Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[PujolJunkie]

McCain cancelled a rally today due to rain.

Obama?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/ ... 011/644778









Unbelievable support.

[jim]

That can't be good news for the game tonight.

[GatewaySnayke]

You know who else gave a speech in the rain? Hitler. And he was a commiefascist Muslim to boot.

I urge everyone to read Greg Palast and Bobby Kennedy's articles about voter suppression. It's going to happen again. And you can probably guess who will be disenfranchised the most. Hint: They are people of color living in poor neighborhoods.

[Freed Roger]

If our military has ever been gutted in recent history, it's right now.

I'm not sure if "gutted" is the right word. Perhaps the right question to ask is, despite drastic increases in spending, is the current military better equiped to respond to a new conflict in the world now, or 8 years ago?

This is the point I'm trying to make. You can argue all day long about how Bush or Clinton managed the military, but my point is that investing in technology and resources to help run the military efficiently and keep America safe. Points are made about how ridiculous our military spending is, but I'm talking about investing in improving the military while times keep on changing.

OK, but if that's the point you're trying to make, we are not in a very good position right now to react to any new conflict around the world. We're stretched pretty darn thin right now, mostly because of an ill-advised (and very costly) invasion over 5 years ago.

As we start closing the chapter on Iraq War, it's important that we invest in improving the military. We're facing very different warfare today than we did in the past and it's important we adjust accordingly. I trust McCain to focus on this while I foresee Obama acting along the lines of Clinton and slowing down the advancement in military technology with limited military spending.

Our military will be stronger simply by not wasting it on non-military problems.
Our geopolitical clout is weakened when we are economically over-dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia and China. We never talk tough with those countries, because we aren't in a position too anymore. I don't want to mention the position GWB assumes for those two countries.

[clement]

If our military has ever been gutted in recent history, it's right now.

I'm not sure if "gutted" is the right word. Perhaps the right question to ask is, despite drastic increases in spending, is the current military better equiped to respond to a new conflict in the world now, or 8 years ago?

This is the point I'm trying to make. You can argue all day long about how Bush or Clinton managed the military, but my point is that investing in technology and resources to help run the military efficiently and keep America safe. Points are made about how ridiculous our military spending is, but I'm talking about investing in improving the military while times keep on changing.

If that's what you're advocating then I still don't see how you conclude that Clinton was bad for this. He cut the size of the military but he invested in making it more modern and focused on modernizing technology. Basically he carried on the approach that was started by George H. W. Bush. I also am confused if you are suggesting that George W. Bush has been somehow better in this regard. If not, then why when you were stating your support for McCain did you go back to Clinton's presidency to make your point rather than to the current one?

[clement]

So who [expletive] up the Iraq and Afganistan Wars? Clinton too?

I guess Clinton doesn't get credit for what he accomplished in Bosnia and Kosovo though, right?

Clinton inherited another misleading intervention in Somalia. Look at Somalia now, it's still a mess. I guess he should have stayed the course though.

My dad blames Clinton for the current economy woes. I swear to God, I'm not kidding.

That may come from this. This comes from Wikipedia about Fannie Mae:

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers.

That would still be an incorrect conclusion. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the problem in the system, then we wouldn't be seeing Lehman Brothers, dozens of banks and hundreds of mortgage lenders failing and we wouldn't be needing $700+ billion to rescue huge financial institutions like AIG. The problem was subprime lending and lack of regulation for all financial institutions to make sure that they were adhering to responsible lending practices. Were Freddie and Fannie a part of it? Of course, since they were also swept into the same foolish lending practices as all of the commercial banks were. But the expansion of loans from Freddie and Fannie to lower income borrowers is not what has gotten us into the mess we are currently in.

[cards2468]

If our military has ever been gutted in recent history, it's right now.

I'm not sure if "gutted" is the right word. Perhaps the right question to ask is, despite drastic increases in spending, is the current military better equiped to respond to a new conflict in the world now, or 8 years ago?

This is the point I'm trying to make. You can argue all day long about how Bush or Clinton managed the military, but my point is that investing in technology and resources to help run the military efficiently and keep America safe. Points are made about how ridiculous our military spending is, but I'm talking about investing in improving the military while times keep on changing.

If that's what you're advocating then I still don't see how you conclude that Clinton was bad for this. He cut the size of the military but he invested in making it more modern and focused on modernizing technology. Basically he carried on the approach that was started by George H. W. Bush. I also am confused if you are suggesting that George W. Bush has been somehow better in this regard. If not, then why when you were stating your support for McCain did you go back to Clinton's presidency to make your point rather than to the current one?

Size is important as well as technology, and no, Clinton did not do this. I'm not talking about Bush here, but if you insist, he has increased the size and obviously the funding. Clinton relied on treaties rather than investing in the missile defense system that Bush ended up pushing for while ending the effort Clinton had in revitalizing outdated treaties. Working for a military contractor really made this obvious. During the Clinton administration, business was hard enough for them that they were forced to shut down an entire plant and turn focus to commercial products, under Bush they doubled employment and opened a new military division. Their products aren't for rebuilding Iraq, they're primarily for subsystems within Navy ships. You could even change focus to Boeing, a company that thrived on commercial aircraft sales under Clinton and are now being held up by military contracts with the new F18-G as well as other aircrafts they produce.

[cards2468]

So who [expletive] up the Iraq and Afganistan Wars? Clinton too?

I guess Clinton doesn't get credit for what he accomplished in Bosnia and Kosovo though, right?

Clinton inherited another misleading intervention in Somalia. Look at Somalia now, it's still a mess. I guess he should have stayed the course though.

My dad blames Clinton for the current economy woes. I swear to God, I'm not kidding.

That may come from this. This comes from Wikipedia about Fannie Mae:

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers.

That would still be an incorrect conclusion. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the problem in the system, then we wouldn't be seeing Lehman Brothers, dozens of banks and hundreds of mortgage lenders failing and we wouldn't be needing $700+ billion to rescue huge financial institutions like AIG. The problem was subprime lending and lack of regulation for all financial institutions to make sure that they were adhering to responsible lending practices. Were Freddie and Fannie a part of it? Of course, since they were also swept into the same foolish lending practices as all of the commercial banks were. But the expansion of loans from Freddie and Fannie to lower income borrowers is not what has gotten us into the mess we are currently in.

Clinton pushed to have loans available to everyone, the Republicans pushed everybody to own a home. I think everybody in Washington over the past 16 years take some of the blame.

[GatewaySnayke]

Yes, the whole argument from the right blaming the CRA (and essentially minorities) for the collapse of our economic system is so absurd that I wonder how much lower they can go in finding new scapegoats for their failed policies.

Even if Obama wins, we are still a long ways away from improving race relations in this country.

[sighyoung]

So who [expletive] up the Iraq and Afganistan Wars? Clinton too?

I guess Clinton doesn't get credit for what he accomplished in Bosnia and Kosovo though, right?

Clinton inherited another misleading intervention in Somalia. Look at Somalia now, it's still a mess. I guess he should have stayed the course though.

My dad blames Clinton for the current economy woes. I swear to God, I'm not kidding.

That may come from this. This comes from Wikipedia about Fannie Mae:

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers.

That would still be an incorrect conclusion. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the problem in the system, then we wouldn't be seeing Lehman Brothers, dozens of banks and hundreds of mortgage lenders failing and we wouldn't be needing $700+ billion to rescue huge financial institutions like AIG. The problem was subprime lending and lack of regulation for all financial institutions to make sure that they were adhering to responsible lending practices. Were Freddie and Fannie a part of it? Of course, since they were also swept into the same foolish lending practices as all of the commercial banks were. But the expansion of loans from Freddie and Fannie to lower income borrowers is not what has gotten us into the mess we are currently in.

Clinton pushed to have loans available to everyone, the Republicans pushed everybody to own a home. I think everybody in Washington over the past 16 years take some of the blame.

True, and not just the folks in Washington. The mortgage companies (some of whom engaged in fraud, since many with subprime mortgages were eligible for standard mortgages), those who securitized the mortgages (but who devised poor mathematical models to assess risk . . . .