peter_puck

There was an article somewhere that talked about neo-cons having a hard time getting dates. There might be some truth to that....

I have heard that the quote came from Churchill - though I am note sure. I may have become slightly more liberal over time, although mostly for pragmatic reasons. I am a small c conservative, but the facts have caused me to change my views on certain issues. I used to support the "war on drugs", but that war has clearly failed in a dramatic way. It is time to give the liberals a shot at it. I used to be very critical of many goofy aspects of the enviromental movement, but I cannot argue with the evidence behind global warming or peak oil (although I would certainly not be on the extreme fringes of those groups) I used to think most things would be better run by the private sector, until I looked at the US health system. On the other hand, I was never a big fan of workfare....but I have to admit it appears to have worked.

Problems with this idea: 1)Class warfare. People making $250k a year represent only a tinny fraction of the population. That fraction is going to vote for McCain anyway. 95% of the population has not hope of making that much, so why should they care ? If McCain wants to get into class warfare, he is going to loose. 2) Reasonableness How many plumbers make 250K ? Most lawyers don't make that. It leaves you open to being mocked. 3) Credibility. Much of Joe the plumber's story was BS. This has already become the butt of jokes.

Wonder how many of them were favorable ?

I don't know how much of a Maverick he is. After the number of senior members of the Bush administration who have turned on the weasel, Powell's endorsement of Obama is nothing new.

Okay, every major scientific organization is "stuipid". The thousands of individuals with Phd's - many in Physics- are "stuipid".

Harper would need his head examined if he did that. The backlash would be incredible.

Was there a non-political oil shortage in 1975-1976 ? Do some research that is a little more than "quick". Jupiter is not warming. Scientists have predicted that Jupiter will become warmer because of a change in some of the permanent storm systems. *I repeat change in long standing weather patterns.* This little tid bit was picked up and misunderstood by climate change skeptics. Mars may be getting warmer, but the evidence is scant (it is amazing how climate skeptics can say hundreds of weather stations cannot tell us the temperature on earth, but a handful of photos can give us accurate readings on Mars). Neptune on the other hand is getting colder. Moreover, the whole idea that other planets are getting warmer shoots a big hole in the primary theory of the anti-AGW types, that the warming we have experienced is the result of solar winds interacting with our atmosphere. Since the other planets do not have similar atmospheres, they should not be warming by conventional anti-AGW theory. I might also add, that you should refer to the planet experts when dealing with the question of why these planets are warming, rather than quote mining things you don't understand. Let me see...I am not so stuipid to believe global warming is a conspiracy involving every major scientific organization on earth. I am not so stuipid as quote stuff I don't even begin to understand. But no, I do know the Earth revolves around the Sun. Thanks to the people who fought against anti-scientific nuts who tried to stifle science, they teach it in school now. I have plenty of knowledge, thank you.

Harper hired a few experts to examine the tapes. They were given a copy of the tape from the Conservatives (who got it from the Liberals, who got it from somebodys website). They were limited to what the Conservatives asked them to do. They also disagreed among themselves. The final expert, although paid for by the Conservatives, was supervised by the court using the orriginal tape. I guess the question I would ask you is "If Harper though the tape was altered, why did he try to prevent the release of the study until after the election ?" If he knew he would be vindicated, why would he go through an election with a cloud over your head?. Of course, I could also ask "why would you offer to help with someones election when you knew they were not going to run" ? Or, "why would one of your own candidates make this story up?"

I must have read about a couple hundred of your 6000 posts. You all that quote shitting on people ?

No, it is gross abuse of power. If this guy should be punished, it should be by the courts or his direct supperiors. If this guy threatened the family then that is a matter for the courts. If he "beat the crap out of her sister", that is a matter for the courts. Has he been convicted of anything ? NO. Did his behavior warrent his dismissal ? Internal police investigations said no. Should he have been convicted or fired ? I don't know, but there is such a concept as innocent until proven gulity, not innocent until your ex-sister in law gets into office. Besides, this is basic ethics. If a judge has ties to a case, he is not the judge.

There is a huge difference between your story and the Palin thing. There is actualy EVIDENCE for the Palin thing.

The economy is collapsing. It is going to take a few months for the credit crunch to show up in the standard economic numbers, but it will. If you look at all the stocks that are falling, they include companies with little debt and no connection to the housing industry. The fear is that companies and business will no longer buy their product.

The guy leads a modest life, he has promised most of his fortune to charity. He has been a champion of ethics in business for years There are plenty of sick greedy bastards, but I don't think he is one. There are Tobbacco executives who have a much more opulent live style that made their money finding ways to market cigarrettes to kids. There are Wall Street executives who made fortunes pushing bad mortgages to the poor. I don't think he is in the same league

You are missing the whole point of the reaction to Harpers comment. The problem (in perception) was that people are fearing losing their houses and jobs in a collapsing economy. Harper responded that "hey there are great buys available in the market". To somone with no job and up to their eyes in debt, that sounds like "well let them eat cake". That is not what Harper meant, it was how it was spun.

I don't thinks it is McCain's dirty politics. There is a small but nasty minority in the Republican party, mostly social conservatives, who run on hate. But these people don't really like McCain and are certainly are not inspired by him. They would have hated Obama anyway.

I have probably mentioned this before, but the Liberals were able to do what they did because they had no opposition. If you look at what Martin did while he was finance minister, he did exactly what SHOULD have been done for the economy. He cut debt while resiting the urge for spending or tax cuts. When Martin became Prime Minister, he did what he HAD to do to stay in power - spend like a drunken sailor (and give out similar tax cuts) Harper is in the same boat. He needs to buy votes to remain in power. The balanced budgets were a product of the time, not the ideology of the government.

I don't know about the debate, but after the global warming denial, support for "intelligent design", and the editing of science at NASA, I think the social conservatives have pretty ,much screwed McCain among the "Scientific vote". McCain is a rational man, but Sarah "Ban a book" Palin does not help in that respect.

House prices rise and fall as part of normal economic activity. They may have been rising when Bush came to office. , but nobody was calling it a bubble. Go look at all the exploding ARMS and such. It was I think 2005 vintage ones that were the first to raise concern. The idea that a house is really a money tree did not bloom until well into his first term. Look at all the banks that have failed (or merged prior to failing). You think IndyMac would have gotten through that ? Schumer just ratted out the whole Ponzi scheme. Which I guess makes him guilty in the eyes of its operators.

In other words while Bush was saying the economy was great and you were defending his twisted economic world, you were hoarding cash instead of investing it in the market ? Not exactly putting your money where your mouth is.

Your right, as I have said many times, Bush faced a recession when he came to office. He faced the economic fallout of the dot-com bubble. The horse we are talking about here is the housing bubble. He did not face that when he came to office, it was created during his term in office. The really lousy vintages of mortgages were from later in his time in office. Random thought..what ever happened to Shumer being responsible by making crazy statements that maybe the banking system was not that sound ?

The horse was in the barn when Bush got elected. Reduce the housing bubble. DOH! Anyways, I guess I should not complain. To put this in a language you will understand, my faith in your president and his fiat economy caused me to most withdraw from the markets long before this debacle. I will be shortly buying stocks for a fraction of the cost Bush supporters paid for them. :-) (of course, I will be nowhere near as smug if my employer goes under )

Again, I am not saying he wrote every law that was responsible, I said he should have responded when the problem occured. Go read the papers, this mess is now spreading all over the world. First of all, this one was not imagined. Second of all, the government has all the control in the world. The housing bubble was supply and demand. Much of the demand was supplied by people who should not have been buying in the first place. Some tools ? Restrictions on creative (dumbass) financing (Ninja, 50 year amortization, interest only) Real penalites for all the fraud that went along with this. From lying on an application to lying to an applicant to lying to a pension fund. Plugging loopholes that allowed bankers to hide the risk in the investments. Minimum down payments The tax cuts with borowed money certainly didn't help.

Hate to say it, but I think that debate was McCain's last gasp. Watching those lines on the bottom of the screen, there is no way he can win a debate when he is tied to Bush, much less an election. At least he did not go stuipid and try personal attacks. He gave a good fight against incredible odds, and it would spoil things if he was remembered for a couple desperate cheap shots.

What you are leaving out is that companies jumped hog wild into this market without any pressure from community groups. You are also leaving out the component where these risky mortgages were transformed into investment grade debt. There was no community group forcing investment banks to obscure the value of these mortgages through financial slight of hand. These community groups also had little effect on the Bush administration and Republican congress who turned a blind eye to all this.