The Bin Laden Factor

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 10/22/2008 7:09:29 AM

    omment: People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.

    In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.

    But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.

    Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.

    The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.

    If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.

    Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.

    What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.

  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 10/22/2008 7:09:21 AM

    omment: People on these bogs are fond of saying that the current economic meltdown was caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwriting bad mortgages. While Fannie and Freddie obviously are guilty of writing bad mortgages, and worse, guilty of lobbying Congress to allow them to do so with impunity, their actions are just a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to determining who (or what) caused the financial crisis we face today.

    In 1929 the stock market crash caused the banks to fail, because the banks were in bed with the stock market. Back then, banks owned investment houses, so when the stock market fell, the banks fell too. This triggered the Great Depression. So in 1933 the Congress wrote laws that regulated banking, making it illegal for banks to own investment companies, mortgage guaranty companies or insurance companies. The idea was to keep key industries separated by a fire wall, so that if one industry failed the whole economy would not go down in flames.

    But the Republicans under Bush deregulated the banking industry. Senator Phil Gramm wrote legislation (the Gramm Rudman Act, the Gramm Leach Biley Act, etc.) that stripped away the regulations in the financial and insurance industies. He pushed them through the Republican Congress and they were signed into law by Geo. W. Bush. John McCain voted in favor. Everybody said how great it is to deregulate and create free markets.

    Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch each gave over a million dollars to Senator Gramm's re-election campaign.

    The economic collapse that happened later was a direct result of the deregulation, and here's how: the banks wrote bad mortgages, then bundled the mortgages into investment vehicles that they sold all over the world, and they even got firms like AIG to insure the investments. It was all a house of cards.

    If there had been no deregulation, sure we would have had a bunch of bad mortgages, and the mortgage guaranty and real estate industries would have suffered, but there would not have been a global financial meltdown, since the problem would have been contained in one sector of the economy. You can thank Geo W. Bush, Sen. Phil Gramm and Sen John McCain for the meltdown, since they were strong proponents of deregulation.

    Furthermore, although Fannie and Freddie are now holding the bulk of these bad mortgages, Fannie and Freddie did not originally write most of these mortgages. They bought them after the fact, bundled by banks/investment companies. Fannie and Freddie got screwed by the Wall Street fat cats. And so did you, if you pay taxes.

    What is Phil Gramm doing today? He works as a lobbyist in Washington, trying to make it legal for the Swiss bank he represents to sell Death Bonds in the United States. Nice guy, Phil Gramm. Incidentally, John McCain has said that he wants to appoint Phil Gramm as Treasury Secretary. Some people just can't learn from their mistakes.

  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 10/22/2008 7:08:57 AM

    Comment: After 9/11, the US government started rounding up Muslims without cause and without due process of law, like we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII. The Bush administration called it's main internment camp Guantanamo Bay. While there are certainly many guilty terrorists held in Guantanamo, there are also many innocent American citizens who have been held illegally for years without even being charged with any crime. They have been tortured by our government. Some of them have died.

    Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in the matter of Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court Justices were NOT on the side of the terrorists. They were on the side of the Geneva Convention, that says you can not torture POWs, and on the side of US laws that state you can not imprison a person without charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. I'm sure that like most Americans, the Justices who voted against the illegal, immoral doings at Guantanamo didn't feel sympathy for the terrorists. They felt sympathy for the laws of AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where even rat finks get a fair trial.

    Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the Bush administration is busy trying to build a smokescreen to hide the CRIMES they have committed. Those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Just think, the National Debt went up over 6 trillion dollars under Bush. More than 2 TRILLION of it went directly into the pockets of Halliburton, a corporation owned by the Cheney family. Halliburton is now a DUBAI corporation and therefore is not subject to US taxes. All that money they took out of the US Treasury is going into the coffers of a MUSLIM country.

    Did you hear about how the US government is being charged millions for Halliburton deliveries of sand into Iraq from Kuwait? Sand. Like there is a shortage of sand in Iraq? Another contractor shipped sand from Idaho to Iraq at our expense. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses these and other excesses of our current government's out of control spending in Iraq.

    Your grandchildren will be working like slaves to pay off this debt, so that the Bushes and Cheneys can live the high life in Dubai.

    Yeah, they're patriots, Bush&Co. They wear flag pins. And hide the money they stole from America in Dubai.

    And they want me to believe that Obama is a socialist. Right.

    In case you think McCain is any different than Bush, watch this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w

  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 10/22/2008 7:08:49 AM

    Comment: After 9/11, the US government started rounding up Muslims without cause and without due process of law, like we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII. The Bush administration called it's main internment camp Guantanamo Bay. While there are certainly many guilty terrorists held in Guantanamo, there are also many innocent American citizens who have been held illegally for years without even being charged with any crime. They have been tortured by our government. Some of them have died.

    Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in the matter of Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court Justices were NOT on the side of the terrorists. They were on the side of the Geneva Convention, that says you can not torture POWs, and on the side of US laws that state you can not imprison a person without charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. I'm sure that like most Americans, the Justices who voted against the illegal, immoral doings at Guantanamo didn't feel sympathy for the terrorists. They felt sympathy for the laws of AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where even rat finks get a fair trial.

    Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the Bush administration is busy trying to build a smokescreen to hide the CRIMES they have committed. Those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Just think, the National Debt went up over 6 trillion dollars under Bush. More than 2 TRILLION of it went directly into the pockets of Halliburton, a corporation owned by the Cheney family. Halliburton is now a DUBAI corporation and therefore is not subject to US taxes. All that money they took out of the US Treasury is going into the coffers of a MUSLIM country.

    Did you hear about how the US government is being charged millions for Halliburton deliveries of sand into Iraq from Kuwait? Sand. Like there is a shortage of sand in Iraq? Another contractor shipped sand from Idaho to Iraq at our expense. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses these and other excesses of our current government's out of control spending in Iraq.

    Your grandchildren will be working like slaves to pay off this debt, so that the Bushes and Cheneys can live the high life in Dubai.

    Yeah, they're patriots, Bush&Co. They wear flag pins. And hide the money they stole from America in Dubai.

    And they want me to believe that Obama is a socialist. Right.

    In case you think McCain is any different than Bush, watch this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w

  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 10/22/2008 7:08:29 AM

    THE GREAT BUSH DEPRESSION
    I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
    He perfectly predicted the current meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen next
    is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
    The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide ,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch , Fanny and Freddy Mae ,AIG
    The government took them over because they are bankrupt. Even with the goverment nationalizing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt the stock market is crashing
    the credit markets are frozen and all of us may suffer beyond anything seen in generations
    McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
    That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand how its been broken.
    It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use quantum mathematical models very few people understand.
    Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
    Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
    Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
    No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He was the last to know somthing was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime. Check out this link to the truth http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
    It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
    even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a budget surplus like Bush did but a crashing economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
    If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
    When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
    So why are the polls even close then ?
    Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time talking about obama
    which means running the biggest smear campaign in history.
    They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
    Let's teach him we are smarter than that
    Stand up and hold them accountable
    Bush isn't on the ballot this year but his policies are
    Elect Obama Biden 2008






    Check out this video of sarah palins interview and ask your self if she understands what she is talking about.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ

  • Posted By: pugs @ 10/22/2008 6:58:10 AM

    Lets see he could get on his cell and call the man that sponsored him into Harvard law and say hey can you call your cilent the Saudi Royal Family and tell them to tell their cousin Bin Laden to back off and oh I still promise we won't drill so you guys can keep getting all the money because we won't have alternaives for like 20 years.

  • Posted By: Kaybi @ 10/22/2008 5:09:38 AM

    Bin laden does not exisit. Athe behest of Bush Musharraf of Pakistan produced Laden look alike and taped the message from Pakistan for which Mush got billions and unchecked power over his government. US citizens should atleast wake up now if they claim to be citizens of such woderful nation.

  • Posted By: auntidi @ 10/22/2008 4:29:13 AM

    Obama supporter here. One of the reasons that I really support Obama for president, is his steady hand. I've watched him closely since the New Hampshire primary. That's when I tuned in to Obama. That speech he gave, which is the basis of the Will I am Video, Yes I Can sealed the deal with me. What I saw in him, was someone I could trust and take at their word. What I saw, was a man who felt reassuring. I believed him when he said, I won't be a perfect President. I am not a perfect man. I will make mistakes. But my promise to you is that I will always tell you the truth. I won't tell you what you want to hear, but I promise to tell you what you need to here. That sentiment has been sorely lacking in the McCain campaign. There is something very reasuring about Obama's character. There is an honesty in deep in his soul. There is an essential goodness in him. That is what I'm voting for. I don't want another president who I can't believe in. I don't like what I see in McCain. He has sold out his integrity for the white house. McCain once said that he would not want to take the low road to reach the highest office of the land. Well? We all know that every expert in foreign relations and our intelligence gathering aparatus say that its not a matter of if another terrorist attack will hit us, but a question of when. I want Barack Obama to be at the helm if and or when it does. I believe he will be a level headed, strong man. Doing the right thing. He isn't someone who is given to cowboy diplomacy. He is so calm in the middle of a crisis. He is level headed. He is unafraid of criticism, and he listens. He really listens to his supporters. Ever watch an Obama Town hall? He just talks to people, not at them. He really takes time with everyone. He tries to answer ever question. He's respectful of the media, but he also has built relationships with them. My prayers are with him and his grandmother. Please God, help him have peace, and help his grandma to rally her strength in order to see her grandson take the oath for the highest office of the land. I ask this in the name of your loving son Jesus, Amen.

    Oh and God, if your listening, could you please get these two candidates talking together about how to make this country better instead of at eachother or against eachother. If they really want to prove that they can reach across the aisle. Maybe these two campaigns can give a joint message of hope to this country that really needs it right now. I love my Republican friends. I love you all, but you really should try Democrat. It feels really good.

  • Posted By: Wake Up Conserva. @ 10/21/2008 5:01:26 PM

    My money is on the candidate who has displayed a consistent steadiness and decisiveness. McCain in my opinion has not displayed the leadership our country needs now.

    • Posted By: Latino44million @ 10/21/2008 5:23:07 PM

      Exactly! Obama will take your money, my money, and anybody's money. Just like a street dealer!

      • Posted By: GrayEagle @ 10/22/2008 3:48:49 AM

        I would give my vote to Obama ...but a brother has to come CLEANNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!
        with the whole world, no cut cards what -so- ever

    • Posted By: Latino44million @ 10/21/2008 5:14:02 PM

      Your money is right, Obama is going to take yours, and mine and share the wealth while having tea with Osama Bin Laden and other reputable leaders.

      • Posted By: Blackhouse 08 @ 10/21/2008 7:14:39 PM

        Latino sounds like you've had one to many cervezas.If you yhink Mc cain will have your back then you should have your head checked !!!!!!!

      • Posted By: Kboogie @ 10/21/2008 5:18:17 PM

        You must not have read Obama's tax policy.

        If you have, please tell us how it will, negatively, affect your earnings.

        Please don't quote anything from Hannity. Just the facts please...........

        • Posted By: mcdeere72 @ 10/21/2008 5:42:11 PM

          The fact is he wants mandated child healthcare, where is this funding coming from? Maybe your taxes. According to Obama, 95% of Americans get a tax break under his plan. The only ones that pay more taxes are those that make $250,000/year. So, ONLY 5% of all Americans make more than $250,000? I don't think so. So how is he going to give a tax cut to 95% of all Americans and yet get the money to do mandated child healthcare?

          • Posted By: Kboogie @ 10/21/2008 6:06:10 PM

            O's financial plan ALSO includes eliminating the govt/social programs that don't work, and waste tax-payers money. He's mentioned on NUMEROUS occasions that this will not only fund his economic policies, but that it's realistic and more affective than McC's "hatchet" proposal.

            Does McC really expect America to believe that he will freeze ALL government spending?!?! Give me a break!! A perfect example of throwing *** against the wall, and hoping it will stick.

            • Posted By: mcdeere72 @ 10/21/2008 6:27:58 PM

              Just like Obama...I'm not going to denounce my minister.....

              • Posted By: Kboogie @ 10/21/2008 6:56:35 PM

                Great analogy...........LOL!!!!!!!

                Talk about avoiding the facts........

        • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/21/2008 6:09:09 PM


          I thought this writer captured the impact of Obamas tax policy and its negative impact on small businesses very nicely:

          * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

          AN ARGUMENT AGAINST OBAMAS TAX PLAN
          By GROVER G. NORQUIST | 7/11/08 4:58 AM EDT
          Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of: Leave Us Alone - Getting the Governments Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives.

          (Part 1 of 2)

          The Tax Policy Center and the Barack Obama campaign used some sleight of hand this week in Politico. To quote Eric Tolder of the TPC, ???Most small-business people, like most everyone else, are not really high-income.??? While this is true, it completely and totally misses the point.

          Lets start with the DEFINITION of a SMALL BUSINESS. Most will tell you that small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.

          * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

          The conservative argument (and that of the John McCain campaign) is that OBAMAs stated PLAN TO RAISE TAXES ON HOUSEHOLDS MAKING $250,000 OR MORE in income is a TAX INCREASE ON SMALL BUSINESS. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin

          (Table 1.4, for those who are interested: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html )


          * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
          SO WHAT DO THE DATA SAY?

          In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 BILLION of such income was REPORTED to the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, TWO-THIRDS of this INCOME was REPORTED BY HOUSEHOLDS making $250,000 per year or more . . . the very SAME HOUSEHOLDS that Obama wants to INCREASE TAXES ON.

          The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what is important. ECONOMISTS know what MATTERS IS THE TAX RATE that is APPLIED TO the BULK OF SMALL-BUSINESS INCOME. Make NO MISTAKE about it: Obamas plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 WILL RAISE TAXES ON MOST SMALL-BUSINESS PROFITS in America.

          What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S CORPORATIONs face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while SOLE PROPRIETORS and GENERAL PARTNERS face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they are re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).

          Under OBAMAS (TAX) PLAN to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate WOULD RISE from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The Sole Proprietor and

          (Continued in my post below)

        • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/21/2008 6:04:37 PM



          Part 2 of 2 - Continued - negative Impact of Obamas tax plan on Small Businesses )

          Partner rate WOULD RISE FROM 37.9 percent all the way up to a STAGGERING 50.3
          PERCENT. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making ALL SMALL BUSINESSES (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

          WHAT would a WORLD LOOK LIKE where TWO-THIRDS of all SMALL-BUSINESS income would be TAXED AT A 50 percent rate? The economic law that TAXING SOMETHING MORE and GETTING LESS OF IT would apply. FEWER Americans would be INTERESTED in OPENING or EXPANDING small businesses. TAX EVASION and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, MAIN STREET CLOSING UP shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. PLANTS and EQUIPMENT WILL GO UNUSED. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as THE ECONOMY STAGGERS INTO A FULL-ON RECESSION.

          WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE? One place to look is the optional ALTERNATE TAX SYSTEM originally proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and now ENDORSED by MCCAIN. It would give households (including those with small business income) a CHOICE between the current tax code and one with a top rate of 25 percent on all income over $100,000. This would have the BENEFICIAL EFFECT OF LOWERING THE TAX RATE ON MOST SMALL-BUSINESS INCOME BY 10 PERCENTAGE POINTS. Small businesses have not faced a tax rate that low in quite some time and would be likely to respond with the CREATION OF NEW businesses and more investment in existing businesses.

          The MCCAIN SMALL BUSINESS TAX PLAN does not end there. For those businesses that are organized as conventional corporations, the TOP TAX rate would FALL FROM 35 percent TO 25 percent, the European average. For all businesses, technology and equipment - which now must be slowly depreciated over many years - would be IMMEDIATELY EXPENSED IN YEAR ONE.

          Stepping back, VOTERS and POLICYMAKERS should ASK THEMSELVES whether they want TWO-THIRDS of small business INCOME TAXED AT A 50 percent tax rate. . . . OR. . . . . .if they want nearly ALL SMALL-BUSINESS income TAXED AT A 25 percent tax rate.

          They should ask themselves whether its healthier for small businesses to WRITE OFF a COMPUTER over six (6) CALENDAR YEARS or to simply WRITE IT OFF IN YEAR ONE. To Americas small business sector, the answer is obvious.

          http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html

    • Posted By: mcdeere72 @ 10/21/2008 5:22:39 PM

      "My money is on the candidate who has displayed a consistent steadiness and decisiveness."

      Yeah, he's definitely been decisiveness, evey time he has gotten elected he has immediately focused on the next higher position in government. He was decisive in turning his back on those that he represents when he said, "when the leaders of my party need me I'll be there." He was very decisive when he said Joe, I'm going to spread your wealth around.

      Yeppers definitely has been steady in no support for the troops.

  • Posted By: agertsen @ 10/22/2008 12:02:04 AM

    Thats why there is a smirk on the old mans face, because Bush has Bin Laden, and will bring him out right before election. Thats the only way he can win.

    • Posted By: cobalt6 @ 10/22/2008 3:13:56 AM

      That would be great news, I would love to see that happen!

  • Posted By: joe85 @ 10/22/2008 3:09:23 AM

    Osama ben laden and Al Qeada is a spent force. The only threat he can muster is his videos which will typically contain threats of attacks to come, hateful rantings, fear-mongering chants, etc.etc.

    Wht's new about that???.He has been ranting like Bush for the last eight years about terrorist attacks but is impotent to carry any according to most experts!!!.

    Therefore, our worst enemy is our own fear. All we have to do is announce to the would be terrorists and the countries sponsoring these terrorists, like Pkistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.Any terrorist attack. we nuke and obliterate your nations/countries, period.BALANCE OF TERROR KEPT COMMUNISM AT BAY AND IT WILL KEEP THESE UNWASHED ARABS/ISLAMIC JIHADISTS AT BAY!!!.

  • Posted By: joe85 @ 10/22/2008 2:52:25 AM

    First and foremost, if we expect an October surprise then it won't be a surprise at all, if we been expecting it. Therefore, like any animal facing a serious threat to its survival, the natural law of self-survival dictates we prepare for any eventuality and make clear we retialate with massive force; meaning we nuke who ever dare threaten or attack us!!!.

  • Posted By: George from Westerville @ 10/21/2008 10:05:22 PM

    Don't think a Bin Laden tape would work to derail the Democrats this election, I agree with Alter that since Obama has been vocal about the failure to capture Bin Laden and his desire to go after him in Pakistan (which McCain originally denounced Obama for), combined with the great endorsement by Colin Powell and the fact that a lot of vets are bitter that McCain voted against increased benefits for vets and Obama voted for them, add in McCains uneven approach, 100 years in Iraq, bomb bomb bomb Iran ... I would not presume that the overwhelming majority of military people or folks where security is the #1 issue will vote for McCain. The economy is the #1 issue, and that's where the public finds McCain lacking (and ... his negative attacks, and choice of a running mate). Islamic extremists may want a war mongering, unstable guy like MCCain in office, but hopefully that will not happen even if they pull some kind of a stunt like they did in 2004.

    • Posted By: neos @ 10/21/2008 10:08:02 PM

      Agred. The last thing Al Queada wanted in 2004 was the intelligent guy to be elected. Bush played into their hands so well.

      • Posted By: ICYEYES800 @ 10/22/2008 1:44:45 AM

        Neos, are you on some serious drugs, or what????? You ignorant and just stupid remarks continue to AMAZE everyone.....Bush played into their hands????? Let me try to figure that one out....Bush CALLED THEM OUT....and has been giving them hell for all these years...killed so many militant muslims, that they had to leave Iraq and regroup in Afghanistan, so you'd better explain to us all how they benefitted by the BOMBARDMENT of Islamic fundamentalist.......... VOTE FOR A BORN LEADER....McCain/Palin '08

      • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/21/2008 10:10:42 PM

        That must be why their sulking in a cave somewhere instead of running a country with their buds the Talaban. I see.

        • Posted By: neos @ 10/21/2008 10:12:54 PM

          Afghan was the only thing that Bush started to do right. Started and then...

          • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/21/2008 10:27:50 PM

            Going to Iraq made no difference, other than to bring the zellots to open ground. The mistake in Afganistan was to let them get across the border, something that happened long before Iraq. Packastan is to Afganistan what Cambodia was to Vietnam. Unless and until Packastan gets control over the tribal areas, that war is unwinable by military means, unless your going to totally ( as opposed to partially) ignor Packastan's territorial integrety.

            • Posted By: neos @ 10/21/2008 10:34:54 PM

              Going to Iraq made no difference? Perhaps you might want to rethink that one. Biggest strategic blunder of the century.

              • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/21/2008 11:09:14 PM

                I see no blunder in deposing a dictator who killed tens of thousands of his on people, and thats the count only after the gulf war. That dosen't count the gassing of the Kurds. Don't you remember the mass graves? Other than Iran, (thank you Jimmy Carter) the region has not been this stable in decades.

                • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/21/2008 11:14:02 PM

                  And Iran is not what people seem to believe. Remember their last elections. The clerics had to outlaw all other political parties because they were going to lose. That government is hollow.

                  • Posted By: neos @ 10/21/2008 11:54:48 PM

                    Iran is hands down the worst nation in the region. Thay have actually managed to revert back to a middle age theocracy but with modern weaponry. Iraq was actually going in exactly the opposite direction under Saddam. It was one of the few nations in the region that was successfully suppressing radical Islamic elements. At least until we blundered our way in. Sure Saddam was brutal, he was a tin-pot Hitler with (as we have found out to our sorrow) a nearly ungovernable population. He did kill thousands. We have killed more than he ever dreamed of during our time there. And we have managed to allow an inflammation of religious bigotry that has caused the Iraqi christian population (nearly 10% pre-war) to virtually disappear. The only bright spot has been more autonomy and security for the Kurds in the north. Still we screwed up big time. I wish it weren't so...

      • Posted By: Pocolodi @ 10/21/2008 10:19:41 PM

        That is laughable! Bush "played into their hands?" Do you know how stupid that sounds?

        Yeah.... "Al Qaeda punched Bush's fist with their face until Bush gave up!" LMAO!

        Get serious, why don't you?

  • Posted By: Concerned Canadian @ 10/22/2008 1:24:57 AM

    BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WOULD INVITE OSAMA BIN LADEN INTO THE WHITE HOUSE GEORGE WASHINGTON ROOM AND EXCHANGE JIHAD STORIES TOGETHER....SINCE THEY'RE BOTH MUSLIM.

  • Posted By: ALLEAS @ 10/22/2008 1:00:01 AM

    JESUS CHRIST, JUST GET ON WITH THIS ELECTION. HAVEN'T AMERICANS ALLOWED OSAMA BIN LADEN ENOUGH ? I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF BIN LADEN.

  • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 10/21/2008 3:28:02 PM

    Do not ever underestimate him! Obama ha shown to have nerves of steel...he is more than able and capable to handle Bin Laden or any other crisis that may be coming our way.

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/21/2008 5:50:32 PM


      . . . . . Really? Where have we seen him show his nerves of steel? He is weak and naive and the leaders in this world will take advantage of these qualities should BO be elected. Biden was right. . . within 6 months Obama will be tested . . . .kind of maykes one feel warm and fuzzy, huh?

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 10/21/2008 8:49:46 PM

        Desperation smells.

        • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/21/2008 9:02:24 PM


          . . . you didnt answer the question.

          • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 10/21/2008 10:17:42 PM

            The question, you say? Sharenews, i dont want to have to laugh at you again...but if I have to, oh well...So here goes..Obama an unknown, beat your gal Hillary.. he beat the Clinton machine..he is beating McCain who has been in DC for almost thirty years. He beat his derriere in all three debates especially the town hall meeting which was supposed to be McCain's forte. Obama has done all of this, plus run the most well
            organized camp in the history of elections, without ever batting an eye or sweating bullets. Obama is eloquent, intelligent, classy, personable and respectful . McCain has behaved like a complete embarassment to himself and the party. Share, have you had enough yet? No? Okay. Least you forgot, Obama is winning and your candidate is the loser he has made himself to be by choosing a gimmick as his running partner. Lol!

            • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/22/2008 12:50:06 AM


              Pia. . .So you are saying that we can chalk it all up to Obama???s successfully-run political campaign (with greased skids from the Chicago Political Machine, ACORN, use of e.g. Saul Alinsky???s tactics, full corrupt and biased backing from the DNC and the MainStreamMedia paving the way for him from the get go) as an example of Obama having NERVES OF STEEL(?). . .That it exemplifies Obama being more than able and capable to handle a e.g. Bin Laden crisis on day one? And you didn???t want to laugh at me? LMAO.

              Well thanks for at least answering the question. It doesn???t make me all warm and fuzzy, but then, that is why I am not voting for the Obama/Biden ticket. PS: Can you lay off the ridicule in your posts to me (e.g. saying Im jealous, I pick losers, calling me a liar, etc.. . . just being mean spiririted in general to me personally). I know you are passionate about Obama, but I also know you are a better person than that. . Thanks. ; - D

            • Posted By: Pallisor @ 10/21/2008 11:50:45 PM

              Your "unknown" candidate is slightly ahead because of the economy and because he's a slick orator. He's also had the entire mainstream media in his back pocket from the get go. Obama has out spent McCain because he flat out lied his ass off about public funding, and he has enough people believing that the economic mess were in is Bush's fault, which it isn't. He has miraculously promised to give 95 percent of Americans tax cuts, but 40 percent of them don't even pay taxes! Yeah, that'll work! The fact is, Obama could be Cesar Chavez in this economy and people would vote for him simply because he's not a republican and people want "CHANGE!".

              Of course he's eloquent... he can afford to sit back and relax and look the part, as he has people like you defending him from having to answer for relationships with nutcases that bombed government buildings and mentors that think all of white America is out to kill blacks. If McCain even had a passing acquaintance with an abortion clinic bomber, you and the left would be crucifying him for it.

              You bash his running mate, at least she's not out making a complete jackass out of herself guaranteeing an "international crisis" as soon as McCain takes office. And do yourself a favor.... save your bloated gloating until after the election. It's sickening. Even your candidate will tell you that.

    • Posted By: Pocolodi @ 10/21/2008 6:32:40 PM

      Nerves of steel? Is that like in.. Superman?

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 10/21/2008 8:56:20 PM

        Yes! Si! Oui!

        • Posted By: Pocolodi @ 10/21/2008 9:39:32 PM

          Yeah... I can just see him in his liberal little Superman jammies... cape and all!

      • Posted By: Kboogie @ 10/21/2008 6:58:08 PM

        Yup!!

    • Posted By: varacefan @ 10/21/2008 4:10:54 PM

      Well except a tough question from a plumber. Other than that he's good!

      • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 10/21/2008 4:36:01 PM

        a plumber thats plumbing and operating illegally...doesnt own a business, doesnt make 250,000 a year or even close to that...so hes not even really a plumber...he was a PLANT...why would he (the plumber, voicing his position of being a staunch conservative) be at a democratic rally with obama and ask the same question at both rallys? and how did he make news both time?

        • Posted By: Latino44million @ 10/21/2008 5:32:15 PM

          Sure, and I'm extraterrestial! Accept it! Nobody has questioned Obama's discourse better that this guy! I don't care if he has no license, or paid his taxes. Are you the virging Mary? Did Obama had a license to deal drugs in his twenties? Did he paid taxes from his usage?

  • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/21/2008 11:28:16 PM

    Neos: Going to Iraq made no difference, other than to bring the zellots to open ground. The mistake in Afganistan was to let them get across the border, something that happened long before Iraq. Packastan is to Afganistan what Cambodia was to Vietnam. Unless and until Packastan gets control over the tribal areas, that war is unwinable by military means, unless your going to totally ( as opposed to partially) ignor Packastan's territorial integrety.

    I see no blunder in deposing a dictator who killed tens of thousands of his on people, and thats the count only after the gulf war. That dosen't count the gassing of the Kurds. Don't you remember the mass graves? Other than Iran, (thank you Jimmy Carter) the region has not been this stable in decades.

    And Iran is not what people seem to believe. Remember their last elections? At the end the clerics had to outlaw all other political parties because they were going to lose. That government is hollow.


    • Posted By: neos @ 10/21/2008 11:56:07 PM

      Iran is hands down the worst nation in the region. Thay have actually managed to revert back to a middle age theocracy but with modern weaponry. Iraq was actually going in exactly the opposite direction under Saddam. It was one of the few nations in the region that was successfully suppressing radical Islamic elements. At least until we blundered our way in. Sure Saddam was brutal, he was a tin-pot Hitler with (as we have found out to our sorrow) a nearly ungovernable population. He did kill thousands. We have killed more than he ever dreamed of during our time there. And we have managed to allow an inflammation of religious bigotry that has caused the Iraqi christian population (nearly 10% pre-war) to virtually disappear. The only bright spot has been more autonomy and security for the Kurds in the north. Still we screwed up big time. I wish it weren't so...

      • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/22/2008 12:49:11 AM

        "We have killed more than he ever dreamed of during our time there."

        Even if you count his military losses, this statement is not correct. And it makes no difference what direction he was moving as far as radical islam goes. He and his sons were butchers, and he was one of two major destabalizing force, and once it was no longer possible to play one against the other, they both had to go. He went first. I think histroy is going to prove Bush right on this one. Lybia sure shut up quick after we went in, as have most everyone else.

        As for the other one, Iran, its younger generation is not enjoying the religious society of their parents revolution, and were the major force behind the now outlawed oppositon parties. The Gov is unpopular, and despite their oil wealth, there technology is decrepeted, to the point that they actually import gasoline. Inflation is rampet. Like Ragan and the USSR, the proper approach to them is to keep the pressue on, turn it up, and support the opposition. Obama has it wrong, as did Chamberlan.



  • Posted By: MG of IL @ 10/22/2008 12:42:05 AM

    So if Osma bin Laden suddenly makes an appearance then we should figure the election will go to John McCain? What - after he's wasted an entire campaign with negative ads, dirty politics, an attack dog for a running mate (who still doesn't know the duties of VP), who incites hatred, racial and ethnic slurs. Oh yeah, and don't forget John McCain knows how to win the war in Iraq and evidentally knows where Osama bin Landen is hiding. Give us a break. John McCain is nothing but a war monger and with George W and the mess he's made in the past eight years, Iraqi war and the trillions spent there - like we should elect another Republican. Don't throw this kind of scare out here - we have enough really scary things to worry about like the economy, losing our retirement savings, health care, educating our children and keeping our homes. Another scary thought - Sarah Palin - being in charge of anything.

  • Posted By: Kboogie @ 10/21/2008 5:14:48 PM

    Aside from his faulty voting record on economics under the Bush administration, McCain is a man who voted against the Civil Rights Act, AND, the Equal Pay Act. These Acts were historical milestones that, no doubt, changed America's history for the better, and crystalized the rights of her citizens.

    MCCAIN VOTED AGAINST BOTH!!! It's clear that the direction and view that McC sees for this country is not one that respects the rights, or pursuit of happiness for ALL of its citizens.......Just a few.

    .....and, unless, we ignore history, we all know who those FEW are.

    • Posted By: billtheoutsider @ 10/21/2008 7:56:18 PM

      Just for the record the civil rights bill was signed into law in "1964" and for all your wisdom and statements I do believe that the good senator was in a POW camp when you say he voted against it lol

      • Posted By: Kboogie @ 10/22/2008 12:40:26 AM

        Idiot, there was also a Civil Rights Act of 1990, which McCain voted against. Look it up.

        Try to keep up, moron.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse