Jump to content

DEM Primaries/Candidates thread


NorthSideSox72

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 02:34 PM)
Carvell basically called Richardson a Judas .... on Good Friday. Supposedly, Richardson and slick Willie had a pretty heated phone conversation as well and Obama's campaign has compared Willie to Eugene McCarthy. This is fun s***.

 

In all seriousness, is there really a reason that James Carville gets treated any differently than Karl Rove? They are the exact same person. Yet one gets to parade around CNN and the news stations, while the other is the punchline to jokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 07:27 AM)
In all seriousness, is there really a reason that James Carville gets treated any differently than Karl Rove? They are the exact same person. Yet one gets to parade around CNN and the news stations, while the other is the punchline to jokes.

Last I checked, they both end up on CNN, and they are both the punchline of jokes. :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 24, 2008 -> 10:24 PM)
I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel the other night about the dotcom crash from 2000-2002. One point brought up was that Greenspan's inaction then late reaction was partially responsible for the severity of the crash.

 

How far do you go to save stupid companies? This is a FREE market system after all. The whole point of it is that the state isn't supposed to be making overall market decesions, that should be left up to the individual. Bubbles happen, as do bad investments. The beauty of the US is that you write it off and move on. You can't, and shouldn't, rescue everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had actually started kinda listening to Carville last night on AC 360 to be fair but I changed the channel when he started implying Obama was trying to sabotage the elections in FL and MI and glossed over the fact that Hillary was ok with the DNC's decision until just a few weeks ago. I really can't stand hearing that kind of nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the picture of Hilary in Bosnia in 1996

 

 

 

Is it just me(or my cruddy work computer), or does Hilary look like she is wearing a Dr Evil-style Monacle on her right eye? lol

Edited by kyyle23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:30 AM)
How far do you go to save stupid companies? This is a FREE market system after all. The whole point of it is that the state isn't supposed to be making overall market decesions, that should be left up to the individual. Bubbles happen, as do bad investments. The beauty of the US is that you write it off and move on. You can't, and shouldn't, rescue everyone.

 

I pretty much agree, and so here's the honest question: Should Bear Stearns have been allowed to go belly-up with no Fed interference? Your statement is pretty black and white, so I'm assuming your position is that the Fed should not butt in and economic ripples be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:31 AM)
I pretty much agree, and so here's the honest question: Should Bear Stearns have been allowed to go belly-up with no Fed interference? Your statement is pretty black and white, so I'm assuming your position is that the Fed should not butt in and economic ripples be damned.

In the case of a firm that is holding a lot of people's money, I think the obligation level is higher. So I think its in the country's best interest to not let Bear Stearns simply disintegrate.

 

That said, I think maybe it would be good to legislate something like this... if the federal government has to step in to bail out or financially cushion a firm, then its executives (above a certain level) should be required to leave the firm within X period of time, and not be eligible for severance greater than X amount of money. Basically, if you sink the ship, you ain't getting a yacht back to harbor to get a new ship - you're going in the dinghy with steerage. See ya later.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 07:32 AM)
I had actually started kinda listening to Carville last night on AC 360 to be fair but I changed the channel when he started implying Obama was trying to sabotage the elections in FL and MI and glossed over the fact that Hillary was ok with the DNC's decision until just a few weeks ago. I really can't stand hearing that kind of nonsense.

and of course he has no facts to back it up. He just says it as fact and moves on.

 

This from the campaign who is suing in Texas to stop the caucus count... after she lost the caucus.

Edited by Athomeboy_2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When asked why she'd appoint Alan Greenspan to a working group of financial leaders to design a response to the housing crisis, Clinton told the Philadelphia Daily News:

 

"Not only that, but the Fed didn't act while he was there. But he has a calming influence still to this day on Wall Street -- don't ask me why because I never understand what he's saying -- but nevertheless people respond to that Delphic oracle approach. I think it would be wise to include him. And recently he's come out and vert smartly so that we have to deal with housing and maybe we need to have some kind of buyout mechanism for mortgages. So he's moved on his understanding and depth of the problem -- but you know you could pick three others.

 

LINK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:31 AM)
I pretty much agree, and so here's the honest question: Should Bear Stearns have been allowed to go belly-up with no Fed interference? Your statement is pretty black and white, so I'm assuming your position is that the Fed should not butt in and economic ripples be damned.

 

For me philosophically it is a tough question. The Fed bank does exist, and this is actually a banking situation. I really disagree with most of their handling of this situation so far on the consumer side, but agree with the liquidity they have been adding to the system. That is exactly what they are supposed to exist for. Where do you draw the line? That is where it gets interesting. I personally feel that the fed banks role is more of a macro role, related directly to banking. I do not think it is the role of the fed to look at stock prices and make decesions based on those commodity prices. I don't much care for what the fed has become in micromanaging things. I guess this is the evolution of all of our government over the past 75 years or so though. They are involved in our lives from the day we are born (health insurance, shots, get your SSN etc) to the day we die (medicare/cade, SSI, etc) so what is the difference if they control the economy while they are at it? It is kind of depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will Bunch was at the Daily News editor board session with Hillary Clinton today. And in the process of asking her a delegate number crunching question she told him, "And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They’re just like superdelegates."

 

Technically this is true. In fact, I believe that all of the delegates at the Democratic Convention can do whatever they want. They may have been elected to be a Clinton or Obama delegate. And they're 'pledged' to vote for that candidate. But once they're on the floor of the hall they actually free to do whatever they want.

 

But it's basically a non-point because campaigns don't choose just anyone to serve as a delegate. They pick the absolute hardest core supporters of their candidate. So the odds of any delegate getting flipped are basically nil.

 

LINK

Edited by BigSqwert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 08:07 AM)
A think a lot of independents like myself will be voting for McCain, should that happen.

 

I'm not going to comment or make any predictions ... but it would fun to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 25, 2008 -> 10:08 AM)
I'd sit this one out.

Me too... honestly, it's not sour grapes. It's not even that I dislike McCain as much as I'd want no part of the election.

 

Actually I think I'd write in a vote for Optimus Prime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...