toshmann:

kobo
hillary is married to a man that is involved in something she is preaching against and you find nothing wrong with it?c'mon bro . . haba

yet they wanted to kill obama for what another man said which obama has dissociated himself from.
hmmmn. . . .

then how do you explain the sacking of campaign team members who said or did something that the candidate does not identify with? dude na wa o

Please, does being married to someone mean they will both have to agree on everything?? If that be the case, then what do we say of the senators who are married and happen to be on different sides of the spectrum. Comparing Hillary being married to Bill and both not agreeing on issues to the Obama-Wright issue is like comparing apples and spinach. It does not work at all. It is possible for husband and wife to be at opposite polls and still within limits. Obama-Wright case is a situation where you have a man who SPIRITUAL head happens to be a racist(Hate Monger), that is not even close to the same thing. It is the difference between a man who does not agree with you on the issue of Free Trade and the man who tells you that he is a racist and believes america should be damned.

I am not sure if the man was actually let go or he stepped down himself.

McCain is de guy. let me tell you the truth, whoever wins this election, those boys will still be in iraq for a long long time. forget all those shouting they'll bring the troops home. na lie.

anyway, hillary will loose the nomination and republicans will bring out the race(with help from the clintons) game to finish obama

clintons are very shady. this campaign has brought out their real character. $10million in charity donated to . . . . the clinton foundation i laugh in swahili

it's never been truly altruistic. . . make we de watch sha

Well, At least it is still 10 million going to charity, about 6% more than Obama donated to Charity himself. Calling them shady does not make it true though. I mean we are yet to get final word on if their involvement with foreign companies are really illegal ones or not.

Name: Eziachi Coward
Posts: 13 (0.722 per day)
Position: Active Poster
Date Registered: March 20, 2008, 07:55 PM
Last Active: Today at 08:59:32 PM

Absolutely concealment at it's best!


Big B1,

What is this statistics about me above you published? What was that all about? Typical Nigerian, you prefer I say yes to everything you say and now you resort to mind game s and cyber bullying. You submissions on the Clintons bothers on obsession and tantrum and it's quite disturbing. Surely there must be thing that can occupy you like worrying about the likes of Obasanjo than the Clintons in far away U.S.A.
I don't think even Kenneth Starr was that obsessed with the Clintons.

Eziachi:

Name: Eziachi Coward
Posts: 13 (0.722 per day)
Position: Active Poster
Date Registered: March 20, 2008, 07:55 PM
Last Active: Today at 08:59:32 PM

Absolutely concealment at it's best!


Big B1,

What is this statistics about me above you published? What was that all about? Typical Nigerian, you prefer I say yes to everything you say and now you resort to mind game s and cyber bullying. You submissions on the Clintons bothers on obsession and tantrum and it's quite disturbing. Surely there must be thing that can occupy you like worrying about the likes of Obasanjo than the Clintons in far away USA.
I don't think even Kenneth Starr was that obsessed with the Clintons.

LMAO!!!! You are quite perceptive!!!

@kobo
ahaaa, i see. since you've gone spiritual, let me educate you more about spiritual. marriage is a spiritual union. man and wife become one before God(as an engaged dude i've started having marital lessons/councelling from high quaters(mainly spiritual) so i can talk deeply on a few marital issues). now the pastor is not the spiritual head of a man but a kind of guide. christ is the spiritual head (for christains). in marriage both partners are spiritually one before God. that is why they say marriage defies mathematics. i.e in marriage 1+1=1. so who is more involved
one in a spiritual union or one with a spiritual guide (whom he disagreed with on those statements)

anyway, make we leave spirit alone. obama is more straightforward than those guys. anyway, i started disliking obama when he fired a woman who said the truth (and even apologised for the harm it caused). i wonder where forgiveness was. unlike that gerraro woman of the clinton campaign(whose firing i did not enjoy either) though she did not apologise for her words.

McCain is de guy now. those democrats have no idea of war psychology. and they want to be C-in-C
We shall see

toshmann:

@kobo
ahaaa, i see. since you've gone spiritual, let me educate you more about spiritual. marriage is a spiritual union. man and wife become one before God(as an engaged dude i've started having marital lessons/councelling from high quaters(mainly spiritual) so i can talk deeply on a few marital issues). now the pastor is not the spiritual head of a man but a kind of guide. christ is the spiritual head (for christains). in marriage both partners are spiritually one before God. that is why they say marriage defies mathematics. i.e in marriage 1+1=1. so who is more involved
one in a spiritual union or one with a spiritual guide (whom he disagreed with on those statements)

anyway, make we leave spirit alone. obama is more straightforward than those guys. anyway, i started disliking obama when he fired a woman who said the truth (and even apologised for the harm it caused). i wonder where forgiveness was. unlike that gerraro woman of the clinton campaign(whose firing i did not enjoy either) though she did not apologise for her words.

McCain is de guy now. those democrats have no idea of war psychology. and they want to be C-in-C
We shall see

Unless you can show me one solid marriage where the man and woman agreed on practically everything, your whole talk of marriage and spirituality has no  bearing to this discussion. Even Adam and Eve, the perfect human beings that ever lived never agreed on everything.

Another thing about your comment about Spiritual head, are you going to tell me next that the FLDS guys SPIRITUAL head is Jesus?? Give me a break. If I told you that for 20 years, GURU MA HA RAJI OF IBADAN EXPRESS WAY ( I don't even know if that guy is back in business or not), Would you consider me someone worth voting for?? You and I know what I am referring to. There are people who have pastors are their spiritual head and this happened to be one of the same according to the man himself. If I choose an incompetent man to be my advisor, it shows the kind of person I am. Don't tell me you have never heard the talk BIRDS OF THE SAME FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER,  SHOW ME YOUR FRIEND AND I WILL TELL YOU WHO YOU , not them, ARE?? Give me a BREAK please!!! I say instead of analysing the Clintons through a dubious eye, you just accept that all you have is that, a seriously warped perception of these people,  which no one has yet proved to be true actually. I am not a Clinton fan, never have been myself but I know just a couple of months ago, the Clintons where still america's sweethearts until the media Switched sides and BOOM,  it is almost as if Many americans switched too.

Toshmann, my brother, this Mcain war philosophy you're talking about that he had, that the other two doesn't have, does that includes staying in Iraq for hundred years as he told the Americans and the world recently? He is also a hypocrite. Do you remember how he kept quiet when Bush and his gangs were rubbishing a good military career of John Kerry during their election. And he use to claim that Kerry was his friend. With friends like that!!!!!

As for Hillary/Bill Clinton disagreeing over an issue. I think it's very healthy to have a wife that will have the bottle to disagree with you, especially when the man is talking babash. God help the man, whose wife will agree with everything that comes from his mouth or he whatever he does. A wife is complement to a man and not a slave or an employee. Which unfortunatley, is how most Nigerians treat their other halves.

Unfortunately, these wives, especially those arranged ones from Naija, when they arrived the white man's country, they will wise up and abuse the law that protect women and before you know it a doomed marraige. If Hillary disagrees with Bill over national issue, it shows how she will perform as her own person as a president as most people feared she could be Bill ruling by proxy originally.

Eziachi:

Toshmann, my brother, this Mcain war philosophy you're talking about that he had, that the other two doesn't have, does that includes staying in Iraq for hundred years as he told the Americans and the world recently? He is also a hypocrite. Do you remember how he kept quiet when Bush and his gangs were rubbishing a good military career of John Kerry during their election. And he use to claim that Kerry was his friend. With friends like that!!!!!

Lets not imbibe every hogwash spewed by the Obama campaign as fact.McCain said the US should be in Iraq for 100 years provided that they are not fighting a la US troop presence in post-war Germany,Japan and South Korea.

"The good military career" of Kerry was rubbished by his fellow military veterans,besides,McCain didn't keep quiet.He condemned it in the strongest terms possible.

Eziachi:

Toshmann, my brother, this Mcain war philosophy you're talking about that he had, that the other two doesn't have, does that includes staying in Iraq for hundred years as he told the Americans and the world recently? He is also a hypocrite. Do you remember how he kept quiet when Bush and his gangs were rubbishing a good military career of John Kerry during their election. And he use to claim that Kerry was his friend. With friends like that!!!!!

McCain already explained what he meant when he made the comment about being in Iraq for 100 years. I am quite sure the man did not mean it literally but meant he was willing to fight the battle all the way to victory, which if you really think about it, is the best for America as a whole. We are already at war and I find it particular repulsing that we still have people whining about the decision to go to war in the first place as if we have not already been there 5 years. The talk is not about going to war right now but more about making sure we finish up and come home but come home and not have the war follow us back here. What many americans continue to ignore is that fact that pulling out in the last war back in the 60's (VIETNAM) resulted in the massacre of over 2 million people. That is not taught in schools and certainly, we do not hear of that in the media today, even Kerry had the guts to deny it happened ( http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3274&comments=1 ) as possible result of pulling out of iraq prematurely. Look at what happened with afghanistan and even the gulf war, the many people who lost their lives and actually one of the main reasons why americans met much resistance when they came back this time for WMD. They did not finish up and people paid dearly for it. I watched the General's speech and I have to say I was appalled by Clinton and Obama. It was more about them securing their place in the eye of the people than it was about them expressing genuine concern for the war, if you ask me.
 
To the John Kerry case, you forget that McCain himself was running for president back then. Why expect him to stand up for Kerry when Kerry is on the other side of the whole?? Plus, I still question the "good millitary career" of John Kerry cause he was never able to provide information to put down the attack of the veterans who said he did not do what he claimed he did. I remember there was a particular man who went out to say things did not happen as Kerry claimed they did. If McCain was not there, which I am guessing may be the case, what good would it have done him if he claimed he was??

kobo and 4play,
thanx for explaining the McCain issue to Eziachi.

@kobo,
McCain was not a candidate in 2004 when kerry was contyesting. the republicans had bush as the unopposed candidate.
yet McCain spoke out against the attack on kerry.
see why i like the guy

Eziachi:

He is also a hypocrite. Do you remember how he kept quiet when Bush and his gangs were rubbishing a good military career of John Kerry during their election. And he use to claim that Kerry was his friend. With friends like that!!!!!

Here is what actually happened:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) rushed to John F. Kerry's defense Thursday, condemning a new ad claiming the Democratic presidential nominee lied about his military record and betrayed his Vietnam comrades by protesting the war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42740-2004Aug5.html

The "problem" with McCain is that he is doesn't behave like your typical politician.He is prepared to go against his party when he thinks they have done wrong or more impressively,admit he doesn't know something or that he was wrong on a particular issue.

This gives his opponents-who are all knowing and never wrong- the ammunition to attack him.Often in politics,the best liars come out on top.

toshmann:

kobo and 4play,
thanx for explaining the McCain issue to Eziachi.

@kobo,
McCain was not a candidate in 2004 when kerry was contyesting. the republicans had bush as the unopposed candidate.
yet McCain spoke out against the attack on kerry.
see why i like the guy

oh, my bad, I thought it was 2004 that mccain tried for president. McCain did speak out but I think he shut up when that one dude started a campaign along with a couple others to say that the story that Kerry told was not true. If my memory serves me well, the group went across america presenting the story as they knew it and that was when I noticed McCain was not much in the debate anymore.

no bro, McCain was not on the ballot in 2004. yet he criticised the people who challenged kerry's record. great spirit.

hmmn did you hear what Obama said about small town pennsylvanians? that guy is not serious. anyway, the dems are down and out. and hillary decided to make an issue out of it.lol. democrats have lost it. anyway, i stand for the Mac

toshmann:

no bro, McCain was not on the ballot in 2004. yet he criticised the people who challenged kerry's record. great spirit.

hmmn did you hear what Obama said about small town pennsylvanians? that guy is not serious. anyway, the dems are down and out. and hillary decided to make an issue out of it.lol. democrats have lost it. anyway, i stand for the Mac

I believe what he said reveals him to be nothing but a dolt. How arrogant of him. I think he made back to back terrible mistakes this week that I believe people should be aware of. First was the crucifying of the delegate for calling "children playing in a tree" monkeys. That was just immature and irresponsible in my opinion and his sudden switch around when others disagreed just made it worse, in my opinion.

Kobojunkie,
  A wife can disagree  with her husbanbd not be held responsible, while a candidate can be held responsible for his pastor's utterances? So,  I will be held responsible for what my pastor say in his/her pulpit. Is it also possible to hold me reponsible for my Professor's marxist's  leaning even when I subscribe to free trade.?Your post infers that Hilary is more likely to be diagreable with her husband than Obama disagreeing with his pastor. It also implies that Obama is  more likely to listen to his pastor than his wife. I am  a Catholic who thinks that some of the teachings i imbibed during my Cathecism classes were/ are fallacy eg it will be much harder for non Catholics to go to heaven than Catholics.
  A wife can disagree with her husband not be held responsible, while a candidate can be held responsible for his pastor's utterances? So, I will be held responsible for what my pastor says in his/her pulpit. Is it also possible to hold me responsible for my Professor’s Marxist leaning even when I subscribe to capitalism? Your post infers that Hilary is more likely to be disagreeable with her husband than Obama disagreeing with his pastor. It also implies that Obama is more likely to listen to his pastor than his wife. Obama’s line of thinking cannot be divorced from Mr. Wright, while Mrs. Clinton (not Rodham) can articulate independent policies that are divorced from her husband’s. I   am a Catholic who thinks that some of the teachings I imbibed during my Catechism classes were/ are not true. For instance, it will be much harder for non Catholics to go to heaven than Catholics.  Obama is not an independent thinker, while Mrs. Clinton is an independent thinker who is brandishing herself as tested and experienced even when her so called experience is a derivative of Bill Clinton administration. Even though she touts herself as a tested candidate, she has been an elected public official for about 8yrs while Obama has been an elected public official for about 12 years. Now, while it’s not acceptable for Michele Obama to posit that she could be an effective leader for being married to Mr. Obama, Hillary talks about being a major foreign policy force in Clinton administration even when cabinet members like Ms Albright had more input in her husband’s administration. It’s only in this campaign that I hear someone saying, vote for me because I’m married to a former president.  Even the premise of her election in NYC was shaky, because Rudi Giuliani had cancer and did not run, in re-election, she almost went unopposed. This is her first major campaign and she is not doing well, because she bought into the media hype that she would be unbeatable.  Now, would I allow a “heart surgeon” to operate on me simply because her husband was   a notable Harvard trained surgeon or a pilot to fly an airplane because her spouse is a certified FAA pilot? No and what about you. If she distances her from Clinton as she claims, she should leave behind all the good accomplishments of Clinton administration because she cannot pick and choose when it favors her. If I cannot embellish my resume based on my husband’s accomplishments why do we let Hillary do so?  Hillary is not more experienced than Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) or Barbara Boxer (D-Ca), so her experience should reflect her accomplishments as Hillary not Billary. As per their income, I believe that they deserve every penny. Maybe we should also subject Chenney and Bush to the same scrunity.

Let me help you

A wife can disagree with her husbanbd not be held responsible, while a candidate can be held responsible for his pastor's utterances? So, I will be held responsible for what my pastor say in his/her pulpit. Is it also possible to hold me reponsible for my Professor's marxist's leaning even when I subscribe to free trade.?Your post infers that Hilary is more likely to be diagreable with her husband than Obama disagreeing with his pastor. It also implies that Obama is more likely to listen to his pastor than his wife. I am a Catholic who thinks that some of the teachings i imbibed during my Cathecism classes were/ are fallacy eg it will be much harder for non Catholics to go to heaven than Catholics.

Hillary and Bill's marriage is not now or has it ever been considered a religious marriage of any sort. There is a difference between a SPIRITUAL LEADER and a SPOUSE. Spouses can exist with different ideas and approaches to life and what not. Obama by making this man a SPIRITUAL leader actually declares he is more likely to listen to this man on SPIRITUAL issues which are deep issues than he is likely to listen to anyone else, even his wife on the same matters.

You say you are a Catholic, ok. We all know that the Pope is the leader of the catholic church and not all catholics actually agree with him in all things. However, if a Catholic came outright to declare the Pope his spiritual leader, more than people people will believe this means that this particular catholic believes exactly as the Pope does. You do not just go out and use the lable SPIRITUAL leader just cause. I have a pastor. I don't consider him my spiritual leader. I consider Jesus my spiritual leader and so that interpretes to mean that I believe everything Jesus says and believes.

I am sure Clinton has a pastor herself but she did not go out their to declare him her spiritual leader. Millions of americans do not do that cause they understand that doing that would mean that they would be hold to whatever that pastor says or does.

Now when you speak of her experience, She may have been elected as senator in NY cause of her connection to Bill Clinton but I am sure her accomplishments speak for her person and not for her link to her husband. I am not sure she would have been a SUCCESSFUL senator in NY if all she had to go with all that time was just her husbands name.

I am not to say I have Hillary or Obama all figured out but I do believe that the argument that being married to someone makes her slave to that persons desires is completely unfounded.

Does it mean that you can agree with your spiritual leader all the time? Does it also mean that your spiritual leader directs your life?  You are duty bound to  agree with some of  the views of your spiritual leader unless you are  a fool.  Hillary could  not have won   in NYC had her husband not being a president. She had no connection and experience in NYC and yet you think she has done a very good job ,  what now makes her think that she is repository of experience or that experience is exclusive to Clintons? My point is that it’s very easy to disagree with your pastor than your spouse. By your argument, what Mr Wright said were social, economic and political issues,so Obama is less inclined to agree with him on these issues.

AS per McCain, could someone tell me what is his health care policy? I like him on his steadfastness on some issues, like immigration, ethics and Iraq policy, but they also have their negatives. He thinks that market can correct itself even Bears Stein needed a massive govt bail out in order to stay afloat. He needs to differentiate himself from George Bush who thinks that once his mind is made up, he can't change it.

adconline:

Does it mean that you can agree with your spiritual leader all the time? Does it also mean that your spiritual leader directs your life? You are duty bound to agree with some of the views of your spiritual leader unless you are a fool. Hillary could not have won in NYC had her husband not being a president. She had no connection and experience in NYC and yet you think she has done a very good job , what now makes her think that she is repository of experience or that experience is exclusive to Clintons? My point is that it’s very easy to disagree with your pastor than your spouse.

AS per McCain, could someone tell me what is his health care policy? I like him on his steadfastness on some issues, like immigration, ethics and Iraq policy, but they also have their negatives. He thinks that market can correct itself even Bears Stein needed a massive govt bail out in order to stay afloat. He needs to differentiate himself from George Bush who thinks that once his mind is made up, he can't change it.

I am sorry to tell you but we all know that there are people who claim to have spiritual leaders that they die for and even kill for. If you want to tag them fools, feel free. That is why people, again, do not go around tagging others their spiritual leaders without accepting that whatever those leaders do, will be applied to them. That is why, if you have not noticed at all, the reporters do not go around asking individual catholics if they agree with the Pope on one issue or another but they usually accept that those who consider it fact that those who consider the pope their spiritual leader agree with him on over 95% of cases. And if the pope says something, it is usually about the catholic church as a whole and not just the pope. It is like muktada al sadars followers, he says they should pick up gun and fight, they will cause they consider him their spiritual leader.


As for mcCain, I am not sure if he has a Health plan in place but I definitely do not want

a) Universal healthcare cause I am already sick and tired of paying to feed and cloth LAZY americans who have come to consider working people their slaves
b) Do not want to be forced to pay for health plan at all as I want the option of being able to choose to have insurance or not

About the economy, I say again, it is americans like you and I that got us into this mess. Like the tech bubble, it is not in our favour for us to try to shift this problem to another sector and then watch that bubble burst some years from now AGAIN. I am for government helping ONLY need help. I am not for government helping the man who knowing that he has only been able to earn $19k per year decided it was wise for him to go buy a house. I say we allow these people LEARN their lesson so that they understand how stupid their decision was and how they have in essence caused a ripple effect that has hit people outside of america, by their stupid action. Infact, I vote for public flogging where possible, LMAO!!!

So you believe that Obama is a caliber of a person who would die for his so  called spiritual leader? This is a comparison of extremes. Your post infers that Obama's leaning will make him die for a cause his spiritual leader believes in. You are still of the of the opinion that Obama is not a man of his principles, that his pastor wields more influence in his life than any other person. I think u might be reading from a far- right mindset. America is less Liberal than Kennedys, and less  Right leaning than Rush Limbaugh.  George Bush was endorsed by Pat Robertson who said that gays and lesbians were responsible for Hurricanes. Robertson also likens feminism to women killing their  kids,  witchcraft ,leaving their husband and becoming lesbians.  He also endorsed Rudi Giuliani. Jerry Farewell also endorsed Bush even though he had blamed gays and lesbians for 9/11.

I sense your pride of accomplishment that people who do not have health insurance are lazy dumb ass even when people without health insurance coverage are most likely to be in red states than blue states. Also, status quo is not a  solution. Why is that America is the only country amongst developed nations that has the highest number of uninsured citizens even though it has the highest health budget amongst developed countries?   You may also think that you have  an insurance coverage until you have a critical health problem like the couple I saw on Oprah, working class family, suburban, but their daughter has cancer and their house was about to be foreclosed. Health insurance is not an issue, yet US manufacturing companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler are going under because of their health care obligations. When people without health insurance end up in  ER, the govt still picks up the tab, so  why not preventive care instead of curative care?

^{About the economy, I say again, it is americans like you and I that got us into this mess. Like the tech bubble, it is not in our favour for us to try to shift this problem to another sector and then watch that bubble burst some years from now AGAIN}  
Your grasp of the economy has to transcend  beyond Bill O'reilly and Rush  Limbaugh shows in order to understand what is really going  on or u are going to keep blaming  normal folks for messing up  your country.

Govt gave a bail out fund to Bear Stearns without getting anything in return unlike the British govt that took over Northern Rock Bank. The reason why there is a credit crunch is not that credit card holders are defaulting on payments, but because Wall Street was betting heavily on mortgage defaults in order to make money eg Goldman Sachs invested heavily on Sub-prime mortgage securities and betted also that people would not pay up. Just like giving out loans and praying that your borrowers would not pay up because you took a bet on their defaults.  Companies are afraid to do business and lend to one another since they don’t know how much some of these companies are involved in sub-prime. Also these practices are not covered under the law; they come as credit default swaps which act as insurance but   unregulated. Now, when that company went under, the government came to their rescue. Federal Reserve had to break a 1913 status in order to bail out Bear Stearns because the CEO of JP Morgan Chase is a board member of Federal Reserve Bank, New York.  This Spartan boy attitude “ I can handle it” does not hold water since guys who made mistakes are having lap dances and popping champagnes in  Vegas  Casinos and Emperors Vip  Clubs while  average  Joes and Britneys are gnashing their teeth.  If people lose their houses, surrounding  properties plummet in value, no city tax, not county and state taxes, decline in spending, everybody loses. So no action is not a solution. McCain must wake up to these realities.

adconline:

So you believe that Obama is a caliber of a person who would die for his so  called spiritual leader? This is a comparison of extremes. Your post infers that Obama's leaning will make him die for a cause his spiritual leader believes in. You are still of the of the opinion that Obama is not a man of his principles, that his pastor wields more influence in his life than any other person. I think u might be reading from a far- right mindset. America is less Liberal than Kennedys, and less  Right leaning than Rush Limbaugh.  George Bush was endorsed by Pat Robertson who said that gays and lesbians were responsible for Hurricanes. Robertson also likens feminism to women killing their  kids,  witchcraft ,leaving their husband and becoming lesbians.  He also endorsed Rudi Giuliani. Jerry Farewell also endorsed Bush even he had blamed gays and lesbians for 9/11.
 

I understand if you are an obama supporter  but from this point where I stand, I am for people accepting the consequence of their actions and in this case, no one but obama himself came out to say the man was his spiritual leader, not his pastor or reverend BUT spiritual leader. I would expect a Harvard educated lawyer would understand the magnitude of such a statement and so I judge him by his own words. I don't know if catholics would die for the pope so I do not understand what you mean when you say I believe Obama is a caliber of person who would die for his so called spiritual leader.
 
Pat Robertson is not Racist. He just may be termed a homophobe BUT if you look in the Bible, the scriptures do refer to people who practice such as abominations. You are trying to link issues without actually processing them first. The Christian Religion believes it is ok to consider Gays as sinners. Heck, even liars are sinners and so Pat Robertson  may have well said that Liars cause hurricanes and that is still acceptable. If you however decide in your own life that being gay is not sin but lying is sin, then that is your personal view and not everyone elses and so your word on what is sin is not final.
 
In the case of Wright, He was not saying anything religious in his talk. I mean no where in the Bible does God Damn America or White People. That is a completely different issue entirely. In your other post, you mentioned you were a catholic and I know that there are catholics out there who believe, according to their religion that those of us who are protestants will not make heaven. Do you know I have absolutely no issue with that ?? Why?? Cause I know it is part of their chosen religion to believe that. But if I met Catholics who believed BLACKS will never make heaven, now that would be an entirely different issue.

I sense your pride of accomplishment that people who do not have health insurance are lazy dumb ass even when people without health insurance coverage are most likely to be in red state than blue state. Also, status quo is not a  solution. Why is that America is the only country amongst developed nations that has the highest number of uninsured citizens even though it has the highest health budget amongst developed countries?   You may also think that you have  an insurance coverage until you have a critical health problem like the couple I saw on Oprah, working class family, suburban, but their daughter has cancer and their house was about to be foreclosed. Health insurance is not an issue, yet US manufacturing companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler are going under because of their health care obligations. When people without health insurance end up in  ER, the govt still picks up the tab, so  why not preventive care instead of curative care?

^{About the economy, I say again, it is americans like you and I that got us into this mess. Like the tech bubble, it is not in our favour for us to try to shift this problem to another sector and then watch that bubble burst some years from now AGAIN}  
Your grasp of the economy has to transcend  beyond Bill O'reilly and Rush  Limbaugh shows in order to understand what is really going  on or u are going to keep blaming  normal folks for messing up  your country.

First of all, you sense wrong. I just do not believe that I should contribute to paying for insurance for people who are lazy. If you knew half about me, you may have a better understanding of where I am coming from and why I can say such. From your statement above,  here are some problems I see
 
1) You assume that America should somehow have the same number of insured people as in other developed nations without considering that since this is a democracy, it should not be about what other nations are doing but what the american people vote for instead.
 
2) You also assume that the reason why companies like GM and form are going under because of their health care obligations is somehow cause not all americans are insured. Do you mind clarify on that please

3) Preventative care does not have to mean universal health insurance. Infact, on an individual level, people should knowing that they would need to foot the bill, be made to realize that they hold the key when it comes to 90% on their health care cost. I am for the people being more responsible than them having to depend on government. I have friends who currently live in countries where universal plans are in place and if they do explain that it comes at a price.
    a) significantly higher taxes -- the average american pays about 12% less taxes than people in those countries do.
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
    b) Healthcare is still not free
    c) And they are limited when it comes to where and who they have to go to to take advantage of these benefits
    d) Significantly longer lines at the doctors office as the focus is not on preventing issues but more on seeking cures for issues instead
     
   
I understand how you feel my grasp of the economy has to do with bill o'reilly whom,by the way, I have never really listened to speak on the economy(I have also never actually heard rush limbaugh speak on anything). I happen to be someone who lives in America and does not see the world as you do. If that is hard to believe, then I say you go out of your shell and actually interview people out there to understand what the average american thinks about issues you may have strong feelings of.
   

Govt gave a bail out fund to Bear Stearns without getting anything in return unlike the British govt that took over Northern Rock Bank. The reason why there is a credit crunch is not that credit card holders are defaulting payments, but because Wall Street was betting heavily on mortgage defaults in order to make money eg Goldman Sachs invested heavily on Sub-prime mortgage securities and betted also that people would not pay up. Just like giving out loans and praying that your borrowers would not pay up because you took a bet on their defaults.

   
    BEAR STERNS was bailed out. Sure but Bear Sterns actually is expected to pay back every dollar of that money with interest.

   
    Companies are afraid to do business and lend to one another since they don’t know how much some of these companies are involved in sub-prime. Also these practices are not covered under the law; they come as credit default swaps which act as insurance but   unregulated. Now, when that company went under, the government came to their rescue. Federal Reserve had to break a 1913 status in order to bail out Bear Stearns because the CEO of JP Morgan Chase is a board member of Federal Reserve Bank, New York.  This Spartan boy attitude “ I can handle it” does not hold water since guys who made mistakes are having lap dances and popping champagnes in  Vegas  Casinos and Emperors Vip  Club while  average  Joes and Britneys are gnashing their teeth.  If people lose their houses, surrounding  properties plummet in value, no city tax, not county and state taxes, decline in spending, everybody loses. So no action is not a solution. McCain must wake up to these realities.

   
   
I don't know about you  but I happen to believe strongly in individual responsibilty. I do not like that government offered to bail out Bear Sterns but I was working at JP Morgan Chase on a contract during the time when this happened and got a better some financial experts to explain what was really happening to me. I still do not like the bail out but I comfort myself in the fact that the money will be paid back to the american people. I believe people should be allowed to deal with the consequence of their actions. I have been through times myself where I have had to bear the burden of my own actions and from what I learned through those trials, I can tell you comfortably that McCain seems to be one who actually seems to be on the right track with this. The American economy is greatly controlled by the people. If these people do not understand what it means to make good decisions and what the consequence of bad decisions they make can be, then the world should buckle up and expect worse. I believe allowing people deal with and get a better understanding of what their day to day decisions when it comes to making financial decisions may potentially have on the economy of the world, then we can easily move from the way things have been in the past to better financial decisions from the ground up in the futture.

OK - lets have some perspective here - 109/7 = approx $15 million a year. Before how much do you expect a former US president to earn? I don't think the figures are excessive at all. After all, Tony Blair is getting £5m from JP Morgan alone.

I understand if you are an obama supporter  but from this point where I stand, I am for people accepting the consequence of their actions and in this case, no one but obama himself came out to say the man was his spiritual leader, not his pastor or reverend BUT spiritual leader. I would expect a Harvard educated lawyer would understand the magnitude of such a statement and so I judge him by his own words. I don't know if catholics would die for the pope so I do not understand what you mean when you say I believe Obama is a caliber of person who would die for his so called spiritual leader.

I don’t know where you get the  impression that Obama’s actions are tele-guided by Mr. Wright and he should be responsible for another man’s actions. The only way I can understand you   is that you are playing got cha with Obama?  Or I  thought that he was impeccable , now is the time  to pay for his pastor’s actions. You are judging him based on his spiritual leader’s utterances even though Obama is a politician and his pastor is a religious leader. Obama is not running on moral right issues, he has not said that his religious views would be paramount in his presidency.  You were of   the opinion that people who call someone their spiritual leader would go  to the extent of dying for that person. Pew research polls also showed that most people did not hold him accountable  and that he handled the case very well.


Pat Robertson is not Racist. He just may be termed a homophobe BUT if you look in the Bible, the scriptures do refer to people who practice such as abominations. You are trying to link issues without actually processing them first. The Christian Religion believes it is ok to consider Gays as sinners. Heck, even liars are sinners and so Pat Robertson  may have well said that Liars cause hurricanes and that is still acceptable. If you however decide in your own life that being gay is not sin but lying is sin, then that is your personal view and not everyone elses and so your word on what is sin is not final.

I wish that you would be more objective than sentimental. Let the standard you are holding Obama to be applied to other people.  In your view,   its OK for religious leaders to say disparaging things about a group of people so long as it’s not a race, how about his utterances against feminism?  Pat Robertson DID  NOT call gays and lesbians sinners, but he blamed them for hurricanes. Jerry Farwell blamed gays and lesbians for 9/11. Where is it  in your bible?  Im not  sure that Mr. Wright singled  out a particular race even though  I do not subscribe to his remarks

Universal healthcare cause I am already sick and tired of paying to feed and cloth LAZY americans who have come to consider working people their slaves.
Maybe I did not understand what you meant by this? What has universal healthcare got to do with, paying taxes, feeding and clothing LAZY American? I assumed that there might be a correlation in your argument.

First of all, you sense wrong. I just do not believe that I should contribute to paying for insurance for people who are lazy. If you knew half about me, you may have a better understanding of where I am coming from and why I can say such.


You have to really understand that most people who don’t have insurance are employed. Here are some numbers for you to put in perspective.  About 47million Americans  do not have  health insurance  which represent  about 16% of the population while  unemployment rate is 5% of the population  which represents about 15 million people. So  if all the  lazy dumb ass Americans  are uninsured what happened to about hard working 32 million Americans  who still don’t have coverage? Let’s maintain the status quo is no solution
 
1) You assume that America should somehow have the same number of insured people as in other developed nations without considering that since this is a democracy, it should not be about what other nations are doing but what the american people vote for instead.
 
Because there is no cost benefit for spending more and getting less. If my neighbor spends less on his business and gets more benefits and we are in the same line of business. I will be dammed if I did not follow his system.  America spends 16% GDP on health and yet those countries you talked about are ranked higher in Human Development Index. They have better quality of life and live longer. If I  had an option, do you want  to live longer and pay more taxes or live shorter and pay less taxes? I will choose the former. Besides, some of these countries are saving money by spending less on health with better results. When  did democracy turn into letting people go without health while it’s a crime to drive without auto insurance? If its about saing money, why does the govt have to pick up the tab when people with no insurance  go to emergency room?


You also assume that the reason why companies like GM and form are going under because of their health care obligations is somehow cause not all americans are insured. Do you mind clarify on that please .

Some people like you are saying that the  current system is working and American biggest companies are saying that our health care
obligations to our workers are sinking us into desolation

BEAR STERNS was bailed out. Sure but Bear Sterns actually is expected to pay back every dollar of that money with interest.


Could you tell me how Bear Stern would pay back? And  why its not a   double standard to ask someone to buckle up while a bail-out package   was handed out to  a corporation?

I don't know about you but I happen to believe strongly in individual responsibility.


   Where is personal responsibility on the part of Wall Street who got a bail out? Did you not see any favoritism in the manner that deal was handled? Federal Reserve had   not been lending investment bank until Bear Stern’s near collapse. Did you not see any conflict of interest that CEO of JP Morgan Chase is also a board member of NYC Federal Reserve and deliberated on a big bail out that would benefit his company? Where is personal responsibility that the same guys who got folks into these troubles decided to use taxpayer’s money to compensate for their mistakes?
Home owners did not cause these troubles, because most them were stirred into these sub primes by some fraudulent and unregulated practices.  Most of these  lenders  did not know much about ARM and acted like patients being told by their doctors to take a “better” form of treatment instead of the one   you wanted.  It’s like your lawyer telling you to present your case in a different way than what you would have wanted. The point is that the only way   most of these bets would work for companies that invested in them would be to reset the mortgage to go up instead of it  to go down.   How could  you explain the fact that your    auto loan financier took a gamble that your loan would go up so that you would be unable to pay and as a result, he would win bets on your  default. So  he is making money on bets because of  you default and you are still indebted heavily to him?   Home owner are willing to pay for their mistakes and Wall Street got compensation, where is the burden being shared?   Most home owner would not mind being transferred to a fixed rate mortgage. By the way home owners are tax paying citizens, so their  taxed money was also used to bail- out  a failing company which contributed t to heir misfortunes.

If these people do not understand what it means to make good decisions and what the consequence of bad decisions they make can be, then the world should buckle up and expect worse. I believe allowing people deal with and get a better understanding of what their day to day decisions when it comes to making financial decisions may potentially have on the economy of the world, then we can easily move from the way things have been in the past to better financial decisions from the ground up in the futture.

Better decision on the side of Wall Street who always tells the govt that   unregulated markets would be the antidote to economic crisis, yet beckons on the  same govt to  come to their aid whenever their economic experiment runs amuck. What may touch this economy severely  might be  the unregulated   credit default swaps estimated to worth about $45  trillion.

adconline:

I don’t know where you get the impression that Obama’s actions are tele-guided by Mr. Wright and he should be responsible for another man’s actions. The only way I can understand you is that you are playing got cha with Obama? Or I thought that he was impeccable , now is the time to pay for his pastor’s actions. You are judging him based on his spiritual leader’s utterances even though Obama is a politician and his pastor is a religious leader. Obama is not running on moral right issues, he has not said that his religious views would be paramount in his presidency. You were of the opinion that people who call someone their spiritual leader would go to the extent of dying for that person. Pew research polls also showed that most people did not hold him accountable and that he handled the case very well.

To be honest with you, I am sick and tired of arguing this with you. If you can not understand why some people, and even I reacted to the revelation of who this spiritual leader obama claims is and what he believes, then like I have told many before you, I can not help you. I have given you ample examples of what spiritual leader means and how claiming a person is your spiritual leader affects one. If you can not see it, then so be it. I am not here for polls, I am here for discussing what I see and know.

No one is asking him to run on moral rights nor is anything here suggesting he be perfect to run for presidency. This is an election in america and I don't see why scrutinizing him for his own claims and his associations is an issue. He claimed the man is his mentor, and so like everyone before him, he is held responsible and owes people an explanation when it comes to their own view of this relationship. He is running for president and so he or anyone else should not be suprised when people do not all buy the "I DID NOT KNOW" excuse. In the simplest way possible, " SHOW ME YOUR FRIEND AND I WILL TELL YOU WHO YOU ARE".

I wish that you would be more objective than sentimental. Let the standard you are holding Obama to be applied to other people. In your view, its OK for religious leaders to say disparaging things about a group of people so long as it’s not a race, how about his utterances against feminism? Pat Robertson DID NOT call gays and lesbians sinners, but he blamed them for hurricanes. Jerry Farwell blamed gays and lesbians for 9/11. Where is it in your bible? I'm not sure that Mr. Wright singled out a particular race even though I do not subscribe to his remarks

In my view, it is ok for an ima-m somewhere who is not running for office to speak whatever he wants about people. That is his headache and for his congregation to listen to. I say you pick up a Bible and read it some day. The Bible does go into detail about how the sins of people lead to so many wars and miserable times. From the beginning of the bible to the very end, you get the clear picture that whatever is sin leads to disaster so Pat saying gays caused hurricanes is actually not far from what is in the bible. If you are baffled, that is fine but if you want to stay true to the belief of the religion, you have to understand that is part of it. If you look into the history of Christianity over the past 2000 years alone, you will learn that there is that clear linking of sinners and their acts to disasters and miserable happenings. It is not new and so I see no reason why anyone should be baffled by such. But guess what

Racism on the other hand is not really what christianity is about. I mean if a muslim im-am had come up to say that jews should be killed, the situation would be different. Clearly Wright has racists issues that definitely can not be covered by his link to christianity in anyway. And I do think you should consider the fact that Obama himself has had to distance himself from this man and felt he had to make a speech, actually confirms that even he saw a problem with that relationship he had when it came to his public image. You may not want to see it but as one who tries to stay out on the partial line, you do not need glasses to understand that what he said was wrong and damaging.

Maybe I did not understand what you meant by this? What has universal healthcare got to do with, paying taxes, feeding and clothing LAZY American? I assumed that there might be a correlation in your argument.

Then you assumed wrong. I already pointed that out as clearly as I could.

You have to really understand that most people who don’t have insurance are employed. Here are some numbers for you to put in perspective. About 47million Americans do not have health insurance which represent about 16% of the population while unemployment rate is 5% of the population which represents about 15 million people. So if all the lazy dumb ass Americans are uninsured what happened to about hard working 32 million Americans who still don’t have coverage? Let’s maintain the status quo is no solution

Well, I am not for maintaining the status quo. I believe what we have now will work if we make it work. Trying to switch models is not the solution, instead I suggest improve on what we have right now. By the way, did it ever occur to you that being lazy does not necessarily mean one is unemployed?? I stand on the fact that I do not buy the Universal health care idea that is being shipped around. I am more more reforming what we have right now to make it more affordable for more people. simple!!! Debating this is not going to get you and I anywhere closer to change. I did not start pondering this idea 2 seconds ago, so it is not really up for debate at all.


1) You assume that America should somehow have the same number of insured people as in other developed nations without considering that since this is a democracy, it should not be about what other nations are doing but what the american people vote for instead.

Because there is no cost benefit for spending more and getting less. If my neighbor spends less on his business and gets more benefits and we are in the same line of business. I will be dammed if I did not follow his system. America spends 16% GDP on health and yet those countries you talked about are ranked higher in Human Development Index. They have better quality of life and live longer. If I had an option, do you want to live longer and pay more taxes or live shorter and pay less taxes? I will choose the former. Besides, some of these countries are saving money by spending less on health with better results. When did democracy turn into letting people go without health while it’s a crime to drive without auto insurance? If its about saing money, why does the govt have to pick up the tab when people with no insurance go to emergency room?

Could you tell me how Bear Stern would pay back? And why its not a double standard to ask someone to buckle up while a bail-out package was handed out to a corporation?

I suggest you pick up the phon tommorow. Call JPMorgan Chase and ask it how it intends to handle that.

Where is personal responsibility on the part of Wall Street who got a bail out? Did you not see any favoritism in the manner that deal was handled? Federal Reserve had not been lending investment bank until Bear Stern’s near collapse. Did you not see any conflict of interest that CEO of JP Morgan Chase is also a board member of NYC Federal Reserve and deliberated on a big bail out that would benefit his company? Where is personal responsibility that the same guys who got folks into these troubles decided to use taxpayer’s money to compensate for their mistakes?
Home owners did not cause these troubles, because most them were stirred into these sub primes by some fraudulent and unregulated practices. Most of these lenders did not know much about ARM and acted like patients being told by their doctors to take a “better” form of treatment instead of the one you wanted. It’s like your lawyer telling you to present your case in a different way than what you would have wanted. The point is that the only way most of these bets would work for companies that invested in them would be to reset the mortgage to go up instead of it to go down. How could you explain the fact that your auto loan financier took a gamble that your loan would go up so that you would be unable to pay and as a result, he would win bets on your default. So he is making money on bets because of you default and you are still indebted heavily to him? Home owner are willing to pay for their mistakes and Wall Street got compensation, where is the burden being shared? Most home owner would not mind being transferred to a fixed rate mortgage. By the way home owners are tax paying citizens, so their taxed money was also used to bail- out a failing company which contributed t to heir misfortunes.

I suggest you send your issues on this to the right people. I can not help you and I really do not want to spend more time going around in circles on this. I already stated my position. Like I said earlier, If I had my way, no one would be bailed out but it has already been done so I see no reason to continue fuming over it.

[quote]
Better decision on the side of Wall Street who always tells the govt that unregulated markets would be the antidote to economic crisis, yet beckons on the same govt to come to their aid whenever their economic experiment runs amuck. What may touch this economy severely might be the unregulated credit default swaps estimated to worth about $45 trillion.

I am for moving the decision making process into the hands of the people. I say we all sit back and enjoy the ride so that we learn from this what we need to.

[/quote]

Who is questioning the Bear Stearns bailout?That company had taken positions in credit default and interest-rate swaps worth about $10 trillion.The last thing you want at this moment is even more panic to spread through the banking sector.

Hillary's "elitist strategy" is just an old political move. The same was tagged on Kerry when he ran against Bush--------(remember comment on troops in Iraq). Eventually Kerry lost, Bush won.

This just proves how low the sniper-target presidential aspirant would pander to ignoring the fact that their family bears that stigma of lying to the American populace. In 1998, despite many attempts to fess up….Bill Clinton got on national T.V all poker-faced ---with the words "I never had sex with that woman", now Hillary following suit with all the fabrications.

4play,
If Bear Sterns was bailed out, why cant homeowners be helped as well? Do you mean that million of homes that are about to be foreclosed do not have wider implications like CDOs and credit default swaps held by Wall Street?

Kobo,
Summary of argument,
Mr Obama should be held responsible for Mr. Wright's remarks. Obama is a manifestation of Mr. Wright. Neither can you hold Mr Wright's wife nor his kids  responsible, but Obama  should be   held responsible. Your spiritual leader grooms and molds your character. Hillary cannot be held responsible for Bill Clinton's actions. This is how you want me to understand? Where is equality in your thought process as it pertains to this argument. Your lopsided view is very glaring.

Pat Robertson's assertions that gays and lesbians were responsible for hurricanes are in the bible, while Mr Wright's assertion that a nation that  uses inordinate power against other nations  is not in the bible.

Before lazy ass dumb Americans, now you can be employed, but still lazy. which one u dey. Numbers dont lie, but  you are entitled to your unbending convictions even when the facts are  made known to you.  Sometimes, we need to do our own thinking, besides what our political inclination spits out for us.

adconline:

4play,
If Bear Sterns was bailed out, why can't homeowners be helped as well? Do you mean that million of homes that are about to be foreclosed do not have wider implications like CDOs and credit default swaps held by Wall Street?

Kobo,
Summary of argument,
Mr Obama should be held responsible for Mr. Wright's remarks. Obama is a manifestation of Mr. Wright. Neither can you hold Mr Wright's wife nor his kids responsible, but Obama should be held responsible. Your spiritual leader grooms and molds your character. Hillary cannot be held responsible for Bill Clinton's actions. This is how you want me to understand? Where is equality in your thought process as it pertains to this argument. Your lopsided view is very glaring.

Pat Robertson's assertions that gays and lesbians were responsible for hurricanes are in the bible, while Mr Wright's assertion that a nation that uses inordinate power against other nations is not in the bible.

Before lazy ass dumb Americans, now you can be employed, but still lazy. which one u dey. Numbers don't lie, but you are entitled to your unbending convictions even when the facts are made known to you. Sometimes, we need to do our own thinking, besides what our political inclination spits out for us.

well, goodluck with your summary, hope it all works out for you ,

adconline:

4play,
If Bear Sterns was bailed out, why can't homeowners be helped as well? Do you mean that million of homes that are about to be foreclosed do not have wider implications like CDOs and credit default swaps held by Wall Street?

I don't think they do.Exposure to $10trillion worth of assets isn't the same as defaulting sub-prime mortgages which barely top $300bn.

We should stop looking at Wall Street as the "other",some oasis isolated from the rest of us.If Wall Street suffers,everybody in America will,from your equity trader to your Mexican immigrant on minimum wage.The class rhetoric doesn't help matters.

Besides,bailing out such homeowners is in some way bailing out many of their Wall Street lenders.The US is suffering partly because of Americans binging on credit instead of saving.Its not the duty of the Govt to come to the aid of people 'drunk on credit' unless not doing so-as in the collapse of a bank-will have a calamitous effect on the economy.