Obama versus McCain: Debate 2.

[korbel]

McCain's time was back in 2000. The world would be a much better place (i think) if he would have won the Republican nomination instead of the worse (or second-worse) POTUS ever, whose policies & actions have done extremely severe damage not only to the USA, but to the rest of the world. It will take decades (if we're still around) for the damage to be repaired. Maybe even more.

Hello Doc,

I have to agree with that generally. Had it not been for the Cuban voters in Florida getting pissed off that Al Gore supported sending Elian Gonzalez back to his father in Cuba, Gore would have won Florida and that enormous PUTZ wouldn't be in the White House. But, at least if McCain had won the Republican nomination we would have had someone far more capable than the tragedy we got.

Damn,

Korbel

 

[beautydigger]

McCain's time was back in 2000. The world would be a much better place (i think) if he would have won the Republican nomination instead of the worse (or second-worse) POTUS ever, whose policies & actions have done extremely severe damage not only to the USA, but to the rest of the world. It will take decades (if we're still around) for the damage to be repaired. Maybe even more.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine. A little over one year ago: 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%. 4) the DOW JONES hit a record high—14,000 5) American’s were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!... But American’s wanted ‘CHANGE’! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes—we got ‘CHANGE’ all right. In the PAST YEAR: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted; 2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!; 3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a10% increase); 4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping; 5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. 6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS. YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS. AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Stop and think about that for a moment NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!! JUST HOW MUCH MORE ‘CHANGE’ DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

You're darn right he's got a temper. He's the guy who's even called his own wife a c### in the past when she upset him.

And a trollop. And in public. Here's a video on McCain's temper. http://bravenewpac.org/rage/

BTW, Doc, there were 22 "my friends" last night. You must be in some rough shape today.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

As for Ayers, he's reformed his old ways from all accounts & even found work later in life as a university professor & organizer of charitable events.

Obama met Ayers when both worked on the Board of Directors of the Annenberg Educational Foundation, an organization founded by lifelong Republican Walter Annenberg. Ayers and Obama served on this board with a significant number of respected professional people, Republicans and Democrats.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

Bullshit. During the first 3 1/2 years of Bush's term, the economy lost jobs. By the end of his first term, the economy had gained less than 500,000 jobs. Bush took a strong Clinton economy, with a budget surplus to boot, and ran it into the toilet in less than one year.

 

[korbel]

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine. A little over one year ago: 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high; 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon; 3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%. 4) the DOW JONES hit a record high—14,000 5) American’s were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!... But American’s wanted ‘CHANGE’! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes—we got ‘CHANGE’ all right. In the PAST YEAR: 1) Consumer confidence has plummeted; 2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!; 3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a10% increase); 4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping; 5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure. 6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS. YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS. AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Stop and think about that for a moment NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!! JUST HOW MUCH MORE ‘CHANGE’ DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?

Hello BTYDGR.

Here`s a very brief excerpt from the history of subprime loans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_lending

Subprime mortgages

Like other subprime loans, subprime mortgages are defined by the financial and credit profile of the consumers to which they are marketed. According to the U.S. Department of Treasury guidelines issued in 2001, "Subprime borrowers typically have weakened credit histories that include payment delinquencies, and possibly more severe problems such as charge-offs, judgments, and bankruptcies. They may also display reduced repayment capacity as measured by credit scores, debt-to-income ratios, or other criteria that may encompass borrowers with incomplete credit histories."

Subprime mortgage loans are riskier loans in that they are made to borrowers unable to qualify under traditional, more stringent criteria due to a limited or blemished credit history. Subprime borrowers are generally defined as individuals with limited income or having FICO credit scores below 620 on a scale that ranges from 300 to 850.[4] Subprime mortgage loans have a much higher rate of default than prime mortgage loans and are priced based on the risk assumed by the lender.

Although most home loans do not fall into this category, subprime mortgages proliferated in the early part of the 21st Century. About 21 percent of all mort*gage originations from 2004 through 2006 were subprime, up from 9 percent from 1996 through 2004, says John Lonski, chief economist for Moody`s In*vestors Service. Subprime mortgages totaled $600 billion in 2006, accounting for about one-fifth of the U.S. home loan market[1].

This was during a Republican Congress which was turned over in November 2006.

Cheers,

Korbel

 

[Poker King]

Bullshit. During the first 3 1/2 years of Bush's term, the economy lost jobs. By the end of his first term, the economy had gained less than 500,000 jobs. Bush took a strong Clinton economy, with a budget surplus to boot, and ran it into the toilet in less than one year.

While I'm no fan of Bush, lets be fair ... the economy was going through a normal turn down and then 9/11 hit. That took the US into a minor tail spin. Where Bush made his biggest mistake was to take the US into war without asking ALL Americans to sacrifice ... or at least help pay for those wars.

Now to the person talking about sub-prime mortgages ... these are not necessarily bad things ... we actually have versions of them in Canada. They do put more people into to homes and that generally is very bullish for an economy. What really created this mess was the so called Credit Default Swaps. These financial instruments are designed to insure risky loans much in the same way that CMHC does in Canada with the effect of keeping the price of the loan down. However this is were the Bush Republicans come in ... you see they deregulated the Insurance and Bank Industry to the point that by calling these instruments Swaps they didn't have to have the Capital Reserves that any normal Insurance policy would have. When losses exceed what little Capital was set aside then the CDS were worthless thus making the sub-prime paper even less valuable thus dropping the price of that paper to were it is today ... essentially that no one wants to hold them at any price. You get enough of both products on your books, well you start losing massive amounts of capital, so much so that no one will lend you money against those assets. For a Bank, being unable to borrow against assets means you go out of business in a hurry.

I keep hearing from Conservative that Democrats started this mess with sub-prime mortgages ... well maybe the sub prime part, but at least the Democrats kept the controls on Insurance reserve capital that would have stopped this ball from rolling down the hill in the first place ... now we got an avalanche to deal with ... Thanks Conservatives


PK

 

[Agrippa]

Hello Agrippa,

That's fine with me. I thought my way would make people READ what the category means instead of just going straight to the name and put four marks in a row. And it seems to work since some people did not mark every space for one candidate. All suggestions are welcome though.

Actually you're right, I take back my request. The way the choices should be presented is precisely the way you have done. It is the results that should be re-organized. This is something that should have been programmed into the board to begin with and should happen automatically... the choice with the most votes at the top and the one with the least at the bottom. I don't expect that reprogramming to happen any time soon though. If the board software can't even keep track of time, can we really expect it to keep track of votes.