Digg - 1 Yr ago:Obama proposed the summit Clinton is offering today

Remove

Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.

214 Comments
Who Dugg It?

NameTry2468, on 03/24/2008, -10/+204Obama should just make his new slogan "I F***ing Told You So."
- dinobot, on 03/24/2008, -1/+40And the Clintonistas are just going to go "LALALA, I can't hear you!"
  - AdrianaL, on 03/25/2008, -6/+0Hey misguidemonkey name fits well!!! What do you think he is doing to Hillary??? Hahaha
    - aliengoods, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3What?
- theelectricafro, on 03/25/2008, -11/+11More appropriate to make that slogan for Ron Paul but whatever.
  - iofthestorm, on 03/25/2008, -3/+3Which, the "I told you so" or the "lalala, I can't hear you even though I've lost all the primaries" (that's more the paulbots, not Ron Paul himself, who I respect).
    - d03boy, on 03/25/2008, -2/+3you are aware what the national convention is right? assuming you do, you should also know that delegates can be unbound at the state convention...
  - kipmartin, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4who is this Ron Paul you speak of?
  - scotticus, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4I don't think Obama or Clinton want to roll our society back 75 years to the gold standard.
    - blinkerbug, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3yep, you're absolutely right. They'd much rather just borrow a bunch of dough from the Chinese and give it to people who make stupid decisions (see article above). Ron Paul couldn't lead enough to even run a decent campaign (much less the entire country), but at least he knows more about economics than Obama and Clinton combined.
      - aliengoods, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Agreed. That's why I would love it if Obama made someone like him (not necessarily him) the Secretary of the Treasury. You get a differing viewpoint as well as someone who knows his *****.
    - d03boy, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3please explain to me why that would be a good thing
  - rugrat54, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1I posted my comment before I saw yours, but still...
    =)
  - firsttube, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1I was thinking the good Dr. as well. I don't remember any banks giving money to Dr. Ron Paul.
- deanlowe, on 03/25/2008, -3/+6Did he do anything besides sending a letter?
  - aliengoods, on 03/25/2008, -2/+3The correct question is "What could he do besides sending a letter?" Seriously, a Senator can hold a hearing (if he's on the appropriate committee) or he can send a letter, or did I miss something?
    - deanlowe, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1He's running for President.
      You don't think he could've made a speech or two to bring attention to the problem and offered up a solution?
      Like he said, words matter?
- misguidedmonkey, on 03/25/2008, -11/+1You guys really need to stop sucking Obama's dick like it's candy.
  I stopped visiting Digg for about two months and came back today, and sure enough, there's still plenty of Obama fellatio going on.
  
  You ***** are silly.
  - gsp9216, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4come back in 9 months
  - aliengoods, on 03/25/2008, -0/+5Thank god you're back. We missed you!
- rugrat54, on 03/25/2008, -3/+2Ah, Don't steal from Ron Paul!
  =)
  - rrbest, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1sheepaul?
- meese, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Seriously. Just read his speech on the Iraq war from 2002 - I know everyone's heard about it, but most folks have never read it:
  
  http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_i ...
- bjhath, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Very nice. logged into POS DIGG (once again, I got logged out twice in less than a minute) just to digg it up.
- senator32, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1The best indicator of future action is past action...and I don't like the way Hillary's past looks...
  Keep up with Obama and Hillary's current legislation here:
  Obama - http://www.statesurge.com/members/923
  Clinton - http://www.statesurge.com/members/908
mainely, on 03/24/2008, -7/+80Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery:-)
- rentmitchum, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1*bitchery.
ZHEStorm, on 03/24/2008, -90/+6I found this on another message board posted by "Shtuey" and thought it was worth posting on Digg for some of the Obama kiddies to read.

This is a copy/paste of his message:
Senator Obama chose to package himself as the candidate of "hope and change." He has claimed, falsely, that he doesn't take money from federal lobbyists and pacs. The LA Times and the Boston Globe disagree. What Obama has done is create a network of lobbyist fundraising that is engineered by federal lobbyists who withdrew their registrations so they could knowingly help him maintain a pose of financial purity. But independent campaign finance think tanks universally agree that this is simply a pose on his part, and is not genuine. Translation: Barack Obama violates the central premise of his campaign every single day. He takes money from lobbyists and pacs and then lies to the American people about it.

Obama lied about Rezko, and continues to do so. He lied about the amount of money Rezko gave him, and he still hasn't come clean about his land deal. Allow me Chuck Todd to explain it to the people since you won't.

It goes like this. Tony Rezko has been in trouble with his creditors for years now and has been playing a vigorous shell game in an attempt to hide his assets. The land adjacent to the Obama's house was purchased on the same day as the Obama deal (this was a requirement of the sellers; both properties had to close on the same day). Is it a coincidence that Rezko and Obama closed on the same day? I think we all know the answer to that. But it wasn't Tony Rezko who bought the land. It's in his wife's name (even though she only makes a reported income of $35,000 a year). Then "Mrs. Rezko" sells a strip of the property to the Obamas for over $100,000.

Are you following me so far?

According to the Chicago media, anyone associated with Rezko is well aware of his financial trouble, but the Obamas got involved anyway. They put over $100,000 in his pocket while he hides his money from his creditors who are now suing him. In most places in America what Obama did is called collusion to commit fraud. It could also be called money laundering. Obama calls it a "bone headed" move.

Then came the Canada incident. Obama lied to America saying that nobody from his campaign talked to anyone from the Canadian government. When he got busted his campaign circulated the lie that it was the Clinton campaign that made the so-called "wink wink" call about NAFTA. The Canadian government still insists that this is not true, but Obamamites are still spreading the lie.

Then we have Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama's church where he has been a member for 20 years. He praises Wright in his book. Wright married him and baptized his girls. He called him a mentor, and an uncle. I would suggest that, considering his Kenyan father left him when he was two, that Wright was more like a father. He had Wright on his campaign's African American Spiritual Council (doesn't sound very unifying to me, and I'm still wondering what place a spiritual council has on a campaign for President when there is a Constitutional separation of Church and State). But when the story broke Obama lied once again.

He said that he only had a few conversations with Wright over the years, and that they were only for a couple of minutes at a time. Then he said that he hadn't heard any of the incendiary comments of Wright from the pulpit. And let us not forget Obama's limp wristed response to Wright naming Louis Farrakhan his man of the year. Now he expects us to believe that he hasn't talked to Wright much in the past year. They had at least two conversations. One was to tell him not to be at the ceremony when he announced his candidacy. The other was when Wright made it plain that Barack would have to distance himself from him. If he had taken his advice then perhaps he could have some credibility on the issue. But to say now that he hasn't been to his church much in the past year, as a way of making it seem that the influence isn't there, is so duplicitous I may puke. He took his girls to this church to hear the divisive language of Rev. Wright, but he claims that this anger is part of the past. If that's so then why expose your children to it? Why not raise them in a church whose message is unity, and the advancement of the only race; the Human Race?

With each passing day Senator Obama shows me that he is not the candidate of hope and change. He is not bringing change we can believe in. If the man cannot stand by the central premise of his campaign then why in God's name would I ever vote for him?

Hillary Clinton is no saint. But at this point, after all the exposure she got from Ken Starr (and she was never implicated in, indicted, or convicted of any crime), I'd say that what you see is what you get. You may not like what you see, and that's your choice. But at least she's not going across the country pretending to be something she's not. I have watched the Senate hearings she has convened, including the hearing on Yucca mountain, and universal healthcare back in the early 90s. She is knowledgeable, she is tough, and knows how to connect the issues. She also has strong relationships with politicians on both sides of the aisle in Congress, including John McCain.

And in spite of the Obama campaign's incessant lies about Clinton's foreign policy record, there are players from John Hume to Richard Holbrooke that have gone to the mat to make it clear that she played a vital role in Northern Ireland, and in opening the Macedonian border to Bosnian refugees. You may not wish to believe it, but those are the facts.

But let's look at electability. The super delegates are questioning the electability of only one candidate; Barack Obama. They know his ability to win in November is in serious jeopardy. These are the facts: He won't win in MI and FL because he is perceived as the man who stood in the way of the revotes. Whether you chose to accept it or not, this is their perception, and in MI it is absolutely true (the MI legislature wanted approval from both candidates and Obama refused to give it). He won't win Ohio, and chances are he will lose PA. With those 4 states alone he will lose the general election. But NJ is also in play for Republicans. And Obama won't win any of the red states he won in primaries, and in some of those states Clinton polls higher against McCain than Obama.

Clinton polls higher, and in some cases beats McCain in swing states that Obama loses. And guess what Obamamites, even Chief Obama Apologist Chuck Todd admits that if Clinton wins NC she gets the nomination. She's going to crush him in PA, WV, KY. If she wins IN which she most likely will, and can squeak by in NC (she's only one point behind) who do you think the super delegates are going to back? The one with the 527 ads of Rev. Wright who bleeds blue collar and Jewish votes because of his lies and anti-semitic backers? I don't think so (unless they are more interested in being politically correct than winning the White House).

Sorry Gov. Richardson. We're going all the way through Puerto Rico. The Obama campaign doesn't want us voting (just another reason not to vote for him). He wants to get the nomination based on his bs, not his reality. Nice try scumbag; we're not falling for it.
- nblsavage, on 03/24/2008, -2/+45Gee a Hillary supporter throwing mud (and spamming)...I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!
  - SquigglyP, on 03/24/2008, -4/+17More like a McCain supporter. These guys know their candidate is totally unelectable, so they desperately want Hillary to win the Democratic nod. I find it humorous that the religious right are paying such close attention to the leading democrat's religious beliefs. These are the same guys who immediately attacked his name and tried to make him sound like he was Muslim. But Romney? Huckabee? How dare anyone bring up their beliefs.
    - nblsavage, on 03/24/2008, -4/+6Valid point.
    - ZHEStorm, on 03/24/2008, -28/+2Oh how wrong you are. I do not want McCain elected. I do not want NObama elected. I want Hillary Clinton to be our next President because she has the leadership it will take to get this country back on the right path.
      
      Hillary '08!!!
      - SquigglyP, on 03/24/2008, -2/+15well good for you. Obviously the brainwashing techniques of the political system at play in the US are working their magic. NObama, eh? You know, I haven't called anyone a retarded pun-based name like that since i was in gradeschool. The political zealots out there do that ***** all the time. So why would you want a bunch of people who are so obviously mentally stunted and immature to be leading the country in the first place? Why does the ***** these people say on the radio and news matter. For me, the instant anyone uses a term like that they lose all credibility.
        
        As far as I'm concerned you're some 12 year old. Your opinion has no relevance. Good Day.
      - ZHEStorm, on 03/24/2008, -15/+3MYTH: Barack Obama is running a positive campaign that will unite Americans.
        
        FACT: Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive "full assault" on Hillary's character.
        
        While talking a lot about the politics of hope, change and unity, Sen. Obama and his campaign have been conducting a relentless and singularly personal assault on Hillary's character. They have blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads and have described Hillary and her campaign as "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," "polarizing," "calculating," "saying whatever it takes to win," "attempting to deceive the American people," "one of the most secretive in America," “deliberately misleading,” “literally willing to do anything to win,” and “playing politics with war."
        
        This "full assault" on Hillary's integrity and character has reached a new peak since Hillary's victories on March 4th. One of Sen. Obama's top surrogates equated President Clinton with Joe McCarthy; another called Hillary a "monster;" and his campaign manager held an angry conference call claiming that Hillary is "deeply flawed" and has "character issues." That's neither unifying nor hopeful. If Sen. Obama really is the prohibitive favorite some say he is, these negative attacks make absolutely no sense. Why would a frontrunner seek to attack and divide? If Sen. Obama can't unify Democrats in a primary, how can he unify Americans in a general election?
        
        =====
        
        MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
        
        FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
        
        "The Math" is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, NEITHER candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And EITHER candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable. No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, charts, graphs, calculations, formulas, or projections will change the basic fact that either candidate can win. Pundits who confidently proclaim that Hillary has no hope of winning because of "the math," have counted Hillary out of this race three times before. Each time they based their sober assessments on 'facts' and 'realities' -- and each time they were wrong.
        
        In a campaign with dozens of unexpected twists and turns, bold prognostications should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Look no further than Sen. Obama's "full assault" on Hillary's character to judge whether he thinks this election is over. The fact is this: Hillary and Sen. Obama are locked in a very close, hard-fought campaign and Hillary is demonstrating precisely the strength of character required of a president. Her resilience in the face of adversity, her faith in the voters, her capacity to rise to every challenge, are part of the reason she is the best general election candidate for Democrats. And it is why she is increasingly strong against John McCain in the polls at the same time that Sen. Obama is dropping against Sen. McCain.
        
        =====
        
        MYTH: For Hillary to win, super delegates must "overturn the will of the people."
        
        FACT: The race is virtually tied, the "will of the people" is split, and both candidates need super delegates to win.
        
        The Obama campaign and Sen. Obama's surrogates have engaged in a sustained public relations effort to convince people that the election is over and that if super delegates perform their established role of choosing a candidate who they believe will make the best nominee and president, they are somehow "overturning the will of the people." They have the audacity to make this argument while quietly and systematically courting those very same super delegates. They are courting them because they know that Sen. Obama needs super delegates to win. The Obama spin is being parroted daily by pundits, but it is patently false. The race is virtually tied; the "will of the people" is split. By virtually every measure, Hillary and Sen. Obama are neck and neck -- separated by less than 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million+ votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%.
        
        An incremental advantage for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game. Despite the Obama campaign's aggressive spin and pressure, the RULES require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment, and that is what they will do. Even Sen. Obama's top strategist agrees they should. If not, then why don't prominent Obama endorsers like Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ) and Richardson (NM) follow the will of their constituents and switch their support to Hillary? After all, she won their states. And if this is truly about the "will of the people," then Sen. Obama's short-sighted tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan accomplishes exactly two things: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan's voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election. Apparently, for the Obama campaign, the "will of the people" is just words.
      - hierophantus, on 03/25/2008, -1/+8Do you have a point of your own to make? Make it.
        
        Stop ***** spamming already.
      - carterbaldwin, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1Thanks, Dwight.
      - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -9/+2hierophantus - You bitch if I post without facts, now you are bitching because there are no facts? Get over yourself. Read and get the facts!
        
        BTW, you are lucky I mis-clicked an digg for you. :P
      - nblsavage, on 03/25/2008, -2/+4@ZHEStorm, do you have an original thought rolling around in that cavernous space attached to your neck or are you only capable of copy/paste??
      - CeeAyy, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2ZHEStorm... You are confusing opinions with facts in some of your post and failing to understand the facts in the rest.
        Defending yourself by pointing out the despicable tactics of your opponent is not a "full assault". If you smack me and I complain that you're violent, that doesn't mean that I am attacking your character, I'm revealing your character. You ARE violent. You make it seem as though Hillary's campaign isn't really engaging in the things her campaign is accused of.
        The delegate race is not even, it is close which is not the same thing. A loss by one vote is still a loss. The problem is that she cannot surpass him with elected delegates. She NEEDS the super delegates to win. She doesn't have the popular vote and therefore it would be considered going against the wishes of the populace if she can't win with elected delegates. Considering the FACT that she would have to win by a huge margin in the remaining contests, the math shows that she CAN'T pass him in elected delegates. She can't just win, she has to win big. It is possible but she is not going to do that. It's insane to think that she is going to win the remaining contests by 65-70%. It's important t have HOPE I guess.
    - norman619, on 03/24/2008, -13/+2Try the bigoted views of his spiritual adviser(pastor) and it's not just the "religious right" who is watching this. Anyone with a freaking working brain is paying close attention to this. Unless you have no problem with electing a man who stands by a raging bigot who also says he's for better racial understanding and relations. This has very little to do with religion and everything to do with hypocrisy.
  - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -6/+1nblsavage... wahhhh, wahhhh... mommy someone thinks differently than me so I called him a name on the internet!!
    - nblsavage, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Where are those links? I'm waiting.
      - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1I've posted a bunch. All you need to do is look in the thread of posts here to see them, or is that too complicated for your grade school education?
  - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -3/+1Well, that was a fun night! Thanks for the time and interest on this topic. :) I still consider the Democratic Party (who I support) very lucky to have 2 candidates who are worth this much debate over. I stand by Hillary Clinton as my choice for President. I will give Obama a chance should he win the nomination, but he has much to convince me of. I will not be voting for John McCain.
- xTRUMANx, on 03/24/2008, -7/+4tl:dr
  - SquigglyP, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7thanks for letting us know, you absolute ***** waste of life. Go play in traffic.
    - ZHEStorm, on 03/24/2008, -20/+1That sounds just like a NObama supporter. Nice!!
      - SquigglyP, on 03/24/2008, -3/+11no actually. My vote is most likely going third party or not at all.
        
        You may now go play in traffic as well, you presumptuous *****.
    - theAlice, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3ts;dr
      
      too stupid; didn't read
    - ZHEStorm, on 03/24/2008, -6/+1ROFL, is traffic the best line you can come up with? Good job education system!!
      - SquigglyP, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1you're really enjoying this aren't you?
        
        I'll be honest... So am I.
    - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -6/+1Yes, I am, but I have to go for right now. I'll be back later and we can discuss more. I am open to having a more "mature" discussion if you are?
- carterbaldwin, on 03/24/2008, -4/+30If you're going to throw manure, at least have the cojones to make it your own, not some copy and pasted post from some messageboard.
  - ZHEStorm, on 03/24/2008, -23/+1I don't throw "manure". I bring facts to the table, as I have for the past couple months. I stumbled upon this well written post today and thought it deserved more sunlight. However, I realize it is above your reading capacity so I understand if you couldn't figure out what it meant. It's ok... go pop another in another Oprah DVD and keep playing over empty rhetoric in your mind of "change".
    - carterbaldwin, on 03/24/2008, -3/+11Ooh, condescension! First refuge of those without valid arguments, I suppose?
      - theaceoffire, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3I think it is pretty clear that the FIRST refuge is going online.
      - elint6, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2ad hominem, I believe the word(s) are.
    - hierophantus, on 03/25/2008, -2/+9Keep up the obnoxious nonsense, my friend. I can feel you costing Hillary votes as we speak.
      - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -7/+2Rrriiiggghhhttt.... this is Digg - the paid for and endorsed by Oprah and Obama for President Foundation. Anyone with a difference in opinion is either an idiot or a Republican.
- mnky9800n, on 03/24/2008, -2/+6Oh and btw, anyone can say, "I have proof!" but then offer none. If you are such an informed individual as you think you are, perhaps you could provide proof for anything you are saying.
  - ZHEStorm, on 03/24/2008, -10/+2Sure, here ya go:
    
    The Obama campaign claims that the Emergency Working Group proposed by Hillary today is the same as a proposal introduced by Sen. Obama a year ago. It is not.
    
    If Barack Obama can’t understand the difference between the specific Emergency Working Group on Foreclosures Senator Clinton proposed today and the amorphous proposal he put forward over a year ago, then he clearly doesn’t understand what is needed to solve the housing crisis. The Emergency Working Group Senator Clinton is calling for would zero in on the best and fastest way to facilitate the bulk restructuring of mortgages and is specifically tasked with determining how to implement new legislation by Representative Frank and Senator Dodd.
    
    Today, Hillary urged President Bush to immediately convene a working group that would lay out a plan to achieve broad-scale restructuring of at-risk mortgages within three weeks:
    
    “I am writing to urge you to immediately convene an Emergency Working Group on Foreclosures to investigate how to most effectively achieve broad-scale restructuring of at-risk mortgages. As you know, Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd have proposed legislation to expand the Federal Housing Administration’s capacity to guarantee restructured mortgages, and to facilitate an auction for mortgage pools among private sector actors. This legislation responds to the fact that the existing FHA Secure program is inadequate in addressing the scale of restructuring needed, and is not working to unfreeze the mortgage markets.
    
    …You can get ahead of these issues by immediately calling for an Emergency Working Group to report back to Congress and the Administration within three weeks on how to solve this crisis while focusing first and foremost on keeping families in their homes.
    
    The Working Group should be headed by a non-partisan group of eminent leaders like Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Bob Rubin – each of whom supports one of the remaining candidates in the Presidential race. The Working Group should focus on key questions about whether and how we can use an expanded FHA guarantee to facilitate a private sector auction as proposed in the Frank/Dodd legislation.
    
    Last year, Sen. Obama suggested convening a group to talk about how the private sector might act to address at-risk mortgages:
    
    On March 22, 2007, Senator Obama asked President Bush to “convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.”
    
    =======================================================================================
    Here's some more:
    
    The Obama campaign’s response to the comprehensive plan Hillary laid out to address the housing crisis today was not to discuss their disagreement with her proposal but to assert that Hillary has received contributions from subprime loan companies.
    
    Considering that Sen. Obama has received $1.18 million from subprime lenders and has taken more campaign contributions from the top ten issuers of subprime loans, that attack rings hollow as just words. Sen. Obama has a record of talking about standing up to special interests and then caving to their demands. Hillary has a 35-year record of standing up to special interests and delivering results.
    
    Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. [cq.com]
    
    Obama received $266,907 from Lehman. [Cq.com]
    
    Obama received $5395 from GMAC. [Cq.com]
    
    Obama received $150,850 from CS First Boston. [Cq.com]
    
    Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. [Cq.com]
    
    Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual. [Cq.com]
    
    Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. [Cq.com]
    
    Obama received $4600 from CBASS. [Cq.com]
    
    Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley. [Cq.com]
    
    Obama received $1150 from Centex. [Cq.com]
    
    Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. [Cq.com]
    
    Sen. Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than Hillary. Sen. Obama has received $434,420 from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans. Hillary has received $364,950. [Cq.com; USA Today]
    - nblsavage, on 03/25/2008, -2/+5Nice of you to post no real links just vague references that point to a pay site. You must be very nervous about people poking holes in your claims. Much like Hillary, so it doesn't surprise me that you are a supporter.
    - CeeAyy, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1She did not lay out a comprehensive plan if I go by what you just posted. Her idea was to ask the bankers who were partly responsible for the current state of the economy. She called for an investigation on the matter and SUPPORTED legislation created by other senators... That's it. Actually, the important thing to consider is that Barack had the foresight to see the issue prior to it becoming a big problem. An ounce of prevention is with worth a pound of cure...
      As for the money each of them received... are you really serious? To say which received more money from the top ten issuers of sub prime loans is asinine. That's like saying one bank robber is more guilty because one stole 1 million and the other only stole 500,000. The point is that they received the money. Period.
      As for her delivering results... What did she deliver? She can barely get anything passed in the senate and when she does, it is not usually of anything of value.
  - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1Here ya go nblsavage, wahhhhhhh, wahhhhh... the next question is, what will you bitch about next?
    
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-1 ...
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic ...
    http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6664
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQJxtzLQ51Q
    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g= ...
    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g= ...
    - nblsavage, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Political specialists point out that Mr. Obama doesn't have any control over those expenditures because outside groups raise and spend money independent of the presidential campaigns.
      
      "It's going to happen, regardless of what the candidates say," said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.
      
      And the other links have squat to do with your claims.
      - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -4/+1Can you not read and comprehend? Exactly the point, it's going to happen REGARDLESS of what the candidates say. And what has Obama said on the matter? ONLY THIS: ""The reality is, our political system allows for many different types of groups to play a role in the process, including third-party entities," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "It only becomes a problem when one candidate criticizes another candidate, but then benefits from the very same types of expenditures, as is the case with Senator Obama, or if there is illegal coordination."
        
        Last month, The Washington Times reported that while Mr. Obama refuses donations from federal lobbyists and paints his Democratic presidential rival as a Washington insider for accepting their contributions, he took hundreds of thousands of dollars from partners at dozens of firms that lobbied Congress in 2007.
        
        So I could post more out of the Washing Times article (link #2) where there is clearly a double standard when it comes to Obama. He says one person has to play by a certain set of rules, then breaks them within the same breath.
        
        It's no different than the suppressed Florida voters. Both names were on the ballot. The agreement was no campaigning. So what did Obama do in Florida? He advertised there. He still lost. Again, more double standards. More hypocrisy.
        
        You have no factual information other than to come to the support of Obama (that's fine, your right and entitlement). Now let's see you prove something other than drop nothing but empty rhetoric (like your candidate).
- ZHEStorm, on 03/24/2008, -18/+1And more:
  
  At the outset of the campaign, Sen. Obama pledged that his campaign would not attempt to "tear people down personally." This morning the Obama campaign released a strikingly negative memo attacking Hillary's character and asserting that Hillary "has consistently made political calculations to deliberately mislead the American people."
  
  The memo is also dishonest. Below is a detailed look at the Obama campaign's claims that sets the record straight.
  
  60 Minutes Interview
  
  The Obama campaign falsely claimed that Hillary would not confirm that Obama was a Christian in a 60 minutes interview:
  
  Obama’s religion. In a “60 Minutes” interview, Senator Clinton refused to confirm that Senator Obama is a Christian, even though she knows the facts.
  
  Here is how Media Matters' Eric Boehlert described the interview:
  
  The fact is, if you look at Clinton's exchange with Kroft in its entirety, which lasted less than one minute, I count eight separate times in which she either plainly denied the false claim that Obama was Muslim, labeled that suggestion to be a smear, or expressed sympathy for Obama having to deal with the Muslim innuendo.
  
  Family and Medical Leave Act
  
  The Obama campaign falsely claimed that Hillary had nothing to do with passing the Family and Medical Leave Act:
  
  Her role in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act. Clinton credits herself with “helping to pass” the Family and Medical Leave Act as First Lady. But the 11,000 pages of schedules don’t contain a single mention of her involvement in the issue.
  
  Here is what Debra Ness, President of the National Partnership for Women and Families, said about Hillary's involvement in FMLA:
  
  Hillary was instrumental in getting the Family and Medical Leave Act signed into law. We at the National Partnership for Women & Families as well as other family and labor groups had been pushing for the law for nearly 10 years. Hillary brought her work and experience on behalf of children and working families to the campaign trail in 1991 and 1992 and knew the importance of getting this legislation passed immediately. Two weeks after President Clinton was inaugurated, it was done.
  
  Experience
  
  The Obama campaign says every year she worked at a private law firm, she was not engaged in public service:
  
  35 Years in Public Service. The oft-repeated Clinton claim that she has 35 years of public service experience is simply false. Fifteen of those years were spent at a law practice.
  
  During that time, Hillary was First Lady of Arkansas, Founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, was appointed by President Carter to the board of the U.S. Legal Services Corporation, Chaired Rural Health Advisory Committee in Arkansas and was on the board of directors of the Children's Defense Fund, among other activities in the public service.
  
  Sen. Obama also worked in private practice for about a decade, and doesn't exclude that period of time from his experience in public service.
  
  The Obama campaign also denigrates her experience as first lady, where she represented the United States in more than 80 countries. More on Hillary's foreign policy experience HERE.
  
  Florida and Michigan
  
  The Obama campaign is misleading voters about Hillary's position on Florida and Michigan:
  
  The Michigan and Florida primaries. Back when it suited her political purposes she said the Michigan primary “didn’t count for anything” and that she wasn’t leaving her name on the ballot to try to legitimize the results. But now that she desperately needs more votes, she’s doing just that. And despite her pledge not campaign in either state, she held two campaign events in Florida.
  
  In the interview that the Obama campaign cites, Hillary made it clear that Michigan was essential for the Democrats chances in the fall and that's why she left her name on the ballot:
  
  I did not believe it was fair to just say goodbye Michigan and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009.
  
  More info HERE. Hillary actually abided by the rules not to campaign before the primary concluded, unlike Sen. Obama who ran advertising in Florida.
  
  NAFTA
  
  The Obama campaign falsely claims that Hillary was not critical of NAFTA in the early 1990s:
  
  Her position on NAFTA. Clinton tells Ohio voters that she has “been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.” Yet her own schedules show that as First Lady she attended at least four meetings to advocate for its original passage.
  
  Here is what David Gergen, who organized at least one of the meetings, had to say about Hillary's views at the time:
  
  I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there’s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she’s never been a great backer for NAFTA. [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]
  
  Disclosure
  
  On a week when 11,000 pages of Hillary's White House schedule were made available to the public, the Obama campaign is continuing to attack Hillary's transparency. At the same time, the Obama campaign has not released a single page of his state senate schedule or records.
  
  There are 20 years of Hillary's tax returns in the public record and she will release all of her post-White House returns next month. Sen. Obama has released one year of his tax returns to the public and refuses to release any other years.
  
  =======================================================================================================================
  
  Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton have control over which documents are released from the Clinton Library.
  
  Fact: Under federal law, records at the Clinton Library are the property of the U.S. government—not Hillary or Bill Clinton. These records are in the custody and control of the National Archives.
  
  As noted in the Washington Post, “Presidential papers can't be released at the snap of a finger”; so “[c]alling on the Clintons to release their papers makes for great campaign theater. But it’s theater that has no bearing on reality.” [Washington Post, 2/8/08; 3/1/08].
  
  Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton have control over when documents from the Clinton Library are made public.
  
  Fact: The Archives released these schedules in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The Archives processes those requests on a first come, first served basis, and is required by law to review every line of every page.
  
  As the Archives itself has said: “‘We're releasing them tomorrow because they're ready tomorrow . . . It was as soon as we could get them out.’” [Washington Post, 3/18/08].
  
  Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton have delayed the release of her White House records by preventing their release from the Clinton Library.
  
  Fact: Hillary and Bill Clinton do not decide when records can be released from the Clinton Library—the Archives does and has said so publicly on the record.
  
  By law, before releasing any documents, the Archives must conduct a page-by-page, line-by-line review of every record to ensure that confidential, security, and personal privacy information is not improperly released.
  
  The Archives has repeatedly stated that that this painstaking process is cumbersome and responsible for the bulk of the time it takes to review and release material. In this case, the Archives took approximately 6 months to complete its review of more than 11,000 pages. For his part, President Clinton's representative completed his review in less than 30 days -- weeks ahead of the time allotted for his review.
  
  Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton are responsible for the redactions in the White House schedules.
  
  Fact: The Archives made the redactions. According to the Archives, the majority of the redactions in the schedules pertain to the privacy interests of third parties, including their social security numbers, telephone numbers, and home addresses. This information is withheld under federal law.
  
  In fact, President Clinton asked the Archives, to the extent it could under applicable law, to release extensive material in those records that otherwise would have been excluded.
  
  Myth: Bill Clinton instructed the Archives to redact large portions of these documents in a 2002 letter.
  
  Fact: President Clinton’s 2002 letter has been misunderstood. In 2002, President Clinton issued an “easing” letter to the Archives that waived his right to restrict access to most of the confidential advice he received during his administration. The Archives has said this guidance is the least restrictive of any President covered by the Presidential Records Act.
  
  Myth: The schedules undercut Hillary’s claims to involvement in the policy efforts of the Clinton Administration, or to have gained valuable experience from it.
  
  Fact: They do no such thing. The schedules can not and do not speak to the substance of her meetings with staff, advisers, Administration officials, citizens, activists, foreign leaders, and others with whom she worked on policy issues. That should be no surprise – it’s not what they were created to do.
  
  What the schedules do show is an incredibly active and involved First Lady, and add detail to the already voluminous public record about her work.
  
  Those who claim the schedules undercut her efforts on such issues as the Family and Medical Leave Act, or her work for peace in Northern Ireland, or her efforts to support America’s foreign policy around the world are flying in the face of the public statements of the principal individuals involved in each, and decades of reporting on these issues.
  
  Myth: The schedules show that, while Hillary may have been engaged in the substantive policy work of the Clinton Administration in 1993 and 1994 during her work on Health Care, she retreated to a ceremonial First Lady role for the rest of her time in the White House.
  
  Fact: The schedules show no such thing. They demonstrate that Hillary remained an active participant and contributor to the work of the Clinton Administration in addition to fulfilling her ceremonial duties as First Lady .
  
  The schedules are just that: schedules. They can not and do not speak to the substance of her meetings with staff, advisers, Administration officials, citizens, activists, foreign leaders, and others with whom she worked on policy issues. That should be no surprise – it’s not what they were created to do.
  
  Myth: Contrary to her stated opposition to NAFTA, Hillary Clinton attended NAFTA meetings to work for its passage.
  
  Fact: It is no secret that passing NAFTA was a priority of the Clinton Administration, but numerous contemporary accounts make clear that Hillary Clinton was personally opposed to NAFTA, and her position on NAFTA was and remains consistent.
  
  For example, one of the NAFTA meetings she attended was run by David Gergen who has clearly stated that Hillary Clinton was opposed to NAFTA. According to Gergen, Hillary “was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly.” He said: “If I could just add one other post script, Anderson, on NAFTA, I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there’s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she’s never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]
  - 0xception, on 03/24/2008, -2/+8Do you hang out with RepubOperative much? if not i think you should look him up on digg... you guys would get a long nicely :)
    - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -10/+1Never heard of him. If he is a Republican (as his name would suggest), I doubt I would have very much in common with him.
- chochazel, on 03/24/2008, -2/+7So you actually thought to yourself, "You know what US politics could really do with? More slimy hit pieces full of sleazy innuendo and guilt by association! That's the way forward!" Do you look upon the swift boat veterans as your guiding light and inspiration. Or CREEP black propaganda? I mean you're not even attacking the guy himself, just the people around him. How pathetic can you get? We need to move politics away from this level as soon as possible.
  - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -7/+2I take it you didn't even take the time to understand what the posts were about (obviously because you either a) didn't read it or b) can't comprehend it). The point those posts make is that Obama is a hypocrite. He criticizes people in the nomination process for taking money and how he "never" accepts any, then turns around and takes more money than anyone else. He claims he is a unifier, yet his actions speak differently than his words. If you want to see slimy, perhaps you need to take a long hard look at the Obama campaign and look at the double standards, the lies, the hypocrisy. It isn't hard to find once you start taking an objectionable look at him.
    
    And FWIW, while I strongly support Hillary Clinton for President, there is no chance in hell I am voting for John McCain. If Obama should win the Democratic nomination, he will have to convince me to vote for him... or I will write in Hillary Clinton on my ballot.
    
    Hillary '08
    - Rednik2011, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Too bad she didn't have the judgment or character to vote against our 2 trillion dollar war in Iraq. *****.
      - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -4/+1Nice, *****, you think that one up all by yourself? Let us examine the Iraq war, shall we?
        
        Take the time and click the links which go to real articles of proof:
        http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6551
        
        You will find that Obama's voting record (since he joined the Senate, mind you, he NEVER VOTED on the war, he was not in the Senate at the time and had zero intelligence reports and zero accountability) is identical to Senator Clinton's.
        
        So the question has to be, if you don't support a war and are 100% against it, how in the world can you continue to vote to FUND said war? I believe it was either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich who brought up that very point.
      - IpecacNeat, on 03/25/2008, -2/+0Again, the voting to fund the war BS. Seriously, just think about what would have happened if Obama voted against funding for the troops. He would be labeled as un-American etc. etc. Also, I have some family over there, if Obama can't fly over himself and pick up all the troops, he better damn well fund the war. You can't end the war now, but want to take away the money people in my family need, then watch out man.
- shortysmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+7You apparently have lots of time on your hands. Why don’t you start looking up information about your own candidate? It’s a lot better than what you’re digging up about Obama.
  You mentioned the Rezko trial, ever wonder why Hillary doesn’t talk about it? In the trial it came out that the Clinton's received money, not Obama. Also the Clinton’s good friend Myron Cherry surfaced as "Individual H" in the Rezko trial. What a coincidence!
  Myron Cherry is also a lawyer for IPA, a company being sued by the US Government in one of the largest sexual harassment cases ever! Hillary accepted $170,000 from this firm, and won’t return it.
  Have you seen the very funny Hillary in Bosnia video? How about the still undisclosed Clinton tax returns, the Peter Paul affair, the Pardongate scandal, possible illegal foreign money pouring into the Clinton campaign via speaking fees, huge foreign donations to the Clinton Library, and more, lots more! But this should keep you busy for now.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
  http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/123948/ ...
  http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/020808.html
  http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story- ...
  http://www.judicialwatch.org/pgate.shtml
  - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -6/+1Ok, you want to talk about Tax Returns, sure! There are over 20 years worth of Clinton tax returns in the public domain. There is ONE for Senator Obama. Why? He's been in the Senate much longer than 1 year.
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/th ...
    (Outside the opinionated and non-factually made statement at the end of the article, it clearly shows that if you don't play by Obama's rules, you are hiding something. Why is that? She has a lot of tax returns in the public domain, he only has the one. I'd like to know how much Rezko money was there for him to get the Senate seat he currently holds. If he wants to bash people over tax returns, he needs to release all of his, then he can make a valid attack. Until he does so, he just sounds desperate.)
    
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8STLEOG0& ...
    Here Obama continues to make rules... release your First Lady records, release this and that. Well, let's apply this rule to him. What about his Illinois State Senate records? I believe this would be the one where he voted "present" over 100+ times rather than taking accountability. Does this guy ever do any real work other than give speeches? The problem is, he continues to make empty threats that if something isn't released, then there is something hidden. He clearly expects every second of every day of Hillary's life to matter and that we need to see every record of it. Clearly she has done so. When pressed for the same information, well, what do ya know... more excuses and empty rhetoric. It is these sorts of things that make you wonder about his leadership and whether he is fit to be Commander and Chief. For me, and millions of others (his lead over Hillary is less than 1% of the popular vote), these are questions we need to know before it is too late!
    - shortysmyname, on 03/25/2008, -2/+3You still haven't addressed the Hillary issues. She's still worse than Obama by far when it comes to lying, hiding information, and sleazy politics.
      - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -4/+1Links? You ask me for proof, so I think it's about time you gave some. And damn you, I said I was leaving for the night. :P
        
        Correct me if I am wrong, but it almost sounds like your comments are actually agreeing that Obama isn't holier than thou. I always thought his supports put him on this golden pedestal where he has done no wrong, ever. At least your starting to own up a little to the fact that he is a politician.
        
        And for the record, I don't actually hate Obama.
      - shortysmyname, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1Oh I know I wanted to leave a long time ago, but I have this horrible problem of always having to be right., always the last word. Yikes..gets me into trouble a lot! Oh yes, I know Obama isn't perfect by far. I don't think any politician is, ever. I am a Chicagoan, so I am a little biased toward Obama. I know Hillary was from the Chicago area too, but she claims NY. Ok good night.
    - shortysmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Well I could spend hours filling this place with Hillary stuff, but I won't. Because the bottom line is that while none of the candidates are perfect, Hillary is by far worse than Obama, and even McCain, when it comes to honesty and credibility.
- ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -7/+1Oops, here some more info about Rezko, since you brought him up:
  http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6535
  There are many links within that that cover the extent of Rezko and Obama. I figure it would be easier to send you there, but I know for some people, that is rough... so here ya go, the links with more lies and hypocrisy.
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18352397/print/1/displ ...
  http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/844455 ...
  
  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-rezko ...
  
  http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/01/sweet_obam ...
  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-ob ...
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4215299&pag ... ($150K)
  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-ob ... (oops, I lied, make it $250K, but without the older tax returns, the sky is the limit on this little lie!)
  
  Want to talk earmarks? Sure! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/politics ...
  - shortysmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2At least Obama released his earmarks, has Hillary? Obama returned the Rezko money, Hillary didn't.
    - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -4/+1He has not returned all of it. Only portions of it. Also, without his older tax returns, we don't know if he has received more in the past. If Hillary's past matters, so does Barack's!
  - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1Here's some more info: http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com
    Actually, there is a ton of info on that site.
- ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -7/+1http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6728
  - shortysmyname, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Your source is Hillary's campaign - like anything she says is believable.
    - ZHEStorm, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1There are links inside it (in fact, to Obama's site). Why not actually take the time to read it?
- elhaf, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Working with the LOSER of the campaign isn't required of the president.
Dukewhitey, on 03/24/2008, -4/+12Yes We Should Have
http://dukewhiteyreport.blogspot.com
rebotfc, on 03/24/2008, -6/+70This goes to show that Obama will support an issue even when it's not being championed by the press. He raised the issue because he understood the issues and could foresee the impending problems the country faces. Only he has the foresight and wisdom to be President.
- Pstall, on 03/24/2008, -6/+2"Only he has the foresight and wisdom to be President." Thats a pretty smug comment.
  - hierophantus, on 03/25/2008, -1/+6Well, I can see that. But it's not really smug if he meant it as "foresight and wisdom to be the one you should vote for as President." I hope the distinction makes sense.
    
    In other words, as I interpret it--and under this interpretation I agree with it--that Obama is not necessarily the only one minimally qualified by foresight and wisdom to be President, but he has so much more than the other candidates that he is the "only" choice.
- zeiben, on 03/24/2008, -5/+3Only YOU can prevent forest fires.... only YOU
- deanlowe, on 03/25/2008, -3/+6Did that letter accomplish anything?
  Did he follow up that letter with any other action?
  - meese, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4There's the problem that he's not president and also not on the Senate Banking committee. We need to elect him president first.
    - deanlowe, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1What kind of candidate for President doesn't highlight his solution for a major economic problem during the campaign? He doesn't have to be the president to speak out.
      Also, he does have influence with the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Chris Dodd.
- zacharytelschow, on 03/25/2008, -5/+1Anyone and everyone understood that the housing situation was without doubt a bubble. His foresight is hardly notable in this case.
- smoomoo31, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Only I have the brains to rule Lylat!
vernacularninja, on 03/24/2008, -7/+44What more does the guy have to do and say to prove that is more than capable of running this country? Like he said so eloquently on Larry King, "When Clinton and McCain talk about experience, they are referring to how long they have been in Washington." Quality over quantity Washington. I'm not interested in politics; I'd prefer honesty for once.
- kipmartin, on 03/25/2008, -8/+1Dugg down because A.) the post is too long B.) doesnt say anything of substance--its based on conjecture and assumptions, and C.) you mentioned Ken Starr. being investigated by a special counsel does not count as positive 'experience'.
  
  lets quit grasping at straws. obama is the next Dem nominee and unless you believe God intervenes in delegate voting, clinton doesnt have a chance. you wont find anything on him because he is the Real Deal.
birdly, on 03/24/2008, -6/+19Sounds like substance to me.
- 11b1p, on 03/25/2008, -6/+4substance if he did anything with it but he didn't
- starkruzr, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1No, haven't you heard? Obama is all hot air and no substance. Ell3 told me so. So did JimmySpaza.
jabberwolf, on 03/24/2008, -43/+7EVERYTHING FROM MY.BARACKOBAMA.COM SHOULD BE BLOCKED!

If not for spam, for propaganda, or stupidity !
- ejhdigdug, on 03/24/2008, -4/+6And now I block you in my Digg prefrences
- theAlice, on 03/24/2008, -3/+11HEY I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS TOO, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE ME RIGHT
  - zacharytelschow, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1or wrong. Just obnoxious.
  - starkruzr, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
    
    but you still have to steer.
- sdotbailey, on 03/25/2008, -4/+6can we block you for being a tool? it wasn't some weird conspiracy writing. it wasn't some glorious puff piece. it pointed out that a year ago Obama proposed something being proposed by an opponent today. why should that be blocked?
  
  mad he's getting good press and has some decent foresight? YOU MUST BE SUPER ANGRY SINCE YOU YELLED YOUR COMMENT TO NOBODY IN PARTICULAR.
  
  tool.
- jabberwolf, on 03/25/2008, -4/+1Sorry guys but seriously you are ***** knobs wih no reality check. A "news" story is not a www.obamacaSUCKMYASS.com is NOT news. It's propaganda! No wonder digg is going downhill, dickless and dumbass wonders like you.
SaperKain, on 03/24/2008, -3/+26If the Clintons take this nomination away from Barack Obama at the convention there will be riots on the streets. I’m going to be right there in front with my pitchfork. Clinton vs. McCain election would be a farce. Like having a choice between coke and pepsi. What kind of choice is that?
- fishface, on 03/24/2008, -5/+2Coke, no question.
  So is Obama cherry chocolate dr pepper?
- IlliterateJedi, on 03/24/2008, -2/+9I see it more of Sprite v 7UP while everyone really wants Coke Black
  - zacharytelschow, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1Obama isn't black.
    - rrbest, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1He's olive with a hint of mocha?
    - IlliterateJedi, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Well, John McCain and Hillary Clinton aren't carbonated with a crisp lemon-lime taste, but I don't see you complaining about that
- junkwheel, on 03/24/2008, -3/+6Am I a *****? Are we in Inglewood? No. You're in my home. White people who know the difference between good ***** and bad *****, this is the house they come to. Now, my *****, I'll take the Pepsi challenge with that Amsterdam *****, any day of the *****' week. - Hillary Clinton
- diggrnumber1, on 03/25/2008, -6/+1not to support hillary, but at least she wants to (eventually) get out of iraq (in the "near" future). mccain, on the other hand, is the very definition of a warmonger. mccain is much worse than hillary. if it came down to an election between hillary and mccain, i would definitely vote for hillary.
- IpecacNeat, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4If Obama doesn't get the nomination, but leads in delegates and the popular vote, then I'm not going to vote in the next election.
  - jforjools, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Me too. I'll even seriously consider voting for McCain. Perish the thought? Yes, of course...But really, HRC is just McCain-lite...with a LOT LESS experience. ...So, I think she might, in the end, be the scarier choice.
    - rrbest, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3anyone who votes for McCain should lose their right to vote
    - stretch611, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4If the Dems end up giving the nomination to Clinton, then I think Obama should run as an independent. I would still vote for him.
cyclades, on 03/24/2008, -10/+15This is great, except as an Obama supporter I ask the question: if he pushed for this a year ago, why did he not make it happen?
- pcpimpster, on 03/24/2008, -3/+181 senator doesnt equal the influence of a possible president... I see your point on "but what if he did or maybe he should before we..."
- blinkerbug, on 03/25/2008, -6/+1because.. it's a stupid ass idea... and so he kind of let it drop.. and now stupid ass Hillary picks it up and runs with it.
  We don't need to be bailing out every dumbass that thought he could buy way more than he could afford. Nope, we need to be bailing out the rich bankers and making sure they make their bonusssss.. oh, wait....
- d03boy, on 03/25/2008, -7/+11. Too busy running for president
  2. Presents bills without pushing them because he doesn't really care that much, just wants to look good on his record? I have no evidence to back this one up though so don't yell at me
- keishax, on 03/25/2008, -2/+5One year ago it wasn't in crisis. The entire industry wasn't collapsing. It was only those citizens who got in over their head. Poor working sector. Now the problem expands into investment banking aka Bears and Stearns, Citibank, Countrywide. When you have major institutions filing bankruptcy, begging for money from Indonesia and Dubai, you are in trouble. It is only an issue when personal wealth is effected. Case in point, Enron. When California was hit with rolling blackouts Bush laughed, and said it was a Cali problem. When the stock tanked and corruption was unveiled, the government woke up and listened. Congress and the Bush Administration only function in reaction not pro-action! Obama '08!
  - deanlowe, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2If he had such foresight, why didn't he say it louder so everyone could hear him?
    If he had said something back then people,this year, would think he was a "leader" on economic issues and he's be the nominee by now.
    When you got something to say, say it out loud so the people can hear you. Don't be a pansy and send a letter to a Bush appointee then not follow up on it.
- kanabiis, on 03/25/2008, -1/+12 words, Junior Senator...... Barney Frank said it best on Bill Mahar this week, your first 2 or 3 terms as a Senator your not taken seriously at all, it takes years of having a Senate seat before anyone has any respect for you, let alone backs controversial bills.
  Which is why Barney Frank waited so many years before introducing a marijuana decriminalization act.
  - stretch611, on 03/25/2008, -1/+5I bet Jr Senators would be taken more seriously if we instituted term limits. Then we can get rid of all the sloths that never leave Congress and constantly replace them with people that actually have seen their constituents in the last 20years.
NelsonR, on 03/24/2008, -13/+3Hillary will accomplish a novel prerequisite Barrack hasn't even thought of. A dry cleaners installed on the white house grounds to eliminate unwanted future stains. Another idea, employing more security guards at foreign airports to avoid the hail of bullets she once experienced. Another idea, plagiarize everything and anything from all our founding fathers while referring to your opponents as Anti American and unpatriotic. Keeping James Carvel ahead of the game, in your employ, by calling any disloyal associate who desires change, a Judas. Sorry James the job you had lined out with Hillary is looking like a long shot. Suggestion, get a real honest occupation. I don't know how your wife puts up with you?
- hypertension, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1I lol'ed!
- MidgardMurda, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and im sure she'll be dodging snipers left and right in the process
zm5k, on 03/24/2008, -16/+8So Obama proposed a stupid idea a year before Clinton did? Wow!!! That's a ringing endorsement. Everyone who bought a home with a variable rate knew that their rates were going to go up. They gambled that they would be able to sell and reap the rewards before the bubble burst or that it would never burst. Their homes should be foreclosed and the banks should suffer for making the bad loans in the first place.
- zacharytelschow, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Bingo.
- colincornaby, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2"Their homes should be foreclosed and the banks should suffer for making the bad loans in the first place." Are you Ron Paulites INTENTIONALLY trying to cause the collapse of our economy so then you can tell us you told us so? Look, it's not a time to stand on principle. If the housing crisis is allowed to go on, it will lead to a wider collapse in the economy. It's better to deal with it now rather than to turn a blind eye to it, call it somebody else's problem, and let it grow out of control.
- keishax, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0I think you really need to understand the securities and banking industry. After the tech boom of the 90s the next quick return was real estate. Govenment deregluated the industry allowing for those crazy loans. NOW your pensions, 401Ks, home values are effected. Factor in the war, and the recession, downsizing etc, you are now effecting every household in America. Including those individuals who were not in subprime mortgages. Your home that was work $250K 6 months ago has lost 5-10% of its value. What effects one population now effects all. Domino effect.
  - zacharytelschow, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1"Your home that was work $250K 6 months ago has lost 5-10% of its value. What effects one population now effects all. Domino effect."
    
    If you're treating your home as a place to live and something to make payments on for 5 years to a decade, a short term drop in value of 5-10% should have virtually no effect on you as a homeowner. A home is an investment like anything else, and sometimes the value drops. That's the way life is.
mazer23, on 03/24/2008, -11/+2We should all just print up Barack Obama 40cozies (http://www.40cozy.com) and get it over with.
theAlice, on 03/24/2008, -7/+25Hillary trolls are out in full force.
- TheInformer, on 03/25/2008, -9/+2Obama trolls permanently live on Digg now.
- secondwheel2, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1By Hillary trolls, you really mean women yeah?
parkhead, on 03/24/2008, -36/+4OBAMA IS A ***** FACE
HILLARY IS STRAIGHT UP ACE
LOL THAT RHYMES
HC 08
- mitchlourens, on 03/24/2008, -4/+3hmmm, you're a fag.
- theAlice, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4WHEN YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS
  IT DON'T MAKE YOU ALL THAT
  BUT SOMETIMES IT'S TRUE, BITCH
  CUZ IT MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID
  
  LOL I CAN PSEUDO-RHYME
jforjools, on 03/24/2008, -4/+10From another article I saw earlier (regarding Hillary's speech today...sorry I don't remember the reference:

"There is a reason why corporate America loves the Clintons. They talk a good game, but when it comes down to it, they do little to rock the boat."

For those of us who have forgotten or are too young to know:
Bill Clinton's BANKING DEREGULATION is at the heart of PREDATORY LENDING and the SUB-PRIME crisis ...Sorry, but we can't blame this one on Dubya (who has screwed up in other areas to make up for it.)

Many have said that Bill Clinton was the 'best Republican President ever'...Deregulation being one of the many things that corporate america loves most about 'The Clintons'.
- keishax, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Hell Yeah! How soon we forget. Throw that in with the bankruptcy reform and we got a economic crisis of incomparable proportions. Greenspan -- Biggest financial mess since WWII.
- MaximusD, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4Don't forget that his Media deregulation (Telecommunications Act of '96 I believe) made the current conglomerated media -- which allowed Bush to get away with his lies that led us into war -- is also part of our problems. Corporate control over the media has also grown with Clinton consent.
dexedrine, on 03/24/2008, -5/+19This is great, except as an Obama supporter I ask the question: if he pushed for this a year ago, why did he not make it happen?

Because he wasn't the president. You try sending a letter to Bernanke and see what he tells you youcan go do with yourself.
- cwcentral, on 03/25/2008, -6/+2Quote: "This is great, except as an Obama supporter I ask the question: if he pushed for this a year ago, why did he not make it happen?"
  
  Good point. It begs to ask the question: Why doesn't he push for it NOW? As Clinton is... Or even call her out?
  
  Politics isn't about ownership of ideas--stay in college if you want that. It's about timing and doing the right thing at the right time. If it's about being 100% principled, then you might as well be an left or right extremist. It's great Obama wrote a letter a year ago, it's even better that economists have called these solutions 3 yrs ago! But it's all about timing...
  
  If Obama was president a year ago, would we be in this situation? Would he have been able to make that change with the economic conditions (Gas was CHEAPER then for instance). No ones knows and just implying an answer is plain Monday morning quarterbacking (is it Monday?).
  - meese, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Um, Obama has been working with Chris Dodd (who actually has the power to do something because he's been in the senate for decades) for over a month now to get it done - it's just not something that gets much press.
- bejezus, on 03/25/2008, -2/+0It is vitally important that Bernanke's job is left as unfettered as possible by political influence. A letter from a President shouldn't force the hand of the Fed. If you think for a second that Uncle Ben should jump for a politico of any flavor, then why even have a fed? Just let Paulson move the rates up and down without the Fed governors - or why stop there? Let the President change it at will. If Obama was sending letters to the wrong folks, maybe he needs a little more time in Washington before he gets to run things.
- Gorgamel, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1There's this cool feature called 'Reply to comment' on Digg. Check it out.
junkwheel, on 03/25/2008, -2/+12Hillary just wants to be president. She wants to be welcomed as president of the united states everywhere she goes. That is what she is running for. Power and influence. If you have watched this race, ask yourself this: what else could she possibly be running for? She has shat on her own party, attacked, smeared and made up stories about Obama throughout, made up completely false stories about her experience fit for a cartoon. Say anything to win. Played the fear card, the Al Qaeda card, the made up cards: Commander In Chief Test Passed Card........and on, and on, and on.

The democratic party should throw Hillary out for the shameful campaign she has run.
- bigjimslade, on 03/25/2008, -6/+3
  So Hillary just wants to be president and Obama wants what? A good dental plan?
  - junkwheel, on 03/25/2008, -2/+8If you need to be told what Obama wants you might want to check out his campaign sometime.
    
    He is not running for a title. He's running for the people.
    - bejezus, on 03/25/2008, -7/+1I've carefully reviewed his oh-so-web-2.0 PDF and listened to his "best speech since MLK" and I am still looking for anything that resembles substantive policy ideas. It's all hopes and dreams, sing-in-a-circle crap. For someone with so little to show in terms of getting things done, I would expect something that means anything. Yeah, we all think health care is a right, yada, yada... I'm far left - pretty far out there - I'll vote for this if my choice is McCain or Obama, but the curve before anything gets done by an Obama presidency will be 2 years - enough time for some mid-term elections. In that time, my hopes for substantive change in any area I care about is near zero. The Republicans are far more skilled at two important things that I trust Hillary to combat far better than Obama. Keeping party members in line and yielding nearly nothing when it comes to "compromise." Obama hasn't shown the ability to get major policy initiatives together and moving. Edwards' angle was better than either of these candidates and Hillary is second best.
    - kaeryn, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1DUGG DOWN FOR BEING SILLY. Obama has ONLY ever done things for BLACK people. What makes you think he cares about anyone else. He even threw his WHITE granny under a bus.
- d03boy, on 03/25/2008, -1/+7he wants HOPE and CHANGE you idiot!!!!!!!! duh!
  - blinkerbug, on 03/25/2008, -2/+2but, what exactly is HOPE and CHANGE? Hope for a jumbo sized socialist government that will coddle everyone? Change like a few extra Ameros jingling in your pocket?
rframpton, on 03/25/2008, -16/+4Obama is a RACIST!
- JDFrancis, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4I guess he hates his parents then. Oh wait, only the his mom. If you actually had an intelligent, nuanced view of race, you'd understand some of the underlying anger present in black community. Continuing to pretend that everything equaled out in the 1960's is callow and simplistic. Playing this silly little Fox News bash-Obama game (that even Chris Wallace calls out) may scare up some of the fear-vote that drives the lizard brain, but it doesn't do anything to take America further. Grow up.
  - rframpton, on 03/25/2008, -2/+0You're a RACIST!
Anisotropic, on 03/25/2008, -6/+5Summits don't solve anything. Looks like Obama is enamored of studies and summits. When asked about school vouchers his response was "if studies show it works ....". On any issue his proposal is that we can "come together" after a discussion.
By the way Austan Goolsbee, his economics adviser, in a NYT article, was praising sub prime loans as allowing lower middle class to afford houses. Also that they are reliable payers.
I am not interested in fluffy policies. I want to know what are his core beliefs on personal responsibility, the role of capitalism, limits of welfare, etc. Nothing in his biography gives an indication.
And, please, Obamites, when you claim that something Obama said is great, please back up with why because I cannot discern the greatness from his speeches.
- keishax, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Politicians no nothing about the ripple effects until they are bailing out banks with our taxpayer dollars. Too much one up man-ships. Get real economists, and the financial elite along side people who can articulate the needs of the common man you can build bridges that get you from one point to another. One person doesn't solve the problem, great minds pushing for result do.
- stretch611, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2This may be shocking to some, but no one "knows it all." This is why they appoint a cabinet to help with the decision process. One benefit is that Obama has already expressed a willingness to consider anyone regardless of their political party.
TheInformer, on 03/25/2008, -10/+3Yet another pro-Obama story on Digg. Why not turn the entire site into nothing but Obama articles? That's all you run into when you sign on now.
- HealthyElijah, on 03/25/2008, -3/+2Hear ya there bro! Everybody who is for Obama doesn't even know what they are for. They just say "change" or health care. Did you know Obama voted to re-authorize the patriot act? Ya know the Patriot Act that TAKES AWAY our civil liberties.
  - blinkerbug, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1shhhh.... you're supposed to keep this sort of thing quiet. We need the Patriot Act to make sure any resistance can be stomped out as "domestic terrorism".
bigjimslade, on 03/25/2008, -2/+7"Home Preservation Summit" = "Complete Waste of Time and Money." Really, why are we so concerned about people losing their homes? If you answered, "because it's their HOME" or "what about the children," congratulations, you've validated that you cannot look beyond a simple emotional appeal. Most of those who are losing their homes shouldn't have been able to buy them in the first place. Overzealous mortgage brokers threw billions from careless banks at those who shouldn't have qualified. Why should the government do ANYTHING about ANY of the parties involved? Fraud? Sure, prosecute if laws were broken. Most, however, signed on the line and agreed to the terms. Can't pay? Lose your house. Meanwhile, we're to bail out the banks and those who borrowed too much while meanwhile responsible people who did the right thing end up paying whatever they owe as they always have, while the irresponsible get their rates reduced. What a crock of *****.

This will carry through to other areas, too. Those of you who are sticking 6-10% away in a 401(k)? Well, don't think for a minute somebody is going to want that money in 40 years. The appeal will be, "but what about those who didn't understand they were going to get old someday, WHAT ABOUT THEM?"

Why are the responsible now vilified? Easy. Envy in the least common denominator in politics.
- keishax, on 03/25/2008, -2/+5Because the economy is in the toliet. Citibank is being bailed out buy Dubai and Indonesia. Bears and Stearns went belly up. Every person who has real estate securities in their 401k or pension plan will continue to lose money. Cities where whole neighborhoods are ghost towns have no tax dollars to employ teachers. Add recession factors and no one is traveling, going out to eat, shopping, or spending money, you have a major problem. When YOUR home loses 10% value in 6 months, because the other homes on the block are sitting on the market longer and selling for less, YOU are now effected. Never feel that what effects one group or sector doesn't effect others. Stop the bleeding before it effects your pocket book.
- stretch611, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Foreclosure should be a last resort. If someone has no chance of ever being able to pay a foreclosure is warranted. However, if a homeowner can get out of a predatory loan through refinancing at a good rate it is better for everyone affected. It keeps someone in a house that eventually will become a good investment instead of becoming a vacant house drawing down everyone else's property values. The banks get a better deal this way because the loan will eventually be repaid, and they do not need to take a hit by foreclosing a loan and losing money because they have to sell the property for less money than is owed on the loan.
HealthyElijah, on 03/25/2008, -6/+10Didn't Obama vote for the "Thought Crime Bill" HR1955 AND to re-authorize the patriot act? Whats up with that peeps?
- d03boy, on 03/25/2008, -4/+4It's ok because he has hope and wants change.
  Exclamation mark for excitement !
- Refrag, on 03/25/2008, -0/+5Citations? What were Clinton and McCain's positions on those?
RichStradler, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Give 'em hell BigJim, I took a pass on the ARM after doing the calculations and went in favor of the 30 year note on my home. I know that I did the right thing and what do I get except the opportunity to pay for the idiots who didn't.
d03boy, on 03/25/2008, -2/+730 years ago.... Ron Paul... etc
- blinkerbug, on 03/25/2008, -2/+3What has he done in 30 years? eh? If he'd been even a TINY bit successful maybe these Obama supporters would listen to you. Name one thing he's done better in those 30 years than Obama has done in his short stint. Go!
- thecoolestguy, on 03/25/2008, -3/+2Obama supporters are ***** retards. You don't even have a right to address Ron Paul supporters you socialist moron.
aserer511, on 03/25/2008, -5/+2hahahah
Aric69, on 03/25/2008, -10/+5ron paul
- wrillo, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1only has homosexual supporters
RRJackson, on 03/25/2008, -9/+5One year FROM now Obama will be starting his new career as a Motivational Speaker.
johnchaney3, on 03/25/2008, -8/+1The MEDIA'S candidate ( we all know who owns the media) is in St. Thomas for some R&R...
Real presidential....Why isn't this story on DIGGG......
A real f*ucking loser...
- lilsis, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2i actually have no idea what you're talking about.
randomstupid, on 03/25/2008, -2/+4wake me up when they name the president
- CeeAyy, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Why bother? With comment like that it seems as though you would still be asleep even if someone woke you.
pentakle, on 03/25/2008, -9/+4And then on the 8th day Saint Obama shall rise and free us all! Get the ***** out of here, you fools support this idiot like he is the second coming. He attends church with a racist white hating pastor, his wife is ashamed of America - shall i go on? No, you dont want that, after all the truth has no place here on digg. If this ***** ***** ends up in charge we are all screwed and you fools will share the blame.
jabberwolf, on 03/25/2008, -6/+4Dickless and brainless wonders always post diggs from a www.Obamamylipsonyourass.com - This is not news, its propaganda.
thecoolestguy, on 03/25/2008, -6/+1yay more regulations! Let's all convene and see how we can centrally manage the economy through regulations. We'll call ourselves Commissars and change the USA to the USSA.

The PROBLEM is too much central control through the federal reserve. Affirmative action quotas are a big reason why bad loans were given to minorities with no credit. The problem is banks being bailed out by the fed, rather than learning to manage risk.
- CeeAyy, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Affirmative action loans... Do you EVER know what you are talking about? Loans were not given to minorities with no credit, regardless of what Fox "News" tells you. People were given more credit than they really should have qualified for and were given loans at rates that were higher than what their credit justified. Banks took advantage of people basically. This was a predatory practice that affected ALL groups. It just so happens that this was done more often to non-whites. Now, if you knew your history, you would be familiar with redlining, blockbusting, and all the other despicable practices that went on in the past. However, you seem to be the type to blame the victim unless it somehow involves you or a group you identify with.
  
  Also, your understanding of the Fed is lacking... The Fed is not bailing out anything or anyone. The Fed is not in the business of doing favors. If you can't see what the Fed is doing or if you don't have a real grasp as to what is happening then maybe you shouldn't comment.
  
  Oh, and is minority your code word for Black (like urban)? There is only one purpose for a word like minority... to minimize the group it is meant to represent. Otherwise, why not just use the original label? Does anyone go around talking about the "majorities"?
  
  You are so lost and I wish I had the time to draw a map for you.
- thecoolestguy, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1--Loans were not given to minorities with no credit, regardless of what Fox "News" tells you.---
  
  Cut the hippy feel-good *****. If you knew any thing about federal regulations, you would know that race WAS a factor due to affirmative action programs aimed to increase loans to minorities. This resulted in bad loans being given to people who couldn't afford it.
  
  ---Oh, and is minority your code word for Black (like urban)?---
  
  If I was going to use code, I would use a word like 'urban' not 'minority'. Minority is a pretty clear word and not politically correct. It means non-whites, in this case mostly blacks and hispanics. Before you go off on a Pahlovian anti-racism rant, I'm not saying that all blacks and hispanics have bad credit, just that many that had bad credit got loans due to affirmative action programs.
  
  --People were given more credit than they really should have qualified for and were given loans at rates that were higher than what their credit justified.---
  
  And people are children that need to be looked after by government, instead of looking at market rates and getting the best deal for themselves?
  - CeeAyy, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Hippy... I'm not old enough to be a hippy... Attack the argument, not the person.
    
    Anyway, increasing the amount of loans to "minorities" (a word some people seem to love) was not the problem. You are suggesting that increasing the amount of loans to non-whites is the problem. It is not. The problem is that loans were given to people who couldn't afford them and often at rates that made sure that they couldn't be paid back. If you can't see that there are a LARGE number of whites affected by this as well then you are blind and possibly a little biased. Banks do not hand out loans solely based on race, however there is a history of loans being denied because of race. The point of the "programs" you referenced was to give more loans to QUALIFIED "minorities"
    
    Minority might be popular but when you really look at it, it is offensive. yes, it means non-whites and that is actually part of my point. It's a divisive word that serves no positive purpose. Would you call a Russian-American a minority? No. In this country they would be a "minority" though. Actually, in this world, "whites" are in the minority but you will not see that word used as a description. Oh, and why are women a minority group? The last time that i checked women are in the majority no matter how you look at the numbers. The word minority, as it is currently used, is a negative word.
    
    As for your last comment... not all consumers are educated. While the gov't should not be responsible for each individual, it does have a responsibility to society as a whole. Gov't does regulate businesses for a reason. Do you realize what would happen if there were NO regulations or action by the gov't? There should be a balance. The bankers crossed the line and in THIS CASE, gov't should step in. Would you prefer a society with no rules? When there are a large number of people take n advantage of, maybe there is more going on than an uneducated consumer.
  - thecoolestguy, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Maybe these concepts are too complicated for you too understand. Your overly simplistic responses indicates that they are.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Anyway, increasing the amount of loans to "minorities" (a word some people seem to love) was not the problem. You are suggesting that increasing the amount of loans to non-whites is the problem. It is not.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I never said giving loans to minorities is a problem, cut the self-righteous politically correct hippy *****, I said giving loans to minorities with bad credit, due to government mandated affirmative action laws, is a problem.
    
    ------------------------------------------------
    Banks do not hand out loans solely based on race, however there is a history of loans being denied because of race. The point of the "programs" you referenced was to give more loans to QUALIFIED "minorities"
    ------------------------------------------------------
    
    The "programs" (why are you putting this in quotation marks?) gave loans to minorities who subsequently defaulted on their loans. These affirmitative action programs are more feel good politically ***** that distorts the market and causes financial disaster.
    
    --------------As for your last comment... not all consumers are educated. While the gov't should not be responsible for each individual, it does have a responsibility to society as a whole.--------------
    
    Wrong, what you are advocating is that the government be responsible for each individual. If an individual doesn't do their homework, and takes out a loan that is not favorable to them, that is their fault, not the government's, not the banks, and not the tax payer's. No one put a gun against these people's heads and forced them to take out the bad loans.
    
    Your approach of using socialism destroys society. It adds layers upon layers of regulations that society needs to comply with to conduct any kind of economic activity. It freezes business development, and necessitates armies of specialized accountants and lawyers to navigate the labyrinth of govenrment regulations. Who is going to pay for all the government regulators? The tax payer. And this itself necessitates more taxes, and more IRS agents to collect those taxes, which themselves require even more tax dollars to fund. It's a vicious cycle that results in lowering wages, an increasing gap between the poor middle class and the rich politically connected who can navigate the regulations, and poverty.
    - CeeAyy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Hi Cool Guy. I give you a lot of credit, you are a master debater... ummm, or something like that. Anyway, you are really skilled at this. Now I have to go about defending myself instead of sticking to the argument at hand. You must work in politics. JK, you didn't compare me to a socialist or try to smear me at all...
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      "Maybe these concepts are too complicated for

1 Yr ago:Obama proposed the summit Clinton is offering today

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Senator Al Franken PWNS Ann Coulter thumb

1 Yr ago:Obama proposed the summit Clinton is offering today

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Senator Al Franken PWNS Ann Coulter thumb

Related by Keyword

Treasury's Paulson Gets It Wrong (Surprise!)

Online video viewing jumps 34 percent

Drugs trigger dramatic weight loss in fat mice