pinkfloydms said:

And McCain doesn't pander?

---

Prisoner#1 said:

layzdapipe said:

Context, Pris, Context. Once again in that video they cut him off to make it sound different.

---

the video I posted shows him catering to the audiences, the
first was "Iran is not a seroius threat", after a week and
some polls, "Iran is a very serious threat", exactly what's so
hard to understand, obama just panders to the audiences he's
speaking to, he's never done anything more, post the vid for
the 'is a serious threat' and then compare the two

---

I cant explain it clearly enough for you, the mccain ad is more effective on some people than I would have thought.


Obama looks at the past decisions that were made, and how they impacted us. He sees that Russia posed a huge thread and negotiation worked. Hes comparing irans threat to russias (and yes hes comparing threats, meaning Iran DOES POSE A THREAT, its not as great as the threat we once faced, which negotiation got us out of). Why else would he want to negotiate with Iran if they did not pose a threat?

And like I said before Its wrong to cut out "Does not pose a threat" from the sentence, that is not what he is implying, he is implying that the threat is not as big as russias and that we negotiated with russia why cant we negotiate with iran?


lets just say for example, your dick is 20 inches, and the black dude beside you is 30 inches. 20 inches is big, but 30 makes it look gimp. Now I could say.

Prisoner#1 doesnt have a big penis like the black guy standing beside him does.

Now someone can cut this from what I said to make it different.

"Prisoner#1 doesnt have a big penis"

Now this would make ur penis sound like its under 6 inches to people who read just what I quoted. Just because I said you dont have a big penis WHEN compared to the black dudes, doesnt mean you dont have a big penis.

Now you might understand where im coming from. Thats the only example I could think of honestly

layzdapipe said:

Obama looks at the past decisions that were made, and how they impacted us.

---

Quote:

Hes comparing irans threat to russias (and yes hes comparing threats, meaning Iran DOES POSE A THREAT, its not as great as the threat we once faced, which negotiation got us out of). Why else would he want to negotiate with Iran if they did not pose a threat?

---

Quote:

And like I said before Its wrong to cut out "Does not pose a threat" from the sentence, that is not what he is implying, he is implying that the threat is not as big as russias and that we negotiated with russia why cant we negotiate with iran?

---

Quote:

lets just say for example, your dick is 20 inches, and the black dude beside you is 30 inches. 20 inches is big, but 30 makes it look gimp. Now I could say.

---

Quote:

Now you might understand where im coming from. Thats the only example I could think of honestly

---

pinkfloydms said:

My point is that they all do it. They are politicians correct?

---

Quote:

that second one was quite bushesque, it leads me to believe
that we'll be invading iran if obama is elected in the search
for WMDs

---

pinkfloydms said:

Where did I take up for him?

---

Quote:

And would you not be doing the same thing taking up for McCain?

---

Quote:

Did you decide to vote for McCain now?

---

Quote:

if it were complete bullshit just as I'd do with obama

---

Prisoner#1 said:

pinkfloydms said:

Where did I take up for him?

---

throughout the thread

Quote:

And would you not be doing the same thing taking up for McCain?

---

if it were complete bullshit just as I'd do with obama, they
both belong under the bus with obamas granny

Quote:

Did you decide to vote for McCain now?

---

no... I'm not really defending McCain so much as I'm bashing
Obama, have I not said they are both the same shit many times,
that if you vote for either of those parties you're getting
the same guy in a different suit?

---

I guess we're on the same page then, I just hate mccain more and you hate obama more, but we are both voting for different people.


Sooo how bout them Bulldogs!!!!!!!

pinkfloydms said:

Wow look McCain received $169k from fannie and freddie lobbyist.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/#more-19364

---

Quote:

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.

The mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie became symbols of the nation's economic mess — and, to critics, of corporate greed — after the government recently took them over to bail them out, making donations linked to the company in any way potential political fodder.

VERDICT
Partially true, but misleading. Donations don't come from companies. A list of employee contributions puts Obama second, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.

---

Quote:

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case for the 1,406 people who lost much of their life savings when Superior Bank of Chicago went belly up in 2001 with over $1 billion in insured and uninsured deposits. This collapse came amid harsh criticism of how Superior's owners promoted sub-prime home mortgages. As part of a settlement, the owners paid $100 million and agreed to pay another $335 million over 15 years at no interest.

The uninsured depositors were dealt another blow recently when the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court decision to put any recovered money toward the debt that the bank owners owe the federal government before the depositors get anything.

But this seven-year-old bank failure has relevance in another way today, since the chair of Superior’s board for five years was Penny Pritzker, a member of one of America’s richest families and the current Finance Chair for the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, the same candidate who has lashed out against predatory lending.

---

Ferris said:

No, because I sense that you at least have a soul.

Zappa on the other hand, I suspect, comes from the school of thought where capitalism means that everybody should be his slave.

---

Quote:

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.

The mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie became symbols of the nation's economic mess — and, to critics, of corporate greed — after the government recently took them over to bail them out, making donations linked to the company in any way potential political fodder.

VERDICT
Partially true, but misleading. Donations don't come from companies. A list of employee contributions puts Obama second, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.

---

pinkfloydms said:

You can't get much bigger than the Homeland Security Act, which basically allows them to do what ever the fuck they want. Which was brought to you by McCain and company.

---