Debate

[jmick]

I was actually a little dissapointed in the debate and I thought that Obama could have done a better job and thankfully, McCain was no better if a little weaker overall. I did like that Obama made sure to link McCain with Bush regarding the economy and the tax issues. I think an issue that McCain has is that he comes across as rather pompous, little smug and angry at times. I hope this will continue to be a trend so that the American people can get a better idea of what this man is about.
Side note, anyone else excited about the Biden/Palin debate...I suspect the McCain camp has already designed her ear piece. If any of the previous interviews are an indication of what's to come she's in trouble and will probably be further exposed.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2771125
I was actually a little dissapointed in the debate and I thought that Obama could have done a better job and thankfully, McCain was no better if a little weaker overall. I did like that Obama made sure to link McCain with Bush regarding the economy and the tax issues. I think an issue that McCain has is that he comes across as rather pompous, little smug and angry at times. I hope this will continue to be a trend so that the American people can get a better idea of what this man is about.
Side note, anyone else excited about the Biden/Palin debate...I suspect the McCain camp has already designed her ear piece. If any of the previous interviews are an indication of what's to come she's in trouble and will probably be further exposed.
It is almost laughable that you think mccain is pompous. Obama has all the harvard law degree pompous we need.
Even the people who think for you would say obama is pompous.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2771058
It's great that you figured it all out from your little computer on a SWF forum. You make it sound so simple. Whey aren't you the Secretary of Treasury or Chairman of the SEC?

Back to the point, though... even by your own words, if this was an issue that goes back at least 15 years, then Bush is responsible for a large portion of the blame. And McCain's support of Bush's policies is well documented. I believe the point that you addressed... but didn't really address... was when I said that McCain's new theory that he is the answer to the failures of the past 2 presidents shows his lack of credibility. Did you want to address that, or just go back into some left-field tangent?
And Obama's policies for the most part are more the same past failed policies. This is my point. Neither have it correct and I believe the answer is a combination of both policies. The only exception between Obama's policies and policies tried in t5he past is more spending in the form of healthcare.
See you and other's are quick to point out BUSH's failed policy, without addressing the issue of the policies that led us to Bush's policy help set up this fall. Tell, me exactly how bush's policy are the sole reason for the

[hr]
and banking crisis.
Note, I appreciate your sarcasm....where did I say I had it figured out? Just said I see failed policies all the way till now and not one person or single party is to blame. Atleast I can admit that...you never seem to have a bad thing to say about your party's policy's atleast I acknowledge when the rep screwed up....and you say Obama will bring the country together, hell you can't even meet half way on this issue when the facts and the bills are there for you to look at. Nope, you are staying firmly on your side of the line....oh yeah, bringing us closer as a country seems to be working.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2771136
It is almost laughable that you think mccain is pompous. Obama has all the harvard law degree pompous we need.
Even the people who think for you would say obama is pompous.
So having a Harvard law degree or an education = a pompous attitude? Also, Obama had a perfect opportunity to nail McCain on the Keating Five scandal, which is almost 20 years to this date and the ties he still has with Keating and it's really a shame he didn't.
Even the people who think for me? Or do you mean think like me?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2771189
So having a Harvard law degree or an education = a pompous attitude? Also, Obama had a perfect opportunity to nail McCain on the Keating Five scandal, which is almost 20 years to this date and the ties he still has with Keating and it's really a shame he didn't.
Even the people who think for me? Or do you mean think like me?

why do you think he didn't? The only people that bring up keating five are the same type of people that harp about "lipstick on a pig is still a pig". There is nothing there...that is why.

 

[wangotango]

Neither of them could really answer the question about how they would rearrange their priorities as president to deal with the economy even though the moderator asked the same question several different times different ways.

IMO I don't think either "won." Both had some slip-ups and faults.
-Justin

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2771195
why do you think he didn't? The only people that bring up keating five are the same type of people that harp about "lipstick on a pig is still a pig". There is nothing there...that is why.
That's not true, McCain co-sponsored a resolution to delay new regulation designed to curb risky investments, such as what lincoln was into. McCain's wife and father in law invested money in a keating biz, prior to regulations. McCain got free trips from Keating and rides on his private jet and vacations at his resort. He also recieved campaign funds early in his career from Keating. He may not have been censured for his role but it clearly shows very poor judgement.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2771218
That's not true, McCain co-sponsored a resolution to delay new regulation designed to curb risky investments, such as what lincoln was into. McCain's wife and father in law invested money in a keating biz, prior to regulations. McCain got free trips from Keating and rides on his private jet and vacations at his resort. He also recieved campaign funds early in his career from Keating. He may not have been censured for his role but it clearly shows very poor judgement.

Like the poor judgement of choosing a lifelong pastor, being wed by him, having him baptize your children, and calling him a mentor and advisor, even when he says this country and it's citizens deserved what happened on 9/11.......that kind of poor judgement?

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2771258
Like the poor judgement of choosing a lifelong pastor, being wed by him, having him baptize your children, and calling him a mentor and advisor, even when he says this country and it's citizens deserved what happened on 9/11.......that kind of poor judgement?
So you'd say the Keating Five scandal is of the same significance as Obama's stupid pastor? Not sure how many people feel about it but I think the fraud they undertook and the jail time they served is more significant...do you think Wright will end up in jail because of the rubbish that comes out of his mouth?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2771270
So you'd say the Keating Five scandal is of the same significance as Obama's stupid pastor? Not sure how many people feel about it but I think the fraud they undertook and the jail time they served is more significant...do you think Wright will end up in jail because of the rubbish that comes out of his mouth?

You said it showed poor judgement. That is all I touched on. giving a return example of poor judgement. That is all.
Rezco would be closer to a similar situation, but BOTH were cleared of any wrong doing, however they are similar situations.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2771195
why do you think he didn't? The only people that bring up keating five are the same type of people that harp about "lipstick on a pig is still a pig". There is nothing there...that is why.
Kinda like your little Ayers scandal? Yea, nothing there.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2770972
Actually I think that the argument is becoming more and more appropriate. Since the bail out crisis, McCain now seems to be touting this platform of "The government needs total reform and has gotten way out of hand." How many times did we hear him say that "I didn't win Miss Congeniality in the Senate." He's now attempting to argue that he should be elected because because he's the guy to reform the mistakes of the past eight (8) years. His credibility clearly comes into question because his record of Bush support is clear.
I also thought that Obama did well in responding to McCain's "half-true" allegations. For instance, when McCain mentioned that Obama voted against funds for the soldiers... but he neglected to mention that the bill had no time-line and that McCain himself voted against funds for the soldiers where there was a timeline.
That was a good counter point to McCains jab.
look, I like bush, for the most part, he has been a good president. I'd love if McCain was a 3rd bush, (minus Bush's work with democrat spending and this abandon conservative ideology bail out) But the dude isn't, he isn't even close. Friggen John Kerry offered him the veep spot 4 years ago.
Then for a democrat to turn around and say oh he is just like bush. come on. It is just an asinine argument.
I really found it interesting, and quite useless, Obama making the centerpoint of his iraq argument. We should have never been in there in the first place. Seriously, he is trying to run a campaign against a lame duck president. And I truely and honestly don't understand why.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2771189
So having a Harvard law degree or an education = a pompous attitude? Also, Obama had a perfect opportunity to nail McCain on the Keating Five scandal, which is almost 20 years to this date and the ties he still has with Keating and it's really a shame he didn't.
Even the people who think for me? Or do you mean think like me?
Not always.
Keating 5? Come on you can't be serious? A friggen democrat prosecutor said he didn't do anything.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2771174
See you and other's are quick to point out BUSH's failed policy, without addressing the issue of the policies that led us to Bush's policy help set up this fall. Tell, me exactly how bush's policy are the sole reason for the

[hr]
and banking crisis.
Note, I appreciate your sarcasm....where did I say I had it figured out? Just said I see failed policies all the way till now and not one person or single party is to blame. Atleast I can admit that...you never seem to have a bad thing to say about your party's policy's atleast I acknowledge when the rep screwed up....and you say Obama will bring the country together, hell you can't even meet half way on this issue when the facts and the bills are there for you to look at. Nope, you are staying firmly on your side of the line....oh yeah, bringing us closer as a country seems to be working.
A couple points here...
(1) I am not a democrat. I am not a republican either. Personally, I believe that if you allow a party to make up your mind for you then it's simply a sign of a weak mind or lack of intelligence. The fact that I happen to support Obama, and dislike both McCain and Bush is the result of personal assessments based on the merits of the men, not a party line.
(2) When did I say "Obama will bring the country together..."? Your statement is simply made up.
(3) Finally, why do you insist on arguiing about the economy in a thread centered around the debate? I don't believe that I ever claimed that Bush's failed policies were the SOLE reason for the m-ortgage crisis. IMO, the m-ortgage crisis was caused by greedy brokers and greedy homeowners coupled with a depreciating real estate market and slowing economy. Bush's responsiblity lies in the fact that he did not impose any regulations when these issues became predictable several years ago. Even a moron like me could see that there were going to be problems based on the trends of the m-ortgage industry. I don't agree that the m-ortgage crisis was caused by trends that existed 15 years ago. I may be wrong but I recall the first of these subprime, unconventional, interest only, adjustable rate loans coming out in 2000 or 2001. They may have come out slightly prior to that but the rise of these issues has definitely occurred within the last 8 years. Do you disagree?

 

[reefraff]

Hey Crimz, How bout them Wolverines

I think McCain comes out ahead based on he gets to run these commercials with Obama saying John is right. If Obama wants to win he is going to have to come up with something a lot better than McCain is Bush. Wait till McCain rolls out the commercials with Obama is Pelosi. Bush has twice the approval ratings Congress does.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2771897
Hey Crimz, How bout them Wolverines

I was so disgusted and frustrated that I turned off the game at halftime.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2771840
Bush's responsiblity lies in the fact that he did not impose any regulations when these issues became predictable several years ago. Even a moron like me could see that there were going to be problems based on the trends of the m-ortgage industry. I don't agree that the m-ortgage crisis was caused by trends that existed 15 years ago. I may be wrong but I recall the first of these subprime, unconventional, interest only, adjustable rate loans coming out in 2000 or 2001. They may have come out slightly prior to that but the rise of these issues has definitely occurred within the last 8 years. Do you disagree?
Yes, basically the whole thing. First off, there was legislation proposed by bush more than once to reform fanny and freddy. They were defeated largely in part by dodd, pelosi and some stupid blue blooded republicans.
Second, the subprime market has always been there. There has always been someone willing to lend money someone. However since it was a high risk issue for the lean holders the rates were very high, and there was not a lot of money avaliable. Fanny and Freddy, basically purchased high risk loans, and forced the private companies who selling subprime loans out, because they didn't have the profit requirements that these companies had. That coupled with the removal of risk in knowing that someone would buy their junk morgages, lenders worked the system avaliable to them. Fanny and Freddy have been around since before bush. And so have subprime morgages.
I have a friend (who is a democrat) who was a vp at countrywide. He was telling me that they were required by law to bump up borderline applicants to give them better interest rates, or even get them approved. They were required to reach certain quotas of lower income level home buyers. (Take this with a grain of salt, I have not verified his story anywhere else)

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2771840
They may have come out slightly prior to that but the rise of these issues has definitely occurred within the last 8 years. Do you disagree?

No I do not disagree. Where I disagree is that this crisis is solely a bush fault. That is what I disagree with. But if you recall I placed this

[hr]
bubble at the feet of Bush. Bubbles burst especially with how fast home values were rising. It was bound to crash and I fault him and our government for not paying closer attention to implications and trends. Just like I blame Clinton and that government for the tech boom bubble burst. Look history has proven anything that rises fast will fall equally fast.
Part of the problem is investors that bought multiple houses and are now NOT paying on them. give you a small example. My parents house in Phoenix sold a few years back at 345,000 dollars, whoever bought this house, now it is worth 240,000 thousand. That is a 1/3 LOSS in market value. Now, at the rate the housing market typically climbs this house will not show an even return with in the owners lifetime, they have started out in the red with no hope to get out of it. A lot of people are in this situation. Now if you can allow the home to be foreclosed on and not owe anything,doesn't that sound like a sweet deal. Couple that with now the banks being bailed out on these loans and you have our current crisis. Many foreclosing homes are because of this scenario. Sure the sub prime and ARM's also contributed, but they are not the sole reasons for the problem. The problem is accountability and the idea of making the fast buck.....
I am rambling because it is late, so I may not be making my point. But I think you can get the jist of it.The point being many past policies and bills brought this about, but recent trends and policies exaserbated it, It would have happenned anyway, but it was brought to forefront more quickly due to recent policies.

 

[reefraff]

Fox ran a clip this morning of Barney Franks from 2003 saying how there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie. Now this boob gets a major role in creating legislation to fix the problem he didn't see coming?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2772061
Fox ran a clip this morning of Barney Franks from 2003 saying how there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie. Now this boob gets a major role in creating legislation to fix the problem he didn't see coming?
He said that in response to his vote no on restructuring legislation on fanny and freddy.