Trubrit wrote:
Hey....IT AIN'T OVER TILL THE FAT MARXIST SINGS!

It transpires that the messiah is having a spot of bother finding an authentic US birth certificate:

http://thevalleytruth.wordpress.com/2 ... obamas-birth-certificate/

Vigilante wrote:
I think this could ultimately go before the Supreme Court and be struck down. IMO it violates the Equal Protection Clause. We shall see.

CANKICKER wrote:
Quote:

chiefdahill wrote:
Quote:

You know I am a pretty nice guy, you know I give to charities, I give to my church. You know, Joe the Biden, what he gave -- $3,000 last year -- and this guy makes millions? Come on, you know, that's just ridiculous.

Joe the Plumber is a f_cking idiot. Joe and Jill Biden earned $319,853 in 2007. Joe Biden reported $161,708 in income from the U.S. Senate and another $71,000 in royalties for his book.

This guy doesn't get that he will benefit from the Obama tax plan, too bad he is soo racist that he can't see it. Oh well, not like it matters since Mcain will have no use for him after he loses.

I thought it was classic that he was commenting on Israel, like this schlub gives a rat's ass about Israel.

Yr the only F$%king idiot, why because this guy was the only person to take "O" to task and on TV nonetheless? Why because he asked the empty suit a legitmate question as to how his Tax plan is going to work for the middle class or better yet how Empty suit Obama is going to give everyone's hard earned money away to the lazy asses that dont want to work?

It must have annoyed the crap out of the Dems as to how Joe the Plumber was able to get that close to "O" as oppossed to the Kiss asses that usually flock to him....

Give it up !!!

CK

thriftyT wrote:
It's been nice chatting with you all. Well, most of you, anyway.


I'm getting ready to vote and y'all know who I'm voting for.

But whoever wins, I take solace with the fact that both men, replete with their strengths and weaknesses, are far more capable than either Kerry or Bush II.

Either way, we win.

Whatever misgivings one may have about McCain, one simply cannot doubt his love of country and his record of service to our country is largely beyond reproach. He also has an ability to think for himself which is evidenced by episodes of breaking with his party when he deems necessary for the better interests of our country. He has also shown an ability to "reach across the aisle" to get things done, surely a good skill for any president. He would make a fine leader.

Senator Obama's record is shorter, but he too has proven to be up to the task. His detractors point out that he's a smooth talker...an insult that was never leveled at Bush II and sometimes leveled at a certain great president I remember as a child: President Reagan. And win or lose, his leadership, strategic vision and tactical prowess in running a successful $600 million campaign over the past year can not be overstated. He too would make a fine leader.

But even if you don't agree with the crap above, the great thing about our country is that ultimately the fate of our country and ourselves really lies in our hands - not the president's. There aren't to many countries where you can say that, so in my mind, it's all good.

Happy election day.

stani wrote:
Quote:

You are right. Got my dates wrong. It was in 2002 that it was revealed that Enron had helped Gramm write the legislation. Bad memory. Gramm is McCain's chief economic adviser and a likely Treasury Secretary if McCain wins tomorrow, by the way. I have to disagree with your take on who "lit the fire" of this mess. I believe that the Democrats wanted to encourage more people to buy homes, which happened, but the same legislation that encouraged that also opened the door for financial institutions to take stupid risks with mortgage debt. I also believe that had the SEC not been told to stand down by the Bush administration, alarm bells would have gone off much sooner. Part of my practice (a smallish part admittedly) has been defending companies in SEC actions or investigations and I can tell you that the tone of the government position over the past few years has been much less aggressive.

You want to talk about enforcement of regulations for the financial industry? Do you remember a fellow by the name of Eliot Spitzer? He was also known as the "sheriff of wall street". For those of you too young to remember, he was the Democratic NY State Attorney General, and then the Democratic Governor of NY. Was he in cahoots with the Bush administration to go soft on the financial industry? Is this another example of deregulation of the financial industry? Eliot Spitzer, the darling of the Democrat party, spent a lot of taxpayer money going after AIG and got settlements from them for the actions he took against them, none of them having to do with this current mess, by the way. There was plenty of regulation of the financial industry during the Bush administration.

stani wrote: Quote:

Loopy wrote: Not exactly. It is true that much of the banking deregulation was accomplished during Clinton's administration, but the seed was planted by Reagan. And how is Senator Gramm's debacle, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2002, for a wee bit of Bushy deregulation? It essentially gutted the CFTC's & the SEC's ability to oversee "credit swaps," financial "products" valued at something like 60 trillion (and one of Warren Buffet's "financial weapons of mass destruction"). That said, Bush's greatest failing was not in repealing regulation, but in underfunding the existing regulatory entities and setting an administration-wide policy of minimal intervention. A policy echoed by Greenspan and the Fed. In short, every asshat in Washington for the last 20 years (with a few exceptions) must shoulder some portion of the blame for this mess. But I trust the Democratic Party to sort this out much more than I do the Republicans--the Democrats moved in the direction started by the Reaganites, seeing it as "moderating" and "moving to the center." Now perhaps the party will get back to it's core values and reign in some of this nonsense.

I hate pointing out a little fact to you. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act was signed in 2000 by Blill Clinton. There is no such thing as Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2002, only the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Here's the link to it in wikipedia. But I do agree with you that there is a lot of blame to go around. But I can't understand how you can trust the people who lit the flame for this fire, namely the democrats in Congress. Without their push, all of those millions of people who took out loans they couldn't afford wouldn't have been able to do so. Everything else is secondary.

HearmeRawr wrote:
The rumor was real. They killed 140 OVER 9000!!! girls in total in only Jersey City. My mom's co-worker saw one of the girls get off the bus then one of the gang members right behind and killing her. My freind lost 2 friends on the 30th and 31st. So for those who think that wasnt true well it was.

teacher wrote:
Oh thiftyT, I notice you keep bringing up these African countries, and relating it to the USA? Why is this? It has no correlation at all. The only connection I see is that Obama Hussein, would funnel US tax payer money to his mother country of Kenya. He would also grant his law breaker Aunt immunity.

Obama is winning a popularity contest, not one based on ideals, integrity, shared-responsibilty, and Experience. A friend of mine is voting for Obama, bc she doesn't like McCain's voice. (I am confident others are voting for Obama for similar irrelevant reasons.) She has no-idea O is pro-choice, would raise her family's taxes, consistently lies, has a VP that doesn't believe in him, associates with radicals, and racists, takes illegal campaign money etc....

How about blaming the housing crisis on the actual mortgage brokers and the people that overleveraged themselves.

stani wrote: Quote:

thriftyT wrote: Quote:

Trubrit wrote: It's no reason to hold McCain responsible for the financial crisis. A tight republican government has always been more cost effective than a spend thrift democratic one.

Pure fiction. An outright lie. Just compare Bush II vs. Clinton. The only thing looser about Clinton's administration were his trousers.

Bush didn't create the Community Reinvestment Act. That one was passed when Jimmy Carter was president. Bush didn't pressure Fannie and Freddie to get more aggressive with CRA loans. That was Bill Clinton. If you don't believe me, let me know and I'll send you the link to the NY Times article from the late 90's reporting on this. Every attempt to rein in Fannie and Freddie during Bush II was stonewalled by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, et al. All democrats. The reason we're in this mess is because of Fannie and Freddie: buying and securitizing a huge amount bad loans with little equity and funding them with government guaranteed debt. As far as regulation goes, have you ever heard of Sarbanes-Oxley. This was passed during Bush II after Enron. A huge regulatory effort with little to show for it. The financial sector is one of the most regulated sectors of the economy. Whatever deregulation happened under Bush II happened in other industries. Please give me one example of financial industry deregulation pushed by Bush II. Bush II's mistake was to acommodate the Democrats, thinking he could buy some goodwill to pass some of his priorities. Very naive. Bush II was too naive about the state of today's politics. Democratic politics has devolved entirely into the politics of retribution and revenge. We'll soon see where it takes us. I'm pretty sure all of you liberals on this board will still be blaming Bush 4 years from now when things are much worse than they are today.

fasteddie wrote:
Actually, their mission is to kill 35 virgins. There is nothing to worry about, it is an impossibility in JC. No one will be harmed.

Trubrit wrote:
Hey, the British government is doing fine.

I'm just here for the cheap gas and your wonderful culture.

Tipp has got "Karl Marx II" with a 4.4 point lead and 8% undecided.

http://www.tipponline.com/

It's still anyones game comrades!

injcsince81 wrote:
Quote:

thriftyT wrote:
Quote:

injcsince81 wrote:
Quote:

thriftyT wrote:


Nevertheless, both the Economist and FT are generally well-regarded publications with respected economic viewpoints.

Umm, no - they are crypto-Commies.

For the JClisters out there, I think injcsince81 is just kidding around.

I am not.

The Economist is sooooo far on the left it is not even funny.

As others wrote - right there with the New York Times.

Having said all that - I have to generally agree with their editorial re McC vs Obama.

Obama offers some serious upside (but the downside is equally serious).

teacher wrote:
Obama Hussein is the best, he will tax the rich so they will supporting the rest of us. I will also change my faith to Muslim, from Catholic. I am sure this will be great. I really hope all the socialist programs get enacted. JC will be great when the downtown area looks more like India..great for real-estate prices.

Amy wrote:
How can you not know what "incident" means? Come on, look it up.

mendezia wrote:
I think I've dealt with the same douchebag. A few weeks ago my wife (who was 8 mos pregnant) was home alone, and the UPS guy rang our doorbell. My wife told him she was pregnant and nicely asked him to come up to our 3rd floor walkup, as other UPS drivers regularly do. The guy responded "we don't do that," and made her come down the stairs for the box. Douche...

Amy wrote:
This morning I was in the shopping center on Grand getting coffee from Dunkin Donuts. I had my dog with me and was running errands, so I used the drive-through, which is always really slow there.

I had been waiting for a while when a man walked up to my passenger window and peered in. I panicked and saw that the door was unlocked. I could think of nothing else than, "He's going to get into the car. And if not, he's going to pull a gun and shoot me." In this fog of panic, I tried to reach the lock on the door but couldn't because my seatbelt was on. I made a "go away" motion with my hand, and he walked away, to the car in front of me. It occured to me then that the guy probably only wanted some spare change, and that in my car and all my middle class obnoxiousness, I had told him to go away. I watched as the other cars in line also waved him away.

I know a lot of people will think, "He was a junkie or wino and there's no need to feel guilty for waving him away." Or "Of course you waved him away-- it's terrifying to have a man approach your car so quickly." That was my rationale when I kept thinking about it later. But in this economy, I can't help but think how many people are desperate or are going to be desperate. I'm going to give to Second Harvest or whatever the new name is now... something I should do more often. I shouldn't need an incident like that to prompt me. Anyone could become the panhandler in these uncertain times.

brian_em wrote:
Hey Hey.
I would never "dodge questions" that are relevant to the thread. I've just been too busy the past 2 days to check the thread.

About his middle name. I understand the remarks, and half agree. A name IS just a name. But, he might be our president. It's not like his name makes him a terrorist. People that think that are retarded. But, I doubt many people would have voted for John Hitler Kennedy. Obama shares the same name of a man we just went to war with...I'm sorry, but it just looks bad... Again, it would be strange if people DIDN'T bring it up. Cmon.

Yes, my original post was sincere. I am truly trying to cut through the propaganda and find out the real reasons people support Obama. Most people I talk to about Obama seem to love him, but can't really give me a good reason. I find that strange. Almost every post that followed just attacked republicans or McCain. Or gave really weak reasons in support of Obama. Really weak.

I laughed at Br6's remarks that my questions are "deceptive and dishonest". It's a shame you don't have an answer to the questions I ask. So, instead you try to attack my character as having evil intentions for asking them.

It's exactly what is happening in the campaign right now. People are asking questions about Obama. And instead of fielding them, the followers just try and paint us as evil for asking them. People have said the worst about Bush, they will make fun of McCain's Handicap without shame or guilt. People are making a fake porno about Palin....But If someone asks simple questions about Obama, and you have the nerve to call them dishonest and deceptive??? or worse yet, Racist? Are you kidding me?

"We lie and steal to get what we want..." REALLY? See, people like you, br6, is why our country is so divided right now.

Which brings me to another point. It seems people are voting for Obama because they hate republicans, not because they think Obama is the best person for the job.

Vigilante. thanks for your response, and I can't really say much about the public opinion of Reagan during his campaign. I was 1 when he took office. But, he was a two term governor. I'm pretty sure we all could agree that Obama would be catching far less crap if he was a two term governor of Illinois.

As far as Rev. Wright goes. Uh...Yeah, If i was at church and the priest was screaming "god damn America" , white people are the devil, and was praising the 911 attacks as our own fault, I'd fight the urge to punch him in the face, and walk out. I was raised Catholic, and partly why I don't go to church now, I disagree with a lot the church says. DO most people think Obama thinks exactly like rev. Wright, NO. But, Obama is preaching Unity, and the church he belongs to is SCREAMING the opposite. That's what people are upset about. That's why people question it.

Obama shares the same name of a man we just went to war with...I'm sorry, but it just looks bad... Again, it would be strange if people DIDN'T bring it up. Cmon.

People are asking questions about Obama. And instead of fielding them, the followers just try and paint us as evil for asking them.

TheHookJC wrote:
Quote:

Loopy wrote:
Quote:

TheHookJC wrote:
This sums up Obama's views.

When addressed by a concerned plumber whos taxes will go up under Obama's tax plan, Barack says,

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I believe when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everyone."

I guess painting the White House red will create some jobs.

So now he's a Commie because he wants to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 per year? (I'm one of those people, by the way.) You really are pathetic. Just go ahead and call him a Muslim terrorist "black guy", you'll feel better.

Hahahaha. How do you interpret that Loopy? What is your interpretation of Obama's statment? And just because I am questioning his economics, doesn't mean I am a racist and think he is Muslim. You are the typical Democrat in this election. If you question Obama at all, your a racist.

TheHookJC wrote:
This sums up Obama's views.

When addressed by a concerned plumber whos taxes will go up under Obama's tax plan, Barack says,

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I believe when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everyone."

I guess painting the White House red will create some jobs.

Did you say tax cut? You must misunderstand. Obama's "tax cut" is an illusion ("Watch the pink handkerchief, boys and girls!") since 1/3 of income earners don't pay a dime in taxes already. Giving 95% of us a "tax cut" is just a slicker way of saying "welfare payment." Gotta give him credit for that.

Besides, the fact is there's no way he can pay for the billions of dollars in programs he's proposing and cut taxes. One will have to bow out to what Obama will surely call "the realities of the budget." So guess which one he won't deliver on?

I'll take a war hero to a liberal demagogue any day.

P.S.--Dow is off nearly 300 points. The rally's dead (long live the rally.)

jediweapon wrote:
Quote:

Loopy wrote:
Quote:

jediweapon wrote:
Interesting that the closer Obama seems to get to being elected (according to the pollsters, at least), the further the stock market has fallen. I guess the smart money is abandoning ship before the country hits an iceberg...

Why?

Anybody want to guess how quickly an Obama Administration would backtrack on its "no middle class tax hike" pledge? I'd give him less than 6 mos. before "the malaise we confront" is the excuse given for throwing that promise out the window.

Yeah, but exactly the opposite. From CNN today:

Dow: Biggest one-day runup ever
Dow jumps 680 points, topping the 9,100 level, as investors bet the worst is over.

Any more stupid questions, tool?

From today's WSJ: "Even so, the Dow remains down 34% from its record hit Oct. 9, 2007, and down 13% in October alone." So we'll see if yesterday's rally holds up...or whether Monday was just a dead cat bounce.

(The Dow is already in the red in early trading Tuesday).

As the burden of Obama's "tax cut" (read: wealth transfer) becomes clearer, I wager Hope will turn into Despair.

But that's OK, right? After all, Obama's whole career has been about the triumph of Style over substance.

TheHookJC wrote: Quote:

Loopy wrote: Mr. Em's cronies: Is it any wonder he does not reply? The intellectual vacuum that is the Republican Party is beyond words. And they celebrate that fact. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Lincoln et al. are spinning in their graves.

Loopy, this is great stuff. Sound bytes from a select number of Palin rally attendees. I think it is so pointless when people post this stuff. I could load up the site with uneducated or extreme Democrats as well. There are plenty of people like this that are voting for Obama as well.