Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

economic terrorism??? huh?

today, i heard huckabee interviewed and he coined the term "economic terrorism". did anyone else hear him and does anyone else have thoughts on this?

twj

Frequent Contributor
VictoriousMary
Posts: 48
Registered: ‎09-11-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

Dear Wandering,

 

I did not hear him but I do think that we allow the media to act as sort of terrorist.  They are an industry interested in entertainment and making money.  They are not necessarily interested in telling the truth.  Politicians at this point are interested in getting elected, not necessarily in revealing more than "promises" as a loosely defined term. 

 

I am not well equipped to debate on all of this but we have allowed the media to terror us on our economic state with the facts the decide to sensationalize.  They have been doing it for years.

 

It is the same with what they do to church groups - Jews and Catholics are prime targets for them.  But that being my life experience and opinion, I want to suggest a book that has helped me decide on how to vote.  I am not suggested any political party but it cleared my head and took me out of the commercials of politicians and allowed me to think of it in a different way.

 

You might enjoy Render Unto Caesar.  I think in came out in 2007.  It is on Catholics but it applies to anyone especially in its conclusions. 

Victorious Mary
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

I just have one question who are the "economic terrorists" supposed to be?  If there is "economic terrorism" there must be terrorists. 

 

As far as blaming journalists for everything bad in this world, get over it.  All they do is reflect what is going on in society.  If we don't like the miorror image coming back at us maybe we should think about changing society and quit crying how big and bad the journalists are.  Granted every cable channel has it's biases or leanings.  That's OUR collective fault.  We as consumers made the choice to get our news from people who think like ourselves, not the other way around.

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

If anyone truly want's to see what the "right" in this country thinks of Obama please look at the graphic at the top of the page when you follow the Huckabee link in the first post.

 

Showing Obama's picture with Asian troops, come on people.
 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

Showing Obama's picture with Asian troops, come on people.

 

I hadn't gone to the link.  I guess what they're suggesting is that Obama is going to turn the country into a socialist state like China.  But it does seem to be more of a stretch than makes sense.

 

OTOH, that's free speech for you!  :smileyhappy:

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

 

OTOH, that's free speech for you!  

 

Yes it is.  I was just pointing out again that the right is already going out of its way to weaken the incoming administration.  They can say.  And I can argue against it.

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?


fforgnayr wrote:

 

OTOH, that's free speech for you!

 

Yes it is. I was just pointing out again that the right is already going out of its way to weaken the incoming administration. They can say. And I can argue against it.


You know, I think it is time we all stopped the sniping. In actuality, President Bush is going out of his way to help this new President-elect. He is doing far more than was done for him to enable a smoother, quicker transition of administrations. It is time for a bit of humility, I think, and it is a time to give credit where credit is due. Arrogance serves no purpose. No one is all good or all bad.
The media has been biased in presenting information about our candidates. They continue in the same way today. Anyone who wants to, can deny it, there is no way to change minds. Yet, now that the election is over, even many of the mainstream and cable stations have started to infer that this is so and they are questioning the coverage of the candidates and the bias, especially in the entertainment world.
I have heard comments about Oprah's support of Obama. Now they are questioning whether or not, since she is the brand of her show, saying that she wasn't supporting any candidate on the air was plausible. When she went out campaigning, everyone recognized her. She and the show are one brand. She is no longer really a private citizen and they wondered whether or not she had an advantage and an ability to effect the vote, while pretending to remain neutral. Chevy chase admitted not only the bias of Saturday Night Live but also his own, in his interview with Larry King. Lou Dobbs wondered about whether or not the polls were accurate and whether or not they influenced the lower turnout of the Republicans. I could go on but none of this matters anymore. It is over. Admitting that things were unfair has no bearing on the future but it would be a start because it would give hope of fairer coverage the next time around.

Politics won't change unless we do. The voters need to become more educated. We need to demand fairness regardless of whether it benefits our candidate. We need to think about how we would feel if the tables were turned. Right is right, period, no pun intended, I mean correct not "to the right".

Many of the voters were unaware of the unintended consequences of their votes and many lacked the knowledge or experience to make an educated decision and many voted for the historic perspective and many voted because they loved what Obama could represent. This is our system. It is the greatest country and the system will work if we give it a chance.
We have a new president. I think we had all better root for this president, regardless of whether or not we voted for him, because quite truthfully, I think our survival and our country's depends on it. I know that I will pray for his health, safety and success everyday because I can't even imagine a world that could deal with his failure.

He won fair and square, like it or not, because even if there was some chicanery, he won by a pretty healthy margin. He is an historic figure, a wonderful speaker, an exceptionally intelligent man with an unusual ability to focus and he has inherited "the wind of disaster". Let's hope he will learn quickly, surround himself with wonderful advisors and let's help him carry this burden and perhaps lighten his load.
When President Bush won, the Democrats massed against him and demonized him and so did the media. For eight years it has been nothing if not negative reporting. The man couldn't win for losing. Let's all rise above that behavior and set a better example this time around. Anyone who wants to contend the fact that he was demonized is welcome to, but I think in this case the facts and history will back me up.
Let's go forward and try to work together to develop a better information system that is fair and unbiased so that the electorate has all the information it needs to make an intelligent decision and so our elections are an even better model to the world. Let's just say that Obama is the man that is perfect for our time and give him the benefit of the doubt and support him in his efforts. You know, united we stand, divided we fall, is really true.

twj

Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?


thewanderingjew wrote:

fforgnayr wrote:

 

OTOH, that's free speech for you!

 

Yes it is. I was just pointing out again that the right is already going out of its way to weaken the incoming administration. They can say. And I can argue against it.


You know, I think it is time we all stopped the sniping. In actuality, President Bush is going out of his way to help this new President-elect. He is doing far more than was done for him to enable a smoother, quicker transition of administrations. It is time for a bit of humility, I think, and it is a time to give credit where credit is due. Arrogance serves no purpose. No one is all good or all bad.
The media has been biased in presenting information about our candidates. They continue in the same way today. Anyone who wants to, can deny it, there is no way to change minds. Yet, now that the election is over, even many of the mainstream and cable stations have started to infer that this is so and they are questioning the coverage of the candidates and the bias, especially in the entertainment world.
I have heard comments about Oprah's support of Obama. Now they are questioning whether or not, since she is the brand of her show, saying that she wasn't supporting any candidate on the air was plausible. When she went out campaigning, everyone recognized her. She and the show are one brand. She is no longer really a private citizen and they wondered whether or not she had an advantage and an ability to effect the vote, while pretending to remain neutral. Chevy chase admitted not only the bias of Saturday Night Live but also his own, in his interview with Larry King. Lou Dobbs wondered about whether or not the polls were accurate and whether or not they influenced the lower turnout of the Republicans. I could go on but none of this matters anymore. It is over. Admitting that things were unfair has no bearing on the future but it would be a start because it would give hope of fairer coverage the next time around.

Politics won't change unless we do. The voters need to become more educated. We need to demand fairness regardless of whether it benefits our candidate. We need to think about how we would feel if the tables were turned. Right is right, period, no pun intended, I mean correct not "to the right".

Many of the voters were unaware of the unintended consequences of their votes and many lacked the knowledge or experience to make an educated decision and many voted for the historic perspective and many voted because they loved what Obama could represent. This is our system. It is the greatest country and the system will work if we give it a chance.
We have a new president. I think we had all better root for this president, regardless of whether or not we voted for him, because quite truthfully, I think our survival and our country's depends on it. I know that I will pray for his health, safety and success everyday because I can't even imagine a world that could deal with his failure.

He won fair and square, like it or not, because even if there was some chicanery, he won by a pretty healthy margin. He is an historic figure, a wonderful speaker, an exceptionally intelligent man with an unusual ability to focus and he has inherited "the wind of disaster". Let's hope he will learn quickly, surround himself with wonderful advisors and let's help him carry this burden and perhaps lighten his load.
When President Bush won, the Democrats massed against him and demonized him and so did the media. For eight years it has been nothing if not negative reporting. The man couldn't win for losing. Let's all rise above that behavior and set a better example this time around. Anyone who wants to contend the fact that he was demonized is welcome to, but I think in this case the facts and history will back me up.
Let's go forward and try to work together to develop a better information system that is fair and unbiased so that the electorate has all the information it needs to make an intelligent decision and so our elections are an even better model to the world. Let's just say that Obama is the man that is perfect for our time and give him the benefit of the doubt and support him in his efforts. You know, united we stand, divided we fall, is really true.

twj


 

I'm not sure were to start.  So first I want to thank you for trying to be conciliatory.  However some of what you said refutes your whole attempt at it.

 

First of all I'm not sure you can say that Bush is going out of his way to help with the transition.  Isn't this his job and responsibility to do?  Are we supposed to compliment our current president for doing his job?

 

I'm not sure how I am being arrogant by stating that people who cry about biased media needs to quit.  As I said earlier we all are guilty of it.  You probably watch Fox news and go on websites like the one you got the Huckabee link from.  I on the other hand watch MSNBC.  We all like to get our news from biased media that reflects our own views back on us.  So people who cry about biased media are guility of creating the need from biased media.  As I said earlier the media reflects society not the other way around.

 

As far as Oprah goes she is a private citizen and has every right to support and campaign for anyone she wanted to do.  So did all the celebrities that came out for McCain.  Why does someone who is famous need to give up their right to speak out on politics.  She is a TV talk show host, not a journalist.

 

And the last statement I make is this, when you say he won fair and square regardless of the chicanery involved that pretty much states you don't think he won fair and square.  Why else would you bring up the supposed chicanery?

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

He won fair and square, like it or not, because even if there was some chicanery, he won by a pretty healthy margin.

 

Hmmm.  If McCain had been the first presidential candidate since 1971 to forego the spending limits of the public financing system, had outspent Obama by a ratio of about 2 to 1, had been the one with the huge cache of dollars to buy a half hour of primetime on the networks -- something which no company or politician has ever done in the past  -- and to pay for his own cable channel to push his message 24-7, had paid nearly a million dollars to stage a huge extravangaza in Berlin, etc., do you think the left would be saying that he had won the election fair and square?   Or do you Olbermann et. al. would be saying that he bought the election?  

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

Nope, that is only what I am saying. Olbermann is an attack dog and an entertainer. I don't give him any more credence than I give Limbaugh or Hannity or Maddow. They have their own agenda and it is themselves.
twj
Everyman wrote:

He won fair and square, like it or not, because even if there was some chicanery, he won by a pretty healthy margin.

 

Hmmm.  If McCain had been the first presidential candidate since 1971 to forego the spending limits of the public financing system, had outspent Obama by a ratio of about 2 to 1, had been the one with the huge cache of dollars to buy a half hour of primetime on the networks -- something which no company or politician has ever done in the past  -- and to pay for his own cable channel to push his message 24-7, had paid nearly a million dollars to stage a huge extravangaza in Berlin, etc., do you think the left would be saying that he had won the election fair and square?   Or do you Olbermann et. al. would be saying that he bought the election?  

 

 


 

Distinguished Bibliophile
TiggerBear
Posts: 9,489
Registered: ‎02-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?


Everyman wrote:

He won fair and square, like it or not, because even if there was some chicanery, he won by a pretty healthy margin.

 

Hmmm.  If McCain had been the first presidential candidate since 1971 to forego the spending limits of the public financing system, had outspent Obama by a ratio of about 2 to 1, had been the one with the huge cache of dollars to buy a half hour of primetime on the networks -- something which no company or politician has ever done in the past  -- and to pay for his own cable channel to push his message 24-7, had paid nearly a million dollars to stage a huge extravangaza in Berlin, etc., do you think the left would be saying that he had won the election fair and square?   Or do you Olbermann et. al. would be saying that he bought the election?  

 

 


I'll be honest and start with that I think it shameful what polititions in general spend to get elected.

 

However the only deluge I got from  Obama's side was tv adds. From McCain  tv adds, phone harassment for months,  a  DAILY barage of at least 3 if not more mailers, email spam, and one punk who desided to go up and down the neighborhood putting signs in everyones' lawn (I went primate and threw it at his truck when he tried to drive away).   Battlegrond state be d*mned. I'm just glad it's over so they'll leave me in peace.

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

However the only deluge I got from  Obama's side was tv adds. From McCain  tv adds, phone harassment for months,  a  DAILY barage of at least 3 if not more mailers, email spam, and one punk who desided to go up and down the neighborhood putting signs in everyones' lawn (I went primate and threw it at his truck when he tried to drive away).   Battlegrond state be d*mned. I'm just glad it's over so they'll leave me in peace.

 

Gee, I feel neglected.  I didn't get a single mailer from either campaign.  No phone calls.  No email spam.  Nobody trying to put any sort of signs on my lawn.  

 

You get ALL the fun.  I'm jealous!

 


TiggerBear wrote:

Everyman wrote:

He won fair and square, like it or not, because even if there was some chicanery, he won by a pretty healthy margin.

 

Hmmm.  If McCain had been the first presidential candidate since 1971 to forego the spending limits of the public financing system, had outspent Obama by a ratio of about 2 to 1, had been the one with the huge cache of dollars to buy a half hour of primetime on the networks -- something which no company or politician has ever done in the past  -- and to pay for his own cable channel to push his message 24-7, had paid nearly a million dollars to stage a huge extravangaza in Berlin, etc., do you think the left would be saying that he had won the election fair and square?   Or do you Olbermann et. al. would be saying that he bought the election?  

 

 


I'll be honest and start with that I think it shameful what polititions in general spend to get elected.

 

However the only deluge I got from  Obama's side was tv adds. From McCain  tv adds, phone harassment for months,  a  DAILY barage of at least 3 if not more mailers, email spam, and one punk who desided to go up and down the neighborhood putting signs in everyones' lawn (I went primate and threw it at his truck when he tried to drive away).   Battlegrond state be d*mned. I'm just glad it's over so they'll leave me in peace.


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

Take it as a compliment, Tigger.  They thought you were open-minded enough that you would want to hear both sides.  :smileyvery-happy:

 


TiggerBear wrote:

 

However the only deluge I got from  Obama's side was tv adds. From McCain  tv adds, phone harassment for months,  a  DAILY barage of at least 3 if not more mailers, email spam, and one punk who desided to go up and down the neighborhood putting signs in everyones' lawn (I went primate and threw it at his truck when he tried to drive away).   Battlegrond state be d*mned. I'm just glad it's over so they'll leave me in peace.


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Bibliophile
TiggerBear
Posts: 9,489
Registered: ‎02-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?


Everyman wrote:

Take it as a compliment, Tigger.  They thought you were open-minded enough that you would want to hear both sides.  :smileyvery-happy:

 


TiggerBear wrote:

 

However the only deluge I got from  Obama's side was tv adds. From McCain  tv adds, phone harassment for months,  a  DAILY barage of at least 3 if not more mailers, email spam, and one punk who desided to go up and down the neighborhood putting signs in everyones' lawn (I went primate and threw it at his truck when he tried to drive away).   Battlegrond state be d*mned. I'm just glad it's over so they'll leave me in peace.


 

 


Ah well. It has a lot to do with a household with 2 repulicans, a democrat, and an independant living in the same house all of voting age mixed with battleground state folishness. But the guy with the signs went too far. We decided as a family after a bumper sticker scuffle during the primary, to not put up ANY displays of who each of us was voting for. When a complete stranger steps in he pissed off even the members who were voting for MCCain. Nasty big whole in the lawn to boot, guy was using stakes.

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? Financing the campaign

Surely you should be attacking your system, which allows for these financing discrepancies to take place?  What both candidates did with regard to financing their campaigns was legal and so neither should be criticised on this account.   If both had been confined by your system to the same way of raising finance, such huge discrepancies could not have taken place, although private fundraising would always favour the most popular party of the time. 

 

Now that folks have seen what can happen when a free-for-all in funding can legally take place, perhaps they will campaign for a strict limit to election funding, be it public or private, as happens in many other countries.

 


Everyman wrote:

He won fair and square, like it or not, because even if there was some chicanery, he won by a pretty healthy margin.

 

Hmmm.  If McCain had been the first presidential candidate since 1971 to forego the spending limits of the public financing system, had outspent Obama by a ratio of about 2 to 1, had been the one with the huge cache of dollars to buy a half hour of primetime on the networks -- something which no company or politician has ever done in the past  -- and to pay for his own cable channel to push his message 24-7, had paid nearly a million dollars to stage a huge extravangaza in Berlin, etc., do you think the left would be saying that he had won the election fair and square?   Or do you Olbermann et. al. would be saying that he bought the election?  

 

 


 

Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

Actually no I wouldn't say that because most of the money that Obama (or McCain in your argument) came from people like me who gave small amounts.  I gave the campaign $75 and I bought a T-Shirt for $29.  The money came from the people.  If McCain had done the same thing, good for him. 

Everyman wrote:

He won fair and square, like it or not, because even if there was some chicanery, he won by a pretty healthy margin.

 

Hmmm.  If McCain had been the first presidential candidate since 1971 to forego the spending limits of the public financing system, had outspent Obama by a ratio of about 2 to 1, had been the one with the huge cache of dollars to buy a half hour of primetime on the networks -- something which no company or politician has ever done in the past  -- and to pay for his own cable channel to push his message 24-7, had paid nearly a million dollars to stage a huge extravangaza in Berlin, etc., do you think the left would be saying that he had won the election fair and square?   Or do you Olbermann et. al. would be saying that he bought the election?  

 

 


 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

Ross Perot bought blocks of time as well, so Obama is not the first to do that.  Secondly Fox News did for McCain what MSNBC did for Obama.  So they both had their own cable news network.

 


fforgnayr wrote:
Actually no I wouldn't say that because most of the money that Obama (or McCain in your argument) came from people like me who gave small amounts.  I gave the campaign $75 and I bought a T-Shirt for $29.  The money came from the people.  If McCain had done the same thing, good for him. 

Everyman wrote:

He won fair and square, like it or not, because even if there was some chicanery, he won by a pretty healthy margin.

 

Hmmm.  If McCain had been the first presidential candidate since 1971 to forego the spending limits of the public financing system, had outspent Obama by a ratio of about 2 to 1, had been the one with the huge cache of dollars to buy a half hour of primetime on the networks -- something which no company or politician has ever done in the past  -- and to pay for his own cable channel to push his message 24-7, had paid nearly a million dollars to stage a huge extravangaza in Berlin, etc., do you think the left would be saying that he had won the election fair and square?   Or do you Olbermann et. al. would be saying that he bought the election?  

 

 


 


 

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

I may be wrong, but I believe that although he may have had many more donors that gave small amounts of money, the greater proportion of the money donated came from fewer large donors at his fundraising dinners etc., where sometimes average donations were upwards of $60,000 per donor. The breakdown was probably similar to our income tax structure with the top 5% paying the most and the bottom making up the larger number and paying the least.
Also, the fact that Obama broke his promise to accept public funds and McCain did not; should not be ignored; that is why McCain couldn't raise as much money. He honored his promise, a promise that has pretty much always been honored. I don't believe that the shadow of the idea that the President's office could be purchased ever existed, until now. Although I disapprove of the money spent and hope that this practice does not continue in the future, I still believe he won fair and square because the rules were not broken just bent, i guess.
For the life of me, I can't fathom why everyone doesn't disapprove of the obscene amount of money that was spent. That money would have been better spent to help the needy and isn't that what the campaign was about to some degree?
twj

fforgnayr wrote:
Actually no I wouldn't say that because most of the money that Obama (or McCain in your argument) came from people like me who gave small amounts. I gave the campaign $75 and I bought a T-Shirt for $29. The money came from the people. If McCain had done the same thing, good for him.

Everyman wrote:

He won fair and square, like it or not, because even if there was some chicanery, he won by a pretty healthy margin.

 

Hmmm. If McCain had been the first presidential candidate since 1971 to forego the spending limits of the public financing system, had outspent Obama by a ratio of about 2 to 1, had been the one with the huge cache of dollars to buy a half hour of primetime on the networks -- something which no company or politician has ever done in the past -- and to pay for his own cable channel to push his message 24-7, had paid nearly a million dollars to stage a huge extravangaza in Berlin, etc., do you think the left would be saying that he had won the election fair and square? Or do you Olbermann et. al. would be saying that he bought the election?

 

 


 


 

Distinguished Bibliophile
Ryan_G
Posts: 3,295
Registered: ‎10-24-2008
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

I can't fathom why everyone doesn't disapprove of the obscene amount of money that was spent. That money would have been better spent to help the needy and isn't that what the campaign was about to some degree?

 

Could the money have been spent on other things, sure.  Not the point.  The point is that if people want to give money to a political campaign they believe in, they should be able to.  I don't care how much either candidate spent.  I think McCain went for public financing had more to do with the fact he knew he probably would not have been able to come close to what Obama raised and did not want to take the chance.  If McCain knew for sure that he could have raised as much money, he would have done it as well.

"I am half sick of shadows" The Lady of Shalott

http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: economic terrorism??? huh?

Sorry, but I disagree. McCain is a man of honor and that is what drove his decision. Also, public funding has been the time-honored practice. We will have to agree to disagree. The ends justifies the means for you but not for me.
twj

fforgnayr wrote:

I can't fathom why everyone doesn't disapprove of the obscene amount of money that was spent. That money would have been better spent to help the needy and isn't that what the campaign was about to some degree?

 

Could the money have been spent on other things, sure.  Not the point.  The point is that if people want to give money to a political campaign they believe in, they should be able to.  I don't care how much either candidate spent.  I think McCain went for public financing had more to do with the fact he knew he probably would not have been able to come close to what Obama raised and did not want to take the chance.  If McCain knew for sure that he could have raised as much money, he would have done it as well.