higher interest rate for taking a risk on these borrowers and, also, to cover the likely higher default rate on these mortgages.

But here is where things go wrong. The mortgage brokers engaged in a "preditory lending" scheme. How did they do that? By burying in a clause in the legalize of the mortgage contract that AUTOMATICALLY doubled the interest rates on these loans literially overnight. For many people who took out these type of mortgages, they didn't understand or even know this was in the contract. Why didn't they know? Because most people who haven't even saved up a downpayment or have saved a very small downpayment, they can't afford their own lawyer. They trusted the financial institutions that they dealt with believing that they were honest.

Think: if you borrowed 200,000 at 7%, which was higher than the average rate already, and then that rate automatically jumped to 13% overnight, your mortgage payment the next month would jump by about $1,200.00 a month literially overnight. Who could possibly afford that increase? As this problem began to become apparent, some in the government began to call for a regulation that would stop this lending practise or at least force the mortgage companies and the banks to tell customers up front what the cost were.

These were the "regulations" that the banks, mortgage companies and the anti-regulation people were fighting.

Alan Greenspan himself, a big anti-regulation advocate, has said, "I was wrong. I was shocked at what happened and I still don't really understand it. I thought the banks would protect the investors' interests and I was wrong."

MoonWriter
11-02-2008, 08:44 AM
Partially correct but mostly wrong - at least in regards to who's at fault and why. This has been covered ad nauseam on some of these threads with many detailed links.

ricetalks
11-02-2008, 09:20 PM
Yes, it has been discussed ad nauseam, as you said. Most of these discussions I have followed. And yet, Ihave yet to see anybody simply put the finger of blame on exactly where it should lie. The behaviour of the banks and the mortgage brokers. Everything else extends from that. The deregulation, the setting up of Freddy Mae and Franny mack, the government encouraging the banks and mortgage companies to make loans to the underclass; the re-bundling of these loans into other financial products, none of these things in and of themselves would have caused wht has happened had the mortgage companies not been behaving as they were. All of these things, the financial products, retirement savings, 401k's, hedge fund values, are all resting on the foundation of some guy being able to pay his mortgage. And if he can't, if enough of them can't, the whole system falls apart. Especially when the banks and the mortgage companies must engage in a very aggressive selling campaign to keep the whole roulette game going.

FOr all of the discussion of this, I haven't seen anybody isolate the behaviour of the banks and mortgage companies themselves as the driving force in all of this.

LaceWing
11-02-2008, 09:37 PM
It seems to me that all were complicit in a complicated fiasco.

Which ones could have stopped it? The banks for instance: once their competitors sign up for it, the others are pressured to be competitive. The MBAs who designed the financial instruments that opened the way for banks to think they could share the risk with others; the brokers that sold them, some of whom later admitted they didn't believe in them; the speculators who place bets on others' investment in the real economy. Also in the mix are real estate developers and city planners, TV shows that showed people how to buy a house and flip it.

But, eh, I'm not an economist. This just reflects the impression I have of how some of the parts fit together.

willfulone
11-02-2008, 10:09 PM
And the people that ignored that they were over extending. Not their fault totally, but some blame lies there too. Even with the desire to have a home, many know the realities of their monetary situation and ignore it for a dream. And, I cannot blame them totally. It would be hard to pass on with all the feeding given to ignore such.

LaceWing is right. One cannot place blame to one specific entity/person in a situation like this. For, there are too many involved who contributed partially. Blaming one over another seems fruitless and difficult.

Christine