You all know who I thought won...what about everyone else?
Agreed. McCain spoke with an air of competence as well.McCain, Obama just struck me as disrespectful. Don't interrupt someone when they're talking, it's just rude and doesn't make you look better.
Replace Kirk with Obama and that's what I saw. b unit, where you at? I know you can get it done.
I totally disagree as McCain overstepped his summary time in a few instances, In some cases I felt Obama was too respectful imo. Also if someone says something that you totally disagree with do you make an effort at rebuttal or do you just stand there and wait your turn, so to speak. This was a debate not a social function. That being said I think for the most part both candidates said what we've heard all along. They did however, better establish where they have fundamental differences. And so it goesMcCain, Obama just struck me as disrespectful. Don't interrupt someone when they're talking, it's just rude and doesn't make you look better.
What is funny is that McCain, the hot head, looked much more disciplined than Obama. Obama got flustered a couple times but also did gain points by directly attacking him as well.And JP, none of that angry liberal stuff:lol:
Holy cow, we agree on something :blink: however, didn't McCain steal the change mantle at his convention. Also I must say McCain is trying maybe too hard to distance himself from GWB. It's like waking up with the ugly girl and trying to figure out how to sneak her out of your house after you eat your own arm off to get away.:toofunny:What Obama did tonight was agree too much with McCain. If you're the "change" candidate, you don't agree...even if you do
Its one thing to say change, its another thing to actually change something.Holy cow, we agree on something :blink: however, didn't McCain steal the change mantle at his convention.
:bruce3:
There is a lot of truth in that statement.Its one thing to say change, its another thing to actually change something.
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.
In what sense could these comments be extracted from yesterday's debate, the core subject of this thread? From my point of view, completely zero-value adding!Obama Is Ignorant
And Will Destroy Our Country
Democrats Suck
Great comments, Ike; I agree in full!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.
Jp, as much as it pains me to say this, and trust me this is painful, I could not agree more. ( I think I threw up a bit in my mouth with that one)After having a night to sleep on it and a round of golf this morning, it was a boring debate. McCain won based on detials but it might have been the most boring win I've ever seen.
I don't see how he can win this election given the economy is front and center now. I think he needed to win by such a large margin that it really put a lot of doubt into people's mind about Obama. It didn't happen. Obama lost by the smallest of margins but for the most part, hung in there and looked competent.
If the results show both are competent, people will pick the younger Democrat in times of economic problems. Its 1992 all over again.
Obama Is Ignorant
And Will Destroy Our Country
Democrats Suck
In what sense could these comments be extracted from yesterday's debate, the core subject of this thread? From my point of view, completely zero-value adding!
Now why are hens ignorant? They just live and provide us food... whats wrong with them? OHHHH... must have meant HENCE?!hens you are Ignorant!
Now why are hens ignorant? They just live and provide us food... whats wrong with them? OHHHH... must have meant HENCE?!
Really though, your last comment calling McCain a name, and proceeding on to making false comments really did not add anything to the conversation either.
Not saying what Power House said added anything either though.
Adams
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.lol I didn’t 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'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.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.
Well, he actually called him 'Tom', 'Jim' and a host of other improper names! I found that to be amusing.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.
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
Wow... You know this! Oh benevolent one tell me more of you infinite wisdom! joke!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!
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.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
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.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 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.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!
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$$ deep. Obama is in deep with every dem special interest that i can think of:I agree, this goes well beyond party here. Both parties are a$$ 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.
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.
This is readily available information......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).
BTW, I guess I must have misinterpreted this quote....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.
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.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!
I think 2 reasons, ass cover plus $$$1. The President doesn't decide rates. His book was meant for one reason...covering his ass.
Seriously, his book erased whatever credibility he once had. I hope he made a nice penny off of sales.I think 2 reasons, ass cover plus $$$
This is readily available information......
BTW, I guess I must have misinterpreted this quote....
:icon_lol:I guess historical evidence doesn't count for much.i should have said scholarly evidence...
yes you did