magekillr

[hide=] [/hide] It's just bigotry man. There is no other explanation. Hillary had a much more liberal health care plan, and they call Obama a socialist. Saruman is a perfect example. We've explained to him how Obama is not a socialist, and never proposed a socialist health care plan (although, he does support Universal Health care lol). I'll give some examples here in Virginia. Mark Warner was a highly popular Democratic Governor. Without him, Virginia would still be a Republican state. However, people saw how much progress we made with education, and with the budget, that they overwhelmingly support him. He left office with a 70% approval rating. Obama is fairly close to Warner in professed political ideology, yet the people around here will not support Obama. Many people are voting for Warner in the Senate, and McCain in the General Election. They just don't "trust him", and that mistrust stems from his name, and his race. You can go through policy with them, and they have no other explanation except for, "I just don't know..." It's obviously just fear of blacks. When I was registering voters last football game at Virginia Tech in the parking lot while people were tailgating, I had a man walk by going, "Obama is black." While canvassing at apartment complexes, I had people slam doors in my face with "I'd never vote for a N*" Another apartment I saw an American Flag waving on their porch, and I whispered to my fellow canvasser, "Don't get discouraged, but I have a feeling these people are going to laugh in our face, and call Obama racist things. It's just a hunch." Sure enough, they opened the door, we asked if they wanted to register to vote, they saw our Obama stickers, laughed, and said, "Obama? HA! Did you not see the American flag on the porch? Why would we vote for that unpatriotic n*?" *SLAM* It's nothing more than fear and bigotry. Oh, and here's a glimmer of hope for American Politics. It may be that Obama has done the impossible, or that Republican politics just aren't successful anymore...or a mix of both, but: The American people are truly tired of it, they are the change that they have been waiting for just as Obama has professed, and what I've tried to get across to people who don't "buy it".

http://www.slate.com/id/2201953/ Excerpt: What do you know about Obama's relationship with Ayers? You probably don't know anything. You're just looking for reasons to not support Obama. Before it was "Universal Health Care", we proved that Obama isn't bringing universal health care, and then it's something else. You're running out of options, and time...just like someone else we know.

I fail to see how he flipped on campaign finance reform. He stated that he would work with the opponent to reach an agreement on public financing. Because the McCain campaign refused to do anything about the 527's, no agreement was reached. I will agree to disagree, but I do not see a flip-flop here, especially when the sole purpose of public financing is to reform how candidates are funded, which he has done anyway.

Wow, this just got uglier and even more disgusting. John McCain's supporters at his rallies have been yelling out, "Treason" "Terrorist" and "Kill him", and he's not only encouraging sordid behavior by going, "Who IS Barack Obama?", but he is allowing these people to do it: The "assault" that is being referred to is:

Hmmm, Ginger I'm not so sure I agree with you about pandering and flip flopping with Obama. I mean, he has moved towards the center, successful politics demands it. However, to the extent that he's lying I do not know. I know he has good intentions, I don't think politics have "changed" him in any way, and quite honestly he's one of the smartest politicians I've seen in a LONG time. Hillary was someone that I thought of when I thought of good politicians, but I think even Obama may have surpassed her in the ability to campaign and politicize the national scene. Anyway, Obama is a liar. He lies everyday, at every stump. Of course McCain does, and McCain does it more rampantly, with less tact. However, I won't deny that Obama is a HUGE liar. He was very sensitive to the Palestinian cause until he got into federal politics and I really, really doubt he would do a 180 on this issue for any other reasons aside from the fact that he got into federal politics. I think he is someone who can actually do something about this situation without being influenced by one side over the other. He's the perfect man to solve this problem, or at least help solve it. You know he's friends with Khalidi, after all. Is that why she took the pork money anyway? Please, I won't give you that he flip-flopped on public financing either.

Ouch McCain...this has got to hurt...perhaps pulling out of Michigan wasn't so smart?: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanm ... _crap.html

I knew you'd bring that up lol. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11618.html Besides, a study came out a few years ago showing that economists working in all industries support democrats over republicans more than 2:1. This should be of no surprise that McCain's economic plan is awful, and he was being very blunt when he said he doesn't understand economics.

Economists favor Obama's plan by a HUGE margin: [hide=] [/hide] http://www.economist.com/world/unitedst ... d=12342127

How are they loaded questions? Biden and Sarah agreed about the homosexual marriage,. What is wrong with my question about Zimbabwe (an important issue to me), and what is wrong with my education question? The only one I see as "loaded" is the evolution one, but simply put, I could easily re-tool it. The moderator was horrible. I was pissed that she gave Palin a pass on what distinguished both VP candidates on same-sex benefits. The impression that a lot of undecideds (read: idiots who should know their [cabbage] by now) are going to receive is that there is little distinction when the distinction between them on this issue is actually enormous. Oh, and by the by, most polls out right now have Biden winning by a landslide, and rightly so. Palin was reciting speeches drilled into her head, albeit more articulate than in an interview, but that's expected with this format.

McCain's camp complained all this time about the moderators, first about Brokaw, and now about Gwen because of her book. Man, [bleep] Gwen. What a god awful moderator she was. Both of them evaded questions, and not only were they evaded, but new questions were answered. Sarah Palin never once answered a question reasonably, and brought up Obama's taxes/socialism with "redistribution of wealth". She couldn't answer a question to save her life. Biden was better, but he had some times where he evaded the question at hand too. What a HORRIBLE horrible moderator. She asked one question remotely close to a question I would have asked, and it was abrely enforced. She even once joked about the debaters not answering her question and said "Let's move on." What the hell? Overall, her questions were great, but she was awful at pressing for answers. My questions: (I would have worded it differently as to ask both of them).

Either way, you know they have their hands tied in the money somewhere. If they don't pass the bill and let the banks fail, then they'll need to be re-elected if they want a chance at making their money back. If they weren't tied in these companies, then they could vote down the bill, let the banks go under and still have their money. On top of that, the public would be more willing to re-elect them because they're working for the people instead of themselves. *sigh* Yes, because we're supposed to elect people who are on our pay-grade thinking level. Jesus christ, I think I'd like people smarter than me in office, that's why we elect them. They make decisions for the good of the country the way they see fit. The people aren't making the next leap here, and are simply saying "It's my money dammit!" Look, I'm not happy about this anymore than you are, but the costs of letting them fail are too detrimental. I'd also like an apology for calling me an idiot, when you clearly had no idea what YOU were talking about.

That's fine and dandy that you want to keep bringing them up as top contributors because Paul had virtually no support/no chance of winning, but nonetheless, if you seriously think that 0.631693% of his campaign contributions from 2003 to 2008 are going to change where he is voting (when I'm just including the money he's raised for his Presidential race, so the percentage is even lower), especially when they could have just been given by employees at that company with NO position in being at the top level of the bank.... then :wall: If anything, a lot of people voting against this bill are doing so because it's the popular thing to do and need to get re-elected.

Yes, it goes back a few years. I don't see what is wrong with that. The point still stands that Obama and McCain get [cabbage] loads of money from rich bankers while Paul doesn't. Perhaps because they don't support the way that he votes to begin with (and I'm not implying the "buying" of votes). If he had his way, I couldn't afford to go to college to begin with because he believes in dismantling government loans for school, and graduate program subsidization. The man is bat[cabbage] insane, and the picture is disingenuous on purpose (which was my point from the start).

Ok, I'll take back my edit. You are stupid. Do you not know what is meant by "TOP contributors"? Key word there is top. Obama doesn't have the military amounts listed on there because he gets much more from the other contributors. 2007-2008 vs. 2003-2008. Disingenuous.

No, not really...considering Paul doesn't want a Federal government to exist whatsoever. Oh, by the way, how can branches of the military give to politicians? Methinks your picture is a POS :roll: This is a perfect place for a facepalm picture. Are you really that stupid? The military doesn't give campaign contributions, the head of the military is the current President and he would always just give it to either himself or his party. The soldiers are the ones that are contributing, just like the rich bankers are the ones that are contributing to McCain and Obama. So, where are the contributions that belong to Obama from the military? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542 http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08 ... ve-61.html Seemingly absent no? Thank you for your cleverly disguised picture in favor of Paul. I, for one, am relying on these banks to stay afloat so I can continue to go to school. If they fail, I cannot return next semester. My friend who is going here this semester, had a loan approved for THIS semester (the one that/s 1/3 of the way over), and now they retracted it.

No, not really...considering Paul doesn't want a Federal government to exist whatsoever. Oh, by the way, how can branches of the military give to politicians? Methinks your picture is a POS :roll:

I think Thunderf00t laid out the situation very simply, and in layman's terms, whereas not to ignore anything TOO important:

Thank god, it passed in the Senate. Now, for the House of Reps.

I'd rather we didn't let these banks fail. You know, Americans still deal with high college costs, and I kind of need loans to continue. At the rate the banks are falling, I won't have anyone willing to lend to me for next semester. I'm glad I didn't pick Wachovia; they wanted 10.5% interest so I picked someone else. I also almost picked "My Rich Uncle", and they're not lending as they were under the L. Bro's. Comon Key Bank! edit: and about the Clinton admin making it easier for banks to lend out...I believe it was a Republican dominated Congress for one, and for two: http://www.businessweek.com/investing/i ... ogspotting Nonetheless, the whole issue/problem/blame rests on the shoulders of both parties.

The House Republicans didn't deliver the promised votes--they promised 75, but got 65. There were a couple Democrats who voted Aye, but then changed their votes to nay after it was clear that the measure wouldn't pass. The Democrats delivered the number of votes that they had agreed upon. The Republicans didn't. Thus, the failure of the bailout bill falls on them. Besides, Chris Matthews is dead on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTRHIjlnfwU

It's obvious to me that the Republicans were willing to go along with this, and then John McCain went and roused up trouble to get people to follow him in the Republican party as "he's the new leader". Not all Democrats supported, but that's because they didn't agree to vote on it until there was more oversight. Had McCain not been involved, there would have been a more bi-partisan solution WITH more oversight, resulting in higher Dem support. Still others originally voted for it, saw it wouldn't pass, and changed their vote. Then of course you have your idealogues like Kucinich and Paul who wouldn't support it even if George Bush's impeachment was attached. Paul would never support it, Kucinich would demand MASSIVE discussion. I just think that this bill, as it is set out, was rushed. I'm not an economic expert but I don't think it is possible to draft a bill of this magnitude in such a short period of time, but at the same time if the Republicans didn't just "get up and leave" the other day when John McCain came to town, it could have had more oversight and been a much better piece of legislation. The fact is: this is all John McCain's fault.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanm ... story.html *Pssst* Sarah, how about Marbury vs. Madison which gave the SCOTUS its power in the first place.

Let's go Chris Matthews!!!

Wachovia was bought out today, so they're no longer in existence. I almost got my private student loans through them, thank god I didn't. Let's see where this leads...as said above, the DOW is going nuts.

Yes I'll admit that was poor wording. My mistake, I apologize. Sorry, I wrote this while studying at like 3:00 a.m. last night, and the whole situation just frustrates me that such acts are committed in America that I was kind of irrational...