rebelprettyboy
Active Member
I love Obama. love hearing him speak. Has that voice that just gets ur attention like Morgan Freeman. NOt as much as Morgan cuz no matter what that guy is talking about u stop to listen.
2nd presidential debate
- Thread starter crimzy
- Start date
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2785710
I actually think that McCain did a better job than he did in the first debate. He got rid of those stupid, scripted catch phrases that he and Palin relied upon so heavily in the first round, (ie. "maverick", "I didn't win Miss Congeniality in Congress...", etc.). Maybe all of the Saturday Night Live style satire told these two that those lines were far from persuasive. He appeared more genuine last night than in the past.
My biggest criticism, again, is this insane home purchase idea. Not only is it going to cost the government a gazillioin dollars (I think that's a real number) but it is a guaranteed loss, not a potential investment.
The idea also suggests to me that I made a serious mistake by purchasing a house I could afford and getting a 30 year fixed loan. I should have bought a $500K house with an adjustable rate, interest only
[hr]
and then I'd only pay on it periodically. Who's offering to reimburse the depreciated value of my house???
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that if something isn't done then a lot of families that got into bad Mortgages are going to have their home put into forcloser and the banks will be left with home that are worthless or a loss . What is going to be better for the banks a small loss or a total loss that will in turn add more to the problem.
I guess your gonna have to take one for the country Crimzy,atleast untill someone comes up with somthing better.
http:///forum/post/2785710
I actually think that McCain did a better job than he did in the first debate. He got rid of those stupid, scripted catch phrases that he and Palin relied upon so heavily in the first round, (ie. "maverick", "I didn't win Miss Congeniality in Congress...", etc.). Maybe all of the Saturday Night Live style satire told these two that those lines were far from persuasive. He appeared more genuine last night than in the past.
My biggest criticism, again, is this insane home purchase idea. Not only is it going to cost the government a gazillioin dollars (I think that's a real number) but it is a guaranteed loss, not a potential investment.
The idea also suggests to me that I made a serious mistake by purchasing a house I could afford and getting a 30 year fixed loan. I should have bought a $500K house with an adjustable rate, interest only
[hr]
and then I'd only pay on it periodically. Who's offering to reimburse the depreciated value of my house???
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that if something isn't done then a lot of families that got into bad Mortgages are going to have their home put into forcloser and the banks will be left with home that are worthless or a loss . What is going to be better for the banks a small loss or a total loss that will in turn add more to the problem.
I guess your gonna have to take one for the country Crimzy,atleast untill someone comes up with somthing better.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by rebelprettyboy
http:///forum/post/2785725
I love Obama. love hearing him speak. Has that voice that just gets ur attention like Morgan Freeman. NOt as much as Morgan cuz no matter what that guy is talking about u stop to listen.
Hmmm i like looking at Gov. Palin but I'm not gonna vote on that.Your statement is ridiculous.
http:///forum/post/2785725
I love Obama. love hearing him speak. Has that voice that just gets ur attention like Morgan Freeman. NOt as much as Morgan cuz no matter what that guy is talking about u stop to listen.
Hmmm i like looking at Gov. Palin but I'm not gonna vote on that.Your statement is ridiculous.
m0nk
Active Member
I just read the "fact checks" on the debate and apparently everything McCain said about Obama or Obama's stances were either false or overly misleading while what Obama said about McCain or McCain's stances were either true or mostly true. Interesting, wouldn't you say?
Not saying one is better than the other when it comes to debating, just thought I'd point that out to those who would rather not be lied to (again) for the next 4 years.
Not saying one is better than the other when it comes to debating, just thought I'd point that out to those who would rather not be lied to (again) for the next 4 years.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by m0nk
http:///forum/post/2785739
I just read the "fact checks" on the debate and apparently everything McCain said about Obama or Obama's stances were either false or overly misleading while what Obama said about McCain or McCain's stances were either true or mostly true. Interesting, wouldn't you say?
Not saying one is better than the other when it comes to debating, just thought I'd point that out to those who would rather not be lied to (again) for the next 4 years.
Its important to note that FOX,MSNBC and CNN all have different opinions on your statement.You might want to check with a bipartisan fact checker.
As the saying goes:Their are 3 sides to the story /HIS, HERS ,AND THE TRUTH
http:///forum/post/2785739
I just read the "fact checks" on the debate and apparently everything McCain said about Obama or Obama's stances were either false or overly misleading while what Obama said about McCain or McCain's stances were either true or mostly true. Interesting, wouldn't you say?
Not saying one is better than the other when it comes to debating, just thought I'd point that out to those who would rather not be lied to (again) for the next 4 years.
Its important to note that FOX,MSNBC and CNN all have different opinions on your statement.You might want to check with a bipartisan fact checker.
As the saying goes:Their are 3 sides to the story /HIS, HERS ,AND THE TRUTH
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2785713
Its not a whos the hippest ,youngest or,best dressed competition for GQ or Trend Mag ,its a debate on who is better qualified to be the President of the United States of America.
I'm not saying that its a competition for who looks the best. My point is that he is an old man, and everyone here believes that this is a very tough, stressful job that he is going for. I for one dont see him making it through his first term, much less 2 terms. And I know for a fact that I dont want Palin anywhere near the oval office.
http:///forum/post/2785713
Its not a whos the hippest ,youngest or,best dressed competition for GQ or Trend Mag ,its a debate on who is better qualified to be the President of the United States of America.
I'm not saying that its a competition for who looks the best. My point is that he is an old man, and everyone here believes that this is a very tough, stressful job that he is going for. I for one dont see him making it through his first term, much less 2 terms. And I know for a fact that I dont want Palin anywhere near the oval office.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2785710
I actually think that McCain did a better job than he did in the first debate. He got rid of those stupid, scripted catch phrases that he and Palin relied upon so heavily in the first round, (ie. "maverick", "I didn't win Miss Congeniality in Congress...", etc.). Maybe all of the Saturday Night Live style satire told these two that those lines were far from persuasive. He appeared more genuine last night than in the past.
My biggest criticism, again, is this insane home purchase idea. Not only is it going to cost the government a gazillioin dollars (I think that's a real number) but it is a guaranteed loss, not a potential investment.
The idea also suggests to me that I made a serious mistake by purchasing a house I could afford and getting a 30 year fixed loan. I should have bought a $500K house with an adjustable rate, interest only
[hr]
and then I'd only pay on it periodically. Who's offering to reimburse the depreciated value of my house???
You should be happy, it was hillary's idea according to one of his spokesman
Originally Posted by m0nk
http:///forum/post/2785739
I just read the "fact checks" on the debate and apparently everything McCain said about Obama or Obama's stances were either false or overly misleading while what Obama said about McCain or McCain's stances were either true or mostly true. Interesting, wouldn't you say?
Not saying one is better than the other when it comes to debating, just thought I'd point that out to those who would rather not be lied to (again) for the next 4 years.
lol, please, the couple I read were AP stories, and they aren't in the tank for obama at all.
You know what was funny, on the radio today they have some joker saying what the grade level they were speaking at.
http:///forum/post/2785710
I actually think that McCain did a better job than he did in the first debate. He got rid of those stupid, scripted catch phrases that he and Palin relied upon so heavily in the first round, (ie. "maverick", "I didn't win Miss Congeniality in Congress...", etc.). Maybe all of the Saturday Night Live style satire told these two that those lines were far from persuasive. He appeared more genuine last night than in the past.
My biggest criticism, again, is this insane home purchase idea. Not only is it going to cost the government a gazillioin dollars (I think that's a real number) but it is a guaranteed loss, not a potential investment.
The idea also suggests to me that I made a serious mistake by purchasing a house I could afford and getting a 30 year fixed loan. I should have bought a $500K house with an adjustable rate, interest only
[hr]
and then I'd only pay on it periodically. Who's offering to reimburse the depreciated value of my house???
You should be happy, it was hillary's idea according to one of his spokesman
Originally Posted by m0nk
http:///forum/post/2785739
I just read the "fact checks" on the debate and apparently everything McCain said about Obama or Obama's stances were either false or overly misleading while what Obama said about McCain or McCain's stances were either true or mostly true. Interesting, wouldn't you say?
Not saying one is better than the other when it comes to debating, just thought I'd point that out to those who would rather not be lied to (again) for the next 4 years.
lol, please, the couple I read were AP stories, and they aren't in the tank for obama at all.
You know what was funny, on the radio today they have some joker saying what the grade level they were speaking at.
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2785710
The idea also suggests to me that I made a serious mistake by purchasing a house I could afford and getting a 30 year fixed loan. I should have bought a $500K house with an adjustable rate, interest only
[hr]
and then I'd only pay on it periodically. Who's offering to reimburse the depreciated value of my house???
I'm with you man! My wife and I were smart when we bought our house 3 years ago. We spend 270K on it with a non-adjustable m-gage. I could have EASILY gotten an ARM or interest only load and spent 500K. So, now I am being penalized for those morons out there that bought houses that they should have known that they couldnt afford. I dont blame the banks, they are, after all, capitalists. It lies entirely at the fault of greedy consumers that just had to have that 500K house on a 100K household income.
http:///forum/post/2785710
The idea also suggests to me that I made a serious mistake by purchasing a house I could afford and getting a 30 year fixed loan. I should have bought a $500K house with an adjustable rate, interest only
[hr]
and then I'd only pay on it periodically. Who's offering to reimburse the depreciated value of my house???
I'm with you man! My wife and I were smart when we bought our house 3 years ago. We spend 270K on it with a non-adjustable m-gage. I could have EASILY gotten an ARM or interest only load and spent 500K. So, now I am being penalized for those morons out there that bought houses that they should have known that they couldnt afford. I dont blame the banks, they are, after all, capitalists. It lies entirely at the fault of greedy consumers that just had to have that 500K house on a 100K household income.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/2785746
I'm not saying that its a competition for who looks the best. My point is that he is an old man, and everyone here believes that this is a very tough, stressful job that he is going for. I for one dont see him making it through his first term, much less 2 terms.
Ahh ...you underestimate this man.Look at his past and tell me he isnt tough.His mother is how old and still kicking ?Genetics play a role in overall life span and do you know what the life expectancy of Americans is today? Look it up,you may be suprised.As a matter of fact i think Obama is at a higher health risk than McCain ..Obama is a smoker and his race being a factor for health issues. But im not sure on this ill have to look up the statistics.
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/2785746
And I know for a fact that I dont want Palin anywhere near the oval office.
Why is Slick Willie gonna be there?
http:///forum/post/2785746
I'm not saying that its a competition for who looks the best. My point is that he is an old man, and everyone here believes that this is a very tough, stressful job that he is going for. I for one dont see him making it through his first term, much less 2 terms.
Ahh ...you underestimate this man.Look at his past and tell me he isnt tough.His mother is how old and still kicking ?Genetics play a role in overall life span and do you know what the life expectancy of Americans is today? Look it up,you may be suprised.As a matter of fact i think Obama is at a higher health risk than McCain ..Obama is a smoker and his race being a factor for health issues. But im not sure on this ill have to look up the statistics.
Originally Posted by DragonZim
http:///forum/post/2785746
And I know for a fact that I dont want Palin anywhere near the oval office.
Why is Slick Willie gonna be there?
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2785776
But im not sure on this ill have to look up the statistics.
# Overall, have the highest cancer incidence and mortality rates, as well as the highest rates for certain cancers of any ethnic or racial group.
# Have the highest rates of prostate cancer and high blood pressure in the world.
# Are twice as likely as white men to develop diabetes.
# Develop diabetes and high blood pressure earlier in life than other men, and are more likely to suffer serious side-effects from these diseases.
# Have higher mortality rates from heart disease and obesity than other ethnic groups.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2003/nci-24.htm
http:///forum/post/2785776
But im not sure on this ill have to look up the statistics.
# Overall, have the highest cancer incidence and mortality rates, as well as the highest rates for certain cancers of any ethnic or racial group.
# Have the highest rates of prostate cancer and high blood pressure in the world.
# Are twice as likely as white men to develop diabetes.
# Develop diabetes and high blood pressure earlier in life than other men, and are more likely to suffer serious side-effects from these diseases.
# Have higher mortality rates from heart disease and obesity than other ethnic groups.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2003/nci-24.htm
darthtang aw
Active Member
as usual they both lied or mis stated facts....come on people..stop already and just punch me in the friggin face...
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...bate_no_2.html
Summary
McCain and Obama debated for the second time, in Nashville. We noted some misleading statements and mangled facts:
* McCain proposed to write down the amount owed by over-mortgaged homeowners and claimed the idea as his own: “It’s my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal.” But the idea isn’t new. Obama had endorsed something similar two weeks earlier, and authority for the treasury secretary to grant such relief was included in the recently passed $700 billion financial rescue package.
* Both candidates oversimplified the causes of the financial crisis. McCain blamed it on Democrats who resisted tighter regulation of federal
[hr]
agencies. Obama blamed it on financial deregulation backed by Republicans. We find both are right, with plenty of blame left over for others, from home buyers to the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
* Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize.
* McCain misstated his own health care plan, saying he’d give a $5,000 tax credit to “every American” His plan actually would provide only $2,500 per individual, or $5,000 for couples and families. He also misstated Obama’s health care plan, claiming it would levy fines on “small businesses” that fail to provide health insurance. Actually, Obama’s plan exempts “small businesses.”
* McCain lamented that the U.S. was forced to “withdraw in humiliation” from Somalia in 1994, but he failed to note that he once proposed to cut off funding for troops to force a faster withdrawal.
* Obama said, “I favor nuclear power.” That’s a stronger statement than we've heard him make before. As recently as last December, he said, “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.”
* McCain claimed “1.3 million people in America make their living off ----.” Actually, only 724,000 persons in the U.S. have income from ----, and only some of them rely on it as their primary source.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...bate_no_2.html
Summary
McCain and Obama debated for the second time, in Nashville. We noted some misleading statements and mangled facts:
* McCain proposed to write down the amount owed by over-mortgaged homeowners and claimed the idea as his own: “It’s my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal.” But the idea isn’t new. Obama had endorsed something similar two weeks earlier, and authority for the treasury secretary to grant such relief was included in the recently passed $700 billion financial rescue package.
* Both candidates oversimplified the causes of the financial crisis. McCain blamed it on Democrats who resisted tighter regulation of federal
[hr]
agencies. Obama blamed it on financial deregulation backed by Republicans. We find both are right, with plenty of blame left over for others, from home buyers to the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
* Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize.
* McCain misstated his own health care plan, saying he’d give a $5,000 tax credit to “every American” His plan actually would provide only $2,500 per individual, or $5,000 for couples and families. He also misstated Obama’s health care plan, claiming it would levy fines on “small businesses” that fail to provide health insurance. Actually, Obama’s plan exempts “small businesses.”
* McCain lamented that the U.S. was forced to “withdraw in humiliation” from Somalia in 1994, but he failed to note that he once proposed to cut off funding for troops to force a faster withdrawal.
* Obama said, “I favor nuclear power.” That’s a stronger statement than we've heard him make before. As recently as last December, he said, “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.”
* McCain claimed “1.3 million people in America make their living off ----.” Actually, only 724,000 persons in the U.S. have income from ----, and only some of them rely on it as their primary source.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2785656
From what i understand this money is already available from the US Federal Housing Authority and some of the money from the bailout could be used .McCain proposes to take care of homeowners first then deal with WallStreet.So in a nut shell NO NEW TAXES to pay for this,the money is already there.
Then why did he say he would spend $300 billion for this scheme of his? He plans to take that out of this $840 billion bailout, or ask for it when he gets into office? So the government devaluates my property that I spent my hard-earned money buying and improving for the possibility of selling it for a profit down the road, just so I can save the American taxpayers money, and save the deadbeats who bought too much house from getting evicted?
Why should I be the one who has to "take the bullet"? Sorry, learn to live within your means, or get you a nice cardboard box under the bridge.
Here's an idea. Let's say I own a $500,000 house, and I'm in good standing with my bank and my payments are up to date. My neighbor the deadbeat, can't keep his payments up, and is on the brink of foreclosure. Because of the real estate bust, the houses in my neighborhood are only selling for $400,000. So McCain comes in, buys my neighbor's $500,000 note, devalues his house to $400,000, then gives him a $400,000 note so he doesn't have to move out. My neighbor is very happy. Meanwhile, the value of my house just dropped $100,000. So to help me with my bailout, McCain can cut me a check for $100,000 to make up the difference, rewarding me for being a responsible person and paying my debts.
http:///forum/post/2785656
From what i understand this money is already available from the US Federal Housing Authority and some of the money from the bailout could be used .McCain proposes to take care of homeowners first then deal with WallStreet.So in a nut shell NO NEW TAXES to pay for this,the money is already there.
Then why did he say he would spend $300 billion for this scheme of his? He plans to take that out of this $840 billion bailout, or ask for it when he gets into office? So the government devaluates my property that I spent my hard-earned money buying and improving for the possibility of selling it for a profit down the road, just so I can save the American taxpayers money, and save the deadbeats who bought too much house from getting evicted?
Here's an idea. Let's say I own a $500,000 house, and I'm in good standing with my bank and my payments are up to date. My neighbor the deadbeat, can't keep his payments up, and is on the brink of foreclosure. Because of the real estate bust, the houses in my neighborhood are only selling for $400,000. So McCain comes in, buys my neighbor's $500,000 note, devalues his house to $400,000, then gives him a $400,000 note so he doesn't have to move out. My neighbor is very happy. Meanwhile, the value of my house just dropped $100,000. So to help me with my bailout, McCain can cut me a check for $100,000 to make up the difference, rewarding me for being a responsible person and paying my debts.
hlcroghan
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2785853
Then why did he say he would spend $300 billion for this scheme of his? He plans to take that out of this $840 billion bailout, or ask for it when he gets into office? So the government devaluates my property that I spent my hard-earned money buying and improving for the possibility of selling it for a profit down the road, just so I can save the American taxpayers money, and save the deadbeats who bought too much house from getting evicted?
Why should I be the one who has to "take the bullet"? Sorry, learn to live within your means, or get you a nice cardboard box under the bridge.
Here's an idea. Let's say I own a $500,000 house, and I'm in good standing with my bank and my payments are up to date. My neighbor the deadbeat, can't keep his payments up, and is on the brink of foreclosure. Because of the real estate bust, the houses in my neighborhood are only selling for $400,000. So McCain comes in, buys my neighbor's $500,000 note, devalues his house to $400,000, then gives him a $400,000 note so he doesn't have to move out. My neighbor is very happy. Meanwhile, the value of my house just dropped $100,000. So to help me with my bailout, McCain can cut me a check for $100,000 to make up the difference, rewarding me for being a responsible person and paying my debts.
That is a great idea!! One that I am sure will never happen but I like it. I think that they should just give everyone a house. Then I wouldn't have any problems!!!!!!
lol
http:///forum/post/2785853
Then why did he say he would spend $300 billion for this scheme of his? He plans to take that out of this $840 billion bailout, or ask for it when he gets into office? So the government devaluates my property that I spent my hard-earned money buying and improving for the possibility of selling it for a profit down the road, just so I can save the American taxpayers money, and save the deadbeats who bought too much house from getting evicted?
Here's an idea. Let's say I own a $500,000 house, and I'm in good standing with my bank and my payments are up to date. My neighbor the deadbeat, can't keep his payments up, and is on the brink of foreclosure. Because of the real estate bust, the houses in my neighborhood are only selling for $400,000. So McCain comes in, buys my neighbor's $500,000 note, devalues his house to $400,000, then gives him a $400,000 note so he doesn't have to move out. My neighbor is very happy. Meanwhile, the value of my house just dropped $100,000. So to help me with my bailout, McCain can cut me a check for $100,000 to make up the difference, rewarding me for being a responsible person and paying my debts.
That is a great idea!! One that I am sure will never happen but I like it. I think that they should just give everyone a house. Then I wouldn't have any problems!!!!!!
aquaknight
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2785853
Then why did he say he would spend $300 billion for this scheme of his? He plans to take that out of this $840 billion bailout, or ask for it when he gets into office? So the government devaluates my property that I spent my hard-earned money buying and improving for the possibility of selling it for a profit down the road, just so I can save the American taxpayers money, and save the deadbeats who bought too much house from getting evicted?
Why should I be the one who has to "take the bullet"? Sorry, learn to live within your means, or get you a nice cardboard box under the bridge.
Here's an idea. Let's say I own a $500,000 house, and I'm in good standing with my bank and my payments are up to date. My neighbor the deadbeat, can't keep his payments up, and is on the brink of foreclosure. Because of the real estate bust, the houses in my neighborhood are only selling for $400,000. So McCain comes in, buys my neighbor's $500,000 note, devalues his house to $400,000, then gives him a $400,000 note so he doesn't have to move out. My neighbor is very happy. Meanwhile, the value of my house just dropped $100,000. So to help me with my bailout, McCain can cut me a check for $100,000 to make up the difference, rewarding me for being a responsible person and paying my debts.
$500,000-valued house, when? Before the bubble or? Shouldn't it be a $600,000 house because it would have already lost at least $100,000 just from the current retraction of the house markets....
http:///forum/post/2785853
Then why did he say he would spend $300 billion for this scheme of his? He plans to take that out of this $840 billion bailout, or ask for it when he gets into office? So the government devaluates my property that I spent my hard-earned money buying and improving for the possibility of selling it for a profit down the road, just so I can save the American taxpayers money, and save the deadbeats who bought too much house from getting evicted?
Here's an idea. Let's say I own a $500,000 house, and I'm in good standing with my bank and my payments are up to date. My neighbor the deadbeat, can't keep his payments up, and is on the brink of foreclosure. Because of the real estate bust, the houses in my neighborhood are only selling for $400,000. So McCain comes in, buys my neighbor's $500,000 note, devalues his house to $400,000, then gives him a $400,000 note so he doesn't have to move out. My neighbor is very happy. Meanwhile, the value of my house just dropped $100,000. So to help me with my bailout, McCain can cut me a check for $100,000 to make up the difference, rewarding me for being a responsible person and paying my debts.
$500,000-valued house, when? Before the bubble or? Shouldn't it be a $600,000 house because it would have already lost at least $100,000 just from the current retraction of the house markets....
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2785853
Then why did he say he would spend $300 billion for this scheme of his? He plans to take that out of this $840 billion bailout, or ask for it when he gets into office? So the government devaluates my property that I spent my hard-earned money buying and improving for the possibility of selling it for a profit down the road, just so I can save the American taxpayers money, and save the deadbeats who bought too much house from getting evicted?
Why should I be the one who has to "take the bullet"? Sorry, learn to live within your means, or get you a nice cardboard box under the bridge.
Here's an idea. Let's say I own a $500,000 house, and I'm in good standing with my bank and my payments are up to date. My neighbor the deadbeat, can't keep his payments up, and is on the brink of foreclosure. Because of the real estate bust, the houses in my neighborhood are only selling for $400,000. So McCain comes in, buys my neighbor's $500,000 note, devalues his house to $400,000, then gives him a $400,000 note so he doesn't have to move out. My neighbor is very happy. Meanwhile, the value of my house just dropped $100,000. So to help me with my bailout, McCain can cut me a check for $100,000 to make up the difference, rewarding me for being a responsible person and paying my debts.
Ill ask you this,right now is the value of your home going up or down? Would you rathe the bailout go to the WallStreet bankers or to the American taxpayers who are footing the bill.Are you the only one who pays taxes in this country?I understand your point on those who over extended and i agree that they shouldnt get bailed out ,but what about those who are affected by the economy?
The housing bubble has burst....your home is no longer worth what it was last month.
http:///forum/post/2785853
Then why did he say he would spend $300 billion for this scheme of his? He plans to take that out of this $840 billion bailout, or ask for it when he gets into office? So the government devaluates my property that I spent my hard-earned money buying and improving for the possibility of selling it for a profit down the road, just so I can save the American taxpayers money, and save the deadbeats who bought too much house from getting evicted?
Here's an idea. Let's say I own a $500,000 house, and I'm in good standing with my bank and my payments are up to date. My neighbor the deadbeat, can't keep his payments up, and is on the brink of foreclosure. Because of the real estate bust, the houses in my neighborhood are only selling for $400,000. So McCain comes in, buys my neighbor's $500,000 note, devalues his house to $400,000, then gives him a $400,000 note so he doesn't have to move out. My neighbor is very happy. Meanwhile, the value of my house just dropped $100,000. So to help me with my bailout, McCain can cut me a check for $100,000 to make up the difference, rewarding me for being a responsible person and paying my debts.
Ill ask you this,right now is the value of your home going up or down? Would you rathe the bailout go to the WallStreet bankers or to the American taxpayers who are footing the bill.Are you the only one who pays taxes in this country?I understand your point on those who over extended and i agree that they shouldnt get bailed out ,but what about those who are affected by the economy?
The housing bubble has burst....your home is no longer worth what it was last month.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2785800
# Overall, have the highest cancer incidence and mortality rates, as well as the highest rates for certain cancers of any ethnic or racial group.
# Have the highest rates of prostate cancer and high blood pressure in the world.
# Are twice as likely as white men to develop diabetes.
# Develop diabetes and high blood pressure earlier in life than other men, and are more likely to suffer serious side-effects from these diseases.
# Have higher mortality rates from heart disease and obesity than other ethnic groups.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2003/nci-24.htm
Now that is a funny argument to counter the McCain will die because he is too old argument. Not only because it shows the lunacy of the McCain will die argument, but it has to do with race, and it is statistically backed up.
http:///forum/post/2785800
# Overall, have the highest cancer incidence and mortality rates, as well as the highest rates for certain cancers of any ethnic or racial group.
# Have the highest rates of prostate cancer and high blood pressure in the world.
# Are twice as likely as white men to develop diabetes.
# Develop diabetes and high blood pressure earlier in life than other men, and are more likely to suffer serious side-effects from these diseases.
# Have higher mortality rates from heart disease and obesity than other ethnic groups.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2003/nci-24.htm
Now that is a funny argument to counter the McCain will die because he is too old argument. Not only because it shows the lunacy of the McCain will die argument, but it has to do with race, and it is statistically backed up.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by hlcroghan
http:///forum/post/2785865
That is a great idea!! One that I am sure will never happen but I like it. I think that they should just give everyone a house. Then I wouldn't have any problems!!!!!!
lol
That is kind of the Dodds, Franks, Pelosi, and because he is a team player Obama. Except only for minorities.
http:///forum/post/2785865
That is a great idea!! One that I am sure will never happen but I like it. I think that they should just give everyone a house. Then I wouldn't have any problems!!!!!!
That is kind of the Dodds, Franks, Pelosi, and because he is a team player Obama. Except only for minorities.
veni vidi vici
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2785853
Why should I be the one who has to "take the bullet"? Sorry, learn to live within your means, or get you a nice cardboard box under the bridge.
Ask Barry Obama:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2099816/posts
http:///forum/post/2785853
Why should I be the one who has to "take the bullet"? Sorry, learn to live within your means, or get you a nice cardboard box under the bridge.
Ask Barry Obama:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2099816/posts
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2785618
So McCain is inching closer and closer to Socialism regarding his financial strategies (which you say is the main reason you hate Obama), but that's OK because he's Republican? Good one. Let's just vote along party lines even though it contradicts your beliefs and viewpoints.
Smoking that stuff causes confusion
First off I don't know Obama, why would I hate him?
Post was nothing to do with the bailout. But as long as you bring it up McCain wants to socialize one thing, Obama wants to socialize everything
http:///forum/post/2785618
So McCain is inching closer and closer to Socialism regarding his financial strategies (which you say is the main reason you hate Obama), but that's OK because he's Republican? Good one. Let's just vote along party lines even though it contradicts your beliefs and viewpoints.
Smoking that stuff causes confusion
First off I don't know Obama, why would I hate him?
Post was nothing to do with the bailout. But as long as you bring it up McCain wants to socialize one thing, Obama wants to socialize everything
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2785622
McCain is being McCain, he has always joined them. Remember who makes these polls, there is a lot of play in these polls, they are really small samples, how does 1000 or even 3000 (what most of these sample are) reflect on what 70 - 100 million voters. They are weighed pretty heavily democratic. I don't worry about them that much. A typical template of the democrat media is to take an isolated incident and portray it as a commonplace. Anecdotally have you noticed that Obama and his "record crowds" aren't getting reported? But Palin is getting them. I think we have a long month ahead of us politically, but McCain is hardly out of it. (he isn't carrying his own bags yet, when that happens then he is done)
Don't worry about the gap in the polls, worry about the direction they are moving. Unless McCain can set the wayback machine to go back and oppose the bailout I don't know how he gets the momentum back unless there is a ripsnortin October surprise in his arsenal
http:///forum/post/2785622
McCain is being McCain, he has always joined them. Remember who makes these polls, there is a lot of play in these polls, they are really small samples, how does 1000 or even 3000 (what most of these sample are) reflect on what 70 - 100 million voters. They are weighed pretty heavily democratic. I don't worry about them that much. A typical template of the democrat media is to take an isolated incident and portray it as a commonplace. Anecdotally have you noticed that Obama and his "record crowds" aren't getting reported? But Palin is getting them. I think we have a long month ahead of us politically, but McCain is hardly out of it. (he isn't carrying his own bags yet, when that happens then he is done)
Don't worry about the gap in the polls, worry about the direction they are moving. Unless McCain can set the wayback machine to go back and oppose the bailout I don't know how he gets the momentum back unless there is a ripsnortin October surprise in his arsenal