RE: McCain gives up on Michigan

RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 1:38:17 PM)
~FR~ Notice how everyone ran from the economic plans noted above that are the REASON McCain tanked in Michigan? Damn facts.

bipolarber -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 5:05:05 PM)
MM, Why comment on the obvious? Times have changed, and Detroit is still cranking out gas guzzlers. If they can't keep up with demands of the market, then they deserve to be last place in sales. Try this experiment: Go to a GMC dealership, and announce, "I think I'm in the market for an SUV!" Trust me, you will see an incredible number of poor slob salesmen decend upon you, willing to take you to lunch, give you a cruise to the Bahamas, and even let you fuck their girlfriends, if you'll just buy one of those fucking worthless gashogs. They litter their lots. They are not moving... and most of the folks offering hybrids have waiting lists months long. Yet, still, the American "big 4" don't get it. They are slow to offer what's needed. Remember when America stood for innovation? For finding answers to social problems via industrial capacity? Yeah, me neither... a little before my time.

Lorr47 -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 5:34:34 PM)
Lately, Michigan has placed first in every bad category from unemployment to business closings. Although I am not for McCain, the electorate seemingly found McCain the easiest to beat up on. It is almost like they wanted to throw someone out of the State and McCain walked up, making statements such as, "The economy is in great shape." "Your sons and daughters will be in Iraq for our lifetimes, I promise." The electorate picked him up by the belt and threw him into Indiana. However, I think McCain is fortunate. Some politician is going to be stoned to death up here. I know evangelicals advocating violence. Maybe the feds will throw the State out of the Union and we can apply for foreign aid.

cloudboy -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 5:38:34 PM)
You are looking more and more like a turtle on its back.

Owner59 -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 5:57:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: TNstepsout the "fundamentals" are sound???? Do you even know what the rest of that sentence was? It was the "don't panic" message I would expect from an actual leader in a time of crisis. "Our economy, I think, is still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times.'' Hard work. Innovation. Individual entrepreneurship. Those seem pretty fundamental to me. sure.... After McCain explained and refined his definition of "fundamentals",.....that being the work force,he then claims Obama was also speaking about the work force too and transposes his weird definition of fundamentals to mean that Obama was insulting the American work force. Totally ridiculous and silly,just on the face of it. If the guy would be honest about his mis-speaks,he`d get some respect. Like with the insult to the leader of our ally,Spain.He should have just admitted he was confused about the guy`s name.Now he`s got to give a silly smile when the subject is brought up.Not very presidential. I get the feeling that Obama is running the above board-high road campaign that McCain only wishes he was running. After all that talk about running a dignified campaign,he hired the guys that swiftboated him 8 years ago on to his own campaign. For me,that was the beginning of the end.

BitaTruble -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 7:23:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic When we consider that McCain is on public funding for his campaign, while Obam lied on that issue, perhaps we get an idea of the future fiscal policy. McCain understands financial discipline, while Obama just brings in more money. I wonder where he might find more money than he first thought he'd need as President... McCain understands financial discipline? The guy who wasn't sure how many houses he owns? Are you thinking of the same guy that I'm thinking of who wants to continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq .. indefinitely? The same guy involved in the Keating 5 scandel? The same guy who promised to name names and make famous the porkers then signed a huge bailout plan which includes so much pork that your cholesterol will double just be reading the legislative text? The same guy who said he doesn't know much about the economy? The same guy who wants to tax employer paid health care benefits? The same guy who thinks a tax credit is going to somehow make up for the expenditures involved in the average working class schmo getting his benefits taxed? The same guy whose whole career has been about less regulation so that we get into messes like this in the first place and now turns around and calls for the exact opposite of what his 'maverick' self has been doing for the past 20 odd years in congress? The same guy who spends money on hack, bullshit ads disparaging his opponents rather than talk about what he'll do as President? This is someone who understands financial discipline? Okay, I'll bite. From where does this mavericks understanding of financial discipline stem? What evidence supports that he has clue one regarding financial discipline? Something more concrete than 'talk' would be nice. I read the book he wrote after Keating, so I'm well aware of his stance on campaign finance reform. He was part of the problem so slapped a big red S on his chest and became the 'maverick' but campaign finance reform is not the same as an understanding of financial discipline. As a former small business owner who was in the business of financial discipline, I'd put my understanding up against McCain's any day of the week. Links, books, interviews, voting records .. I'm good with anything you'd care to share that points to McCain having any understanding whatsoever regarding financial discipline other than a 'just say no' to everything that costs money policy rather than a true, comprehensive understanding of finances and necessary spending.

NumberSix -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 8:01:06 PM)
Looking from the outside and not having any inside information, only what is generally in view of all, I would think that 159,000 jobs lost this month, lacking personal campaign funding, putting one of the houses on the market (and not selling that 13 bedroom 6+ car garage and ungodly fireplaces), and the general perception that McCain is identified (rightly or wrongly for those who care to continue the pastiche) strongly with the Bush administrations policies.... I would say that he (and his staffers) said look, this is a state in which we will have to spend and spend, from our limited funds, whilst Obama has better funding, and with the job news hits, we gotta work on the bigger numbers, like---- sorta thing. I could be wrong, but I don't see a conspiracy, just cold cruel hard facts. 6

BitaTruble -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 8:14:50 PM)
I hear ya, Ron. I went into our local SuperAmerica today to buy a couple of bottles of water but I didn't have enough change for anything but a donut so I bought that instead. Rather than prove I have financial discipline, it rather proves the opposite. I just went and wasted money on something I didn't need rather than save it and perhaps have enough for later and hopefully get my water tomorrow. All that $ spent in Michigan only to turn around and have premature withdrawal. It's just so damn ... unsatisfying. (Palin doesn't seem to be impressed with early withdrawal either.) Seems to me that financial discipline would include just a bit of foresight on what's viable .. and what's not. It's all good though. With that sort of financial understanding the residents of MI will just turn blue in the face which is good for Obama. Rock on with your bad self, John.

NumberSix -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 8:22:24 PM)
No man (it tells us in the bible) begins building the foundation of the house without considering the cost, else he may not finish it and become the laughingstock of his neighbors.... Isaiah VI

BitaTruble -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 8:26:47 PM)
Just so .. although, I must say, I'm more a Tao of Pooh kinda girlie. [;)]

rulemylife -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 8:56:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: TNstepsout the "fundamentals" are sound???? Do you even know what the rest of that sentence was? It was the "don't panic" message I would expect from an actual leader in a time of crisis. "Our economy, I think, is still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times.'' Hard work. Innovation. Individual entrepreneurship. Those seem pretty fundamental to me. BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was the spin put on after his campaign finally realized the economy had tanked. We both know, as does anyone with half a brain, that wasn't his original meaning. Should I provide context? Because he made that statement numerous times over the past year when it was very clear he believed Bush's policies had us in a strong economic position.

TheHeretic -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 9:40:23 PM)
I was out playing a bit of poker* with friends, this evening, Bita. Texas Hold 'em. Sometimes you bet a possible hand, until it isn't there anymore, then cut your losses, and fold. If you are unwilling to try, a pair of sixes will never turn into Aces full of them (and that was a very nice pot, btw). *A friendly game of poker in a private residence is quite legal in CA, as long as the house isn't taking a piece.

BitaTruble -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/4/2008 9:53:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I was out playing a bit of poker* with friends, this evening, Bita. Texas Hold 'em. Sometimes you bet a possible hand, until it isn't there anymore, then cut your losses, and fold. If you are unwilling to try, a pair of sixes will never turn into Aces full of them (and that was a very nice pot, btw). *A friendly game of poker in a private residence is quite legal in CA, as long as the house isn't taking a piece. If you wait until you have a winning hand, you'll never win long term in poker. You have to be able to win with 7/2 off. That, however, is not financial discipline .. that's playing odds and/or being good at the bluff. Two different animals there. Rather silly to get into a game when you don't have the money to play to the end, don't ya think? We're not talking cash games here, Rich.. we're talking tournament. This things a marathon, at least in my view. You play till you're out of chips. Getting up and walking away is only, ever, going to mean you've lost. McCain entered a tournament he couldn't finish so wasted his buy-in. Using your poker analogy, that's the only read I can make on this particular play.

bipolarber -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/5/2008 6:56:12 AM)
You've got to know when to hold 'em... Know when to fold 'em... Know when to walk away... and know when to run... You never count your money, When sitting at the table... There'll be time enough for countin' When the dealin's done.... LOL...

DarkSteven -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/5/2008 7:51:12 AM)
I doubt that McCain had much chance in Michigan anyway. It tends to be liberal, and its economy has been going downhill for the Bush presidency. It's unfair to blame Bush for it, but it will happen. And of course Obama's campaign has been mobilizing blacks and should swamp McCain in Detroit as a result. That said, it's been a horrible two or three weeks for McCain. The boost that Palin gave him seems to be wearing off. The first debate showed Obama as not being out of his depth on McCain's strengths. And McCain damaged himself with his erratic handling of the bailout package, as well as losing earmarks as a major talking point.

bipolarber -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/5/2008 8:31:16 AM)
Yup. Like I said... he didn't want those Michigan votes anyway... they're too sour... er, liberal.

Termyn8or -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/5/2008 10:20:26 AM)
The poker analogy isn't bad, but let's use real poker. Holdem is not really poker as far as I am concerned, and neither are games with too many wildcards. Seven card stud qualifies, but in my book, just barely. The best way to describe holdem is a bastardised version of nine card stud but the up cards are common. At least in seven card stud, if you are playing with six or seven people, by the time you get to the end of the hand you can see maybe thirty of the cards in the deck. Not so with holdem. So let's take it from straight poker, Jacks or better, nothing wild. You get your hand, you bet. You draw, then you bet or fold. In some cases you fold right away, in which case you only lose your ante. Most people go for the draw, even if they take four cards, I generally do not, and I win. If I have to draw four cards I know the odds are about the same as the first time around, well not quite as good. Another good trick is to not open when you can, but only do this if you are among the first in turn and there are more than three players. Most people understand poker like they understand cars - you put the key in here and turn it, this lever makes it go frontwards and backwards and that pedal makes it go and the other makes it stop. They know nothing of the real workings of the thing. Now take a poor boy, and we were when I was young, but did get a few breaks, I had a car. When it broke down I opened the hood, a rich boy would just call a garage alot of times. People who come to the poker table who would raise ad infinitum to basically buy the pot are not testing their skill. For the game to be fair, stakes must be within a certain range. When you have five guys and one has ten times the money the rest have, this can happen. It is this disparity that gives the small investor a huge disadvantage in life. A large investor can dump alot of a certain stock, and by the time the peons catch up selling, at deflated prices I might add, the big money players have already made their's. That's why if I ever decided to play the stock market I would mainly short stocks, I would look for weaknesses, possible follies in the future. However now they have a bunch more regulations concerning that practice, so screw that too, I want no part of it. Now back to McCain basically folding in Michigan. It could be said that he should have not bet so much, or that he waited too long to fold. I am also not so pleased with the fact that Obama partly gets by because of his voice and skill at using it. I have heard some very good things, and I have heard some crap. I only want Obama in because he wants out of Iraq and that his ol boy network is a different one than has been running the show for too long now. With a new Atty Gen and some new faces in the GAO and such, they might find out where some of this money went. So you are voting for : A. Change possible, not guaranteed or B. Change impossible, guaranteed. T

Vendaval -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/5/2008 4:38:25 PM)
Yes, but taking a piece of what exactly? [:-] quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic *A friendly game of poker in a private residence is quite legal in CA, as long as the house isn't taking a piece.

TheHeretic -> RE: McCain gives up on Michigan (10/5/2008 4:49:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Yes, but taking a piece of what exactly? [:-] quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic *A friendly game of poker in a private residence is quite legal in CA, as long as the house isn't taking a piece. It wasn't that kind of poker, Ven. Love the way you are thinking, though. [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875