OT - Palin rocked last night

[Toph]

Like I stated in my first post here, Barack wants everyone making $ 44,254 dollars per year. Later on, Barack will allows us to drive our subcompact car to the government run health facility, or we gather to listen to his spiritual advisor Dr. Jeremiah Wright.

It's scary to think who may be leading us.

Damn right - Obama is the most liberal senator in the US. Period. You will have a country run by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Barney Frank. This country has always done better when you've had one party control the executive wing and the other control the legislative wing - Clinton middle 4 years, Reagan's entire presidency. The give and take (Styx reference here - kind of like the give and take of the three principal writers in Styx during their heyday) make for better bills and more competent legislation.

[Ehwmatt]

Like I stated in my first post here, Barack wants everyone making $ 44,254 dollars per year. Later on, Barack will allows us to drive our subcompact car to the government run health facility, or we gather to listen to his spiritual advisor Dr. Jeremiah Wright.

It's scary to think who may be leading us.

Damn right - Obama is the most liberal senator in the US. Period. You will have a country run by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Barney Frank. This country has always done better when you've had one party control the executive wing and the other control the legislative wing - Clinton middle 4 years, Reagan's entire presidency. The give and take (Styx reference here - kind of like the give and take of the three principal writers in Styx during their heyday) make for better bills and more competent legislation.

Yep. Divided government is the way to go. At least with the way our party lines are drawn, where many extreme leftists or rightists end up taking office...

[yogi]

What I now find funny is that Zan Pelosi has been ripping me since my first post when I stated how horrible I feel Barack & Sara both are.

I believe I said 'we are better than this'.

Now Zan Pelosi is saying the same thing - She will be voting for the less of two evils.

I truly still cant believe that any White person or a person that is against hatred of any kind would vote for Barack knowing for a FACT that he sat in a chuch for over a decade listened to, and was made aware of that many of the sermons given by his preacher from that church were filled with hatred and anger toward white people or our government.

He even stated that this man was his 'spiritual advisor'.

This is 100% fact.

He & his wife both have white issues, US government issues, and an agenda that is based on socialistic principals.

Palin also is in NO WAY qualified to be the VP and is close to as scary as Barack is if she were to run the country. Not as scary, but close to it.

As stated earlier, We are better than this!!

Read my orginal or post my orginal take Ms. Zan Pelosi. You just pretty much stated the same thing. Only I stated it MUCH MUCH better.

[LordofDaRing]

[ A perfect question to put to him during a debate would be, "Mr. Obama please tell use why you are more qulified than your opponent....without using the words "Change" or mentioning the Bush Administration oh, and please be specific". ]


One possible answer could be ......because my ideas are different form the ideas that have put us into the current economic mess, created mistrust and lack of respect of our country overseas and blemishing our standing in the world, and because my ideas on Healthcare will mean that millions who cannot currently afford health insurance will be able to obtain coverage that they wont get in a McCain administration.

Oh quite the contrary, Mr. Obama, one of the reasons we are in this economic mess are due to exactly your ideas of giving loans out to people who are horrible credit risks over the last 25 years, something you and your bud Barney Frank supported for many years. Everyone has their own perception when they pass by a home that looks nice, well kept, two nice cars and maybe a boat in the front. Some think, how dare they, they could not possibly have brought themselves up to this income level with smart investments, taking out loans (and paying them off) to put themselves through school, saving money for the kids college education. We must tax them a higher percentatge than everyone else. What is my incentive for trying to better myself? The next promtion opportunity that comes up at work, I will make sure my boss knows, I cannot except it, it kicks me up into the punishable tax bracket. If we are truly going to all pay our FAIR share, lets impose a flat tax. That wil never happen, because the truly rich in this county who do not pay taxes now, don't want to cough it up.

[shaka]

I don't mind Palin. The again I'm not hung up on the abortion thing.

I like her for five reasons:

1. She isn't a lawyer.

2. Her political experience is outside the beltway

3. She is far more like you and I than any of the other candidates.

4. She has worked in the private sector in jobs as diverse as newscaster to fisherman.

5. She isn't afraid to mix it up with the big boys.

[sadie65]

Politics in my lifetime has been about sound bites and the lesser of two/three evils (on rare occasion). There is no difference here. It will depend by and large on what society values more. Within 6 months of the election I suspect whomever is elected will no longer have the approval rating they enjoyed at election time. We thrive on armchair quarterbacking.

I dislike the word hate as it is applied here, but so be it.

We all have issues with the candidates. And no matter who wins...there will be discourse and unhappiness. Much like the band we came here to talk about.

Like many of you, I have personal issues that will play a role in my choice...be it family members facing foreclosure, the lack of a sale of my home up north in 2.5 years, a job that is in serious jeopardy, family members in the military in the Middle East, family members with terminal illnesses, and various other fun situations. I only wish I believed either candidate would truly make an impact on any of these issues.

Peace and luck to all.

[chowhall]

What I now find funny is that Zan Pelosi has been ripping me since my first post when I stated how horrible I feel Barack & Sara both are.

I believe I said 'we are better than this'.

Now Zan Pelosi is saying the same thing - She will be voting for the less of two evils.

I truly still cant believe that any White person or a person that is against hatred of any kind would vote for Barack knowing for a FACT that he sat in a chuch for over a decade listened to, and was made aware of that many of the sermons given by his preacher from that church were filled with hatred and anger toward white people or our government.

He even stated that this man was his 'spiritual advisor'.

This is 100% fact.

He & his wife both have white issues, US government issues, and an agenda that is based on socialistic principals.

Palin also is in NO WAY qualified to be the VP and is close to as scary as Barack is if she were to run the country. Not as scary, but close to it.

As stated earlier, We are better than this!!

Read my orginal or post my orginal take Ms. Zan Pelosi. You just pretty much stated the same thing. Only I stated it MUCH MUCH better.

Does calling Zan "Zan Pelosi" in every post make your posts much much better? If she truly is a follower of the Speaker of the House, how about maybe one fact?

[Zan]

I don't mind Palin. The again I'm not hung up on the abortion thing.

I'm not "hung up on it" either, unless just believing that it should be a choice is being hung up on it.

*I* hate her because of the wolf thing, more than anything else, but if that was the only thing to hate about her, I might be able to swallow my vomit and vote for her ticket anyway. Unfortunately, I don't find many redeeming qualities about her whatsoever - she pretty much stands for everything I feel is painfully wrong with the Republican Party.

[Zan]

3. She is far more like you and I than any of the other candidates.

She is *nothing* like me.

[Zan]

Does calling Zan "Zan Pelosi" in every post make your posts much much better?

I think it might be the drugs.

Possibly the cozy feeling from the warmth of his buttcheeks next to his ears.

[yogi]

I wont call her Zan Pelosi anymore. Even if the party does fit.

But I do believe that if Zan( note I didnt say Zan Pelosi) could do the I Dream Of Jeanie thing she would want to become:

1. Half Black / Half Hispanic
2. A Lesbian, earning very little money

she would also try to:
3. Take Away everybodies guns
4. Pass out condoms & coupons for free abortions

A republican??????? Thats laughable. Your agenda has been clear for eons.

[Zan]

I wont call her Zan Pelosi anymore. Even if the party does fit.

But I do believe that if Zan( note I didnt say Zan Pelosi) could do the I Dream Of Jeanie thing she would want to become:

1. Half Black / Half Hispanic
2. A Lesbian, earning very little money

she would also try to:
3. Take Away everybodies guns
4. Pass out condoms & coupons for free abortions

A republican??????? Thats laughable. Your agenda has been clear for eons.

Are you even conscious when you post? Even some of the most racist bigots I've ever known were smart enough not to plaster their ignorance for all to see.

Again, Yogi, if you are a poster child for Republicans, you must be one of the ones that was left behind.

[shaka]

I don't mind Palin. The again I'm not hung up on the abortion thing.

I'm not "hung up on it" either, unless just believing that it should be a choice is being hung up on it.

*I* hate her because of the wolf thing, more than anything else, but if that was the only thing to hate about her, I might be able to swallow my vomit and vote for her ticket anyway. Unfortunately, I don't find many redeeming qualities about her whatsoever - she pretty much stands for everything I feel is painfully wrong with the Republican Party.

I'm just tired of the abortion debate. Things aren't going to change anytime soon so whether a candidate is pro choice or anti abortion doesn't even enter in to my criteria.

What's the problem with the wolf thing? Do you have a problem with animal population control in general or is it that you just love wolves?

[Zan]

I don't mind Palin. The again I'm not hung up on the abortion thing.

I'm not "hung up on it" either, unless just believing that it should be a choice is being hung up on it.

*I* hate her because of the wolf thing, more than anything else, but if that was the only thing to hate about her, I might be able to swallow my vomit and vote for her ticket anyway. Unfortunately, I don't find many redeeming qualities about her whatsoever - she pretty much stands for everything I feel is painfully wrong with the Republican Party.

I'm just tired of the abortion debate. Things aren't going to change anytime soon so whether a candidate is pro choice or anti abortion doesn't even enter in to my criteria.

What's the problem with the wolf thing? Do you have a problem with animal population control in general or is it that you just love wolves?

Neither, actually, but I guess if I had to choose A or B, I'll take B. I certainly love wolves more than I love her.

[LordofDaRing]

Damn things are slow in the world of Styx, we are arguing my dog is better than your dog. Let me jump back in to the sillyness.

Zan - even you will have to admit, I have never in my life seen such a bashing of one human being that this woman has had to take. It all started way before the Republican Convention, before people outside of Alaska really heard her. The NY Times has given more air time to her pregnant teenage daughter than Obama's affiliations with terrorists and wacked out religious nuts. Us magazine, ran by Sterling and my favorite person, Yawwwnnnn Weener, printed that horrible artilce on its front cover about her, The View, Letterman, I could go on but you get the picture. She froze up on Katie Couric, so what. Obama said we have 57 states and Joe Biden thought FDR was on television discussing the Great Depression.

I do have to acknowledge one part of Yogi's posts, everyone is afraid to even make fun of Obama. Why is that? They are all scared of being called a racist. McCain, until at least recently, has taken a politically correct approach to the sujbect. When John McCain discussed returning to the fundamentals laid out by the Constituion on the View, Whoopi Goldberg wanted to know if she should worry about a return to Slavery. JM missed his chance there, he could of reminded this moron that if that atrocity were to ever return, it would take another Republican to abolsih slavery. I say take the gloves off and go after all of it: his past affiliations, his ties to Fannie Mae, his invisibility from the Senate over the last two to three years, his complete lack of any kind of executive or budget experience, his higher taxes on rich people (i.e. anyone with a job), etc.

But what would Tommy Shaw say....

[LordofDaRing]

"Possibly the cozy feeling from the warmth of his buttcheeks next to his ears"

Bwahahahhahahah. Please tell me you came up with that one on your own. Have to use it some time, it ranks up there with the proctologist called...he found your head. My favorite line of many in Ferris Bueller's day off was when he kicked Cameron in the ass, resulting in "what did you kick me for"? "Where's your head" line over and over....

[Zan]

Damn things are slow in the world of Styx, we are arguing my dog is better than your dog. Let me jump back in to the sillyness.

Zan - even you will have to admit, I have never in my life seen such a bashing of one human being that this woman has had to take. It all started way before the Republican Convention, before people outside of Alaska really heard her. The NY Times has given more air time to her pregnant teenage daughter than Obama's affiliations with terrorists and wacked out religious nuts. Us magazine, ran by Sterling and my favorite person, Yawwwnnnn Weener, printed that horrible artilce on its front cover about her, The View, Letterman, I could go on but you get the picture. She froze up on Katie Couric, so what. Obama said we have 57 states and Joe Biden thought FDR was on television discussing the Great Depression.

Oh, I'm aware she's being greatly criticized, but I don't know about "never in my life" seeing so much of it. Bill Clinton took a pretty stealthy amount during the impeachment trials, and continued to do so today by many. How many times have we heard the soundbyte "I did not have sexual relations with that woman?" Dubya has had his share as well, and Jimmy Carter, well, I don't remember anyone having nice things to say about him until years after he was out of office. Oh, and what about Dan Quayle?

The reason she is being "shot at" (a phrase I'm going increasingly more fond of) is because she is grossly under-qualified, is an environmental nightmare, and has one of the most extreme "right-wing" positions of any of the candidates to date, which the exception of maybe Dick Cheney. Again, the economy has pushed me into a position where domestic issues are taking a backseat (and FTR, I don't disagree with SP or the Conservatives on every domestic issue), but I don't trust Sarah Palin to make the right decisions for this country if her life depended on it. IMO, she isn't being scrutinized enough.

I do have to acknowledge one part of Yogi's posts, everyone is afraid to even make fun of Obama. Why is that? They are all scared of being called a racist. McCain, until at least recently, has taken a politically correct approach to the sujbect.

There's nothing to make fun of. He's an empty void and a question mark. But to say things like "hates all white people" reeks of ignorance and stupidity and is an embarrassment to the Party and the Nation.

When John McCain discussed returning to the fundamentals laid out by the Constituion on the View, Whoopi Goldberg wanted to know if she should worry about a return to Slavery. JM missed his chance there, he could of reminded this moron that if that atrocity were to ever return, it would take another Republican to abolsih slavery. I say take the gloves off and go after all of it: his past affiliations, his ties to Fannie Mae, his invisibility from the Senate over the last two to three years, his complete lack of any kind of executive or budget experience, his higher taxes on rich people (i.e. anyone with a job), etc.

But what would Tommy Shaw say....

Well, Woopie Goldberg is hardly an ambassador of fair & balanced. I will say, that I'm a bit surprised this campaign has brought out so much racism in this country.

I think Tommy Shaw would be smart enough to stay out of the discussion.

"Possibly the cozy feeling from the warmth of his buttcheeks next to his ears"

Bwahahahhahahah. Please tell me you came up with that one on your own.

Guilty. But in fairness to Yogi, the material practically wrote itself.

[yogi]

''This is the first time in my adult life that I have been proud of my country' - Michelle Obama

' It's not God Bless America, It should be god dam n America' - Until recently Barack Obama's spiritual advisor

' He sits in a chuch for over a decade where hatred against whites and the USA is preached on a regular basis- Barack Obama


All of this is a fact.


Just because Barack is a minority he gets a pass.

This is the LAST person that should be running a country.

We can do better than this!!!!!!

P.S. I never said that he hates ALL white people - I said he may hate white people and he has white issues.

[styxfansite]

This was printed in the San Francisco Chronicle (one of the most liberal newspapers and citys in the nation).


"The average American listening to all the news of bank failures, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who?) being taken over by the government, and now a “bail-out” of large, privately owned and well known companies, is at first bewildered, and then angry. The average American should be furious.

But whom should Americans be furious? That seems to be the big question as political fingers are pointing in every direction. Was it greedy CEO’s with their “golden parachutes?” Was it the Democrats? Was it the Republicans? Was it Wall Street? (Who, exactly IS “Wall Street?”) The simple answer is that it is all of the above.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr., and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke were on Capital Hill taking a verbal beating from some of the very people who should not be asking the questions, but answering them and answering those questions under oath.

Senator Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.) and Congressman Barney Frank, (D-Mass.) are the first two who should be grilled, not by fellow politicians, but by an independent and hopefully very clever, angry, and mean attorney hired by the American people. No one from the present Justice Department need apply. Both should be asked how much money they have taken from lobbyists hired by the CEO’s of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Since that is public record, they should then be asked what Fannie and Freddie got in return for that money.

Barney Frank should be questioned about his House Bill, H.R. 3838, that is clearly designed to keep Fannie and Freddie afloat as long as possible despite all the signs that there was serious trouble ahead. But all his bill did was make the hole bigger in the side of the Titanic. Basically all H. R. 3838 did was: “To temporarily increase the portfolio caps applicable to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to provide the necessary financing to curb
foreclosures by facilitating the refinancing of at-risk subprime borrowers into safe, affordable loans, and for other purposes.”

Barney Frank and his counterpart in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.) did everything they could to delay and cover-up the outright fraud and book-cooking that was going on within Freddie and Fannie.

As far back as 2003, Freddie and Fannie were $9 billion dollars in debt because of bad loans that continued to be accepted on a daily basis. Pressure from liberals in Congress to continue giving out bad loans was relentless and for years it continued with CEO’s, who happen to be friends of Dodd, Frank, Schumer, and Clinton, leaving with millions in their bank accounts as the companies they ran went under.

The truth is that this financial disaster for the American taxpayer didn’t begin under George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or George Herbert Walker Bush, or Ronald Reagan. It started under Jimmy Carter. It started with the passing of The Community Reinvestment Act in 1977. Basically, this act pushed local community banks and lenders, to “bend” the rules a little and give loans to low-income families. Like many liberal schemes, it seemed like a good idea at the time. There was a provision that protected the nervous lender in the clause that stated that loans should be given “in a safe and sound manner.” This gave the bank some leeway and choice in the loans that were given out.

Under Bill Clinton, The Community
Reinvestment Act was revised. Basically, the revision started to put pressure on lenders to take more financial risks. It was felt that lenders were not being “fair” to minorities and the poor who only wanted to share in the American dream of owning their own home. Janet Reno began to outwardly threaten banks and mortgage lenders with prosecution if home loans were not approved for those who wanted to purchase homes that, in truth, they could not afford.

Fearing federal retribution, loans started being approved for people who had no down-payment, no jobs, no collateral, and absolutely no hope of ever being able to meet any mortgage payment after the grace period of low interest ran out.

Then, the greed took over. Banks would “bundle” up loans, good and bad, and sell them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, making all their money up front for loans they knew would default eventually. As these loans did default, in larger and larger numbers, even Fannie and Freddie could no longer stand up under the hemorrhage of money loss. Wall Street panicked and so did the federal government.

Were there warning signs that a disaster was looming? Of course, there were. But there was money to be made and politicians and CEO’s alike were not about to give up the gravy train of money being crammed in their pockets. The CEO’s of Freddie and Fannie would hire lobbyists to slip money into the pockets of Senator Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, who was supposed to be overseeing the banking industry, to the tune of $133,900 since 1989. Barack Obama was number two at the trough with over $120,000 which was no small feat since he has only been in the Senate for three years. Dodd and Obama were closely followed by the last Democratic nominee, John Kerry, (D-Mass.) and then Senator Hillary Clinton, (D-N.Y.)

What were these lobbyists buying for the millions they sprinkled around the Senate and House of Representatives? They were buying a blind eye. They were buying little or no oversight into the juggernaut that has finally crashed on the heads of the American taxpayer. CEO’s got rich, politicians got rich and they got votes, being able to tell minorities and the poor, “See what we are doing for you?” For years, the red flags were stuffed under the desk and ignored.

Early in his administration, George Bush sounded an alarm over the small amount of working capital Fannie and Freddie had on hand. He urged them to sell more shares to increase their reserve in funding and put them on a more stable ground. He urged them to be more selective in the loans they bought. This suggestion was declined because the current stockholders would not make as much profit.

Franklin Raines, the Fannie Mae CEO from 1999 to 2004, decided to retire early, taking millions with him, under a cloud of accusations that he had cooked the books to make it appear the company was making money instead of going head-long into debt. Another player in this financial kabuki dance is Jamie Gorelick. That name should ring a bell with every American. She seems to surface right at the heart of every American disaster in the last 15 years. Ms. Gorelick was vice-chair of Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003. Like all the others, she left with millions in her pocket while declaring that Fannie Mae “is among the handful of top-quality institutions."

The next year it was found that Fannie was $9 billion dollars in the red. Oddly, this $9 billion had been overlooked in the books Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Raines kept.

Let’s put Mr. Raines and Ms. Gorelick on the stand. The American people deserve to hear how much they gave lobbyists to pass on to their friends in Congress to keep the blinders on. That number is a staggering $16.2 million dollars since 1997. That amount bought very large blinders. And, it bought time. It bought time for the likes of Raines and Gorelick to make their millions and bow out before the bottom fell out.

Republican nominee John McCain raised the alarm two years ago but his plan for more oversight was killed in the Democrat-controlled committee. Over 20-year span, McCain took $20,000 but this did not stop him from voicing his concerns. The problem was that Democrats didn’t want to hear about it.

President Bush’s warnings were also ignored. Should Bush have done more? Yes he should have. Unfortunately, Bush was distracted by the 9/11 attack and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So now, nearly every hour Americans watch as a pompous Chris Dodd or Barney Frank struts to a microphone to declare the “failed economic policies of the Bush administration are responsible for this mess.”

No, Senator, he is not. YOU and your greedy friends are responsible. It took three decades to reach the point of no return and some were there with their hands out nearly all of those years.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is launching (what I hope will be) a full investigation into all of this. This investigation will abruptly end should Barack Obama win in November. The last thing Democrats want is the American people learning how complicit so many of them are in the illegal practice at Fannie and Freddie that led to the taxpayers bearing the brunt of the their unbridled greed.

While politicians want oversight over the “bail-out,” there has been little outcry for an investigation into how all this evolved.

It’s time for Americans to go to their windows and throw them open and yell, “We are mad as hell and we aren’t going to take it anymore!”

Then, in November, vote the lot of them out of office!"

[LordofDaRing]

SF newspaper, that is a truly amazing article. The problem Styxfansite is how is this kind of information communicated to the masses, through the liberal controlled media. Well this happened when George Bush was president, therfore we need to vote for Obama. Just like 911 and Hurricane Katrina were all his fault. Maybe McCain can get some of these points across tonight in the debate.



Zan wrote:
Oh, I'm aware she's being greatly criticized, but I don't know about "never in my life" seeing so much of it. Bill Clinton took a pretty stealthy amount during the impeachment trials, and continued to do so today by many. How many times have we heard the soundbyte "I did not have sexual relations with that woman?" Dubya has had his share as well, and Jimmy Carter, well, I don't remember anyone having nice things to say about him until years after he was out of office. Oh, and what about Dan Quayle?

The reason she is being "shot at" (a phrase I'm going increasingly more fond of) is because she is grossly under-qualified, is an environmental nightmare, and has one of the most extreme "right-wing" positions of any of the candidates to date, which the exception of maybe Dick Cheney. Again, the economy has pushed me into a position where domestic issues are taking a backseat (and FTR, I don't disagree with SP or the Conservatives on every domestic issue), but I don't trust Sarah Palin to make the right decisions for this country if her life depended on it. IMO, she isn't being scrutinized enough.

Bush, Carter and Clinton were all in office when most of the bad publicity was ongoing. And Clinton was close to getting impeached, I would hope there would be something negative out there in an instance like that. Dan Quayle...nuff said. If the economy is truly someones hot button, I suggest they do there own soul searching about how we arrived at this point. The prior article is pretty damn eye raising if you ask me. As far as SP being under qualified for VP, remember McCain the one running for President. Obama is the poster child for under qualified, unless we all go back to high school and elect the cheerleader and jock for class president. She isn't being scrutinized enough???? CNN is running long segments on her eye winking for gods sake. What's next??? I noticed she wasn't wearing pantyhose at the debate. Must be a Communist.

[styxfansite]

A little bit closer look at three former Fannie Mae executives who brought down Wall Street. This is just to add to the above article from the SF Chronicle on Wall Street and Fannie Mae.


Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae . Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae 's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday c onceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.


Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accountin g statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.


Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae . Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie . In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard , failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae ,"

On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipu late 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.

Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!


Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae , and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson . Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson 's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.


Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.

WHERE ARE THEY NOW? Glad you asked

FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Co mmittee

This may not mean anything or it may mean a good bit depending how you look at this.

[Rockwriter]

What frightens me is how America is currently being run by a lunatic fringe element of Christianity that is every bit as deranged as the people they purport to oppose.

Sterling

Run America? Just what is your point? I expected better from you.

My point is that for the last eight years America has been saddled with a President and administration founded on some very extreme quasi-Christian principles that are actually a gross distortion of the true teachings of Jesus Christ. Bush has said privately that he believes that God ordained him to preside over America - which in large part explains his arrogance, as well as his lack of intellectual curiosity. He has taken the position that he does not need to consult or engage in any kind of informed debate or discovery process, much to his own detriment and the detriment of the country as a collective. And why not? Because his fundamental belief is that since God guides him, he cannot be wrong and therefore needs no information. That isn't faith. That is delusion.

Speaking of expecting better, about 75% of Americans expected better from this administration. Since in America the majority rules, is it your position that in this instance the majoroty is wrong about Bush having been a disaster? I don't mean that as an attack, just asking for a clarification of your position.


I hope all is well.


Sterling

What positions exactly did President Bush blindly act. If your answer is the war in Iraq, Look at History. As someone who has been in that country, I'll argue we should have been there much sooner than we were. We replaced a brutal dictator who poisoned gassed his own people and defied the UN for 10+ years with a fledgling democracy that has a chance to succeed. Also, If on September 12, 2001, you had the option of a long prolonged conflict in Iraq with an uncertain pullout date or more attacks on US soil, What would you as President select? Does being Pro Life and Anti Abortion make one a Christian wacko? These are just 2 of the questions that one has to answer when they want change. It's easy to complain about the current economy and situation. Many parties get voted out of office on things that are not under their control. I'm not saying that Pres Bush has done a lot of things right and I understand the publics dissatisfaction with his leadership and lack of intellect and oratory skills. Calling our President the lunatic fringe and deranged is unfounded, ill informed, and in some countries criminal. More clarification to follow.


Thanks for a response to my earlier post that didn't result in name calling and stuck to the facts. That's very rare around here.

I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion as to Iraq. If the question is what would I, as president, have done on September 12th if faced with the choice between a long conflict in Iraq or more attacks on American soil, my answer is that I think that's the wrong question. Even the administration itself has admitted that much of the intel used in the runup to the Iraq war was flawed, and certain key documents were forged. Bush even knew this at the time he presented those same dcuments to the Congress and the American people as examples of why we needed to go to war with Iraq. So I guess my answer is, I wouldn't have been looking at Iraq at all on September 12th (which, incidentally, we weren't . . . Iraq did not get tossed into the equation until quite a few weeks later). I would not have used a catastrophic event on American soil to justfy my own private ambition of attacking Iraq. I would not have used the terrible events of 911 as a justification for a bait-and-switch war on a country that did not attack us. Bush has quite simply been wilfully wrong from start to finish. And as for Saddam attacking the citizens of Iraq, the American invasion has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths over there, so I have to wonder if, left in power, he would have killed as many innocent citizens of Iraq as Bush has?

No, being pro-life does not make anyone a Christian wacko. Using bastardized precepts of Christianity as a marketing tool for an unjust war does. Calling Bush a deranged warmonger is simply pointing out something that I personally consider readily self-apparent. He had access to the largest network of intelligence the world has ever assembled, but instead of utilizing that intelligence to foster active debate and arrive at a proper conclusion (which is his job), he instead used his power as Chief Executive to force the intelligence that was coming in to fit the mold of what he had already decided to do. It's been documented by many former administration insiders how reports that did not support his plan to invade Iraq got sent back time and time again with instructions to try again until they were "right". Bush did not want facts, he wanted excuses to go to war with Iraq. And in THIS country, thankfully, for now we still have the right to speak our minds and criticize the government without reprisals. I'm not some Johnny come Lately who has only started criticizing Bush in retrospect when it's no longer possible to defend him. I have long held the opinion that George W. Bush is the most damaging president this country has ever seen. I thought that as far back as six or seven years ago. I feel confident that history will agree with me.

I hope all is well.


Sterling

[LordofDaRing]

As far as American intel goes, I seem to remember British and Russian intel agreeing with us at the time. By the way when exactly is the time to respond to someone who violates a treaty, dispells UN inspectors and ignores years of sanctions by said UN (which by the way stands for useless nations by definition of so called acoomplishiments). Oh I know, we can just sit down with them and discuss things like reasonable human beings, like BO feels we can. We can start with the Dictator of Iran. Maybe he will lessen his policy on wiping Isreal off the map, to just killing a few million jews. Well now we have a starting point, won't be long now till we negotiate peace for our time, right Neville Chamberlain.

As far as the philosophy of attacking someone who "never attacked us", we should have never declared war on Germany or Italy during WWII. Japan was the only country I recall that attacked us. According to the theory, that should have been Europe's problem to solve not ours. Before you say that one cannot compare WWII with what is going on today, let me remind all that we are in a World War with Isalmic Terrorists. Its a different type of fight, but its still a war, make no mistake about it. Hell I will even throw out a bone to any liberals out there, Korea and North Vietnam never attached us either. You can add Somalia and Bosnia to that list. Speaking of which I cannot believe SP let Joe Biden get away with calling those last two victories. Anybody read the book Blackhawk Down. Those were poltical strategic screw ups on the part of Les Aspen and Bill Clinton and eveyone knows it. Osama Bin Laden was quoted as saying something to the effect that you fire a few shots at them and the Americans run like cowards.

[shaka]

An interesting article about the debate in the LA Times which isn't exactly a bastion of conservative thought:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 943.column

[Rockwriter]

As far as American intel goes, I seem to remember British and Russian intel agreeing with us at the time. By the way when exactly is the time to respond to someone who violates a treaty, dispells UN inspectors and ignores years of sanctions by said UN (which by the way stands for useless nations by definition of so called acoomplishiments). Oh I know, we can just sit down with them and discuss things like reasonable human beings, like BO feels we can. We can start with the Dictator of Iran. Maybe he will lessen his policy on wiping Isreal off the map, to just killing a few million jews. Well now we have a starting point, won't be long now till we negotiate peace for our time, right Neville Chamberlain.

As far as the philosophy of attacking someone who "never attacked us", we should have never declared war on Germany or Italy during WWII. Japan was the only country I recall that attacked us. According to the theory, that should have been Europe's problem to solve not ours. Before you say that one cannot compare WWII with what is going on today, let me remind all that we are in a World War with Isalmic Terrorists. Its a different type of fight, but its still a war, make no mistake about it. Hell I will even throw out a bone to any liberals out there, Korea and North Vietnam never attached us either. You can add Somalia and Bosnia to that list. Speaking of which I cannot believe SP let Joe Biden get away with calling those last two victories. Anybody read the book Blackhawk Down. Those were poltical strategic screw ups on the part of Les Aspen and Bill Clinton and eveyone knows it. Osama Bin Laden was quoted as saying something to the effect that you fire a few shots at them and the Americans run like cowards.

That's a gross distortion and misrepresentation of my point. My point was not that we should NEVER have taken on Saddam. My point was that our president knowingly and wilfully engaged in a bait-and-switch to get the war he wanted instead of the war that was both justified and proper response to the situation as it stood. If an attack on Iraq could have stood on its own legs as the right thing to do, then why obscure the issue? Because otherwise neither the American people nor Congress would have supported it. Remember the American people? The ones who actually own the materials and resources of this country, of which the government are merely stewards? Our will is supposed to run this country, a country by and for the people. In this instance Bush did not allow us to express our true will, instead force-feeding deliberate disinformation to the public and Congress so that he could get what he wanted.

As far as the German analogy goes, the obvious difference is that Japan and Germany were allied. One of the Bush administration's greatest deceptions of the public was to sell the notion that bin Laden and Iraq were allied as well, when they were not. A very important distinction. As for Korea and Vietnam, you are correct, neither attacked us. We got involved in situations that did not directly affect us, didn't do well in either one, and apparently still failed to learn the lessons of history from either event. America's absurdist notion that we are ( or should be) the World Police is just as nonsensical today as it was back then.

I hope all is well.


Sterling

[LordofDaRing]

"Sterling Wrote:
That's a gross distortion and misrepresentation of my point. My point was not that we should NEVER have taken on Saddam. My point was that our president knowingly and wilfully engaged in a bait-and-switch to get the war he wanted instead of the war that was both justified and proper response to the situation as it stood. If an attack on Iraq could have stood on its own legs as the right thing to do, then why obscure the issue? Because otherwise neither the American people nor Congress would have supported it. Remember the American people? The ones who actually own the materials and resources of this country, of which the government are merely stewards? Our will is supposed to run this country, a country by and for the people. In this instance Bush did not allow us to express our true will, instead force-feeding deliberate disinformation to the public and Congress so that he could get what he wanted.

As far as the German analogy goes, the obvious difference is that Japan and Germany were allied. One of the Bush administration's greatest deceptions of the public was to sell the notion that bin Laden and Iraq were allied as well, when they were not. A very important distinction. As for Korea and Vietnam, you are correct, neither attacked us. We got involved in situations that did not directly affect us, didn't do well in either one, and apparently still failed to learn the lessons of history from either event. America's absurdist notion that we are ( or should be) the World Police is just as nonsensical today as it was back then. "

I hope all is well.


Sterling



Sooooo just so I don't not grossly distort your point, are you are saying eventually it would have been ok to invade Iraq, but under the right circumstances? Again let me ask what would those circumstances be? If you recall at the time, our Government opted post 911 to adopt an offensive postion against any country harboring terrorists, and at that time the polls seemed to indicate that the majority of Americans felt the same. In fact weeks into the invasion, that sentiment still existed until we decided to take military strategy out of the hands of the miliatry and place it back in the hands of the politicians, one of my pet peeves of the current administration.

Yes I remember the Amercian people, being one hard working tax paying citizen myself. I don't recall having my permission asked to invade Kuwait the first time. I also don't recall my permission to place friends of mine in harms way in places like Somalia and Bosnia. Right or wrong, we elect leaders to make decisions for us. There would be no purpose for them if not, we could just all text our votes in on any situation that arises and do what the majority of people in this country want to do.

[DarrenUK]

Like I stated in my first post here, Barack wants everyone making $ 44,254 dollars per year. Later on, Barack will allows us to drive our subcompact car to the government run health facility, or we gather to listen to his spiritual advisor Dr. Jeremiah Wright.

It's scary to think who may be leading us.

If he wants everyone to earn $44,254 then it will double my salary ....and will cut his own by 500% ....... good on him I say oh and by the way Universal healthcare is far better than healthcare for profit ..... just ask

AUSTRALIA
NEW ZEALAND
UK
FRANCE
GERMANY
SWEDEN
HOLLAND
BELGIUM
DENMARK
ITALY
CANADA
SPAIN
AUSTRIA
BOSNIA
BULGARIA
CROATIA
CZECH REPUBLIC
FINLAND
ESTONIA
GEORGIA
GREECE
HUNGARY
ICELAND
IRELAND
LATVIA
POLAND
PORTUGAL
SWITZERLAND
HONG KONG
CHINA
JAPAN
ISRAEL
KUWAIT
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
SOUTH KOREA
MALAYSIA
THAILAND

Health care is a basic human right or entitlement.
Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.
About 60% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal healthcare system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.
A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.
Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal healthcare system over the current U.S. system
Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.
Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.
America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.
Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)
The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.
A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal healthcare plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of pediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.
According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of healthcare dollars are spent on healthcare, the rest go to various middlemen and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on healthcare.
In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also two-tier health care.
Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.
Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.
Libertarians and conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes

MAKE IT HAPPEN

[chowhall]

I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion as to Iraq. If the question is what would I, as president, have done on September 12th if faced with the choice between a long conflict in Iraq or more attacks on American soil, my answer is that I think that's the wrong question. Even the administration itself has admitted that much of the intel used in the runup to the Iraq war was flawed, and certain key documents were forged. Bush even knew this at the time he presented those same dcuments to the Congress and the American people as examples of why we needed to go to war with Iraq. So I guess my answer is, I wouldn't have been looking at Iraq at all on September 12th (which, incidentally, we weren't . . . Iraq did not get tossed into the equation until quite a few weeks later). I would not have used a catastrophic event on American soil to justfy my own private ambition of attacking Iraq. I would not have used the terrible events of 911 as a justification for a bait-and-switch war on a country that did not attack us. Bush has quite simply been wilfully wrong from start to finish. And as for Saddam attacking the citizens of Iraq, the American invasion has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths over there, so I have to wonder if, left in power, he would have killed as many innocent citizens of Iraq as Bush has?

I hope all is well.


Sterling

We'll deal with this question first. My fundamental question is when do you act when a government openly opposes the UN and the world at large? If I were king, we would have finished the job in Iraq the first go round. Not at first, but when Sadam blatantly violated the cease fire from Desert Storm during HW's watch, I'd have rolled the troops back then. Many times during the Clinton administration this action should have occurred. How many UN inspectors do you have to throw out before you act? Also, the war started in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you honestly think that the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban should not have occurred? Would you suggest a war with Saudi Arabia where a majority of the Terrorist were from?

As far as who killed more "innocent" Iraqi civilians, you've got to be joking. That is the most ignorant statement I've heard. You would have to look at the Rules of Engagement and still have that same question. The very question is suggesting that the military openly hunts "innocent" civilians. Have you seen an American soldier with no legs because an "innocent" Iraqi civilian planted a land mine? What is your definition of "innocent"? Do you know how much of your taxpayers dollars itcosts to make a smart" bomb? All the while, open Iraqi soldiers had tanks, guns and airplanes(not much of a match but bullets none the less). To compare our President and hundreds of thousands of American Volunteer Servicemen to Sadam Hussein shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. If you want clarity, talk to some Kuwaitis that Sadam invaded, murdered, raped, and pillaged and see whose hands the Iraqis would be safer in.

[DarrenUK]

I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion as to Iraq. If the question is what would I, as president, have done on September 12th if faced with the choice between a long conflict in Iraq or more attacks on American soil, my answer is that I think that's the wrong question. Even the administration itself has admitted that much of the intel used in the runup to the Iraq war was flawed, and certain key documents were forged. Bush even knew this at the time he presented those same dcuments to the Congress and the American people as examples of why we needed to go to war with Iraq. So I guess my answer is, I wouldn't have been looking at Iraq at all on September 12th (which, incidentally, we weren't . . . Iraq did not get tossed into the equation until quite a few weeks later). I would not have used a catastrophic event on American soil to justfy my own private ambition of attacking Iraq. I would not have used the terrible events of 911 as a justification for a bait-and-switch war on a country that did not attack us. Bush has quite simply been wilfully wrong from start to finish. And as for Saddam attacking the citizens of Iraq, the American invasion has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths over there, so I have to wonder if, left in power, he would have killed as many innocent citizens of Iraq as Bush has?

I hope all is well.



Sterling

We'll deal with this question first. My fundamental question is when do you act when a government openly opposes the UN and the world at large? If I were king, we would have finished the job in Iraq the first go round. Not at first, but when Sadam blatantly violated the cease fire from Desert Storm during HW's watch, I'd have rolled the troops back then. Many times during the Clinton administration this action should have occurred. How many UN inspectors do you have to throw out before you act? Also, the war started in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you honestly think that the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban should not have occurred? Would you suggest a war with Saudi Arabia where a majority of the Terrorist were from?

As far as who killed more "innocent" Iraqi civilians, you've got to be joking. That is the most ignorant statement I've heard. You would have to look at the Rules of Engagement and still have that same question. The very question is suggesting that the military openly hunts "innocent" civilians. Have you seen an American soldier with no legs because an "innocent" Iraqi civilian planted a land mine? What is your definition of "innocent"? Do you know how much of your taxpayers dollars itcosts to make a smart" bomb? All the while, open Iraqi soldiers had tanks, guns and airplanes(not much of a match but bullets none the less). To compare our President and hundreds of thousands of American Volunteer Servicemen to Sadam Hussein shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. If you want clarity, talk to some Kuwaitis that Sadam invaded, murdered, raped, and pillaged and see whose hands the Iraqis would be safer in.

Saddam was an evil monster to his own people as well as his neighbors ....AGREED, sooooooooooooo when does the USA invade China as the rulers there are as bad as Saddam if not worse ?

[chowhall]

Saddam was an evil monster to his own people as well as his neighbors ....AGREED, sooooooooooooo when does the USA invade China as the rulers there are as bad as Saddam if not worse ?

When the UN imposes sanctions and sends inspectors and the Chinese throw them all out. Or when China invades one of it's neighbors like say, Taiwan. That fight I'm afraid is coming.