[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
snip Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is about Obama that some folks are calling elitist? It is part of the arsenal of the republican attack machine. They run it on everybody. It is bullshit and bluster. Your analysis give it the dignity of having a basis in reality. It doesn't need to. Even discussing such personality traits of a leader makes me feel like I'm in junior high. snip The liberals who are supporting McCain are doing so because they believe the Democratic Party has failed them and needs to be brought down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court nominations as a kind of blackmail. How can it be blackmail when it is just a fact? How can it be a fact when it hasn't happened yet? (And even if it were a fact, why would that mean it couldn't be blackmail??) It is a fact that McCain is more conservative than Obama and will appoint accordingly. That is a fact now. It isn't blackmail. The liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the rest of our lives. No one is blackmailing anybody. Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. It is the one thing that will effect us for the rest of our lives. I'm pretty sure that the Obama campaign covers other issues about what a great guy he is in all ways. I'm more interested in who is gunna appoint the judges. YMMV. I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to Bush's Iraq war. But after 8 years of republicans I don't believe it can be brought down any more. It wasn't the party, strictly speaking, that caved to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. I don't find your distinction useful. I believe that it can rebuild a lot better with a democrat in the White House. I don't see how four years of McCain/Palin is going to help re-build the party. The party leadership--Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et al.--will be discredited if McCain wins; that will mean it will *have* to be rebuilt, with different people in the leadership. If Obama wins, it'll just be more of the same; they'll have been proved right. I don't get any of the logic here. I don't know how many years you want to see a republican administration to prove your point. I have had enough of them. I fear that this crazy logic that electing McCain will HELP the democratic party will sentence us to four more years of republicans,and yes, more ultra conservative Supreme Court judges. Again, it's a matter of destroying the current party and putting together a new one, not helping the current party. Have fun with that. If the Bush/Gore fiasco didn't convince you of the wide reaching implications for the democratic party didn't convince you, I don't know what will. Want to try this again? Your syntax got garbled. Didn't convince me of what, exactly? Yes, very garbled! Convince you of the need to have democrats pick the next judges. That picking the judges can even affect who gets in as president. If you want to risk conservatives appointing the next judges, that is your call. I don't.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
On Sep 21, 2008, at 9:22 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: It wasn't the party, strictly speaking, that caved to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. I don't find your distinction useful. LOL...this is one reason I like your posts, Curtis, You really know how to cut to the chase while still remaining a nice guy. Of course, we know it's just a facade, but what they heck, I'm a phony too. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
LOL...this is one reason I like your posts, Curtis, You really know how to cut to the chase while still remaining a nice guy. Of course, we know it's just a facade, but what they heck, I'm a phony too. Sal Thanks Sal. I don't really know how this whole nice guy projection thing started. I see myself like most posters here, I goof on certain people whose position I deem goofible. I'm a bit too snarky to run on a nice guy ticket, but that doesn't bother me since I found out where they finish. But I like far more posters here than I dislike, so isn't that speacial! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 21, 2008, at 9:22 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: It wasn't the party, strictly speaking, that caved to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. I don't find your distinction useful. LOL...this is one reason I like your posts, Curtis, You really know how to cut to the chase while still remaining a nice guy. Of course, we know it's just a facade, but what they heck, I'm a phony too. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL...this is one reason I like your posts, Curtis, You really know how to cut to the chase while still remaining a nice guy. Of course, we know it's just a facade, but what they heck, I'm a phony too. Thanks Sal. I don't really know how this whole nice guy projection thing started. I see myself like most posters here, I goof on certain people whose position I deem goofible. I'm a bit too snarky to run on a nice guy ticket, but that doesn't bother me since I found out where they finish. Like the last line. That's why I decided never to bother with the nice guy thang. Yeah, that's the ticket. :-) But I like far more posters here than I dislike, so isn't that speacial! I read more posters than I don't read. Does that qualify me for my speacialitude merit badge? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is about Obama that some folks are calling elitist? It is part of the arsenal of the republican attack machine. They run it on everybody. It is bullshit and bluster. Your analysis give it the dignity of having a basis in reality. You haven't answered my question. snip The liberals who are supporting McCain are doing so because they believe the Democratic Party has failed them and needs to be brought down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court nominations as a kind of blackmail. How can it be blackmail when it is just a fact? How can it be a fact when it hasn't happened yet? (And even if it were a fact, why would that mean it couldn't be blackmail??) It is a fact that McCain is more conservative than Obama and will appoint accordingly. That is a fact now. The president doesn't appoint justices to the Supreme Court; the president *nominates* them, and then they have to be confirmed by the Senate. Plus which, that a justice is conservative doesn't *automatically* mean he or she will always rule contrary to progressive interests. So there are two big uncertainties: A Democratic Senate may reject a nominee they consider too conservative; and a conservative who becomes a justice may turn out to rule in surprising ways. The liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the rest of our lives. No one is blackmailing anybody. Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. It is the one thing that will effect us for the rest of our lives. I'm pretty sure that the Obama campaign covers other issues about what a great guy he is in all ways. Of course it does. But I'm talking about how Obama supporters try to convince those who don't support him--especially women--to vote for him. I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to Bush's Iraq war. But after 8 years of republicans I don't believe it can be brought down any more. It wasn't the party, strictly speaking, that caved to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. I don't find your distinction useful. The distinction is that Democrats in Congress are elected by the people; those who run the party are not. I believe that it can rebuild a lot better with a democrat in the White House. I don't see how four years of McCain/Palin is going to help re-build the party. The party leadership--Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et al.--will be discredited if McCain wins; that will mean it will *have* to be rebuilt, with different people in the leadership. If Obama wins, it'll just be more of the same; they'll have been proved right. I don't get any of the logic here. I don't know how many years you want to see a republican administration to prove your point. The minimum number of years necessary, obviously. Hopefully no more than four. You might want to see the interview I cited in my post headed Holding the DNC's Feet to the Fire for more on the rationale behind this. snip If the Bush/Gore fiasco didn't convince you of the wide reaching implications for the democratic party didn't convince you, I don't know what will. Want to try this again? Your syntax got garbled. Didn't convince me of what, exactly? Yes, very garbled! Convince you of the need to have democrats pick the next judges. That picking the judges can even affect who gets in as president. If you want to risk conservatives appointing the next judges, that is your call. I don't. Democrats (via the Senate) *will* pick the next justices, or at least decide which of the president's picks are seated. On the other hand, the Democratic Senate didn't do so well in keeping Bush's picks out, did they? It's a risk, yes, but in my view it's a *greater* risk to have the current Democratic leadership remain in power, with enhanced credibility. It's definitely a judgment call.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is about Obama that some folks are calling elitist? It is part of the arsenal of the republican attack machine. They run it on everybody. It is bullshit and bluster. Your analysis give it the dignity of having a basis in reality. You haven't answered my question. If I had to guess it would be that he doesn't drop his G's in that folksy way Bush and Palin do. snip It is a fact that McCain is more conservative than Obama and will appoint accordingly. That is a fact now. The president doesn't appoint justices to the Supreme Court; the president *nominates* them, and then they have to be confirmed by the Senate. I misspoke. Important distinction. Plus which, that a justice is conservative doesn't *automatically* mean he or she will always rule contrary to progressive interests. True, we are just making our best guess. So there are two big uncertainties: A Democratic Senate may reject a nominee they consider too conservative; and a conservative who becomes a justice may turn out to rule in surprising ways. Republicans don't like surprises. I think they pick pretty carefully. snip Of course it does. But I'm talking about how Obama supporters try to convince those who don't support him--especially women--to vote for him. I still disagree that pointing this out is blackmail. I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to Bush's Iraq war. But after 8 years of republicans I don't believe it can be brought down any more. It wasn't the party, strictly speaking, that caved to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. I don't find your distinction useful. The distinction is that Democrats in Congress are elected by the people; those who run the party are not. Thanks for the distinction. I'm not sure how this matters for the point about the elected democrats caving to Bush's patriot bullshit. As far as I'm concerned they both failed us. snip You might want to see the interview I cited in my post headed Holding the DNC's Feet to the Fire for more on the rationale behind this. Thanks I'll read it. snip It's a risk, yes, but in my view it's a *greater* risk to have the current Democratic leadership remain in power, with enhanced credibility. It's definitely a judgment call. It is a perspective that is outside my box, so thanks for introducing it to me. I'm sort of on pick the lessor asshole mode with politicians. I can't muster much positive gusto for support of anybody, Obama included.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
new.morning wrote: Poulson sems like a great guy -- personally. And he is smart and expereinced. However, Paulson can speak in terms that intimidate many. I don't have a problem with that but he shouldn't speak it in secret. I mean the American public may be dumbed down but lets try to pull them up to a higher level of understanding and to not use that thing upstairs as a pillow weight. But think a moment. Several weeks ago . Poulson was given $100's of billion in authorization -- to use as a big stick -- to halt the crisis in confidence and restore market order. That was his pitch. And he openly admits he was surprised to the bone that this authorization only accelerated the crises and forced him to quickly spend the big stick. Mr. Paulson does not have the best judgment based on his recent track record. Don't be intimidated by manipulative talk of financial meltdown. Use your abundant common sense to see what is and what is not. Demand that he lay out the case for total financial meltdown. IOW, don't look at the meldown until it is too late. The MSM economic pundits seem to be in the business these days of weaving maya (spin) to keep the public from panicking when maybe the public should be taking action. Clearly, before the short sale ban on Friday, Goldmans Sachs (Poulson is former chair) was headed towards a meltdown. Please ask Mr. Paulson for a clear definition of financial melt down. Does he mean a meltdown of the careers and some of the multimillion dollar wealth of his Wall Street colleagues and his former Goldman Sachs associates? Without the totally abrupt, no warning shut down of short trades on Friday morning -- Mr Poulson temporarily prevented a meltdown of his former company GS -- and his peers careers. I'm sure the careers of the brotherhood will not be in jeopardy but those of the masses may have been squandered already. By meltdown does he mean that the economy is simply going to stop and all savings, homes and jobs will be destroyed? I believe he is using a very scary term to manipulate to manipulate people into thinking the latter when it is much more the former. if the asset bubble is left to unwind -- as only the market can do -- congress cannot unwind it -- all assets will remain. Houses, factories, cars, server farms, PCs, intellectual capital. None of it will be destroyed. What will be melted away is the fluff, distortion and sludge from many bad decisions that is strangling the economy. Ah but who will own it? Some Chinese family that shows up at your door and tells you to get out because they now own all your stuff? This problem has been going on for some time. It's been like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Economist Dr. Ravi Batra said the other day that this fix will probably only work for 2-3 weeks and then we'll be back in trouble again. These are bailing wire approaches. And who's going to pay? The $700 billion bailout cost is about $5K per taxpayer. You all have that extra to spare? Don't believe the propaganda. I would rather see the whole thing come crashing down so we can erase the blackboard and start all over again.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
Geez don't ya trust Chris Dodd Barney Frank to do all that? --- On Sun, 9/21/08, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008, 3:18 PM new.morning wrote: Poulson sems like a great guy -- personally. And he is smart and expereinced. However, Paulson can speak in terms that intimidate many. I don't have a problem with that but he shouldn't speak it in secret. I mean the American public may be dumbed down but lets try to pull them up to a higher level of understanding and to not use that thing upstairs as a pillow weight. But think a moment. Several weeks ago . Poulson was given $100's of billion in authorization -- to use as a big stick -- to halt the crisis in confidence and restore market order. That was his pitch. And he openly admits he was surprised to the bone that this authorization only accelerated the crises and forced him to quickly spend the big stick. Mr. Paulson does not have the best judgment based on his recent track record. Don't be intimidated by manipulative talk of financial meltdown. Use your abundant common sense to see what is and what is not. Demand that he lay out the case for total financial meltdown. IOW, don't look at the meldown until it is too late. The MSM economic pundits seem to be in the business these days of weaving maya (spin) to keep the public from panicking when maybe the public should be taking action. Clearly, before the short sale ban on Friday, Goldmans Sachs (Poulson is former chair) was headed towards a meltdown. Please ask Mr. Paulson for a clear definition of financial melt down. Does he mean a meltdown of the careers and some of the multimillion dollar wealth of his Wall Street colleagues and his former Goldman Sachs associates? Without the totally abrupt, no warning shut down of short trades on Friday morning -- Mr Poulson temporarily prevented a meltdown of his former company GS -- and his peers careers. I'm sure the careers of the brotherhood will not be in jeopardy but those of the masses may have been squandered already. By meltdown does he mean that the economy is simply going to stop and all savings, homes and jobs will be destroyed? I believe he is using a very scary term to manipulate to manipulate people into thinking the latter when it is much more the former. if the asset bubble is left to unwind -- as only the market can do -- congress cannot unwind it -- all assets will remain. Houses, factories, cars, server farms, PCs, intellectual capital. None of it will be destroyed. What will be melted away is the fluff, distortion and sludge from many bad decisions that is strangling the economy. Ah but who will own it? Some Chinese family that shows up at your door and tells you to get out because they now own all your stuff? This problem has been going on for some time. It's been like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Economist Dr. Ravi Batra said the other day that this fix will probably only work for 2-3 weeks and then we'll be back in trouble again. These are bailing wire approaches. And who's going to pay? The $700 billion bailout cost is about $5K per taxpayer. You all have that extra to spare? Don't believe the propaganda. I would rather see the whole thing come crashing down so we can erase the blackboard and start all over again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a bit too snarky to run on a nice guy ticket, but that doesn't bother me since I found out where they finish. Sal, here's the comedy writer in the group!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Sep 21, 2008, at 9:22 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: It wasn't the party, strictly speaking, that caved to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. I don't find your distinction useful. LOL...this is one reason I like your posts, Curtis, You really know how to cut to the chase while still remaining a nice guy. Of course, we know it's just a facade, but what they heck, I'm a phony too. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy Non-Specific Obama: http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg Strong and Specific Hillary: Sometimes I wonder where you are going with this. There could be a role for Hillary to advance her ideas in a cabinet position. But right now it is Obama vs McCain and Hillary's positive qualities don't seem to matter much right now. I think an Obama presidency would be more likely to utilize her skills over a McCain one. And I can't really imagine that any woman would feel that an anti-abortion republican in the White House would be a better friend on woman's issues. We have seen what an anti-science president does to subvert the scientific method, to politicize issues like global warming reducing our chances of understanding how to best proceed. I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the primaries because I really only care about who we have to choose from now. It is hard for me to care about Hillary right now. I hope her supporters don't pull a Ralph Nader on this campaign and give us another four years of republican administration with the furthest right VP in history. http://tinyurl.com/4ervw5 Hillary took to the floor of the Senate today to lay out her plan for halting the economic meltdown, and her Senate staff has the video of her speech up online. She's speaking about what needs to be done NOW to address the economic meltdown taking place up on Wall Street this week. She talks in detail for over 20 minutes and dammit, it just breaks my heart that someone this capable and brilliant isn't headed to the White House this fall. Alegre http://tinyurl.com/4cy7ur on Hillary's statements. I can't fault people who believe it is McCain. I personally wish he had beaten Bush 8 years ago. We might not be in this mess today. But 8 years ago he wouldn't have picked Sara didja know she's a hockey mom'n gun, tote'n, feather ruffl'n, maverick? Palin. M Mooseburgers!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy Non-Specific Obama: http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg Strong and Specific Hillary: Sometimes I wonder where you are going with this. There could be a role for Hillary to advance her ideas in a cabinet position. But right now it is Obama vs McCain and Hillary's positive qualities don't seem to matter much right now. I think the point is that neither of the two candidates has the brainpower or perspective to lead us through this. And enlisting Hillary's help after the election is likely to be too late, no matter who wins. How Hillary's grasp of the situation--which she's been on top of for a long time, BTW--could matter a lot right now is if Obama were to start listening to her and trying to talk like she does. His response to the crisis has been pitiful, not as bad as McCain's, but nowhere near adequate. I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the primaries because I really only care about who we have to choose from now. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the primaries because I really only care about who we have to choose from now. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now. I know my limitations Judy. I don't really think my voice in politics is important. I have my pet issues and try to focus on them. But the time to really understand all the candidates in the primaries to be informed enough just doesn't make the time/payback cut for me. Like you, I wasn't overly impressed with Obama in the primaries. But I wasn't behind Hillary either, so I let them slug it out. My bias is anti-republican. Let me put it this way. You spent a lot of time and had your voice, and now you have Obama. So do I. But my time has been spent on the specific issues that I can more directly effect. And it isn't that I didn't pay ANY attention. I just didn't come up with a candidate that I really believed in enough to invest more time. Everyone is not meant to be political, that is why I appreciate our republic, often misnamed a democracy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy Non-Specific Obama: http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg Strong and Specific Hillary: Sometimes I wonder where you are going with this. There could be a role for Hillary to advance her ideas in a cabinet position. But right now it is Obama vs McCain and Hillary's positive qualities don't seem to matter much right now. I think the point is that neither of the two candidates has the brainpower or perspective to lead us through this. And enlisting Hillary's help after the election is likely to be too late, no matter who wins. How Hillary's grasp of the situation--which she's been on top of for a long time, BTW--could matter a lot right now is if Obama were to start listening to her and trying to talk like she does. His response to the crisis has been pitiful, not as bad as McCain's, but nowhere near adequate. I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the primaries because I really only care about who we have to choose from now. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
191004 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Video: http://tinyurl.com/46xqjq Media is fractionated for different markets. You gotta watch more than one network to get both sides. Fox news represents almost none of my values, that is why I also watch it. I need to hear the other side. Huh? What does this have to do with anything? The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't let the woman explain why she was supporting McCain over Obama. Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be objective politically. I don't think the written commentary was that good. Most of the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked for specifics. She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics. I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give this woman an unchallenged voice on TV. She should be allowed to make her points, *then* challenged. The truth is that her claim about Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. Uh, no. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; it's an attitude of superiority. One can be an elitist without being wealthy; and not all wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism has much more to do with class and education. snip The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal go for McCain/Palin. The liberals who are supporting McCain are doing so because they believe the Democratic Party has failed them and needs to be brought down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court nominations as a kind of blackmail. I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is the reason I'm not supporting Obama either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the primaries because I really only care about who we have to choose from now. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now. I know my limitations Judy. I don't really think my voice in politics is important. No single voter's voice in politics is important except maybe in very local elections. But if all voters knew their limitations, we wouldn't have an electorate. And why bother voting in the general election if you don't think your voice in the primary is important enough to vote? You have even *less* of a voice in the general. I have my pet issues and try to focus on them. But the time to really understand all the candidates in the primaries to be informed enough just doesn't make the time/payback cut for me. Working on issues is a fine thing, but you'll be a lot more effective if you have simpatico people as your elected officials. If you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, the answer isn't to do nothing but chewing gum or nothing but walking; it's to spend appropriate time walking and then switch to chewing gum for a while when that becomes important, IMHO. Like you, I wasn't overly impressed with Obama in the primaries. But I wasn't behind Hillary either, so I let them slug it out. My bias is anti-republican. Yes, so was that of most people who voted for either Obama or Hillary in the primaries. Let me put it this way. You spent a lot of time and had your voice, and now you have Obama. So do I. But without the voice. But my time has been spent on the specific issues that I can more directly effect. I think that's a poor choice if it excludes working for a primary candidate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
The truth is that her claim about Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. Uh, no. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; it's an attitude of superiority. One can be an elitist without being wealthy; and not all wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism has much more to do with class and education. I appreciate an opportunity to focus on what the word really means. I just spent a few minutes searching. I think the conclusion I draw is that it is a stupid term when used in elections between people who obviously fit the definition in most ways. I know some really poor uneducated people who carry an attitude of superiority over more educated richer people because of their street smarts. So the definitions become vague enough that people can use it as a weapon in politics like the word liberal to demonize the other person. I don't find it very useful since it is so subjective. I know highly educated poor people, rich uneducated people, and each of them can use their situation to be elitist if that is how they roll. I don't believe it is the most important thing to focus on in a candidate. I still think it was a legitimate challenge in this interview. snip The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal go for McCain/Palin. The liberals who are supporting McCain are doing so because they believe the Democratic Party has failed them and needs to be brought down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court nominations as a kind of blackmail. How can it be blackmail when it is just a fact? The liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the rest of our lives. No one is blackmailing anybody. I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to Bush's Iraq war. But after 8 years of republicans I don't believe it can be brought down any more. I believe that it can rebuild a lot better with a democrat in the White House. I don't see how four years of McCain/Palin is going to help re-build the party. I fear that this crazy logic that electing McCain will HELP the democratic party will sentence us to four more years of republicans,and yes, more ultra conservative Supreme Court judges. If the Bush/Gore fiasco didn't convince you of the wide reaching implications for the democratic party didn't convince you, I don't know what will. I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is the reason I'm not supporting Obama either. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 191004 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Video: http://tinyurl.com/46xqjq Media is fractionated for different markets. You gotta watch more than one network to get both sides. Fox news represents almost none of my values, that is why I also watch it. I need to hear the other side. Huh? What does this have to do with anything? The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't let the woman explain why she was supporting McCain over Obama. Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be objective politically. I don't think the written commentary was that good. Most of the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked for specifics. She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics. I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give this woman an unchallenged voice on TV. She should be allowed to make her points, *then* challenged. The truth is that her claim about Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. Uh, no. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; it's an attitude of superiority. One can be an elitist without being wealthy; and not all wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism has much more to do with class and education. snip The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal go for McCain/Palin. The liberals who are supporting McCain are doing so because they believe the Democratic Party has failed them and needs to be brought down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court nominations as a kind of blackmail. I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is the reason I'm not supporting Obama either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
But my time has been spent on the specific issues that I can more directly effect. I think that's a poor choice if it excludes working for a primary candidate. Well that is what defines our lives, all this choices of where we spend our time. I don't believe in the political process enough for it to fully engage me. Everyone can't focus on everything in life. My focus is education, and I work on it with whatever party is in office. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I didn't spend a lot of time studying the candidates in the primaries because I really only care about who we have to choose from now. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. If you'd paid attention, you could have had a *voice* in who we have to choose from now. I know my limitations Judy. I don't really think my voice in politics is important. No single voter's voice in politics is important except maybe in very local elections. But if all voters knew their limitations, we wouldn't have an electorate. And why bother voting in the general election if you don't think your voice in the primary is important enough to vote? You have even *less* of a voice in the general. I have my pet issues and try to focus on them. But the time to really understand all the candidates in the primaries to be informed enough just doesn't make the time/payback cut for me. Working on issues is a fine thing, but you'll be a lot more effective if you have simpatico people as your elected officials. If you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, the answer isn't to do nothing but chewing gum or nothing but walking; it's to spend appropriate time walking and then switch to chewing gum for a while when that becomes important, IMHO. Like you, I wasn't overly impressed with Obama in the primaries. But I wasn't behind Hillary either, so I let them slug it out. My bias is anti-republican. Yes, so was that of most people who voted for either Obama or Hillary in the primaries. Let me put it this way. You spent a lot of time and had your voice, and now you have Obama. So do I. But without the voice. But my time has been spent on the specific issues that I can more directly effect. I think that's a poor choice if it excludes working for a primary candidate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 191004 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Video: http://tinyurl.com/46xqjq Media is fractionated for different markets. You gotta watch more than one network to get both sides. Fox news represents almost none of my values, that is why I also watch it. I need to hear the other side. Huh? What does this have to do with anything? The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't let the woman explain why she was supporting McCain over Obama. That's not how I saw it. Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be objective politically. I don't think the written commentary was that good. Most of the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked for specifics. She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics. That's not how I saw it. I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give this woman an unchallenged voice on TV. She should be allowed to make her points, *then* challenged. My own take: she was going through a list of talkign points that was meant to be long enough that there would have been no time to ask questions at the end. The truth is that her claim about Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. Uh, no. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; it's an attitude of superiority. One can be an elitist without being wealthy; and not all wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism has much more to do with class and education. Heh. She's the LADY Rothschilde, with a PhD, homes all over the world, and a distain for someone who wants to boost her taxes (and his own) by a significant amount. I've done the math, Judy. She's elitist. snip The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal go for McCain/Palin. The liberals who are supporting McCain are doing so because they believe the Democratic Party has failed them and needs to be brought down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court nominations as a kind of blackmail. So, you're going to stand on princile because blackmailers should never be dealt with, even if you have good reason to assume they ARE going to ruin your life if you don't comply. I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is the reason I'm not supporting Obama either. Eh, good luck with that, Judy. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't let the woman explain why she was supporting McCain over Obama. That's not how I saw it. Watch it again. Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be objective politically. I don't think the written commentary was that good. Most of the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked for specifics. She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics. That's not how I saw it. Read the transcript. I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give this woman an unchallenged voice on TV. She should be allowed to make her points, *then* challenged. My own take: she was going through a list of talkign points that was meant to be long enough that there would have been no time to ask questions at the end. Nonsense. It was almost a seven-minute interview. Let her run on for two minutes, *then* interrupt if needed. The truth is that her claim about Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. Uh, no. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; it's an attitude of superiority. One can be an elitist without being wealthy; and not all wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism has much more to do with class and education. Heh. She's the LADY Rothschilde, with a PhD, homes all over the world, and a distain for someone who wants to boost her taxes (and his own) by a significant amount. I've done the math, Judy. She's elitist. Non sequitur. As I just said, wealth isn't a measure of elitism. And in any case, she isn't running for president. The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal go for McCain/Palin. The liberals who are supporting McCain are doing so because they believe the Democratic Party has failed them and needs to be brought down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court nominations as a kind of blackmail. So, you're going to stand on princile because blackmailers should never be dealt with, even if you have good reason to assume they ARE going to ruin your life if you don't comply. I don't have *enough* reason to make that assumption in this case. I don't think it's that likely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. And on the other hand, I don't trust Obama to nominate and fight for justices that will uphold Roe v. Wade, or other progressive measures, for that matter. Bottom line, Supreme Court nominations by themselves are nowhere near a sufficient threat to get me to vote for Obama. I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is the reason I'm not supporting Obama either. Eh, good luck with that, Judy. You think I'm going to have some kind of problem voting for McKinney?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The truth is that her claim about Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. Uh, no. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; it's an attitude of superiority. One can be an elitist without being wealthy; and not all wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism has much more to do with class and education. I appreciate an opportunity to focus on what the word really means. I just spent a few minutes searching. I think the conclusion I draw is that it is a stupid term when used in elections between people who obviously fit the definition in most ways. I know some really poor uneducated people who carry an attitude of superiority over more educated richer people because of their street smarts. So the definitions become vague enough that people can use it as a weapon in politics like the word liberal to demonize the other person. I don't find it very useful since it is so subjective. Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is about Obama that some folks are calling elitist? I know highly educated poor people, rich uneducated people, and each of them can use their situation to be elitist if that is how they roll. I don't believe it is the most important thing to focus on in a candidate. I still think it was a legitimate challenge in this interview. But not in terms of its being hypocritical for her to call Obama an elitist because she's rich. It's fine to challenge her on whether Obama is an elitist. The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal go for McCain/Palin. The liberals who are supporting McCain are doing so because they believe the Democratic Party has failed them and needs to be brought down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court nominations as a kind of blackmail. How can it be blackmail when it is just a fact? How can it be a fact when it hasn't happened yet? (And even if it were a fact, why would that mean it couldn't be blackmail??) The liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the rest of our lives. No one is blackmailing anybody. Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to Bush's Iraq war. But after 8 years of republicans I don't believe it can be brought down any more. It wasn't the party, strictly speaking, that caved to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. I believe that it can rebuild a lot better with a democrat in the White House. I don't see how four years of McCain/Palin is going to help re-build the party. The party leadership--Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et al.--will be discredited if McCain wins; that will mean it will *have* to be rebuilt, with different people in the leadership. If Obama wins, it'll just be more of the same; they'll have been proved right. I fear that this crazy logic that electing McCain will HELP the democratic party will sentence us to four more years of republicans,and yes, more ultra conservative Supreme Court judges. Again, it's a matter of destroying the current party and putting together a new one, not helping the current party. If the Bush/Gore fiasco didn't convince you of the wide reaching implications for the democratic party didn't convince you, I don't know what will. Want to try this again? Your syntax got garbled. Didn't convince me of what, exactly?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The truth is that her claim about Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. Uh, no. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; it's an attitude of superiority. One can be an elitist without being wealthy; and not all wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism has much more to do with class and education. I appreciate an opportunity to focus on what the word really means. I just spent a few minutes searching. I think the conclusion I draw is that it is a stupid term when used in elections between people who obviously fit the definition in most ways. I know some really poor uneducated people who carry an attitude of superiority over more educated richer people because of their street smarts. So the definitions become vague enough that people can use it as a weapon in politics like the word liberal to demonize the other person. I don't find it very useful since it is so subjective. Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is about Obama that some folks are calling elitist? I'm curious as to what YOU think is elitist. The sound bites that people point to, like clinging to guns and religion were hardly elitist in the context they were made in. I want to hear what Curtis thinks first. I know highly educated poor people, rich uneducated people, and each of them can use their situation to be elitist if that is how they roll. I don't believe it is the most important thing to focus on in a candidate. I still think it was a legitimate challenge in this interview. But not in terms of its being hypocritical for her to call Obama an elitist because she's rich. It's fine to challenge her on whether Obama is an elitist. I would say its hypocritical for her to call him elistist while citing erroneous, even outright false claims to explain it. That isn't hypocrisy, that's being mistaken or lying. snip The liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the rest of our lives. No one is blackmailing anybody. Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that McCain will do the right thing? OR, do you mean women's issues in general? I didn't say the one thing. Read it again, please.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [...] But not in terms of its being hypocritical for her to call Obama an elitist because she's rich. It's fine to challenge her on whether Obama is an elitist. I would say its hypocritical for her to call him elistist while citing erroneous, even outright false claims to explain it. That isn't hypocrisy, that's being mistaken or lying. So, accusing someone of being elitist based on something you know to be a lie isn't hypocritical, merely lying? snip The liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the rest of our lives. No one is blackmailing anybody. Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that McCain will do the right thing? OR, do you mean women's issues in general? I didn't say the one thing. Read it again, please. You said 'with one thing' implying that no other thing was being argued. That's the one thing, by definition, Judy. Sheesh. Where has your mind and mental equilibrium gone, Judy? Your ability to argue has always ben better than this. lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that McCain will do the right thing? OR, do you mean women's issues in general? I didn't say the one thing. Read it again, please. You said 'with one thing' implying that no other thing was being argued. That's the one thing, by definition, Judy. The one thing being argued, yes. But that wasn't how you interpreted it the first time. You thought I meant the one thing McCain would do that I wouldn't like. Sheesh. Where has your mind and mental equilibrium gone, Judy? Your ability to argue has always ben better than this. Funny, I've been thinking exactly the same thing about you, Lawson. Your, um, misstep above is a good example.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't let the woman explain why she was supporting McCain over Obama. That's not how I saw it. Watch it again. Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be objective politically. I don't think the written commentary was that good. Most of the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked for specifics. She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics. That's not how I saw it. Read the transcript. I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give this woman an unchallenged voice on TV. She should be allowed to make her points, *then* challenged. My own take: she was going through a list of talkign points that was meant to be long enough that there would have been no time to ask questions at the end. Nonsense. It was almost a seven-minute interview. Let her run on for two minutes, *then* interrupt if needed. Shrug. Her interview. The truth is that her claim about Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. Uh, no. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; it's an attitude of superiority. One can be an elitist without being wealthy; and not all wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism has much more to do with class and education. Heh. She's the LADY Rothschilde, with a PhD, homes all over the world, and a distain for someone who wants to boost her taxes (and his own) by a significant amount. I've done the math, Judy. She's elitist. Non sequitur. As I just said, wealth isn't a measure of elitism. And in any case, she isn't running for president. So why didn't you say that before rather than pontificate about elitism if its all irrelevant because she isn't running for president. The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal go for McCain/Palin. The liberals who are supporting McCain are doing so because they believe the Democratic Party has failed them and needs to be brought down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court nominations as a kind of blackmail. So, you're going to stand on princile because blackmailers should never be dealt with, even if you have good reason to assume they ARE going to ruin your life if you don't comply. I don't have *enough* reason to make that assumption in this case. So you don't think that the Republican platform, which is entirely in-tune with Sarah Palin's beliefs, isn't reason to assume that REpublicans will work very hard to overturn Roe v Wade via SCOTUS nominations? I don't think it's that likely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. And on the other hand, I don't trust Obama to nominate and fight for justices that will uphold Roe v. Wade, or other progressive measures, for that matter. Because he's made statements concerning this? Why do you doubt him on this specific matter? Bottom line, Supreme Court nominations by themselves are nowhere near a sufficient threat to get me to vote for Obama. What aspect of Obama's voting record makes you feel that he isn't a better choice than McCain? I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is the reason I'm not supporting Obama either. Eh, good luck with that, Judy. You think I'm going to have some kind of problem voting for McKinney? If the choice is voting third party and thereby helping someone you are uncomfortable with become president, I gotta asK why vote 3rd party? DO you believe that the difference between McCain and Obama on issues important to you is insufficient to support him? WHich issues do you believe are the most important here? Why did CLinton have your vote during the primary while Obama does NOT have your vote during the November election? lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The truth is that her claim about Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. Uh, no. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; it's an attitude of superiority. One can be an elitist without being wealthy; and not all wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism has much more to do with class and education. I appreciate an opportunity to focus on what the word really means. I just spent a few minutes searching. I think the conclusion I draw is that it is a stupid term when used in elections between people who obviously fit the definition in most ways. I know some really poor uneducated people who carry an attitude of superiority over more educated richer people because of their street smarts. So the definitions become vague enough that people can use it as a weapon in politics like the word liberal to demonize the other person. I don't find it very useful since it is so subjective. Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is about Obama that some folks are calling elitist? I'm curious as to what YOU think is elitist. The sound bites that people point to, like clinging to guns and religion were hardly elitist in the context they were made in. I know highly educated poor people, rich uneducated people, and each of them can use their situation to be elitist if that is how they roll. I don't believe it is the most important thing to focus on in a candidate. I still think it was a legitimate challenge in this interview. But not in terms of its being hypocritical for her to call Obama an elitist because she's rich. It's fine to challenge her on whether Obama is an elitist. I would say its hypocritical for her to call him elistist while citing erroneous, even outright false claims to explain it. The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal go for McCain/Palin. The liberals who are supporting McCain are doing so because they believe the Democratic Party has failed them and needs to be brought down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court nominations as a kind of blackmail. How can it be blackmail when it is just a fact? How can it be a fact when it hasn't happened yet? (And even if it were a fact, why would that mean it couldn't be blackmail??) The liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the rest of our lives. No one is blackmailing anybody. Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that McCain will do the right thing? OR, do you mean women's issues in general? I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to Bush's Iraq war. But after 8 years of republicans I don't believe it can be brought down any more. It wasn't the party, strictly speaking, that caved to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. I believe that it can rebuild a lot better with a democrat in the White House. I don't see how four years of McCain/Palin is going to help re-build the party. The party leadership--Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et al.--will be discredited if McCain wins; that will mean it will *have* to be rebuilt, with different people in the leadership. If Obama wins, it'll just be more of the same; they'll have been proved right. So, the party needs to be torn down and rebuilt...? I fear that this crazy logic that electing McCain will HELP the democratic party will sentence us to four more years of republicans,and yes, more ultra conservative Supreme Court judges. Again, it's a matter of destroying the current party and putting together a new one, not helping the current party. OK, that's exactly what you mean. If the Bush/Gore fiasco didn't convince you of the wide reaching implications for the democratic party didn't convince you, I don't know what will. Want to try this again? Your syntax got garbled. Didn't convince me of what, exactly?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that McCain will do the right thing? OR, do you mean women's issues in general? I didn't say the one thing. Read it again, please. You said 'with one thing' implying that no other thing was being argued. That's the one thing, by definition, Judy. The one thing being argued, yes. But that wasn't how you interpreted it the first time. You thought I meant the one thing McCain would do that I wouldn't like. The topic was the threat of one thing Judy. The argument, in this case, is what you are being threatened with. Sheesh. Where has your mind and mental equilibrium gone, Judy? Your ability to argue has always ben better than this. Funny, I've been thinking exactly the same thing about you, Lawson. Your, um, misstep above is a good example. No doubt. lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip She should be allowed to make her points, *then* challenged. My own take: she was going through a list of talkign points that was meant to be long enough that there would have been no time to ask questions at the end. Nonsense. It was almost a seven-minute interview. Let her run on for two minutes, *then* interrupt if needed. Shrug. Her interview. Point is, it showed her bias. snip I've done the math, Judy. She's elitist. Non sequitur. As I just said, wealth isn't a measure of elitism. And in any case, she isn't running for president. So why didn't you say that before rather than pontificate about elitism if its all irrelevant because she isn't running for president. Because the point I wanted to get across was that people misinterpret the term elitism (as it's used against Obama) to mean wealth. The other was an afterthought, not the main event. snip So, you're going to stand on princile because blackmailers should never be dealt with, even if you have good reason to assume they ARE going to ruin your life if you don't comply. I don't have *enough* reason to make that assumption in this case. So you don't think that the Republican platform, which is entirely in-tune with Sarah Palin's beliefs, isn't reason to assume that REpublicans will work very hard to overturn Roe v Wade via SCOTUS nominations? Did I say that? Or did you make it up? I don't think it's that likely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. And on the other hand, I don't trust Obama to nominate and fight for justices that will uphold Roe v. Wade, or other progressive measures, for that matter. Because he's made statements concerning this? Why do you doubt him on this specific matter? Because he's been a crushing disappointment with regard to his support for progressive causes generally; and because he was going to vote for Roberts's confirmation before he was talked out of it by somebody who told him he'd have a hard time explaining such a vote if he ever wanted to run for higher office. snip What aspect of Obama's voting record makes you feel that he isn't a better choice than McCain? It's not just voting record; it's a whole long list of things I don't have time to go into (although I've mentioned many of them here before). snip If the choice is voting third party and thereby helping someone you are uncomfortable with become president, I gotta asK why vote 3rd party? DO you believe that the difference between McCain and Obama on issues important to you is insufficient to support him? Again, it's not just issues. He pays better lip service than McCain to issues that are important to me, but I'm not convinced it goes beyond lip service. He's backed down on too many things already (FISA, e.g.). I don't trust him generally; and I don't think he's going to be competent in office. WHich issues do you believe are the most important here? Why did CLinton have your vote during the primary while Obama does NOT have your vote during the November election? Uh, because they're very different. She's a real partisan, a real fighter for progressive causes, a real wonk on policy. He's none of the above. Plus which, I'm not at all sure he won the primary honestly. And it's not all just Obama, either (see other posts about rebuilding the Democratic Party).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that McCain will do the right thing? OR, do you mean women's issues in general? I didn't say the one thing. Read it again, please. You said 'with one thing' implying that no other thing was being argued. That's the one thing, by definition, Judy. The one thing being argued, yes. But that wasn't how you interpreted it the first time. You thought I meant the one thing McCain would do that I wouldn't like. The topic was the threat of one thing Judy. The argument, in this case, is what you are being threatened with. Sorry, I'm finished talking to you. I've never known you to be dishonest before, Lawson, but you are now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy Non-Specific Obama: http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg Strong and Specific Hillary: http://tinyurl.com/4ervw5 Hillary took to the floor of the Senate today to lay out her plan for halting the economic meltdown, and her Senate staff has the video of her speech up online. She's speaking about what needs to be done NOW to address the economic meltdown taking place up on Wall Street this week. She talks in detail for over 20 minutes and dammit, it just breaks my heart that someone this capable and brilliant isn't headed to the White House this fall. Alegre http://tinyurl.com/4cy7ur on Hillary's statements. Sorry, I don't get it. Clinton's proposals, while good intended, simply put band-aids on gaping wounds. And actually support and fuel the core problem -- phantom asset valuation. They don't solve it -- they simply delay an inevitable future, expanded, crisis, IMO. Clinton's proposals: * Create a new entity to buy up and quarantine toxic mortgage securities that are dragging down the markets which would allow the markets to stabilize. Last spring Senator Clinton was among the first to call for a new entity modeled after the successful Depression-era Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) or the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) created after the Savings and Loan crisis. --- Buy them up with non-existent government funds, by a gov't already 10 trillion in debt. Popping another 2 trillion debt, the gov't may actually sink. The dollar may go down the toilet. Strong inflation leading to hyperinflation may follow as the government pumps more phantom dollars into the market to pump up pahntom real estate prices. All to pump up housing prices, or sustain them at over-inflated, speculative bubble values. This is not a solution, its a continuation of the problem. Prices which by the way, lock 10's of millions of citizens and families out of the housing market. Clinton's proposals perpetuate housing at inflated prices for the elite haves. Leading perhaps, eventually, to real class-warfare. * Place a temporary moratorium on the most abusive stock transactions, many of which involve the short-selling of stocks. Yesterday, Senator Clinton wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission urging such a moratorium, saying it would provide breathing room for the markets to recover, for investors to make accurate assessments of companies and for regulators to assess what trading practices should be permanently banned. - This is idiotic populism. Banning short-selling is the equivalent to banning the sale of stocks. Sorry, we can't let you sell that stock in that poorly run, worthless asset swamped firm, because, hey it will lower the price of their stock and put in more in line with the actual value of the company. This is lunacy. And populist pandering. And displays a shocking ignorance of financial markets. However, if she only means full disclosure of short sales, limits on x % of short sales by any one fund, and elimination of naked shorts 9already illegal -- just enforce the law -- then her proposal is one of common sense. * Convene an emergency economic summit to show the American people their government is working together. Bringing together leaders in the administration and Congress with lenders, consumer advocates, non profits, financial institutions, and all stakeholders will allow a coordinated response to the crisis. --- Talk is good. To a point. But summits are often pandering and positioning. Formation of a coherent strategy in abundant consultation with all stakeholders is better. * Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications. Senator Clinton has introduced legislation to remove barriers to mortgage modification and to encourage lenders to voluntarily work with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes. What is mortgage modification code for? This sounds like a a bailout of Wall Street who foolishly bought packages of sophisticated yet high risk loans, aggressive -- bordering on fraudulent -- lending practices, and new or trading-up homeowners who made a risky big bet, trying to make a bundle in the real estate market. They all bet wrong. Being a mommy and daddy to all the kids who made foolish decisions -- or calculated ones motivated by quick profits -- is not a solution. The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. The 2 trillion of bailout funds would be far better used as a direct safety net for those who go belly-up due to bad decisions, or lose jobs as the economy unwinds. the safety net in the form of aggresive education
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. The *one* thing? So, on every other issue, you believe that McCain will do the right thing? OR, do you mean women's issues in general? I didn't say the one thing. Read it again, please. You said 'with one thing' implying that no other thing was being argued. That's the one thing, by definition, Judy. The one thing being argued, yes. But that wasn't how you interpreted it the first time. You thought I meant the one thing McCain would do that I wouldn't like. The topic was the threat of one thing Judy. The argument, in this case, is what you are being threatened with. Sorry, I'm finished talking to you. I've never known you to be dishonest before, Lawson, but you are now. OK. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy Non-Specific Obama: http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg Strong and Specific Hillary: http://tinyurl.com/4ervw5 Hillary took to the floor of the Senate today to lay out her plan for halting the economic meltdown, and her Senate staff has the video of her speech up online. She's speaking about what needs to be done NOW to address the economic meltdown taking place up on Wall Street this week. She talks in detail for over 20 minutes and dammit, it just breaks my heart that someone this capable and brilliant isn't headed to the White House this fall. Alegre http://tinyurl.com/4cy7ur on Hillary's statements. Sorry, I don't get it. Clinton's proposals, while good intended, simply put band-aids on gaping wounds. And actually support and fuel the core problem -- phantom asset valuation. They don't solve it -- they simply delay an inevitable future, expanded, crisis, IMO. Clinton's proposals: * Create a new entity to buy up and quarantine toxic mortgage securities that are dragging down the markets which would allow the markets to stabilize. Last spring Senator Clinton was among the first to call for a new entity modeled after the successful Depression-era Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) or the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) created after the Savings and Loan crisis. --- Buy them up with non-existent government funds, by a gov't already 10 trillion in debt. Popping another 2 trillion debt, the gov't may actually sink. The dollar may go down the toilet. Strong inflation leading to hyperinflation may follow as the government pumps more phantom dollars into the market to pump up pahntom real estate prices. All to pump up housing prices, or sustain them at over-inflated, speculative bubble values. This is not a solution, its a continuation of the problem. Prices which by the way, lock 10's of millions of citizens and families out of the housing market. Clinton's proposals perpetuate housing at inflated prices for the elite haves. Leading perhaps, eventually, to real class-warfare. * Place a temporary moratorium on the most abusive stock transactions, many of which involve the short-selling of stocks. Yesterday, Senator Clinton wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission urging such a moratorium, saying it would provide breathing room for the markets to recover, for investors to make accurate assessments of companies and for regulators to assess what trading practices should be permanently banned. - This is idiotic populism. Banning short-selling is the equivalent to banning the sale of stocks. Sorry, we can't let you sell that stock in that poorly run, worthless asset swamped firm, because, hey it will lower the price of their stock and put in more in line with the actual value of the company. This is lunacy. And populist pandering. And displays a shocking ignorance of financial markets. However, if she only means full disclosure of short sales, limits on x % of short sales by any one fund, and elimination of naked shorts 9already illegal -- just enforce the law -- then her proposal is one of common sense. * Convene an emergency economic summit to show the American people their government is working together. Bringing together leaders in the administration and Congress with lenders, consumer advocates, non profits, financial institutions, and all stakeholders will allow a coordinated response to the crisis. --- Talk is good. To a point. But summits are often pandering and positioning. Formation of a coherent strategy in abundant consultation with all stakeholders is better. * Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications. Senator Clinton has introduced legislation to remove barriers to mortgage modification and to encourage lenders to voluntarily work with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes. What is mortgage modification code for? This sounds like a a bailout of Wall Street who foolishly bought packages of sophisticated yet high risk loans, aggressive -- bordering on fraudulent -- lending practices, and new or trading-up homeowners who made a risky big bet, trying to make a bundle in the real estate market. They all bet wrong. Being a mommy and daddy to all the kids who made foolish decisions -- or calculated ones motivated by quick profits -- is not a solution. The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. The 2 trillion of bailout funds would be far
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy Non-Specific Obama: http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg Strong and Specific Hillary: http://tinyurl.com/4ervw5 Hillary took to the floor of the Senate today to lay out her plan for halting the economic meltdown, and her Senate staff has the video of her speech up online. She's speaking about what needs to be done NOW to address the economic meltdown taking place up on Wall Street this week. She talks in detail for over 20 minutes and dammit, it just breaks my heart that someone this capable and brilliant isn't headed to the White House this fall. Alegre http://tinyurl.com/4cy7ur on Hillary's statements. Sorry, I don't get it. Clinton's proposals, while good intended, simply put band-aids on gaping wounds. And actually support and fuel the core problem -- phantom asset valuation. They don't solve it -- they simply delay an inevitable future, expanded, crisis, IMO. Clinton's proposals: * Create a new entity to buy up and quarantine toxic mortgage securities that are dragging down the markets which would allow the markets to stabilize. Last spring Senator Clinton was among the first to call for a new entity modeled after the successful Depression-era Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) or the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) created after the Savings and Loan crisis. --- Buy them up with non-existent government funds, by a gov't already 10 trillion in debt. Popping another 2 trillion debt, the gov't may actually sink. The dollar may go down the toilet. Strong inflation leading to hyperinflation may follow as the government pumps more phantom dollars into the market to pump up pahntom real estate prices. All to pump up housing prices, or sustain them at over-inflated, speculative bubble values. This is not a solution, its a continuation of the problem. None of what's being done or contemplated now, in my understanding, has anything at all to do with propping up housing prices. That's a big fat red herring. snip * Place a temporary moratorium on the most abusive stock transactions, many of which involve the short-selling of stocks. Yesterday, Senator Clinton wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission urging such a moratorium, saying it would provide breathing room for the markets to recover, for investors to make accurate assessments of companies and for regulators to assess what trading practices should be permanently banned. - This is idiotic populism. Banning short-selling is the equivalent to banning the sale of stocks. Sorry, we can't let you sell that stock in that poorly run, worthless asset swamped firm, because, hey it will lower the price of their stock and put in more in line with the actual value of the company. This is lunacy. And populist pandering. And displays a shocking ignorance of financial markets. Apparently you're not aware that this has already been done. Short selling was banned on Friday. * Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications. Senator Clinton has introduced legislation to remove barriers to mortgage modification and to encourage lenders to voluntarily work with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes. What is mortgage modification code for? Adjusting the mortgages so that people can afford to make payments on them and won't lose their homes. This sounds like a a bailout of Wall Street who foolishly bought packages of sophisticated yet high risk loans, aggressive -- bordering on fraudulent -- lending practices, and new or trading-up homeowners who made a risky big bet, trying to make a bundle in the real estate market. They all bet wrong. Being a mommy and daddy to all the kids who made foolish decisions -- or calculated ones motivated by quick profits -- is not a solution. Many borrowers were hornswoggled by the lenders into thinking they could afford the mortgages, probably more than were in it to make a buck. That's why it was called the subprime mortgage crisis in the beginning, before it spread. The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. There will be global economic catastrophe. You obviously have no concept of how serious this is. At this point it's an insolvency and credit crisis that threatens to bring down the whole economy. It's a major, major emergency that has to be addressed *immediately*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: ON the face of it, your proposal makes at least some sense. Howsabout you post it on your TPM blog (ts free to sign up) Thanks for the tip. Just signed up. Looks like and interesting sight. Somewhat familiar -- perhaps wandered there before. and ask someone with connections to forward the link to Obama so he could read it for himself? Who / How would I ask that ? I did send another piece -- similar themes -- to Harry Reid (my senator), Dean Heller, my rep, Nancy P., Barack, Joe B, Hillary. TPM is read by a very large and diverse group of people, includign liberal presidential candidates, policy advisors, etc. Who? How do you know they read it? At least some of them would be in a better position to offer valid feedback to this than those of us on FL, most of whom do NOT have the economic background to argue your points sensibly. At least I don't. Hey, not having knowledge of a subject rarely stops anyone from vigorous arguments and critiques on FFL. :) Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. There will be global economic catastrophe. You obviously have no concept of how serious this is. At this point it's an insolvency and credit crisis that threatens to bring down the whole economy. It's a major, major emergency that has to be addressed *immediately*. I should add that the current plan appears to have huge problems, but something drastic has to be done even if it hurts the taxpayers--because letting things unwind will hurt them far, far worse. It simply isn't an option.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: ON the face of it, your proposal makes at least some sense. Howsabout you post it on your TPM blog (ts free to sign up) Thanks for the tip. Just signed up. Looks like and interesting sight. Somewhat familiar -- perhaps wandered there before. and ask someone with connections to forward the link to Obama so he could read it for himself? Who / How would I ask that ? I did send another piece -- similar themes -- to Harry Reid (my senator), Dean Heller, my rep, Nancy P., Barack, Joe B, Hillary. You could forward a link to your blog entry to Josh Marshall and you could ask people recommend it or link it to their knowledgeable friends for feedback. TPM is read by a very large and diverse group of people, includign liberal presidential candidates, policy advisors, etc. Who? How do you know they read it? Well, Obama reportedly has said he reads it. And Josh has had liberal and possibly moderate COngressmen blogging in various places on the site. And the regulars at the TPM Cafe appear to be reasonably knoowledgeable people: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ At least some of them would be in a better position to offer valid feedback to this than those of us on FL, most of whom do NOT have the economic background to argue your points sensibly. At least I don't. Hey, not having knowledge of a subject rarely stops anyone from vigorous arguments and critiques on FFL. :) ALl to true. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. There will be global economic catastrophe. You obviously have no concept of how serious this is. At this point it's an insolvency and credit crisis that threatens to bring down the whole economy. It's a major, major emergency that has to be addressed *immediately*. I should add that the current plan appears to have huge problems, but something drastic has to be done even if it hurts the taxpayers--because letting things unwind will hurt them far, far worse. It simply isn't an option. Several criticisms and suggestions similar to offworld's appear here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: * Create a new entity to buy up and quarantine toxic mortgage securities that are dragging down the markets which would allow the markets to stabilize. Last spring Senator Clinton was among the first to call for a new entity modeled after the successful Depression-era Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) or the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) created after the Savings and Loan crisis. --- Buy them up with non-existent government funds, by a gov't already 10 trillion in debt. Popping another 2 trillion debt, the gov't may actually sink. The dollar may go down the toilet. Strong inflation leading to hyperinflation may follow as the government pumps more phantom dollars into the market to pump up pahntom real estate prices. All to pump up housing prices, or sustain them at over-inflated, speculative bubble values. This is not a solution, its a continuation of the problem. None of what's being done or contemplated now, in my understanding, Buying up mortgages that no one will touch has the effect of propping up over-valued property prices. Prices will remain higher / over-valued -- and out of the reach of 10's of millions of americans - if these mortgages are bought up. More money will be pumped into to the system that will increase sales at still inflated prices. And foreclosures will be reduced with this buy-out of toxic mortgages. Forclosures are sad -- but if somone bet wrong on a bubble market, hoping for quick profits -- and lost their bet, moving to a smaller house or the horror an apartment -- is not inappropriate. And foreclosures are a quick and efficient way of getting prices back to values in line with fundamentals (income to mortgage levels, rent to mortgage levels) Do you think buying to toxic mortgages is going to reduce home prices to equilliibruim / fundamentals-based levels? has anything at all to do with propping up housing prices. That's a big fat red herring. In you mind perhaps. snip * Place a temporary moratorium on the most abusive stock transactions, many of which involve the short-selling of stocks. Yesterday, Senator Clinton wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission urging such a moratorium, saying it would provide breathing room for the markets to recover, for investors to make accurate assessments of companies and for regulators to assess what trading practices should be permanently banned. - This is idiotic populism. Banning short-selling is the equivalent to banning the sale of stocks. Sorry, we can't let you sell that stock in that poorly run, worthless asset swamped firm, because, hey it will lower the price of their stock and put in more in line with the actual value of the company. This is lunacy. And populist pandering. And displays a shocking ignorance of financial markets. Apparently you're not aware that this has already been done. Short selling was banned on Friday. I am quite aware of it. Having had a short trade on Thursday frozen with a pending forced sale within three days. Currently its a two week ban. Bad idea. A two week ban is lunacy. And populist pandering. And displays a shocking ignorance of financial markets. However, HC wants to explore what practices should be permanently banned -- I assume short-sales ar e on the table. Did I mention, this is lunacy. And populist pandering. And displays a shocking ignorance of financial markets. * Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications. Senator Clinton has introduced legislation to remove barriers to mortgage modification and to encourage lenders to voluntarily work with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes. What is mortgage modification code for? Adjusting the mortgages so that people can afford to make payments on them and won't lose their homes. Paid by whom? If you want to bail out a relatively new-homeowner who over-extended themselves, many lied on liars loans, so that they don't have to move to a smaller house or an apartment -- well more power to your wonderful and compassionate heart. I may do the same locally. But it is not prudent for a gov't that is 10 trillion in debt to take on trillions more to avoid this inconvenience to many who were seeking quick profits and made bad bets. Or who signed contracts without knowing what was in them. We are not talking about people who have owned their homes for 7,10, 20 years. Not retirees who are living in original home. We are talking about people who moved into a bigger better house several years ago and many whom hoped for big profits in doing so. That they have to move again -- Sorry I have more pressing human tragedies to worry about.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. There will be global economic catastrophe. You obviously have no concept of how serious this is. At this point it's an insolvency and credit crisis that threatens to bring down the whole economy. It's a major, major emergency that has to be addressed *immediately*. I should add that the current plan appears to have huge problems, but something drastic has to be done even if it hurts the taxpayers--because letting things unwind will hurt them far, far worse. It simply isn't an option. Lay out your case in details. i don't make trillion dollar investments based on arm waving and sparse words.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. There will be global economic catastrophe. You obviously have no concept of how serious this is. At this point it's an insolvency and credit crisis that threatens to bring down the whole economy. It's a major, major emergency that has to be addressed *immediately*. I should add that the current plan appears to have huge problems, but something drastic has to be done even if it hurts the taxpayers--because letting things unwind will hurt them far, far worse. It simply isn't an option. Several criticisms and suggestions similar to offworld's appear here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Lawson Reed Hundt(former FCC chair)) makes my point: A closing note: far less than a trillion dollars of taxpayer cash would suffice to fund the public works projects that could end forever our national dependence on carbon-emitting energy, without raising the cooling, heating or transportation bills for any of us. Tom Friedman makes similar points.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. There will be global economic catastrophe. You obviously have no concept of how serious this is. At this point it's an insolvency and credit crisis that threatens to bring down the whole economy. It's a major, major emergency that has to be addressed *immediately*. I should add that the current plan appears to have huge problems, but something drastic has to be done even if it hurts the taxpayers--because letting things unwind will hurt them far, far worse. It simply isn't an option. Lay out your case in details. i don't make trillion dollar investments based on arm waving and sparse words. Poulson sems like a great guy -- personally. And he is smart and expereinced. However, Paulson can speak in terms that intimidate many. But think a moment. Several weeks ago . Poulson was given $100's of billion in authorization -- to use as a big stick -- to halt the crisis in confidence and restore market order. That was his pitch. And he openly admits he was surprised to the bone that this authorization only accelerated the crises and forced him to quickly spend the big stick. Mr. Paulson does not have the best judgment based on his recent track record. Don't be intimidated by manipulative talk of financial meltdown. Use your abundant common sense to see what is and what is not. Demand that he lay out the case for total financial meltdown. Clearly, before the short sale ban on Friday, Goldmans Sachs (Poulson is former chair) was headed towards a meltdown. Please ask Mr. Paulson for a clear definition of financial melt down. Does he mean a meltdown of the careers and some of the multimillion dollar wealth of his Wall Street colleagues and his former Goldman Sachs associates? Without the totally abrupt, no warning shut down of short trades on Friday morning -- Mr Poulson temporarily prevented a meltdown of his former company GS -- and his peers careers. By meltdown does he mean that the economy is simply going to stop and all savings, homes and jobs will be destroyed? I believe he is using a very scary term to manipulate to manipulate people into thinking the latter when it is much more the former. if the asset bubble is left to unwind -- as only the market can do -- congress cannot unwind it -- all assets will remain. Houses, factories, cars, server farms, PCs, intellectual capital. None of it will be destroyed. What will be melted away is the fluff, distortion and sludge from many bad decisions that is strangling the economy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. There will be global economic catastrophe. You obviously have no concept of how serious this is. At this point it's an insolvency and credit crisis that threatens to bring down the whole economy. It's a major, major emergency that has to be addressed *immediately*. I should add that the current plan appears to have huge problems, but something drastic has to be done even if it hurts the taxpayers--because letting things unwind will hurt them far, far worse. It simply isn't an option. Lay out your case in details. i don't make trillion dollar investments based on arm waving and sparse words. You mean like this? Note Section 8. This is the IRaq War all over again, but asking for all the money for Haliburon and friends up front. I gotta think that this will be a litmus test for true patriotism by all sides, liberal conservative, libertarian, socialist, whatever. NO-ONE not in teh BUsh Administration could possibly pass this measure without amending Section 8, which is aptly labeled, come to think of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html? _r=1adxnnl=1oref=sloginref=businesspagewanted=printadxnnlx=1221962684- NDMKU8ShLgxHgsPuAUPdLw http://tinyurl.com/4edott Sec. 7. Funding. For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure. Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. There will be global economic catastrophe. You obviously have no concept of how serious this is. At this point it's an insolvency and credit crisis that threatens to bring down the whole economy. It's a major, major emergency that has to be addressed *immediately*. I should add that the current plan appears to have huge problems, but something drastic has to be done even if it hurts the taxpayers--because letting things unwind will hurt them far, far worse. It simply isn't an option. Several criticisms and suggestions similar to offworld's appear here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Lawson Reed Hundt(former FCC chair)) makes my point: A closing note: far less than a trillion dollars of taxpayer cash would suffice to fund the public works projects that could end forever our national dependence on carbon-emitting energy, without raising the cooling, heating or transportation bills for any of us. Tom Friedman makes similar points. This is a hail mary play by the Bush Admin that makes the Palin nomination by McCain look whimpish by comparison. http://tinyurl.com/4edott Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: snip All to pump up housing prices, or sustain them at over-inflated, speculative bubble values. This is not a solution, its a continuation of the problem. None of what's being done or contemplated now, in my understanding, has anything at all to do with propping up housing prices. That's a big fat red herring. Buying up mortgages that no one will touch has the effect of propping up over-valued property prices. Yeah, but you see, falling home prices is what triggered the meltdown in the first place, and they'll continue to fall for some time. What the bailout does is deal with the *effects* of the falling home prices on financial institutions. snip And foreclosures will be reduced with this buy-out of toxic mortgages. And that's a *good* thing. Forclosures are sad -- but if somone bet wrong on a bubble market, hoping for quick profits -- and lost their bet, moving to a smaller house or the horror an apartment -- is not inappropriate. Those mortgages constitute only about 10 percent of the toxic sludge the gummint's going to buy up. snip Do you think buying to toxic mortgages is going to reduce home prices to equilliibruim / fundamentals-based levels? No, prices are going to fall no matter what. That isn't what the bailout is about. snip * Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications. Senator Clinton has introduced legislation to remove barriers to mortgage modification and to encourage lenders to voluntarily work with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes. What is mortgage modification code for? Adjusting the mortgages so that people can afford to make payments on them and won't lose their homes. Paid by whom? If you want to bail out a relatively new-homeowner who over-extended themselves, many lied on liars loans, so that they don't have to move to a smaller house or an apartment -- well more power to your wonderful and compassionate heart. See, the problem is that it's not just the subprime mortgages that are going bust, or mortgages taken out under false pretenses. It's spread way beyond that to people with good credit as well. I may do the same locally. But it is not prudent for a gov't that is 10 trillion in debt to take on trillions more to avoid this inconvenience to many who were seeking quick profits and made bad bets. Or who signed contracts without knowing what was in them. Don't get the emergency bailout mixed up with helping people with their mortgages, first of all. The bailout is to keep the financial institutions functioning so the economy doesn't collapse for lack of credit. Second, you don't *want* millions of houses sitting empty, nor do you want millions of homeless people. Those are bad for the economy as well. Third, it may or may not be possible, when we get around to helping people with their mortgages, to sort out those who deserve help from those who don't. At this point it appears that there are significantly more of the former than the latter. snip The only sustainable solution is to let these complex financial instruments, and housing valuations, to unwind and reach true value. There will be disruptions. There will be global economic catastrophe. You obviously have no concept of how serious this is. You have mastered that mind-reading siddhi, huh. Thats a popular one. No, actually I'm going by what you write in your posts. At this point it's an insolvency and credit crisis that threatens to bring down the whole economy. It's a major, major emergency that has to be addressed *immediately*. OK Tell me exactly the chain of events that will occur. Read this, for starters: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122186563104158747- lMyQjAxMDI4MjIxMDgyNjA1Wj.html http://tinyurl.com/5yfhlm snip There are serious consequences in all directions. Absolutely. What we're aiming for is least-awful.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Poulson sems like a great guy -- personally. And he is smart and expereinced. However, Paulson can speak in terms that intimidate many. Paulson is *far* from the only person who's predicting catastrophe if we don't take massive emergency measures. But think a moment. Several weeks ago . Poulson was given $100's of billion in authorization -- to use as a big stick -- to halt the crisis in confidence and restore market order. That was his pitch. And he openly admits he was surprised to the bone that this authorization only accelerated the crises and forced him to quickly spend the big stick. Mr. Paulson does not have the best judgment based on his recent track record. We're in uncharted territory here. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Read that Wall Street Journal tick-tock I cited in my previous post. Does he mean a meltdown of the careers and some of the multimillion dollar wealth of his Wall Street colleagues and his former Goldman Sachs associates? Without the totally abrupt, no warning shut down of short trades on Friday morning -- Mr Poulson temporarily prevented a meltdown of his former company GS -- and his peers careers. By meltdown does he mean that the economy is simply going to stop and all savings, homes and jobs will be destroyed? I think that's a little extreme, but along those lines. I believe he is using a very scary term to manipulate to manipulate people into thinking the latter when it is much more the former. Again, Paulson is nowhere *near* the only person talking in such terms (nor is it just those with big stakes who are doing so).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Video: http://tinyurl.com/46xqjq Media is fractionated for different markets. You gotta watch more than one network to get both sides. Fox news represents almost none of my values, that is why I also watch it. I need to hear the other side. I don't think the written commentary was that good. Most of the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked for specifics. I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give this woman an unchallenged voice on TV. The truth is that her claim about Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. If she digs John McCain, OK. But if she is on TV someone (I hope) is gunna call her on some bullshit. The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal go for McCain/Palin. OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. I can't fault people who believe it is McCain. I personally wish he had beaten Bush 8 years ago. We might not be in this mess today. But 8 years ago he wouldn't have picked Sara didja know she's a hockey mom'n gun, tote'n, feather ruffl'n, maverick? Palin.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Democrat supporting McCain on CNN stopped by host
OTOH we are in a shitstorm so going with whoever you think has the brainpower and perspective to lead us through it makes sense. Compare Solutions to Financial Crisis: Warm and Fuzzy Non-Specific Obama: http://preview.tinyurl.com/43dolg Strong and Specific Hillary: http://tinyurl.com/4ervw5 Hillary took to the floor of the Senate today to lay out her plan for halting the economic meltdown, and her Senate staff has the video of her speech up online. She's speaking about what needs to be done NOW to address the economic meltdown taking place up on Wall Street this week. She talks in detail for over 20 minutes and dammit, it just breaks my heart that someone this capable and brilliant isn't headed to the White House this fall. Alegre http://tinyurl.com/4cy7ur on Hillary's statements. I can't fault people who believe it is McCain. I personally wish he had beaten Bush 8 years ago. We might not be in this mess today. But 8 years ago he wouldn't have picked Sara didja know she's a hockey mom'n gun, tote'n, feather ruffl'n, maverick? Palin. M Mooseburgers!
