McCain's got some 'splaining to do

Koggit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
I know it's fairly long and the internet hates text walls but just read it, no matter of what side of the fence you're on...

WASHINGTON — One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a remark by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae, the other big mortgage lender whose deteriorating finances helped precipitate the cascading problems on Wall Street, the two people said.

They said they did not recall Mr. Davis’s doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than to speak to a political action committee of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the approaching midterm Congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis’s firm, Davis Manafort, had been kept on the payroll because of his close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House.

Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis Manafort for the presidential campaign, but as an equity holder continues to benefit from its income. No one at Davis Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac’s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.

A Freddie Mac spokeswoman said the company would not comment.

Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the McCain campaign, did not dispute the payments to Mr. Davis’s firm. But she said that Mr. Davis had stopped taking a salary from the firm by the end of 2006 and that his work did not affect Mr. McCain.

“Senator McCain’s positions on policy matters are based upon what he believes to be in the public interest,” Ms. Hazelbaker said in a written statement.

The disclosure comes at a time when Mr. McCain and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, are sparring over ties to lobbyists and special interests, seeking political advantage in a campaign being reshaped by the financial crisis and the plan to bail out investment firms.

Mr. McCain’s campaign has been attacking Mr. Obama for ties to former officials of the mortgage giants, both of which have a long history of cultivating Democratic and Republican allies alike to fend off efforts to restrict their activities. Mr. McCain has been running a television advertisement suggesting that Mr. Obama takes advice on housing issues from Franklin D. Raines, former chief executive of Fannie Mae, a contention denied by Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign.

Freddie Mac’s payments of roughly $500,000 to Davis Manafort, the people familiar with the arrangement said, began in late 2005, immediately after Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae disbanded an advocacy coalition that they had set up and hired Mr. Davis to run.

From 2000 to the end of 2005, Mr. Davis received nearly $2 million as president of the coalition, the Homeownership Alliance, which the companies created to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status as federally chartered companies with implicit government backing. That status let them borrow cheaply, helping to fuel rapid growth but also their increased purchases of the risky mortgage securities that proved to be their downfall.

The payments that Mr. Davis received for leading the Homeownership Alliance were reported in Monday’s issue of The New York Times. On Sunday, in an interview with CNBC and The Times, Mr. McCain responded to a question about that tie between Mr. Davis and the two mortgage companies by saying that he “has had nothing to do with it since, and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.”

Such assertions, along with McCain campaign television advertisements tying Mr. Obama to former Fannie Mae chiefs, have riled current and former officials of the two companies and provoked them to volunteer rebuttals.

The two people with direct knowledge of Freddie Mac’s post-2005 contract with Mr. Davis spoke on condition of anonymity. Four outside consultants — three Democrats and a Republican, also speaking on condition of anonymity — said the arrangement was widely known among people involved in Freddie Mac’s efforts to influence policy makers.

As president of the Homeownership Alliance, Mr. Davis received $30,000 to $35,000 a month. He, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have characterized the alliance as a coalition of many housing industry and consumer groups to promote homeownership, but numerous current and former officials at both companies say the companies created and bankrolled the operation to combat efforts by competitors to rein in their business. The companies dissolved the group at the end of 2005 as part of cost-cutting in the wake of accounting scandals and, at Freddie Mac, a lobbying scandal that forced out its top Republican lobbyist.

On Monday, the McCain campaign attacked The Times for its account of those payments to Mr. Davis, saying the paper was “150 percent in the tank” for Mr. Obama. Mr. Davis said that he had worked not for the two companies but for the advocacy group, which included other organizations as well and, he said, was focused only on promoting homeownership.

After the Homeownership Alliance was dissolved, Mr. Davis asked to stay on a retainer, the people familiar with the deal said. Hollis McLoughlin, who was chief of staff to Richard F. Syron, Freddie Mac’s chief executive, arranged for a new contract with Davis Manafort at the reduced rate of $15,000 a month, they said.

Mr. Syron lost his job in the government takeover this month. Mr. McLoughlin, who through a spokeswoman declined to comment, was a chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady in the administration of the first President Bush and has longstanding Republican ties.

Mr. Davis’s firm was hired as a consultant, not a lobbyist. Davis Manafort in recent years has filed federal lobbying reports for a number of companies, but not Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.

The only thing that Freddie Mac officials could recall Mr. Davis’s doing for the company was speaking at the October 2006 pre-election forum, attended by midlevel and senior executives who contributed to Freddie PAC, the company’s political action committee.

An electronic invitation to those employees, read to The Times by a Freddie Mac official, said, “Please join us for political food for thought” with Paul Begala, a longtime Democratic consultant, “and Rick Davis, former 2000 presidential campaign manager and current adviser to Senator John McCain.” Mr. Begala, who was also a paid consultant to Freddie Mac until this month, confirmed that the event had taken place.

Several top McCain campaign officials have ties to either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. So do at least two McCain advisers outside the campaign. The lobbying firm of William E. Timmons Sr., the Republican whom Mr. McCain has enlisted to plan his transition to the White House, earned nearly $3 million from Freddie Mac from 2000 until its seizure, federal lobbying records show. Mr. Timmons is the founder of Timmons & Company, one of Washington’s best-known lobbying shops. The payments to the firm were first reported Tuesday by Bloomberg News.

And Mark Buse, chief of staff at Mr. McCain’s Senate office, is also a Freddie Mac alumnus. He and his former lobbying employer, ML Strategies, registered to lobby for the company in July 2003, and had received $460,000 by the time the association ended after 2004.

Mr. McCain and his advisers have argued that whatever connections Mr. Davis and other campaign officials have had to the mortgage giants, the senator has been an advocate of reforming them.

And they have suggested that Mr. Obama is linked to the companies through donations from their employees and ties to former officials there. Those officials include James A. Johnson, another former chief executive of Fannie Mae, who headed Mr. Obama’s vice-presidential search team until stepping aside after coming under criticism for having received a mortgage on preferential terms from the Countrywide Financial Corporation.

Since his campaign for the Senate, in 2004, Mr. Obama has received about $126,000 in contributions from employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while Mr. McCain has received about $22,000 over the last decade, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Maybe I'll pull a Killface and just run myself in 2012 as the man who cured global warming and cancer. But only after promising oil companies, health insurance companies and banks that I will make decisions that they benefit from at the expense of the American people. Since, evidently, being a corrupt liar is how you get votes.
 
Here's the thing, in simple equation format:

McCain/Palin ticket + "splainin'" = 0

Y'ain't getting shit out of either person between now and November 5th. Dude's makin' 1996 Bob Dole look like a contender.
 
Well, hate to break it to you, but Obama's got dirtier hands when it comes to Fannie mae/Freddie Mac:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

The #2 recipient. And the former execs worked closely with Obama during his Senate bid. So, this little flap about McCain's adviser having some firm business from them holds a lot less water when you find out how Obama's hands are deep in the pie. Consider the amount of contributions and time in the senate. Obama got to be the #2 recipient in a _very_ short time.

So, let's have a little balance here and realize Obama's not a white knight. And if you also notice... McCain's not on that list. (Plus he's gone on record on the Senate floor questioning the integrity of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.


Additionally, Both Obama and Biden voted to keep the "bridge to nowhere" alive... So this whole Palin flap is just a bunch of trickery (at least on that issue, facts are a bitch, aren't they?)

What's that saying about people in glass houses?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Mechafenris']Additionally, Both Obama and Biden voted to keep the "bridge to nowhere" alive... So this whole Palin flap is just a bunch of trickery (at least on that issue, facts are a bitch, aren't they?)[/quote]

So? I don't remember them saying they didn't. It's one thing to vote on an earmark and another to take it and say you didn't.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Well, hate to break it to you, but Obama's got dirtier hands when it comes to Fannie mae/Freddie Mac:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

The #2 recipient. And the former execs worked closely with Obama during his Senate bid. So, this little flap about McCain's adviser having some firm business from them holds a lot less water when you find out how Obama's hands are deep in the pie. Consider the amount of contributions and time in the senate. Obama got to be the #2 recipient in a _very_ short time.

So, let's have a little balance here and realize Obama's not a white knight. And if you also notice... McCain's not on that list. (Plus he's gone on record on the Senate floor questioning the integrity of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.


Additionally, Both Obama and Biden voted to keep the "bridge to nowhere" alive... So this whole Palin flap is just a bunch of trickery (at least on that issue, facts are a bitch, aren't they?)

What's that saying about people in glass houses?[/QUOTE]

Hate to break it to you but there's a reason lobbyist deals are called "under the table".

Money sent to Rick Davis is not reported as money sent to John McCain.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Additionally, Both Obama and Biden voted to keep the "bridge to nowhere" alive... So this whole Palin flap is just a bunch of trickery (at least on that issue, facts are a bitch, aren't they?)

What's that saying about people in glass houses?[/QUOTE]

"People in glass houses will get foreclosed upon thanks to the shitty economy that's the result of Republican deregulation and corporate greed?"

Something like that.

The point of the "bridge to nowhere" isn't who supported it, or any other earmark. For Palin, it's that she lied, dozens of times, about saying "thanks but no thanks" over it. She kept the $220million+ she received for it. Congress killed the bridge.

It's akin to me saying "I told 'thanks, but no thanks' on the free oral." Did I want it? Yes. Was it something that I genuinely had a say in ultimately? Not in the slightest.

It's harmful for Palin because she claims to be a reformer who wants to cut pork, but is someone whose record shows that she'll take it and then complain about spending. Obama and Biden don't stand alongside her there, so them voting for it is not harmful, as there's nothing contradictory in their stances.

Facts are a bitch, but only in the proper context. ;)
 
So you're ignoring the vast amounts of influence that lobbyists put forth (Fannie/freddie) simply because McCain is a Republican? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are (among others) being investigated, and quite frankly, these two are at the forefront of this problem with their "guaranteed profits/liabilities to you and me" scheme.

Palin lied about the bridge... whoop te doo. Obama lied that the "open voting" provision for union votes wasn't bought and paid for by big labor (google is your friend).

THEY ARE ALL LIARS. The sooner you get that concept, the sooner we can actually have REAL change. Or at least a little less sweeping under the rug of the giant cobwebs in Obama's closet.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Hate to break it to you but there's a reason lobbyist deals are called "under the table".

Money sent to Rick Davis is not reported as money sent to John McCain.[/quote]

Good for you columbo. Prove that and you'll win a prize. The trouble is Obama OPENLY accepted money from the Fannie/Freddie lobbyists, and I might add, OPENLY received advice from the former CEO's when he was running for Senate. Now, you can't POSSIBLY think that shortly after Obama got elected that Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae had a collective stroke and suddenly became "evil." They were shady when they were influencing Obama... and it's on Obama's shoulders to tell us how he is for "change" when he does the same things that his opponent does. Funny thing, McCain never openly took money from Fannie/Freddie. So if he did it under the table, that's illegal, but unproven. We're staring RIGHT AT someone who took money from them OPENLY, and he is saying NOTHING about it. Queer, no?

Glass houses indeed.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Good for you columbo. Prove that and you'll win a prize. The trouble is Obama OPENLY accepted money from the Fannie/Freddie lobbyists, and I might add, OPENLY received advice from the former CEO's when he was running for Senate. [/quote]

Actually, I am fairly certain that it is money from employees not lobbists. Obama does have and has had a strict restriction on money from federal lobbyists.
 
[quote name='SpazX']So? I don't remember them saying they didn't. It's one thing to vote on an earmark and another to take it and say you didn't.[/quote]

Voting on an earmark means what? Support? Or does it mean something else in this universe you find yourself in.

Funny how no one seems to be debating Obama's lobbyist influenced campaign, but seem to be perfectly okay with him saying there aren't any on his staff (there are... again, google is your friend.)

But like I said, facts are a bitch. You automatically think because I post facts about Obama that I love McCain... never said I did. So assume what you will, I don't see Obama being anything but McCain with less skin cancer.....

Anyone who thinks he genuinely cares and is about "change" (whatever the hell that means) is who I truly pity. They bought the big lie.

Joe "plagiarist" Biden notwithstanding, Obama's no more an outsider than Palin... they're all politicians and so they're all liars.
 
[quote name='ProfWho']Actually, I am fairly certain that it is money from employees not lobbists. Obama does have and has had a strict restriction on money from federal lobbyists.[/quote]

So explain his dealings with the CEO's. Money from Fannie Mae Freddie Mac doesn't come without strings. It's LOBBYISTS. check the source if you must, but that is NOT a "donation from the goodness of their hearts". If it was, it wouldn't be under "Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae" umbrella.

Honestly... is ANYONE paying attention? I don't think you (all) are. The key here is BOTH parties are a problem. We're somehow believing the hype that Obama is some breath of fresh air and yet he's doing the SAME things his counterpart does.

And let's not forget Joe "career liar" Biden... there's enough dirt on that dork to fill the Grand Canyon 2x over.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Good for you columbo. Prove that and you'll win a prize. The trouble is Obama OPENLY accepted money from the Fannie/Freddie lobbyists, and I might add, OPENLY received advice from the former CEO's when he was running for Senate. Now, you can't POSSIBLY think that shortly after Obama got elected that Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae had a collective stroke and suddenly became "evil." They were shady when they were influencing Obama... and it's on Obama's shoulders to tell us how he is for "change" when he does the same things that his opponent does. Funny thing, McCain never openly took money from Fannie/Freddie. So if he did it under the table, that's illegal, but unproven. We're staring RIGHT AT someone who took money from them OPENLY, and he is saying NOTHING about it. Queer, no?

Glass houses indeed.[/QUOTE]

Just so we're clear here, you're telling us two things in two posts:

1) Open your eyes, man. Corruption is everywhere.

2) McCain's ties to Fannie/Freddie's lobbying ways vis-a-vis Rick Davis are unproven.

Lawd a'mighty you'll want to do to the doctor. I think you're bipolar.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Good for you columbo. Prove that and you'll win a prize. The trouble is Obama OPENLY accepted money from the Fannie/Freddie lobbyists, and I might add, OPENLY received advice from the former CEO's when he was running for Senate. Now, you can't POSSIBLY think that shortly after Obama got elected that Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae had a collective stroke and suddenly became "evil." They were shady when they were influencing Obama... and it's on Obama's shoulders to tell us how he is for "change" when he does the same things that his opponent does. Funny thing, McCain never openly took money from Fannie/Freddie. So if he did it under the table, that's illegal, but unproven. We're staring RIGHT AT someone who took money from them OPENLY, and he is saying NOTHING about it. Queer, no?

Glass houses indeed.[/QUOTE]

So.. wait.. openly getting a little money is worse than hiding reception of a lot of money?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Just so we're clear here, you're telling us two things in two posts:

1) Open your eyes, man. Corruption is everywhere.

2) McCain's ties to Fannie/Freddie's lobbying ways vis-a-vis Rick Davis are unproven.

Lawd a'mighty you'll want to do to the doctor. I think you're bipolar.[/quote]

You might want to realize because I put this information down about Obama i am NOT automatically a McCain supporter. You might want to get your ears checked for that one, but I'll say it again... I'm dealing in FACTS.

Fact #1: Obama's campaign is hopping on this news that a staff member got paid counsulting fees from FM up until a month before the bailout of $15K a month. Obama is and has accepted money from both Fannie and Freddie in his bid for senate and the CEO's of said companies were on record being "individuals Obama consulted" regarding his Senate bid.

Fact #2: Obama said "no" to lobbyists. Not _all_ lobbyists... as the Slate article gives more information regarding that. Obama hires as his running mate the biggest pork-bellied bastard this side of Kennedy and claims to be an "outsider" for 'change', picking the career porkgut as his 2nd in command (and a caraway seed away from being president.)

Fact #3: Palin is grilled for lying about support then not support for the bridge to nowhere, yet Obama and Biden both voted for the earmarks when the issue came up. They are either "for" or "against" it... and since they have only said they are _still_ against such waste, the only people lying to you today are Obama and Biden.

That is why McCain's flap is not the same in this case... I'll be the first to point out the _facts_ about this McCain revelation when they come out, but until then, it's conjecture and a concerted effort to draw attention away from the fact that: BOTH OF THESE MEN ARE CROOKS. I am showing you the raw DATA that supports my claim that Obama's as guilty as the rest of them and you turn it into a "here's another McCain supporter with mental issues" Show me where I endorsed McCain... really. I must've missed it because I'm "off my meds."
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Voting on an earmark means what? Support? Or does it mean something else in this universe you find yourself in.[/quote]

I don't care? They voted for the bills that had the earmarks, yay, I don't care. They didn't vote for them and then turn around and say that they didn't vote for them, that's the difference. One of McCain's main points in both his presidential runs has been cutting earmarks - he then gets a VP that has taken a ton of earmarks and denies it.

And yes, Obama took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - about .03% of the money he has raised so far. I think that buys them a lot of influence.

I think I'll vote for a third party now instead of Obama, making it that much more likely that McCain wins and then all the shit that I support Obama for will be less likely to happen.
 
[quote name='Koggit']So.. wait.. openly getting a little money is worse than hiding reception of a lot of money?[/quote]

Are you missing the ENTIRE point? I think you are. A little money is quite a lot in a SHORT TIME. The chart is from 1989 to 2008. OBAMA became #2 in A LOT shorter time than Kerry became #4. He's only been a senator for what, 2 or 3 years.

That's not "a little money"... that's a LOT of influence. If you can't see that, then we're done discussing.

And show me some money hiding and I'll post that. Until then, deal with the facts, will you? The facts are clear. If you choose to continue to believe Obama, that's your choice, but I've given at least a SMALL amount of the mountains of information available that proves NEITHER candidate is worth your vote. It's just that plain and simple. How you choose to move forward with this information is your business, and I'm not trying to influence anyone. I'm just out to put forth some perspective, so we can be less likely to be sitting here four years from now wondering where the "change" went.
 
You're still missing the point entirely.

I'll spell it out for you:

The disclosure undercuts a remark by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't care? They voted for the bills that had the earmarks, yay, I don't care. [/quote]

So when Obama says he is against this sort of waste, you still believe him?

And when Obama says he doesn't take from lobbyists, you still believe him?

that's your choice, but you can't say I didn't warn you.
 
You're still missing the point entirely.

I'll spell it out for you:

The disclosure undercuts a remark by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.


It's funny that you say Obama's worse due to quantity when he accepted $126k and Davis accepted half a mil. But still, the point is Obama is transparent about it while McCain/Davis do it under the table and lie about it until caught.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Hate to break it to you but there's a reason lobbyist deals are called "under the table".

Money sent to Rick Davis is not reported as money sent to John McCain.[/quote]

and I hate to break it to you that money given to candidates even "on the table" are not without strings and influence.

Again, anyone going to tell me why you (all) think I'm somehow a McCain supporter? I'm just posting facts about Obama... you deal with them how you see fit, but I can see I've hit a sore spot...
 
(1) I didn't call you a McCain supporter.

(2) I didn't say Obama's money is great and legit and acceptable.


You're still completely missing the point. Davis received half a million dollars, McCain flat-out lied about it (no misunderstanding -- it was a lie), all the while railing on Obama for his transparent dealings with the same lobbyists (which were on a smaller scale). I can't fathom how you could reasonably think it possible to spin this as if the two candidates are equally guilty.
 
[quote name='Koggit']You're still missing the point entirely.

I'll spell it out for you:




It's funny that you say Obama's worse due to quantity when he accepted $126k and Davis accepted half a mil. But still, the point is Obama is transparent about it while McCain/Davis do it under the table and lie about it until caught.[/quote]

This is funny. Now it's about amounts. Before it was the mere appearance. I am not defending McCain's involvement (if any) in this FM stuff... what I AM doing is saying the white knight is not without his tarnish because HE accepted money from the very crooks reaming us in the rump with this bailout. (and I imagine there are more amounts somewhere, but like I said before, I'm only dealing with facts)

You consistently redirect this argument as if I'm somehow endorsing McCain. I am pointing out some data that shows Obama's not clean either (above the table or not THAT is lobbying money... when the RIAA donates to a candidate, do you believe it's from the employees and without strings?)
 
[quote name='Koggit'](1) I didn't call you a McCain supporter.

(2) I didn't say Obama's money is great and legit and acceptable.


You're still completely missing the point. Davis received half a million dollars, McCain flat-out lied about it (no misunderstanding -- it was a lie), all the while railing on Obama for his transparent dealings with the same lobbyists (which were on a smaller scale). I can't fathom how you could reasonably think it possible to spin this as if the two candidates are equally guilty.[/quote]

Easy. His words are coming back to bite him and Obama's not going to tell you anything about the money or influence from the CEO's because "it's legit".

McCain lied about it... okay... so he's MORE evil. GREAT. Thanks for proving my point about BOTH CANDIDATES being worthless shills.

you may not have called me a McCain supporter, but you seem to think that because I'm pointing out that Obama also accepted money from FM, that somehow McCain's off the hook. The beginning of this thread laid that out. I am not about to speculate where the money went, and if you've proof... I urge you to send it to the authorities... I added Obama to the list of crooks and you think I'm missing the point?
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Easy. His words are coming back to bite him and Obama's not going to tell you anything about the money or influence from the CEO's because "it's legit".

McCain lied about it... okay... so he's MORE evil. GREAT. Thanks for proving my point about BOTH CANDIDATES being worthless shills.

you may not have called me a McCain supporter, but you seem to think that because I'm pointing out that Obama also accepted money from FM, that somehow McCain's off the hook. The beginning of this thread laid that out. I am not about to speculate where the money went, and if you've proof... I urge you to send it to the authorities... I added Obama to the list of crooks and you think I'm missing the point?[/QUOTE]

So, who are you supporting?

I really want to know since you have an extremely black-and-white point of view.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']So, who are you supporting?

I really want to know since you have an extremely black-and-white point of view.[/quote]

He has denied supporting McCain a million times after nobody said he did, but I'm going to assume he's not supporting Obama either. So it's nobody or a third party.
 
I vote Libertarian most of the time, but I'm not too keen on Bob Barr's tactics in Texas to keep the dems and repubs off the ballot. It just smacks of sour grapes.

Truth is, I don't have much of a candidate this time around... But I suppose I'll vote for Barr.... the least of 3 evils? *shrug* I hate the Green Party's candidate... she's more of a kook than Ron Paul.

FWIW, I voted for Badnarik last time around.
 
[quote name='SpazX']He has denied supporting McCain a million times after nobody said he did, but I'm going to assume he's not supporting Obama either. So it's nobody or a third party.[/quote]

No, but you claim I missed the point when I pointed out Obama's ties... It seemed a de-facto support for the other candidate to some I'm sure... even if they won't admit it.

I don't care if you do think I'm a McCain supporter. I put some info into this thread to show some things that most people haven't heard about... have you heard about any of this (sans McCain) on the news lately? I haven't. Take from it what you will... if you continue to believe Obama is your guy after this, that's your choice. I don't pretend to be the arbiter of who's a good choice. All I know is BOTH candidates from BOTH parties are just as bad as each other and will inevitably bring back the same cycle we've seen in Congress... corruption rampant... vote other party in... corruption rampant... switch parties.

I say if enough people get FED THE HELL UP with the mainstream parties, we could actually HAVE some change around here... but until then, we're just replacing bad with bad....

a million? really? you should be in talk radio. :applause:
 
[quote name='Sporadic']So, who are you supporting?

I really want to know since you have an extremely black-and-white point of view.[/quote]

It's not a black-and-white point of view. It's the same lie in a different package... that's what I'm saying. If you think it's lesser of two evils, that's fine... but like I said, if enough people get FED UP, we might actually have real change than the revolving door between elephant and donkey.

Nothing's changed and nothing will until we throw them ALL out.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']and I hate to break it to you that money given to candidates even "on the table" are not without strings and influence.

Again, anyone going to tell me why you (all) think I'm somehow a McCain supporter? I'm just posting facts about Obama... you deal with them how you see fit, but I can see I've hit a sore spot...[/QUOTE]

Do you honestly think it is odd for people to follow the "If it looks like a duck" rule?

CAG has yet to have a single forthright McCain supporter of which there are surely at least a few million.

Personally I am just going it to take for granted that you are lying through your teeth.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Do you honestly think it is odd for people to follow the "If it looks like a duck" rule?

CAG has yet to have a single forthright McCain supporter of which there are surely at least a few million.

Personally I am just going it to take for granted that you are lying through your teeth.[/quote]

Take from it what you want. You know what they say about opinions. But thanks for adding nothing to the discussion too. They don't seem to be following their own "duck" rule when it comes to Obama/McCain, so why should I believe otherwise?

If you want to believe I support aliens from Omion Persei 5, good for you.... I don't really give two fat monkeys what you think or believe about me. :)
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']It's not a black-and-white point of view. It's the same lie in a different package... that's what I'm saying. If you think it's lesser of two evils, that's fine... but like I said, if enough people get FED UP, we might actually have real change than the revolving door between elephant and donkey.

Nothing's changed and nothing will until we throw them ALL out.[/QUOTE]

It is a black-and-white point of view.

According to what you are saying, there is no shades of grey. Obama took money in the open therefore he is on the same level as McCain who took money and lied about it multiple times.

Regarding the "throw everybody out no change until a third party wins" bullshit, you have to be realistic. There's no chance of a third party winning a major election in my lifetime. No chance.

Why? Because they have no way to get to the people and even if they could, the people wouldn't accept them.

Look at our current situation. The economy is in the shittier (or the brink of collapse according to the media), we are stuck in two wars, everything is falling apart, Bush's approval ratings are an all-time low, McCain is running one of the shadiest/hypocritical campaigns in recent memory with a VP chosen solely on the fact that she could take away disillusioned Hillary voters and the democrats' talking point on how McCain is more of the same AND THERE IS STILL A GOOD CHANCE HE'LL WIN THE ELECTION.

That is fucking scary. That with all of this shit happening McCain still has a very high chance of winning the election because people are too stupid to look past the rumors, gossip, party lines, issues that don't matter, race, religion, etc, etc.

Obama isn't the golden boy people make him out to be but he's the best alternative we have.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']It is a black-and-white point of view.

According to what you are saying, there is no shades of grey. Obama took money in the open therefore he is on the same level as McCain who took money and lied about it multiple times.

Regarding the "throw everytbody out no change until a third party wins" bullshit, you have to be realistic. There's no chance of a third party winning a major election in my lifetime. No chance.

[/quote]

Nope. This issue is pretty clear. Obama "No lobbyist!" stance is a lie. McCain "No Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac" is a lie. It's the same to me as both of them claiming to be a woman. If it's not to you, like I said, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Convincing me otherwise is wasting your breath. I've seen the corruption of BOTH parties for far too long... and I'm not going to support their actions any more. Ever.

The belief that third parties won't win is precisely why they won't... you believe that "no one will vote" so voting for what you term as the lesser of evils (or the better candidate, whatever your terminology) is the _only_ way to keep the evil at bay. I'm saying it's voting FOR the evil. If more people were as fed up as me, you'd see a 3rd party win in your lifetime... but since everyone's either given up or blind (I think that's what you imply), third party voting is the same as "letting the bad guy in".

I say if Obama wins, it's letting the bad guy in. If McCain wins, it's letting the bad guy in. Neither one is worth it. The task is to convince others... stop supporting the major parties and simply starting fresh. It's not "bullshit" because we have done it before... we were founded on it. It's time we took it back. I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the United States... I also believe that we have the power if we simply exercised it, stop being defeatist, and started taking ownership of the situation and tossing the bums out on their ear. The strongest message is voting them out. They don't listen until their job is ON the line.

I know for my own conscience that I sleep better at night supporting neither democrat nor republican. If that makes anyone pissy... oh well.
 
[quote name='Koggit']http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4476649n

Palin flails like a dumb fish with a six-year B.A. in Journalism out of water when asked about Davis' stake (and salary) from Fan/Fred.[/QUOTE]
I'm finding myself wanting to masturbate to Sarah Palin less and less.

EDIT: LOLOL!!! At the end of the interview, Katie asks yet again for examples of John McCain pushing for more regulation and Palin finally responds with, "I'll try to find some and send them to you!"
Oh my God. I don't want to be sexist, but let's keep the skirts out of the White House if this is what we have to deal with.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']The belief that third parties won't win is precisely why they won't... you believe that "no one will vote" so voting for what you term as the lesser of evils (or the better candidate, whatever your terminology) is the _only_ way to keep the evil at bay. I'm saying it's voting FOR the evil. If more people were as fed up as me, you'd see a 3rd party win in your lifetime... but since everyone's either given up or blind (I think that's what you imply), third party voting is the same as "letting the bad guy in".[/QUOTE]

No.

A third party win will never happen in my lifetime because they don't have the resources to compete. Even if they some how magically did, the common person would never buy it. Ross Perot was one of the best shots to get a third party in (since he used a ton of his own money) and he only recieved 18.2% of the popular vote.

[quote name='Mechafenris']
I say if Obama wins, it's letting the bad guy in. If McCain wins, it's letting the bad guy in. Neither one is worth it. The task is to convince others... stop supporting the major parties and simply starting fresh. It's not "bullshit" because we have done it before... we were founded on it. It's time we took it back. I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the United States... I also believe that we have the power if we simply exercised it, stop being defeatist, and started taking ownership of the situation and tossing the bums out on their ear. The strongest message is voting them out. They don't listen until their job is ON the line.

I know for my own conscience that I sleep better at night supporting neither democrat or republican. If that makes anyone pissy... oh well.[/QUOTE]

It is bullshit because it's not realistic.

You can say "simply start fresh" but when was the last time a third party won? 1850? We were founded on starting fresh but we have never done it (successfully) since.

You can believe in the Constitution but I don't believe in our countrymen. They just sit and take it when vast liberties are taken with the Constitution. They decide who they are going to vote for, not on the real issues or actually thinking about it, but how the candidates stands on stupid shit like gay marriage or gun control and what the (increasingly bias) media tells them. It's getting even worse now because people aren't even doing basic research. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that made their decision on who they are going to vote for off of discredited rumors or insanely twisted truth they heard from a coworker or family member.

You may sleep better knowing that you didn't support either main party but you have no right to bitch if McCain actually makes it in.

If Obama wins, we have a chance of getting out of this tailspin we are currently in. If McCain wins, we'll get a chance to see just how far down the rabbit hole we can go.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']No.

A third party win will never happen in my lifetime because they don't have the resources to compete. Even if they some how magically did, the common person would never buy it. Ross Perot was one of the best shots to get a third party in (since he used a ton of his own money) and he only recieved 18.2% of the popular vote.



It is bullshit because it's not realistic.

You can say "simply start fresh" but when was the last time a third party won? 1850? We were founded on starting fresh but we have never done it (successfully) since.

You can believe in the Constitution but I don't believe in our countrymen. They just sit and take it when vast liberties are taken with the Constitution. They decide who they are going to vote for, not on the real issues or actually thinking about it, but how the candidates stands on stupid shit like gay marriage or gun control and what the (increasingly bias) media tells them. It's getting even worse now because people aren't even doing basic research. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that made their decision on who they are going to vote for off of discredited rumors or insanely twisted truth they heard from a coworker or family member.

You may sleep better knowing that you didn't support either main party but you have no right to bitch if McCain actually makes it in.

If Obama wins, we have a chance of getting out of this tailspin we are currently in. If McCain wins, we'll get a chance to see just how far down the rabbit hole we can go.
[/quote]

You think Obama can only produce good, don't you? Well, ignoring both sides of what each candidate could do, good AND bad, is just as bad as not knowing anything. Both of them CAN get us out of it, whether you want to believe it or not. Whether the winner WILL is a different story.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']No.

A third party win will never happen in my lifetime because they don't have the resources to compete. Even if they some how magically did, the common person would never buy it. Ross Perot was one of the best shots to get a third party in (since he used a ton of his own money) and he only recieved 18.2% of the popular vote.



It is bullshit because it's not realistic.

You can say "simply start fresh" but when was the last time a third party won? 1850? We were founded on starting fresh but we have never done it (successfully) since.

You can believe in the Constitution but I don't believe in our countrymen. They just sit and take it when vast liberties are taken with the Constitution. They decide who they are going to vote for, not on the real issues or actually thinking about it, but how the candidates stands on stupid shit like gay marriage or gun control and what the (increasingly bias) media tells them. It's getting even worse now because people aren't even doing basic research. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that made their decision on who they are going to vote for off of discredited rumors or insanely twisted truth they heard from a coworker or family member.

You may sleep better knowing that you didn't support either main party but you have no right to bitch if McCain actually makes it in.

If Obama wins, we have a chance of getting out of this tailspin we are currently in. If McCain wins, we'll get a chance to see just how far down the rabbit hole we can go.[/quote]

Oh horse shit, dude. Simply saying because I don't vote for Obama and McCain gets in that it's somehow MY fault is part of the reason WHY a third party is having such a rough time getting out of the fringe. People like YOU who insist on pointing fingers instead of SOLVING the problem serves no purpose... do you have no right to bitch when Obama gets in and NOTHING CHANGES? No. I don't think that. But it's clear anyone who disagrees with you has no opinions that matter. You really need to get off that high horse... you campaign for Obama as if you believe him. If he lies about one thing, what makes you think he's truthful about the rest? Cherrypicking lies is not solving the problem.... YOU are part of the problem if you vote for democrat OR republican.

Seriously, do you read what you write before posting it? The only people who don't have any right to bitch about the election ARE THOSE WHO DON'T PARTICIPATE. Not those of us who do. You've succeeded in showing everyone who you're going to vote for. Thanks for that... but attempting to turn a third party vote into a "you have no right to bitch" proclamation is something I'd think a Republican would say. Honestly... it's amazing. Truly amazing.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']You think Obama can only produce good, don't you? Well, ignoring both sides of what each candidate could do, good AND bad, is just as bad as not knowing anything. Both of them CAN get us out of it, whether you want to believe it or not. Whether the winner WILL is a different story.[/QUOTE]

Produce good? No, I believe that Obama is the only real alternative for the mess we are currently in.

You can say that McCain could get us out of this...but how? By making Bush's tax cuts permanent? Another round of $300 economy stimulus checks? Not going after tax shelters in Bermuda? Giving wall street a $700 billion bailout while letting companies continue to run amok?

What if McCain dies while in office and we are stuck with President Palin? Have you looked at her background? She would make George W. Bush look like Huey Long. It really would be a "how far down the rabbit hole can we go" situation.

Notice how I used the word "chance" in the last statement in my last post. It's possible that Obama could be a complete fuck up (I don't really think that would happen since he would have a democrat senate/house majority behind him) but at this point, America needs to gamble and take a chance.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Oh horse shit, dude. Simply saying because I don't vote for Obama and McCain gets in that it's somehow MY fault is part of the reason WHY a third party is having such a rough time getting out of the fringe. People like YOU who insist on pointing fingers instead of SOLVING the problem serves no purpose... do you have no right to bitch when Obama gets in and NOTHING CHANGES? No. I don't think that. But it's clear anyone who disagrees with you has no opinions that matter. You really need to get off that high horse... you campaign for Obama as if you believe him. If he lies about one thing, what makes you think he's truthful about the rest? Cherrypicking lies is not solving the problem.... YOU are part of the problem if you vote for democrat OR republican.

Seriously, do you read what you write before posting it? The only people who don't have any right to bitch about the election ARE THOSE WHO DON'T PARTICIPATE. Not those of us who do. You've succeeded in showing everyone who you're going to vote for. Thanks for that... but attempting to turn a third party vote into a "you have no right to bitch" proclamation is something I'd think a Republican would say. Honestly... it's amazing. Truly amazing.[/QUOTE]

What? I didn't say anything of the sort.

You said that they (McCain/Obama) are the same beast. That whoever gets in, we all lose. That isn't the case and if you do throw away your vote on a third party (again being realistic, they have zero chance of winning this election) when the race is so close in the poll, YOU LOSE THE RIGHT TO BITCH ABOUT MCCAIN WINNING!

That's it. You don't lose the right to bitch about the election or how it's unfair that we have a two party system or anything else but if McCain does get in and things really start sliding downhill, you don't get to bitch about him being a suckass president.

-----------

Yeah, I don't try to hide where I stand. What I do is look at as many facts as possible, see what applies to me and try to make an informed decision that is also within the realm of possibility. That's the same thing everybody does, even yourself (even if your realm of possibility is outside the realm of reality). If you try to say you don't than you are lying. In fact, you are even worse because you've said multiple times that your mind is made up about the main parties and that the only solution is for a third party to get in.

If a republican without a history of hypocrisy or being big business' bitch popped up with a plan I thought was really fantastic....I'd vote for him.

----------

Which all leads back to the same thing we were first discussing. You look at McCain and Obama and go "well they both lied, therefore one is just a bad as the other". Black-and-white thinking. The reality of the situation (and life itself) is that it's more of a shades of grey situation. Obama lied and (I've said many times) isn't the golden boy people claim he is but he's the best alternative we got. It's possible he'll be a complete fuck up but what are the other choices? Vote for McCain (which after looking at as many facts as possible, ranges from being decent to even worse than Obama could do as President), vote for a third party (which won't win and is basically throwing away my vote when the race is so close) or not vote at all (which is just stupid)
 
[quote name='Koggit']http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4476649n

Palin flails like a dumb fish with a six-year B.A. in Journalism out of water when asked about Davis' stake (and salary) from Fan/Fred.[/QUOTE]

Oh man, that was painful. I don't know what the McCain camp has been doing but she is way under prepared. Honestly, I don't know how you can watch that interview and not smpathize a little with her. McCain's plan to get Clinton's voter is seriously backfiring on him.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']It's not a black-and-white point of view. It's the same lie in a different package... that's what I'm saying. If you think it's lesser of two evils, that's fine... but like I said, if enough people get FED UP, we might actually have real change than the revolving door between elephant and donkey.

Nothing's changed and nothing will until we throw them ALL out.[/QUOTE]

You really like to sculpt your language to suit the moment, don't you?

One on hand, you have this above. "It's not a black-and-white point on view" in one post an "I'm just posting facts" on another.

If you think that (1) only Obama or Biden are liars or (2) that Obama, Biden, and Palin are equally culpable for the bridge to nowhere, that's fine. That a single vote is more of a "fact" than the state one comes from, or the position one takes. It's wrong, it's absurd, it's shallow intellectualism, but it's fine. After all, it's fine to be a vastly uninformed American voter. In fact, it's tradition.

It's fine if you want to hem-and-haw and argue semantics over the McCain and Rick Davis flap.

Ultimately, you're another empty windbag. You can't tell us anything to be "for." No policy to look forward to. The exhaustion and weariness evident in your limp-dick admittance that you'll vote for Bob Barr is absolutely pathetic. You're voting for someone who you barely know, whose policies you simply dislike the least (if you know them at all), all premised on this boring and tired "I'M OUTRAGED!" crap.

Look, I'm outraged, too, but that doesn't make me suddenly a spectacular dumbass who has an epiphany that voting for some government-and-market-deregulating shallow-minded "shrink government good HURRRRRR" Libertarian philosophy is what we need right now. I'm not convinced that being held at figurative gunpoint for $700B by the feds is a good idea, but I KNOW that laissez-faire is dead, and a Libertarian's viewpoint is about as relevant and advanced, in terms of political philosophy, as a dead parakeet.
 
It isn't a dead parakeet, it is simply resting. And it will be for a long time.

I'm going to listen to Limbaugh tomorrow to hear a good reason to vote for McCain and not against Obama.

I won't hold my breath.

I don't like Obama. He's a liberal.

But I don't like McCain even more. I don't feel like marching in Iran or Georgia next year with a 100% guarantee.

I'd prefer marching in Iran or Georgia next year being a 90% guarantee.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']Well, hate to break it to you, but Obama's got dirtier hands when it comes to Fannie mae/Freddie Mac:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

The #2 recipient. And the former execs worked closely with Obama during his Senate bid. So, this little flap about McCain's adviser having some firm business from them holds a lot less water when you find out how Obama's hands are deep in the pie. Consider the amount of contributions and time in the senate. Obama got to be the #2 recipient in a _very_ short time.

So, let's have a little balance here and realize Obama's not a white knight. And if you also notice... McCain's not on that list. (Plus he's gone on record on the Senate floor questioning the integrity of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.


Additionally, Both Obama and Biden voted to keep the "bridge to nowhere" alive... So this whole Palin flap is just a bunch of trickery (at least on that issue, facts are a bitch, aren't they?)

What's that saying about people in glass houses?[/quote]

Blame that on the party, not obamma. They spend stupid amounts of money on elections and this is how the dirty democrats did it. Maybe if everyone was nonpartisan and had a good head on there shoulders they wouldn't have to rape the system. Political patrys have served there place in history and it is time to move on.

I doubt obammas hands are dirtier. Mccain has probably been getting money from freddy for over a decade. His paramount prediction as Palin put it was something everyone knew. The partys were to busy worrying about controlling their party in congress and the senate and stopped worrying about the American people.

Really wishing I could speak different languages right about now.
 
Jesus. I'm all for thinking outside of simple polar political definitions, but this "The third parties will save us all!" Kool-Aid is getting a bit tough to drink. I mean, three pages of this baloney, as if no independent or third party candidate has ever taken money from lobbyists? Or that they won't take *more* as soon as they get some real power and lobbyist attention? Come the fuck on, people.
 
bread's done
Back
Top