Mittens to rejoin presidential race

[Bonestorm]

You mean exactly like Dean did?

You do realize that Dean opted in to the system... made a whole stink about how everyone should use the system... then he started seeing private funding roll in and guess what.... suddenly he pulled out of the system. So enough of that bullshit.

Nonsense. Dean never promised to a bank that he relinquish to the back control over his right to withdraw from the race even though his campaign was a failure for the sole purpose of collecting public matching funds to pay off the bank.

Please. You're way off base on that one.

 

[Cypress]

LMAO.... nice try.

1) I have always stated that tax cuts only work in the short term unless accompanied by corresponding spending cuts.

That's odd. Because you knowingly voted for the candidate in 2000, who not only promised to cut taxes for (mainly) the rich, but promised to vastly ramp up spending at the same time on healthcare, the military, and education. And you knowingly chose not to vote for the candidate you was much more prudent in balancing tax cuts versus spending.

2) I said everything about how the Iraq war was done was wrong, from timing to management of the war (up until Patraeus). Now, I am sure there will be at least three idiots jumping on this one. So a preemptive strike... saying the war was inevitable is not the same as agreeing with what Bush has done. I know this is a tough concept for many to grasp as moveon.org doesn't allow you to think on your own. But do try. You may find you like independent thought.

I honestly don't remember republicans, prior to 2005, saying that Bush was screwing up. So, those of us who told you that invading Iraq was going to probably be a costly mistake were right, and those of us who told you that Bush hadn't thought this through or planned it were right.

3) Yes, I was wrong on WMDs.

A lot of people were.

4) When other FEC experts say the same thing, yes, I am very comfortable making that call.

I'm not following it that closely, so I'm not making any calls. Maybe you'll be right. I have no idea, and I'm not going to play armchair pundit on something I'm not fully informed on.

5) Without a quorom, Mason is not able to officially make any requests or take any official position.

 

[Damocles]

They aren't off base, they are desperate to keep him within what they want, they fear that he will win so they want him disadvantaged to the candidate who promised to stay within that boundary but now won't.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's odd. Because you knowingly voted for the candidate in 2000, who not only promised to cut taxes for (mainly) the rich, but promised to vastly ramp up spending at the same time on healthcare, the military, and education. And you knowingly chose not to vote for the candidate you was much more prudent in balancing tax cuts versus spending.



I honestly don't remember republicans, prior to 2005, saying that Bush was screwing up. So, those of us who told you that invading Iraq was going to probably be a costly mistake were right, and those of us who told you that Bush hadn't thought this through or planned it were right.



A lot of people were.



I'm not following it that closely, so I'm not making any calls. Maybe you'll be right. I have no idea, and I'm not going to play armchair pundit on something I'm not fully informed on.

1) Bush ran against Gore in 2000 you twit. Gore didn't have anything to do with the Budget. That was between Clinton and the Rep Congress.

2) Bush did not run on tax cuts with overall increases in spending.

3) If you do not recall what people were saying back then, then perhaps you shouldn't be making idiotic statements with regards to their positions. Idiot.

4) If you are not following the FEC situation very closely, then perhaps you should quit acting as though you understand what is going on. ESPECIALLY if you don't comprehend the difference between stating assets and pledging collateral.

 

[Bonestorm]

4) If you are not following the FEC situation very closely, then perhaps you should quit acting as though you understand what is going on. ESPECIALLY if you don't comprehend the difference between stating assets and pledging collateral.

Please, SF. Stating assets? Again, you're way off base.

The issue is whether promising to provide X as collateral is akin to providing X as collateral. And the only opinion that matters on that score is the FEC's.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Please, SF. Stating assets? Again, you're way off base.

The issue is whether promising to provide X as collateral is akin to providing X as collateral. And the only opinion that matters on that score is the FEC's.

Promising to provide X as collateral IF it is necessary is the same as stating the assets as I mentioned. It is showing that you have further assets to committ SHOULD you need to do so. It is most certainly NOT the same as pledging the asset as collateral. Talk to any loan officer.

 

[Damocles]

When we got a business loan we stated assets that were not provided as collateral in much the same way.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

When we got a business loan we stated assets that were not provided as collateral in much the same way.

Exactly.

My mistake came in using the phrase "stating assets". Because that obviously has not made it to the moveon.org phrase of the day calendar yet.

 

[Bonestorm]

Exactly.

My mistake came in using the phrase "stating assets". Because that obviously has not made it to the moveon.org phrase of the day calendar yet.

Ha. Good one. A MoveOn jab. It's a shame that what you say is flatly false.

I've seen the loan documents. McCain provided everything he had as collateral for the original $3 million loan. He had nothing more to give as collateral for the additional $1 million. Go to your bank and tell them that you want to take out 33% of your original loan amount but don't want to give any more security to the bank for that and tell me how that works out for you.

McCain had only two things to provide as additional security for the extra $1 million: (1) a successful campaign or (2) matching funds if the campaign were not successful. Again, go to your back and tell them that they don't need any additional security for your loan because your business will be successful and tell me how that works out for you. In reality, the only thing McCain could offer is the matching funds. The problem is that explicitly promising the matching funds gave him no room to argue that he could opt out so he devised a cutesy trick wherein instead of explicitly providing the funds as collateral he merely promised to provide them as collateral.

Again, the issue boils down to whether promising to provide X as collateral is akin to providing X as collateral.

"Stating assets" is nothing but a dodge to make you feel better about the guy you will end up voting for when the reality is that he's a fraud.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ha. Good one. A MoveOn jab. It's a shame that what you say is flatly false.

I've seen the loan documents. McCain provided everything he had as collateral for the original $3 million loan. He had nothing more to give as collateral for the additional $1 million. Go to your bank and tell them that you want to take out 33% of your original loan amount but don't want to give any more security to the bank for that and tell me how that works out for you.

McCain had only two things to provide as additional security for the extra $1 million: (1) a successful campaign or (2) matching funds if the campaign were not successful. Again, go to your back and tell them that they don't need any additional security for your loan because your business will be successful and tell me how that works out for you. In reality, the only thing McCain could offer is the matching funds. The problem is that explicitly promising the matching funds gave him no room to argue that he could opt out so he devised a cutesy trick wherein instead of explicitly providing the funds as collateral he merely promised to provide them as collateral.

Again, the issue boils down to whether promising to provide X as collateral is akin to providing X as collateral.

"Stating assets" is nothing but a dodge to make you feel better about the guy you will end up voting for when the reality is that he's a fraud.

LMAO....read.... very carefully.... try to comprehend.....

Stating that you will provide further assets as collateral IF NEEDED is not the same as providing collateral.

Yes, I will be voting for McCain. Your trying to spin this won't change that fact.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO....read.... very carefully.... try to comprehend.....

Stating that you will provide further assets as collateral IF NEEDED is not the same as providing collateral.

Yes, I will be voting for McCain. Your trying to spin this won't change that fact.

I assume you agree with all of the facts I have stated above but nevertheless reach the conclusion that the only additional collateral he provided was a promise to use public funds if his campaign tanked. Whether that is akin to using public funds as collateral is an open question for the FEC to decide, not you or me.

Also, I'm not trying to change the fact that you are voting for McCain. It seems fairly clear that you are set to vote for him and nothing will sway you from that position. I'm was merely pointing out that your assertion that he was merely stating assets is nonsense.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I assume you agree with all of the facts I have stated above but nevertheless reach the conclusion that the only additional collateral he provided was a promise to use public funds if his campaign tanked. Whether that is akin to using public funds as collateral is an open question for the FEC to decide, not you or me.

Also, I'm not trying to change the fact that you are voting for McCain. It seems fairly clear that you are set to vote for him and nothing will sway you from that position. I'm was merely pointing out that your assertion that he was merely stating assets is nonsense.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSgCX-MGmRepsojAyirvJbg2ZztAD8V1MHA80

Yes, Dung, given that the BANK in question states that McCain deliberately crafted the loan to avoid any potential conflicts with pulling out. Given that the BANK states McCain never put up any security interest in the money. Yes, the conclusion is pretty obvious except to partisan hacks or people with a grudge. (meaning Mason)

"The loan documents specifically state that the collateral did not include McCain's right to such the public funds. But the agreement with Fidelity & Trust Bank of Bethesda, Md., required him to reapply for matching funds if he withdrew from public financing and lost early primary contests."

They worded this so that he would not get stuck in the bullshit that he somehow got stuck in anyway. Because Mason and the Dems know that nothing can be settled until the FEC board fills at least two more spots.

UNTIL those spots are filled, the FEC has no power to make a decision.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Also, I'm not trying to change the fact that you are voting for McCain. It seems fairly clear that you are set to vote for him and nothing will sway you from that position. I'm was merely pointing out that your assertion that he was merely stating assets is nonsense."

A side note on the above dung.... When someone applies for a loan and states assets other than what is being used for collateral.... just what would you call that? Just curious.

 

[Bonestorm]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jSgCX-MGmRepsojAyirvJbg2ZztAD8V1MHA80

Yes, Dung, given that the BANK in question states that McCain deliberately crafted the loan to avoid any potential conflicts with pulling out. Given that the BANK states McCain never put up any security interest in the money. Yes, the conclusion is pretty obvious except to partisan hacks or people with a grudge. (meaning Mason)

"The loan documents specifically state that the collateral did not include McCain's right to such the public funds. But the agreement with Fidelity & Trust Bank of Bethesda, Md., required him to reapply for matching funds if he withdrew from public financing and lost early primary contests."

They worded this so that he would not get stuck in the bullshit that he somehow got stuck in anyway. Because Mason and the Dems know that nothing can be settled until the FEC board fills at least two more spots.

UNTIL those spots are filled, the FEC has no power to make a decision.

You're not telling me anything new. I know what the bank says. I know what the loan documents say. The reality is that the only thing that McCain had to offer was his promise to use public funds to pays the loan back. And that's what he did. Again, whether such an arrangement is akin to pledging public money for private financing is a matter for the FEC to decide, not the McCain campaign, not the bank, not me and not you.

Additionally, without clear FEC guidance one way or the other McCain took a risk and it may or may not pay off. He was very careful to minimize the risk but without FEC guidance he couldn't minimize the risk to zero. That is the nature of risk-taking.

 

[Bonestorm]

"Also, I'm not trying to change the fact that you are voting for McCain. It seems fairly clear that you are set to vote for him and nothing will sway you from that position. I'm was merely pointing out that your assertion that he was merely stating assets is nonsense."

A side note on the above dung.... When someone applies for a loan and states assets other than what is being used for collateral.... just what would you call that? Just curious.

I call that stating assets, but that's not what McCain did here. Here he pledged all of his assets to secure the original loan amount. He then wanted an extra $1 million but he had nothing addition to pledge as collateral for the additional loan amount. As I have stated numerous times now, the only thing he had to offer as collateral was public financing. However, explicitly pledging public financing as collateral meant that he definitely could not opt out of the system at a later date. So, his lawyers and the bank lawyers devised the cutesy workaround that is at issue here: his promise to pledge public financing to pay off the loan.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I call that stating assets, but that's not what McCain did here. Here he pledged all of his assets to secure the original loan amount. He then wanted an extra $1 million but he had nothing addition to pledge as collateral for the additional loan amount. As I have stated numerous times now, the only thing he had to offer as collateral was public financing. However, explicitly pledging public financing as collateral meant that he definitely could not opt out of the system at a later date. So, his lawyers and the bank lawyers devised the cutesy workaround that is at issue here: his promise to pledge public financing to pay off the loan.

Everything I have seen shows that he used his donor lists, insurance policy and his promise to call his donors to raise the capital as collateral. Where are you getting the info on his not having anything for the $1mm? Please link us to this info you are getting stating that he had no other asset.

He DID not promise to pledge public financing. He promised to reapply for public financing.

You are correct in that they were very careful (or cute if you prefer) to make sure that he wouldn't get stuck in public financing.

 

[Bonestorm]

Everything I have seen shows that he used his donor lists, insurance policy and his promise to call his donors to raise the capital as collateral. Where are you getting the info on his not having anything for the $1mm? Please link us to this info you are getting stating that he had no other asset.

He DID not promise to pledge public financing. He promised to reapply for public financing.

You are correct in that they were very careful (or cute if you prefer) to make sure that he wouldn't get stuck in public financing.

He used his donor lists, insurance policy and best efforts to raise funds to get the original $3 million. He pledged the promise to use public financing to get the additional $1 million (because he pledged all that he had to get the $3 million).

The documents are here:

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/

The relevant documents are the "Commercial Security Agreement" and the Collateral Description therein and the Loan Modification Agreement.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

He used his donor lists, insurance policy and best efforts to raise funds to get the original $3 million. He pledged the promise to use public financing to get the additional $1 million (because he pledged all that he had to get the $3 million).

The documents are here:

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/

The relevant documents are the "Commercial Security Agreement" and the Collateral Description therein and the Loan Modification Agreement.

linky no worky

 

[Bonestorm]

Try this one:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_28039612468+0

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Try this one:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_28039612468+0

Thank you. That one worked.

Now, back to the meat....

You are a moron.

Can you read?

Very first page.

States two very important pieces of information. What could they be...

When listing recourse.....

1) All assets of any kind or amount EXCLUDING certifications for federal matching funds. Also all future income EXCEPT public funding.

2) Now this one is the kicker.... pay attention... wait... ya first might want to put on some extra padding.... cause it might just hurt a bit.... I'll wait....

da da da da dada...... ready? ..... good...

what is the value of the collateral for the loan? Oooooooops... ya didn't read that part did ya? Just because I am an ass, I'll rub it in a bit.....

$5,000,000

Which if my math skills are still honed is MORE than the $3mm original loan and the subsequent $1mm loan combined.

DOH!