Guard Dog

This is probably the single most intelligent comment in the thread so far. The US prez is the US prez is the US prez. Don't kid yourselves, folks. Ditto. In the In the 143 years of modern (post civi war) American politics there have been only three radical shifts in US foreign policy and only a few more in domestic policy. We don't change course all that often. There will be differences between an Obama administration and a McCain administration but they will be smaller than most of you will believe.

Gee after reading the comments on this thread it is driven home to me again why Americans are by turns totally indifferent or faintly hostile to the opinions of other nations citizens. A little tip here, the quickest way to get McCain elected is for the news media to keep running stories about how much the rest of the world wants Obama.

That is too funny no matter how many times I've seen it.

I voted for McCain, and am voting for McCain. I doubt that will surprise anyone.

I had an Atari 2600 as a kid (in fact I still have it) but I really loved the big Arcade games. Pac Man, Mrs. Pac Man, Frogger, Defender, Contra, and my all time favorite Xenophobe. I was never into D&D type games until I built my first computer, a 486 DX4-100 with an 80M hard drive that was the size of a cigar box. It used Dos 6.0 and Windows 3.1 (remeber the days when Windows was a shell, not an OS). Anyway I bought Dungeon Hack and Black Sun to play on that old PC and have been hooked on those kinds of games ever since. Until Oblivion that is. After that one I decided I'd had about enough.

Links please! I'm buying The Witcher this weekend. I figured it's finally time I gave it a look.

Congrats Taks! They say if you make it past 7 years you are in good shape.

Kill, you need to read my explanation of this current banking crisis a few pages back. It could hardly be called capitalisim when the government compels banks to make loans to certain lenders (low income). As far as trying socialisim in my country; only over my dead twitching corpse.

Actually beginning in September-October both candidates will get full Secret Service details as well as daily briefings from the NSA, State Dept, and other cabinet departmnets so the transitions actually begin before the election os even held.

n00b & Gorgon hit it right on the head... it is just a campaign stunt. This move coincides with a new gallup poll that has Obama not only ahead but gaining a greater than 50% share of likely votes for the first time since the Dem convention ended. I think the strategy here is this: He is falling behind in the election so he tries this to set himself above the election and try to make Obama look petty by baiting him to attack the move. Which will work if Obama does attack, if Obama ignores this McCain will just look a little melodramatic and foolish. The problem here is if McCain and Obama actually did return to the senate to work on the bail out legislation all it would do is inject Presidential politics into the process and probably polarize the Senate to boot. Neither would be helpful.

Ha, so true. I'd say it's a mixed bag of lack of understanding of the candidates, a lack of understanding of how politics actually work, and a serious lack of choices. Especially the middle one I think. For example, Obama has promised the end the Iraq mess once he is in office. I say that the Iraq occupation will not end one day sooner no matter who is elected. Why? Neither side wants the effort to end in failure. Obama is not stupid, far from it. If the the war ends in a failure he will be the one history blames no matter that it did not start on his watch. Quickly, think Nixon and Vietnam and what is the first thing that flashes in your mind? See? As far as substantive differences Obama's foreign policy will be far less confrontational than McCains will be I think. Although McCains will certainly be far less than Bush has been. As far as foreign policy goes I really believe there will be far less difference between Obama and McCain than most people believe, never mind what they are saying on the campaign trail. In economic and social policy I think they will be very different. Obama is all about government control, government regulation, using taxes as a means of controlling economic behavior. Control, control, plan and control, is Obams's economic mantra. McCain is more from the Teddy Roosevelt mold, he won't be shy to use government regulation but I doubt he would be near so heavy handed about it either. I think he will cut taxes and allow market forces to work. I thought the same of Bush but although he did the former, he did not do the latter. Here is the thing, and there is no getting around this. No matter who wins the Presidential election, Congress will be controlled by the democrats. If history has shown us anything, bad things happen in the US when one party controls everything. I don't care what Obama and McCain are about, I'd rather have a Democrat in the White House when the congress is Republican and a Republican when congress is in the hands of the Democrats. Heck I voted for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004 for that very reason. Well, lots of reasons but that was one of them. My post on the banking situation should demonstrate how much damage Congress can do while trying to do good. The need a counter weight to keep them in check.

I think that some socialism is a good thing. Take police and fire departments. It would be hell if these two socialized services were privatized. Services that caters to the well being of our society as a whole, such as police and fire departments should be socialized. That also means expanding it to include health care and municipal utilities. I draw the line at non-essential services such as banking and real estate, but taking the full privatization route that you seem to propose would only make the US weaker. Actually Kill, taks is right. Municipalities providing a service like police or fire or trash collection or dog catcher is not socialism. Especially since such services are not free, they are paid for by taxes on the members of the community. And there is a history of privatization of all of those things with mixed results. For example the Pinkerton Detective Agency was in fact a private police force with deputized powers that a or county or state or town could hire to practice law enforcement. And although the agents worked on behalf or a government entity they answered only to the company. They were effective but notoriously heavy handed. Trash collection has been a private company contracted by the city in every city I've ever lived in. And it works fine. A traditional definition would be this. You are an employee at a car factory, the government owns the factory, it owns the companies that makes the components to the factories, it owns the foundries that smelt the steel that makes the components, it owns the mines the iron comes form and all of the logistics from start to the finished car rolling off the line. And no other company is allowed (or able) to make cars. Health care in the US is an prime example of the Democrats new vision of American socialism. They dream of anyone walking into any clinic anywhere and getting whatever they need for free. Of course to accomplish this the clinics work for (and are Sly answerable to if not outright owned by) the federal government. And all clinics MUST be government owned or at least operated because a competitor might drive up costs by offering better or more efficient or higher quality service. And as for the cost, it will be borne by taxpayers, who must pay no matter if they get sick or not. I could go on pointing out the problems but you get the point. I could also trot out my comparisons of how minimally state regulated veterinary medical care is superior to and far less expensive than heavily state and federally regulated human health care in the US but you have all heard it before. I would never argue for full privatization of everything. Police and Fire are essential public services that everyone must pay for because at some point, everyone may need their services. Health care is different however. If I never need to see a doctor (the last time I saw a doctor was my physical when I separated from the Marine Corps) I should not need to pay for doctors visits for someone else I don't even know by having the money I earn more heavily taxed.

Thanks Nice to put a bit of background in a lay man undertandable way to some of the names and preceeding events. My pleasue. I kind of enjoyed writing that up. My job gets dreadfully dull sometimes.

I call bull****. Nice attempt at misinformation, though. I commend you. So far I've provided you with strong empirical evidence and sound logical reasoning. All you have offered in return is to call it BS and misinformation. C'mon Krezack, you are a smart guy. You can do better than that.

Tomorrow's my last day at work for a while. I have to meet with the FAA rep tomorrow then work out a training schedule for the techs in the Lexington KY market for the new becon controller. Then I'm off for two beautiful weeks to work on the house. I orderd a kit to build a gazebo down near the stream in the magnolia trees. I'm going to make a stone path down to it. Actually, I'll probably go buy the enhnaced Witcher and spend the whole two weeks in front of my computer. We'll see.

Link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/liberals_warnings_about_obama.html Exactly what we were discussing earlier Krezack. Required reading Pop. The Democrats are the ONLY ones making race an issue. But then again they use identity politics like a crutch that they don't realize they don't need.

I am not one to blow my own horn but here are a few respected journalists who agree with my take on things: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDNkO...Tk5ZjZmZDkxY2U=

This is an excellent question and my answer will suprise you all. But first let me provide a little background info. I'll keep this short and politcally neutral (actually there is plenty of blame to spread around between dems and repubs). This current banking crisis began (as most American problems do) in the halls of Congress. In 1933, learning the lessons from the stock market crash, Congress passed and Roosevelt signed the Glass-Stengel Act. It was a significant law that established the FDIC, obligated lenders to write loans at the same rate the US borrows at (the "prime" rate) and made many other changes in how banks do business. The important provision for what we are talking about here in the Glass Stengel Act is that it made it illegal for FDIC backed deposit banks (that manage checking and savings accounts for example) to own or be owned by non-FDIC backed investment banks (real estate, securities etc.) The idea being that another stock market crash will not wipe out the bank that has John Q Citizens life savings. Fast forward now to 1977, Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act, a seemingly innocuous bill that requires banks to be evaulated by the federal government to ensure that they are serving the "entire community" and putting pressure on mortgage banks to lend to lower income home buyers. They still needed to meet credit requirements however. In 1995 the Clinton administration and Congress revised the CRA to require investment banks to increase the amount of loans written to lower income borrowers and to facilitate this they relaxed the credit requirements. So now loans were being written to borrowers that just the year before did not qualify due to income level, credit rating etc. There was supposed to be a seven year limit on this just to jump start a flagging economy. In 2003 that seven years was up and the terms of the CRA were modified again by the Bush administration. I'll get to that in a second. Back up to 1980 now, Carter signs the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. It repealed the provision of the Glass-Stengel act that allowed the Fed to set the interest rates for savings and loans. Moving on to 1999 Congress passes and Clinton signs the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repeals the provision of the Glass-Stengal Act that prohibits the combination of deposit banking and investment banking. Now banks everywhere begin merging and super banks like Wachovia, Bank Of America, and Citicorp begin to appear. These institutions are absolutely flush with cash. They begin writing mortgages left and right and with the credit rules relaxed by the CRA and the HUD guarenteeing high-risk loans to low income borrowers through Freddie and Fannie a large percentage of these are going to borrowers who simply did not qualify for the amounts they were borrowing. Since buying homes had never been easier the demands for homes began to skyrocket. The price followed of course and we have what everyone likes to call the "housing boom". Actually it was the rapid inflation of the housing bubble. You guys see how this is all coming together? Good, stay with me, there is one last piece to this puzzle. In the late 1990's and early 2000's companies like Bear Sterns, Countrywide, Wells Fargo, (many others) began writing loans for subprime interest. The CRA and DIDMCA allowed them to do this. Their target audience was real estate speculators who would buy a house with the intention of "flipping" it (selling it quickly once market forces caused it's value to appreciate). What these loans did was lent the full value (no down payment) at zero interest for a fixed period of time then was serviced buy an adjustable rate afterwards (usually the prime plus a certain percentage). These loans also came with an early termination fee but houses were appreciating so quickly that speculators still made money so they did not care. The problem was these loans became popular with low income borrowers who did not intend to flip their property (there is some blame for mortgage brokers here who did practice "predatory lending" that is aggesively selling subprime loans to people they knew did not understand what they were getting into. Even more blame goes IMO to the borrowers who sign things they don't bother to read or understand). The smaller banks would package hundreds of these mortgages together and sell them to larger banks or under terms of the CRA sell them to Freddie or Fannie that had to buy them. Now, remember the CRA that was up for reevaluation in 2003? Bush tired to combine Freddie and Fannie into a single institution managed directly by a new sub department of the Treasury. The effect would have been to nullify the CRA requirements on Freddie and Fannie (no longer obligating the thrifts to purchase loans made to low income borrowers) while keeping the federal guarantee of loans it already owned. The Dems called it an econmomic shell game that aimed to weaken the bargaining power of the poor, economic conservatives called it a power grab by the federal government. Both were right, both were wrong. In 2005 the CRA was reevaluated one more time reducing the lending requirements placed on smaller banks with assets under $250 million or so. The idea was to save the smaller institutions. It was already far too late. The bubble burst in 2006. The low to middle income buyers who took the subprime loans were getting a real nasty shock. Their zero interest periods were expiring and their monthly mortgate payments were literally doubling and tripiling. Most could not even refinance because they could not pay the early termination penalties in these loans. Inevitabley scores of homes were foreclosed on and sold for under market value which began to drive down the prices. This caused the speculators to panic and begin selling. Anyone who has an elementary understanding of economics knows what happens when everyone begins selling at once, the prices drop. Now the banks are holding all of these properties that are worth far less that they paid for them, no one is buying and most leners could not afford to lend more money anyway. Now the low to middle income loans were government guaranteed by the CRA through Freddie and Fannie (who own tons or worthless mortgages themselves) so the big banks (who if you will remember an now a combination of investment and deposit banks) are going to the government to cover their losses. And the government must cover or the big banks ( who if you will remember are now a combination of investment and deposit banks thank you Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton) will fail and it will be 1928 all over again. So there we have it in a somewhat big nutshell. Yes, the government must bail out the banks. The government must either regulate banking, or don't. What it did was deregulate but compelled the banks to continue to behave as though they were regulated by providing federal guarantees of a bailout if things went bust. And how could they not. If you insist on the banks taking the financial risks then you must allow them to set the financial terms. That is not what happened here. If you (the government) sets the terms then you (the government) assumes the risks. From 1933 to 1980 they were regulated and we had no problems. From 1776 to 1927 they were unregulated and for the most part there were no problems. From 1980 to 2008 we had a weird hybrid of regulation and now we have problems. Either regulate or don't.

Now reading The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski. At first I thought it was a rip off of Hamlet, but now I must say it is bloody brilliant and the best book I've read in a long time. I really reccomend this to anyone.

That supposition is impossible to prove since all of those states DO support Repubs are supporting the Repub. If Obama were a Republican and they were not supporting him you would have a point. If John McCain were black and they were not supporting him you would have a point. As it is they are polling in a manner consistent with ideological preferences and to suggest now after twenty eight years of historical evidence that they are not supporting Obama simply because of his race is illogical and more than a little vitriolic. As for socialisim my biggest problem with is is that there is no way to opt out of it. It reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator and suffers no competition. We have government run healthcare in this country already, the VA. Believe me, it stinks. I believe it is everyones fundamental duty to take care of themselves and their families not ask me and everyone else to do it for them. The governments job is to provide a regulatory system that maintains a fair economic market that allows them to do so. We don't have that here in the US and rather than getting back to it too many people are asking for the government to take over the whole thing lock stock and barrel. That is like asking the cat that ate the baby canary to guard the rest of them. But too many people want it because they think it will be free. It won't be. It will be hideously expensive and we will all pay and pay and pay for it in cripplig taxes. And if you choose not to participate you still must pay the taxes. Where is the freedom in that? And the democrats ARE socialists. Bill Clinton tried to nationalize 1/7th of the US economy in 1993. A hostile government take over of PRIVATE business. Obama wants the government to run the banking insutry (unfortunately so does McCain), Democratic Rep Maxine Waters flat out proposed that US oil companies be nationalized. Al Gore in his book came out against the private ownership of real estate. He said that land is a resource that belongs to all the people. Still think I'm being paranoid?

OK, since many of you here seem to think that anyone who would not vote for Obama is some kind of racist (instead of a red-blooded American who does not want to see their county plunged into abject socialisim, be saddled with a crippling tax burden, or see more of there State and local governemts power usurped by Washington DC) here is my proof that race is not an issue in this election: This is the 2000 Electoral Map. The red states voted Repub, the blues voted Dem. Here is 2004, same color scheme (sorry for the crappy pic, it was all I had) Here is the Electoral Map with the polling data from 9/12/08 So, lets see. All that states that traditionally support the Dems are supporting Obama and the ones that traditionally vote Repub are supporting McCain and the 7-8 "battleground states" that have decided every election since 1992 could go either way and are leaning in a predicatble fashion. If racisim were the issue some of you seem to think, one or more "blue states" would be going against history. They are not. Ideology will decide this election. If you think otherwise you are either too cynical to be reasoned with or understand little about Americans.

For all baseball fans out there, the last game ever in Yankees Stadium will be on ESPN Sunday night at 8 pm EST. Supposedly there will be flashbacks all throughout the game and a ceremony following. That is a real piece of Americana that will fade into history Sunday night. You might not want to miss that one. I'll be watching.

Former Congressman from Oklahoma, running for governer in 2010. Brilliant man and a Reoublican with a strong Libertarian streak. I met him several times when I worked for the FL Republican party. Oh, and he's black too but nobody cared about that.

I'm no longer homeless!!!!! I closed on the new house last Thursday and I'm moving in today. I don't have much stuff but I do have all my dogs back which makes me (and them) very happy. I just bought a new living room set and a new TV (72" DLP) and it should be here by Friday, just in time for football this weekend. Finally I can start living normal again.

Racisim will never be dead so long as someone can make political hay out of it. I really don't think Obamas race is an issue in 2008 America. But there are political factions mainly on the left who try to make it an issue especially if he loses. I'm not voting for him but it has nothing to do with his race, it's his politics. If JC Watts would run for president you had better believe I'd vote for him.