Obama or McCain?

[Setec Astronomy]

Originally Posted by jfelbab

Except for the fact that... "Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly."

Try again, that mud didn't stick.

I'm not the one who started slinging mud, and that mud stuck a long time ago. Glenn and McCain were found by the Ethics Committee to have used "bad judgment".

EDIT: As with any of these institutions, their self-policing can be questionable, and it's arguable as to whether being cleared of acting improperly means anything; certainly there were those at the time who felt that was the case.

[dave40co]

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

I'm not the one who started slinging mud, and that mud stuck a long time ago. Glenn and McCain were found by the Ethics Committee to have used "bad judgment".

EDIT: As with any of these institutions, their self-policing can be questionable, and it's arguable as to whether being cleared of acting improperly means anything; certainly there were those at the time who felt that was the case.

I agree! I heard that they want to put Barney Frank in charge of investigating the mortgage mess!!!! Maybe he'll find out that he and his boyfriend at Freddie used "bad judgement!"

[Bunky]

At this point, like the campaign it is just a back and forth toss of misinformation. I am ready for this to be over.

The only thing that is sure is no matter who wins the other side will try to oppose the winners as much as possible to impede progress or success although the congress is likely to stay democratic controlled in both chambers.

I think people's efforts would be better spent (including all the monies for president) trying to get as many incumbents out of office since this is the only way to clean "House" yet for some reason most locals prefer who is in office !!!! What gives????

[User Name]

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

I'll give you two words why any of what you just posted doesn't get any traction: Keating Five. It's the pot calling the kettle....er...black.

I guess it's the Northeast in us and you know I'm going to agree with you (mostly) but I think there is more to the response than that.

The principle problem with the so called crisis, is neither Obama or McBush, it's unfettered deregulation. Yes, yes... I'm awaiting the hollow cries of socialism, communism and "ism" you can come up with, but it's a fact. I'm going to give you a simple example of two competing systems and show you "checks and balances" at work:

Canada (some would say) suffers from a high level of regulation (especially compared to the US) and as such many have suggested it is less desirable to do business than the US. Whether or not that is true, is not the point of this, but I'm using Canada as an example of our closest neighbor with stronger regulations which has NOT suffered nearly the way we are now. That is not to say their banks are not feeling the pinch (the globe is), but not nearly at the same level.

In the US, the idea has been the more DEregulation, the better. Now, that *might* be true, but you always NEED a check on any industry. Traditionally, the US has gone the way of lawsuits (ie: it is MUCH easier to litigate in the US than Canada). However, under Bushie, civil remedies against corporate tort feasors have been curtailed to a high degree. So, gone is the threat of lawsuits along with regulation. Essentially, investment bankers became like fight trained pit bulls sitting on your front lawn without a leash.

So, pick your poison. Greater regulation or a greater ability to sue corporate tort feasors and their golden parachutes? Canada has said NO to litigation and yes to regulation. The US has said NO to both and hence our crisis... which brings us to the candidates.

Neither has been a champion of much needed regulation, so I can't toot either horn here, but ask yourself honestly, which one is more likely to reign in the fight trained pit bulls? My money is on Obama, any day of the week.

Look at it this way... years ago we were all told we need to "deregulate" the energy industry because it would foster a culture of "innovation, technology and competition which would lead us down the path of affordable, innovative forms of energy. Has it?

No. Not even close. Energy costs have sky rocketted, innovation is NON-existent, dependence on foreign oil has increased 3 fold in 20 years. Who has really benefitted from deregulation? Exxon? Chavez and Citigo? The corporate fat cats at PSE&G and Consolodated Edison? Right now, as a collective unit, the US lags behind many "western" democracies in overall standard of living. Yes, we might have more billionaires than anyone else, but is that you or me? Will it ever be? Probably not.

Frankly, I'd take more regulation, along with cleaner air and water, cheaper electricity and some job security!

[Setec Astronomy]

Originally Posted by User Name

The principle problem with the so called crisis, is neither Obama or McBush, it's unfettered deregulation.

I don't know why this concept is difficult to understand...these industries used to be regulated...and it's for the same reason we have laws. If there was no law against murder, most people wouldn't murder, but there would be some that would...and maybe some others would say "hey, if he is doing that, I will too!". Human nature is kind of inescapable. If one group of executives is going on a $440,000 holiday and charging it off to the company, plenty of other executives will say "hey, we want to do that, too!", even though some will scoff at it. Once upon a time the management of the company, or the board of directors, were the ones to nip this crap in the bud, but somewhere along the way they became part of the problem, rather than the solution.

[Showroom Shine]

I just hope you are all happy with the out come. It is not going to be like you had hoped! Mc cain will loose!

[TortoiseAWD]

I'm not a big fan of any of the candidates, but this article helped solidify my position as to which ticket is the lesser evil (IMO, anyway):

Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone

Tort
(member of the Mind Your Own Business And Get The Hell Off My Lawn party)

[User Name]

Originally Posted by TortoiseAWD

(member of the Mind Your Own Business And Get The Hell Off My Lawn party)

Oh, I bet you're wildly popular with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Holden_C04]

Originally Posted by TortoiseAWD

I'm not a big fan of any of the candidates, but this article helped solidify my position as to which ticket is the lesser evil (IMO, anyway):

Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone

Tort
(member of the Mind Your Own Business And Get The Hell Off My Lawn party)

Rolling Stone was aimed squarely at McCain's jugular with that article.

[lexusgs]

Originally Posted by TortoiseAWD

I'm not a big fan of any of the candidates, but this article helped solidify my position as to which ticket is the lesser evil (IMO, anyway):

Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone

Tort
(member of the Mind Your Own Business And Get The Hell Off My Lawn party)

Oh yeah Rolling Stone, there is a great source of truthful unbiased information and journalism
Bill Maher, Jeanine Garofallo, Michael Moore, and other super liberals are some other great sources of information on the candidates to base your vote on too.

If you are still undecided by now which I am shocked how some people are still undecided and have not bothered to properly research either candidate and make up their mind by this point, try doing some unbiased research(it will be hard because 95% of media and sources are left leaning especially "sources" like Rolling Stone magazine) and look at both candidates history's, associations, accomplishments, experience, voting records(it will be a little harder with Obama since he just votes with the safe "present" so often), general character, and policies and make up your mind from that, not what liberal hollywood, magzines like Rolling Stone, musicians, talk show hosts are telling you who they hate and want you to vote for as it suits them better.

[Holden_C04]

Originally Posted by lexusgs

Oh yeah Rolling Stone, there is a great source of truthful unbiased information and journalism
Bill Maher, Jeanine Garofallo, Michael Moore, and other super liberals are some other great sources of information on the candidates to base your vote on too.

If you are still undecided by now which I am shocked how some people are still undecided and have not bothered to properly research either candidate and make up their mind by this point, try doing some unbiased research(it will be hard because 95% of media and sources are left leaning especially "sources" like Rolling Stone magazine) and look at both candidates history's, associations, accomplishments, experience, voting records(it will be a little harder with Obama since he just votes with the safe "present" so often), general character, and policies and make up your mind from that, not what liberal hollywood, magzines like Rolling Stone, musicians, talk show hosts are telling you who they hate and want you to vote for as it suits them better.

Why don't you read the article? If you don't think the article is truthful, call up the Rolling Stone. Ask them to support their claims.

[User Name]

Originally Posted by lexusgs

(it will be hard because 95% of media and sources are left leaning especially "sources" like Rolling Stone magazine) and look at both candidates history's, associations, accomplishments, experience, voting records(it will be a little harder with Obama since he just votes with the safe "present" so often), general character, and policies and make up your mind from that, not what liberal hollywood, magzines like Rolling Stone, musicians, talk show hosts are telling you who they hate and want you to vote for as it suits them better.

Yes, I listen to the far right say this all the time, but very little to support their conclusions. Does MSNBC lean left? Yes. Does CNN? Maybe, but do the big three ABC, NBC and CBS? No.

Was Couric leaning left when she asked Palin to tell us what news sources she uses for her information? My son can answer that question and he is 3 1/2.

Also, I try to read at least two or three of the NY papers daily and we have NOTHING on the left as far as the NY Post is on the right. Even MSNBC, which I would consider the extreme left, isn't as far as Faux Noise is on the right.

Did you watch the last Presedential debate? If so, who do you think won? Hopefully, whatever your response is, you'll say it was "pretty close". That is what I would respond, because I consider myself pretty fair minded. However, on Faux Noise, they did a poll that said 86% in favor of McBush. Meanwhile CNN did their own poll finding about 54% for Obama. Now, which source is more skewed?

People can blather all they like about the liberal this and the liberal that, but show me the money? George Soros is a liberal devil (as far as I'm concerned). An evil man who is dead set on ruining America, but he is no worse than Rupert Murdoch on the other side. I think most fair minded and truthful people would agree, regardless of party affiliation.