|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 14, 2008 13:59:28 GMT -5
If I am not mistaken 9/11 was the last time we were attacked by Islamic fundamentalist. Just a general question: Why is it that the Republicans always want to take credit for keeping us safe after 9/11, but take no responsibility for the catastrophic failures in intelligence and leadership leading up to 9/11? I mean, Bush was handed a PDB months before the attack that said bin Laden was determined to strike and one of the methods was by hijacking an airplane and crashing it into a building. His reaction? Nothing. There was no follow-up, no enhanced security, no request for speedier translation of Arabic intelligence. He strugged it off. Yes, America has been safe from international terrorism since 9/11, but Bush took office nine months before that, and he deserves some of the responsibility if he wants to take credit. I would never say that Bush had no responsibility with the lead up to 9/11 just as I would say the same thing for every president before him sense the Carter administration. They all did nothing! All of them did nothing! Clinton was even offered Osama. He was too afraid of what would happen if he actually did take him. I think he would have been better off by taking him.
|
|
|
Post by pdn on Sept 14, 2008 15:37:42 GMT -5
Clinton was even offered Osama. He was too afraid of what would happen if he actually did take him. I think he would have been better off by taking him. Sorry, tnc, that's just not true. "Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden." "It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa's claims were not in fact present for the meeting." "Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities." "Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:" Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan. "Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese." "So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word." " Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden." "We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It's a fancy term for those "why didn't someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996."
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 14, 2008 16:21:18 GMT -5
A lot of things are murky and I'm not sure that even the 9/11 Commission has all the facts by thier own admission that things were "murky".
"Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities."
"Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."
Diplomacy with these people is a fantasy. Diplomacy under Clinton was a failure.
Diplomacy Is what the Obama side wants more of and you saw where diplomacy got us.
Thats right, it got us 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by Dance Away on Sept 14, 2008 19:01:45 GMT -5
It was inevitable and unavoidable that our country was going to hit by a terrorist event of the magnitude of 9-11. "tombstone mentality" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombstone_mentality"Tombstone mentality" is an aviation informal term that notes aviation safety is often improved only after somebody has died, which points out a fatal defect. --Wikipedia Before 9-11, the American public had not been exposed to terrorist event that delivered a "tombstone mentality" effect into the mind of every American. In 1993, terrorists set off a truck bomb in the basement parking garage of the World Trade Center killing 6 people and injuring 1000. But that terrorist event did not deliver a "tombstone mentality" effect into the mind of every American. In order for that "tombstone mentality" effect to be tripped off in the mind of every American, we had to experience a terrorist event of the size of 9-11. "It is a mistake to suppose that men succeed through success; they much oftener succeed through failures. Precept, study, advice, and example could never have taught them so well as failure has done." --Samuel Smiles Samuel Smiles, Scottish author and reformer (1812-1904) Samuel Smiles en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_SmilesBorn in Haddington, Smiles was the eldest of eleven children. He left school at the age of 14 and was apprenticed to a doctor, an arrangement that eventually enabled Smiles to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh. While studying and after graduating, he campaigned for parliamentary reform, contributing articles to the Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle and the Leeds Times. --Wikipedia
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 15, 2008 17:24:02 GMT -5
Palin could not even answer what the "Bush Doctrine" was. She is nothing but a pretty face to distract everyone from the issues. This speaks directly to McCain's "experience", when he has the poor judgement to pick someone so unqualified as his VP running mate. They were both out again today, LYING about how Obama wants to raise taxes (even though most Americans would see a tax cut under his plan)
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 15, 2008 18:31:34 GMT -5
Palin could not even answer what the "Bush Doctrine" was. She is nothing but a pretty face to distract everyone from the issues. This speaks directly to McCain's "experience", when he has the poor judgement to pick someone so unqualified as his VP running mate. They were both out again today, LYING about how Obama wants to raise taxes (even though most Americans would see a tax cut under his plan) Which “Bush doctrine” did you mean, Charlie?By Michelle Malkin • September 12, 2008 10:50 PM Charles Krauthammer, the man who coined the phrase “Bush doctrine,” turns the table on the condescending Charlie Gibson. Take off your smart glasses, Charlie. Because you’ve been schooled: The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?” Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.” ad_icon Wrong… …Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents. Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine. Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
As far as the tax cuts Obama plans on giving the American people I wouldn't believe it for a second. He may not raise taxes right away (other than taking away the tax credits that are in place now) because doing so would destroy the economy but I would be willing to bet that within 4 years he will raise taxes across the board for everyone that pays taxes. If you have a job he will raise your taxes. He can't fool me.
|
|
|
Post by pdn on Sept 15, 2008 21:24:16 GMT -5
I have no doubt that Joe Biden could have answered that question with all variations of the Bush Doctrine. The commonly accepted Bush Doctrine is that of anticipatory self-defense. She didn't even get anywhere near it. She just sheepishly asked, "His worldview?" And citing Michelle Malkin of all people? That being said, as for the tax plans of the two candidates, read this page for a quick overview of what the two candidates' plans will do to your tax bill. Under Obama, if you make less than $112k, your tax bill will go down. Under McCain, it will pretty much stay the same. McCain pretty much subscribes to the 'Bush Doctrine of taxes,' and isn't likely to change anything.
|
|
|
Post by pdn on Sept 15, 2008 21:28:04 GMT -5
As for "not believing" Obama, that's hard to swallow from a McCain supporter. On 'The View,' when asked about Palin requesting earmarks he replied, "No, not as governor she didn’t..." LIE: "In addition to her current requests, state budget documents show Alaska requested 52 earmarks worth $256 million for 2008." citationWhen asked about his daughter's Prius, he told a Southfield Michigan TV station that , "She bought it, I believe, herself." LIE: He told the NYT, "I ought to know the name of it; I paid for it." citationMcCain told a campaign stop, "You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay -- and made a profit!" LIE: It was NOT sold on eBay, and was sold to a private party for $600,000 less than the original asking price. citationMcCain told CNN that in Baghdad, "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee." LIE: CNN's John Roberts found: "I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored humvee.” He added that a new report by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey “said no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection." citationMcCain told Chris Matthews on Hardball: "I think that gay marriage should be allowed." LIE: Right after the commercial break, he then said, "I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal." citation
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 15, 2008 22:33:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 15, 2008 23:12:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pdn on Sept 15, 2008 23:45:16 GMT -5
Then it's just a difference of opinion. I've watched John McCain lie, over and over. And, like a child, his face exhibits his shame. He knows he's not telling the truth. I can't respect that. That shows a lack of honor.
Look, I love politics, and even considered voting for McCain back in 2000. He was truly a maverick, and seemed to want the best for our country. Sadly, he's completely changed course and has begun adopting Karl Rove-style politics in a desperate grab for the White House. Hell, even Rove himself said on Faux News that McCain had gone too far in his lies.
The John McCain that we knew is gone. What has replaced him is an ideological twin to George W. Bush. Their policies are IDENTICAL. There's barely any wiggle room between the two on the economy, on health care, on foreign policy, on the environment, on education. McCain has boasted about voting with Bush over 90% of the time.
While 70%+ of American voters think we're on the wrong track, it's insane to think that someone who is so closely aligned with Bush is going to do ANYTHING to change the direction of this nation. Frankly, with Palin's boneheaded saber rattling with Russia, to McCain's top advisor being a former lobbyist for Georgia, I think the threat of a new war with Russia is VERY REAL with McCain, and his public positions have done nothing to dissuade me from thinking that.
I also fear his position on Afghanistan and Pakistan will further endanger our troops in the region and further allow al Qaeda to reconstitute itself. We know that the Taliban is aiding al Quaeda in south eastern Afghanistan and that al Qaeda is traveling between Afghanistan and Pakistan with impunity. We've watched the death tolls rise in Afghanistan over the past two years. And when Obama rightly declared that we must pivot and focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where al Qaeda is (and where most people think bin Laden is), McCain dismissed that call to action as "naive."
Sorry, but we need someone who will work a foreign policy which doesn't alienate our allies, but brings them to the table. McCain can't do that. Obama has shown he is capable. We need our allies to assist us in the ACTUAL war on terror, not this descent into madness known as Iraq.
We need to invest in our schools and infrastructure. Rebuild bridges that need maintenance, not build another Bridge to Nowhere. We need affordable health care for all citizens, and McCain just doesn't provide that. In fact, his health care scheme does away with employer-based health care tax breaks, and shifts the burden to the consumer. By most economists estimates, in altering the health care coverage the way McCain wants it to be done, most families will pay $6000 MORE a year for health care. That's insane!
I fear, in the words of his own Republican colleagues, McCain's judgment and temperment problems.
|
|
|
Post by pdn on Sept 15, 2008 23:48:21 GMT -5
McCain, in his Republican colleagues' words: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." Senator Thad Cochran, R-MS "I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger." Senator Pete Domenici, R-NM "If either [John McCain or Mike Huckabee] gets the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party, it's going to change it forever, be the end of it." Conservative talk show host and author Rush Limbaugh "There's nothing redeeming about John McCain...he's a hypocrite." Former House GOP Whip Tom DeLay "He is a vicious person. Nearly all the Republican Senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn't support him. They have been on the hard end of his behavior." Former Representative Charles LeBoutillier, R-NY "John was very rough in the sandbox. Everybody has a McCain story. If you work in the Senate for a while, you have a McCain story. He hasn't built up a lot of goodwill." Former Senator Rick Santorum, R-PA "There would be a lot of people who would have to recalibrate their attitudes toward John." Senator Bob Bennett, R-UT "For all his supposed, newfound enlightenment about what most Americans want - protection against invasion, commitment to the rule of law, meaningful employer sanctions, an end to sanctuary cities, enforcement-by-attrition plus deportation reform, and an end to special illegal alien benefits that invite more law-breaking-The Maverick remains a Geraldo Rivera Republican. Like the ethnocentric cable TV host who can't string a sentence about immigration together without drowning in emotional demagoguery, McCain naturally resorts to open-borders platitudes when pressed for enforcement specifics...McCain has learned nothing." Michelle Malkin, conservative columnist and author "His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, that should disqualify him." Former Senator Bob Smith, R-NH "I heard about his temper more from others. According to them, he really unleashed on some of them, and they couldn't figure out why...It happened enough that it was affecting his credibility with some people." Grant Woods, McCain's former Chief of Staff, former AG of Arizona, and current McCain staffer An "embarrassment to the party." Arizona GOP State Senator Susan Johnson "What happens if he gets angry in crisis in the presidency? It's difficult enough to be a negotiator, but it's almost impossible when you're the type of guy who's so angry at anybody who doesn't do what he wants. It's the president's job to negotiate and stay calm. I just don't see that he has that quality." Former Arizona GOP Chairman John Hinz "No dissent, no opinion to the contrary- however reasonable- will be entertained. Hardheaded is one way to say it. Arrogant is another way to say it. Hubristic is another way to say it. Too proud for his own good is another way to say it. It's a quality about him that disturbs me." Col. Larry Wilkerson, US Army (ret.) and former chief aide to Colin Powell "He is the anti-conservative. He instinctively sides against conservatives and relishes poking them in the eye." Conservative talk show host and author David Limbaugh "It just seems like everything we did, John was someplace else...In my mind, he is not ." Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-IL
"I think it's his style as much as much as the positions he takes...I think it's his attitude that it's his way or the highway." Former Senator Tim Hutchinson, R-AR
"I don't like McCain. I don't like him at all." Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-CO
McCain "has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language." Focus on Family Founder James Dobson
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 16, 2008 16:36:02 GMT -5
You'll really have to come up with someone more credible than Michelle Malkin to quote if you want to refute some of the bullshit around the McCain campaign. 99% of people I know, when you mention the "Bush Doctrine", generally accept it to refer to his policy of preemptive war. Sure, you can get caught up in the nuances of policy definitions, but in the context of that interview, Palin was asked in reference to preemptive war. She did not know what it was. and we are really months past dragging up with Reverend Wright issue. Obama would be damned if he stayed in that church, and damned since he left. None of Obama's writings or speeches have EVER contained any of the thoughts or expressions of his pastor, and it is simply bullshit to put those words into Obama's mouth. McCain had his own problems with his endorsement from Rev. Hagee as well.
Can you REALLY sit back and say that it is a good thing to leave this country in the hands of ANOTHER Republican president after the disaster the last 8 years have been? And please don't say that "McCain is a maverick, and he will change things".
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 21, 2008 23:40:22 GMT -5
I am by my self here. While its fun to spar with people, I just cant keep it up alone.
You Obama guys win and because I will benefit from Obamas Tax cuts I kinda feel like I still win even though I know I will be paying more later.
Congrats.
Go McCain/ Palin!
And With that, I am done with politics.
Good luck everyone!
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 22, 2008 17:30:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 24, 2008 17:23:23 GMT -5
and now McCain wants to "cut and run" from the debate Friday....
|
|
|
Post by sometimes the voices argue on Sept 24, 2008 20:30:28 GMT -5
its another flashy, thin political move. since when has he had any political expertise that would help this situation?
its just a "look at me!" "vote for me!" move, its awful.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 24, 2008 20:57:22 GMT -5
its another flashy, thin political move. since when has he had any political expertise that would help this situation? its just a "look at me!" "vote for me!" move, its awful. I call bull shit on that statement. mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=c97d478f-f460-4253-b2ec-8d9fbcaff20c&Region_id=&Issue_id
MCCAIN STATEMENT ON CO-SPONSORSHIP OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005 May 26, 2006
Washington D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) submitted for the record the following statement regarding his co-sponsorship of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the six years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. Mr. President, the OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – known as government sponsored entities or GSEs – and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation. # # #
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 24, 2008 21:03:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Sept 24, 2008 21:09:26 GMT -5
OK here you go: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html Barack Obama's Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Connection
Lehman Brothers collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama. Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them.Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate. Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem. Edit: And here I said I wouldn't do this anymore. I guess its ok for you to call me a liar too. Lets face the facts that you and I could go back and forth all night long. I wont do that though because I am all alone on this side and it makes it kinda pointless.
|
|