Poll: Who won the First Debate?

Who won the debate?

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    lol I didnít realize I did that! oops my bad!

    as for calling him a name, that is a actually a name he was called in collage and he like being called that. I was not making fun of him.

    next, how did I make false comments? the fact is that McNasty DID misquote many people many times in the debate!

    while I may not have added much I still added something, also I stayed on topic. (So watch yourself son! jk lol)

    Thanks
    GJJ
    I was only referring to the name calling, and saying he has no debating skills. When even I can say there was no clear cut winner in this case. And that is saying something. He hung right there with Obama, or vice versa, however you want to look at it. And reading about the debate, i seen that McCain had two blunders, I wouldnt call that misquoting many people.

    (Now check yo self, be fo you wreck yo self. )

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend


  2. all i know is if obama is elected president we are screwed. that means a democratic house of rep, democratic senate and democratic leader. Hes too young and inexperienced. You need a balance and without a republican influence you dont get that. I for one will vote mccain. Drilling for oil is our only hope!
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    For me, there was no clear winner. I would say it was a draw. Mr. McCain did not demonstrate the weakness observers might have expected in terms of the economy, and Mr. Obama showed nice command of foreign policy. McCain was expected to be more aggressive, given his weaker position in the polls before the debate, and he did come out more aggressive, almost always interjecting "What Senator Obama does not understand...." in his responses. On his own, Obama tried to contain McCain's attacks, while acknowledging any valid points McCain made. This aspect has been criticized by some as being too polite or gentlemanly. Others saw it as a necessary quality for a bipartisan or consensus-building approach. The second debate should be interesting, as both sides would be expected to have learnt a thing or two from the first debate.
    I'd say more or less the same, probably on a scale of 100 points i'd go with 52 mccain 48 obama, but since I had lower expectations of obama going in its a net win for him kind of like he beat the point spread in my head. But then again going in i expected no economic questions, and half the debate was about that.

    The problem I saw with obama during the debate was him rolling his eyes, making faces, that sort of thing the whole time, which didnt seem quite presidential or even professional, particularly considering how many times he said that mccain was right about things. Also the difference between him attempting to be familiar and friendly and using John all the time while mccain said Senator Obama kind of irked me. Just not quite professional/presidential. If the next debate obama manages to avoid that, he'll look even better I think.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    I'd say more or less the same, probably on a scale of 100 points i'd go with 52 mccain 48 obama, but since I had lower expectations of obama going in its a net win for him kind of like he beat the point spread in my head. But then again going in i expected no economic questions, and half the debate was about that.

    The problem I saw with obama during the debate was him rolling his eyes, making faces, that sort of thing the whole time, which didnt seem quite presidential or even professional, particularly considering how many times he said that mccain was right about things. Also the difference between him attempting to be familiar and friendly and using John all the time while mccain said Senator Obama kind of irked me. Just not quite professional/presidential. If the next debate obama manages to avoid that, he'll look even better I think.
    Well, he actually called him 'Tom', 'Jim' and a host of other improper names! I found that to be amusing.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    I was only referring to the name calling, and saying he has no debating skills. When even I can say there was no clear cut winner in this case. And that is saying something. He hung right there with Obama, or vice versa, however you want to look at it. And reading about the debate, i seen that McCain had two blunders, I wouldnt call that misquoting many people.

    (Now check yo self, be fo you wreck yo self. )

    Adams


    lol oh shizznit son! I think I just wrecked myself! lol

    I was in the speach and debate club (#10 in the nation at the time, now are #16) in high school and from what I learned Mcnasty did not display strong skills. He constantly attacked instead of proving his points. Yes, attacking is one way to debate, although it is usually done by people who donít understand there own view points.

    Yea thatís right I am bragging! lol

    By the way, I should have been more descriptive in my first post, in fact I should be more descriptive and should have provided example in all of my posts in this thread. The fact is i am far too busy with Fíing school to do so. For that I am sorry sir, because I love having intelligent convos.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by dieselxxl View Post
    all i know is if obama is elected president we are screwed. that means a democratic house of rep, democratic senate and democratic leader. Hes too young and inexperienced. You need a balance and without a republican influence you dont get that. I for one will vote mccain. Drilling for oil is our only hope!
    Wow... You know this! Oh benevolent one tell me more of you infinite wisdom! joke!

    I believe the rep's had the prez (Bush), the house, and the senate under there control. look at how they did..... not so well. why dont we give the dems a try at fixing the problem the rep's created (most of the problems were started by the reagan admin).

    Thanks
    GJJ

  7. Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    Wow... You know this! Oh benevolent one tell me more of you infinite wisdom! joke!

    I believe the rep's had the prez (Bush), the house, and the senate under there control. look at how they did..... not so well. why dont we give the dems a try at fixing the problem the rep's created (most of the problems were started by the reagan admin).

    Thanks
    GJJ
    Actually we are just now feeling the effects of the Sub Prime lending era that Clinton brought about. This problem with the economy started before bush had the floor. McCain brought these issues up time and time again since the institution of sub prime predatory lending, but by that time the dems controlled congress... and god for big they listen to someone from across the isle.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  8. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Actually we are just now feeling the effects of the Sub Prime lending era that Clinton brought about. This problem with the economy started before bush had the floor. McCain brought these issues up time and time again since the institution of sub prime predatory lending, but by that time the dems controlled congress... and god for big they listen to someone from across the isle.

    Adams
    The sub prime mortgages started before the Clinton and the real problems strated when the second bush decided to mess with the rates. (READ GREENSPANS BOOK HE EXPLAINS IT ALL VERYY WELL)the econ turned bad when bush and his cronies turned big business free and in to a laissez-faire. The kicker is that Bush allowed big business to manufacture in other countries with lower tariffs and taxes. thus, causing a loss in jobs and more money being spent in other countries instead of the good ole USA.

    Besides, to blame the struggling econ on the housing market is ridiculous. There are a multitude of factors that created this econ that we no live in!

  9. Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    The sub prime mortgages started before the Clinton and the real problems strated when the second bush decided to mess with the rates. (READ GREENSPANS BOOK HE EXPLAINS IT ALL VERYY WELL)the econ turned bad when bush and his cronies turned big business free and in to a laissez-faire. The kicker is that Bush allowed big business to manufacture in other countries with lower tariffs and taxes. thus, causing a loss in jobs and more money being spent in other countries instead of the good ole USA.

    Besides, to blame the struggling econ on the housing market is ridiculous. There are a multitude of factors that created this econ that we no live in!
    The policies began with Jimmy Carter and were given fresh legs by Bill Clinton. The current crisis is due primarily to subprime lending and not just Bush's messing with the rates as you try to imply. There are other issues at play but to try and reduce the home mortgage industry as a bit player just shows how much you fail to understand about everything. In fact, Bush wanted regulation of the home mortage industry as far back as 2003 and McCain wanted it in 2005. This current crisis is the result of businessmen having politicians in their pockets. Every time regulation was proposed the politicians in bed with the mortgage industry squashed it. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame, but of the two, only the Democrats are still in office.

  10. I agree, this goes well beyond party here. Both parties are a$$ deep in this and they are to blame. Now, sadly the taxpayer takes the hit, which is what we are getting far too acustomed to.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I agree, this goes well beyond party here. Both parties are a$$ deep in this and they are to blame. Now, sadly the taxpayer takes the hit, which is what we are getting far too acustomed to.
    One party is a$$ deep in it. The other party had some guys a$$ deep but definitely not all of them. Obama is most definitely a$$ deep. Obama is in deep with every dem special interest that i can think of:

    - Unions
    - ACORN/Fannie/Housing
    - Teachers

    I'm sure theres more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    The policies began with Jimmy Carter and were given fresh legs by Bill Clinton. The current crisis is due primarily to subprime lending and not just Bush's messing with the rates as you try to imply. There are other issues at play but to try and reduce the home mortgage industry as a bit player just shows how much you fail to understand about everything. In fact, Bush wanted regulation of the home mortage industry as far back as 2003 and McCain wanted it in 2005. This current crisis is the result of businessmen having politicians in their pockets. Every time regulation was proposed the politicians in bed with the mortgage industry squashed it. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame, but of the two, only the Democrats are still in office.

    oh my.... come now, to say that I think that the mortgage problem is not big catalyst is wrong. I believe it is a big player in our poor econ, although it is not the main reason. It is merely a domino that has just fallen because of other dominos. Can u reference some facts showing that it was Clinton that gave it new legs? from what I have read reagon is to blame for the mortgage crisis and Bush jr gave it the legs of usain bolt. (If I can find the page in Greenspans book I will post it).

  13. Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    oh my.... come now, to say that I think that the mortgage problem is not big catalyst is wrong. I believe it is a big player in our poor econ, although it is not the main reason. It is merely a domino that has just fallen because of other dominos. Can u reference some facts showing that it was Clinton that gave it new legs? from what I have read reagon is to blame for the mortgage crisis and Bush jr gave it the legs of usain bolt. (If I can find the page in Greenspans book I will post it).
    This is readily available information......

    How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable
    Terry Jones
    Wed Sep 24, 7:19 PM ET



    One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

    The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the juggernauts they'd later be.

    While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.

    In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.

    Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.

    Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own homes." He meant it.

    Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.

    Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995.

    The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.

    Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.

    "Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance," wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.

    But those rules weren't enough.

    Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.

    Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.

    Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.

    Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored enterprises boomed.

    With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income.

    By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market -- a staggering exposure.

    Worse still was the cronyism.

    Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.

    Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384 politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.

    Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions more on think tanks and radical community groups.

    Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people into homes, the answer would have to be yes.

    From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners.

    The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

    Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a failed legacy of the Clinton era.
    BTW, I guess I must have misinterpreted this quote....

    Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    Besides, to blame the struggling econ on the housing market is ridiculous. There are a multitude of factors that created this econ that we no live in!

  14. Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    The sub prime mortgages started before the Clinton and the real problems strated when the second bush decided to mess with the rates. (READ GREENSPANS BOOK HE EXPLAINS IT ALL VERYY WELL)the econ turned bad when bush and his cronies turned big business free and in to a laissez-faire. The kicker is that Bush allowed big business to manufacture in other countries with lower tariffs and taxes. thus, causing a loss in jobs and more money being spent in other countries instead of the good ole USA.

    Besides, to blame the struggling econ on the housing market is ridiculous. There are a multitude of factors that created this econ that we no live in!
    1. The President doesn't decide rates. His book was meant for one reason...covering his ass.

    2. Corporations have been moving manufacturing overseas for 20 years because we have the 2nd HIGHEST tax rate in the world. Look it up. We're at 35%.

    3. The housing bubble is the PRIME reason the economy is faltering. GDP was 3.3% the last quarter, unemployment is still at a historically moderate level even at 6%. Removing the foreclosures and tightening of credit because of the housing bubble and the economy will be fine. Historically, we've just went through the biggest boom in the last 50 years.


    4. "Clinton Administration Changes of 1995

    In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to target to groups to collect a fee from the banks.[4][7]

    The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages." Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million.[4] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.[8][9]

    Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.[5] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[10]

    Bush Administration Changes of 2005

    In 2002 there was an interagency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[7] In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines and the proposal eventually failed.[11]

    The new CRA regulations proposed in early 2005 were put into effect in July and September of 2005. They included new definitions for "small" and "intermediate small" banks which were subject to less restrictions than formally.[3] The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats[12]
    If you are going to talk about the economy, please at least be familiar with it."
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by J. Peterman View Post
    1. The President doesn't decide rates. His book was meant for one reason...covering his ass.
    I think 2 reasons, ass cover plus $$$

  16. Wikipedia already changed the description of the CRA.


    This is what it was a couple days ago. They already took out quotes from Barney Frank and Andrew Cuomo. WONDER WHY!

    Clinton Administration Changes of 1995

    In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. These revisions[3] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.[citation needed]

    The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.

    Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.[1] Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.

    Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. [4] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent. [5] [6]


    George W. Bush Administration Proposed Changes of 2003

    In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [7] This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."[8]
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    I think 2 reasons, ass cover plus $$$
    Seriously, his book erased whatever credibility he once had. I hope he made a nice penny off of sales.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    This is readily available information......



    BTW, I guess I must have misinterpreted this quote....

    i should have said scholarly evidence...


    yes you did

  19. by the way i guess you guys for got the toll the war has taken on our econ.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    i should have said scholarly evidence...


    yes you did
    I guess historical evidence doesn't count for much.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    by the way i guess you guys for got the toll the war has taken on our econ.
    What toll is that? national debt went higher, but wages for average amerericans went up. wages are a supply/demand situation, and with as many working age men not working as they were deployed in the military (all the reservists, etc) means that our stateside job prospects should have been better.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    ....
    The problem I saw with obama during the debate was him rolling his eyes, making faces, that sort of thing the whole time, which didnt seem quite presidential or even professional, particularly considering how many times he said that mccain was right about things....
    Debates, presidential or otherwise, encompass more than just verbal exchanges. Body language is also a part of it. One might like this or not, depending on one's taste. I doubt if the intention is to have two robotic (presidential) debaters with plain faces devoid of any emotion. Making faces, shaking heads, while the opponent is talking suggests disagreement with what he says, and ensures people know one is in disagreement, in case one does not get a chance to respond to the opponent's comments.
    So, given strict time rules, one should use a combination of verbal and non-verbal communication to drive as much point as possible. Just my thought.
    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Also the difference between him attempting to be familiar and friendly and using John all the time while mccain said Senator Obama kind of irked me. Just not quite professional/presidential. If the next debate obama manages to avoid that, he'll look even better I think.
    If I am allowed to address you as "Easy" in a one-to-one conversation off-camera, would I address you as "EasyEJL" when we are in a debate on-camera? I personally do not see it that strict! I may be wrong, though!
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowdersí opinion as a whole.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    If I am allowed to address you as "Easy" in a one-to-one conversation off-camera, would I address you as "EasyEJL" when we are in a debate on-camera? I personally do not see it that strict! I may be wrong, though!
    If Mr. McCain and Mr. Lehrer started addressing formally....it makes Barry look informal when hes like hey, "Johnny whats going on!" Its like using tu when usted is called for in Spanish.

    It probably didn't matter one way or another.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    Debates, presidential or otherwise, encompass more than just verbal exchanges. Body language is also a part of it. One might like this or not, depending on one's taste. I doubt if the intention is to have two robotic (presidential) debaters with plain faces devoid of any emotion. Making faces, shaking heads, while the opponent is talking suggests disagreement with what he says, and ensures people know one is in disagreement, in case one does not get a chance to respond to the opponent's comments.
    So, given strict time rules, one should use a combination of verbal and non-verbal communication to drive as much point as possible. Just my thought.


    If I am allowed to address you as "Easy" in a one-to-one conversation off-camera, would I address you as "EasyEJL" when we are in a debate on-camera? I personally do not see it that strict! I may be wrong, though!
    I see what you are saying on both, but how would you feel if as president he did the same during a limited meeting with putin(the faces, etc) or how about if he went "casual" first, calling him vlad many times, but even tho putin continued to call him president obama? just seems like trying to force a familiarity and friendliness that doesn't actually exist

  25. I didn't think there was any clear winner.

    McCain did horribly when it came to addressing middle class issues and the economy at large.

    When it came to Iraq, he came off like an arsonist that wanted credit for putting out his own fire. He just doesn't get it.

    He also looked and sounded like a cranky old man, refusing to look at Obama and using condecending tones all the way.


    Obama continues to believe that being the more intellectual and calm candidate will win, and as we've seen in the past - smarter doesn't resonate with dumb voters - regardless of their political leanings.

    The only time he really resonated with me was when he hammered McCain on Iraq.

    Dems think their guy won, Repubs think their guy won.
    Independants, however, widely believe that Obama won. And that's what matters most to the two campaigns. Because at this stage of the game, they don't give a **** about their base.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    I see what you are saying on both, but how would you feel if as president he did the same during a limited meeting with putin(the faces, etc) or how about if he went "casual" first, calling him vlad many times, but even tho putin continued to call him president obama? just seems like trying to force a familiarity and friendliness that doesn't actually exist
    I actually do not know what level of familiarity Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama enjoy, if at all, to justify first-name addressing or not. Hence, I am unable to say if Mr. Obama's style was inappropriate, or if Mr. McCain was overly formal.

    Regarding Putin, faces, and all that, the context is different. Every one gets a chance to talk, with loose time restrictions, if any. Besides, some presidents or heads of state are on first name bases in front of, or behind the camera.
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowdersí opinion as a whole.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    What toll is that? national debt went higher, but wages for average amerericans went up. wages are a supply/demand situation, and with as many working age men not working as they were deployed in the military (all the reservists, etc) means that our stateside job prospects should have been better.

    The national debt went WAY higher!

    Because Americans wages went up is not a always a good thing. Inflation is not a good thing.

    We are in such a bad situation we are borrowing money from other countries. Also, not a good thing. we owe more then 1/2 a billion to china.

    Oh and those jobs you think are so secure, not so much, just this year we have lost over 600,000 jobs.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by grila jujitsu View Post
    The national debt went WAY higher!

    Because Americans wages went up is not a always a good thing. Inflation is not a good thing.

    We are in such a bad situation we are borrowing money from other countries. Also, not a good thing. we owe more then 1/2 a billion to china.

    Oh and those jobs you think are so secure, not so much, just this year we have lost over 600,000 jobs.
    1. 500 million dollars is chump change to this country.

    2. We've always borrowed from other countries. And in turn, other countries have borrowed from us. It's nothing new. It's called credit...you know, the thing is country and others live off of.

    3. American wage increases not always good? Are you an idiot? How do increased wages result in increased inflation? Oh, that's right, the two are not exclusively linked. One doesn't have to follow the other.

    4. I'm sorry, but I've been able to follow the majority of the posters in this thread. And although I may not agree with them, they are demonstrating a fairly knowledgeable take on the situation. Where as, you my friend are coming out of left field with a bunch of useless unsupported rhetoric.

    5. The "economic crisis" is the housing crisis. Because people are defaulting on their mortgages there is a crunch on credit. No one wants to loan any money unless they are nearly guaranteed safe returns. This means the bankers are puckering up and clamping down on the coffers. Now you have to show you have the means of paying back a loan before you get it. Oh the humanity! I have to be able to pay things back! Shock! Horror!

    6. If you stop the foreclosures, you free up those uptight bankers to release the purse strings and provide more credit. And whether you want to believe it or not, this country and the world market runs on CREDIT.

    7. The war didn't cause this economic crisis. People with jobs paying 50k/yr buying a $500k house on an ARM loan are what is causing this "economic" crisis. You can blame the banks, because they rightfully deserve to reap what they sowed. However, don't forget that Clinton is the one who decided that everyone ought to have a house, which created these outrageous subprime loans, and then made them readily available, in the first place.

    8. Take a nap, please. Also, it would be much easier to follow your posts, if there was a semblance of sentence structure, punctuation, or logical transitions between points.

    As far as staying on topic. It was a general tie, which means McCain lost (And I'm a McCain supporter). He needs to step up and provide some resounding wins in the next two debates. And I really thought this would have been an easy one for him, being based on Foreign policy. (Although the economy did get tossed in).

    <== That's how I felt after the debate.

    Edit: The majority of those $600,000 jobs lost are unskilled (excuse the terminology, its used for lower skilled jobs) labor jobs. Get an education. This is a technology driven world, not just here in the US. You know we actually give tens of thousands of visas to people from all over the world, because we don't have enough engineers and scientists being produced in the US to fill demand? You want job security, then get an education.

  29. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    The policies began with Jimmy Carter and were given fresh legs by Bill Clinton. The current crisis is due primarily to subprime lending and not just Bush's messing with the rates as you try to imply. There are other issues at play but to try and reduce the home mortgage industry as a bit player just shows how much you fail to understand about everything. In fact, Bush wanted regulation of the home mortage industry as far back as 2003 and McCain wanted it in 2005. This current crisis is the result of businessmen having politicians in their pockets. Every time regulation was proposed the politicians in bed with the mortgage industry squashed it. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame, but of the two, only the Democrats are still in office.
    that is the truth

  30. Quote Originally Posted by Nabisco View Post
    1. 500 million dollars is chump change to this country.

    2. We've always borrowed from other countries. And in turn, other countries have borrowed from us. It's nothing new. It's called credit...you know, the thing is country and others live off of.

    3. American wage increases not always good? Are you an idiot? How do increased wages result in increased inflation? Oh, that's right, the two are not exclusively linked. One doesn't have to follow the other.

    4. I'm sorry, but I've been able to follow the majority of the posters in this thread. And although I may not agree with them, they are demonstrating a fairly knowledgeable take on the situation. Where as, you my friend are coming out of left field with a bunch of useless unsupported rhetoric.

    5. The "economic crisis" is the housing crisis. Because people are defaulting on their mortgages there is a crunch on credit. No one wants to loan any money unless they are nearly guaranteed safe returns. This means the bankers are puckering up and clamping down on the coffers. Now you have to show you have the means of paying back a loan before you get it. Oh the humanity! I have to be able to pay things back! Shock! Horror!

    6. If you stop the foreclosures, you free up those uptight bankers to release the purse strings and provide more credit. And whether you want to believe it or not, this country and the world market runs on CREDIT.

    7. The war didn't cause this economic crisis. People with jobs paying 50k/yr buying a $500k house on an ARM loan are what is causing this "economic" crisis. You can blame the banks, because they rightfully deserve to reap what they sowed. However, don't forget that Clinton is the one who decided that everyone ought to have a house, which created these outrageous subprime loans, and then made them readily available, in the first place.

    8. Take a nap, please. Also, it would be much easier to follow your posts, if there was a semblance of sentence structure, punctuation, or logical transitions between points.

    As far as staying on topic. It was a general tie, which means McCain lost (And I'm a McCain supporter). He needs to step up and provide some resounding wins in the next two debates. And I really thought this would have been an easy one for him, being based on Foreign policy. (Although the economy did get tossed in).

    <== That's how I felt after the debate.

    Edit: The majority of those $600,000 jobs lost are unskilled (excuse the terminology, its used for lower skilled jobs) labor jobs. Get an education. This is a technology driven world, not just here in the US. You know we actually give tens of thousands of visas to people from all over the world, because we don't have enough engineers and scientists being produced in the US to fill demand? You want job security, then get an education.

    lol left field huh?

    where do u get ur info! lol

    I dont even know which point to start with.

    Your argument is so base, talk about useless rhetoric!
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. The 2nd Debate
    By TruffleShuffle in forum Politics
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-09-2008, 09:59 PM
  2. hcg debate
    By Get Big or Die in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-14-2006, 10:03 PM
  3. 40/30/30 debate
    By Head Nurse in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-10-2005, 08:46 AM
  4. Okay another something to debate
    By Matthew D in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-30-2005, 06:36 PM
Log in
Log in