›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Bad News for Democrats

HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
edited July 2008 in Everything Else
SqR0Ui0g3wI

Wow! I thought only the fringe members of the Democrat party said stuff like this.
«1345

Comments

  • chaosof99chaosof99
    Somehow I fail to see your problems with alternate renewable energy sources that will not have potentially dangerous environment altering side effects or with that man believing that fossil fuel has such effects that will have consequences for humanity.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited July 2008
    I fail to see why you think I have a problem with alternative sources of energy.
    WASHINGTON (AP) - No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.
    Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.

    The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory"—almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks—enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues—are unsatisfactory.
    New Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks satisfactory
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited July 2008
    So Harry Reid says that fossil fuels are dirty, they are making us sick, and they contribute to global warming? Sorry Steve, but that is not fringe.

    Even if it were, how is that "bad news for Democrats"?

    Also - if there are 15 of 18 benchmarks Iraq benchmarks judged to be "satisfactory", I am pretty unimpressed. I would like to think that after six years, any and all benchmarks would be judged "fucking outstanding". "Satisfactory" is a grade "C". Maybe that's why the White House sees them in such a positive light. I bet GWB was overjoyed to make a "C". It probably didn't happen very often.

    But, even if I was impressed, how is that "bad news for Democrats"? I would love for there to to be success in Iraq. Then there would be no reason for us to stay. Actually, if this news is viewed in that light, I think it's great news for democrats. It would mean that Obama could preside over a quick withdrawal, which is what everyone wants. Everyone would remember Obama as the president who got us out of Iraq. "Bad news", indeed - for Republicans.

    Epic fail.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The number of people who said they considered increasing energy supplies more important than protecting the environment increased from 54 percent in February to 60 percent and the number of people who favor oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also increased.
    Gas prices change views on energy

    Looks like it may not be a good year for Democrats after all? With Iraq coming along nicely and the public focus moving towards drilling and away from the environment things are not looking so well for the Democrats in November.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited July 2008
    Looks like it may not be a good year for Democrats after all? With Iraq coming along nicely and the public focus moving towards drilling and away from the environment things are not looking so well for the Democrats in November.
    . . . and what is the reason for that? How do you make the connection? Please tell us specifically why you think your posts mean "bad news for Democrats".

    I mean, I just look at current polls of Obama v. McCain and this map and I find that it's still pretty clear that Democrats are going to be plenty happy in November.

    Your idea that your posts translate in any way to bad news for the party shows how desperate your side has become. I think the term is "grasping for straws".

    Edit: Harry Reid says coal is dirty? Well, here's a news flash for you: coal is dirty. Please tell us why this is a "fringe" statement.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Obama joins Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., on the list of high-profile public figures who received “VIP” loans that some now are scrutinizing as alleged trade-offs for political favors.
    Obama, Like Dodd and Conrad, Got Cheap Home Loan
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited July 2008
    Wait, 5.625 is a low home loan rate? I have 5.25 on my house..

    I bet Obama is in a better financial situation at this point in his life then I am.

    Next...
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • AprecheApreche
    Wait, 5.625 is a low home loan rate? I have 5.25 on my house.. Next!
    Yeah, seriously. Also, if you have a millions of dollars, you can easily get a great rate. With that kind of money, even at a lower rate, the bank still makes a killing.

    You can't beat the bank.
  • Your MomYour Mom
    Just in case the bias wasn't perfectly clear...
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Obama’s latest ad repeats an often-stated claim, saying he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law.” We know Obama took out loans to get himself through school. But the campaign provided information on just two jobs Obama had in those years, and they were both in the summer.

    The ad also says he "passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Actually, the Illinois law was a required follow-up to the 1996 federal welfare reform law worked out by President Clinton and the Republican Congress. Welfare rolls did go down by nearly as much as the ad says, but Obama can't claim sole credit.
    Obama's Work Ethic
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited July 2008
    Obama’s latest ad repeats an often-stated claim, saying he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law.” We know Obama took out loans to get himself through school. But the campaign provided information on just two jobs Obama had in those years, and they were both in the summer.

    The ad also says he "passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Actually, the Illinois law was a required follow-up to the 1996 federal welfare reform law worked out by President Clinton and the Republican Congress. Welfare rolls did go down by nearly as much as the ad says, but Obama can't claim sole credit.
    Obama's Work Ethic
    How is this bad news for Democrats? It's some sort of aspersion against Obama. It doesn't sound like very bad news, because it's the standard sort of stuff that we expect the other side to dredge up in an election. EVEN IF it was all true, I say a hearty, "Meh."
    Obama joins Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., on the list of high-profile public figures who received “VIP” loans that some now are scrutinizing as alleged trade-offs for political favors.
    Obama, Like Dodd and Conrad, Got Cheap Home Loan
    I'm also perplexed as to how this is bad news for Democrats. It sounds to me like it was good news for Democrats. Well, at least the Democrats that obtained "cheap" home loans.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • CremlianCremlian
    "But Obama can't claim sole credit" is he? Do you believe bills are written/proofed and passed by one guy?
  • JasonJason
    Steve is obviously right, Joe. The way he so confidently ignores your pesky logic proves it.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited July 2008
    "But Obama can't claim sole credit" is he? Do you believe bills are written/proofed and passed by one guy?
    Yeah, and he only had two jobs when he was in law school. That unbelieveable BASTARD!!!!!11111!!!!!oneoneone!1!1!1
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

    One reason, he said, is that "John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

    We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.
    Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money

    This relates to the email I got from the Obama campaign about fundraising.

    Didn't he make a campaign promise not to opt out of the public financing system? I guess that promise was not worth keeping? What other promises will Obama decide are not worth keeping?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.

    One reason, he said, is that "John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

    We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.
    Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money

    This relates to theemailI got from the Obama campaign about fundraising.

    Didn't he make a campaign promise not to opt out of the public financing system? I guess that promise was not worth keeping? What other promises will Obama decide are not worth keeping?
    This would be a fine comment for the Obama thread or even the McCain thread. It's hurting my brain, though, to see it in the "Bad News for Democrats" thread. Why is it bad news for Democrats?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Steve is obviously right, Joe. The way he so confidently ignores your pesky logic proves it.
    He at the point where, if we could see him, he'd have his fingers in his ears and he'd be saying "LALALALALALA. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN TROUBLE. LALALALALALALA."
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited July 2008
    if anyone's interested, here is an incredible smackdown of Steve's report that Obama somehow got a better deal on his home loan than anyone else:
    So Obama's rate was 30 basis points better than the average. However, the amount of the loan and the nature of the property are not the only factors that determine a mortgage rate. Another major consideration is the creditworthiness of the borrower. According to current rate quotes from myFICO.com, a borrower with very good credit can expect a mortgage rate about 30 basis points better than someone with pretty good credit, and a borrower with excellent credit can expect about a 50 basis point discount.

    Unless the Washington Post has access to Obama's FICO score -- and unless it has rented an apartment to him, it probably doesn't -- it is missing a pretty important piece of information on what Obama's mortgage rate ought to have been. What was Obama's FICO score? I don't know, but considering that...

    * Obama had just gotten a $2.27 million book deal from Random House -- about $1 million more than the value of the mortgage.
    * The Obamas each had exceptionally secure jobs that paid them a combined annual salary of about $500,000 per year.

    * The Obamas had just sold their condo, on which they had realized a $137,500 profit.

    * The Obamas were prominent public figures whose political futures depended in part on maintaining a reputation for responsibility and trustworthiness.

    * The Obamas are known to be relatively thrifty and have no credit card debt but substantial savings.


    ...I would think that the Obamas were exceptionally creditworthy. So indeed, Obama received a "discount" -- the same discount that any borrower in his position would have received.
    Source.

    Here's how I predict Steve will respond: "No! They're in trouble! They . . . said some things and they . . . did some things, and all the Democrats are in trouble! And it's BAD NEWS FOR DEMOCRATS! And McCain is going to win! Oh, and Iraq is going really, really well too!"

    Yeah, what a scandal for Obama. He has good credit, so he got a good loan deal. Can you imagine that?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • CremlianCremlian
    Yeah, what a scandal for Obama. He has good credit, so he got a good loan deal. Can you imagine that?
    He didn't even get my deal on the loan.. This guy needs some help :-p man don't they know how to look around for the best prices :-p
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    You better watch out, Mr. Cremlian. The conservatives will say you got a good deal by doing something underhanded. Then there'll be a thread titled "Bad News for Mr. Cremlian".
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    Obama could become president, end poverty, create a cure for cancer, bring peace to the entire middle east, and restore the economy to the glory of a decade ago, and Steve would STILL be saying democrats were in trouble and messing up everything.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Obama could become president, end poverty, create a cure for cancer, bring peace to the entire middle east, and restore the economy to the glory of a decade ago, and Steve would STILL be saying democrats were in trouble and messing up everything.
    Depends on how he achieves those goals.

    1) You can't end poverty. Just look at the poverty level in the USA compared to other countries. How many poor people in Africa have cars, TVs, AC, etc...?

    2) Cure for Cancer? That research has been ongoing for quite some time and no President would be able to take credit for it.

    3) Peace to the Middle East? Would it be a lasting peace or just a lull in the hostilities?

    4) The economy of a decade ago? You mean the Internet bubble? The main thing killing the economy right now is the price of oil which is due in part to the crappy value of the dollar and Democrats not allowing for more drilling in the USA for oil. All of the existing wells will run dry in the future so we need to begin to get new wells dug before that happens. When you notice the milk jug in your fridge is half empty do you wait until it is empty to buy more or do you buy the next jug before you run out?
  • gomidoggomidog
    Steve. God. It was a joke. Hyperbole. Sheesh.
    Democrats not allowing for more drilling in the USA for oil.
    You know, by the time those wells start being productive (Often it takes 10, 20 years or so) technology might be moving past fossil fuels to some extent. While the wells are still producing cruddy water for years our gas prices will still be through the roof.
  • RymRym
    You know, by the time those wells start being productive (Often it takes 10, 20 years or so) technology might be moving past fossil fuels to some extent. While the wells are still producing cruddy water for years our gas prices will still be through the roof.
    It was said best on Fark.

    "Great! If we start drilling now, I can use all that cheap gas twenty years from now to power my electric... car... Well, fuck."
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited July 2008
    You know, by the time those wells start being productive (Often it takes 10, 20 years or so) technology might be moving past fossil fuels to some extent. While the wells are still producing cruddy water for years our gas prices will still be through the roof.
    When oilmen wanted to drill there last year, Stohler, 83, doubted oil would be found two miles underground on his property. He even joked about it.

    "I told them if they hit oil, I was going to buy a Cadillac convertible and put those big horns on the front and wear a 10-gallon hat," Stohler recalled.

    He still drives his old pickup and wears a mesh farm cap — but it's by choice.

    In less than a year, Stohler and his wife, Lorene, 82, have become millionaires from the production of one well on their land near Dunn Center, a mile or so from the sod home where Oscar grew up. A second well has begun producing on their property and another is being drilled — all aimed at the Bakken shale formation, a rich deposit that the U.S. Geological Survey calls the largest continuous oil accumulation it has ever assessed.

    Oil is making millionaires in North Dakota

    10, 20 years? Where are you getting this 10 - 20 year figure from?
    There is no standard answer to this question, but as a rule of thumb it can take 3-10 years from the decision to explore, through to discovery, testing, development and the delivery of oil from a new field.

    The time required depends on where the oil is and thus how difficult it is to discover, test and develop.


    For instance, an offshore oil field in deep water can take much longer to discover and test, due to the challenging technical requirements. Drilling in deep water is also difficult and can be very expensive, so the explorers need time to raise the necessary money as well as meet the new technical challenges.
    How long does it take to discover oil and bring it to market?
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • JasonJason
    Steve, you smell as desperate to discredit Obama as Joe smells angry about... well... hippies and such.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Steve, you smell as desperate to discredit Obama as Joe smells angry about... well... hippies and such.
    It's not that I am desperate to discredit him. It's that I'm desperate to hear someone articulate a real reason to vote for Obama that is not:

    1) He's not Bush.
    2) I believe in change.

    I expected to get some real reasons to vote for him on this forum rather than reasons to vote against the other guy.
  • JasonJason
    It's simple. We agree with what he believes and wants to do.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    It's simple.We agree with what he believes and wants to do.
    This does not scare you: Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)

    Would you feel the same way if your employer told you the terms of your employment are a "living" contract and subject to change at any time?
  • RymRym
    Would you feel the same way if your employer told you the terms of your employment are a "living" contract and subject to change at any time?
    They are.
Sign In or Register to comment.