Mittens to rejoin presidential race

Superfreak said:
Thank you. That one worked.

Now, back to the meat....

You are a moron. :D

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!
Click to expand...


I don't know why I even bother. We're now arguing over whether McCain really needed to provide additional collateral to take out the additional $1 million. Everyone agrees that he did except you.

Look at the fucking loan documents you dolt. Use your fucking common sense, why in the hell would McCain get himself into this bind and use the cutesy trick if he had sufficient collateral in the first place. Just for giggles? wanted to rack up attorney's fees?

I said it before and I'll say it again, you're thicker than Michael Moore's thighs.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't know why I even bother. We're now arguing over whether McCain really needed to provide additional collateral to take out the additional $1 million. Everyone agrees that he did except you.

Look at the fucking loan documents you dolt. Use your fucking common sense, why in the hell would McCain get himself into this bind and use the cutesy trick if he had sufficient collateral in the first place. Just for giggles? wanted to rack up attorney's fees?

I said it before and I'll say it again, you're thicker than Michael Moore's thighs.
Click to expand...


"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 above are your words. If you have a total of $5 mm in collateral and have $4 mm in loans, that means you have remaining equity in your collateral. It does not mean you come up short.

The reason the little contingency plan was there was in case he could not raise the money from his donor lists. THEN he would go to re-apply for public funding.

The points you are deliberately ignoring....

1) He had more than enough collateral for both loans WITHOUT the public funding and it was sufficient for the bank.

2) He never left the public funding program prior to paying off the loan, so the whole section about his leaving public funding and then re-applying at a later date is rather moot.

3) He did exactly what he said he would. He called his donor list and started raising funds and paid off the loan with it. THEN he withdrew from public funding PRIOR to using any public funds. The loan was paid off before he even withdrew. Which means the clause regarding what would happen should he withdraw from public funding is MOOT. It does not matter.

But please, continue making this an issue. It just makes you look as pathetic as those that attacked Michelle Obama for her "proud" comments. You are reading into the situation the outcome you want.

I'll start calling you Rush.
 
Superfreak said:
"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 above are your words. If you have a total of $5 mm in collateral and have $4 mm in loans, that means you have remaining equity in your collateral. It does not mean you come up short.

The reason the little contingency plan was there was in case he could not raise the money from his donor lists. THEN he would go to re-apply for public funding.

The points you are deliberately ignoring....

1) He had more than enough collateral for both loans WITHOUT the public funding and it was sufficient for the bank.

2) He never left the public funding program prior to paying off the loan, so the whole section about his leaving public funding and then re-applying at a later date is rather moot.

3) He did exactly what he said he would. He called his donor list and started raising funds and paid off the loan with it. THEN he withdrew from public funding PRIOR to using any public funds. The loan was paid off before he even withdrew. Which means the clause regarding what would happen should he withdraw from public funding is MOOT. It does not matter.

But please, continue making this an issue. It just makes you look as pathetic as those that attacked Michelle Obama for her "proud" comments. You are reading into the situation the outcome you want.

I'll start calling you Rush.
Click to expand...


1) If #1 were true, there is no reason to have the additional proviso. Clearly the bank required more than the initial collateral, which, in reality merely had potential value, not actual value. The bank needed something in the event that his campaign went to shit since rational people aren't going to contribute to a dying campaign. If his campaign went to shit, the potential value in his donor list is minimal. Banks aren't going to take on that risk, hence the public funding promise.

2) You say it is moot, but it isn't. The issue remains whether he promised to use public funding as security for the loan. The central question seems to be whether he could have obtained the loan without the public financing pledge. The obvious answer to that question is a resounding no. He wouldn't have make the pledge unless he absolutely had to.

3) See #2. It doesn't matter what he did after getting the loan. What matters is what he did to obtain the loan in the first place.

I will continue to make this an issue. Clearly the champion of campaign finance reform is just a champion of reform when it is convenient but when it become problematic for him he lawyers up and tries to skirt the law that he himself has championed. Straight-talking bullshit is what it is.
 
Dungheap said:
1) If #1 were true, there is no reason to have the additional proviso. Clearly the bank required more than the initial collateral, which, in reality merely had potential value, not actual value. The bank needed something in the event that his campaign went to shit since rational people aren't going to contribute to a dying campaign. If his campaign went to shit, the potential value in his donor list is minimal. Banks aren't going to take on that risk, hence the public funding promise.

2) You say it is moot, but it isn't. The issue remains whether he promised to use public funding as security for the loan. The central question seems to be whether he could have obtained the loan without the public financing pledge. The obvious answer to that question is a resounding no. He wouldn't have make the pledge unless he absolutely had to.

3) See #2. It doesn't matter what he did after getting the loan. What matters is what he did to obtain the loan in the first place.

I will continue to make this an issue. Clearly the champion of campaign finance reform is just a champion of reform when it is convenient but when it become problematic for him he lawyers up and tries to skirt the law that he himself has championed. Straight-talking bullshit is what it is.
Click to expand...

For the love of god... how obtuse can you be? HE DID NOT PROMISE to use the public funding as collateral. EVER.

You are so full of shit. He did not skirt any law. He made sure he was able to abide by it.

Yes, it does matter what he did after getting the loan, because the promise to RE-APPLY for public funding (note... this promise does not make the public funds themselves collateral) does not matter because he paid off the loan PRIOR to opting out. So the whole provision that you are bitching about is meaningless.

Your assertation that the collateral was insufficient is nothing more than bullshit. The collateral was sufficient provided his campaign did well. Which is why the bank made the loan.

Yes, the bank put in a disaster clause... which is IF "A" Happens THEN "B" needs to happen.

But continue to ignore the wording. Ignore the fact that it never states the public funds are to be used as collateral. Not even in the disaster clause.
 
Superfreak - Let's take this a few steps at a time:

1) Do you agree that the bank insisted on something in additional to the prospect that his campaign would do well prior to providing him with the additional $1 million?

2) If so, what?
 
Dungheap said:
Superfreak - Let's take this a few steps at a time:

1) Do you agree that the bank insisted on something in additional to the prospect that his campaign would do well prior to providing him with the additional $1 million?

2) If so, what?
Click to expand...

READ moron.... from your own link.....

PAGE 22 of 27 #4 Section C

"STATUS OF CURRENTLY HELD CERTIFICATIONS OF MATCHING FUNDS:

Borrower and Lender agree that any certifications of matching funds eligibility now held by borrower and the right of borrower and/or John McCain to receive payment under such certifications are not (and shall not be) collateral for the loan."

The loan document cannot get any friggin clearer than that. It states SPECIFICALLY that at no time will the matching funds be used as collateral.
 
I don't have the attention span to follow the details in both your arguements but is this something that we will have a definitive conclusion to coming up at some point where it is clear one of you is right and one is wrong or is it one of these issues that will forever have an area of gray and thus you can argue until you are both blue in the face with both feeling you are correct?
 
cawacko said:
I don't have the attention span to follow the details in both your arguements but is this something that we will have a definitive conclusion to coming up at some point where it is clear one of you is right and one is wrong or is it one of these issues that will forever have an area of gray and thus you can argue until you are both blue in the face with both feeling you are correct?
Click to expand...

No. Just read the paragraph from my last post. The argument is over. The loan document clearly states that at no point are the matching funds being used as collateral.
 
Superfreak said:
READ moron.... from your own link.....

PAGE 22 of 27 #4 Section C

"STATUS OF CURRENTLY HELD CERTIFICATIONS OF MATCHING FUNDS:

Borrower and Lender agree that any certifications of matching funds eligibility now held by borrower and the right of borrower and/or John McCain to receive payment under such certifications are not (and shall not be) collateral for the loan."

The loan document cannot get any friggin clearer than that. It states SPECIFICALLY that at no time will the matching funds be used as collateral.
Click to expand...


So you aren't going to respond to my questions? They're really quite straight-forward:

1) Do you agree that the bank insisted on something in additional to the prospect that his campaign would do well prior to providing him with the additional $1 million?

2) If so, what?
 
Dungheap said:
So you aren't going to respond to my questions? They're really quite straight-forward:

1) Do you agree that the bank insisted on something in additional to the prospect that his campaign would do well prior to providing him with the additional $1 million?

2) If so, what?
Click to expand...

yes, the bank modified two paragraphs....the one relevant to whether or not the funds were collateral is the one I posted. Sorry I didn't spell that out for you. I thought you would have been intelligent enough to figure that out.

Did you actually bother to read it?

Are you now going to continue to play like the matching funds were somehow used as collateral?
 
Superfreak said:
No. Just read the paragraph from my last post. The argument is over. The loan document clearly states that at no point are the matching funds being used as collateral.
Click to expand...


Superfreak - This is like a hooker saying that her and her john agreed that the payment of money was for companionship only and that any sexual acts were not performed in exchange for money. The fact that the two parties involved say X does not therefore make X true.

The bank and John McCain can claim that public funds weren't used as collateral but that does not therefore make it true. I said before that he did his best to minimize the risk associated with the loan, and this is part of it, but you can't minimize the risk down to zero when there is no clear guidance on the issue.

What it boils down to, as I have said over and over and over again, is that McCain promised to use public funds to pay off the debt if the campaign went poorly and would not have gotten the loan without doing so. Whether we call that using public funds as collateral is for the FEC to decide, not you, me, McCain or the bank.
 
Oh... I see... when a borrower and lender agree to terms, agree to what is collateral... it really doesn't matter, because YOU get to decide what the collateral is?

ROFLMAO.....

If that is your argument.... you lose.
 
Superfreak said:
Oh... I see... when a borrower and lender agree to terms, agree to what is collateral... it really doesn't matter, because YOU get to decide what the collateral is?

ROFLMAO.....

If that is your argument.... you lose.
Click to expand...


Whatever. I suppose we'll have to wait to see what happens. But, in any event, in my neck of the woods an asset that you pledge as a condition to getting a loan is called collateral. McCain wouldn't have gotten the loan without the pledge to use public funds if the campaign went to shit. I'm not sure what else to call it. You used "disaster clause" and given the predicament McCain finds himself in, I think you nailed it.

As an aside, this paints McCain's attacks against Obama last week regarding public funding in a new light.
 
Dungheap said:
Whatever. I suppose we'll have to wait to see what happens. But, in any event, in my neck of the woods an asset that you pledge as a condition to getting a loan is called collateral. McCain wouldn't have gotten the loan without the pledge to use public funds if the campaign went to shit. I'm not sure what else to call it. You used "disaster clause" and given the predicament McCain finds himself in, I think you nailed it.

As an aside, this paints McCain's attacks against Obama last week regarding public funding in a new light.
Click to expand...

Translation:

"Yes, I am going to continue to pretend those words did not exist so that I may project what I want to read into the document."
 
Superfreak said:
Translation:

"Yes, I am going to continue to pretend those words did not exist so that I may project what I want to read into the document."
Click to expand...


One other point: of course McCain wasn't pledging the certifications that he held at the time. That was the whole point of the cutesy transaction. He was pledging the public money he would get in the future. Whether this pledge of future certifications is deemed to be collateral for the loan is the crux of the issue. You are confusing things.

Having said that, you seem to take McCain at face value a whole hell of a lot.
If McCain says it's not collateral it cannot be collateral even if it has all of the characteristics of collateral. If McCain says he wasn't writing the FCC in favor of his lobbyist pal on whose jet he flew and who gave him lots of money well than it must be true. If John McCain pisses on you and tells you it's raining I'm sure you'll believe him there too.
 
Dungheap said:
One other point: of course McCain wasn't pledging the certifications that he held at the time. That was the whole point of the cutesy transaction. He was pledging the public money he would get in the future. Whether this pledge of future certifications is deemed to be collateral for the loan is the crux of the issue. You are confusing things.

Having said that, you seem to take McCain at face value a whole hell of a lot.
If McCain says it's not collateral it cannot be collateral even if it has all of the characteristics of collateral. If McCain says he wasn't writing the FCC in favor of his lobbyist pal on whose jet he flew and who gave him lots of money well than it must be true. If John McCain pisses on you and tells you it's raining I'm sure you'll believe him there too.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... Yes, I take at face value a contract that states specifically that a certain condition is in place. I don't make shit up and try to project it onto a contract when the contract itself specifically states it doesn't exist.

So now we are going to spin back over to the lobbyist? Again on that issue... if you have evidence that he showed favor for her companies, please provide it. The worst thing I saw was his letter to the FCC asking for a decision. He was reprimanded for that by the FCC. I don't think it is unreasonable that he asked given that the FCC had taken two years to that point without a decision.... the FCC thought otherwise.

No, but if John McCain pisses on you, I have to admit I would laugh. :)

Gotta go. Will be back to see more of your excuses later tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top