The Washington Post ignores so much about John McCain (the Post, for instance, has been silent on the McCains evading taxes on their condo) but they rush a big nothing story about Sen. Obama’s mortgage on to page one. The “liberal media strikes” again! I worked at a mortgage company for a little while, and the idea that the lender gives a few fractions of a percent to a borrower of a jumbo loan is about as common as breathing air. That’s kind of how they do business, especially in 2005 when the mortgage business was locking loans at such a good clip.
I know the mainstream media desperately wants John McCain to win so they can get some more of his sweet barbecue, but this is pretty ridiculous - even for them.
Free Ride: John Mccain and the Media
The Washington Post was silent about the “tax evasion.” Except for this article on the subject.
It’s ironic that you complain about mainstream media coverage of McCain while linking to a NEWSWEEK story about McCain’s property taxes in California.
In addition, at a time when the Senator is blasting many players in the mortgage industry, it doesn’t look good that when he was newly seated, he was the recipient of preferential treatment. It doesn’t matter if the practice was common.
Also, your comment about McCain “evading taxes” is really, really desperate.
This doesn’t rise to the Dodd-Conrad level and it was plausibly explained. Page A-3, not 1. Just the media doing its job.
Another example of the 3 kinds of lies according to Mark Twain, “Lies, damn lies and statistics!”
Obama’s mortgage rate was better than the AVERAGE. Which means half of Northern Trust’s customers also received better than average loan rates.
This story would only mean something if others with the same risk factors and income couldn’t receive that rate, which there is no indication of. In fact, Northern Trust says it was typical for people in Obama’s category.
Just another example of some idiot using statistics to misrepresent a situation.
Drag down Obama, prop up McCain: the media furiously, furiously try to make this a close race and sell papers, lock in viewers.
Don’t they know a blow-out can be exciting, too?
it doesn’t look good that when he was newly seated, he was the recipient of preferential treatment. It doesn’t matter if the practice was common.
To the contrary, Obama was not the beneficiary of preferential treatment unless one redefines the word “preferential.”
I realize folks tend to view all situations through the lens of their own very narrow experience but the fact is wealthy people do get better terms on things like mortgages or loans. This really ought not surprise people–try obtaining a car loan if you’re poor and your credit history isn’t too hot. You can get the loan but you’re going to pay through the nose for it.
OTOH, folks like the Obamas–who are millionaires–are going to get better rates for a number of reasons: they’re good risks, they may use a lender’s other services for investments, etc.
Fuckin’ Obama should have lived in a refrigerator box. Unfit to be president. I’m going to now vote for the guy who didn’t need a loan to buy his house(s). Obama should have gone with Bank of Cindy.
I think the beltway media is just shocked that Obama had to resort to a mortgage. Real men like John McCain pay cash (or, more likely, get their wives to pay cash. Marrying Cindy is like have you own Barbie-shaped ATM).
I’m looking forward to the Washington Post article next week telling us that Obama saved hundreds on his car insurance by switching to Geico.
Jay:
Do you know what Obama’s FICO score is? If you don’t then you have no idea WTF you are talking about. How do you know he got preferential treatment? You don’t.
The newspaper equivalent of white noise.
Come on Calvin, I’m sure Jay knows Obama’s 2005 FICO score.. If he didn’t, he’d just be a liar.
Gee, it’s not like I didn’t get five or six phone calls a day during that period offering me a similar rate.
So let me get this straight- a US Senator who has written 2 best selling books was judged a good credit risk and therefore was given a good interest rate?
Next thing you’re going to tell me is that water is wet or that j’s an idiot!
Is this the same group that thought it was a big deal that Cindy McCain was allowed to carry 100k in credit card debt? Can any of you actually maintain any intellectual honesty for even a few days? When the McCain’s money allows them access to financial deals the rest of us don’t get, then it’s the sign of the apocalypse. When the Obama’s money gets them a sweeter deal, then water is wet.
JWG,
The 100,000 credit card debt wasn’t an issue of Cindy being “allowed” to carry it or not. It was a demonstration of their lack of financial responsibility. When you have millions in assets and carry that kind of debt, one begins to wonder how sound your financial behavior is.
No intellectual dishonesty here, except for you in changing the issue after-the-fact.
JWG, a 5.625% interest rate in 2005 was not a big deal because it’s in line with the situation and not extraordinary in any way (my parents were offered a refinance at 5.25% with no points at the time, but of course conditions are never identical). Do you know, or know of, anyone who carries 100k in credit card debt w/o interest beyond a brief promotional period?
There’s absolutely no evidence Obama is getting a sweet deal here. You’re suggesting McCain hasn’t benefited from his position of power? Have you ever heard of the Keating 5? Get a clue.
he was the recipient of preferential treatment. It doesn’t matter if the practice was common.
It can either be “preferential,” or it can be “common,” Jay. It can’t be both.
It was a demonstration of their lack of financial responsibility. When you have millions in assets and carry that kind of debt, one begins to wonder how sound your financial behavior is.
Really? And what if their total available credit on all accounts was $500,000 which would be about 20% utilization.
a 5.625% interest rate in 2005 was not a big deal
It is not a ‘big’ deal, but it certainly is a very good deal, especially when you consider:
1. The loan was for $1.32 million
2. He had never done business with Northern Trust
3. It was below market rates and there were no customary fees
Is this a big huge deal or scandal? Of course not. But it goes to show that Obama is just like most other politicians despite all of the “change” we’re being promised.
But it goes to show that Obama is just like most other politicians despite all of the “change” we’re being promised.
No, I’d say it goes to show that the Obama’s shop around for the best deal they can find, just like the rest of us.
Seriously, settle down.
Jay, you are obviously just talking out your ass. Obama received no better treatment than could be expected from anyone with phenomenal credit. 30 basis points is insignificant..
Better trolls, please.
When there’s nothing left, yank out the “trolls” BS.
Why not go all the way throw out Rethuglicans or Repugs?
It was below market rates
No one has claimed that, Jay. Well, except you. The article says the loan was below the average of rates on the market at the time.
You know how averages work, don’t you?
But it goes to show that Obama is just like most other politicians despite all of the “change” we’re being promised.
Now that’s true. When Mr. Obama promised us “change,” I fully expected that he would be the kind of politician who would shop around for the highest possible price on anything he was buying.
But Quaker, he certainly didn’t NEED the lower rate did he? I’m sure too that Northern Trust’s decision had absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that he was a United States Senator.
I concur with Quaker in the Basement. I think we should all help the country and demand the highest possible prices when buying from crooks, even if we don’t need to; it’s the conservative, right-wing way and a good one it is, tried and true, by God.
Still throwing shit into the fan, huh?
Hey, I’m having a good laugh at all of this.
My 2004 mortgage is 5.375%. Take that, bitches. I want to see some outrage from those on the wingnut fringe. Come on, jay. Let’s hear it.
But Quaker, he certainly didn’t NEED the lower rate did he?
Perhaps not. What of it?
When there’s nothing left, yank out the “trolls” BS.
Sometimes the term is appropriate.
From the comments on the WaPo smear:
After a search of historical mortgage rates I found a range of 5.57% to 5.95 in the period Nov 04 thru March 05. What rate did Obama get, 5.65%? OMG, what a scandal!
So, remind us again Jay, exactly why we should be outraged at Obama getting a rate well within historical norms for the time the loan was made? Toward the lower end of the scale, but within the bounds of normalcy?
And I’ll be more than happy to wonder how you can explain why this is scandalous while McCain’s tax evasion isn’t you lying Rethuglican ass clown.
Just to give you an idea of why I find it funny, let’s go back to a few of the comments regarding the McCains $100K credit card debt:
“The real question for me is if this is a credit card debt that American Express will demand payment for, or a bribe…”
“Just read that debt is being held at 0% interest. Personally I think someone should file a complaint with the FEC. It’s clear to me that AMEX is floating McCain’s loan as a campaign contribution.”
“Not surprised that the McCains are scamming the system”
“The Obama campaign should play up the fact that he and Michelle only finished paying off their student loans a year ago.
It would be a very effective reminder of who the real elitist is in this race: the community organizer from Chicago or John “8 or 9 houses” McCain!”
To his credit, Quaker said it was no big deal and that it probably just reflected the spending habits of millionaires.
Oliver’s right. The mortgage story is a nothing story written by a reporter who does not understand mortgages and statistics and vetted by an editor who knows even less. The WashPo is on a mission to trash Obama and even Stevie Wonder could see what it is doing.
jay is pwned. ^
Hey, I’m having a good laugh at all of this.
Me too, Jay!
Hey, now that we’re sharing the fun times together, it’s been almost two weeks now since you said “I saw the quote from Obama that none of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice” and I’m still waiting for you to give me the link to that. You know I’m very concerned that you’re making yourself look like a liar and a hack coward- I mean clearly you’re not- so I’m just really confused why you just suddenly ignored the whole subject.
It’s called equivalence.
If McCain is not paying property tax, they must look into Obama’s home loans/taxes. If there is any discrepancy, no matter how minor, then there is moral equivalence.
Tax evasion = a good deal on a mortgage.
Swift boat inspired confusion = missing national guard service in Alabama
Systematic republican corruption = some democrat getting a jaywalking ticket.
See. They really are all the same, once you think of it that way.
I ignored it because the quote was right there in the story we were discussing. I paraphrased. Here is his DIRECT quote:
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice.”
http://thepage.time.com/obama-remarks-on-detainees-and-afghanistan/
Read it and weep. Or idiotically tell me how what I said is completely different from what Obama said.
I paraphrased
Ahahahahahahahah. What a loser. You didn’t “paraphrase” anything. You changed the quote. You said- twice- that Obama said “no one responsible for 9/11 has been caught.” No one. No. One.
He never said that. You lied.
Let’s look at a comment of yours in the same thread:
In addition, I’m not going to explain the difference to you between soldiers actively engaged in combat operations being killed while in action as opposed to Marine barracks being bombed and a docked warship refueling being bombed. If you cannot understand the difference, that’s your problem.
You know what, loser? I’m not going to explain the difference to you between saying “people haven’t been brought to justice” - what Obama said- and “no one was brought to justice”- the BS you sucked out of your own ass. Because you know what the difference is and you won’t admit being called on it.
You’re an idiot August. Truly.
Because only an idiot can or would believe that the two quotes are so completely different as to have two totally different meanings.
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice.”
“None of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice
By all means. Let me see the contortions. I want to see you turn yourself into a human pretzel explaining how those two statements are completely different. I mean for crissakes, let’s say that we have two guys that have committed a murder and are on the run. In a press conference, a police spokesperson says:
“The two men responsible for this murder have not been found.”
Later on he says:
“Neither of the men responsible for this murder have been found.”
What’s the difference? Are you truly that dense?
Well then, according to Jay, it’s perfectly accurate to say “Those responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center have been arrested, tried, and jailed.”
Right?
The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice.”
“None of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice
If I may interject, looking at it objectively, it seems to me that the English language is nuanced enough to encompass the interpretations of both Jay and August. It seems more likely to me that one doesn’t reach the US Senate while being dumb enough to claim that ‘nobody responsible’ has been brought to justice, so if I were a betting man I’d lay it on August’s interpretation.
Quaker, but if you said, “We have arrested, tried and jailed those responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center” it would mean something else according to August.
(Sigh.)
Okay, let’s say I slapped your mother for spawning someone as stupid as you.
Now, if I said “no one responsible for cursing the planet with the stupidity of Jay has been punished,” then I’d be lying. I slapped your mother. She probably deserves more for the overall reduction of this country’s collective IQ, but let’s continue.
Now, if I made the statement “the people responsible for the crime against humanity that was allowing a mental defect like Jay to exist in civilized society haven’t been brought to justice,” that would actually be an accurate statement. Yes, I’ve slapped your mother for the more-than-deserving crime of pushing out someone as dense as you, but what about the others involved in this sacrilege? Clearly your father was involved in this atrocity- or perhaps your uncle- and yet neither (assuming they’re different people) have faced their level of justice for forcing the rest of the planet to endure you being on it.
To say that the people responsible for bringing you upon us haven’t been brought to justice is a true statement. To say that no one responsible for staining the face of humanity with your presence is not.
So, in summary, you took a statement that Obama made that was true, and “paraphrased” it into a statement he did not make that wasn’t true. You fucking twat.
Reporters, Politicians and Statistics -
Two decades ago I used to be in the business of the care and feeding of politicians. One of the chief difficulties I recall in dealing with the press was trying to get reporters to focus on the numbers. That is, to ignore the words that we’re being used by either side and look at what the data was saying. In short order, I realized that they couldn’t do it because many of them did not even have a rudimentary grounding in statistics and, consequently, they could not figure out how to use this information to tell a compelling story.
I came to this conclusion as the result of a particularly nasty battle our office had with the city’s mayor over a fare increase for the city’s public transportation system. The mayor, who is now, unfortunately, a Democratic U.S. Senator, was insisting that a fare increase was necessary to keep the system solvent and in the black.
Our office ran the mayor’s numbers backwards and forwards and came to the conclusion that the mayor’s numbers did not add up; a fare increase was not required. Reporters in city hall, however, wanted to keep the story focused on the so-called politics of the issue: left-liberal members of the board of supervisors more responsive to the needs of their respective constituents than to the city as a whole. It was nonsense but that was the story line that they and their editors kept pushing.
Finally, on the day that the board was to vote on the proposal the head of the city’s public utilities department, who was the point man for the mayor’s request, came over to our office. We all knew each other and our relationships were cordial. When he walked in he looked at me and asked what were we going to do. I didn’t directly answer his question but I told him that the mayor’s numbers did not add up.
The general manager took a seat at my desk and looked at me for a moment. Then he said, “F*%k the numbers, we just want the fare increase.”
The mayor did get the fare increase but not with my boss’ vote. The mayor had to cut a deal with a political opponent but that was not our cross to bear.
“…the idea that the lender gives a few fractions of a percent to a borrower of a jumbo loan is about as common as breathing air.”
I read that McCain has a 0% interest credit card. How common is that?
Well it’s great that you decided to take the high road and bring my mother and family into this (tossing out the incest remark was really classy - love the “fucking twat” crack at the end as well. Glad to see those in high school still use it), but your example doesn’t hold up because you’re saying two completely different things.
Saying, “no one responsible for cursing the planet with the stupidity of Jay has been punished” is completely and totally different from “the people responsible for the crime against humanity that was allowing a mental defect like Jay to exist in civilized society haven’t been brought to justice.” How you align this with what I wrote and what what Obama specifically said is something I guess only you can figure out.
But let’s just take this statement:
“The people responsible for the crime against humanity that was allowing a mental defect like Jay to exist in civilized society haven’t been brought to justice.”
And write it like this:
“None of the people responsible for the crime against humanity that was allowing a mental defect like Jay to exist in civilized society have been brought to justice.”
It’s the same thing.
Actually, the “the historical norms” that were quoted in the comments Rheinhard mentions were for a 30 year fixed rate conventional conforming ($359,650 or less) loan during the time. Jumbo rates up to $800,000 were generally from .25% to .50% higher in rate, and super jumbo loans could be anywhere from 1.0% to 1.5% higher in rate than the regular conforming loans- especially those loans over $1,000,000.
The different threshholds have changed (as in the limits have risen) but the differences in rates remain the same for different kinds of loans. A less high profile person would have had to pay an estimated 1.5 to 2.5 points on top of the normal fees to get the rate the Obamas got on their loan.
That being said, it isn’t necessarily unusual for high income and well connected folks to get special deals from banks they have special connections with or have a long time banking relationship with. For example, even some of my higher end mortgage clients would get a better deal on certain types of loans- especially home equity loans- from their own bank because of the relationship. (I’d tell them to check their bank first to make sure they couldn’t get a better deal there.)
In Obama’s case one of his wife’s closest friends (and former Rezko employeee) is an officer at Northern Trust, Obama is/was a US Senator with best selling books, and the Obama’s probably have decent to good credit. (Side note- great credit is not as important when you have cash flow.) The fact that he got a special deal in his circumstances shouldn’t be all that surprising. I guess what is more surprising to me is that those who are struggling to make it sound like he didn’t get a “sweetheart deal.”
Newsflash- people with money and connections sometimes get sweetheart deals on loans because most lenders know they can/will pay it back. Plus, it is likely that the Obamas home is serious collateral for the loan- especially now with that extra land on the side of the house.
Shorter Marty (and no dis intended): Nothin’ to see here, folks. Let’s move along.
but your example doesn’t hold up because you’re saying two completely different things.
Yes! Thank the fucking lord, you’re finally-
It’s the same thing.
Jesus uncle-fucking Christ. Are you functionally retarded?
Okay, so you think the perpetrators of 9/11 have been brought to justice then. So you’re still a goddamn idiot.
“Just to give you an idea of why I find it funny, let’s go back to a few of the comments regarding the McCains $100K credit card debt:”
You find it funny because you are a partisan troll.
A mortgage rate 0.3% below the average is nothing. Especially considering with Obama’s credit rating likely significantly better than average, which should have given him a 0.5% break on his mortgage rate.
On the other hand, $100,000 credit card debt a ZERO PERCENT INTEREST is not normal. Obama’s bank is still making a healthy profit on the Obama’s mortgage. McCain credit card company is losing money on the deal.
I understand that you are functionally retarded and can’t grasp the nuances of reality, but just because both cases involve percentages doesn’t mean they are the same.
McCain probably paid for some of his houses with his credit card.
Jesus uncle-fucking Christ. Are you functionally retarded?
Actually, no. I just understand basic English. I realize that your tiny brain is taxed to the limit with all the hard work you do putting together your amazingly shitty cartoons, but you really need to get yourself to a place where you can purchase an old English 101 textbook and fucking read it.
Okay, so you think the perpetrators of 9/11 have been brought to justice then. So you’re still a goddamn idiot.
No asshole. But Obama’s blanket statement doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, especially when one considers how many leaders in Al Qaeda have been captured or killed in the wake of 9/11.
I’m through with this subject because root canal would be preferable at this point than dealing with such idiocy. Do me a favor, go continue being Ted Rall ‘Light’ and fuck off.
I understand that you are functionally retarded and can’t grasp the nuances of reality, but just because both cases involve percentages doesn’t mean they are the same.
What’s the matter? You can’t come up with your own material so you take from August ‘I’m No Jackson’ Polla(c)k?
Look numero uno stupido (You’ll always be number one in that dept CS you canuckian twit), the credit card in question with the zero percent interest is Cindy McCain’s. So you’re absolutely BRILLIANT idea:
“Personally I think someone should file a complaint with the FEC. It’s clear to me that AMEX is floating McCain’s loan as a campaign contribution.”
is even more stupid that it originally sounded because the card is not John McCain’s. All one had to do is actually read the disclosure form to see that.
In addition, Cindy McCain’s AMEX account was opened in 2007. It is possible to get an AMEX Blue Card with those kinds of credit limits for 0% for up to 15 months. Also, merchants pay fees to AMEX to accept their cards, so to say they are ‘losing’ money is just the height of ignorance.
How long can you two keep this up without mentioning Osama bin Laden?
We all agree he’s “the person responsbile for the 9-11 attacks,” don’t we? And he’s been killed? Captured? Imprisoned?
…especially when one considers how many leaders in Al Qaeda have been captured or killed in the wake of 9/11.
Exactly how many leaders are there in Al Qaeda? Perhaps we should start there.
There are as many leaders in Al Qaeda as the Bush Administration claims there are. It is the same old song that was played over and over again during the American War in Vietnam. Every week the government claimed to have killed or captured various leaders of the Vietcong insurgency but nobody in the Vietcong seemed to be paying much attention to the press releases.
Duros, why should we start there? If Osama bin Laden was killed or captured and the Bush administration announced, “We’ve defeated Al Qaeda” is there anybody here who would agree? Seriously.
If not (which is the most likely answer) why is it that when talking about those in Al Qaeda captured or killed, none of them matter because they’re not bin Laden? How does that make sense? But, if you want a list, here goes:
AFGHANISTAN:
* Mohammed Atef, one of the top leaders of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network, was killed in a U.S. air strike in Afghanistan in November 2001.
* Abu Laith al-Libi, one of Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenants who commanded militant forces in Afghanistan, was killed in February 2008 in a suspected U.S. missile strike that also killed up to 13 foreign militants.
ALGERIA:
* Hareg Zoheir, the deputy chief of al Qaeda’s North Africa wing, was killed along with two other rebels in a gun battle with Algerian troops in October 2007.
IRAQ:
* Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, was killed in a U.S. air raid in June 2006.
* U.S. forces killed Muhammed Abdullah Abbas al-Issawi, described as a security emir for al Qaeda in Iraq, in April 2007.
* The U.S. military killed Muharib Abdul Latif al-Jubouri, an al-Qaeda figure accused of involvement in the kidnapping of American journalist Jill Carroll, in May 2007.
* Police killed Mohammed Yahya al-Rahmani, known as Abu Mussab, and three foreign militants near Samarra in Feb 2008.
* In April 2008 Iraqi authorities captured Nazal Sabar al-Jughaify, also known as Abu al-Jarrah, a senior lieutenant to al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
PAKISTAN:
* Saudi-born Palestinian Abu Zubaydah was arrested after a shootout in the central Pakistani city of Faisalabad in March 2002. Zubaydah was operations director for al Qaeda and the first high-ranking member to be arrested.
* Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni national and one-time roommate of Mohamed Atta, suspected ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, was captured in Karachi in September 2002.
* Security forces arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al Qaeda’s number three and alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in a raid in Rawalpindi, near Islamabad, in March 2003.
* Musaad Aruchi, a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with a $1 million bounty on his head, was arrested in Karachi in June 2004.
* Tanzanian Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was arrested in the city of Gujrat in July 2004.
* Pakistani intelligence agencies and security forces arrested Abu Faraj Farj al-Liby, mastermind of two failed attempts on President Pervez Musharraf’s life, in May 2005.
* Abu Hamza Rabia, an al Qaeda commander ranked the third most senior leader in the network, was killed in a tribal region of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan in December 2005.
* Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah (also known as Abdul Rehman), an Egyptian al Qaeda member wanted for involvement in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya, was killed by Pakistani forces close to the Afghan border in April 2006.
SAUDI ARABIA:
* Youssef al-Eiery, the leading al Qaeda militant in Saudi Arabia who was believed to be behind the May 2003 suicide bombings in Riyadh which killed at least 35 people, was shot dead by Saudi police shortly after the attacks.
Several of Eiery’s successors, including Khaled Ali Haj, Abdulaziz al-Muqrin and Saleh al-Awfi, were killed by Saudi security forces over the next two years.
SOMALIA:
* A U.S. air strike on Thursday killed Aden Hashi Ayro, who led al Shabaab militants blamed for attacks on government troops and their Ethiopian allies.
YEMEN:
* Yemeni security forces shot dead Yasser al-Homeiqani, an al Qaeda fugitive, in southern Yemen in January 2007.
Cue the “Big deal” responses from the usual gaggle of Demo-drones.
If Barack Obama wants to limit his criticism to the fact that Osama bin Laden himself hasn’t been killed or captured, then he should say so. He’s not stupid. But to make blanket statements like he did smacks of ignorance and a total disregard for what our military and intelligence community has been able to accomplish in the last 6.5 years.
“Duros, why should we start there? If Osama bin Laden was killed or captured and the Bush administration announced, ‘We’ve defeated Al Qaeda’ is there anybody here who would agree? Seriously.”
Defeated? No. Dealt a serious blow to? Yes.
You see, your view of the world where there are only two choices is usually wrong. It is one of the mental deficiencies you possess that make you predisposed to be a conservative.
“But, if you want a list, here goes:”
“Cue the ‘Big deal’ responses from the usual gaggle of Demo-drones.”
No, it is a big deal. You can cut and paste. Wow. It would be an even bigger deal if you could have named a third of these people before they were killed.
Thanks, Jay, you provided ample proof for my point. If killing or capturing all of those folks really meant anything the “global war on terror” would be over.
Jay, I’ll apologize for calling you a troll the moment you stop acting like such a fucking tool.
1) People with outstanding credit pay lower interest rates on mortgages. There is nothing even modestly surprising about paying 0.3% below market average when you have the kind of credit the Obama’s have. If he was over 5.8%, I’d say he got ripped off. If he was under 5.4%, I’d say it was suspicious. 5.625% is exactly what he should’ve paid.
2) Cindy McCain is running a 100k balance with 0% interest, no matter who you are, that’s a lot of credit card debt. I know credit cards give 0% interest for an initial period (I wrote that above), but most credit cards don’t allow that kind of balance, and AMEX doesn’t like people with the higher end cards carrying a balance for any period. I don’t think there’s any wrongdoing on the McCain’s over this, it’s just amusing because it’s so different from the experience of the average American (pretty striking when you’re minions are trying to call your opponent an “elitist”).
3) These two statements are in no way comparable:
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice.”
“None of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice.”
One is exclusive (none of), the other is not. Huge difference, and you know it. No list of al queda #3’s captured makes Obama’s actual statement incorrect when OBL and Mullah Omar still roam free.
If you don’t want to be called a troll, stop acting like an idiot.
Jay — I spoke with a former diplomat a couple of years back (John Brady Keisling, who you may or may not remember as the guy that resigned over the Iraq War) who was somewhat instrumental and always present during the period of activity and subsequent defeat of the Greek terrorist group 17 November. His suggestion to me was that they didn’t really ‘get’ (i.e. defeat) 17 November until the Americans stood back and let Greek police/military handle it, which, in his opinion, helped Greek citizens see that their greater self-interest lay with the authorities and not the terrorists.
In light of that, I’m going to suggest to you that even if we know there’s X number of Al Qa’ida leaders in the middle east and we kill X-1, it’s still just a lethal game of whack-a-mole until we better apply the arts of soft diplomacy and light political footprints. In other words, more impressive statistics would be “In April 2006, 7,000 more Iraqi kids were enrolled in secular schools,” or “In May 2007, power and water were restored to all southern Iraq,” or, especially, “in July 2010 the last American left and the only soldiers and police in Iraq spoke fluent Arabic and were raised there.” If you’re looking to suggest that the effort is going well I’d recommend that route.
And, at the risk of getting a heap of shit hurled my direction, I see your point on the paraphrasing quote. I think it’s vague enough to include both yours and August’s interpretation.
*Damn. I’d forgotten my earlier comment to that effect, so disregard that last paragraph.*
Defeated? No. Dealt a serious blow to? Yes.
We’ve already dealt a serious blow to them. From the latest issue of Newsweek (and people are going to have a difficult task of proving that Fareed Zakaria is some kind of Bush shill):
It is by now overwhelmingly clear that Al Qaeda and its philosophy are not the worldwide leviathan that they were once portrayed to be. Both have been losing support over the last seven years. The terrorist organization’s ability to plan large-scale operations has crumbled, their funding streams are smaller and more closely tracked. Of course, small groups of people can still cause great havoc, but is this movement an “existential threat” to the United States or the Western world? No, because it is fundamentally weak. Al Qaeda and its ilk comprise a few thousand jihadists, with no country as a base, almost no territory and limited funds. Most crucially, they lack an ideology that has mass appeal. They are fighting not just America but the vast majority of the Muslim world. In fact, they are fighting modernity itself.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/143747
You see, your view of the world where there are only two choices is usually wrong. It is one of the mental deficiencies you possess that make you predisposed to be a conservative.
Problem is, it’s not my view of the world. It’s the Democrats. The criticism from Democrats is that we’re “losing” the war on terror and they’ll repeatedly whip out Osama bin Laden’s name, but ignore all of the other successes, yet would balk of the President declared “We’ve won” if bin Laden were taken out tomorrow. They cannot have it both ways.
People with outstanding credit pay lower interest rates on mortgages. There is nothing even modestly surprising about paying 0.3% below market average when you have the kind of credit the Obama’s have. If he was over 5.8%, I’d say he got ripped off. If he was under 5.4%, I’d say it was suspicious. 5.625% is exactly what he should’ve paid.
Obama didn’t apply for a conventional mortgage (It was for $1.32 million, not $200,000) and even industry insiders have said that the rate on such a large mortgage was favorable. Look, I don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s Oliver who was in pants shitting hysterics mode because the Post had the nerve to write about it. But Obama got favorable terms. It’s as simple as that. Cripes, can’t you people just be honest about it? I mean, who gives a shit? Cripes.
One is exclusive (none of), the other is not.
Oh for the love of God. One is exclusive. The other is all encompassing!!! “The people who were responsible”….”have not”. Not “Most of the people”, not “Some of the people”. Just “The people” and “have not.” Which means NONE or NOBODY.
Good grief.
But Obama’s blanket statement doesn’t hold up under scrutiny
Fuck you and your bullshit “scrutiny.” Do you think the people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have been brought to justice? Is that a true or false statement?
Good grief.
Seriously.
Nothing like watching folks weaken their own arguments by following up with an insistence on splitting hairs between two things that really are the same.
Parthenon, I understand your point of view. We cannot bring ‘Al Qaeda’ to justice no more than the FBI can bring “the mob” to justice or LA prosecutors bring “gangs” to justice. The problem is however, is that a myth is being perpetrated by Democrats and their supporters that Al Qaeda is as strong as ever, more influential than ever and well equipped to carry out large scale attacks and that simply is not true.
I can acknowledge that the administration has made mistakes, blunders and fuckups along the way, but I get the distinct impression that people here would rather have their finger and toenails pulled out one by one with a pair of pliers before they would EVER give even the slightest bit of credit to the successes the administration has had (in conjunction with the intelligence communities around the world) in combating terrorism and specifically the Al Qaeda network.
Fuck you
Fuck you too asshole.
Lovely. Now answer the fucking question.
Jay, I think it’s pretty obvious why August is going after you and why you’re not responding. Do you agree or disagree with this statement:
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice.”
That’s Obama’s exact quote. True or False.
It’s pretty simple. Troll.
It’s a bullshit fucking question and you know it.
The statement:
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have been brought to justice” is not true.
The statement:
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 haven’t been brought to justice” is not true either.
Put aside your partisan hackery and use your tiny little brain for ONE FUCKING SECOND will you?
Three guys kill another Man X. One ordered the death, the other two carry it out. The two who physically did it are caught. The one who ordered it, is not.
The statement, “The people who were responsible for murdering Man X have been brought to justice” would not be a true statement. At the same time you DUMB MOTHERFUCKER, neither would the statement, “The people who were responsible for murdering Man X haven’t been brought to justice.”
Do you understand now? Has the notion possibly gotten through that lump of stone in your head you call a brain? I hope so. Because you know why? My head hurts from having to deal with your stupidity. I am going to go back to doing some photo editing. Good night prick.
Do you understand now?
Yes. You’re as big a dipshit as I thought, and as weasely as I expected you to be in running away from this.
At best- your very best- you’re insisting that Obama’s statement is an ambiguous one which is open to interpretation (I’m sorry, “paraphrasing.”) So you just went ahead- how thoughtful of you!- and “paraphrased” a statement you personally feel is neither true nor false into one that is clearly false. So you can then rag on Obama for saying something false.
So, solidifying that you’re a jackass, none of this- absolutely none of this- alters the fact that you said, and I quote: “I saw the quote from Obama that none of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice.” There is no quote. It’s not real. As you yourself have admittedly repeatedly, it’s your “paraphrasing” of a quote. That’s not a quote. That’s you being a motherfucking liar.
And none of this, likewise, alters the fact that the very next sentence of Obama’s actual words made the statement “The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban.” Thus completely negating every single one of your utter horseshit analogies insisting that you didn’t know exactly what Obama was taking about. Not “one guy.” Not “others.” He fucking said exactly what he was talking about.
You’re so full of shit it’s unbelievable. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it. You could have backed out of this a dozen comments ago but you just don’t want to. This has nothing to do with “partisan hackery” or even partisan differences. This is you being a liar and trying to claim that you have a valid and equal argument in saying a fact doesn’t exist because you want it to be that way. I swear to god I am going to enjoy every fucking minute of the next six months watching you dig yourself deeper into a hole trying to pull off shit like this. We’re not the stupid motherfuckers here, child. You are.
Me: “Defeated? No. Dealt a serious blow to? Yes.”
Jay: “We’ve already dealt a serious blow to them. ”
See that thing that flew by? It’s call the point. You missed it.
“From the latest issue of Newsweek (and people are going to have a difficult task of proving that Fareed Zakaria is some kind of Bush shill):”
No, but I can show he’s wrong on this point.
The American intelligence communities have said Al Qaeda has regrown to the same strength as they were before 9/11. I like Fareed Zakaria, I think he’s a smart guy when it comes to foriegn affairs, but he’s wrong on this point.
“Problem is, it’s not my view of the world. It’s the Democrats.”
No it’s not. It’s your incorrect interpretation of the Democrats’ view.
“The criticism from Democrats is that we’re “losing” the war on terror…”
Which is based on the intelligence communities assessments. It is not based on the fact that Bin Laden is still free.
“…and they’ll repeatedly whip out Osama bin Laden’s name…”
Because Bush said he would get him dead or alive, and then took resources away from the hunt to get him.
Bush claimed he would do something. He failed. This is not a positive.
“…but ignore all of the other successes…”
Because for all of these ’successes’, the Americans are still losing the war on terror.
“…yet would balk of the President declared “We’ve won” if bin Laden were taken out tomorrow. They cannot have it both ways.”
There are two different issues.
1.) Winning the War on Terror. As I mentioned above, capturing Bin Laden would be an important step, but it would not win the war on terror.
1.i) If Bush captured Bin Laden and said, “We’ve won the war on terror.” he would be wrong.
1.ii) If Bush captured Bin Laden and said, “We’ve achieved a major success in the war on terror, but the war is not won yet.” he would be right.
Do you understand so far? I assumed you don’t, but I’ll move on.
2.) Bin Laden is the leader of Al Qaeda, which was the terrorist organization that carried out 9/11. Bush said he could kill or capture Bin Laden, and he should. But Bush hasn’t done this. This is a failing on Bush’s part. Capturing him won’t end the war, but it should still be done.
Got it?
August: “Fuck you”
Jay: “Fuck you too asshole.”
I would just like to point out that I haven’t sworn in this thread.
… I feel left out.
No, it is a big deal. You can cut and paste.
Hey, come on, now. This is one of the few times when jay has shown his work. Good on ya.
I understand both points. The statement from Obama is not true, but it’s not false either. SOME of the people responsible have been brought to justice or killed. But the big fish are still at large.
We need to fix that.
Now let’s not go to bed angry.
Obama’s actual words made the statement “The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban.”
Ah, that kind of changes the tone of this “debate”, no?
So you just went ahead- how thoughtful of you!- and “paraphrased” a statement you personally feel is neither true nor false into one that is clearly false. So you can then rag on Obama for saying something false.
No dumbass. Paraphrase: “A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words.” I restated what Obama said. Are you that stupid that you cannot comprehend this?
That’s not a quote. That’s you being a motherfucking liar.
*Throws hands up* I give up. What I wouldn’t give for a large polo mallet at this point. To beat myself over the head and just end the pain. It must be the air in Washington DC that turns so many people into drooling idiots.
They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban.” Thus completely negating every single one of your utter horseshit analogies insisting that you didn’t know exactly what Obama was taking about. Not “one guy.” Not “others.” He fucking said exactly what he was talking about.
I never said I didn’t know who Obama was talking about. I actually READ what Obama said. You obviously haven’t because you’re still clinging to this notion that what he said was valid! The second part of his statement which merely VALIDATES my point that he’s full of shit. He not only makes a bullshit blanket statement, but then widens the gap by encompassing all of Al Qaeda, all of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
Tell me August. Is what he said true?
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban.”
That’s a TRUE statement? You SERIOUSLY believe that is a factual and true statement?
Well, Christ Jay, Osama bin Laden has not been brought to justice. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have reconstituted in Pakistan and are pushing us in Afghanistan showing they clearly aren’t brought to justice. So just what is your point?
“Defense officials and Afghanistan experts said the toll of 28 U.S. combat deaths recorded last month demonstrates a new resurgence of the Taliban, the black-turbaned extremists who were driven from power by U.S. forces almost seven years ago. Taliban units and other insurgent fighters have reconstituted in the country’s south and east, aided by easy passage from mountain redoubts in neighboring Pakistan’s lawless tribal regions.”
I never said I didn’t know who Obama was talking about. I actually READ what Obama said. You obviously haven’t because you’re still clinging to this notion that what he said was valid! The second part of his statement which merely VALIDATES my point that he’s full of shit. He not only makes a bullshit blanket statement, but then widens the gap by encompassing all of Al Qaeda, all of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
So, what you’re saying is that Osama, the Taliban, AND Al Qaeda HAVE been brought to justice? That’s a little off (unless, of course, you believe it’s justice that they got away with it, which I wouldn’t put past you).
And Jay, why would you “paraphrase” a one sentence quote, unless you were trying to hide behind plausible deniability?
How typical of the America hating right.
So, what you’re saying is that Osama, the Taliban, AND Al Qaeda HAVE been brought to justice?
A statement can be incorrect without the exact opposite being the case. I don’t understand why that is so difficult for people to comprehend.
And Jay, why would you “paraphrase” a one sentence quote, unless you were trying to hide behind plausible deniability?
Uhh…perhaps because I just typed something that was the same as what Obama said because I just did. You know, this might surprise you, but there wasn’t some big plot behind what I wrote. August is the one that got his panties in a bunch and squealing “LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!” like a little girl.
How typical of the America hating right.
Yes, that’s it. I hate America.