The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

[Tito]

George Bush kept this country safe from September 12th until today...when most thought another attack was imminent. He's fought a war on terror that now has us at victory level. Iraq will soon be a self-sufficient democracy as well Afghanistan. Libya disarmed and North Korea has decided to negotiate. Memebers of both sides of the aisle led to a banking meltdown that has the economy in peril (though I think we'll evntually be just fine).

WRONG!!!!!!

[Tito]

Hey, at least Proposition 8 passed. Awesome.

and same sex marriage bans passed in Arizona and Florida too. Cool.

[Skylorde]

Horseshit, because prior to the creation of the DOHS, The CIA, NSA and FBI were all charged with these duties. They routinely shared information and worked together to address issues of 'homeland security' before bush created a beaurocracy solely responsible for it.

I think you are incorrect here (Trying to be nice)

ok fuck it you asshole, you are wrong AGAIN!

Seriously, didn't the 9/11 commission specificially point out lack of cooperation within the various agencies as a reason for the intelligence failure?

I don't think they communicated at all very well....

[Skylorde]

Hopefully we can begin digging our way out now. I'll bet that the stock market goes wild tomorrow in celebration.

Yup, they went wild alright.

Stocks Plunge as Investors Ponder Obama Presidency; Dow Falls Nearly 500- AP

[conversationpc]

Horseshit, because prior to the creation of the DOHS, The CIA, NSA and FBI were all charged with these duties. They routinely shared information and worked together to address issues of 'homeland security' before bush created a beaurocracy solely responsible for it.

I think you are incorrect here (Trying to be nice)

ok fuck it you asshole, you are wrong AGAIN!

Seriously, didn't the 9/11 commission specificially point out lack of cooperation within the various agencies as a reason for the intelligence failure?

I don't think they communicated at all very well....

Wasn't it Jamie Gorelick under Clinton that made it more difficult to the agencies to share info?

[AlteredDNA]

Horseshit, because prior to the creation of the DOHS, The CIA, NSA and FBI were all charged with these duties. They routinely shared information and worked together to address issues of 'homeland security' before bush created a beaurocracy solely responsible for it.

I think you are incorrect here (Trying to be nice)

ok fuck it you asshole, you are wrong AGAIN!

Seriously, didn't the 9/11 commission specificially point out lack of cooperation within the various agencies as a reason for the intelligence failure?

I don't think they communicated at all very well....

Wasn't it Jamie Gorelick under Clinton that made it more difficult to the agencies to share info?

Yep. And she also showed up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gore ... ssociation

Federal National Mortgage Association

Even though she had no previous training nor experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines. During that period, Fannie Mae developed a $10 billion accounting scandal.

On March 25, 2002, Business Week interviewed Gorelick about the health of Fannie Mae. Gorelick is quoted as saying, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions." One year later, Government Regulators "accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses".

In an additional scandal concerning falsified financial transactions that helped the company meet earnings targets for 1998, a "manipulation" that triggered multimillion-dollar bonuses for top executives. Gorelick received $779,625.

[conversationpc]

Yep. And she also showed up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gore ... ssociation

Federal National Mortgage Association

Even though she had no previous training nor experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines. During that period, Fannie Mae developed a $10 billion accounting scandal.

On March 25, 2002, Business Week interviewed Gorelick about the health of Fannie Mae. Gorelick is quoted as saying, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions." One year later, Government Regulators "accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses".

In an additional scandal concerning falsified financial transactions that helped the company meet earnings targets for 1998, a "manipulation" that triggered multimillion-dollar bonuses for top executives. Gorelick received $779,625.

Very interesting...Thanks for the info.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Yep. And she also showed up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gore ... ssociation

Federal National Mortgage Association

Even though she had no previous training nor experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines. During that period, Fannie Mae developed a $10 billion accounting scandal.

On March 25, 2002, Business Week interviewed Gorelick about the health of Fannie Mae. Gorelick is quoted as saying, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions." One year later, Government Regulators "accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses".

In an additional scandal concerning falsified financial transactions that helped the company meet earnings targets for 1998, a "manipulation" that triggered multimillion-dollar bonuses for top executives. Gorelick received $779,625.

Very interesting...Thanks for the info.

WOWEEE!!! That ought to be a new award - "The Jamie Goerlick award" : An award for most little known person who has managed to do the greatest amount damage possible." You dont need to be well known just be a walking disaster..... Arson, mayhem and or mismanagement might qualify you for the award, but the real winners will be guilty of things putting large numbers of fellow citizens at risk AND causing millions of people to loose the American dream through mismangement of the housing industry....

Yep I can see it know....

[Don]

Yep. And she also showed up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gore ... ssociation

Federal National Mortgage Association

Even though she had no previous training nor experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines. During that period, Fannie Mae developed a $10 billion accounting scandal.

On March 25, 2002, Business Week interviewed Gorelick about the health of Fannie Mae. Gorelick is quoted as saying, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions." One year later, Government Regulators "accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses".

In an additional scandal concerning falsified financial transactions that helped the company meet earnings targets for 1998, a "manipulation" that triggered multimillion-dollar bonuses for top executives. Gorelick received $779,625.

Very interesting...Thanks for the info.

WOWEEE!!! That ought to be a new award - "The Jamie Goerlick award" : An award for most little known person who has managed to do the greatest amount damage possible." You dont need to be well known just be a walking disaster..... Arson, mayhem and or mismanagement might qualify you for the award, but the real winners will be guilty of things putting large numbers of fellow citizens at risk AND causing millions of people to loose the American dream through mismangement of the housing industry....

Yep I can see it know....

An award like that should got to Paul Bremer, who without consulting Bush or Rice before hand, demobilized the Iraq army, leading the newly unemployed soldiers, guns in hand, to swell the ranks of the insurgency, and probably costing the lives of over 3,000 troops out of the 4,000 we have lost there. That was the biggest mistake causing the most damage of this century so far concerning Americans.

[strangegrey]

Horseshit, because prior to the creation of the DOHS, The CIA, NSA and FBI were all charged with these duties. They routinely shared information and worked together to address issues of 'homeland security' before bush created a beaurocracy solely responsible for it.

I think you are incorrect here (Trying to be nice)

ok fuck it you asshole, you are wrong AGAIN!

Seriously, didn't the 9/11 commission specificially point out lack of cooperation within the various agencies as a reason for the intelligence failure?

I don't think they communicated at all very well....

No, we're both rught. and I already stated...under drunkie bush, the cooperation did NOT exist. Under Clinton, Daddy Bush, Reagan, etc...there's no evidence that such cooperation experienced roadblocks...

[strangegrey]

And I'll ammend my previous statement to mean up to the point when Jamie Goerlick started pissing in the punch bowl...

[Tito]

From Evans Novak report with my comments

Fuck'em raise their taxes:

# One demographic that swung dramatically was the wealthy vote. In 2004, voters earning more than $200,000 voted 63% to 35% for Bush, according to CNN. This year, they voted 52% to 46% for Obama--a far higher margin than Obama enjoyed among the middle class.

Maybe they learned:

# McCain’s unimpressive share of the Hispanic vote, 32% while running against a black nominee, should put to rest the notion that by pushing liberalized immigration laws, Republicans can come close to political parity in that section of the electorate.

Other notes, they claim it was a base year election:

# Nationally, black turnout increased from 11% to 13%, while the Democratic share of the black vote increased from 88% to 93%. Even with higher black turnout, had the Democratic nominee not improved his showing among black voters, McCain would have won. Read: EARLY VOTING.

# As we expected, the talk of increased youth turnout was more hype than reality. The 18 to 29-year-old vote increased from 17% to 18% compared to 2004 (and, in fact, decreased in Ohio from 21% to 17%). The difference was not a high youth turnout--it was Obama’s astronomical popularity among young voters: Obama captured 66% of under-29 voters to Kerry’s 54% four years ago.

[RedWingFan]

I'd like to congratulate Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Osama Bin Laden, United States liberals and U.S. citizens who are on or are looking to get on the federal dole, and to terrorists all around the world on their victory yesterday.

Your fucking sig cracks me up. It's the funniest one I've ever seen.

LOL. I had a good laugh as well....

My brother said that in an email to me this morning. Except I don't find it funny at all.

[Rick]

I'm with you on what you say, I'm just not going to say anything about who's going to win because I'm a dyed in the wool jinx.

(Sam Kinnison) Say it!!!! SAY IT!!!!!!

Ok, Obama.

[Skylorde]

From Evans Novak report with my comments

Tito, you gotta get over it bro

Your energy would be much more productive in participating at the local level in throwing out the RINO's and supporting true Conservative candidates.

One thing I'm envious about the hard core left is they are very active politically. They participate in the process, pressure their party leaders on the issues they feel passionate about and overall are considerably more vocal.

If Conservatives want to compete with that, they need to put the fucking remote down, get out and do the same and do it BETTER. Otherwise we're standing on the beach bailing out the ocean with a fucking tea spoon.

[strangegrey]

NEW YORK, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Wall Street hardly delivered a
rousing welcome to President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday,
dropping by the largest margin on record for a day following a U.S.
presidential contest.

The slide more than wiped out the previous day's advance, the
largest Election Day rally ever for U.S. stocks.

The following table shows the percentage rise or decline in the
Dow Jones industrial average .DJI, Standard & Poor's 500 index
.SPX and Nasdaq composite index .IXIC on the day after a U.S
presidential election and who won the Election Day vote.

Year Dow S&P Nasdaq President elect
2008 -5.05 -5.27 -5.53 Barack Obama
2004 +1.01 +1.12 +0.98 George W. Bush
2000 -0.41 -1.58 -5.39 No decision: G.W. Bush v Al Gore*
1996 +1.59 +1.46 +1.34 William Clinton
1992 -0.91 -0.67 +0.16 William Clinton
1988 -0.43 -0.66 -0.29 George H. W. Bush
1984 -0.88 -0.73 -0.32 Ronald Reagan
1980 +1.70 +1.77 +1.49 Ronald Reagan
1976 -0.99 -1.14 -1.12 James Carter
1972 -0.11 -0.55 -0.39 Richard Nixon
1968 +0.34 +0.16 --- Richard Nixon
1964 -0.19 -0.05 --- Lyndon Johnson
1960 +0.77 +0.44 --- John Kennedy
1956 -0.85 -1.03 --- Dwight Eisenhower
1952 +0.40 +0.28 --- Dwight Eisenhower
1948 -3.85 -4.15 --- Harry Truman
1944 -0.27 0.00 --- Franklin Roosevelt
1940 -2.39 -3.14 --- Franklin Roosevelt
1936 +2.26 +1.40 --- Franklin Roosevelt
1932 -4.51 -2.67 --- Franklin Roosevelt
1928 +1.20 +1.77 --- Herbert Hoover
1924 +1.17 --- --- Calvin Coolidge
1920 -0.57 --- --- Warren Harding
1916 -0.35 --- --- Woodrow Wilson
1912 +1.83 --- --- Woodrow Wilson
1908 +2.38 --- --- William Taft
1904 +1.30 --- --- Theodore Roosevelt
1900 +3.33 --- --- William McKinley
1896 +4.54 --- --- William McKinley
* George W. Bush ultimately was determined the winner of the 2000
election.
Source: Reuters EcoWin

Interesting...the only other guy that got a similar 'greeting' was FDR. That might say something....lol

[Enigma869]

If republicans and conservatives are going to march out their so-called "terrorist thwarting" record as being justification for political real estate....

then why the fuck aren't they also held responsible for dropping the ball on 9/11? Does their record only start on 9/12?

While I don't and never have blamed W. for the 9/11 attacks, I also don't believe that he is the reason we haven't been attacked since. The reality is that EVERY administration has intelligence (which somehow looks like an odd word to use when discussing W.) about potential attacks, and I'm guessing that the president is probably the least significant cog in that intelligence wheel! I think if you are going to give W. the credit for us having no attacks since 9/11 (which I don't), then you would also have to blame him for the attacks happening on his watch (which I also don't)!


John from Boston

[Uno_up]

Is anyone here "in the know" on the Coleman/Franken race?
Is Coleman such a douchebag that half the state would vote for Al Franken?

[Uno_up]

There was a CEO on CNBC today talking about Obama's tax plan. The question was blunt. So was the answer.

Q: What would be the effect of higher corporate taxes?
A: Higher prices

Little guys continue to suffer. Yippee!!!!


ok...now back to the celebration!

[Skylorde]

Is anyone here "in the know" on the Coleman/Franken race?
Is Coleman such a douchebag that half the state would vote for Al Franken?

Two things worked in Franken's favor

1) Riding Obama's coat tails
2) Coleman is such a cum quat, 1/2 of his constituents like Franken better.

There was a CEO on CNBC today talking about Obama's tax plan. The question was blunt. So was the answer.

Q: What would be the effect of higher corporate taxes?
A: Higher prices

Little guys continue to suffer. Yippee!!!!


ok...now back to the celebration!

Two business people whom I highly respect told me the *very* same thing. I quote:

"We may end up paying slightly more on our bottom line but make no mistake about it; we'll adjust the prices of consumables and adjust the workforce accordingly to offset the bulk of the increase that is being levied on us."

"Sticking it to the rich" is nothing more than telling people (who really don't understand economics) what they want to hear.

Tell me if I'm wrong Frank.

[7 Wishes]

Iraq will soon be a self-sufficient democracy as well Afghanistan.

That's enough Demerol for tonight, Dan.

(Knock knock)...dude, there are a couple of chicks at your door.

Have fun.

[Don]

Iraq will soon be a self-sufficient democracy as well Afghanistan.

That's enough Demerol for tonight, Dan.

(Knock knock)...dude, there are a couple of chicks at your door.

Have fun.

Yeah, as soon as they can get poppy seeds to grow there.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Considering most of these plots were thwarted by The Department of Homeland Security, an entity that didn't exist prior to president Bush, I would say they do fly.

Most Conservatives think Department of Homeland Security is just another wasteful multi-tentacled bureaucracy, and I'm not so sure I disagree.
Also, the original idea came from Joe Lieberman not Bush.

[SteveForever]

Considering most of these plots were thwarted by The Department of Homeland Security, an entity that didn't exist prior to president Bush, I would say they do fly.

Most Conservatives think Department of Homeland Security is just another wasteful multi-tentacled bureaucracy, and I'm not so sure I disagree.
Also, the original idea came from Joe Lieberman not Bush.

going thru Denver airport security last week, arrrrgggh.....I get it but I don't.....I feel sorry for those
of you that travel every week....I'm always singled out and I'm blonde blue-eyed.....

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Is anyone here "in the know" on the Coleman/Franken race?
Is Coleman such a douchebag that half the state would vote for Al Franken?

Two things worked in Franken's favor

1) Riding Obama's coat tails
2) Coleman is such a cum quat, 1/2 of his constituents like Franken better.

No point 1 is right but point 2 is absolutely dead WRONG. Coleman is not a cum quat. Hes and ex Democrat turned Republican, fairly moderate, generally liked. Im glad hes my senator.

He lost a governors race to Jesse Ventura (a nut ) in a three way race in 98 . He almost lost this year because a member of Jesse's party, Dean Barkey stepped in- siphiong off Coleman's votes. I think part of it might be Jesse Ventura animosity toward Coleman (they may have clashed when Jesse was brooklyn park mayor and coleman mayor of St Paul- I cant back that up though)

If Dean Barkley were not in the race and Coleman wins by 10 points and everyone would be saying ,WOW what a win in such a tough climate. How about Coleman in 12.

The other side of it , is that there are ALOT of people to the far left in Minn. Any D will always do well in the North East part of the state and Minneapolis area regardless of who they are against.

[strangegrey]

Two business people whom I highly respect told me the *very* same thing. I quote:

"We may end up paying slightly more on our bottom line but make no mistake about it; we'll adjust the prices of consumables and adjust the workforce accordingly to offset the bulk of the increase that is being levied on us."

"Sticking it to the rich" is nothing more than telling people (who really don't understand economics) what they want to hear.

Tell me if I'm wrong Frank.

You're not.

The democrats took/stole/borrowed (whatever you want to call it) the concept of fiscal responsibility from the republicans....and they've been claiming it as their own, the very day a fiscal democrat in the name of Bill Clinton became president. What has happened, is they've claimed ownership of a republican ideal and attracted a great deal of socially liberal conservatives to their side of the aisle. Pure genius if you ask me...

The end result is that the democrat electorate wants fiscally responsible leadership. However, that doesn't jive with the far-left's entitlement/hand-out agenda. So they walk a fine line. It's a line that Obama is going to have to walk very carefully during his presidency. ESPECIALLY since people are rebelling against a fiscally liberal republican president, who has spent with reckless abandon and piled up debt faster than a million high school girls with daddy's credit cards.


One of the many problems with the party formerly known as the republican party, is that they have adopted the old school democrat philosophy (which is to spend with reckless abandon) thinking that the people will love them for the shower of free entitlements they get.

The problem is, is that you can justify entitlement programs for the ultra poor...maybe, if you roll that way. Some of us dont...that's not the problem.

The problem is, You *can't* walk into a room and justify entitlement programs for the middle and upper class. That's what the republicans have been doing for years...and that has forced this massive revolt against them....despite the fact that the majority of the country is center-right.

[strangegrey]

Considering most of these plots were thwarted by The Department of Homeland Security, an entity that didn't exist prior to president Bush, I would say they do fly.

Most Conservatives think Department of Homeland Security is just another wasteful multi-tentacled bureaucracy, and I'm not so sure I disagree.
Also, the original idea came from Joe Lieberman not Bush.

This country had a *stellar* intelligence network throughout the cold war. Once the cold war was over and things started getting consolidated and shut down and powers were limited....problems happened.

The homeland security dept, is an added layer that doesn't need to be there...but I think it was put in place to serve political ends, much like the TSA (another useless administration).

Remove the walls between the old agencies, fund them with the monies you filter into the TSA and the DoHS and you've got a rock solid intelligence community again....

...not one designed to serve political ends...

[Tito]

Considering most of these plots were thwarted by The Department of Homeland Security, an entity that didn't exist prior to president Bush, I would say they do fly.

Most Conservatives think Department of Homeland Security is just another wasteful multi-tentacled bureaucracy, and I'm not so sure I disagree.
Also, the original idea came from Joe Lieberman not Bush.

I agree.

[Tito]

Why did the 2012 Presidental thread get locked?

[strangegrey]

While I don't and never have blamed W. for the 9/11 attacks, I also don't believe that he is the reason we haven't been attacked since. The reality is that EVERY administration has intelligence (which somehow looks like an odd word to use when discussing W.) about potential attacks, and I'm guessing that the president is probably the least significant cog in that intelligence wheel! I think if you are going to give W. the credit for us having no attacks since 9/11 (which I don't), then you would also have to blame him for the attacks happening on his watch (which I also don't)!

The "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" argument might not fit into this.

I do agree with the idea that for the white house bum to say "we've not been attacked since 9/12, so vote republican" He needs to also accept full responsibility for 9/11.

However, that's not the issue here...the issue I take is that success against terrorism is *not* measurable. Not in seven years....we're free of terrorist attacks in 20 years or 40 years...then we can talk. But it CAN NOT be something that is measured over 4 or 8 year increments. It's just not feasable...as I've already indicated it took 8 years of planing between WTC93 and 911.

And to that end...it can NOT be something that is politicized...yet it has been SO polarized and politicized, that it's bile boiling.

No one...not Bush, not VP Dick or anyone else in the cabinet can measure the success of their efforts until they actually "thwart" an in progress or near-in-progress terrorist attack. Because up until that point, it's pure fucking speculation. That's it. There were terrorist cells in this country before 9/11 and there will be after.

Is busting up a terrorist cell in 2004, with the resources of the dept of Homeland (in)Security any more a sign of due diligence against terrorism than busting up a cell in 1995 or 85, with the resources of the FBI and the CIA? It's bullshit. The dept of Homeland (in)Security has become an agency that Bush and his republican hijackees have used as an instant "vote for me resume" ... and the american public are no longer fooled.

Bush and the republican fear-whores try to make it sound like terrorism didn't exist prior to 9/11 and the only measurable indicator of a president's success is what happened after 9/12. This mindset is foolish, and I'm frustrated that so many gullable republicans had taken it, hook line and sinker. I guess, maybe in GWB's vacuous cranial space, he actually thinks that terrorism is a new concept, invented with 9/11. That might even be what Dick Cheney has convinced him is the case, so trickier Dick can get his agenda rolling. WTF knows...


But the "we've been safe for 7 years" is a bullshit argument...becuase in order for someone like Hayseed or trickier Dick to make such a claim, they HAVE to give EQUAL credit to Bill Clinton....because under Bill Clinton's watch, we were free of islamic terrorism for 7 out of 8 of his years in office.... By that same mindset, you have to call attention to the due dilligence of Ronald Reagan or GHWB for their 12 years free from terrorism.....Hey, Jimmy Carter's work gets top marks too. Ford. Nixon...the list goes on.


The logic here is fucking ludicrous. Vote for us because we kept you safe 87.5% of the time! If private security agencies used similar statistics...they'd never get a fucking contract.

Once again, the public gets hoodwinked into thinking the government is doing a good job...yet by using private sector scrutiny, they wouldn't be able to compete....