JerrySeinfeld

If the frenchies can attack harper or anyone else for poor french, why can't we do the same? This guy isn't fit to lead the country. VOTE NO on more taxes!

Ok I'm going to be biased, being a conservative. But isn't this a decent question? Are Americans really going to elect someone who continues to show questionable ties to questionable - even radical - people, on the sole basis that he's a good speaker. I think this guy is super sneaky. The worst kind fo danger: someone who is smart enough to give you the answer he knows you want to hear, while secretly plotting otherwise. I can see the loko in his wife's eyes: pure evil. These two are up to something. I can just picture them takling at night..alone... "one more month, honey. just hang in there. we are one month away from FINALLY getting the power we need. We can make all of those socialist dreams we plotted and talked about at ACORN meetings and at Bill Ayers' house and in the basement of our church after hearing our Pastor of 20 years spew racist filth about white people." Isn't it a little odd that Michele Obama would say she's never been proud to be an American? What is really going on in a mind that would say that in public. These radicals are obviously intelligent enough to temper their language for a mass voter audience, but to say things they have said, and top hang with the people they hung with for DECADES...isn't this a little wierd? And NOBODY is calling them on it. We're possibly in for the most left wing, radical minded socialist government in the History of the United States. And we wonder why markets keep falling.

OK so we'e in agreement that Barack supported the basic practice that caused this mess.

This article is very interesting. It talks about how many of the "loose credit" policies of banks were as a result of militant-style pressure from groups like ACORN, designed to make it easier for minorities to buy homes. Are the roots of sub prime mortgages affirmative action? And was Barack Obama intimately tied to these early pressures? Link to full article

Totally agree. I have been watching MSmedia coverage - all 3 networks plus CNN - of this election as it has [progressed through the summer and into the fall. They were actually doing their best to appear "neutral" for most of the summe r- when it appeared Obama was cruising to victory (but even THEN, the bias was obvious to any critical observer). It was around the time Palin arrived on the scene and McCain took a lead in some polls that the gloves came off and they seemed to drop any pretense of objectivity. It was so obvious is was as if they all realized together "holy shit - we CAN'T let the GOP win AGAIN, to hell with appearances, let's beat the shit out of this McCainc ticket everyday, starting now."

I just find it supremely odd that women - so nurturing and caring in many aspects (compared to men) are so quick to pull out the suction hose, disconnect the fetus from their body and suck a beating-heart thing right out of them. It's disgusting.

Glaciers have been melting for centuries. Where do you think Lake Muskoka comes from? Or countless other famous lakes in the world.

Wow. That pretty much sums up the religion with which some people have embraced a theory - even in the face of hard data.

Is Dion reading this as he prepares to increase the cost of energy ...for what reason? Full Article Why does the media jump all over a tornado in witchita or hurricane on the gulf coast (wow - what a revelation) as an example of "wild wacky weather" and evidence of global warming, yet they completely ignore a report from NASA clearly showing the planet cooled and hasn't warmed at all in more than 10 years? Just wondering. I mean, regardless of whether or not you've already drunk Al Gore's kool-aid, shouldn't this at least be the headline on every major network for at least one night? Given the panic we're being fed, why can't this FACT be on my evening news on TV?

Hey - based upon that why don't we legalize homicide while we're at it!

letterman? bwaaaaahahahahaa. That shows the seriousness of the left right there.

Even-keeled? A summary of Barack's various policy stands wrt the Surge: 1. Vote against surge - it will never work we are going to lose the war let's pull out now. 2. Plan for withdrawal of all troops within 18 months 3. Admit that "some aspects" of the surge are working 4. Admit the surge is a success 5. But not really, if you factor in Iraqi politics (I love this one) 6. Admit that troops should possibly stay longer, depending upon circumstances and given we are winning A summary of McCain's: 1. Vote and fight for an unpopular troop surge 2. See that he was right all along 3. Win the war in Iraq I'd rather have a level-headed dealmaker on domestic policy than a dreamer. I'd rather have an experienced leader on foreign policy than a finger-in-the-wind academic.

Has anyone noticed what's happening to the Bush administration's proposed "bailout" package for the economy? Let me give you a hint: nobody likes it "as is", and even house members from his own party are refusing to give it a pass without 1. watering it down or 2. making some major changes to it - which will obviously be to their liking, not Bush's. What's my point? SImply what I;ve been saying to people in Canada for years about a President's domestic power. As commander in chief, the President of the United States has much more influence and power over foreign affairs than s/he does over directing, for exmaple, domestic economic policy. Domestically, the President isn't like our Prime Minister here in Canada. He doesn't just get elected and start running the show. The blockage of Bush's economic rescue plan is just one of umpteen examples of this in the real world. Why am I telling you this? Because this fact should be relevent to those considering who to support for president. Barack Obama has grand plans of universal health care and increasing taxes to feed the poor, part the oceans and save the universe. When in reality, it's mostly bullshit and he knows it. He'll never be able to pass anything he's promised without seriously watering it down. You don't think Bil Clinton didn't make the same promises about universal health care etc. etc. etc. Due to the (ingenius) structure of the US government, as long as there are two houses in congress, one of which (the senate) needs 2/3 majority to pas a bill, Universal Health care and many of the other socialist dreams of democrat presidents will not become a reality. They are empty platitudes used to buy votes they'll never have to pay for (thank god). The United States government structure was intentionally built by the framers to protect the people from too much government!!! Unlike in Canada, where we constantly ask "what's the government going to do?" and welcome government into our lives - many Americans would rather say "stay the f*ck out of my life!!" as we are currently seeing with the massive resistance to the Bush bailout plan. My point is - this is why Republicans have for so long had the inside track to the white house - because they understand this is in the fabric of America. Every so often an empty suit democrat with a grand plan weasels his way in - as Barack may do. I just thought I'd be the first to break it to all you lefty Obamamites out there: if and when Barry gets elected, don't be too dissappointed when utopia doesn't arrive shortly thereafter. In a warped way, Barack getting elected may in fact lead to years more of republican rule, as the masses become shocked to find that things not only didn't get better, they actually got worse under the "chosen one".

I think your head just exploded. Read everything again. Your IQ is even lower than I thought if you can't see yourself re-wording exactly what I wrote.

Not entirely true. Look at the Canadian banks' write downs of south american sovereign debt in the '80's. The banks wrote those down to zero, only to find in subsequent years that most of those loans were paid off. Look at the savings and loan solution and the creation of Resolution Trust, which bought impaired assets and actually made money in the end once those asset returned to reasonable valuations. Given the panic in the marketplace right now, many decent assets are compressed in value or not even getting bids. The government has the luxury of time and patience - without the requirement to deliver earnings gains on a quarterly basis (as most publically traded corporations do) ...can absorb this shock and hold assets other institutions are afraid of until the market returns to working in an orderly fashion. The impaired assets are mostly suffering due to a lack of confidence, horrible market conditions, timing and psychology. Those institutions that would normally be buyers and recapializers aren't able to finance the purchase of assets due to the seized up credit markets.

If a minority government means the government can't get anything done, then damn it let's have a minority forever!!!! Leave us alone!

Why? Because the sky is green. Now back to the issue of solving the problem....

Let's be clear about a couple of things here. First, there are many culpable parties to this economic crisis. It's obtuse to say it's "George Bush's fault" or "the republican's fault". Yes. I am sure the republicans and George Bush all conspired to make people who couldn't afford it borrow money and speculate on real estate. The fact that Joe Blow got a NINJA loan (no income no job no assets) to buy a house in California he thought would go up in price, but didn't, isn't Geoerge Bush's fault. Financial institutions loaned money to many who shouldn't weren't creditworthy. Individuals borrowed money they couldn't pay back. Both sides did so on a false assumption that real estate always goes up. Financial institutions sold many of these mortgages as "safe" securities on the open market, often times as leveraged products. People bought these securities without doing proper due diligence. There are many different culpable parties to this mess. But regardless of blame, last Wednesday, the credit markets in the USA seized up and almost ground to a halt - meaning there would be virtually no lending (and basically a halt to economic activity). THAT is when the US government stepped in and said "we've got to normailize the credit markets by buying up this bad debt". Without confirdence in the banking / financial / lending system, there can be no economy. With the announcement of the rescue plan, the TSX (Canada's stock market) rose over 800 points in one day. I believe the largest single one day rise in history. As we sit, financial markets AROUND THE WORLD are waiting with baited breath to see if these toxic debt assets will be "freed" by the US government. THIS IS A TIME SENSITIVE MATTER. it needs to be solved in a matter of days. John McCain's presence in Washington is important, because most of the "free market thinkers" in Washington are republicans, who are actively voting against the rescue plan. Many believe McCain's presence and influence as the Republican presidential candidate can help make a deal and get a bill passed. All of the above is not a matter of opinion, but rather fact. As far as the willy nillys worried aobut a debate, believe me, everyone will get a chance to hear these two candidates debate. If not on Friday, then probably early next week. However the current state of the financial crisis takes priority. Quit acting like you won't get a chance to see the two debate. What difference is a few days gonna make? It will certainly make a big difference on the markets of the world. The democrats have their tights in a knot because they know that if they debate friday, they can claim that Obama is the man to lead the country out of economic trouble. But if the debate is delayed until after McCain et. al. solve the probalem and get enough votes to pass the rescue plan, then McCain will be able to stand on that stage and say "actually, as per last week, I just did solve the problem". McCain has made the correct move.

...and it happens to be true! If homelessness and beggars were an economic phenomenon, then Alberta, complete with it's labour shortage and zero percent effective unemployment rate would have no homeless. Lot's of these people are irresponsible substance abusers with a slew of issues. An adult in society asking for us to take resposibility for their lack of judgement, short sighted thinking, desire to spend their last dollar on booze / drugs or just plain stupidity isn't in any way deserving of compassion. In fact, I would argue that in many cases they are out there because of people like you - they know they can always rely on some dufas to actually dole out money for them no matter how stupid their decision-making is. As for violence, mark steyn nails it here:

Or we could just stop importing Jamaican men with criminal records into Canada - specifically Toronto. Our government cracks me up. We'll do anything possible - no matter how expensive, to avoid solving the real root of a problem if it means being politically correct.

I seriously think the US should just adopt a simple new policy: bomb the shit out of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan. No end goal. Just keep bombing. Air attacks - 10-15 per month. No troops. Just targets. Military, terrorist, whatever. Just keep bombing. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb. boooooom. bomb bomb bomb bomb. No troops. Just bomb. bomb bomb bomb. Any country where people danced in the streets on 9-11 celebrating: bomb. bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb. bomb.

Hmm. Wierd. That's exactly what I just said. The idea of the first woman to "get her mitts on the keys to the Oval office" having views "straight out of the GOP's old boys club playbook" drives feminiazis bonkers. They always envisioned a pants-suit wearing man/woman like hillary "getting her mitts on the keys" first.

I think the point here is that some hardcore feminists see Palin as a threat to their idealist view of a "woman", especially because she's been able to break glass ceilings without giving up on some of the more traditional definitions of what a woman contributes to society or what a woman believes in or prioritizes (eg. Having lots of kids and opposing the killing of unborn children). A woman who has made it to where she is - United States of American Vice Presidential Nominee, Governor of Alaska with 80% approval rating - in many feminits' eyes should also flout old stereotypes about motherhood and should CERTAINLY be pro-choice. It hurts some women to see THEIR stereotypes being challenged; An interesting phenomenon!

Please explain yourself. I believe the American electoral system is far better than the joke parlaimentary system we took hand-me-down style from the Brits.

That's complete hogwash. You have no idea what you're talking about. Check your facts before spouting off: 1980 Presidential Election 1984 Presidential Election 1988 1992 1996 Not only are you completely unequivocally wrong about the history of us electoral politics, but you have missed the entire point of this thread.