PDA

View Full Version : Sarah's tanning bed and McCain's blackberry...Eagleton and Gore look on.


comhcinc
09-17-2008, 01:58 AM
so Palin bought a tanning bed ( well some one did) and some conservatives are claiming that it might be for depression Link (http://freshpaint.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palins-tanning-bed.html)

have they never heard of thomas eagleton?

while this is happening it seems that McCain invented the blackberryLink (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2226212/mccain-responsible-blackberry)

have they never heard of al gore?

bigshotprof
09-17-2008, 02:53 AM
It wasn't that he invented the Blackberry it is that he was with Adam when they named it.

yssman
09-17-2008, 04:50 AM
To quote Barack Obama:

"ENOUGH."

Can someone please explain to me why people are still taking the McCain campaign seriously? Even when Karl Rove is begining to say they've "gone too far" on Fixed News?

bigshotprof
09-17-2008, 03:23 PM
Alaskan Tanning Bed:

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e100/bigshotprof/General%20Media/mobile-ii-002.jpg

secret-steve-crumbles
09-17-2008, 03:58 PM
Can someone please explain to me why people are still taking the McCain campaign seriously?Because most people don't want socialism.

bigshotprof
09-17-2008, 05:19 PM
Because most people don't want socialism.

. . . he says as his friends in the White House bail out yet another ailing bank.

comhcinc
09-17-2008, 06:41 PM
. . . he says as his friends in the White House bail out yet another ailing bank.
welfare is okay as long as it is corperate welfare.

tokenuser
09-17-2008, 06:59 PM
As much as I disagree with bailing out companies while ignoring individuals, the AIG situation could have caused a widespread collapse of the US banking industry, and caused much, much greater problems.

This whole mortgage lending issue is the single biggest cluster fuck in the US economy and show why self regulation is complete bullshit when it comes to the financial services industry.

"Lets let someone who cleans rooms in a hotel for minimum wage get an interest only mortgage on a $1M home. No, they don't need to show proof of income or assets."

comhcinc
09-17-2008, 07:03 PM
sure sure but isn't that the risk of a free market? doesn't that mean that someone else can step in then?

tokenuser
09-17-2008, 07:13 PM
sure sure but isn't that the risk of a free market? doesn't that mean that someone else can step in then?Normally I would agree, but all forms of consumer protection were stripped away ... and instead of the dumbasses who borrowed more than they can afford being hit, we are all being slammed.

I am fortunate that the company holding my mortgage is so far doing OK (Chase), and I only have 4 years to go on the mortgage (so I am a good risk based on current payment history and equity) for getting a refi if it came down to it ... but I can guarantee I wont be getting another 4 5/8% loan (10 year mortgage) when I move next time.

comhcinc
09-17-2008, 07:18 PM
i really agree with you token. i am just saying that if we are to live in a true free market as so many repubs demand we turn to then this is something that we have to face.

yssman
09-17-2008, 07:28 PM
Because most people don't want socialism.

Socialism? You mean the spoon-fed socialism that we're already getting from the McCain/Bush Administration? Right. Those pinko-commie Democrat bastards are going to ruin this country...

What I find most-hilarious about this story is that while the GOP is happy to dish out things like this to the Democrats, when they get it back (ON AUDIO TAPE!), they can't take the heat.

Absolutely amazing.

bigshotprof
09-17-2008, 08:11 PM
sure sure but isn't that the risk of a free market? doesn't that mean that someone else can step in then?

It would be until the people who gave them the loan are allowed to piece up the risk and sell it off in chunks to other people who sell it again, etc. Since they wall themselves off from losses by incorporating, they take their bonuses and pensions and go home while the house of cards tumbles. There is no actual risk for the people who do the deals. There is no incentive to self-regulate except the reality that if things go bad you will have to eke put an existence on the 40 million you got last year. Galbraith said that 30 years ago and everyone called him a socialist.

comhcinc
09-17-2008, 08:19 PM
that makes no sense. the private sector always does better than the government.

comhcinc
09-17-2008, 08:46 PM
Did the internet just cause Sarah Palin to destroy evidence? The potential Veep is in a bit of trouble for conducting state business using her personal, unarchived email address (gov.sarah@yahoo.com) instead of her official account (which is, of course, subject to laws requiring the retention of government records). Emails from that Yahoo account are already being sought in connection with the Troopergate investigation. Now comes word that Anonymous, the fun-loving Internet trouble-makers based loosely around the message board 4Chan, gained access to another Palin email account: gov.palin@yahoo.comLink (http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-account-hacked)


what do you think?

bigshotprof
09-17-2008, 08:54 PM
that makes no sense. the private sector always does better than the government.

But the private sector does so with meaningful governmental protections--e.g. patent protection, trade agreements, tax breaks etc.--the private sector does not have to operate completely outside the shell of government protection, nor should it have to. The very fact that a bunch of people can pool their interests in a corporation and in so doing shield their personal assets from risk is an example of the private sector profiting because of government activity. And they should, there is nothing wrong with that. I just think it is disingenuous of some business people to decry "interference" from government as though government is always bad, when their success is so heavily dependent on the social and economic stability that government provides.

comhcinc
09-17-2008, 08:57 PM
now you are just sounding like a commie


(crumbles isn't here today so i thought i would step in and pick up some of his slack)

tokenuser
09-17-2008, 08:58 PM
that makes no sense. the private sector always does better than the government.True, but I think in this case the government needs regulatory protection in place so that the industry/private sector dont "self determine" how to cover their own asses to the detriment of those they are supposed to be servicing.

bigshotprof
09-17-2008, 10:06 PM
now you are just sounding like a commie


(crumbles isn't here today so i thought i would step in and pick up some of his slack)

Thanks. I hadn't felt the love in a while.