It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton? Obama? or Edwards? Who Will It Be?

page: 50
12
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 



I guess it's fair to say both the left and the right are to blame for this financial crisis, even though the roots belong to Jimmy Carter, aka Obama I, with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.


Sweet Jesus! Why blame the LEFT?

It was the LEFT that created the system that made American prosperity possible. It was called the New Deal.

It was the RIGHT that disassembled the system. That was called the Reagan Revolution. It is incorrect to blame the LEFT for what was purely the RIGHT at work!

It's no wonder we have people who think Sarah Palin is ready to be president from the git-go. Even a fifth grader is smarter than that.



The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. (See full text of Act and current regulations. The Act was intended to expand access to credit and reduce discriminatory credit practices – such as targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 10/6/2008 by donwhite]




posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


THAT is so much bullhooey I can smell it from here.

That is probably the worst and most ignorant post on this very long and generally intelligent thread.

The act you are referring to was an attempt to stop banks and other institutions from discriminating because of race. The implicit idea behind your comment seems to be minorities cannot be counted on to pay their loans and that somehow allowing loans for minorities it somehow contributed to this mess... and that whole notion is just so wrong... not to mention racist.

The roots of this mess lays right at the Republican party doorstep with their push starting under Reagan to deregulate the financial markets and the whole notion that a free and unfettered market is better than a regulated one.

Of course there is plenty of blame to go around but it wasn't the anti-discrimination act.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Just because something or someone has good intentions, doesn't always mean things turn out benefiting all it was designed to help.

I'll say again, Clinton forced banks to take risky loans; good intent, but extremely careless.

I'm saying both the left and the right are to blame, yet you are saying the left are exempt from criticism.
How can you both claim the left did not play a part in this?
If that's the case then what are they doing when they claim to be working in Washington? Did they get duped by the right?

BTW, please don;t put words in my mouth, I never said Palin is experienced enough to be Prez, neither is Obama, but she certainly has what it takes to be VP.
She just may be the next Reagan that will follow Carter II.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Hey, guys. Let's keep this civil.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
The idea that both sides of the political fence are guilty of causing our current economic woes has much truth to it . Every sporting fan knows that sometimes there team plays badly . When this happens at some stage you have to get past the disappointment and deal with how your team can play better .

In order to stay on topic all I will say is that neither Obama or McCain seem to grasp what is required to prevent the Credit Crunch from happening again . The partisan blame game is in part a reactionary effect to the side effects of current economic conditions . It is vital what ever future measures are put in place are designed for the long term and are not purely reactionary .

At the risk of self promotion I deal with the Credit Crunch in my latest blog entry . Some of my thoughts can be found there by those who are interested without me going to off topic .



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
I'm saying both the left and the right are to blame, yet you are saying the left are exempt from criticism.
How can you both claim the left did not play a part in this?


I said:

Of course there is plenty of blame to go around but it wasn't the anti-discrimination act.


Clinton didn't force the banks to do anything... it is the federal reserve chief... aka Greenspan (in the 80's and 90's) who pulls those strings.

Historically speaking the push to deregulate the banking industry (and just about everything else) came from the right. Were there collaborators on the Democratic side? Of course there were and they were wrong too but that does not change the fact that the imputus came from the right under Reagan.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
So it's OK with you that Obama received massive campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac?

This might explain his record breaking campaign donations.
He's already receiving cash from foreign sources, soon he'll be receiving donations from dead people.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
The second Presidential debate was held this evening. The verdict seems to be that Barack Obama won the event. It's worth noting that the talking heads over on Fox came to the same conclusion, although they were a bit less direct about it that I am.

For his part, I'd say that Obama won on style, without having to put forward very much in the way of substance. Time and time again, John Mcain failed to engage, rebutt, or disarm. Anyone who is trained in advanced oratory knows what I'm talking about. McCain has never been a dynamic speaker. Barack Obama never had to break sweat during this event, and I think he knew it.

I'm reminded of the Presidential debates between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton. Clinton's youth and formalized debate training allowed him to defeat Dole using nothing more than style points all the way. McCain and Dole each have one thing in common. Neither was ever equipped to deal effectively with their opponent. At no time during this second debate was John McCain ever able to find the right words to make the most of his knowledge and experience.

today's Republican leadership is stuck in the past. The success of Ronald Reagan has been misinterpreted by the top brass. Since the 1980's, they have assumed that their most senior members were always the best to lead their party. It's a failing of conservatism that has been easily exploited by the Democrats since 1992. They've confused conservative values with political tactics, and its about to cost them...again.

Barack Obama has one thing in common with Reagan,and Bush43. He can find the winning message and stick to it. Fritz Mondale could do it. Micheal Duchacus could do it. Al Gore couldn't do it. John Keery couldn't do it. It was only a matter of simle odds until somebody in the Democratic party could do it. GOP leaders don't get that...at this time.

There's no doubt in my mind that John McCain is a frustrated man. He's had to make a lot of compromises to get this far. He's carrying water for his team, even when he knows they are out of touch with the American people. He's a team player, in spite of the fact that he likes to call himself a maverick.

What does he do now? How does he win that third and final debate? He's done the same thing twice now. He's banged on the same drum, to the same rhythm twice now. His third and final debate needs to take Barack Obama by surprise. We already know it's going to be a formalized debate, using stndard rules. If McCain were to get himself thw right coach, he could re-train to Socratic method...or...he could go interrogotory.

Ah, but who am I kidding? That's a lot for an old dog to learn in just one week. There's only one new trick that could work for McCain at this point. In the classroom, they clal it making love to the camera. Ignore your opponent, and speak to the camera like its your close and persona friend. Make no attacks. Answer to no attacks. Be precise. Don't be ambivelant. State your case with all the explanations you have time for.

As I said, way back at the beginning of this thread, we are going to be left with just one question when these debates are over and done with. There is no doubt in my mind that John McCain loses. The only real question is, how much does he lose by? Does he lose by a small margine, like Al Gore did? Or, does he get smoked like Fritz Mondale?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Ya know its bad for the McCain campaign when false news says Obama won.

I think what we saw last night was really the end of the McCain campaign... he comes across as old and tired, neither his rhetoric or ideas resonate with the public at large... especially the young voters who will probably decide this election and they are in large part Obama supporters.

Like him or not it should be pretty obvious by now that Barack Obama has emerged as the most skillful politician of his generation... He puts Bill Clinton to shame.

Think about it... this election was supposed to be Hillary's on the Democratic side and all from out of nowhere comes this upstart and totally blindsides her and snatched the nomination away from her and arranged it so that she had court him.

On the Republican side McCain won the nomination decisively and early, it was his to win and Obama has gotten the McCain camp so flustered that McCain can't even look at or even address Obama other than "that one" And as it stands now the more McCain attacks Obama, the worse it makes McCain look... it seems to me the man is running out of options.

In fact at this late date I am beginning to believe that it isn't even going to be close and on November 5th we may very well be talking about the Obama landslide victory.

This is significent. Whether Obama wins or not (and I am no betting man but I am willing to put money down that he is) he is going to be a formidable force in American politics for decades to come.

To alxandro: THEY all take money from whomever they can get it from.






[edit on 8-10-2008 by grover]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   
In many respects, the third Presidential debate is going to be hard to watch. It hurts me to see my preferred poliitcla party go down in flames like this, but there it is. In the same way that the Democrats crashed and burned in the 1980's, the GOP is now suffering from decisions they made over the last ten years or so.

Under more ideal circumstances, we should expect ot see a resugent Republican party come back to prominance in 2016. That's what most of us are lead to expect. I'm not so sure about that, and I haven't been sure about that since 2004.

It's now looking like the GOP will lose so many of its seats in the House and in the Senate that....it may not recover. As it stands, the GOP is no longer capable of advocating for small government, as it once did. Only time will tell if they are ever againcapable of advocating for fiscal responsibility, as they once did.

It's altogether possible thatwe face a decade in which Democrats hold extreme power.

Let me be clear about one thing. I'd be just as concerned if we were looking at a decade of extreme Republican domination. The GOP held a great deal of power from 1994 to 2006. I'm concerned that the Democratic party will achieve levels of power that go far beyond anything that the Republicans have known, so far.

We've lost our national equilibrium. We no longer have the political balance that the framers of our Constitution intended.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


McCain had to run at this present time because of his age . He probably figured that at is better not to die wondering what he could have accomplishment had he made one last run for the presidency. If he could have McCain could have considered the smart option which would have been to let 08 pass by.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 



McCain had to run at this present time because of his age. He probably figured that at is better not to die wondering what he could have accomplishment had he made one last run for the presidency. If he could have McCain could have considered the smart option which would have been to let 08 pass by.


I differ sharply on this one, Mr X11. I see McCain as a puppet on a sting being pulled by the same puppeteers as who manipulated Ronald Reagan. McCain was an admiral’s son. As my memory serves, his grandfather was also an admiral. Our Navy has the most nepotism of the three branches.

Around 1980 McCain had just finished his 20 years - needed for a minimum pension - and held the rank of O6 - Captain - which is achieved only by those on the “fast track” to flag rank.

Aside: “Flag rank” is a Navy euphemism for what is a general officer in the Army or Air Force. All such officers are given a flag to post in their office bearing the number of stars they wear. O7, 1 star, O8, 2 stars, O9, 3 stars and O10, 4 stars. We no longer use the WW2 5 star rank. End.

McCain “lost” 6 years in POW status. Normally, that would have put him out of the running for flag status. As Gen. Wesley Clark admonished him “You don’t learn anything useful in prison.” It tunned out his “hero” status got him OUT of the Keating Five recriminations.

All things being equal, McCain would have stayed in the US Navy another 10-15 years and risen to 3 star or 4 star rank. Then he would have retired on $120,000 a year for life with free health care thrown in plus many other perks such as chauffeur and free VIP jet trips. AND maybe a consultant to a Defense contractor for another $150,000 a year doing nothing but “softening” or massaging the active duty types to keep the contract money flowing. So much for God Bless America.

I have as has the general public, been aware of John McCain but not as a presidential hopeful. He did not have the fire in the belly that makes one always on the hunt for that high office. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are 2 guys that have run more times than anyone can count on 2 hands. William Scranton of PA ran many times. Morris “Mo” Udall ran several times. McCain ran in 2000 but only as a “fall back” candidate should Bush Jr bust it all. In other words his “handlers” put him in that race.

McCain has too many children and makes too little money as a Member of Congress to live the life style he is accustomed to. He is reminiscent of San Diego’s Butch Cunningham in that regard. Fortunately for him, his new wife, Christy, gives him cover for that.

McCain has always been a low second tier or high third tier player in national politics. Nobody wanted the nomination this year. As J/O reminds, this is not a good year for Republicans. Bush43 has kilt them!

Speaking of that, Bush43 KILLED the ABM Treaty. Anti Ballistic Missile. Now you can add to that, Bush43 has KILLED the NPT Treaty. Non-proliferation Treaty. What with all his swooning towards India. When some Columbian gangster loads a rogue a-bomb into Miami or Tucson, you can thank Bush43 for that one!

[edit on 10/9/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


If we are lucky Justin this won't be the end of the Republcian party per say but the end of its being dominated by right wing movement conservatism and religious fanatics and corporate raiders...

... perhaps, just perhaps the Republcian party can return to its real roots as the party of main street business, not just big business.

Our nation would certianly benefit if it did... the grover (no relation, I am a dog
) norquist, the karl roves and all the extremists like them need to go or your party is indeed dead meat.

Right now as it stands the McCain campaign reminds me of the Clinton campaign in late April and June... splashing around lost and confused like a fish out of water...

... for both of the, McCain and Clinton, the situation is essentially the same... both felt one way or another that this was their time, their campaign for the presidency and theirs to win or lose and along comes this new comer out of nowhere and totally blindsides and out manuevers them and all they can do is fume and fuss about it...

... and it didn't make Hillary look good then nor does it improve McCain's chances any now either.


[edit on 9-10-2008 by grover]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
It's altogether likely that the Democrats will some day make enough mistkes to give the Republicans a new window of opportunity. In spite of what some of you may think, politicians are only human. Just as the GOP has fallen from gace, so too will the Democrats. Some day.

We now face a situation that is new for this nation. the Democrats may actually come to hold enough poliitcal power to become 'invulnerable.' Consider that by 2012, we will have had two Congressional election cycles. That's enough time to hunt the Republicans in to obscurity, if the DNC has the willpower to do it.

Politics being what it is, I see no reason why they should hold back. The Republicans had their shot at total power, and they blew it. For the record, I don't want to see any one party gain total supremacy.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 


GM stock dropped 21% today. That in turn - GM being one of the 30 DJIA stocks - brought about the further sharp decline in the DJIA. We better be checking on FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency - to see if they are ready to open soup kitchens and to build “tent cities” around the country. With unemployment on the rise, and the UI Trust Funds near broke, and the US spending money like we had it to spend, the future bodes ill especially in the short term. Some people predict WORSE is to come! Apples for a dime!



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
It bothers me to see that my earliest predicitons have come to pass. I hae no doubts at all that we can recover from the economic failures that arecoming. I worry more that we can't recover from the imbalance of power that's just around the corner.

If circumstances had been different, we could be talking about a Republican supremacy. It's not going to be good for us to have one poliitical poarty controlling most of our Federal, State, and Local functions. And yes, before you ask, I will be starting a new thread on this important topic.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



It bothers me to see that my earliest predications have come to pass. I have no doubts at all that we can recover from the economic failures that are coming. It's not going to be good for us to have one political party controlling most of our Federal, State, and Local functions. And yes, before you ask, I will be starting a new thread on this important topic.


Yes, J/O, I’ve read your posts more than 2 years now and I can verify you have been on that issue from the get-go. Q. Since you have to work for a living and presumably cannot devote full time to watching the political scene, HOW COME those people whose job it is and was to WATCH, muffed it completely?

Do you think those who mucked it up can fix it?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Do you think those who mucked it up can fix it?


The short answer is "no." Republicans nad Democrats alike share blame in this matter. republicans pushed too hard for too much de-regulation, and Democrats never establsihed a track record of opposition or moderation. The real fix here is to let the big boys fail and then step in to pick up the pieces. A lot of innocent bystanders are going to get hurt, but maybe...just maybe...through hte courts of law and public opinion, the tax payer can vote, litigate, and ostracize to punish and reform.

Neither party wants to admit that this bail out is a short term temporary fix that'll only delay and magnify the pain. Let's be clear. Republicans are looting the treasury to avoid taking responsibility now. In 2009, the Democrats will be sorely tempted to do much the same thing. It's likely that a President Obama will resort to nationalization on a grand scale, becuase he can't get the financing he'd need to keep up the pretsne of "doing something."

Let's be clear. This very historicla event isn't something you fix. It's something you may or may not be able to...survive. Most voters know this. they feel it in their bones, and in their check book. They will vote Republicans out of office to punish them. They will choose Democrats becaue third party options are not yet viable. If and when the Democrats fail, during the worst of a potential Depression, third parties may have their shot.

This theory presumes that hte Democrats don't achieve supremacy on Capitol Hill.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Justin Oldham
 



The short answer is "no." The real fix here is to let the big boys fail and then step in to pick up the pieces. A lot of innocent bystanders are going to get hurt, but maybe ... just maybe ... through the courts of law and public opinion, the tax payer can vote, litigate, and ostracize to punish and reform.

Let's be clear. Republicans are looting the treasury to avoid taking responsibility now. In 2009, the Democrats will be sorely tempted to do much the same thing.


Haven’t I always said winning the presidency is the privilege to slice the biggest pie in the world! A $2.3 t. annual pie! Even a small slice is worth a lot of money! In the old days, the Dems had their contractors and the GOP had its contractors. Today, the contractors have BOTH the Dems and GOP!

Yes, on the ATLA. The last man standing that can help the little guy. I saw where Countrywide had a very large judgment put against it for defrauding the buyers. Whether it is ever collected is another thing. If someone offered me a 10% cash settlement, he’d have my signature in a heartbeat. A little money in the hand is worth a lot of money in the bush.



It's likely that a President Obama will resort to nationalization on a grand scale, because he can't get the financing he'd need to keep up the pretense of "doing something."


I know you fear that J/O, but I do not. Post Clinton, the Dems are not nearly so radical as they once were. Don’t forget it is the Dems who are now the party of a balanced budget. That was a sea change for sure!



Let's be clear. This very historical event isn't something you fix. It's something you may or may not be able to...survive. Most voters know this. they feel it in their bones, and in their check book. They will vote Republicans out of office to punish them.

They will choose Democrats became third party options are not yet viable. If and when the Democrats fail, during the worst of a potential Depression, third parties may have their shot.


Well, as I recall from my history books, America was a 2 party state from 1792 onward. Today’s Dems resemble the early Federalists. Strong central government. The current version of the GOP - IMO - more nearly resembles the Jacksonian Dems more than any other I can recall out of history.

What say you?



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
In order to avoid the imbalance of power, we must get rid of ALL incumbents.
Replace them all with new people that can be easily watched and babysat.

It's a shame that it's come to this but why should they be allowed to remain in office after they've sold us out?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join