What is Digg?219 Comments
- wrmjr, on 09/18/2008, -14/+70Don't forget that these people think the president has "near dictatorial powers."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/02/ ... - 5celery, on 09/18/2008, -21/+55If I become president - I will make the clouds into cotton candy! Would Obama do that? I don't think so.
- inactive, on 09/19/2008, -12/+39What will it take to get you guys to admit McCain's strong suit is NOT the economy! Ask him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqsH7dkFGTo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bogh_sp5SE0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfI9k2YOW_g
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/ ...
^scroll down to the economy subject for a good laugh.
I mean c'mon guys! This economy situation effects all of us, not just Republican or Democrat. The fact is McCain wanted this to be a competition on national security, and unfortunately for him the economy is having a meltdown. Republican mindset got us into this! And you guys want to continue it for what reason? To say my party runs the white house again? That's worth it for you guys? Truman said it best (and I would much rather quote Truman than Hoover)
“How many times do you have to be hit over the head before you figure out who is hitting you?”. - rewinn, on 09/19/2008, -4/+28Not really a flub; it's an emotionally strong expression of rage. The legalities don't matter politically; McCain is stating that he is STRONG and Obama is WEAK - that's the entire point of the statement.
But Obama smacked him back even harder; instead of talking about the LEGALTIES, Obama kicked it up a notch by saying McCain didn't go far enough - Obama wants to clean out the whole corrupt bunch from bottom to top, starting with the Oval Office. That's a lot better than McCain's "blame-it-on-just-one-guy" approach. McCain NEEDS to pretend that just one guy is the problem, because his backers ARE the problem. - fluxion, on 09/19/2008, -0/+21and the president of Iran. that dude's a dick
- beyondu, on 09/19/2008, -5/+25Just another ability John McCain would like to see come to the President. If you thought Bush was a cowboy, just wait for McCain. He'll be dropping bombs and sending troops to any country that gives him the evil eye.
also to comment on what cjschreiber wrote before me...the President can undermine the chair and reposition him, but cannot fire someone from an independent agency. - Manther, on 09/19/2008, -4/+19FTA: "From time to time, presidents have attempted to remove commissioners who have proven "uncooperative." However, the courts have generally upheld the independence of commissioners. In 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and the Supreme Court ruled the president acted unconstitutionally."
Asking for a resignation is not the same. There is no guarantee with that.
You're just making yourself look bad dude, real bad. - jdeer, on 09/19/2008, -0/+14did anyone else catch "The White House said this week it wants to stay out of politics"?
- YodaJones, on 09/19/2008, -3/+17Somebody wipe McCain's chin, he is dribbling his oatmeal again.
- rewinn, on 09/19/2008, -8/+22Wrong as usual.
Obama promptly called to throw out, not just the chair of the SEC, but the whole rotten bunch who got us here, all the way to the White House.
AND unlike the feeble McCain, Obama actually said HOW to do it: vote! - InCider, on 09/19/2008, -13/+27No! The fundamentals of the economy are strong! Just ask Hoover in 1929, who said the same thing after the markets began to crash. Or Rockerfeller, who repeated the same thing as the Depression kicked in, or McCain's new Panin-drone, wife of a knight de Rothchild, who thinks Obama is "elitist!" What's next, is Miss South Carolina / Miss Alaska going to straighten things out for McCain? Ha Republicans are a joke!
- inactive, on 09/19/2008, -3/+15McCain campaign lie? Say it aint so joe! Boy the republican bury squad is out in full force on this page.
- inactive, on 09/19/2008, -7/+19Screw this, I can't be a Republican Anymore.
This is the last straw. I can no longer defend torture, corruption, lies, quagmire, bribery, incompetence, pedophilia and now vile, ruthless unethical campaign tactics?
Only an idiot would think that represents "family values". I can't vote for these people anymore. I don't know what happened to my party. - twiztidsinz, on 09/19/2008, -4/+16He didn't misspeak or flub...
If McCain were the president, he'd keep progressing Bush's plans. They and their friends are already above the law, so why not make them too? - funkyloki, on 09/19/2008, -0/+10But most of you don't try to refute the original article. Most of you don't ever offer evidence or proof of how anything being said about McCain or Palin is wrong, just how Obama does it worse (again with no proof), or how the source is just spam without even RTFA.
Believe me, if most of you did offer proof, I would be the first to read it. I support Obama, but I'm not some robot. And I also believe other Obama supporters would like to see that too. - Ljay90, on 09/19/2008, -2/+12McCain’s allegation about Obama’s contributions from the FMs is not true. As we’ve said many times, it’s illegal for candidates to accept contributions directly from corporations. But the FEC does keep track of the employers of individuals who give at least $200 to candidates. And according to the respected nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2008 election cycle Barack Obama has received $18,150 from employees of Freddie Mac. CRP does not list any Obama contributions from Fannie Mae.
But Obama is not No. 2 on the list of those getting contributions from the two companies, as McCain said. In fact, he ranks fourth in combined contributions, trailing Sen. Christopher Dodd, Rep. Melissa Bean and Sen. Lamar Alexander. McCain also neglects to mention his own $9,500 from Freddie Mac.
Obama is second on the list of those getting contributions from employees of only Freddie Mac. But, seriously, neither candidate’s number really makes much difference. Obama has raised more than $389.4 million in the 2008 election cycle. That makes his combined contributions from the FMs work out to roughly 0.005 percent of his total contributions. And McCain has raised about $174.2 million, making his combined FM contributions work out to … 0.005 percent.
Oh, and that part about Fannie Mae’s CEO being on Obama’s VP committee? Sort of. On June 4, Obama announced that Caroline Kennedy, Eric Holder and Jim Johnson would head his VP search committee. Kennedy, of course, is the daughter of JFK. Holder was Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general. Johnson remained on Obama’s committee for just a week. He resigned on June 11, amid allegations that Johnson received preferential treatment from Countrywide Financial Corp.
But Johnson wasn’t the current CEO of Fannie Mae, as you might think from listening to McCain. He left nine years ago, in 1999.
http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/18/freddie-fanni ...
Factcheck.org , the right wing's worst enemy. - inactive, on 09/19/2008, -18/+28And they can decline the request. So NO you can't really fire them. You ever had a job before? You know the difference?
- Someguy101, on 02/19/2009, -6/+16Vexingmodstwo burying someone for stupidity? Now that's hilarious.
- youannoyme, on 09/19/2008, -0/+10@ffx437
in a job where your boss actually has the power to fire you...yes. Because you refuse, he does it, and then it just looks a whole lot worse.
But when he *doesn't* have that power to follow through... - jarjarwang, on 09/18/2008, -15/+24When he's done with Cox, he better fire MLB commissioner Bud Selig.
- rabiddawgr, on 09/19/2008, -2/+11Yet every single comment misses the fact that this is not Cox's fault... and mccain is just rampaging (regardless of whether the president can fire the SEC chair)
- nepidae, on 09/19/2008, -0/+8Who would stop him? Congress, Judges, the People? They couldn't stop GWB from doing whatever he wanted.
- chrissku, on 09/19/2008, -2/+10Not the brightest bulb is he?
http://wsbatdbhwtdbtmnd.ytmnd.com/ - Kenzan, on 09/19/2008, -0/+8I wonder if McCain was yelling "asleep at the switch" when his dividends shot strangely through the roof last year.
Funny how when people are suddenly make money from a stock that inexplicably and un-customarily rises never seem to want to investigate why. - funkyloki, on 09/19/2008, -0/+7But since the President has no authority in this regard other than to ask for the resignation, it does not mean he'll get it. The SEC Commissioner could be very stupid as to go head to head with the President, and I'm sure the POTUS would make his life very hard if he didn't do as requested. But that does not mean he has the authority to fire him.
- jdeer, on 09/19/2008, -3/+10and yet he was against bailing them out. hmmm..
- darthgarlic, on 09/19/2008, -3/+10The name McCain is now analogous to Moron.
- cadmiumpaint, on 09/19/2008, -1/+8McCain makes GW Bush look like a genius.
- MacEnvy, on 09/19/2008, -1/+8I love how you only have one gaffe to point to, whereas McCain has a couple new ones every day. You certainly aren't doing yourself any favors by equivocating a clear "misspeak" with something like this, which doesn't even make sense and shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the job McCain is applying for. Anyone with more than a couple neurons firing can see the difference.
And it also makes you look like a douchebag. - zombies187, on 09/19/2008, -0/+7If a President asked me to resign over some event that was his fault, I would have the integrity to force his incompetent ass to fire me! Or let him just look stupid trying to fire me without authority over my job. That would actually be even better.
On the other hand, resigning to cover up mistakes of the President does have a long history in America. Who needs it I ask? Partisans. And then only for their own party. - SmartfulDodger, on 09/19/2008, -0/+6I want to live in your world
- inactive, on 09/19/2008, -16/+22@vexingmodstwo
Well thanks for getting personal dick, but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE *****. If your boss asks you, and you have any integrity you would resign, but it is not the same as being fired. Stop twisting McCain's jibberish to sound like he knows what he's talking about. - WasabiBomb, on 09/19/2008, -1/+7And how has McCain voted?
Oh, that's right- he didn't even bother to show up. - Kohaxx, on 09/19/2008, -1/+7Those are PAC figures, they don't neccessarily mean anything.
If I have one of the largest companies in America I'm bound to have employees who throw a lot of money around when it comes to candidates.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycl ...
Oh look! University of California is the second largest contributor to Obama's campaign! Clearly he must have been giving them personal favors or in their interest, or there are just a lot of people working or taking classes at UofCal that like Obama, it's completely inconclusive.
I could use your very own argument to say McCain's in the banks pockets since all of his top PAC contributors are employees from banks in financial trouble.
Merrill Lynch $298,413
Citigroup Inc $269,251
Morgan Stanley $233,272
Goldman Sachs $208,395
Obama just raises a ton more money from PAC than McCain as well, twice as much according to opensecrets.org.
You could read into the numbers a lot of different ways, but generally if the data supports any argument it's not conclusive to any argument. - hotbert73, on 09/19/2008, -0/+6you got my vote if the cotton candy is blue.
- elister, on 09/19/2008, -5/+11HAY GUYS, WERE GOING STREAKING IN THE QUAD AT CZECHOSLOVAKIA!
- an0nymous, on 09/19/2008, -1/+6"Abortion is an issue that can only be changed by individual states (to an extent) or the Supreme Court."
You missed an option: amending the constitution.
“As president, John McCain will make abortion illegal,” an announcer says. “McCain says, quote, I do not support Roe Vs. Wade. It should be overturned.” Listeners then hear a sound bite of McCain on “Meet The Press” in which the soon-to-be GOP nominee says he backs “a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions.”
A constitutional amendment would in fact make abortion illegal. It was in the link you posted. Why didn't you mention it? - Corrosionx, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5Well if the Shrub told me to resign, I'd tell him no and wait for the next guy.
- magus_melchior, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5http://thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sch ...
"Act One. The Prez vs. The Commish.
"Ira Glass tells the story of a little-known treaty dispute with far-reaching ramifications for our understanding of executive power. The dispute is between the President and one of his appointees...to the International Boundary Commission with Canada. This little-known commission carried out its function without fanfare or incident for over a hundred years, until a couple of retirees in Washington State built a wall in their backyard and, quite literally, set off an international incident."
The International Boundary Co-Commissioner appointed by the President cannot be fired by the President, but that is exactly what happened to him. The White House does not care about international treaty or laws that get in the President's way. We already know about this through the domestic surveillance and the blatant violation and circumvention of the Geneva Conventions. What few know is that they consistently broke and routed around laws every time the President's authority was potentially challenged. - magus_melchior, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5@SpankkBankk: What funkyloki said. Every "rebuttal" was either a tu quoque, red herring, ad hominem, or appeal to fear fallacy. Every GOP loyalist that posed a "rebuttal" was the same blind sort who would not accept reported facts unless they came from FreeRepublic or other right-wing sources.
- funkyloki, on 09/19/2008, -0/+5Thanks to Bush created Executive Orders, the President is set to have near dictatorial powers in case of a "national emergency" which the President gets to define. It is very scary what is being done to this country in the name of security, and to those who accept because of fear of their safety from terrorist attacks, you get what you deserve. I'm more concerned of being safe from my own government.
- anarcurt, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4I'm happy someone said it. The SEC has no juristiction over the mortgage industry and their practices.
First blame lays with the Federal Reserve. This private cabal of bankers, that is not an actual government entity, decided they would try to stop a small recession in the early part of the decade by making money insanely cheap to borrow. This caused a bubble, as market manipulation often does, creating a bigger problem than they first tried to prevent. In other words, the free market didn't fail it was market manipulation that created this mess. Anyone who thinks increased regulation will solve or would have prevented this problem is daft.
Gramm Leach Bliley Act was passed by congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1999. This allowed banks like ***** to buy brokerages like Smith Barney. This has little to do with the mortgage meltdown.
The only regulators who could be seen as failing is the state bank auditors who missed the crap on the books of these banks.
Finally, Wall Street is more the victim than the villain. Three of the top five independant Wall Street firms are now owned by banks(or at least pieces of them), with Morgan Stanley probably becoming the forth soon. So the banking cabal known as the Federal Reserve tampers with markets causing three of the strongest firms in the history of this country to cripple sending them into the arms of none other than the banking cabal. We need to end the Fed, thats the only solution. - apastafarian, on 09/19/2008, -2/+6Didn't Donald Trump trademark "You're fired"? If so, isn't he the only person that can fire the SEC chairman?
There's plenty of questionable things that McCain has said and done, but this is nit picking! - jonnyboy1544, on 09/19/2008, -4/+8Well that's it... I'm not voting for McCain now after such a revealing look into his intellect.
- Garnsey, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4Silly! The clouds already ARE made of cotton candy!
- wilhoitm, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4Palin is going to fire John McCain! She called it the Palin-McCain ticket!
- bxblox, on 09/19/2008, -4/+8Why doesn't he promise to fire some liberal supreme court judges while hes at it.
- algaeturd, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4Leaning 'left' to the right means falling center. Anyone who doesn't agree with the current regime is considered a leftist and a sympathizer. You guys just have your definitions screwed up because you never went for any kind of education.
- fluxion, on 09/19/2008, -0/+4also, to add to what Ljay90 has already stated: while Obama may have received more from employees of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, McCain recieved FAR MORE during the 2008 election cycle from lobbyists, directors, and big whigs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (you know, the ones actually calling the shots. not the underpaid secretary):
"The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.
Explaining the difference, the Center for Responsive Politics said on its Web site that it does not include members of the board of directors because they could serve on boards of various companies. Their contributions are listed along with other employees of the companies they work for. And the center says lobbyists usually represent multiple clients as well, so their contributions are listed under their lobbying firms — except in-house lobbyists, who are included in the center's list."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fa ...
funny a list that EXCLUDES DIRECTORS AND LOBBYISTS is continually cited instead is completely ridiculous. these are arguably the ONLY people that matter as far as issues of political allegiances / corporate preference are concerned. - danielpyle, on 09/19/2008, -1/+5I hope he fires that bitch at McDonald's too ...she always get my order wrong.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 220 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is