We do. Just like we recognize many of the "Obama is secretly a Muslim" threads and the "Obama is a socialist" threads and the "Barrack Hussein Obama is scary" threads and the the "if you are a true American you will vote for McCain" threads. We know what it is all about.

 

Very fair response. And people should ignore those posts also. There have been posters from both parties that have REALLY disappointed me over the last couple of months. Credibility is not just something involving the candidates to be concerned about but posters on here as well if the undecided are forming their opinions on information generated on here. Honestly, I no longer accept posts by certain posters (on both sides) as having a kernal of truth or fact behind them. Sad. Very sad, particularly when you think about the extreme importance of this election. As I've mentioned, while all presidential elections are important, given what this country is faced with domestically and globally at this time in our history, I would think most Americans would want voting decisions to be based on accurate information, not lies and misinformation. Particularly when both tickets are so far apart on their past voting records and actions that its not necessary to distort their positions and backgrounds. Then again, I am in some in some people's opinion politically naive.

What.....Obama is a Muslim ???????? That's it, I'm voting for McOld Guy.

Your ridiculous spin might work on uninformed voters willing to vote for nothing more than a “promise” of change… or those so blinded by their ideologies they don’t care about balance. It will not work on those who are aware of what’s going on and the unbalanced treatment candidates on both sides are getting from the media.

 

Obama appears on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, makes an apparent verbal miscue stating “my Muslim faith” and Steffy corrects him to say "my Christian faith." Not another word is said... no problem… from my perspective, this has nothing to do with whether O is really Muslim, Rastafarian or Pagan or anything else. It has everything to do with his integrity to simply shoot straight with us instead of continually packaging and repackaging himself into something more marketable… while simultaneously slamming McCain and Palin for supposedly doing the same thing. The fact that the media seems so willing to carry the water for Obama is particularly disconcerting to me.

Your ridiculous spin might work on uninformed voters willing to vote for nothing more than a “promise” of change… or those so blinded by their ideologies they don’t care about balance. It will not work on those who are aware of what’s going on and the unbalanced treatment candidates on both sides are getting from the media.

 

Obama appears on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, makes an apparent verbal miscue stating “my Muslim faith” and Steffy corrects him to say "my Christian faith." Not another word is said... no problem… from my perspective, this has nothing to do with whether O is really Muslim, Rastafarian or Pagan or anything else. It has everything to do with his integrity to simply shoot straight with us instead of continually packaging and repackaging himself into something more marketable… while simultaneously slamming McCain and Palin for supposedly doing the same thing. The fact that the media seems so willing to carry the water for Obama is particularly disconcerting to me.

 

If you watched the interview, as I did, it wasn't even a misstatement or a verbal miscue except when taken out of context. He was talking about when people talk about his Muslim faith, meaning other people talking about it. The only miscue was that it gave the right wing blogosphere a chance to selectivly edit and take partial statements and turn them into something. Stephanopolis correctly recognized the potential and acted to clarify the meaning of what had just been said, as he should have.

If you watched the interview, as I did, it wasn't even a misstatement or a verbal miscue except when taken out of context. He was talking about when people talk about his Muslim faith, meaning other people talking about it. The only miscue was that it gave the right wing blogosphere a chance to selectivly edit and take partial statements and turn them into something. Stephanopolis correctly recognized the potential and acted to clarify the meaning of what had just been said, as he should have.

 

No way Stephanopolis should have acted to clarify the statement! However, he should have asked a question so that Obama could clarify it himself.

What.....Obama is a Muslim ???????? That's it, I'm voting for McOld Guy.

 

Am I being too sensitive if I complain that the "McOld" insult is wearing thin? I do not consider myself old although I have passed the 1/2 century mark but I can modestly say that I have gained considerable wisdom as the years have gone by. Granted, I didn't start with much, but it proves my point.

 

I think age, religion, sex, and race are issues that can be discussed and actually, in some cases, be helpful in selecting a candidate. I do not feel that either should be disrespected.

If you watched the interview, as I did, it wasn't even a misstatement or a verbal miscue except when taken out of context. He was talking about when people talk about his Muslim faith, meaning other people talking about it. The only miscue was that it gave the right wing blogosphere a chance to selectivly edit and take partial statements and turn them into something. Stephanopolis correctly recognized the potential and acted to clarify the meaning of what had just been said, as he should have.

Before you lump me in with all the blogosphere extremists grasping at straws on both sides, I'd like to point out that this thread is the first time I’ve even mentioned Obama and Muslim in the same sentence… and that only in reference to what actually occurred on “This Week.”

 

I'm not arguing any of what you're saying with the exception that, yes I did see it, and yes I do believe it was a slip of the tongue... a verbal miscue. I have 'em all the time. Whether it indicates a simple brain fart of no substance, or a bigger attempt to conceal a significant secret is actually secondary to my main concern, and that is the media’s active assistance to a relatively untried freshman senator running for president just because he represents their particular worldview and interests. That, in and of itself is bad enough… but almost understandable to a point. The larger problem however, is the piranha-like ferocity with which the media has swarmed Sarah Palin in the span of one week, when Obama has essentially escaped similar scrutiny over the past 18 months.

 

I have nothing particularly against Obama on a personal level, I just happen to disagree with most of his stated agenda for America. This IMO is not a safe time in world history to put a man in office that will be doing on-the-job-training while trying to kiss the world’s butt for approval.

 

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time, and this glaring media agenda will ultimately backfire. A large enough percentage of the American people are still too smart to fall for it IMO.

I have no problem with Palin's comments. Fannie and Freddie are now costing the taxpayers of this country a great deal. Congress finally woke up from their slumber and nationalized the two; hopefully they'll do the right thing now and kill them forever, sell their assets and make sure the government never gets in the mortgage business again. Their massive lobby of Congress and the fact that their bonds were backed by the government are a couple reasons why other lenders got into the sub-prime loan market in the first place. Oh yes, those two have cost this country a great deal.

I take her literally word for word after the E Bay statement.

 

And I'm sure you hold the Dems to the same regard as well right.....

I'm not sure she intended her comments this way (and likewise you can not be sure she didn't), but the U.S. Govt guarantees the bonds issued by Freddie and Fanny (which they issue to have funds to purchase mortgaged secured promissory notes); thus her concerns are actually correct. The bigger Freddie and Fanny are, the greater exposure they burden the federal govt with (which means you and I, i.e. the taxpayers). Did YOU know that?

 

I don't think Diamond Dandy gets it!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/51940.html

 

" I think Freddie & Fanny have gotten too big and too expensive for the taxpayers" Does she know that they are owned by shareholders and not taxpayers?

 

After negotiations are complete they may be government owned but that is far from decided.

 

The government does not back Freddie and Fanny BUT many people believe the gov't will bail out Freddie and Fanny in terms of crisis. Therefore both Freddie and Fanny have credibility. Even though the gov't isn't legally responsible for them if the gov't came out and said they would not back Freddie and Fanny there would be a housing crisis. Because of this the government should and does care about Freddie and Fanny.

I know the government fully backs Ginnie Mae loans. I thought Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were not directly backed by the government.