SG Broadband Community

Breaking news from CNN and MSNBC. Apparently he called Obama about it.

Thoughts?

Personally, I think he's scared shitless to debate the man.

UOD to McCain:


YOU HAD 8 YEARS TO FOCUS ON ECONOMY...
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO NOW? WATCH IT FAIL ALL OVER AGAIN? LULZ!!!
IRAQ COST US 600 BILLION+ PLEASE LEAVE US ALONE, WE DON'T NEED OR WANT YOUR FOCUS OF FAILURE

ploy

Yeah I tend to think it's a ploy also. Now of course if Obama refuses it makes him look like a jerk which Republicans can then spin.

Just reported that Obama has rejected the call to postpone the debate. This could get interesting since both sides can spin this to their advantage.

Gixxer wrote:ploy

Of course it is, and a pretty good one at that. Now you have to see if Obama will give in and take the bait or stick with the debate.

Roody wrote:Yeah I tend to think it's a ploy also. Now of course if Obama refuses it makes him look like a jerk which Republicans can then spin.

exactly ... oh, he doesn't care to suspend the debate so he must not care ... blah blah blah

JBrazen wrote:Of course it is, and a pretty good one at that. Now you have to see if Obama will give in and take the bait or stick with the debate.

it's a good one if you (not you personally) are blind. as UOD said in his post, where the hell has he been.

Obama has responded and says the debate is on as 'they can handle both'

If McShame can't handle a debate and dealing with the economy prior to the election what the hell is he going to do if he were to win the election? He'll be inheriting 2 wars and a financial mess not to mention the fact our foreign policy needs to be repaired. I'd like to think my president can multitask and this clearly shows McCain is not up to the task.

Not debating Obama only benefits McCain and Palin....for the less they say the better....the more they open their mouths the bigger fools they appear.

Obama had a good response that Presidents need to be able to do more then 1 thing. Nice reply.

So, I guess those fundamentals aren't doing so good, eh?

LOL,

Clever terrorists

A day late and a dollar, or should I say 700 billion short?

Listening to the radio today, the DJ said it perfect...

McCain is like acting like a fire fighter showing up after the house burned down to throw a cup of water on the ashes

Here's a video of him discussing it on CBS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4476356n

2 things strike out to me-

1. He talks about how now is not the time for campaigning, but here he is on TV and he sounds like he's on his soapbox the whole time, whining about how his opponent didn't agree to town hall meetings 6 months ago, talking about how he likes polls that have him up and hates ones that have him down and it'll be a close election for sure, blah blah blah. WTF does that have to do with anything? Aren't you supposed to be in Washington getting things under control right now?

2. He sounds freaked out, which is really worrying. He goes on about how "trusted, respected people" (Like Paulson) are telling him this could be a huge crisis, and he believes them. He's kind of losing it...the last thing I want is a leader running around in a panic. He doesn't sound like he understands the issues better than anyone else.

The dems, yes the dems killed reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Senator Mccain sponsored that bill.

The dems DEMANDING banks give loans to people who were unquallifed caused most of this.

JC wrote:The dems, yes the dems killed reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Senator Mccain sponsored that bill.

The dems DEMANDING banks give loans to people who were unquallifed caused most of this.

That's not exactly true but more to the point, it's typical of the right wing to scramble for damage control.

Really it goes back futher than that when Phil Gramm stuck
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 into legislation HR 4577 which needed to be passed. You know, the deal, JC. One of them earmarks that your team is soooooooooo fond of.

While you try and jump on the Rush bandwagon that once again it's all the Dems fault, this act as come under fire for repeal several times by Dems. The last time was in 2007 by Carl Levin who wanted to close this "Enron" loophole. His bill passed but was vetoed by President Bush. The veto was overridden but afaik, that bill didn't come soon enough nor did it have enough bite.

Meanwhile, this little half truth that it's the Dems fault is laughable. It's not the Dems who sought to deregulate the investment and stock industry.


Gramm, has pretty much stood in the way of anyone who would put oversights on the whole thing, backed by a President who also thinks that unbridled capitalism is a good thing.

JC wrote:The dems, yes the dems killed reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Senator Mccain sponsored that bill.

The dems DEMANDING banks give loans to people who were unquallifed caused most of this.

Spoken like a lifelong republican.

downhill wrote:That's not exactly true but more to the point, it's typical of the right wing to scramble for damage control.

Really it goes back futher than that when Phil Gramm stuck
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 into legislation HR 4577 which needed to be passed. You know, the deal, JC. One of them earmarks that your team is soooooooooo fond of.

While you try and jump on the Rush bandwagon that once again it's all the Dems fault, this act as come under fire for repeal several times by Dems. The last time was in 2007 by Carl Levin who wanted to close this "Enron" loophole. His bill passed but was vetoed by President Bush. The veto was overridden but afaik, that bill didn't come soon enough nor did it have enough bite.

Meanwhile, this little half truth that it's the Dems fault is laughable. It's not the Dems who sought to deregulate the investment and stock industry.


Gramm, has pretty much stood in the way of anyone who would put oversights on the whole thing, backed by a President who also thinks that unbridled capitalism is a good thing.

If the banks were not 'FORCED' to make 'BAD' 'RISKY' loans to people who could not afford them nor pay for them, we might not be in this situation.


Enron loophole? Refresh my memory on this "loophole" please.

The left vs right crap is of no use. This is a prime time for globalistic economic models to come to the rescue, and not by chance.

JC wrote:If the banks were not 'FORCED' to make 'BAD' 'RISKY' loans to people who could not afford them nor pay for them, we might not be in this situation.


Enron loophole? Refresh my memory on this "loophole" please.

Forced? Man, you really need to wake up.

JC wrote:If the banks were not 'FORCED' to make 'BAD' 'RISKY' loans to people who could not afford them nor pay for them, we might not be in this situation.


Enron loophole? Refresh my memory on this "loophole" please.

Greed now has a new meaning. Forced. lol

Loophole..

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000....Google is your buddy.

Gramm's wife was a lawyer for them at the time. She did pretty good.

Gramm just called us a nation of whiners not that long ago over those who were warning that there would be banks that would collapse under all the bad debt floating around.

JC wrote:If the banks were not 'FORCED' to make 'BAD' 'RISKY' loans to people who could not afford them nor pay for them, we might not be in this situation.


Enron loophole? Refresh my memory on this "loophole" please.

Forced?

Roody wrote:Forced?

Scary that he can vote isn't it?

JC wrote:The dems, yes the dems killed reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Senator Mccain sponsored that bill.

The dems DEMANDING banks give loans to people who were unquallifed caused most of this.

That is NOT the truth or the facts JC.

Republicans were in control of the committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs when McCain sponsored the bill. Sen. Richard Shelby, a republican from Alabama, chaired the committee where it DIED in the 109th Congress.

Chris Dodd, who took the chair from Shelby did NOTHING as well.


So this is basically a 50/50 bi-partisan FAILURE.

Izzo wrote:Scary that he can vote isn't it?

So you don't think the CRA, started in the late 70's and revised in the mid 90's has anything to do with this? I'm sorry to tell you, but it has alot to do with this.

JC wrote:So you don't think the CRA, started in the late 70's and revised in the mid 90's has anything to do with this? I'm sorry to tell you, but it has alot to do with this.

Y'see, JC. To properly formulate an argument you usually want to add some premises to support your conclusion....at least that's the way normal people do it....but yet you somehow manage to pull crap right outta thin air and cement it in is as fact...amazing. Do you have anything to support your conclusion or is this what the rest of your family has regurgitated?

Can you tell me the name of the gunmen that were posted at these financial institutions that forced them to invest billions into MBS's. I'd need a new prison pen-pal as the last one was just gassed.

JC wrote:So you don't think the CRA, started in the late 70's and revised in the mid 90's has anything to do with this? I'm sorry to tell you, but it has alot to do with this.

That's a copout if there ever was one....


Here is the news JC:


Your boy, Dubya, has been touting home ownership ever since he got in the Whitehouse:


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bu ... p&aq=f&oq=

[YOUTUBE]kNqQx7sjoS8[/YOUTUBE]


In fact, my post should be made a post of it's own because it shows who is really to blame here.