embiggen Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 It's called greed. bottom line Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 No, actually I'm pointing out that we have no clue what would have happened, but based on the fact that the guy couldn't figureout how to beat the jackass we got stuck with it doesn't really appear he would have done a much better job. It wasn Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 That's just flat out wrong. It was his to lose and he managed to lose it. Kerry and the DNC were the dipshits. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 It wasn Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 What specific charges have Obama or Biden made do you think are equally douchy to the terrorist sympathizer charge? Let me spell this out as simply as possible: I know Obama is not a terrorist, and those that actually believe this would believe something else as equally absured if this wasn't out there. Therefore, I DON'T CARE. I find both campaigns to be pandering and disingenuous and do not support either. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 This is all true, but Kerry also did run a pretty shitty campaign. I agree to a point, but Obama has run a much better campaign, and here we are, four years later, still neck and neck. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 How eaxctly is the Obama camp guilty of getting the masses frothy when Palin gets out there and on every stop, be it a campaign stop or a fox interview, and accuses Obam of palling around with terrorists, Well, he did hang out with the guy, no? You be the judge of what was being talked about... McCains Answer: I will. And it is already a matter of record that members, Democrat members of Congress fought against reform and it is a matter of record and hearings that they said everything was fine. Senator Obama a year ago said that these kinds of subprime loans are, quote, fine with him. And the fact is that the same people that are now claiming credit for this rescue are the same ones that were willing co-conspirators in causing this problem that it is. And you know their names. And you will know more of their names. Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd are two of them.It's about time. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 No, actually I'm pointing out that we have no clue what would have happened, but based on the fact that the guy couldn't figureout how to beat the jackass we got stuck with it doesn't really appear he would have done a much better job. I'm not arguing that Kerry didnn't deserve to lose, he ran a shitty campaign and let the Bush team dictate the terms of the campaign continually. Reacting to them rather than taking the initiative. Are you serious? It's been well established that a huge number of these NINA (no income, no asset) and stated income loans are fraudulent. These financial professional, especially those who hold a license should be held to a higher standard. Don't try and push it off to just deregulation. The mortgage industry was a huge "nod, nod, wink, wink" system based on inflated values and cheap money for the last five years. Besides anecdotal evidence and people tellin stories of people they "know" or Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Well, he did hang out with the guy, no? Gee how many US presidents hung out with Mencahim Begin? Wasn't he part of the group that blew up the King David Hotel killin 91 people? Is president Bush pallin around with Kadffiy (sp?) since we are now buddies with Libya? How about former IRA members? How about him pallin around with the Suadi's - the financers of the otherside in the war on terra? Is Patreaus palling around with terrorists, when he negotiates with Sunni tribal members and pays them to not fight us? It's all feigned outrage and is the last refuge of a campaign whose ideas the people are overwhelmingly rejecting. So the idea's are unacceptable they need to go to the dirt annd it's relaly not even very good diirt at that. The funny (ironic funny) thing about the McCain/Palin attquacks is that througout the debate Palin kept adminshing Biden for bringin up McCains love for Bush and sayin that their campaign was about the future not about the past, only to dive into the past the very next day. Just one more example of when republicans show outrage about soemthing, they are probably doin it or gettin ready to do it. Is Palin pallin around with extremists when she goes to AIP meetin's? Has she ever explained herself to us and her association with them? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Is that a yes? Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Besides anecdotal evidence and people tellin stories of people they "know" or Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 You're not the only one with an accounting background btw.How dare you. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Kerry lost because many people didn't want to switch horses in midstream in regards to Iraq/war on terror. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Is that a yes? "pallin' around" is palin's/mccain's term, i assume meaning to hang out with, do things with, go places with, and so on. it is a gross (and irrelevant) exaggeration. most conservatives i encounter know this and have no trouble admitting it. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 "pallin' around" is palin's/mccain's term, i assume meaning to hang out with, do things with, go places with, and so on. it is a gross (and irrelevant) exaggeration. most conservatives i encounter know this and have no trouble admitting it.OK. I wasn't aware of the official definition of "pallin' around". Link to post Share on other sites
NightOfJoy Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Kerry lost because many people didn't want to switch horses in midstream in regards to Iraq/war on terror. Not to mention the reprehensible 'Swiftboat' tactics used. Lets not forget the fear factor.......remember all those 'terror alerts' in the months right before the election? Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Kerry lost because many people didn't want to switch horses in midstream in regards to Iraq/war on terror. i agree, and also with several other reasons in several different posts today. he also let himself get swift-boated, and there was that fooling around with election results in ohio. i think we'd clearly be better off today on several fronts if kerry had won, though i basically find him somewhat ineffectual and very poor at communication. i voted against bush in '04 and i was not happy that my only other choice of an electable candidate was kerry. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 i think we'd clearly be better off today on several fronts if kerry had won,how do you know this? What "fronts"? Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 OK. I wasn't aware of the official definition of "pallin' around". don't put a word in my mouth. who said "official"? not me. what's your definition? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 don't put a word in my mouth. who said "official"? not me. what's your definition?being in the same room as Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 how do you know this? What "fronts"?i don't know it, i said i THINK it. knock off that crap, will you? it doesn't help you. iraq, fearmongering, relations with other countries. Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 i agree, and also with several other reasons in several different posts today. he also let himself get swift-boated, and there was that fooling around with election results in ohio. i think we'd clearly be better off today on several fronts if kerry had won, though i basically find him somewhat ineffectual and very poor at communication. i voted against bush in '04 and i was not happy that my only other choice of an electable candidate was kerry.I think it's tough to say "clearly" but I'd take my chances with Gore or McCain in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 over W if I could go back in time that's for sure. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 hindsight Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 being in the same room asi don't have time to take a poll, but i'd guess you'd be in the minority on that definition. you certainly would among the conservatives in my neighborhood, not that you should care. you like your definition, that's fine with me. it isn't fine with me when it's used as a manipulative smear, and that's how palin and company are using it. Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 My Grandmother and Grandfather are concerned every election cycle that the Republicans are going to take away their medications and their Social Security, is that fear mongering? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts