Allure Massage

I feel so sorry for John McCain

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
I really do think he was a stand up guy. I was looking forward to one of the first American elections in a long, long time with two credible candidates running head to head. You may disagree with their respective policies, but both Obama and McCain are solid politicians who would do well in the top job.

However, then there's this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html

Palin is single handedly destroying any chance the GOP has of winning this election, and probably smashing down the chances of a few senators and congressmen as she flames out.

I can't believe that the Powers That Be in the GOP have allowed this to go on. Unbelievable.
 

Mcluhan

New member
Diva - yet another mangled word

This line caught my eye... potent stuff to release into the media pool..

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."


" Diva
From Wikipedia,

For other senses of this word, see diva (disambiguation).

A diva is a celebrated female singer. The Italian term is used to describe a woman of rare, outstanding talent in the world of opera, and by extension in theatre and popular music. The meaning of 'diva' is closely related to that of "prima donna".

The basic sense of the term is "Goddess" or "fine lady"[1][2] and it derives from the Latin 'divus' meaning 'divine'.[3]

Great singers who have been hailed as divas include Jenny Lind, Adelina Patti, Rosa Ponselle, Maria Callas, Beverly Sills, Joan Sutherland, Renata Tebaldi, Renata Scotto and Mirella Freni.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
fuji said:
I can't believe that the Powers That Be in the GOP have allowed this to go on. Unbelievable.
I can because the nutzy neocon radicals of the GOP are running it now!
This is the way the insane 'w' wing of the GOP operates.
Hopefully when they get their arses handed to them in november the moderate GOPers will grow some stones and take their party back from the insane wing and begin to repair the damage their insane wing has done to their party as they put these war mongering neocons safely back in a lockbox....;)
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,288
10
38
Toronto
fuji said:
I really do think he was a stand up guy.
He was... until he sold his soul to the GOP base. Now he's paying the price for his sins. I hope he learned his lesson.
 

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
19,071
5,443
113
Lewiston, NY
Probably not ...

Don said:
He was... until he sold his soul to the GOP base. Now he's paying the price for his sins. I hope he learned his lesson.
He didn't learn it when his buddy Charles Keating sold him out and almost ended his political career, so why now? Problem for him now is his political career is, in all probability, effectively over in 10 days lesson learned or not.

By the way, I don't feel sorry for him one damn bit. He was eternally damned when he threw over his faithful wife (and mother of his children) for the rich, good looking bitch anyway.:mad:
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,288
10
38
Toronto
terbul said:
Really, did he have much of a choice. It is one thing to win the party nomination as a rogue in the party: a position he used as a rallying call for support. Remember, he was not supported by the party in the nomination process. he was an outsider. But once he won, he had to get support from the party machine to run for president.
He could have said F-U I'm gonna run the campaign my way even though it may hurt his chances. He could have really been a "maverick". But he's a politician and he sold out at the end.
 

chiller_boy

New member
Apr 1, 2005
919
0
0
nathan_wong0 said:
Tell that to the millions of American who lost money in their 401 K plan!


Economists: Gramm To Blame For The Current Crisis»

In recent days, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been promising to “put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street.” This is an interesting development for McCain, who before this week was a champion of deregulation.

It is doubly interesting though, because McCain voted for the bill that deregulated Wall St. and allowed such “reckless conduct” to occur in the first place. And one of the bill’s architects was McCain economic adviser, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX).

In 1999, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which abolished “all of the significant rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat.” Specifically, this act “destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies.”

Yesterday, a group of economists, including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, slammed Gramm for having a “mentality that doesn’t understand the nature of systemic risks in financial systems,” and said that his bill helped create the current financial turmoil:

Economic experts say that Gramm and others are to blame for the current crisis that is shaking Wall Street.


Gramm’s successful effort to pass banking reform laws in 1999, which reduced decades-old regulations separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities, helped to create the current economic crisis.

“As a result, the culture of investment banks was conveyed to commercial banks and everyone got involved in the high-risk gambling mentality. That mentality was core to the problem that we’re facing now,” Stiglitz says.

Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, said that “we were setting up this bonfire years ago — the deregulation, the inordinate amount of liquidity given to the system all set the stage for the bubble and the bust.”

So McCain is promising to put an end to the “reckless conduct” that he voted to allow, while being advised by a team that still believes rampant deregulation is the way to go.

I wonder what benefits Gramm thought were going to accrue from the banking deregulation that he championed? What problem was he solving? I am more and more beginning to believe that Sarkozy is right and that we need a complete overhaul of a system which seems to be tilted(until recently) toward rewarding the rich, highly leveraged and the risk takers(with other people's money). Greed, as it turns out, is not always good.

The mantra in America for the last decade is that market investment is the key towards retirement and defined pensions hobble corporate america(as do those pesky health claims). Would we allow the social security system to take such risky actions(say, buying mortgages). If not, why do we allow the 'private' system, which has our future well being in its hands, to do so?
 

capncrunch

New member
Apr 1, 2007
1,802
3
0
chiller_boy said:
I wonder what benefits Gramm thought were going to accrue from the banking deregulation that he championed?
He, like so many others, bought into the notion that banks and other financial institutions were better off at regulating themselves than having to conform to legislation.

One of the big reasons why Canada's banking system is considered the most stable in the world and why they avoided most of the mess that's currently ravaging the US system is because of the regulations they must follow.

Even Alan Greenspan has seen the error of his ways, albeit a little too late.
 

hwic

New member
Dec 27, 2006
224
0
0
Don,

Did you actually read any of it? It's a very straight ahead resume of Mr. McCain's career to date.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,288
10
38
Toronto
Yes I did read it. The Rolling Stone article generate quite a bit of buzz in the news and while it doesn't contain any explicitly false materal, many have made comments that some of the source is skewed.
 

chiller_boy

New member
Apr 1, 2005
919
0
0
capncrunch said:
He, like so many others, bought into the notion that banks and other financial institutions were better off at regulating themselves than having to conform to legislation.

.
Yes, I understand the ideological bias, but what specific problem was he solving? Was he trying to save federal oversight money, as has been done in governmental jurisdictions in both Canada in the US( see meat inspections, watrer inspections, airline safety inspections, etc...) or was the regulations seen as a specific barrier to banking or investment house profits? In other words, where were Gramm's 'weapons of mass destruction'?
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
hwic said:
For the real scoop on McCain, Check out this Rolling Stone article.

www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
Great article and many of these points had been uncovered going back to the Nam era. It basically shows that McDubya like Dubya were both well off and rich pampered spoiled piss-pots who counted on 'family connections' to get them out of any serious scrapes they had while young. BOTH were far from that so called 'Family Values Model' the GOP likes to trot out every 3 and a half years before every POTUS election!....:rolleyes:
 

capncrunch

New member
Apr 1, 2007
1,802
3
0
chiller_boy said:
Yes, I understand the ideological bias, but what specific problem was he solving? Was he trying to save federal oversight money, as has been done in governmental jurisdictions in both Canada in the US( see meat inspections, watrer inspections, airline safety inspections, etc...) or was the regulations seen as a specific barrier to banking or investment house profits?
Probably some sort of combination of the two.

The whole concept was probably sold to Gramm and others something like this:
Allow us (banks) to regulate ourselves. We know what we're doing, and the concepts are so complex that we can't expect regulators to know all the details. This will save the government money and will increase our profits, which means more taxable income for the government and, under supply-side economic theory, we'll employ more people and pay them better wages.​
And, of course, we all know how it turned out.
 

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
19,071
5,443
113
Lewiston, NY
And don't forget ...

capncrunch said:
Probably some sort of combination of the two.

The whole concept was probably sold to Gramm and others something like this:
Allow us (banks) to regulate ourselves. We know what we're doing, and the concepts are so complex that we can't expect regulators to know all the details. This will save the government money and will increase our profits, which means more taxable income for the government and, under supply-side economic theory, we'll employ more people and pay them better wages.​
And, of course, we all know how it turned out.
The bankers can also help a whole lot with political fundraising - they know who has all the money!!:p
 

S.C. Joe

Client # 13
Nov 2, 2007
7,145
1
0
Detroit, USA
Don't speak too soon, McCain hasn't lost yet :(

I'm getting more worry as Nov 4th gets closer.
 
Toronto Escorts