An open challenge to all FReepers, Lurkers, O-Bots and Trolls

vanity | Friday the 13th November 2009 | null and void

[sickoflibs]

RE :”You obviously have a different copy of the Constitution than I have. One that says it's any of the Feds’ damn business, for starters. “

Yep, the one in the world I live in has the Republican president (so called conservative) bail out banks with our money because they acted irresponsibly. If the constitution allows that, it requires regulation. And yes, almost all elected republicans agreed that 'it was required'. Now does that happen in your world??

Still having trouble? Give your 10 yr old kid your credit card and tell him you have no business ‘regulating’ him, same concept. I wouldnt loan him my CC to start, nor bailout the banks.

[sickoflibs]

RE :” You obviously have a different copy of the Constitution than I have. One that says it's any of the Feds’ damn business, for starters.:

Hey, speaking of the constitution and 'it's none of the feds business to regulate banks' I noticed you were telling freepers they HAVE to vote for John McCain last October. Were you aware he voted for TARP? In fact didnt he suspend his campaign to fly back to Washington to get TARP passed?

So its OK to hand banks blank checks, but not OK to tell them what to do?? Telling anyone to vote for McCain is like flushing the constitution down the toilet. Do you listen to Mark Levin ? Because you sound like him

RightOnTheLeftCoast says your an idiot for voting third party against John McCain at #123

123 posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:16:06 PM by RightOnTheLeftCoast ([Dukakis had a tank. Obama has a bracelet!])

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"RightOnTheLeftCoast says your an idiot for voting third party against John McCain at #123"

Heh. Erudite grammar aside, you did provide a link, and thank you for that, as clicking-through shows that's not what I said. Before the general election a year ago, and in reply to someone who said they'd voted for Ron Paul in the primary, I replied,

That's perfectly fine. After all, the first rule of voting is: In the primaries, vote for the guy you think is best. In the general election, vote against the guy you think is worst.

This should be so easy for us this year. But idiots insist on voting for Obama by proxy, meaning a third party vote.

These same people urged a third-party vote or no vote at all in 2006. So the DemocRats took both houses of Congress, and how's that working out, hm?

Today, I'd stand by that statement, though I'd change it to "...meaning a third party vote or no vote at all." I'm far from a McCain fan, but I voted for him (or rather, against Obama) in the general election because any other choice (including sitting out the election in a petulant snit) was a vote for Obama, whether you admit it or not. If it helps elect, it's a vote for.

Meanwile, you said:

"Hey, speaking of the constitution and 'it's none of the feds business to regulate banks' I noticed you were telling Freepers they HAVE to vote for John McCain last October. Were you aware he voted for TARP? In fact didnt he suspend his campaign to fly back to Washington to get TARP passed?"

He suspended his campaign to fly back to D.C. and get pwned by Obama and the media. If you're looking for someone to defend McCain on this and most other matters, you're barking up the wrong tree with me. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? You continue:

"So its OK to hand banks blank checks, but not OK to tell them what to do??

I really wish I had a clue what your point is. Both are abominations in the eyes of the Founders and totally unauthorized by the Constitution, which grants rather than limits the central government's powers. I never said it was "okay to hand banks blank checks" and rather resent your contention that I did. But, shrug, perhaps you intended that comment for some other poster since it clearly doesn't apply to me. And then you say:

"Telling anyone to vote for McCain is like flushing the constitution down the toilet."

I advocated voting against Obama, not for McCain. Although, I must admit, when I punched my chad it was in part to vote for Sarah Palin, the one thing McCain got right in his entire sorry-ass campaign.

What I really don't get is this part of your rant:

"Do you listen to Mark Levin ? Because you sound like him"

Generally I'd consider that a compliment, as I have much admiration for Levin, but I must say, I find Levin's radio show unlistenable due to his tendency towards screeching hysterics. But I presume you're talking about something other than his on-air verbal style. What is it, in particular, that I've said that reminds you of Levin?

[sickoflibs]

RE :” I really wish I had a clue what your point is. Both are abominations in the eyes of the Founders and totally unauthorized by the Constitution, which grants rather than limits the central government's powers. I never said it was “okay to hand banks blank checks” and rather resent your contention that I did. But, shrug, perhaps you intended that comment for some other poster since it clearly doesn't apply to me”

You were telling freepers THEY HAD to 'vote McCain' or they were idiots but you also told them that TARP was necessary, contrary to your denial above! Before you deny it again, remember your posts are still here.

You see back last fall opposing your ideas I was posting both TARP and McCain would be disasters. So dont give me your phony constitution crap!

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"You were telling freepers THEY HAD to 'vote McCain' or they were idiots..."

If that's how you choose to paraphrase what I cut-and-pasted above, there's nothing I can do about it. It's a misrepresentation. I did say it was idiotic to vote third-party or not vote at all, given the stakes. I clearly wasn't upholding McCain as a great candidate for whom any Freeper should be enthusiastic. Can we at least agree I was advocating holding-one's-nose and voting for McCain? I thought I was pretty clear on that, and I would not modify that advice today.

"...but you also told them that TARP was necessary, contrary to your denial above! Before you deny it again, remember your posts are still here."

Sure they are. Go read them. And consider them together with the background and reasoning I provided in those posts. Such as: Ports were jammed with ships that could not offload goods for lack of credit instruments. Lenders could not cut loans because the credit market was simply frozen. The root cause was the Community Reinvestment Act and the trillions of bad mortgages that politicians had strong-armed banks into making to unqualified borrowers, including millions of illegal aliens. This bought them votes. Meanwhile, the mark-to-market provision of Sarbanes-Oxley put financial institutions at risk of thunderclap technical default if the real-estate market softened, which it inevitably did. Meanwhile, the brilliant paper-folders on Wall Street had taken those bogus mortgages and created new kinds of derivative securities out of them and sold them worldwide. And so, on top of the thrombosis in the credit markets, the global credit derivative pyramid was instantly cavitated, and it was about to topple. We could let it, at the cost of civilization, or we could print enough paper to spackle over the holes in the pyramid and maybe stabilize things. Nouriel Roubini called this "socializing the defaults" and he's very correct in that. Wholly distasteful.

Although I'm not a McCain fan, I must admit: One of the few legislators who had tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from their abuses of the CRA through public statements and actual legislation was John McCain. And he and I came to the same conclusion: the TARP program, like the S&L bailouts of the '80s, was the best of a sorry menu of choices. It should never have come to that. And it should never have been extended beyond restoring liquidity to the financial markets; in particular it is an abomination that the Federal Government, together with the unions, now owns a controlling share of GM and Chrysler, with their bondholders summarily discarded. And now, more than a year later, CRA--the root of it all--is still with us. Barney Frank wants to extend and expand it. With majorities in the Senate and House and a Marxist in the White House, he'll get his wish. And so I ask again: how's that hope and change working out, eh? McCain in the White House would have been terrible. But better than Obama.

[sickoflibs]

RE “ McCain in the White House would have been terrible. But better than Obama.”

You are wrong about McCain (that we would be better off if he was elected, he would be a disaster) , wrong that those who voted for Ron Paul in November 2008 were idiots , wrong about TARP (you being for it, me against), wrong about the main reason for the economic crash( being CRA) and wrong about GW Bush being a hero in the housing boom bust disaster by opposing CRA.

So don't lecture me about the constitution!

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Although I'm not a McCain fan, I must admit: (McCain was) One of the few legislators who had tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from their abuses of the CRA through public statements and actual legislation was John McCain. And he and I (McCain) came to the same conclusion: the TARP program, like the S&L bailouts of the ‘80s, was the best of a sorry menu of choices ”

Yep, McCain and TARP, our Saviour's... Now lecture me about the constitution...

By the way, you lectured Freepers to ‘vote McCain’ or they are idiots. But you say you are no fan of his. You see any problems with that?

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"By the way, you lectured Freepers to ‘vote McCain’ or they are idiots. But you say you are no fan of his. You see any problems with that?"

What part of "Vote against Obama" don't you understand?

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"wrong that those who voted for Ron Paul in November 2008 were idiots"

Read what I posted again. Scroll up, it's right there, a couple inches up.

I said it was perfectly fine to have voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. The primaries were over. It was idiocy to vote for Obama, I think we'd both agree. Our bone of contention is whether not voting at all (or voting third-party) in such a close race was, in effect, a vote for Obama.

Perhaps some kindly Freeper can suggest some remedial reading exercises for you.

[XenaLee]

Zero has encouraged (albeit unintentionally) conservative Americans to become prepared, like never before, for a national emergency (ie stocking up on food, water, basic necessities like guns, ammo, etc).

Even though the reasons people have stocked up is sheer terror of this Obamanation, it’s got to be a good thing to be prepared for what’s coming.

Other than that, he hasn’t done one damn positive thing in his first year. And we should all be demanding that the lamestream media report that truth instead of ignoring it.

[XenaLee]

That’s baloney (ie a lie). Zero and the rats will sit on that money and use it as a ‘just in case the people protest via taxes’ fund. They may be crazy but they’re not ‘that’ stupid.

DemocRATS don’t give a DAMN about the deficit.

[firebrand]

You are making perfect sense. Voting for McCain in the general election had nothing to do with being a cheerleader for McCain or the GOP. One’s vote often must change with the circumstances. It’s a political act, not a candle-lighting event.

[boatbums]

Like I said, I heard it on a local radio program and my husband was with me in the car and heard it too. I know that doesn’t make it true, just because a conservative radio host said it. We’ll just have to wait ‘n see.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”What part of “Vote against Obama” don't you understand”

That is not on the ballot in my state. It was McCain, Obama, or third party. No ‘against’ anyone. I can understanding holding your nose and voting McCain, given how bad the choices were. But not demanding anyone vote McCain and calling him an idiot for not... That is unforgivable (Yes, Levin was calling on listeners with that exact brainless message , which was my last straw with him.)

Trying to tell freepers Bush was right on TARP doesnt impress me either.

Glenn Beck came out a month ago and stated the obvious, something Peter Schiff said last October. McCain as president with a democrat majority congress would have been worse than Obama. You know why? Have you ever given a thought as to what a president McCain would be doing and how the voters would respond??

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"You are making perfect sense. Voting for McCain in the general election had nothing to do with being a cheerleader for McCain or the GOP. One’s vote often must change with the circumstances. It’s a political act, not a candle-lighting event."

Thank you. I do sympathize with those who point to the Carter years and say a Reagan could follow again, ergo maybe it's best to give O his term in office. Maybe, but that presumes a lot. It's not just that O's definitely a committed Marxist and quite possibly a cloaked Islamist, but that he's also got this messianic thing going on, is worshiped by the media, and is immunized against all criticism because of his skin color. That has never been encountered here in the U.S. before, and it's perilous.

All in all, having thought about it quite a lot over the past year, I still think: In the primary, vote for the best guy; in the general, vote against the worst. For me, that meant a primary vote for someone (anyone!) other than McCain, but if the general election comes and it's a tight race between a McCain and an Obama, I must hold my nose and do what I can to keep the Obama from being elected.

An exception might be if you live in a solid-blue state like Kalifornistan or Massachusetts, where it truly won't matter who you vote for because the leftist is gonna win, period. Then, your vote's going to waste no matter what, so it might as well go towards the superior third-party candidate.

One problem with those who won't vote at all for a McCain under any circumstances is that they might boycott the election altogether, thus depriving candidates for seemingly less important offices of the votes they need to win. It's very certain that several tight Congressional races went (D) because GOP voters stayed home out of distaste for McCain. And that's a pity-- just for example, had they not done so, PelosiCare would not have passed.

Voting has consequences. So does not-voting. And so, in the general election, does a protest vote for a doomed third-party candidate. Just ask Ross Perot-- his spiteful campaign against GHWB (another nose-holder, IMHO) ultimately gave us Bill Clinton, whose legacy (Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder...) continues today.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"But not demanding anyone vote McCain and calling him an idiot for not..."

Which I did not do. Do you need glasses?

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

" RE :”What part of “Vote against Obama” don't you understand”

That is not on the ballot in my state. It was McCain, Obama, or third party."

So you had three choices. Two of which helped elect Obama. Thank you so much for helping elect Obama, then. Can I send you my tax bill?

[woofie]

what do I win if I come up with something?

[null and void]

That's perfectly fine. After all, the first rule of voting is: In the primaries, vote for the guy you think is best. In the general election, vote against the guy you think is worst.

Um. No.

The first rule of voting is: Do not let your opponents select your candidate.

[null and void]

Respect?