| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Priceless...
....commentary from conservative pundit George Will:
WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. |
Priceless...
"Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? |
Priceless...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. |
Priceless...
Boater wrote:
D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt organization. |
Priceless...
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt organization. So are any number of corporations...and it was Arthur Andersen, dummy. You should have stayed in high school a bit longer. You misspelled both company names. Been hanging out with Justwaitaloogy? You didn't have any problem understanding what I was saying. I guess you are at my level. |
Priceless...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt organization. So are any number of corporations...and it was Arthur Andersen, dummy. You should have stayed in high school a bit longer. You misspelled both company names. Been hanging out with Justwaitaloogy? |
Priceless...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt organization. So are any number of corporations...and it was Arthur Andersen, dummy. You should have stayed in high school a bit longer. You misspelled both company names. Been hanging out with Justwaitaloogy? You didn't have any problem understanding what I was saying. I guess you are at my level. It's not hard to get down to your intellectual level. I simply induce a semi-coma. I'm looking forward to the release of the Alaska Troopergate report tomorrow, and hope it is really bad for Sancho Panza, er, Sarah Palin. I hope you enjoy it, too. |
Priceless...
"Boater" wrote in message . .. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, There were not predatory lending practices. The poor declining inner-city was a bad investment. The poor could not put up the 20% down and even if they could they could not make the payments. In the olden days the banks had to carry the paper they wrote a loan on. They wanted to be paid for the loan. But since the poor could not normally do this, the Federal Government required Fannie Mae to buy the loans. Now the banks could loan money to the bad credit risk, make money and not worry about a bad loan. F&F then started packaging the bad and good loans and selling them, so they could make more money. The Fed's were really behind F&F but if the officers of F&F showed a large profit, they got large bonuses. They even went so far to lie to get an extra $100 million in bonus money. Government settled for $3.5 million and dropped charges. Sad. Then the smart people of wall street, seeing a huge pool of profit to be made without risk, jumped on these bad, government guaranteed loans. And since F&F exerted no real oversight, the pool of inflated bad loans grew immensely. And now since the government created this mess, by guaranteeing bad loans and no oversight on how bad the loans and inflated prices they caused. We have a financial crisis. And what is scary, is the same people who caused this mess are supposed to recue us. Scarier than Holloween. |
Priceless...
"Boater" wrote in message . .. D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. Spinning like a top. |
Priceless...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "Boater" wrote in message . .. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, There were not predatory lending practices. The poor declining inner-city was a bad investment. The poor could not put up the 20% down and even if they could they could not make the payments. In the olden days the banks had to carry the paper they wrote a loan on. They wanted to be paid for the loan. But since the poor could not normally do this, the Federal Government required Fannie Mae to buy the loans. Now the banks could loan money to the bad credit risk, make money and not worry about a bad loan. F&F then started packaging the bad and good loans and selling them, so they could make more money. The Fed's were really behind F&F but if the officers of F&F showed a large profit, they got large bonuses. They even went so far to lie to get an extra $100 million in bonus money. Government settled for $3.5 million and dropped charges. Sad. Then the smart people of wall street, seeing a huge pool of profit to be made without risk, jumped on these bad, government guaranteed loans. And since F&F exerted no real oversight, the pool of inflated bad loans grew immensely. And now since the government created this mess, by guaranteeing bad loans and no oversight on how bad the loans and inflated prices they caused. We have a financial crisis. And what is scary, is the same people who caused this mess are supposed to recue us. Scarier than Holloween. Maybe everyone should dress up like Barney Frank for Halloweenie. 8) |
Priceless...
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt organization. Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole organization for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem, shall we? I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication that leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves in an extremely wrongheaded effort. |
Priceless...
|
Priceless...
|
Priceless...
|
Priceless...
|
Priceless...
BAR wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote: Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt organization. Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole organization for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem, shall we? I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication that leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves in an extremely wrongheaded effort. A pattern of corruption and alleged criminal activity is a stretch? You have to be kidding. There are people who worked for who are ACORN in jail, serving probation, paid fines for their criminal conduct while performing these so-called get out the vote drives. It's all in the public record. ACORN is a criminal enterprise hell bent on subverting the election laws and disenfranchising voters who follow the the law. Oh, you mean just like the government of the United States? Many government officials have ended up in prison, or will in the future. That isn't an argument for condeming the institution itself. Private enterprises are treated differently that governments. ACRON is a criminal enterprise. ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. You can only use the we didn't know what our subordinates were doing for about a minute or two before you are deemed incompetent. Are you offering up your expert opinion as a high school dropout or an unsuccessful Marine? |
Priceless...
|
Priceless...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: BAR wrote: Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt organization. So are any number of corporations...and it was Arthur Andersen, dummy. You should have stayed in high school a bit longer. You misspelled both company names. Been hanging out with Justwaitaloogy? You didn't have any problem understanding what I was saying. I guess you are at my level. And it's one company name - not two (as "both" would imply). I guess WAFA should have gone to high school. |
Priceless...
D.Duck wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "Boater" wrote in message . .. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, There were not predatory lending practices. The poor declining inner-city was a bad investment. The poor could not put up the 20% down and even if they could they could not make the payments. In the olden days the banks had to carry the paper they wrote a loan on. They wanted to be paid for the loan. But since the poor could not normally do this, the Federal Government required Fannie Mae to buy the loans. Now the banks could loan money to the bad credit risk, make money and not worry about a bad loan. F&F then started packaging the bad and good loans and selling them, so they could make more money. The Fed's were really behind F&F but if the officers of F&F showed a large profit, they got large bonuses. They even went so far to lie to get an extra $100 million in bonus money. Government settled for $3.5 million and dropped charges. Sad. Then the smart people of wall street, seeing a huge pool of profit to be made without risk, jumped on these bad, government guaranteed loans. And since F&F exerted no real oversight, the pool of inflated bad loans grew immensely. And now since the government created this mess, by guaranteeing bad loans and no oversight on how bad the loans and inflated prices they caused. We have a financial crisis. And what is scary, is the same people who caused this mess are supposed to recue us. Scarier than Holloween. Maybe everyone should dress up like Barney Frank for Halloweenie. 8) Only WAFA can emulate his speaking voice - without trying. |
Priceless...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message . .. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, There were not predatory lending practices. The poor declining inner-city was a bad investment. The poor could not put up the 20% down and even if they could they could not make the payments. In the olden days the banks had to carry the paper they wrote a loan on. They wanted to be paid for the loan. But since the poor could not normally do this, the Federal Government required Fannie Mae to buy the loans. Now the banks could loan money to the bad credit risk, make money and not worry about a bad loan. F&F then started packaging the bad and good loans and selling them, so they could make more money. The Fed's were really behind F&F but if the officers of F&F showed a large profit, they got large bonuses. They even went so far to lie to get an extra $100 million in bonus money. Government settled for $3.5 million and dropped charges. Sad. Then the smart people of wall street, seeing a huge pool of profit to be made without risk, jumped on these bad, government guaranteed loans. And since F&F exerted no real oversight, the pool of inflated bad loans grew immensely. And now since the government created this mess, by guaranteeing bad loans and no oversight on how bad the loans and inflated prices they caused. We have a financial crisis. And what is scary, is the same people who caused this mess are supposed to recue us. Scarier than Holloween. Answering harrys opposite posts with a rational, real idea? How silly.. If harry says something, you can bet it is bullpoo... |
Priceless...
|
Priceless...
|
Priceless...
..
|
Priceless...
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote: wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote: Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt organization. Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole organization for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem, shall we? I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication that leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves in an extremely wrongheaded effort. A pattern of corruption and alleged criminal activity is a stretch? You have to be kidding. There are people who worked for who are ACORN in jail, serving probation, paid fines for their criminal conduct while performing these so-called get out the vote drives. It's all in the public record. ACORN is a criminal enterprise hell bent on subverting the election laws and disenfranchising voters who follow the the law. Oh, you mean just like the government of the United States? Many government officials have ended up in prison, or will in the future. That isn't an argument for condeming the institution itself. Private enterprises are treated differently that governments. ACRON is a criminal enterprise. ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. You can only use the we didn't know what our subordinates were doing for about a minute or two before you are deemed incompetent. Are you offering up your expert opinion as a high school dropout or an unsuccessful Marine? Nice try Krause. |
Priceless...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote: Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt organization. Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole organization for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem, shall we? I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication that leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves in an extremely wrongheaded effort. A pattern of corruption and alleged criminal activity is a stretch? You have to be kidding. There are people who worked for who are ACORN in jail, serving probation, paid fines for their criminal conduct while performing these so-called get out the vote drives. It's all in the public record. ACORN is a criminal enterprise hell bent on subverting the election laws and disenfranchising voters who follow the the law. Oh, you mean just like the government of the United States? Many government officials have ended up in prison, or will in the future. That isn't an argument for condeming the institution itself. Private enterprises are treated differently that governments. ACRON is a criminal enterprise. ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. You can only use the we didn't know what our subordinates were doing for about a minute or two before you are deemed incompetent. Are you offering up your expert opinion as a high school dropout or an unsuccessful Marine? Nice try Krause. Well, isn't that what you are? |
Priceless...
|
Priceless...
Boater wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:25:56 -0400, BAR wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote: Private enterprises are treated differently that governments. ACRON is a criminal enterprise. Really? What judge, jury and court decided that? ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. Facts not in evidence, your honor. You can only use the we didn't know what our subordinates were doing for about a minute or two before you are deemed incompetent. We are talking about ACORN, not the Bush Administration. Bertiepoop doesn't like talking about the incredible amount of corruption, fraud and criminal activities of the Bush Administration. If you want to turn the conversation to corruption, fraud and criminal activities in administrations. You cite instances in the Bush Administration and I will cite instances in the Clinton Administration. |
Priceless...
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: BAR wrote: wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote: wrote: On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:12:53 -0400, BAR wrote: Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message . .. ...commentary from conservative pundit George Will: WASHINGTON -- Time was, the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign. In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person. This, McCain and ++his female Sancho Panza** say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep." Recently Obama noted -- perhaps to torment and provoke conservatives -- that McCain's rhetoric about Wall Street's "greed" and "casino culture" amounted to "talking like Jesse Jackson." What fun: one African-American Chicago politician distancing himself from another African-American Chicago politician by associating McCain with him. After their enjoyable 2006 congressional elections, Democrats eagerly anticipated that 2008 would provide a second election in which a chaotic Iraq would be at the center of voters' minds. Today they are glad that has not happened. The success of the surge in Iraq, for which McCain justly claims much credit, is one reason why foreign policy has receded to the margins of the electorate's mind, thereby diminishing the subject with which McCain is most comfortable and which is Obama's largest vulnerability. Tuesday night, McCain, seeking traction in inhospitable economic terrain, said that the $700 billion -- perhaps it is $800 billion, or more; one loses track of this fast-moving target -- bailout plan is too small. He proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's "dial group" wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval. Still, it may be politically prudent for McCain to throw caution, and billions, to the wind. Obama is competitive in so many states that President Bush carried in 2004 -- including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico -- it is not eccentric to think he could win at least 350 of the 538 electoral votes. If that seems startling, that is only because the 2000 and 2004 elections were won with 271 and 286, respectively. In the 25 elections 1900-1996, the winners averaged 402.6. This, even though the 1900 and 1904 elections -- before Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma attained statehood, and before the size of the House was fixed at 435 members in 1911 -- allocated only 447 and 476 electoral votes, respectively. The 12 elections from 1912 through 1956, before Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, allocated only 531. In the 25 twentieth-century elections, only three candidates won with fewer than 300 -- McKinley with 292 in 1900, Wilson with 277 in 1916 and Carter with 297 in 1976. President Harry Truman won 303 in 1948 even though Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy won 39 that otherwise would have gone to Truman. After John Kennedy won in 1960 with just 303, the average winning total in the next nine elections, up to the 2000 cliffhanger, was 421.4. In 1987, on the eve of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's third victory, the head of her Conservative Party told a visiting columnist: "Someday, Labour will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane." Republicans, winners of seven of the last 10 presidential elections, had better hope they have held on long enough. ++Sarah Palin is Sancho Panza...priceless. Sancho was the illiterate sidekick of Don Quixote. What's you opinion of ACORN? ACORN has nothing to do with George Will's column or his absolutely priceless comparison of Sarah Palin to the illiterate Sancho Panza, who accompanied the insane Don Quixote. ACORN is a rather controversial organization, but it has done a lot of good in pointing out and helping eliminate predatory lending practices, in easing voter registration regulations, and in pushing for living wages, all of which I support. I'm aware of some of its problems, obviously, but whatever it has done wrong pales in comparison to the horrors perpetrated on this country by Big Oil, Halliburton, ENRON and Bush-Cheney. Sarah Palin *is* Sancho Panza...I love it. ACORN should go the way of Aurthur Anderson. ACORN is a corrupt organization. Thta's quite a stretch. Acorn obviously has some members who need to be weeded out, but I don't think you can condem the whole organization for that. Lets see how the organization handles the problem, shall we? I'm willing to wait and see if they acknowlege that some of their members went far astray, and clean house. There is no indication that leaders of the organization asked or expected anyone to do anything wrong. It looks more like a some fol;ks took it upon themselves in an extremely wrongheaded effort. A pattern of corruption and alleged criminal activity is a stretch? You have to be kidding. There are people who worked for who are ACORN in jail, serving probation, paid fines for their criminal conduct while performing these so-called get out the vote drives. It's all in the public record. ACORN is a criminal enterprise hell bent on subverting the election laws and disenfranchising voters who follow the the law. Oh, you mean just like the government of the United States? Many government officials have ended up in prison, or will in the future. That isn't an argument for condeming the institution itself. Private enterprises are treated differently that governments. ACRON is a criminal enterprise. ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. You can only use the we didn't know what our subordinates were doing for about a minute or two before you are deemed incompetent. Are you offering up your expert opinion as a high school dropout or an unsuccessful Marine? Nice try Krause. Well, isn't that what you are? No. High school graduate, never finished college. I have an honorable discharge from the USMC after serving a full six year contract. And, I have the documentation to prove it. Can you prove you have your Yale degree? Can you prove you have a Dr. Dr. Wife? Can you prove you have a 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat? Can you prove you made many hundreds of thousands of dollars on sweetheart stock deals while your were working for Ullico? Can you prove you that you ever worked for anyone running for Congress? |
Priceless...
BAR wrote:
No. High school graduate, never finished college. I have an honorable discharge from the USMC after serving a full six year contract. And, I have the documentation to prove it. Well, I'm happy you were graduated from high school Must have been a really crappy school, or there were no serious examinations required for a diploma. Six years in the Marines and you never got an overseas posting? Why bother? Can you prove you have your Yale degree? Can you prove you have a Dr. Dr. Wife? Can you prove you have a 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat? Can you prove you made many hundreds of thousands of dollars on sweetheart stock deals while your were working for Ullico? Can you prove you that you ever worked for anyone running for Congress? A. Sure B. If the gods are willing, my wife will be a doctor sometime in 2009. Such accomplishments take time when you are working full-time. C. Sure D. I never made or claimed to make a dollar on a "sweetheart" stock deal. I don't know where you got that idea. E. Sure But I feel no need to "prove" anything to you or any other right-wing trashmeister or, in fact, anyone else. Don't like it? Stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Have a nice day out there in Doodyville. |
Priceless...
"BAR" wrote in message ... But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned money. What next..? Now Bertie fancies himself a champion of the 'working class hereos' in our society. Where have you been the last 25 years? |
Priceless...
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned money. What next..? Now Bertie fancies himself a champion of the 'working class hereos' in our society. Where have you been the last 25 years? Bert, as usual, has no understanding of what he is trying to use here. |
Priceless...
snip
But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned money. Wrong again, schitt-for-brains. Gotta love union leadership: http://www.nlpc.org/olap/congress/020501a.htm |
Priceless...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:14:33 -0400, BAR wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:25:56 -0400, BAR wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote: Private enterprises are treated differently that governments. ACRON is a criminal enterprise. Really? What judge, jury and court decided that? Check the court records in just about every jurisdiction they operate in. ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. Facts not in evidence, your honor. Check the court records in just about every jurisdiction they operate in. So, in plain English... You are making things up to fit your insane delusions. You have no facts, so you are trying to deflect. |
Priceless...
D.Duck wrote:
snip But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned money. Wrong again, schitt-for-brains. Gotta love union leadership: http://www.nlpc.org/olap/congress/020501a.htm WAFA's boys... 2. DOL Alleges ULLICO Imprudently Invested $10 Million The Department of Labor sued Washington, D.C.-based Trust Fund Advisors, Inc., and its parent, ULLICO, March 22, 2002, for imprudently investing more than $10 million in assets of two Laborers' International Union of North America pension funds in a risky real estate project. LIUNA hired TFA as a union fund manager for the Local Union and District Council Pension Fund and National Industrial Pension Fund. TFA hired ULLICO to handle all real estate investments made on behalf of clients of TFA. ULLICO-TFA contracted with the pension funds in 1993-94 to handle their investment in real estate. Admitted criminal and ex-LIUNA boss Arthur A. Coia was elected to ULLICO's board in 1993 and was on the board as of Sept. 30, 2000, according to a State of New York’s Insurance Department document. The suit alleges that ULLICO-TFA violated ERISA by imprudently investing more than $10 million of plan assets in a risky real estate project. In 1995, ULLICO-TFA used plan assets to purchase and develop a 120-acre tract of raw land in North Las Vegas, Nevada, into saleable building lots. ULLICO-TFA then incorporated LF Las Vegas Realty Corp., paid close to $6 million for the property, and spent more than $4 million to develop it. The suit also alleges that ULLICO-TFA failed to properly investigate the merits of the Sommerset Ridge project (failed to obtain an appraisal) and, ultimately, abandoned the project in 1997 without selling any lots. The funds suffered losses when the property was sold in June 1999 to Capital Pacific Holdings for less than the money invested by the funds. DOL is seeking a court order that requires ULLICO-TFA to reimburse the funds for all losses, plus interest, resulting from the breaches; and permanently bars them from violating ERISA in the future. The suit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.[UCU 5.7] |
Priceless...
DK wrote:
D.Duck wrote: snip But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned money. Wrong again, schitt-for-brains. Gotta love union leadership: http://www.nlpc.org/olap/congress/020501a.htm WAFA's boys... 2. DOL Alleges ULLICO Imprudently Invested $10 Million Not *my* boys, schitt-for-brains...as a consultant, I was part of the reform group that kicked out most of the old management, got rid of non-performing assets, and worked to reinstate insurance ratings. The incident you are describing was long before my stint with ULLICO. Nice try, though. How's your career as a horror-movie fluffer going? |
Priceless...
Don White wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned money. What next..? Now Bertie fancies himself a champion of the 'working class hereos' in our society. Where have you been the last 25 years? Working. |
Priceless...
D.Duck wrote:
snip But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned money. Wrong again, schitt-for-brains. Gotta love union leadership: http://www.nlpc.org/olap/congress/020501a.htm Number 2 on the list Harry? You guys at Ullico did well at screwing the working stiff but, not as well as John D. Abbot of LIUNA. |
Priceless...
wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 09:14:33 -0400, BAR wrote: wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:25:56 -0400, BAR wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:16:32 -0400, BAR wrote: Private enterprises are treated differently that governments. ACRON is a criminal enterprise. Really? What judge, jury and court decided that? Check the court records in just about every jurisdiction they operate in. ACORN is corrupt and is involved in a pattern of corrpution and criminal behavior. Facts not in evidence, your honor. Check the court records in just about every jurisdiction they operate in. So, in plain English... You are making things up to fit your insane delusions. You have no facts, so you are trying to deflect. Your failure to look into voter fraud is noted. |
Priceless...
Boater wrote:
DK wrote: D.Duck wrote: snip But they were screwing working stiff union guys out of their hard earned money. Wrong again, schitt-for-brains. Gotta love union leadership: http://www.nlpc.org/olap/congress/020501a.htm WAFA's boys... 2. DOL Alleges ULLICO Imprudently Invested $10 Million Not *my* boys, schitt-for-brains...as a consultant, I was part of the reform group that kicked out most of the old management, got rid of non-performing assets, and worked to reinstate insurance ratings. The incident you are describing was long before my stint with ULLICO. Nice try, though. How's your career as a horror-movie fluffer going? Sure. Can we believe you? You have lied so many times in the past we can just chalk this up to another lie. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:16 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com