The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

SOMEBODY needs to step up and hold these people accountable. I believe that John McCain will do that before Barack Obama will.

Yes, and he could start by firing his campaign manager.

[Uno_up]

Yo, Rick. It seems you're forgetting this one little detail... 9/11 preceded Bush's 'war'. When 9/11 happened, EVERYTHING changed. How things might have been different is certainly debatable, but you can't blame it all on Iraq. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Yo Donna. How ya doin? 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Bush had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11.

Hiya Honey!!!

I don't believe that for a minute, Rick. And even if it were true, none of the war talk really has anything to do with all the BS that's going on now. Greed and unethical behavior between our legislators and the assholes on Wall Street, that's what the new crisis is. Blaming one party over the other isn't getting to the root cause of the problem, IMO. Both sides have their fair share of 'patriots and pinheads' (to quote BOR). SOMEBODY needs to step up and hold these people accountable. I believe that John McCain will do that before Barack Obama will.

Of course, it's just more convenient to sit back and point fingers for the next 30 days than to actually hold folks accountable...

The motives were good, they wanted to get more people into homes. But they went too far, engaging in personal attacks against the FANNIE and FREDDIE regulator OFHEO even though the data screamed that there was a problem a few years ago.

Much easier to blame Wall Street greed, I guess. Politicians have the microphones, so their message will be heard.

[nolippin]

Yeah, and she's "palling around" with Thomas Muthee.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/arc ... -governor/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... ashes.html

well dog gone it sarah is in so cal and she didn't call me!

now she spouts, as she wrinkles up that cute nose of hers, that barack is "palling around with terrorists" that target their (this) country. who the heck is she talkin bout anyway??

[The_Noble_Cause]

well dog gone it sarah is in so cal and she didn't call me!

now she spouts, as she wrinkles up that cute nose of hers, that barack is "palling around with terrorists" that target their (this) country. who the heck is she talkin bout anyway??

Must be leftover material from her well-poisoning speech at the Convention.

[Rick]

Bush had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11.

Says who?

I fully expect this to be blasted, but Lindsey Williams.

Don't know about Lindsey, post a link.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... iams&hl=en

This was posted a couple of weeks ago, and I invested the time to watch it. It's 1:15:00 long, but worth the watch, whether you believe it or not. I tend to because of the fact that back it up.

[Rick]

Bush had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11.

Says who?

I fully expect this to be blasted, but Lindsey Williams.

Rick,
Is that Grodin? “Midnight Run” and “Heaven can wait” are freakin awesome.

No, as 7 said, it's John Cleese from Monty Python. One of my favorite comedians. Love Charles Grodin too though. His appearances on David Letterman kill me.

[donnaplease]

well dog gone it sarah is in so cal and she didn't call me!

now she spouts, as she wrinkles up that cute nose of hers, that barack is "palling around with terrorists" that target their (this) country. who the heck is she talkin bout anyway??

She's talking about William Ayers.

[donnaplease]

Sorry, a little off-topic here, but my son just called from the UVa-Maryland football game. The pep band was playing Separate Ways and he thought it was awesome!

[Don]

Bush had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11.

Says who?

I fully expect this to be blasted, but Lindsey Williams.

Rick,
Is that Grodin? “Midnight Run” and “Heaven can wait” are freakin awesome.

No, as 7 said, it's John Cleese from Monty Python. One of my favorite comedians. Love Charles Grodin too though. His appearances on David Letterman kill me.

Have you seen “Romance With A Double Bass”? John's exwife is in it with him, funny as hell.

[The_Noble_Cause]

well dog gone it sarah is in so cal and she didn't call me!

now she spouts, as she wrinkles up that cute nose of hers, that barack is "palling around with terrorists" that target their (this) country. who the heck is she talkin bout anyway??

She's talking about William Ayers.

You mean the tenured professor at the University of Illinois?
I wonder if the Dean and student body know he is actually still a terrorist.
Duhhhhhhhh

[Rick]

Bush had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11.

Says who?

I fully expect this to be blasted, but Lindsey Williams.

Rick,
Is that Grodin? “Midnight Run” and “Heaven can wait” are freakin awesome.

No, as 7 said, it's John Cleese from Monty Python. One of my favorite comedians. Love Charles Grodin too though. His appearances on David Letterman kill me.

Have you seen “Romance With A Double Bass”? John's exwife is in it with him, funny as hell.

Haven't seen that, but will look for it, thanks.

[conversationpc]

This whole thing about how this financial crisis is more the Republican's fault is utterly ridiculous. Who is it that was really pushing for low income people and minorities to be able to get the kinds of loans that ended up bankrupting the system? Democrats, that's who. Republicans certainly went along and assisted in the crisis but to say that Republicans are more to blame than the Dems is pretty naive. Well, not just naive, but just flat-out wrong and, in some cases, an outright lie.

[conversationpc]

well dog gone it sarah is in so cal and she didn't call me!

now she spouts, as she wrinkles up that cute nose of hers, that barack is "palling around with terrorists" that target their (this) country. who the heck is she talkin bout anyway??

She's talking about William Ayers.

You mean the tenured professor at the University of Illinois?
I wonder if the Dean and student body know he is actually still a terrorist.
Duhhhhhhhh

As if being a tenured professor really justifies anything in this case. Ridiculous argument. Anyway, he is not still a terrorist but he still espouses the same ideals.

Duhhhhhhhhh

[Rick]

well dog gone it sarah is in so cal and she didn't call me!

now she spouts, as she wrinkles up that cute nose of hers, that barack is "palling around with terrorists" that target their (this) country. who the heck is she talkin bout anyway??

She's talking about William Ayers.

You mean the tenured professor at the University of Illinois?
I wonder if the Dean and student body know he is actually still a terrorist.
Duhhhhhhhh

As if being a tenured professor really justifies anything in this case. Ridiculous argument. Anyway, he is not still a terrorist but he still espouses the same ideals.

Duhhhhhhhhh

I'd rather read the back and forth between you two than anything else in this thread.

[conversationpc]

Who is this evil-looking dude? That's not a recent photo from your family reunion, is it?

[The_Noble_Cause]

As if being a tenured professor really justifies anything in this case. Ridiculous argument. Anyway, he is not still a terrorist but he still espouses the same ideals.

Duhhhhhhhhh

If he can garner the respect of fellow academics, faculty and students, I have a hard time picturing him as the Wile E Coyote TNT detonating cartoon you paint him as. Furthermore, Obama didn’t even know the guy when he was involved in any such activity.

This just serves to illustrate the GOPs contempt for the mass IQ of the American people.

[7 Wishes]

Dead, dead wrong. Sorry, Dave and Lie Finder. You are just wrong on this one.

Bush's "America's Home Ownership Challenge" pushed private lenders to "create more creative" loan products, and encouraged them to "loosen underwriting standards." In the Bush press release "A Home of Your Own EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL AMERICANS, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH JUNE 2002", the administration even pushed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to increase the capital available for such loans--

"The federal government should demand more and should hold such publicly-chartered corporations accountable for better performance."
In this instance, "better performance" is seen as an increase in capital available for mortgage loans to underserved populations. That's the opposite of what should have been happening if Republicans were concerned about the fragility of the industry.

In 2002, the President issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to increase first-time minority homeowners by 5.5 million through 2010. In 2006, 31 percent of those using FHA mortgages were minorities purchasing their first home. The 2008 Budget continues Administration efforts to modernize FHA by improving its ability to reach traditionally underserved homebuyers (aka those who do not normally qualify for loans), such as low- and moderate-income families, individuals with blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment.

It's a bit of a problem to claim that the Democrats were responsible for pushing risky loans and relaxed underwriting, when the Republican President, with the complicity of his party, demanded loans be extended to individuals with blemished credit, or who could not afford down payments.

From W's speech in Georgia in 2002: "One of the barriers to homeownership is the inability to make a downpayment. And if one of the goals is to increase homeownership, it makes sense to help people pay that downpayment...And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts.

This means they will purchase more loans made by banks after Americans, Hispanics and other minorities, which will encourage homeownership. Freddie Mac will launch 25 initiatives to eliminate homeownership barriers. Under one of these, consumers with poor credit will be able to get a mortgage with an interest rate that automatically goes down after a period of consistent payments.

It was the Republican administration which directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to more aggressively serve risky markets, and threatened their charter if they did not do so.

On December 16, 2003, President Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help approximately 40,000 families a year with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen America’s housing market. This legislation complements the President’s aggressive housing agenda announced in 2002 to dismantle the barriers to homeownership.

(From White House Press Release "American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 – Expanding Homeownership Opportunities for All).

The American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 followed Bush's admonishment that capital must be made available to "low- and moderate-income families, individuals with blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment."

The Republican administration had HUD offer "zero down payment" mortgages, and risky 3, 5, and 7-year ARMs.

The elimination of the requirement for a 3% downpayment for a HUD/FHA loan was part of Bush's initiative.

Of course, these goals were reiterated in the 2004 GOP platform.

"The most significant barrier to homeownership is the down payment. We support efforts to reduce that barrier, like the American Dream Downpayment Act and Zero Downpayment Mortgages."

It was the Gramm Leach Bliley Act that allowed banks to deal in mortgage-backed securities. Without passage of the GLBA by a Republican-controlled Congress, the subprime mess couldn't have happened. Chief architect of the GLBA? John McCain's economic adviser, Phil Gramm. Yes, that Phil Gramm. The GLBA was passed on a vote split along party lines (John McCain voted "aye," by the way).

The GLBA eliminated regulatory oversight that was essential to prevent the sorts of naked fraud that have fueled the current crisis. As a result of the GLBA and Republican love of deregulation, the banking industry was allowed to "opt out" of regulation, something that SEC Chairman Chris Cox now blames for the current crisis.

“The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work,” he said in a statement. The program “was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily. The fact that investment bank holding companies could withdraw from this voluntary supervision at their discretion diminished the perceived mandate” of the program, and “weakened its effectiveness,” he added.

With the economy facing a recession, Congress looked to stimulate the economy by stimulating the housing market. Bush often pointed to the increase in home ownership as an indication that he had, in fact, done exactly that. Mortgage-backed securities were in such demand because they allowed banks and lenders to turn an illiquid asset - mortgages-- into a liquid asset by bundling the mortgages and selling them as securities. Many people thought that they were great securities to buy because they were secured by collateral -- the homes -- and if the debt went bad, the collateral could be sold. As a result, demand for these "products" exceeded supply. What did the Republican administration do? Pushed aggressively for ways to increase the supply, including forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer risky loans to people with bad credit. And with Republicans in Congress, effective regulation and oversight of the markets was made "voluntary"-- in other words, nonexistent.

Additionally, there are a lot of claims that the Republicans attempted to push through legislation requiring oversight of the subprime market, and that Democrats stymied the bill. A corollary to that claim is that McCain cosponsored the legislation, and sounded the clarion bell on the impending crisis. Not true.

The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S190) was introduced in the Senate on Jan 26, 2005, sponsored by Chuck Hagel and co-sponsored by Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu. John McCain was not a co-sponsor at that time. After some discussion in the Republican-controlled committee, the bill was tabled for revision. In other words, in a Republican controlled Congress, in a Republican controlled committee, the bill died, and was never reconsidered.

17 months later, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) issued the results of their 27 month long investigation of Fannie Mae. It was widely reported and was scathing in its criticism of Fannie Mae. News reports picked up the criticism the following day. The day after that, May 25, 2006, John McCain (in an act of "prescience") regurgitated some of the findings of the report, and signed on as a co-sponsor to the defunct bill. That's the last McCain talked about reforming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The American Enterprise Institute noted:

"After the administration and the Fed have declared that the GSEs’ portfolios are a dangerous source of taxpayer and systemic risk, the administration can hardly do nothing if Congress fails to act. In this respect, the administration always has a card to play--it can always use the Treasury’s authority to restrict the GSEs’ issuance of debt. The GSEs must realize this and must see that the only effective way to prevent the use of this authority in a wholesale manner is to reach a legislative compromise of some kind.

Sadly, the AEI was absolutely incorrect on this. The White House refused to press the issue, and the bill was allowed to die in committee, despite Republican control of its fate."

S190 was resurrected in the 110th Congress by Chuck Hagel as S1100. Co sponsoring the bill were Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC], Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL], and Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]. S1100 was introduced on April 12, 2007.

John McCain did not support S1100, nor has he (before or since) introduced any legislation to address the issue.

[conversationpc]

As if being a tenured professor really justifies anything in this case. Ridiculous argument. Anyway, he is not still a terrorist but he still espouses the same ideals.

Duhhhhhhhhh

If he can garner the respect of fellow academics, faculty and students, I have a hard time picturing him as the Wile E Coyote TNT detonating cartoon you paint him as. Furthermore, Obama didn’t even know the guy when he was involved in any such activity.

This just serves to illustrate the GOPs contempt for the mass IQ of the American people.

You must be the one with the IQ deficit. It's not me painting anything. Ayers painted this canvas all by himself.

[Barb]

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I found out one of my new friends was an unrepentant radical terrorist, he wouldn't be my friend anymore. Just sayin'.

[conversationpc]

Dead, dead wrong. Sorry, Dave and Lie Finder. You are just wrong on this one.

You put a bullhorn to your chapped lips and shout from the rooftops all you want but more volume doesn't make you right. Let it be noted that I'm not the one on here claiming less blame for a certain party but equal blame. Let it also be noted how far some Dems like Frank, Dodd, and Kerry had their heads up th ass of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are just as much to blame.

Blame for Fannie & Freddie belongs with Democrats


By Ross Balano, Midwest Voices Columnist 2008

From Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi and on down the Democrat ladder can be heard the shrill voices blatantly lying through their teeth blaming George W. Bush for the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is simply not true.

In a New York Times article published September 11, 2003, The Times reported that indeed it was Bush who wanted more and tighter regulation. It was Bush who saw the problems in the future and proposed legislation to head off these problems with Democrats fighting against it.

You can read the entire article here but here are a couple of important excerpts:

“The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”

“Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.”

“The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.”

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

“Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.”

And then goes on to say:

“Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.”

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

“Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.”

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

For Democrats to try to lay the blame for this mess at the feet of Republicans alone is nothing less than shameful.

This is just an example of the kind of thing that could go on and on ad nauseum as we post back and forth articles that bolster one side's argument. It isn't going to change the fact that both major parties ARE equally to blame and SHOULD BE equally blamed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a partisan hack or just doesn't know what they hell they are talking about.

BTW, I find it interesting how some of the libs in this thread are cutting and pasting like mad but, just a few months ago, were making fun of some of the conservatives for doing the same thing.

[conversationpc]

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I found out one of my new friends was an unrepentant radical terrorist, he wouldn't be my friend anymore. Just sayin'.

Yeah, you know that blowin' things up stuff just kinda puts a damper on the frienship a bit, doesn't it?

[Rick]

Dave, could you possibly add an elephant to the opposite side of your sig pic then?

[treetopovskaya]

i was there!

i'm no longer a political rally virgin. }:C)

there had to be more than 13,000 people... the place was PACKED!

well dog gone it sarah is in so cal and she didn't call me!

now she spouts, as she wrinkles up that cute nose of hers, that barack is "palling around with terrorists" that target their (this) country. who the heck is she talkin bout anyway??

Did she fill up the Home Depot Tennis Stadium in Carson? That holds 13,000 doesn't it? , strange how she's filling up all these venues when she's so stupid and everyone hates her.

[Barb]

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I found out one of my new friends was an unrepentant radical terrorist, he wouldn't be my friend anymore. Just sayin'.

Yeah, you know that blowin' things up stuff just kinda puts a damper on the frienship a bit, doesn't it?

Maybe we're just snobs that way.

[conversationpc]

If I were going to play the partisan game and lay most of the blame at the feet of the Dems, this would make for some interesting fodder...

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett


Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org
Last Updated: September 22, 2008 00:04 EDT

[Barb]

i was there!

i'm no longer a political rally virgin. }:C)

there had to be more than 13,000 people... the place was PACKED!

well dog gone it sarah is in so cal and she didn't call me!

now she spouts, as she wrinkles up that cute nose of hers, that barack is "palling around with terrorists" that target their (this) country. who the heck is she talkin bout anyway??

Did she fill up the Home Depot Tennis Stadium in Carson? That holds 13,000 doesn't it? , strange how she's filling up all these venues when she's so stupid and everyone hates her.

So how was it? I'm hoping they come to Nor Cal. I'd like to attend a rally just once.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You must be the one with the IQ deficit. It's not me painting anything. Ayers painted this canvas all by himself.

Bill Ayers is a senior professor of education who is more accomplished than anyone on this forum.
To keep referring to him as a radical terrorist is to cheaply play on post-911 fears and to insult the intelligence of the voting public.
You guys only win by appealing to the baser instincts of human nature.
Sarah Palin, the embodiment of Jerry Springer white trash, clinches it.

[conversationpc]

Dave, could you possibly add an elephant to the opposite side of your sig pic then?

How's this instead?...

[Rick]

Dave, could you possibly add an elephant to the opposite side of your sig pic then?

How's this instead?...

That about sums it all up doesn't it?

Or is it this?

[conversationpc]

Bill Ayers is a senior professor of education who is more accomplished than anyone on this forum.
To keep referring to him as a radical terrorist is to cheaply play on post-911 fears and to insult the intelligence of the voting public.
You guys only win by appealing to the baser instincts of human nature.

Educated morons don't impress me very much. Being a decent person and doing no harm to innocent people is far more admirable than anything that wretch Ayers has done in his life. He can be a snooty professor if he wants, but that'll never make up for the crimes he committed.

That you would even bother to defend this loser is a pretty good indication of your lack of real intellectual depth. This would be akin to my supporting another great American loser, David Duke. Put that in your leftist cigar and take a good, deep whiff.

Anyone who wants to read just a cursory write-up on this loser can do so here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers