skyjumpsteve 0 #76 October 20, 2008 The response letter from the Russian Federation of the U.N. can nbe read here: http://www.un.int/russia/new/MainRoot/docs/press/201008eprel.htm If you click the "letter can be viewed here" link you can read McCain's fundraising letter. I guess this is a database snafu and somehow Vitaly Churkin's name got mixed up in their database....McCain really wasn't trying to break campaign financing laws....was he? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #77 October 20, 2008 >I guess this is a database snafu and somehow Vitaly Churkin's name got >mixed up in their database... Yep. Or they are just saving money and not vetting the databases they buy very well. I'm sure it happens in both campaigns. In neither case is it indicative that they are trying to break the law, or that they expect support from Russia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #78 October 20, 2008 QuoteQuote The guilt by association thing again. McCain fraternized with Keating and Liddy, both of them convicted felons. Now, what was that you were saying? He did more than just fraternize with Keating. Hey - not that there's anything wrong with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #79 October 20, 2008 QuoteMy point is Obama is a crook and he fraternizes with crooks. It should be game over for any consideration for the presidency. Why is that so hard for an educated person such as yourself to understand? G Gordon Liddy is a crook, he even admits it in his book. He is also a good friend of McCain as per McCain. So ya, about that...._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #80 October 20, 2008 Quote The response letter from the Russian Federation of the U.N. can nbe read here: http://www.un.int/russia/new/MainRoot/docs/press/201008eprel.htm If you click the "letter can be viewed here" link you can read McCain's fundraising letter. I guess this is a database snafu and somehow Vitaly Churkin's name got mixed up in their database....McCain really wasn't trying to break campaign financing laws....was he? It's only an accident if you get caught. Then you just lie about it after that despite the proof being out there. That's the McCain way of doing things in 2008._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #81 October 20, 2008 Quote Hmm. Odd that he spent 20 minutes on national TV listing his qualifications and the reasons he was a better choice than John McCain, then. _______________________________________________ Preceeding his 'announcement' with a series of facts, deductions, observations, and yes maybe opinions, even if it takes some time, is a lot different than say, joining the Candidate on stage, "stumping for him or her on the campaign trail", recording video or audio recommendations.. I think that when asked " Are you endorsing Sen. Obama"? , his reply was 'negative'.. as for steering voters that way??...... well maybe.. Although that could just be, the residual effect of the broadcast of a knowledgeable and respected leader,,, on many an undecided citizen...Not sure if it can be said that the Gen . had that intention... He was just One man talking about one vote, His..... and depending on just WHERE his vote is cast....it could be that it is an inconsequential vote anyway... within the greater context of the electoral college.... jmy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #82 October 20, 2008 >Preceeding his 'announcement' with a series of facts, deductions, >observations, and yes maybe opinions, even if it takes some time, is a lot >different than say, joining the Candidate on stage, "stumping for him or >her on the campaign trail", recording video or audio recommendations.. Well, he just did record a video recommendation. I agree that's not going as far as "stumping" for him. >Although that could just be, the residual effect of the broadcast of a >knowledgeable and respected leader,,, on many an undecided citizen...Not >sure if it can be said that the Gen . had that intention... He's a smart guy. If he had wanted to just vote for Obama without endorsing him, he would have just voted for Obama without endorsing him. >He was just One man talking about one vote, His..... and depending on >just WHERE his vote is cast....it could be that it is an inconsequential vote >anyway... Absolutely. And if Obama's campaign manager voted for McCain, it would be only one vote. But it would be far from inconsequential if he announced that he was doing that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #83 October 20, 2008 Quote If he had backed McCain then you'd be blaming him for the same thing. He was a 4-star general and secretary of state. You think Bush duped him? Quote well maybe i was harsh. But if he'd have backed McCain, i would NOT have blamed him... I felt all along that he was pressed against his own better judgement, to declare the threat of WMDs. Bush was duped himself... because he wanted to be duped... I won't give Bush the credit for fabricating the mis-information.. others behind the scenes can have that credit... but Powell was the man whose JOB description, demanded that HE present the final 'declaration', whether he agreed with it or not... Perhaps his dedication, and sense of loyalty to THE OFFICE,,, of president, and not necessarily the Man who was president , was exactly the result of his stature, AS a 4 star general... Would you not agree that most Career officers within ANY of our fine branches of the Military would do the exact same thing... Powell was truly between a rock and a hard place then...... he was Not in that predicament this past sunday morning.. I learned a while ago.. " you don't shoot the messenger, because you don't like the message"..jimmytavino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilot-one 0 #84 October 20, 2008 QuoteThe guilt by association thing again. McCain fraternized with Keating and Liddy, both of them convicted felons. Now, what was that you were saying? Hmmmm??? I don't remember saying anything about McCain. And I certainly NEVER said I support McCain. I went back and looked at my posts and didn't find anything there that suggested such. Remember what you learned when you were young when you ASSume things? Or maybe you never learned? Why can't you defend Obama without using McCain? I know why....it's because you can't. Simply put Obama IS a crook there is no defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #85 October 20, 2008 >Simply put Obama IS a crook there is no defense. Ah! I must have overlooked his convictions (and, of course, his indictments.) Perhaps you could help us all out and post them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilot-one 0 #86 October 20, 2008 It's too bad that he's never been convicted but the facts are there. How can you deny that? I don't mean to say he's a convict. I mean to say he is a crook as in crooked. You know what I mean Bill. He bends the truth and can't be trusted. What about the old man in Hawaii? His name escapes me at the moment but Obama had all references of this man deleted from the audio version of his book. The admitted communist that Obama went to for advice when he was young. You can say that was a long time ago but those are the years where people are shaped. I don't know but this is all too radical for me. I expect there to be some stability in the Presidency and with Obama there are just too many unknowns and loose ends. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #87 October 20, 2008 >It's too bad that he's never been convicted . . . Ah, so you can't point to any of them! Looks like it was a fact that he was never convicted. But surely you can post his arrest and indictment record. Even someone found innocent on a technicality has records of their indictment for the crime and their arrest. >I mean to say he is a crook as in crooked. If you mean he's a politician - yes, he is. Unfortunately, anyone running for any public office becomes one, by definition. If you mean he is unusually dishonest, there's no evidence of that. >I expect there to be some stability in the Presidency. Indeed. And an erratic older politician with ties to convicted felons - and who had a hand in the last economic collapse - is not the place you will find stability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #88 October 20, 2008 Quote Perhaps his dedication, and sense of loyalty to THE OFFICE,,, of president, and not necessarily the Man who was president , was exactly the result of his stature, AS a 4 star general... Would you not agree that most Career officers within ANY of our fine branches of the Military would do the exact same thing... Powell was truly between a rock and a hard place then...... he was Not in that predicament this past sunday morning.. I think you have a better handle on the situation than most; the ones who claim Bush knowingly lied about everything. However... no, i dont know any career flag officers who would intentionally distort the truth or just tell the President what he wants to hear. I also think more of Colin Powell than that. Powell used the information he had, just like Bush did, to make a decision. The rock and a hard place you speak of makes it seem as though he had to choose between the truth or telling the President what he wanted to hear. If he went with the latter, then forget him as an endorsement and especially as an advisor to any President. I don't think that's the case, though. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 173 #89 October 20, 2008 When I was a kid growing up in the 60's and 70's, a lot of folks molded my young pea brain. My grandpa didn't like colored people or 'Japs'. In our small world, someone from the Middle East was scary, all Vietnamese people were killers and Richard Nixon was the greatest thing since electricity. Homosexuals had serious problems and were going to hell and those Kent State kids shouldn't have been protesting if they didn't want shot. And you don't need college, just go down to the steel mill and get a job for life. Humans have this rare ability to think for themselves. Some use this ability wisely, others never. So as the people I respected most when I was young molded my views, as I grew and viewed the world with my own eyes I learned to see different sides of issues. I think Obama has a unique view on so many issues. He may turn out to be a horrible President, but I'm willing to take that chance as I see McCain as being in way over his head and choosing Palin sealed the deal for me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #90 October 20, 2008 Quote What about the old man in Hawaii? His name escapes me at the moment but Obama had all references of this man deleted from the audio version of his book. The admitted communist that Obama went to for advice when he was young. You can say that was a long time ago but those are the years where people are shaped. I talked to a lot of communists at Berkeley. Didn't make me a communist, nor does them being so make their advice worthless. We're not in the 50s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #91 October 20, 2008 Quote He bends the truth and can't be trusted. A politician??! Say it ain't so! Actually, to me he seems more honest than most. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #92 October 20, 2008 by being caught between a rock and a hard place.... I meant as the speechmaker... who MADE the strong statements, which explained the position which the administration ( Powell included) had chosen to follow...Of course if EVERYone involved was relying on the so-called " government intelligence" ( Now there's an OXYmoron for you ) ,, and even as outlandish as it sounded....IF they all,, or most of them thought it was true.....then they proceeded accordingly... HAD Powell known for a certainty that the Information was flawed, he DOES seem to me like the kind of man who would POINT that out to the boss....... and let the chips fall where they may... problem was....... the BAD ( or perhaps even fabricated) field reports, were accepted as true,,,, becouse the Admin... needed them to be "true"... Bush wanted S Hussein, from the moment he entered that Oval Office ....if for nothing else,, than to restore himself in the eyes of his Father.......too bad, he led us down a path to war..(a Damn expensive war.... in terms of Money Prestige, and most importantly LIVES.... on both sides of the battle front.) due to his own personal insecurities... but that's a whole Other thread... jmy a 3914 d 12122 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #93 October 20, 2008 Quote Quote The bipartisan Center for Responsive Politics finds Sen Obama to be 92.4% full disclosure w/r/t donations and campaign financing, whereas Sen McCain has only been 86.8% full disclosure. Wouldn't "full disclosure" be 100% and anything less be "XX% disclosure"? Good point. That's the way the data is reported. I probably should have put quotes around "full disclosure." What the term means by CFRP here. It refers to percent of individual donors whose FEC-collected donor information is fully disclosed (name, occupation, etc), loans, other sources of funds, and information released by campaigns on PACs, etc., i.e., 92.4% of information on individual donors to Sen Obama's campaign by individuals and PACs that have given directly to the campaign been fully disclosed information, 2.2% "incomplete," and 5.5% "No disclosure." 86.8% of Sen McCain's donors have been fully disclose, 3.1% "incomplete," and 10.1% "no disclosure." Only 71.6% of Rep Bob Barr's donors have been fully disclosed. Rep Barr is the lowest percentage of "full disclosure" of six candidates, and Sen Obama's has the highest "full disclosure" percentage. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 289 #94 October 20, 2008 QuoteHAD Powell known for a certainty that the Information was flawed, he DOES seem to me like the kind of man who would POINT that out to the boss....... and let the chips fall where they may... Look up Powell's record on My Lai. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #95 October 21, 2008 Quote The "disclosure" attribute is determined by the employer/occupation fields being filled out. If a donor fills in the employer/occupation fields, even if the information is bogus, it is counted as a 'disclosed' donation. In that regard, the "disclosure" figures from opensecrets tends to mislead. It is not the campaign that did not disclose the information, it is the donor. The data doesn't mislead; the data just is. How it is interpreted may be used to mislead. Do you have other data to counter what is presented or show differing trends? Quote Both candidate's FEC records show donations (as well as refunds/redesignations) all the way down to $1. McCain's FEC records show 10,928 refunds/redesignations. Obama's FEC records show 43,419 refund/redesignations. Working with those figures for sake of discussion, one explanation might be that Sen Obama's campaign is more rigorous in examing and refunding/redesignating individual donations, eh? Or there has been an increase in intrusive oversight? Or Sen Obama's donations are being scrutinized more closely? Another explanation might be the Sen McCain has more larger donations and Sen Obama more individual smaller donations. Or something else? CFRP data reports 193,636 individual donors for Sen Obama and 122,753 individual donors to Sen McCain. For Sen Obama the highest number of donations (71,263 came) from donations in the range $200-499 (i.e., bunch of smaller donations), whereas Sen McCain single largest donation range was $1000-2300 (30,948 individuals), (i.e., fewer larger donations). Sen Obama's campaign has also raised more money in absolute amount ($454M, through date of last report, 31 Aug 08). Sen McCain's campaign has raised $240M. First one needs to assess whether the 43,419 to 10,928 refund/redesignation ratio (3.97:1, or rounded to 4:1) is significant or just an artifact of the higher overall donors and higher amount of money raised. (This doesn't say anything about which meaning/interpretation is meaningful ... it's just to get an estimate if the difference is significant.) For a more robust analysis, one should also look at historical refund/redesignation rates -- is either Sen McCain's or Sen Obama's significantly different from the norm? (And why? Could it be better oversight? more intrusiver or assertive oversight?) What's the significance of the figures you've cited? Imo, it goes back to the primary data & asking questions. Quote Both campaigns have "XX" state donations - without further information traced from credit card numbers or other sources, it's difficult to determine if they are overseas or not. In Obama's case, there are entries that correspond to foreign cities - unless you are aware of a Bruxelles, Singapore or Copenhagen (for example) in the United States that I am not. Obama's FEC data shows 1345 donations from ZZ and YT state designations. McCain shows 270 using the same criteria. Overseas donations are not illegal; donations from non-US citizens, whether overseas or CONUS are illegal. Apparently having foreign nationals located in the US solicit or 'bundle' donations is also less than legal. Some are probably foreigners, some are probably US nationals abroad, and some are likely US servicemembers. Is it a 10:1:1 ratio or 1:100:10 ratio or 0.1:1000:100 ratio? Those FEC two-letter geographic designators don't indicate anything other than geographical location. It is a start, e.g., one is more likely to find a foreigner in Bruxelles, Singapore or Copenhagen than a US citizen; that doesn't preclude US citizens living abroad does it? deployed enlisted US service members, are. They have donated 6 times more to Sen Obama than Sen McCain. The numbers you cite above are a smaller ratio than that (4.98:1). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #96 October 21, 2008 You had me agreeing until about half way through. Discussing Powell's place in the Bush administration is one thing. Blaming the Iraq war on daddy issues goes down a completely different path. At least we agree on Powell being a decent man. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,611 #97 October 21, 2008 Quote Quote What about the old man in Hawaii? His name escapes me at the moment but Obama had all references of this man deleted from the audio version of his book. The admitted communist that Obama went to for advice when he was young. You can say that was a long time ago but those are the years where people are shaped. I talked to a lot of communists at Berkeley. Didn't make me a communist, nor does them being so make their advice worthless. We're not in the 50s. I joined "The Conservative Party" (Life member even) when I was a college freshman.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilot-one 0 #98 October 21, 2008 Quotendeed. And an erratic older politician with ties to convicted felons - and who had a hand in the last economic collapse - is not the place you will find stability. It amazes me that you people continue to reference McCain in the defense of Obama. When did I say McCain was stable? This is the problem with you Obama lovers. You know he's a loser so the only way you can defend him is by comparing him to a bigger loser. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 615 #99 October 21, 2008 so Powell gets a pass on the bad intel but Bush doesn't? interesting the way some people see all of this information in supporting their own beliefs in the candidate they prefer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #100 October 21, 2008 QuoteQuotendeed. And an erratic older politician with ties to convicted felons - and who had a hand in the last economic collapse - is not the place you will find stability. It amazes me that you people continue to reference McCain in the defense of Obama. When did I say McCain was stable? This is the problem with you Obama lovers. You know he's a loser so the only way you can defend him is by comparing him to a bigger loser. Sorry - are there any viable candidates, other than McCain, against whom Obama is running? Yes, I understand your point: qualifications should be viewed as a stand-alone, not as a relative value. Yet the simple fact is that Obama is running against McCain, so comparing their relative attributes is a perfectly reasonable method of analysis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites