Hey, I like the one who thinks she saw a human footprint inside a fossilized dinosaur footprint; therefore, humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together just 6,000 years ago.

LSD can't equal that.

obama has done NOTHING EXCEPT TAKE MONEY FROM FANNIE AND FREDDIE LOBBYISTS. HIRED THE PAST LEADER OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT TOOK A 90 MILLION DOLLAR GOLDEN PARACHUTE WHEN HE LEFT FANNIE OR FREDDIE. MCCAIN IS ATTACKED FOR TRYING TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP..OBAMA SITS ON HIS HANDS
this sint change,, its the fox watching the hen house.

My wife works for a big oil company. If she gives money to a political candidate, would you believe some lyin' sob who claimed the oil company made that contribution?

Apparently the answer is yes.

Here's a clue, my wife decides to whom to donate money, not the oil company.

"obama has done NOTHING EXCEPT TAKE MONEY FROM FANNIE AND FREDDIE LOBBYISTS"

Actually Obama has done far more than senator McCain. A leader should evaluate options. McCain just wanted to interject himself... and got a failed vote to add to his resume.

If your talking about Franklin Raines... he was never hired by the campaign so get your facts straight before you go on a caps lock tirade.

If Obama hadn't represented ACORN in suits filed against banks unwilling to take on risky loans, I would say Obama. However, with a track record like that all I can see is more of the same, only worse.

Maybe you should read the lawsuit. Do you think a bank should be allowed to deny a loan because the applicant is a minority? If a bank does that to a minority, do you think he deserves a day in court with a decent attorney?

It's either yes or no.

Anyway, doesn't matter, that's not a blazing meteorite you see crashing to earth, it's a burning McBush

Peter, whatever your personal political bias may be, this is not a political forum. However, as in some of your past posts - you opened the door, so I am entitled also.

In the case of the current situation - it is the work of both parties, specifically those that sit on the House and Senate Finance and Banking Committees. Since they are responsible for oversight of all stated, plus Fannie and Freddie (F"o"nie & Fraudie), if you like, and take testimony from the Fed, they alone are responsible.
The President is not allowed to meddle with the Fed. I do not exonerate the Bush administration, but they really do not control these areas. The Presidentail candidates are just that, Candidates, and when one takes office this matter will have advanced to a different stage.

While I am going to remain non-partisan I would like to call to your attention one of your earlier posts. One in which you claim direct involvement with the creation of the 1990's RTC. Since I also have direct involvement in the form of a buyer during that period I can tell you - and all - that your effort created something corrupt. I would vehemently oppose any proposal to create any new agency that even looks like it. The so-called "contractors" doing the selling for the government were comprised of many of the same people who created the situation. This is not about politics - it is about corruption and greed, and until these elements are controlled it is woe to the taxpayer.
Hooray for those that bombarded their Congressperson - it is said that the call ratio approached 500 to 1 all saying NAY.
On election day I hope this reflects as DOOM for those that ignored the will of people to pursue self-serving interests.
We, the taxpayers, are tired of those trying to make our Democracy into a Socialistic Plutocracy.
I give them the old "laugh in" award - the "fickle finger of fate"
"

Doom? I doubt it. The congress has been bombarded with angry emails many many times. Cooler heads will prevail - on Thursday.

The RTC worked just fine.

Socialism, as should be defined in our modern(?) society, is simply the act of helping all members of that society, whenever they need a helping hand.

How much "need" must there be, before the hand is extended? How much "need" should be offered and in what form?

These issues are the ones that we should be concerned with, in coming up with solutions. Should we rather be concerned with judging whether ANY help is to be offered?

Just how far should we take that philosophical question? How about we exclude ALL manner of help? If you fall ill, then die. If hungry, die. If insolvent, die in debtors prison (oh yes, we will need to build them - jobs!)

People speak of Socialism in the vain of how we have been programmed to think about it - from the days of the Cold War. Such knee-jerk mentality is one reason for all of our present predicaments.

When a caravan of homesteaders heading West in covered wagons stopped in the Great Plains to dig a waterhole, they did so together. The water they procured was shared by all.

Not everyone helped to dig that well. The elderly couple got a free pass, as did the widow, the old Civil War Vet with a hand missing and the men that stood guard duty.

That was socialism. Think of it as *American Socialism* if you need to, but if you just can't stand to utter the word Socialism, then you need to re-think how you think.

Mr. Cohens calling Mr. McCain a "gambler" is funny. He was tring to get someting done while obama sat on his hands and did nothing. The only one that is doing NOThinG is more likely not to be criticised by this iberal writer than McCain that is in there trying.