Blogcritics Comments on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Comment by REMF on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:13:35 EDT

I agree...Gonz needs to stop "whinging"...

Comment by SonnyD on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:34:17 EDT

Dave: What's "whinging"? Doesn't anyone like my man eating alligator idea?

Comment by gonzo marx on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:50:57 EDT

see #40 nuff said? Excelsior?

Comment by Dave Nalle on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:09:41 EDT

Greed remains good, despite Gonzo's whinging. It's a fantastic motivating force, but it's not the only force driving people. It can be counterbalanced by guilt and by morality, but nothing else motivates like greed. Which is why it's good, because accomplishment and success are also good. Dave

Comment by troll on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:31:38 EDT

organizing economic activity based on the principle of maximizing return is as natural as wearing shoes

Comment by SonnyD on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 04:31:01 EDT

To Those Who Suggested Ways to Stop Illegals from Crossing the Border: I don't think a fence is ever going to work and the National Guard should never be given a permanent job of patrolling the border. There is another way to handle it and solve some other major problems at the same time. New Orleans is complaining that their levees are still not capable of withstanding a major hurricane. Florida is complaining because dry weather and many wildfires have caused alligators to wander into residential areas. Some have even attacked humans. Here's what you do. Dig a big ditch the length of the Mexican-US border and flood it with water. Take the dirt you dug out of the ditch and build up the levees in NO. Round up the rogue gators from Florida and put 'em in the ditch. Three problems solved. No sweat. Sorry guys, I just don't think anyone has come up with a really workable solution, yet. At least, not one that the present slugs in DC could manage to implement properly.

Comment by gonzo marx on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 03:27:24 EDT

well Clavos..where you draw the line is crucial, ain't it? and investing isn't something for nothing, you take risk and what you invest is something tanstaafl - "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" so you demonstrate the very human desire to receive compensation for work done...of course folks want to maximize their return...that IS natural, and helps us develop the ethic to work both hard and smarter it's the excessive and rapacious and harming others that crosses the line into the unEthical... into the greed but i digress.... Excelsior?

Comment by Clavos on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:30:10 EDT

Well, I dunno, gonzo, but I certainly don't mind getting something fer nuthin', and I surely do like accumulating dinero... And if I can accumulate without working fer it, that's OK, too. That's why I invest in securities. I draw the line at hurting or taking advantage of other folks, however.

Comment by gonzo marx on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:56:08 EDT

changing the definition of a word for personal purposes does not change the objective meaning inherent in said word i cited the dictionary for the word, in order to show why greed is bad...same as any other form of gluttony by your statement, then a 300 pound child is the epitome of your personal virtue it's the "by any means necessary" that's the dead give away...so it's ok to "get ahead" by robbing, killing, deceit and at the expense of others regardless of how much or how little one puts into that "getting" nice to observe some wearing their Freudian slip Excelsior?

Comment by Dave Nalle on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:46:13 EDT

i knew there was a reason why i'm not a christian and don't believe in the concept of sin. and i'd define greed somewhat more pragmatically. it's the desire to advance oneself as much as possible by whatever means necessary. seems healthy to me. part of the natural human condition. dave

Comment by gonzo marx on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:31:48 EDT

greed - excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions. this is why christian doctrine calls it one of the 7 deadly sins... note the word "excessive" or "rapacious"... we are not talking a healthy desire to earn value for work given folks...greed is excessive by very definition...wanting MORE than fair value in exchange....often the rapacious desire to get something for nothing...and still wanting more but there are indeed many gluttons who think "greed is good", as long as they are on the rapacious side of the equation but i digress... Excelsior?

Comment by Gordon Gekko on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:46:41 EDT

"Maybe greed is good" No maybes about it. Greed is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.

Comment by bliffle on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:19:23 EDT

Maybe greed is good, though judging by it's effects on it's adherents one would have good reason to question that, but is bribery good? And bribery, after all, is what McCain Feingold is all about.

Comment by REMF on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:12:33 EDT

"I just assumed that diatribes were all you have to offer based on what I've seen here." - Dave Nalle I disagree wholeheartedly, Nalle. Bliff offers far more to BC than you do. Ten times more, at least, without the overbearing, control-freak mentality. - MCH

Comment by Dave Nalle on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:56:41 EDT

You really ARE innocent of business sense. The idea, spending money just to mount a diatribe! I just assumed that diatribes were all you have to offer based on what I've seen here. But if the $100K is an investment in something profitable then more power to you. Greed is good. It makes the world go round. Dave

Comment by Alec on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:49:04 EDT

Blogcritics on McCain 071407 RE: McCain-Feingold ruined him for me. Hardly the 1st amendment judgment I want to see in a president. RE: McCain-Feingold tarnished him for me. But his unwavering support of amnesty for illegal immigrants (and personal attacks on anyone who opposed it) completely ruined him for me. This gets to the heart of the McCain dilemma. His stands on these issues displeased a lot of potential voters (and not just Republicans) and McCain seems unable to be persuasive, but comes across (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) as stubbornly combative. -handguy – RE: McCain-Feingold wasn't deliberately aimed at first-amendment rights. It was an attempt, however flawed, to reduce the poisonous effect of money on politics. Right wing opponents rarely bother to mention whether they think this is a serious issue or not. Good point. Some conservatives want to fall back on philosophy and theory without looking at what the Bush Administration and Republicans are actually doing. When political contributions from individuals began to decline dramatically, in part as a response to the immigration issue, the GOP simply told corporate contributors to make up the difference. The present regime has happily embraced lobbyists and corrupt fat cats who cheerfully exploit contributors and congressmen equally. The squeak about being in favor of free market, but instead offer government of the cronies, by the cronies, and for the cronies. RE: McCain's stand on immigration wasn't deliberately intended to ignore lawbreaking - it was an attempt, however flawed, to deal with the reality of the situation: illegal immigrants who are already here and who may have something positive to offer the US, given the chance. Another good point, and one which gets beyond demonizing pro-immigration folk as liberal boneheads and anti-immigration folk as racists. Part of the problem here is that a number of people have problems with the fact that the illegal immigrants already here willfully broke immigration laws, don't care that they broke immigration laws, and openly encourage their relatives, friends and compatriots to openly defy immigration laws. In addition, many pro-illegal immigration folk ignore or show disdain for the thousands of people, including many Latinos, who patiently apply and wait for the legal immigration system to work. The mayor of Los Angeles sided with illegals with these stirring words: "Aqui estamos y no nos vamos!" We're here and we're not going anywhere! Thus, any plan which gives an advantage to those already here, even out of a sense of practicality, violates a lot of people's sense of fairness. McCain has ignored this and so has been bashed for it. RJ – RE: Not true. We "right-wing" types do offer a solution: Build a fence along the entire border with Mexico, and then man it with the National Guard and an expanded border patrol, working alongside volunteer citizens. Once the influx of NEW illegals has gone from a flood to a trickle, you can then deal with the illegals already here. Now THAT is a real COMPREHENSIVE solution.--- Sorry, this is typical of a conservative viewpoint which tries to be tough, but only ends up being unrealistic and blind to reality and to how markets actually operate. Illegal immigrants will go under a fence, over a fence, and around a fence as long as employers can offer them jobs. And the right wing crowd seems genetically unable to enforce ANY current law which would punish employers who employ illegal immigrants (and note that no new legislation is needed, so the phony conservative argument about liberals wanting to enact reams of new laws is also rendered null and void). Also, the hard reality is that a lot of immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries simply want to come here to work or to look for work. They send billions of dollars home, buy and build property there, and often seek to return at a time of their own choosing. Immigrants are NOT interested in being shoehorned into guest worker jobs, not interested in having to return home when jobs end, not always interested in becoming citizens (or using welfare or other social services), and don't give a rat's ass about learning English unless it furthers their own purposes. They want to be able to work and to be left alone. The vast majority do abide by our country's laws. But otherwise all of the BS and hot air of Comprehensive immigration reform is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Conservatives pretend to be tough minded, but are little more than a bunch of dopes. Liberals pretend to care about the oppressed or drool over potential Democratic voters, but are also a bunch of dopes. Note also that the State Department cannot even process the increase in passport applications caused by the passage of stricter travel requirement rules, so I simply do not believe that the federal government will become magically efficient in looking for and dealing with immigration law violators after the passage of any supposedly "comprehensive" legislation. Just more smoke and mirrors. Here is a rule of markets. Capital is very mobile, moving to wherever it is advantageous to set up a business or to invest. Illegal immigrant labor is more mobile than citizen labor. Illegal immigrants come here because this is where the jobs are, and with much less bureaucracy and corruption than in Mexico and other Latin American countries. This is also the case with immigrants coming from Africa into Italy, Spain and other countries, and with people coming from Eastern Europe into more developed European countries. The rest is commentary.

Comment by bliffle on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:13:25 EDT

You must be daft, Dave. Why would I spend $100k to annoy someone when I can do it for free right here on BC? I'd use the opportunity to push a project favorable to my financial interests, of course. And I'd expect a leveraged payout from my investment, which I'd calculate to be about $1million based on past performance of politicians. Although some I've seen show ROIs of 1000:1, it oughta be easy to get 10:1. I don't want to be greedy....oh, wait a minute, I DO want to be greedy! You really ARE innocent of business sense. The idea, spending money just to mount a diatribe!

Comment by Les Slater on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:06:51 EDT

Dave, At least you get a photo with the pres. I sure that has some value. I bet there's a lot more. Les

Comment by Dave Nalle on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 05:34:40 EDT

I can't imagine what value you'd get out of a chat with Bush, Bliffle - except, perhaps to annoy him. dave

Comment by bliffle on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:05:23 EDT

For once Erroneous Baronius is close to a valid idea, namely, that bribery of public officials has too high a ROI for any good businessman to resist. Even I, though blessed with the morals of a saint, have succumbed to the temptation, at least in principle, to figure out how to get the most business advantage out of an investment of a mere $100k for an audience with the President, for such is the meager cost. If one knows how to do it, and I do.

Comment by Dave Nalle on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:26:25 EDT

Exactly, handy. What use is all this security mania if the result of all the PATRIOT ACTs and border fences and wiretaps is that at the end of it all we no longer ARE the country we were fighting to preserve? Dave

Comment by Baronius on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:02:02 EDT

Bliffle, I've got to tell you that I was reading your comments a little too quickly, and thought you were citing Santa Claus vs. Southern Pacific. That image brightened my day. Yes, corporate personhood is what's called a "legal fiction", but I think it's justified. My solution to campaign finance reform is federalism. Under the current system, a senator from Connecticut has more say over my school district than my school board members do. It makes sense for me to donate to a large organization that would support candidates across the country. But what if the power returned to state and local governments. There would be no need for big money in campaigns. It would be ineffective, and eventually dry up. But until that day, the best thing I can do for representitive democracy is to try to influence out-of-district elections.

Comment by handyguy on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:34:25 EDT

A. It's a ludicrously gigantic project and would waste resources that are sorely needed elsewhere. Politicians will pay it lip service but it will not be built. B. The extent of the damage and the threat posed by immigrants is hugely exaggerated [and the benefits ignored], and the rabid nativist [and fictional] description of it plays into people's fear/distrust of other races and cultures rather than being based on reality and on issues of genuine importance. C. The image of the US as an armed fortress, ready to shoot people crossing the border, or to imprison people for trying to find work, is repugnant to me and to many others, in this country and abroad.

Comment by RJ on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:14:38 EDT

RJ, your 'comprehensive solution': A. Will ever happen anyway; B. Is based on gratuitous, militarist, racist fearmongering; and C. Would make this country and the world far worse places than they are already. A - why not? B - how is it "racist" (or any of those other things you called it) for a nation to secure its own borders, and to enforce its own laws? C - how so?

Comment by bliffle on McCain Campaign Meltdown

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:33:55 EDT

Baronius is erroneous, again. It doesn't take a Constitutional amendment to change the modern system of bribery masquerading as 'free speech'. All such arguments are premised on an out-of-court ruling by the chief justice of SCOTUS that corporations have the same rights as persons. You can look it up: Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific. this is what is used to justify legalized bribery. But the Chief Justice's bald assertion, autocratically declared, has misled people. Corps are NOT the same as people. In fact, they are what is commonly (in legal circles) called 'juristic persons' that is, an artificial person which for narrowly prescribed purposes has some of the rights and obligations of a person. But not all, and for a prescribed period of time. And revocable. Nevertheless, fans of blatant bribery of elected officials cite the Santa Clara decision to support their thievery. Anybody can exercise their free speech anytime by buying time on TV and proclaiming "vote for Bill Jones" as often and as loud as they want. They don't have the right to buy bill jones influence with campaign contributions. If they want to support bill jones financially they can put their bucks into a blind trust (as long as it isn't administered by Bill Frist!) from whence jones can draw without in the least having to pay obedience to the donor. Even if the donor says "I put in a million bucks, you better do what I say!", the candidate can say "that million came from a million kindergarteners, one buck at a time".