|
Post by BTweety04 on Sept 27, 2008 23:53:00 GMT -5
I never said anywhere that McCain was helping Obama. Frankly I don't even know how you got that out of my statement at all. the part where you said "Maybe that was a campaign stunt for Obama, to try and prove he can "handle more things at once". Obama is the one who said the president should be able to "handle more things at once" when criticizing McCain for wanting to go to Washington and postpone the debate. I was just saying I didn't think it was a political stunt. But Obama was trying to be the one to come out smelling like a rose.
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Sept 28, 2008 11:34:43 GMT -5
A president DOES need to be able to handle more than one thing at a time. McCain didn't do a damn thing to help the bailout in D.C., all he did was get the attention off his declining numbers for a few days and disrupt his own campaign. We don't need more erratic leadership.
|
|
|
Post by sometimes the voices argue on Sept 28, 2008 19:08:10 GMT -5
without even looking at their stances on the issues, i can make my choice.
yeah, its kinda rediculous. but the candidacy is just two guys fighting. so, looking at who the guys are should help clear up the choice.
mccain comes from a military family, his father and grandfather were both admirals. he went to the naval academy, most likely getting in because of his father's rank. i mean, he graduated fifth from the bottom--not really the student that colleges accept enthusastically. he entered the military, quickly got shot down in vietnam. prisoner of war POW captured hey did you know mccain was a pow? yeah he was a pow POW POW (his speeches have started sounding like comic books POW!).
his being captured clearly wasnt a success, so i guess you could classify it as a failure? he probably didnt like the fact that he, the son and grandson of two admirals, failed. so, when he was told that he could go home early, he denied, to have some sort of valorous story to tell.
now, up until this point, has mccain been a maveric? no. he's just done what was expected of him.
i think he's still bitter over being captured, bitter over the outcome of the vietnam war. iraq has drawn many comparisons to vietnam, and he sees iraq as a chance to redeem himself. plus, if he became president that would kinda make up for being captured/not being an admiral like daddy!
he's focused on getting elected. his gimmics show this. "oh, obama didnt choose hilary? ill choose a woman and get attention!" "oh, im doing bad in the polls? ill suspend my campaign to help fix the economic crisis!"---since when has mccain had economic expertise that would help the situation? he even tried what hillary did, by starting to campaign about the change that he will bring. he did have the experience argument, but-oh no!- that wasnt working with the polls, so i'll sell what obama's selling. this maverick bullshit is getting old. and that bracelet bullshit, im sick of hearing about it. yeah, its sad, yeah its nice that you did that, yeah its slightly moving. not really though. you're gimmicky foriegn policy is now based around a plastic bracelet.
take the quote, not sure who its from, of "that which is consiously denied is subconsiously persistant." one of mccain's slogans has been "country first." EVERY president should put the country first. the fact that he has to repeat this, counsiously denying that he isnt doing this just for himself, shows that he, subconsiously, knows that he's running just out of selfish desires.
obama was raised by his single mother, by his grandparents, in poverty. he was able to attend columbia and harvard law. he would like other people to have this same oppertunity. he graduated magna cum laude from harvard law, pretty far up from fifth from the bottom. he had no one to pull strings to get him into these universities. through true, honest, hard work obama succeeded.
i think it would be safe to say that obama is brilliant, and that mccain had some strings pulled, some systems manipulated, to get far. he's now working to manipulate the race- suspending his campaign in hope of missing the first debate, changing the format of the vice presidential debate to help his fledgling politician VP choice.
mccain has turned this race into a circus. im sick of it.
|
|
|
Post by stef19 on Sept 29, 2008 17:54:01 GMT -5
I'm voting for Obama...just thought I would share
|
|
|
Post by ♥Ms J®♥ on Sept 29, 2008 17:57:28 GMT -5
Politics can take any bright eye'd dreamer and turn them into a disenchanted follower. Politics are always dirty
I am just glad that so far, they have not approved this Bailout. They'll try again Wednesday though.
I am a registered Republican, been brought up one all my life, but I will argue with my daddy back and forth about how McCain is not good for this country. Personally I don't think that either of them are, but that's just me. This year I am going to be "Kicking it old school, Constitutionalist party" Go Chuck Baldwin
|
|
|
Post by Madame Shimmy on Sept 30, 2008 16:07:15 GMT -5
I'm chimming in late but I want my 2 cents added as well.
I'm a republican by heart as well, but this presidential vote will be Democrat.
Yes, to me, I want to know that the potential president elect can handle more than one crisis at a time. It is important to me as a voter, to know that Obama was ready to keep his campaign going, headed for change. He is consistantly calm and respectful, where McCain is down right dirty and comes off hanging on by a thread, to me. I want to hear what they have to say; you NEVER know what will come out of their mouths at a speech. Something just might come out that could change my mind.
As far as the bailout. I'm super pissed that Bush wants me and my husband, along with many, many more Americans who have WORKED very hard to pay our bills on time and keep ourselves out of debt; how dare he ask us to pay for loans made by creedy corporate persons who have absolutely NO care that Mark and I work hard to pay our mortgage on time EVERY MONTH since we've been home owners for the last 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by rockstars on Sept 30, 2008 17:34:58 GMT -5
I'm chimming in late but I want my 2 cents added as well. I'm a republican by heart as well, but this presidential vote will be Democrat. Yes, to me, I want to know that the potential president elect can handle more than one crisis at a time. It is important to me as a voter, to know that Obama was ready to keep his campaign going, headed for change. He is consistantly calm and respectful, where McCain is down right dirty and comes off hanging on by a thread, to me. I want to hear what they have to say; you NEVER know what will come out of their mouths at a speech. Something just might come out that could change my mind. As far as the bailout. I'm super pissed that Bush wants me and my husband, along with many, many more Americans who have WORKED very hard to pay our bills on time and keep ourselves out of debt; how dare he ask us to pay for loans made by creedy corporate persons who have absolutely NO care that Mark and I work hard to pay our mortgage on time EVERY MONTH since we've been home owners for the last 10 years. My biggest concern with the bailout is if it doesn't happen. What happens next? Credit markets freeze? Can't get loans for personal uses, cars, or homes? Trust me, I am VERY reluctant to pay any money for this bailout but I'm even more scared as to what can happen if we don't do it! Will I lose my job because people are tightening their belts? Will I be able to afford MY mortgage? There is so much unknown... My personal opinion is to go ahead with the bailout. I'd rather get screwed for $2,000 than to lose my job and get screwed for my yearly salary AND benefits AND insurance...
|
|
|
Post by ♥Ms J®♥ on Sept 30, 2008 17:39:48 GMT -5
^^^^ And have a socialist run government...really
I am sorry but why the hell should anyone have to bail out irresponsible people. The CEO's of those companies should fucking be bailing them out, I am sure they all got really nice Bonuses last quarter
|
|
|
Post by sometimes the voices argue on Sept 30, 2008 21:56:20 GMT -5
^^^^ And have a socialist run government...really I am sorry but why the hell should anyone have to bail out irresponsible people. The CEO's of those companies should fucking be bailing them out, I am sure they all got really nice Bonuses last quarter im sorry, but the anti-socialism point is such crap. so what if this happens? it, if handled correctly, should be a one time thing which will eventually wear off. right now, fixing the situation is much more important than holding up pure capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by BTweety04 on Sept 30, 2008 22:55:23 GMT -5
I agree. Are people willing to risk the consequences of not going through with this bail out? I talking about a huge economic collapse. People will lose jobs and our country may slip into a depression.
|
|
|
Post by tetherednchained on Oct 1, 2008 0:24:27 GMT -5
I am against the bailout on principle. Like Jenna said, these companies did it to themselves. To bail them out now would be writing a blank check to all financial institutions in the future. Thats why I am glad that the politicians didn't pass it this time around. They know we are pissed off! They felt the backlash and knew it would be political suicide to pass it. I really wish Barney Frank would back the hell up and stop talking! He was a huge part of the problem. Go way back and you will see he had a heavy hand in all this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzEIMco49AEI know without some kind of bailout we will be in a much longer recession so I welcome one. The right one! I hope they go after the CEO's that did unethical practices. Go ahead my liberal friends and spin this all you want, I don't care anymore.
|
|
|
Post by ♥Ms J®♥ on Oct 1, 2008 10:30:18 GMT -5
I am against the bailout on principle. Like Jenna said, these companies did it to themselves. To bail them out now would be writing a blank check to all financial institutions in the future. Thats why I am glad that the politicians didn't pass it this time around. They know we are pissed off! They felt the backlash and knew it would be political suicide to pass it. I really wish Barney Frank would back the hell up and stop talking! He was a huge part of the problem. Go way back and you will see he had a heavy hand in all this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzEIMco49AEI know without some kind of bailout we will be in a much longer recession so I welcome one. The right one! I hope they go after the CEO's that did unethical practices. Go ahead my liberal friends and spin this all you want, I don't care anymore. *applause* ;D
|
|
|
Post by Madame Shimmy on Oct 1, 2008 13:59:42 GMT -5
I am against the bailout on principle. Like Jenna said, these companies did it to themselves. To bail them out now would be writing a blank check to all financial institutions in the future. Thats why I am glad that the politicians didn't pass it this time around. They know we are pissed off! They felt the backlash and knew it would be political suicide to pass it. I really wish Barney Frank would back the hell up and stop talking! He was a huge part of the problem. Go way back and you will see he had a heavy hand in all this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzEIMco49AEI know without some kind of bailout we will be in a much longer recession so I welcome one. The right one! I hope they go after the CEO's that did unethical practices. Go ahead my liberal friends and spin this all you want, I don't care anymore. You are right on Mike. Now, what I'm about to say will probably cause somone to go into cardiac arrest. Let's walk back in time. A little History lesson for those who may have been asleep. The Great Depression is soooooo parallel to what is going on right now with our generation. President Hoover tried to get the economy out of a state of decline buy cutting government spending, and raising taxes. Ah, but it didn't work. Next, his administration PROVIDED loans to banks and other industires; that too, didn't work. Along came a brilliant man named Franklin D. Roosevelt. He gave a speech, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" and that won America. He introduced the "New Deal" plan (say hello to Social Security AND Union Protection). It DIDN'T save America but it sure gave us a good dose of morphine to lighten the pain. The spendings of the Roaring 20's that helped lead up to the Great Depression can be compared to the over spending of the 2000's which lead up to our current economic problem. The money spent on WWII can be compared to the War on Terror, President Hoover can be compared to President Bush. President Elect Obama could POSSIBLY be compared to President Roosevelt. We have to do like Roosevelt and keep our money in America until she builds up strong again. Keep our jobs in America. No more importing or exporting, UNTIL we are much more stable. It doesn't have to be perminent. We NEED to follow in the footsteps of a great President who lead this country out of a Great Depression already. End
|
|
|
Post by ♥Ms J®♥ on Oct 1, 2008 15:33:15 GMT -5
Everyone go buy your Bonds
|
|
|
Post by rockstars on Oct 1, 2008 18:43:08 GMT -5
I am against the bailout on principle. Like Jenna said, these companies did it to themselves. To bail them out now would be writing a blank check to all financial institutions in the future. Thats why I am glad that the politicians didn't pass it this time around. They know we are pissed off! They felt the backlash and knew it would be political suicide to pass it. I really wish Barney Frank would back the hell up and stop talking! He was a huge part of the problem. Go way back and you will see he had a heavy hand in all this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzEIMco49AEI know without some kind of bailout we will be in a much longer recession so I welcome one. The right one! I hope they go after the CEO's that did unethical practices. Go ahead my liberal friends and spin this all you want, I don't care anymore. Seriously, Mike. I expected more from you than provocation. Grow the fuck up.
|
|
|
Post by pdn on Oct 1, 2008 20:08:40 GMT -5
I wish I could be so naive to believe this was simple, and limited to just the United States.
Simply, if we do nothing, tens of millions of people will go jobless... some here, some in other countries.
The U.S. economy is terribly important to the world economy, and if the credit markets grind to a halt, all hell will break loose.
That's why you have strange bedfellows like Bush, Obama, McCain, Gingrich, Pelosi and Frank all clamoring for something.
While, on principle, I would be against the bailout as well, there's far too much at stake. We would be waging war in the middle of a depression. China would rise to take our place as the world's preeminent superpower, our economy, which has transitioned from agriculture/manufacturing-based to service-based would absolutely collapse. If no one has money, no one will pay for services. Unemployment would double.
You want to complain about social programs now? Wait until twice as many people need assistance from the federal govt.
If it's avoidable, and it is, and there's still a chance we can reclaim that money through increased equity stakes, that's the obvious route we must take.
It's also less money than we've spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, combined.
Pinch your nose and swallow the medicine, it must be done.
|
|
|
Post by Volk on Oct 1, 2008 20:19:36 GMT -5
I am inherently against the bailout as well. We made our bed, and now we should probably lie in it. But, if we have a chance to stop it or lessen the impact, then we should do it. Many people saw this coming for years now (and McCain for a few days). What happened to the Bush "stimulus checks"? Guess they didn't help when the price of gas has tripled since he took office. We are spending too much money on Iraq and buying too much cheap junk from the Chinese. I find it interesting that people claim Obama is going to raise taxes (only on the richest) and get angry, yet don't seem to care when under the current administration the cost of living day to day has risen dramatically for everyone.
and this bailout sure as HELL should not have gone thru as originally proposed by Bush/Paulson. I mean seriously...giving ONE man the discretion on how to spend 700 billion, and saying it could NOT be reviewed by any courts? That's the same fucking bullshit we've had from Bush for the last 8 years.
|
|
|
Post by sometimes the voices argue on Oct 1, 2008 21:58:39 GMT -5
why arent people screaming about the billions of dollars that we are using to bail ourselves out of iraq?
|
|
|
Post by Madame Shimmy on Oct 2, 2008 8:53:28 GMT -5
I am against the bailout on principle. Like Jenna said, these companies did it to themselves. To bail them out now would be writing a blank check to all financial institutions in the future. Thats why I am glad that the politicians didn't pass it this time around. They know we are pissed off! They felt the backlash and knew it would be political suicide to pass it. I really wish Barney Frank would back the hell up and stop talking! He was a huge part of the problem. Go way back and you will see he had a heavy hand in all this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzEIMco49AEI know without some kind of bailout we will be in a much longer recession so I welcome one. The right one! I hope they go after the CEO's that did unethical practices. Go ahead my liberal friends and spin this all you want, I don't care anymore. Seriously, Mike. I expected more from you than provocation. Grow the fuck up. Wow Rockstar, I would like to know what was so provoking about Mikes comment that warranted such a statement like "grow the fuck up".
|
|
|
Post by ♥Ms J®♥ on Oct 2, 2008 11:41:15 GMT -5
People get pissed when others don't see things there way. Maybe they should heed their own wisdom....
Is testosterone to blame for the financial crisis?
If you've been blaming reckless men for the collapse of America's leading investment houses and the plunging markets, you may be on to something. High levels of testosterone are correlated with riskier financial behavior, new research suggests.
Men with more of the sex hormone made riskier investments than guys with lower levels, according to a study published online yesterday in Evolution and Human Behavior. Just how much riskier? Those with 33 percent more testosterone than average men invested 10 percent more of their dough.
The findings are based on saliva samples from 98 male Harvard students taken before they played an investment game with $250 in real money. The students with more masculine facial features, such as prominent jaws and cheekbones, also were riskier with their cash, investing 6 percent more of it than their softer-featured peers.
The connection between the findings and the downfall of investment firms, mortgage financers and insurers that began last year and reached a crescendo two weeks ago "is not that obvious," says Anna Dreber, a co-author of the study. But, she tells us, there are reasons to think that testosterone may have played a role.
Traders have been shown to make more money on days when their testosterone levels are higher, scientists reported earlier this year. Levels of the male sex hormone are known to rise when people win a sports competition; a male-dominated workplace such as a financial institution may perpetuate those elevated levels as colleagues strike gold and egg one another on, Dreber says.
Even the presence of women (how 'bout those evenings at Scores?) can ratchet up testosterone, adds Dreber, a doctoral candidate in economics at the Stockholm School of Economics who is a visiting researcher at Harvard.
So were those titans of Wall Street uber-men?
"Long-term, above-average testosterone levels may perhaps eventually lead to irrational risk-taking, and thus lower profits," Drebersays, noting the previous study of traders. "This is maybe what we see today."
The findings could also explain yesterday's 777-point plunge by the Dow. "People have been losing and their testosterone levels may have decreased, and therefore, they are more risk averse," Dreber says.
The scientists didn’t study women, and while the fairer sex makes far less testosterone, those with more of it would likely behave similarly to men, Dreber says. A 2005 study showed that women made riskier bids on experimental auctions when they were menstruating and their levels of the female sex hormones estrogen and progesterone were lowest.
"Women tend to be more risk averse when it comes to financial gambles," Dreber notes. "They tend to trade less and that tends to be a better strategy. With more 'average women' trading, maybe the stock market would look different."
|
|