Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Sufferin' Suffragettes...
The BUST Lounge > Forums > As the World Turns
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
girltrouble
busties,

today there was a 12 page attack, and i think i might have accidentally deleted this thread. i try, as i did today, to be as careful as i possibly can not do delete or disrupt the lounge. i feel a lot of guilt when this happens. it's the worst case scenario, and something i dread. i apologize for all the people who posted in here whose information or insight was lost. i cannot express my profound regret. i was a frequent poster and user of this thread.


~gt
mouse
gt--i didn't even know we were under siege. thanks for taking care of business so well that i didn't even notice. wub.gif

xoxoxo mouse
freckleface7
gt: sometimes you do what is needed to protect the group, wether is it what is ideal or not.
we appreciate your doing the dirty work.
ox, chiming in, freckle
culturehandy
I also wasn't aware that he was posting so much. i saw the odd post here and there, but GT, thanks for keeping on top of things.

roseviolet
GT, it's okay. WE know your heart was in the right place. Besides, we've got enough ranting left in us to fill up this thread again. wink.gif

My visiting family members are officially gone now, so I have time to watch the news & play on Bust again. In my effort to catch up, I went to FiveThirtyEight.com to see how the polls are looking. I guess Obama has been having a rebound while I've been away! He and McCain are virtually tied for the popular vote, but Obama currently has the lead in the poll projections for the electoral college.

I still have a lot to catch up on, though. I'm looking forward to seeing more posts in here so I can get back in touch with what you al are thinking & reading.
konphusion26
Okay, wow, I thought I was crazy! LOL Thanks GT for taking care of business dear! I'm sure everyone will understand. 12 pages??!!! That is unreal. Whoever is behind that crap needs to get a friggin life or fudge off! Ridiculous.

Anywho, here's a repost to the Keith Olbermann charity donation video. Quite amusing yet disturbing at the same time. You'll see why here! How many days till the election??? LOL

Obama '08!
anarch
GT, no worries. I've noticed sometimes when I load the page that his threads pop up one after the other (in order, I assume, of "most recently started", far above the legit threads that his have shoved down. It's not surprising that in expunging them, a legit thread might occasionally get hit by accident.

Hope people don't mind if I repost the last set of links I contributed here, about "the last straw" for Palin re why she fired Walt Monegan the Public Safety Commissioner. It's been on my mind for days. A program that would have made it harder for white men to rape Aboriginal women and girls with impunity was "the last straw" that inspired Palin to fire him. And she must consider herself, as a staunch defender of forced pregnancy even in cases of rape or incest, as a defender of the weakest members of the community. Oh, the irony. (And I know that average white Americans don't give a shit about Aboriginal people so if this gets picked up by the mainstream media there will be many people who shrug and think "So what? Indians are all [insert reprehensible stereotype here] anyway so they deserve what they get" and Christ, it makes me incoherent with rage and grief.)

Troopergate & the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan:
""The last straw," [Palin's] lawyer argued, came when [Monegan] planned a trip to Washington, D.C., to seek federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program. The project, expected to cost from $10 million to $20 million a year for five years, would have been the first of its kind in Alaska, which leads the nation in reported forcible rape."

an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program was "the last straw" because....most of the victims tend to be Aboriginal (and perhaps because most of the rapists tend to be white?):

And a link from the above article, about Aboriginal women & rape generally in the US:

From the guy at Metafilter who contributed the above links (I copied the main part of this comment because the Sarah Palin thread his comment comes from is like 1500 comments so far and takes a while to load):
"You will hear often that Alaska has the highest rate of forcible rape in the US, but you will almost never hear why.

There is one and only one reason for that is the very high population of Native people, long regarded as fair game for rapists and criminals and poorly protected by the state and, too often, inept tribal law enforcement authorities. I have *personally* heard more than one white Alaskan man make jokes about raping underage (!) Native girls for sport. (And yes, I did something about the more serious instance of this I encountered, though I am not at liberty to say what.)

Such jokes are *common* expressions of masculine and white power in rural Alaska. So is the rape they refer to. And this isn't just Alaska. Rape of Native American women by whites taking advantage of their vulnerability is quite common in other Western states as well. But it's worse in Alaska. . . ."

And GT's link to an NPR piece about rape and US Aboriginal women, thank you very much GT!
freckleface7
it is really pissing me off how much of the race-card the media is using lately.
" can a black man win? "

hell yes!

and isn't it just a lot way embarrassingly late in the day for that to have happened?

granted I have fallen to obama more or less by default, but if anything, to me, a white American woman, his race works more in his favor as I am soooooo very opposed to more of the rich old white guy's being in office.

really makes me kind of sick.
girltrouble
tina fey said the best thing about playing palin on snl at the emmys:
QUOTE
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5," she said. "So if anybody can help me be done playing this lady Nov. 5, that would be good for me."

i am bugged by the same thing, freck (hi freck!) plus mccain's me-too shtick. since last week was so shitty for him, he's decided not just to rip off obama's slogans and comments, but his ideas too. today he's been shouting loudly about how this trillion dollar bailout needs oversight. something obama talked about last week.
(and that he caught heat for fiorina's golden parachute just makes sense.) it's good that the media is kinda doing its job... a little bit....sorta...

my take on this bail out plan? naomi klein's shock doctrine in action.


there is talk that a democrat may have hacked palin's emails. i call bullshit on that. if a guy who was in politics hacked that account they would have published something waaaaay more "meaty" politically. what came out was pablum. stuff that someone with no political ax to grind would have made screenshots of. politically it was a mcguffin, a red herring. ti was useless.

my bet is it was the mccain campaign. why? because they have been trying to plug leaks eversince palin got the nod-- and this "hacking" was a great excuse to publicly delete BOTH of her yahoo accounts.
treehugger
I'd also like to repost this link, which was originally posted by GirlTrouble...I visit the site a lot. It's another election tracking site.
anarch
Re Palin's hacked email, Michelle Malkin and Little Green Footballs claimed that it was the son (teenaged, sounds like) of Tennessee Dem senator Mike Kernell.

The focus with this story should be why TF a state governor was 1. using personal email for conducting state business (I read something describing how this was Palin's way of dodging transparency) and 2. so stupid as to use an account that was easily hacked. US state secrets are supposed to be safe in this woman's hands?

In other news:

McCain's Pro-Vet Image Clashes With Record

Vets for Democrats

A Veteran's Case Against John McCain
stargazer
anarch
Stargazer, I love you. Love your kitty too.



Youtube: "Richard Trumka, the Secretary Treasurer of the AFL CIO discusses Barack Obama and the issue of race at the Democratic National Convention."


"Even when faced with new facts and insights, most voters don't change their minds about their favorite candidates. A neurologist explains how they might."
girltrouble
i dunno, anarch, some things would change some people's minds. do you think that if most people in the military or vets would really vote for mccain if they knew his record on voting on bills that effect them? he's nothing but a self serving backstabber who is so rich, he couldn't imagine what life would be like for those without money. how many houses? how many cars?

my only question is why obama isn't posting that shiznit. why isn't it in ads?


hilarious. not only does the writer of this piece at huff post call bill clinton a douchebag, a an undermining douche, but the post is about how chris rock disses him too.

i love CR. he's the sharpest political tounge in comedy since richard prior.


ETA:i love chris mathews right now. he's asking the right questions about the meltdown. i don't know if i buy his guests, that the gov't ought to just pony up the $$$ and shut up. i'm with chris dodd and chuck schumaker, who seem to think we should pony up a bit and see how it's working.

like someone pointed out, the guys who were tending the till when the shit hit the fan are the same guys who are going to be in charge of this thing if it gets passed. and they have shown no compunction about selling out their country to make a couple (million) bux.

what's more, if these companies are so big that they have to be bailed about, or the economy goes belly up, the they should have been broken up. this comes back to regulation. the GOP has done a shitty fucking job doing their job if you really believe they wanted to do more than just raid the taxpayer's pocket book (i don't).

and now you see the same thing happening with B of A in the latest case of 'big bank take little bank' to borrow a phrase from ras kass. when they go into the shitter, we're gonna have to bail them out too, since their new aquisitions they are 'too big to fail' too.
stargazer
being a latina, of course, i'm gonna bring up race.


yeah, i said it. race.


i was listening to radio station with my mama yesterday. an urban radio station they call it here. and one person said they found out that someone was going to vote for mccain cause they didn't want a "spook" in the white house.


so, i'm wondering how many people will vote for mccain and i'm talking about democrats here. just because they don't want a black man in the white house. there has been alot of talk about white democrat women voting for the mccain-palin ticket because of the excitement of having a white woman in the white house.


i'm a democrat. so, while i'm excited for obama. if the ticket had jesse jackson, i know i wouldn't vote for him. i don't trust him. just like i didn't trust hilliary. they are both self centered leaders and major media whores. i question their loyalty. i'm still more comfortable with someone with less experience and less involvement in the political machinery.

speaking of which, i read an article in the chicago suntimes today saying how mccain's party is trying to use his connection with chicago politicians to suggest pollitical corruptness.

girltrouble
i was talking about naomi klein's shock doctrine, she just posted a fantastic article at huff/post

i'm starting to wonder if this is the "october suprize." yeah it's a little early, but the way the republicans are trying to blame this whole thing on freddie mac/fannie mae buy out a little bit ago, because the ceo of freddie walked into obama's office. never mind that mccain was one of the crooks in the keating five, or that phil gramm was the guy who was pushing thru all of these deregulating measures back in 2000 when everybody else was keeping an eye on florida.

and is anyone really buying this whole "it will pay for itself!" line? i mean, i've heard that like somewhere before......oh yeah. the iraq war. it's all coming back to me. the oil would pay for everything....yeah, right.


and speaking (sort of) of race, a (black)man wearing a bulletproof vest, and with a gun in his car. chicago sun times article

freckleface7
QUOTE(stargazer @ Sep 23 2008, 06:13 PM) *
being a latina, of course, i'm gonna bring up race.
yeah, i said it. race.
i was listening to radio station with my mama yesterday. an urban radio station they call it here. and one person said they found out that someone was going to vote for mccain cause they didn't want a "spook" in the white house.
so, i'm wondering how many people will vote for mccain and i'm talking about democrats here. just because they don't want a black man in the white house. there has been alot of talk about white democrat women voting for the mccain-palin ticket because of the excitement of having a white woman in the white house.
i'm a democrat. so, while i'm excited for obama. if the ticket had jesse jackson, i know i wouldn't vote for him. i don't trust him. just like i didn't trust hilliary. they are both self centered leaders and major media whores. i question their loyalty. i'm still more comfortable with someone with less experience and less involvement in the political machinery.
speaking of which, i read an article in the chicago suntimes today saying how mccain's party is trying to use his connection with chicago politicians to suggest pollitical corruptness.

Stargazer:
I'm so with you on jesse jackson, and al sharpton too. crooks and muckrakers of the very worst kind & prefering more inexpereince to over-exposure.

did anyone see on the news that Early Voting has already begun in several states?
anarch
QUOTE(girltrouble @ Sep 23 2008, 05:19 PM) *
i dunno, anarch, some things would change some people's minds. do you think that if most people in the military or vets would really vote for mccain if they knew his record on voting on bills that effect them? he's nothing but a self serving backstabber who is so rich, he couldn't imagine what life would be like for those without money. how many houses? how many cars?



Sure, some people, who actually think, by which I mean "incorporate new facts into their understanding of issues and allow their worldviews to adjust accordingly". Too bad there's the other kind, who "know what they know" and would rather twist themselves into knots with ridiculous rationalizations, rather than admit they're wrong. There was one in the Metafilter thread. Kept dropping one or two line remarks about learning distasteful things about Obama, or how she thinks his foreign or economic policy will be a disaster. Then when people call her on it, citing very specific points and asking her to address how they'll result in "disaster," she refuses to address the points and either repeats the original vague charge or tosses out another vague one-liner about Rezko, or "How come Obama voted "present" so many times as Illinois senator," etc. The "backfire effect" is exactly what happened when people requested that she address facts, context, and details. I just pray that we rational people who like facts and context and details will outnumber her kind of people at the polls.

Light stuff:
Aaron Sorkin Conjures a Meeting of Obama and Bartlet

Rednecks 4 Obama

Chris Rock on Bill, Alaska and Moose
anarch
"How has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, . . . When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated."

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Less than a week after balking at the Alaska Legislature's investigation into her alleged abuse of power, Gov. Sarah Palin on Monday indicated she will cooperate with a separate probe run by people she can fire."

Ivy League Elitists

more on Freddie/Fannie & the McCain campaign:
McCain Transition Head Lobbied for Freddie Mac Before Takeover

MCain's campaign manager paid by Freddie Mac
girltrouble
did anybody else watch the hearings today? f'ing hilarious! chris dodd and chuck schumaker shredded poulsen. it was beautiful to watch. they tore him a new asshole for a codicil in the bailout proposal called section eight which said this:
QUOTE
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
afterwards he said something to the effect of "i want oversight, you want it, i don't know where you got the idea that i didn't want oversight. that's what congress does, and i looooove it!

then while he was still smarting, dodd asked if he thought he was going to spend all the money at the start. once he said no, his goose was cooked. they then talked about giving him a smaller amount and to see how it went. he stuttered, and was super flustered, insisting he needed ALL of the money. now. or else!

it didn't fly.

they sent chaney to try to ram this thing thru in the house, which led to many republicans revolting too (there's a pun in there, somewhere). one guy saying that bush/chaney have pretty much burnt up any good will they had long ago. they were having none of it.

of course they want it all right now. the president is a lame duck, and they want to make this last grab while they still can. cos in 45 days they'll be sol.



freckleface7
QUOTE(anarch @ Sep 24 2008, 02:16 AM) *

ok, to prove just how tired I must really be,
I glanced at that line & thought it said :

I spent a morning in John McCain's Vagina

so need
more
sleep! laugh.gif
girltrouble
*shudder*









...freaking hilarous freck! i lurve you!
mouse
I AM REALLY FUCKING SCARED. WHO ELSE IS WITH ME?

honestly i vascillate between a: this is just fear mongering, we are fine, they are just trying to make us scared, and b: they aren't telling us anything and we are already fucked straight to hell.

i don't trust anything and i'm really fucking scared. someone reassure me?
girltrouble
ETA: wow. sorry mouse. my original post was so not helpful.

the short better answer is, there's nothing to worry about with the bail out business.

and yes, they are fear mongering. so much of this is just posturing.

here is a bit of proof: mccain saying that he needs to rush back to washington? it's all show. he isn't on any of the committees that are actually hammering things out right now. basically he's only good for an up or down vote, nothing more. it's all political show because he needs to look somewhat presidential.... and he's scared shitless about the debate on friday. he knows that economics are going to come up-- a lot-- and he's gonna get his clock cleaned. after all. he's spent the last 5 days reading off of obama's cliff notes. he's got nothing.

sorry mouse i didn't mean to make things worse. sometimes i just have too much info floating around in my head, and if i don't think about it well, it's like putting gas on a fire. and there's no fire here.

think about it: last week they were asking for a trillion. now they are struggling to get 700 billion. the problems predicted last week haven't materialized. the republicans are balking and chris dodd-- who runs the committee this thing has to go thru is one of the smartest dems on the hill and he's been floating the idea of doing this in installments and adding oversight. meaning they may not get 500 b, hell they might not even get 300 b. obama wants to look at this more carefully next year when they aren't so pressed for time. all in all this week was actually better than last. because the wheat is getting separated from the chaffe, the real from the horse shit.

all of these things are very, very good signs. and the mccain campaign suffered another meltdown today. once obama is elected the stock market will rebound, because the market always rises when democrats come in, cos the people on wall street know that democrats are way more responsible than the gop.

so there you go.

i phrased it wrong earlier. the point i was trying to make was that bush and his cronies love goverment raiding-- essentualy taking taxpayer money and funneling it to their rich friends. 80% of this little stunt thing with the bail out is just them trying one more con job before they leave office. so that amount of money that keeps getting reduced the longer this goes on? that's less money they get to line their pockets with. meaning they actually have to use the money they get to do the job properly. that 20% that's on the level. which is very good. we don't want to run up a huge debt. that would be the worst thing we could do right now. so you see this week, contrary to all the crazy headlines.... has been a good week.

bush isn't getting his way.
girltrouble
addendum:

cnn reported yesterday (wed) night that the mccain camp was trying to postpone next week's VP debate, as well as the presidential debate, if there is no agreement on the bailout by friday.

the punchline? mccain is going to have a very shitty thursday.

after making a big show of heading to washington, as if the plans for the bailout couldn't be done without him, when infact he has little impact, save voting (see earlier post). mccain made the faux pas of calling and canceling an appearance on letterman saying he needed to go to washington immediately.

unfortunately, letterman discovered that mccain was infact in the same building but in another studio, taping an interview with katie couric at the exact time as he would have been on the late show. seems mccain had planned on hopping on his (or rather his wife's) private jet leaving the next morning, not that night as he had told letterman.

letterman, who's replacement guest was keith olberman, spent the better part of an hour ripping on mccain, even going so far as to show the live feed of mccain getting make up put on in preparation for his interview.

this morning he's going to go to washington to discover very publicly that he wasn't needed at all. reuters is reporting that last night the democrats all but crossed the t's and dotted the i's on the agreement.

all before mccain set foot in washington.


oh my yes. today will be a very, very good day. hee hee! not only will he be even less prep'd for his debate on friday, but he will look like an ass for trying to make himself look like a bigger player.

yes, virginia, there is a santa claus, and he's come early. biggrin.gif
tesao
i'm not sure if this fits in this thread or not, so please let me know if you think it should be somewhere else.

the thing that worries me the most about this effort by the government is oversight of it. anyone remember Leeson who worked for Barclay's bank in Singapore? he was trading on things that weren't understood by his bosses in London. his bosses in London didn't care, because they were making bucket loads of money. Leeson himself admitted that someone should have kept a rein on him, that it was his supervisor's fault, not just his.

i don't pretend to understand a lot of what the market is selling now. if it isn't something i don't understand, i won't buy it. unfortunately, we are talking here about old fuddy duddy McCain, who doesn't know how to use a computer. how are the old white men from the lucky sperm club going to keep a close watch on $700 billion dollars that are being used to bail out companies for making bad business deals that they don't understand?

GT - you said you were watching the hearings; have they addressed this? (i can't get CSPAN or other such channels here. but i *do* know that President Thabo Mbeki was forced to resign.....)


i also don't trust shrub's invite to obama and mccain. it smacks to me of saying, hey, i asked for your advice and you couldn't fix it, either. it's his last ditch effort to not make this financial crisis the heart and soul of his "legacy".
kari
Gt, I am hoping for the same thing. I would love to see this stunt backfire in McCain's face. Ugh, it is so f-ing ridiculous.

I think Obama's response has been perfect. I heard a clip of his press conference where he said "We both have big, shiny planes. We've painted our logos on the sides of them. They can get us from DC to Mississippi very quickly." EXACTLY!!

I think it is hilarious that Letterman busted McCain. Serves him right.
girltrouble
yeah. i just got up so i'm not sure how much of what i posted is really being talked about. i always use days like to day as a test of what sort of news i'm getting. i know what's going on, so who-- which news outlet(s) are giving me the deets.

i thought that obama's response was almost perfect. i don't think this legislation is as urgent as they are making it out to be. i think there are several solutions that are not being looked at* but i think the idea that americans who are going to bear the brunt of this should have to wait for bankruptcy relief, is a naive, stupid move. now is the time to hold the gop's feet to the fire. if these millionaire assholes get to more or less declare bankruptcy, then why can't the people who are going to be most effected by it. if you think that next year the republicans aren't going to filibuster, then you have lost your mind.

no, adding the bankruptcy provisions, to me, is one of those things that obama needs to be hit over the head with. if mccain picks up that thread and runs with it, the tide will turn in his favor. but his campaign is playing at populism. they just copy off of what obama says, so i doubt he will. no one is saying it because we are so close to the election and obama's got a bit of momentum, but that comment is another FISA moment. he isn't seeing that that needs to be taken care of right now. that's why i say that once obama gets in office, liberals, lefties don't get to rest on their laurels. no what it means is our protests won't be ignored. so, we don't rest. we put pressure on obama from day one. we pressure him hard. we take control of things. obama likes the idea of bottom up. i say we give him flash protests, using cell phones and meet up to make instant pressure. like latinos did in L.A. last year. i hope this is when the new generation learns the power of protest and never lets it go.

now is our window.

***********

i'm not saying that palin is an idiot, but she's soooooo in over her head. that woman is not ready for primetime. i know more about a myriad of issues. she would be a nightmare as president. and her little "i'll bring it to ya." comment and the end was not cute. i know she meant it to be an "awwww, how funny/adorable" moment, but it was anything but. it was chilling. i kept hearing that teen beauty queen talking about "south africa, and such like, such as...."


*one of which is a tax on stocks. most countries have such taxes, and, indeed, we used here in the us. that was repealed sometime in the late 60's if i'm not mistaken. if we wen't this route wall street could bail itself out. the problem with that is, due to stock market being so restless, now is not the time to do something like that (in my estimation. but i do hope they only give one or two 50 billion dollar "trunches" and then cut paulson off.
roseviolet
A couple of months ago, This American Life (the radio version) did a fantastic show on the housing crisis - how it developed, & how it affects the market. It was very well done and really helped me understand how the banks got into this mess. It's about an hour long, but it's definitely worth it. Here's the link.

I am, frankly, a bit stunned by the economic crisis. I knew that some people had done some stupid things, but I guess I didn't realize the full extent of it ... that it would require a trillion dollars to straighten it out. I'm angered that so many people have been so irresponsible, especially because I have always worked very hard to live within my means & be very responsible with my finances. But mainly I'm frightened for my parents. My dad's health has not been so great in recent months & he's thinking he may have to retire a year or two before he originally planned. However, we're not sure how his investments are faring since the crisis hit this month. It scares me to think that my dear dad may have to continue working for years longer than he should simply because of the irresponsible behavior of others. It makes me sick with worry.

I'm upset that certain officials have waited until now to get ruffled feathers. When millions of people were losing their homes, they insisted that the fundamentals were fine. But when their own stock portfolios begin to suffer, then they get upset. Please. Remeber "trickle down economics"? Well, now we've got a case of "trickle up economics". They were perfectly happy to allow the poorer class to wallow in ruin for months, but now it's starting to hit them in their own pockets and, whaddayaknow, they're freaking out. What a bunch of flaming assholes.

Anyway. Back to election coverage.

I can understand why McCain might not make as many public appearances in the next few days because of the vote in Congress, but I don't understand all of the hullabaloo about "suspending" his campaign & even pulling his TV ads off the air. I think that sort of reaction has scared me much more than if he had not made a big statement at all. I agree with Obama on this one; as president you'll have to be able to handle more than one thing at a time so there's no need to suspend the campaign (especially with so few days left before the election). If the issue still has not come to a vote on Capitol Hill by Friday evening, they can postpone the debate by a day or so until the vote goes through. Either way, the people have a right to hear how these two candidates feel on this issues. Now more than ever.

I saw the David Letterman video (thank you, Jezebel & Gawker Media!). I can see why McCain would chose to appear on a serious news show now rather than on Letterman, but that isn't the point Dave is trying to make. It sounds like Dave was given the impression that McCain was immediately rushing back to DC, but he wasn't and that's the first thing that offended him (the lie/misleading info/whathaveyou). I totally agree with him about McCain suspending his campaign. Why not just allow Palin to handle things for a few days? He was happy to let her run the show for the week after she was announced as his running mate. Now they're keeping her very hush-hush. What's that about?!

Which reminds me of the recent commentary on sexism by Campbell Brown. If you haven't seen it yet, you need to.


girltrouble
thing is, rose, you can't just put off the debate for a day or two. these things take months to plan, and have to be fit inbetween large events (football games, holidays, religious events, other scheduled events, etc.) not to mention the security considerations, fundraising and matching the candidate's schedules. plus we've got roughly 40 days till the election and not only have we had no debates, we've got precious few scheduled. it's a huge logistical undertaking. no this was an attempt to avoid the debates. mccain is backing out, and trying to provide cover for palin, who really doesn't know the issues. there have been bombings days before debates, and they still went forward in this country.

there is no reason to suspend the campaigns. there's not. mccain even as a presidential candidate has precious little sway over the event. no. this is political theater, pure and simple. according to barney frank, the guy who IS in charge of the committee who is working on this, has said he hasn't heard from mccain since this thing blew up, but he's talked to obama daily. mccain even admitted that he hadn't read the proposal at all as late as tuesday. mccain hasn't been in washington since april. now you might think that's cos of campaigning, but obama was there in june.


and i agree with you about the trickle up thing. that's so f'ing true.
kari
I agree....if McCain wants to pull his ads off the air for a few days, that's his business. But, his calling for suspension of the campaigns and postponment of the debate contributes to needless panic. Don't get me wrong, the situation is serious. Yes. Everyone admits that. But I think he's being over dramatic. Plus, I think if he was going to pull this move, he should have done it Monday, when negotiations began. He took action too late to appear authentic, IMO.

McCain just doesn't want to debate til legislation is passed b/c then it'll be safer for him.


girltrouble
msnbc is reporting that the bail out deal is 250 billion at first, then later another 100 bil, when the paulson certifies he needs it, then he's got to go back to capitol hill for the final 350. hmph. so much for the disaster. if it was really as bad as they were making it out why is it so easily satisfied at 250b?

no, all the talk of a depression was just scare tactics. now the house gop is dragging it's feet probably till after the stupid photo-op at the white house to say that they approve to give the appearance that john mccain actually had fuck all to do with this agreement. it's absurd. last night rachel maddow had laurence o'donnell on. he used to be the democratic chief of staff of the united states senate committee. he said he's been to plenty of these things and that these things are all show. plus the meeting is scheduled to take an hour. it probably took them the greater part of that just to sit down. rolleyes.gif

if mccain was really worried about the economy, first off, he would have been very careful not to say "depression" i think the reaction here and elsewhere showed that did more to make people thing this was way more scary than it really was. at a time when the market is so loopy, you need to convey confidence. instead he's shooting his mouth off. what's more if this is more than a gimmick, why is he angling to "make a deal" about the debate? shouldn't it be cut and dry? what's to negotiate? either you're gonna be there or not.... and why do they want to postpone the vp race?


interesting: i just read an article by arianna huffington saying basically what i said two posts down, about how taking the bankruptcy provisions out is poop. the super smart david sirota agreed, saying, ""When did a crisis suddenly mean that giving away taxpayer cash is laudably apolitical, but spending taxpayer money on taxpayers is inappropriately 'political?'"

this may not go thru after all. i just heard barbra boxer (who i LOVE) saying she's not sure she can vote for it. she said she was proud that they've changed it from the blank check proposal they got handed with a gun to their head last week. she said that the whole "trenches" thing was so much better. i agree. but honestly? i hope it goes down. why? because i don't really think this should be rushed thru. i think the market has been holding their breath for a week and they will hold their breath even longer. i think they should give paulson/bernake 150bill, and say, keep it afloat till january when the new president comes in. but now is not the time. there's too much time pressure, and something, perhaps it's just bush & co, something smells rotten in denmark. (and no, ms palin, you can't see it from alaska.)
anarch
WTF. This morning they had a plan, then after the meeting between Bush, Obama, McCain et al, there's no plan?

I wouldn't put it past McCain to stick his heels in and fuck it up so he has an excuse to not show up at the debate tomorrow.
anarch
National Review on pay equity:
I explored the gap between Barack Obama’s rhetoric on pay equity and the reality of how he pays women in his Senate office. While Obama preaches equal pay for equal work, he does not practice it on Capitol Hill.

Well, it turns out that his running mate, Joe Biden, is even worse.


Clarification by LegiStorm, the source of the raw data:

We do not take a position either for or against Murdock's analysis. We will simply note that there has been some debate about the validity of his claims because he did not include consideration of whether the men and women were doing equal work. Whether this criticism was valid is also something we do not take a position on.

I guess the "for equal work" part of "equal pay for equal work" is too nuanced for right-wingers to grasp.
girltrouble
yeah, when you're talking to right wingers, the word "equal" or any derivation there of to them is either static or that high pitched noise that only dogs can hear.

if you'll note they never say equal rights, they say "special" rights.

when i talk to republicans irl i throw that word in because i like to see them cock their had at an angle and give me a confused look. but then i like cheap fun.

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

so this is not good.

i don't really want to rattle off all the doings in the last 12 hours, but this is really nuts. at about 1pm it looked like this was a done deal... senate republicans and democrats of the house and senate have been working all week to put this thing together, but then john mccain came to town.

from what i understand mccain really had nothing to do this, strangely. from the reports i'm hearing there are a bunch of house republicans who basically decided they didn't want this bill last night. they have been saying and doing nothing publicly, not talking to the people trying to cobble this thing together, they just decided they wanted to kill the bailout. it seems that these young house republicans hold mccain in low regard, but asked him what to do he declined. so he came to town for.....

just the photo ops?


now i understand some of what the house republicans are saying, i don't like the idea of giving any of bush's cronies, but if you have issues with the bill you don't just wait till 11:55, metaphorically, to speak up. and you certainly don't wait till the last minute to send someone in with a page of demands. further, you do not send them in with strict instructions NOT to negotiate with the people you've given the list of demands to.

what's worse, the things on the list of demands are the things that have gotten us into this f'ing mess: another cut to the capitol gains tax, and more deregulation.

these kids have been drinking too much of the gop ideology coolaid if they think giving the rich another tax cut will help at this point. it's beyond that, and, it would seem, beyond their grasp.




pollystyrene
White Privilege in the 2008 election

Keith Olbermann talking about Palin's scary witch huntin' pastor

Wow, that takes ya back to the good ol' days of 1692, eh?
kari
Geez oh pete, what a mess!!

I am very curious to see what goes down today regarding the debate. At this point, it's all about PR and which campaign manages it better.

I don't put anything past McCain. He's tricky and slimy, in my opinion.

We shall see.
pollystyrene
Part of me hopes the debate is postponed- we're going over to a friend's house tonight and the husband-half of the couple has some rethuglican tendencies. He's a good person and he means well, and I honestly don't know who he plans on voting for (in the last couple years, he seems to have gotten frustrated with both sides and doesn't officially consider himself either one) but I want to watch the debates, but don't want to deal with the argument I'm sure will happen.

It's not like there'd be a big blow out between us; it's actually more annoying than that- even if he doesn't agree with something (or says he doesn't agree with something) he'll "play devil's advocate" and argue for it....I think sometimes it's a cover for agreeing with it, but whatever. Anyway, this always makes the discussion pointless and circular and I just can't take it. I don't have time for that crap now.

I'm considering voting early. I just want to get it over with. I'm a little confused about how that works, though. I don't know if anyone would know this, but there are several sites in my area where I can go to vote, but none of them in my actual town. So, if there's a local city referendum or something, will that still be on the ballot? Or will I only be able to vote from president down to the state or maybe county level?

I really hope McCain's decision to postpone his campaign backfires. I hope Obama uses it as an opportunity to show that McCain can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time. If he can't handle running a campaign and deal with the economy (as someone who isn't even involved in the actual process) how the hell is he going to be president? I'm guessing that if he wins (*shudder*) and this keeps up, he may have as many vacation days as Dubya.
girltrouble
actually, poly i think you might be able to go to obama's website and get the voting info. their website is very informative, and they are very good about getting you the proper information. but i don't think your state has started the voting yet.

i hope they debate. because obama would clean his clock.

i don't know if anyone else feels this way, but i am starting to wonder if a)the mccain campaign will even hold together till november, and 2)how can any sane person vote for mccain/palin. everytime i see footage of the palin interview with kuric, and it is terrifying that she could be running the country. check this out: she calls kissinger naive. mccain isn't much better, but if he doesn't know something he doesn't bullshit. he says he doesn't know. thing is what he doesn't know could fill a couple of oceans.

as for going over to your friends, i'd flake. i cannot bite my tongue when it comes to politics. i don't think i could deal with someone playing devils advocate right now. that's just stupidness in this case.

i think you are more right than you know polly on the vaca days increasing with a mccain admin. for the first couple of months of the race mccain took weekends off. by april he had already taken 20 weekends off. i know i'm pointing out the obvious, but with 53 weeks to a year, that's freaking nuts.

i'm starting to hear rumors that mccain's eye twitch could be a mild stroke.

and in some sanity news: according to politico some swing states are moving into the obama leaning column including: colorado, michigan, and pennsylvania. now if florida and ohio would take their head out of their ass.....

i don't get why the press isn't covering what was in the proposal house republicans submitted last night. because i think if we knew more than bits and pieces (like ceo compensation, capitol gains cuts for the rich-- again), the public would be furious.

from what i've found here is the best info on what happened yesterday.
girltrouble
mccain will be at the debates, reports msnbc, fox, et. al.

*rubs her hands together in anticipation*

i really hope that obama busts out some knives tonight instead of being everybody's friend. rolleyes.gif

brutal!

a conservative writer for the national review no less, says palin should drop out. i hope to god she doesn't. because if she did, the media would be so distracted mccain could get away with more than he already has. but can she drop out? doesn't the vp need party approval? i don't know how that would work, and wouldn't he lose fed funding, anyways?

but here are some snippets from the piece, titled Palin Problem: She's out of her league.
QUOTE
Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. ...I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. ...My cringe reflex is exhausted.

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
hoosierman78
I haven't read anything, so I don't have anywhere to link to for verification, but I did hear something interesting on my morning news while getting ready for work regarding the House Republicans shenanigans. They have (according to the news cast anyway) proposed an insurance fund that would back the losses of companies that buy up all the bad paper. The theory on the news was it had the potential to not put taxpayers on the hook for the failed companies, but at the same time, if the bad paper stayed bad, the bailout would go on with little to no oversight.

While I think the idea of an insurance type solution is a good one in theory, in practice, I don't see it working. I see companies buying up the failing banks for pennies on the dollar, then filing claims for the actual 'value' of the bad paper.

I'm going to try to find out more about this, as I don't really know enough details to speak intelligently on it. I just wish someone would hit the rewind button so they can think this through rather than put out the knee jerk reactions that will cost us billions of dollars that could be much better spent.
hoosierman78
QUOTE(girltrouble @ Sep 26 2008, 03:46 PM) *
[color=#ff0066]mccain will be at the debates, reports msnbc, fox, et. al.

brutal!

a conservative writer for the national review no less, says palin should drop out. i hope to god she doesn't. because if she did, the media would be so distracted mccain could get away with more than he already has. but can she drop out? doesn't the vp need party approval? i don't know how that would work, and wouldn't he lose fed funding, anyways?

but here are some snippets from the piece, titled Palin Problem: She's out of her league.


I think as the presidential nominee, McCain would have the ability to choose a new running mate if Palin dropped out. I do know that if he were elected, then she dropped out, it would be like any cabinet appointment and Senate approval would be required.

The convention delegates may have to get involved for a more or less ceremonial 'vote', but in reality, I doubt there would be any flack about who he picked. I mean, Gov. Palin seems to be a nice enough person and all, but as the article you posted says is clearly out of her league. In short, he really couldn't do a whole lot worse anyway.
girltrouble
i was being factious with those questions with the exception of the fed funding thing.


if you can find that paper that they shoved under the door last night, hoos, i'd love to see that.

ETA: found it. right here.
my take on it: the full coverage of mbs insurance is an interesting one.
"removing regulatory and tax barriers that are currently blocking private capital formation. Too much private capital is sitting on the sidelines during this crisis."
while the second sentence is true, the first is not the reason for it. this is a non-sequitur, the last few years have been nothing but deregulation and tax cuts, yet, here we are.
"Temporary tax relief provisions can help companies free up capital to maintain operations, create jobs, and lend to one another. In addition, we should allow for a temporary suspension of dividend payments by financial institutions and other regulatory measures to address the problems surrounding private capital liquidity."
if the gov't has been dumping buckets of money into the financial system, and they still don't want to loan out any money, what makes them think the minute percentage that would be freed from dividend relief, or tax relief would make them even more willing to loan money? this, too is bs.
"Limit Federal Exposure for High Risk Loans: Mandate that the
GSEs no longer securitize any unsound mortgages."

this sounds good, but it sounds like the first step. what comes next? if the GSEs (government sponsored enterprises) aren't going to securitize (ie break up, pool and repackage) the bad mortgages, then what? the current problem is focused on these bad deals, so how is federal exposure minimized? after all, aren't we going to have to buy these turkeys anyways to keep these institutions going?

granted, i'm no economist, but neither are these guys. but reading and figuring out a lot of this stuff, for me at least, isn't so much an exercise in numbers, which is my achilles' heel, but an exercise in understanding terminology. it's like reading gender, film or any other theory stuff. if you speak the language it starts to make sense.
*********






as for thinking this thru, that's kind of what's been happening. the democrats have -- surprizingly -- been putting together something that is immensely better than the steaming pile they were handed last week. remember the trillion dollar 2 page proposal?

they've knocked 300billion off of that, given oversight to it, and put it in installments, the final, biggest chunk demanding congressional approval. so the amount spent could be as little as 450 b.

is it perfect? far from it, but it beats the fuck out of what i've heard, this trite horseshit about cutting capitol gains tax. seriously, wtf!?
girltrouble
wow.... he really is good.


it seems that mccain, according to an ad accidentally released this morning, has already won the debate.

which is pretty impressive.... considering he didn't even say he was going to the debate before he declared victory. perhaps, as we've seen over the last couple of weeks, mccain likes doing things ass backwards. or...maybe this was part of the "deal" he was insisting needed to be made with the debate committee: if he is guaranteed to win, then he'll show.
pollystyrene
I'm not a big debate watcher in general, so pardon my Palin-esque ignorance- do they really pick a winner, and if they do, how so?
girltrouble
they can, but it's not very clear cut. basically, who ever has the most soundbite-able, the most sharp quip. like these.

often it's not who looks most presidential, that sort of thing fades. but the soundbite, well that sort of thing gets played for decades.

or you can use this guy's measure

or drinking games: slate's,
someone else's,
comedy central,
huff post's

watching it so far, it's about a draw. although obama knows his shit. but then, he's a policy wonk.

mccain's stories are killing me. dude: M.E.G.O.: my eyes glaze over.
tesao
i guess that John wasn't willing to attend the debate unless there were "preconditions" - that's why that ad about his winning was made.

what a joke.

i'm actually very glad that i'm not in the USA and thus subject to all of the ads. i have to make up my mind based on what i see and read, not on the ad campaigns that can justly show "the medium is the massage" - as marshall mccluean (sp?) so famously said.

to be as neutral as i can be (and i suspect that isn't very neutral at all), mccain fell flat on his face with his standard "age" quips - "are you sure he didn't think i needed to have that question repeated?" "my pen is pretty old" (wtf was THAT about?) "i've been around a long time". obama did what he needed to do - he looked presidential and didn't back down. he directed his remarks directly at mccain. (mccain refused to even look at obama, despite leherer's attempts to have them debate each OTHER) he was able to look directly at mccain and say "you were WRONG". point to obama.

i think that in terms of the economy, obama won.

i think that mccain stood his ground on showing his seniority - he has met many of the primary figures in foreign policy and that played to his strengths. he is no fool. mccain managed to get through the debate without "losing it" it the way he did 4 years ago when he got angry and began screaming. he does have more foreign policy experience. that doesn't change that he is the oldest first term presidential candidate in history and that he just might have a stroke and leave (*shudder*) sarah palin in power by dying in office.
anarch
Talking Points Memo: McCain may have given away his status as a low-ranking monkey

Fivethirtyeight: Why voters thought Obama won
geekchickknits
I missed the debate....anyone know where I can watch it online?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.