BREAKING NEWS! McCain is suspending his campaign and is asking Obama to do the same!

shit ! its more like breaking news^ the leaders of the US are putting their 700 billion scam into play! and getting it from you the TAXPAYER and your children who haven't even been born yet will have too pay for this SCAM ! don't let them do this its a SCAM! a 700 billion dollar one! OMG shame on you . :wtf:

yeah right

days ago when McCain was ahead in polls our fundamentals of economy were "strong"

a day after he falls behind in polls despite all the photo op goin on with palin, he suddenly decides that we are in such a bad situation that campaigns of both candidates must be suspended and the commission on presidential debates should also listen to him as he is the grand daddy of the nation to postpone the debate

even if he is so needed on the capitol hill, I think Obama kinda got him: we both got our planes and its a 1.5 hour debate... total of 5-6 hours round trip from Washington to Missouri and back.

like that 6 hours which happen to fall in late afternoon/night time is going to be utilized any better if even both of these 2 men were going to do this and go to congress for this bailout plan

conclusion: Either there is something really gravely wrong that we are not being told about

OR

this is a pure populist political stunt, diverting attention from bad performance or possibility of doing so in the debate.

does any1 know if anything like this has ever happened in previous elections?!

From this point on, things are really gonna get exciting... I'm waiting to see the upcoming moves or stunts by either candidates, its worth a show:rastasmoke:

the grasping at straws and desperate explanations are pouring out on these pages and the television screen from the SoCalled Republicans as THEIR SHIP SINKS...A nice long run-on sentence to help take your minds off the gurgling sounds:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Though you didn't necessarily say anything bad about McCain you refuse to acknowledge the obvious which cannot be denied. BOTH of these candidates need to put the campaign on hold so that they can do THEIR JOB!

...


No they're not more important but their in the middle of an election. He proposes they put that on hold and get back to congress and DO THEIR JOB!

Do you not understand that they still have an obligation as senators and McCain is asking Obama, as a senator, to go back to washington to do their jobs.

I don't feel there is anything wrong in that, but if you want to paint McCain as a badguy then by all means go for it. It seems that instead of realizing the obvious you would rather misinterpret the intentions of his statement.

Political move or not, he is more or less saying let's go back and do our jobs over this CRITICAL issue.

If you can't see that then I can't explain it any further because you will just want to view it as pointless when it is anything but the sort.

---

Wrong.

It is not critical that these two men be in Washington or suspend the debates or suspend their campaigns in order for them to DO THEIR JOB on this issue.

How do you think this stuff works? Do you think all 100 senators sit together in a room working things through together? Do you think nothing gets done if one of them is not in the building? No. Party leadership from both sides canvass their membership on what is acceptable to each and what they want, and then it gets hashed out in committee. If a compromise is necessary, they contact everyone to see how they will vote. NEITHER ONE OF THESE MEN HEADS OR SITS ON A RELEVANT COMMITTEE. As long as they are in contact with their party leadership, they don't need to be there, except to vote. They certainly do not need to supend their campaigns.

That's why I asked what Super Maverick thinks he is going to do. Is he going to barge into the committee meetings where he does not belong? Perhaps he will entertain with a song and dance? Maybe he will hold press conferences and look "presidential." I'd say he should spend the time boning up on his debate topics.

Most likely what he will do is disrupt the whole process. If the candidates go to Washington and start staking out sides, this whole thing is going to degenerate into a situation in which every representative and senator is acting as a proxy for his candidate. And that is how this whole thing is going to get screwed up. This is a very imoportant and very delicate situation, and it should not be infected with partisan presidential politics. This is probably the WORST possible time for a crisis like this to happen, right in the middle of an election. Both of these candidates should keep their distance, let their leadership know what they want, just like all the other Senators, and let it get negotiated outside of the context of the presidential campaign by the people whose proper role it is to handle this thing.

I don't criticise McCain for wanting to "do his job." I criticise him for pulling a stunt in the middle of something serious. He knows what his role is as senator, and he is overstepping it and making the situation worse. And he is doing it so that he can appear to be doing more than he really is. It's purely political, and he should not have done it.

Haha I wouldnt even want McCain having anything to do with our economic crisis... hey he put it best himself,

"The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff,'' - John McCain:thumbsup:

I have one very defining term for this move by senator McCain: "Gamesmanship"

I quote

Quote:

---

The term "gamesmanship" is also used for similar techniques used in non-game situations, such as negotiations and elections.

Each form is frequently used as a means of describing dubious methods of winning and/or psychological tricks used to intimidate or confuse one's opponent. Technically speaking, these tactics are One-upmanship, defined in a later book by Potter as the art of being one-up on somebody else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Wrong.

It is not critical that these two men be in Washington or suspend the debates or suspend their campaigns in order for them to DO THEIR JOB on this issue.

---

Obama says that a president should be able to do two things at once... Remember the flak Bush caught for not dropping what he was doing to see the katrina landfall site?

As callous as it sounds that situation was not nearly as Critical as the one we're in right now as this 700 billion effects the nation on a whole. While a president should be able to do two things at once it's also important that he realizes when something detrimental is on his plate and he needs to stop what he's doing to place focus on it. This is one of those times. They are SITTING SENATORS. Nothing changes that, not their campaign, not the dump I just took.. not anything. They have a job they are still obligated to.

Quote:

---

How do you think this stuff works? Do you think all 100 senators sit together in a room working things through together? Do you think nothing gets done if one of them is not in the building? No. Party leadership from both sides canvass their membership on what is acceptable to each and what they want, and then it gets hashed out in committee. If a compromise is necessary, they contact everyone to see how they will vote. NEITHER ONE OF THESE MEN HEADS OR SITS ON A RELEVANT COMMITTEE. As long as they are in contact with their party leadership, they don't need to be there, except to vote. They certainly do not need to supend their campaigns.

---

I actually found the beginning of this paragraph condescending. I'm not stupid. Fact is we pay them with our tax dollars, this is a critical situation not a vote for getting some money to throw the White Sox a party for winning the world series.

If congress goes into an extended session then yes, I think they will have to suspend their campaigns. I'm sorry but to pull an argument from the left, they are running for president and this is something a president will have to addres correct? So why is it ok for Obama not to show up or stay in Washington if an extended session is called for?

Don't talk to me as if I'm ignorant again.

Quote:

---

That's why I asked what Super Maverick thinks he is going to do. Is he going to barge into the committee meetings where he does not belong? Perhaps he will entertain with a song and dance? Maybe he will hold press conferences and look "presidential." I'd say he should spend the time boning up on his debate topics.

---

No, he intends to participate to do his job. And to be fair president bush actually called both McCain and Obama and urged them to come to washington. I don't believe the idea actually originated from either of these two even though Obama says it was his idea and McCain is portraying it (not directly saying it) as if it were his idea.

You are so eager to trash the other side you don't even see what's important. Let's use your argument that neither one of these people NEED to be there. Well let's use another one of your arguments from the past, both of these Men are running for President. If there is a time of Crisis things need to be stopped to place focus on it. If even lame duck President Bush can do this I would expect Obama to do the same.

I am using your arguments here because my arguments seem to have no effect on you.

Quote:

---

Most likely what he will do is disrupt the whole process. If the candidates go to Washington and start staking out sides, this whole thing is going to degenerate into a situation in which every representative and senator is acting as a proxy for his candidate. And that is how this whole thing is going to get screwed up. This is a very imoportant and very delicate situation, and it should not be infected with partisan presidential politics. This is probably the WORST possible time for a crisis like this to happen, right in the middle of an election. Both of these candidates should keep their distance, let their leadership know what they want, just like all the other Senators, and let it get negotiated outside of the context of the presidential campaign by the people whose proper role it is to handle this thing.

---

Like you said, what's he going to do? He's just 1 man currently who's not President. Same as Obama. Make up your mind... is McCain important enough to sway and delay the process in which a couple of hundred people are involved or is he just another one of the group?

You can't have it both ways. Pick a stance.

Quote:

---

I don't criticise McCain for wanting to "do his job." I criticise him for pulling a stunt in the middle of something serious. He knows what his role is as senator, and he is overstepping it and making the situation worse. And he is doing it so that he can appear to be doing more than he really is. It's purely political, and he should not have done it.

---

Uhh, the debates are coming up on friday. I don't think it's so ludicrous to try to go through the proper channels to delay the debate, coordinate with the Obama campaign to address this issue and then get back on track with the elections.

I criticize you for being overly biased and obtuse to a situation that is critical to all Americans and a situation that every elected politician should currently being in Washington trying to address.

Neither of these candidate need to draft the plan.. to be honest I would prefer they didn't. What they need to do is go to washington, listen to the discussions there.. and VOTE. THAT IS THERE JOB!

I've yet to see an explanation of Substance from anyone here on Obama's side.

All I've seen are people defending Obama but not explaining.

I've gone through the trouble of explaining why it is Important for BOTH of these men to go to Washington and stay there until it is done.

Also it should be noted that McCain has stated that if the deal is done before the debates on Friday he will attend.. but if they are not he will not be there. He realizes what's important and is putting his electability on the line. The first debates have been historically very important in the election process in determining who will win.

Unless people have an explanation with substance in it.. I will not be participating in this thread any longer. The biased and honestly blind hatred toward the republican candidate is really disgusting. More so this time because whether the move was political or not; McCain saying that they should go and stay in Washington does bare alot of truth in what is ACTUALLY IMPORTANT.

He never wanted to cancel the debates, just delay the first debates which topics cover foreign policy; something McCain is strong on and Obama is not so strong on.

But whatever; continue your blind hatred of the opposition who wants to do his CURRENT job. After all you Obama supporters are used to your candidate not voting or showing up for work 2/3rds of the time

:hippy:

fyi, if people are going to negatively rep me at least have the integrity to come out and join in the conversation and voice your opinion.. or voice what you ahve to say about me.

Don't hide behind the rep system. If you are not participating then I hardly see you having a right to criticize me on a PERSONAL level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

fyi, if people are going to negatively rep me at least have the integrity to come out and join in the conversation and voice your opinion.. or voice what you ahve to say about me.

Don't hide behind the rep system. If you are not participating then I hardly see you having a right to criticize me on a PERSONAL level.

---

I take what I said back.. they participated in 1 post in this thread where they laid blame at the foot of the current administration.

Bush tried to reform Fannie/freddy in 2003.. and 17 times in 2008 alone.

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and thereforeâ?¦should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in Americaâ?¦ Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August â?? up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month â?? the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs â?? and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by â?¦ helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

*

"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
*

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that â?? and Congress is making progress on this â?? is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
*

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.


Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs


So for the person who told left that personal remark against me.. I ask you who is being biased. I don't care what anyone's opinion on her eis.. I simply want people to recognize fact.

And fact is that you are also part of the people I was talking about. If you took time to even look up you would see Bush has tried for some time now to reform this.

I'll be waiting for everyone's rebuttal Slamming the current President.. Slamming McCain who has also been warning of this since, at least that I know of, 2003 as well.

Hillary Clinton I believe in 2001 even sided with President Bush on reforming this. I have to find a source to prove that though so don't quote me on it.

Look at the situation for what it is, not for what you want it to be.

This post is also for the person who left me a negative rep on a personal level. I see the fact and research fact. Your post was your own opinion that you convinced yourself to be true; yet here we see it's false.

You accused me of treating people as if they were ignorant. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge or information on a subject and you've shown here you lacked information/knowledge when you made your statements in your initial post in this thread. Being ignorant is not bad... it's neutral. There is nothing wrong with informing people of the truth to bring them out of ignorance.

In that regard you could accuse me what you did. I simply want to bring everyone out of ignorance and share the information that *I* am aware of.

I see no fault in that.

"As callous as it sounds that situation was not nearly as Critical as the one we're in right now as this 700 billion effects the nation on a whole"




The above statement is ludicrous. People lost their homes and lives in Katrina. One person losing their life is as important as this whole country potentially collapsing. Thats what most people don't understand, as that one life is not more important than another. Thats why the Iraq situation in pure evil, becvause if one civilian dies than any goodness in the cause dies. Why is my "homeland security" more important than any ordinary iraqi or afghani's? Its not, ya'll just think it is.


Daihashi you speak of other condescending tones and yet all your posts these days are angry and aggressive. Chill out man. I know i have heard it from you before you dont care enough to get angry...yet you sure act it.


I watched C-span for most of yesterday and the hearings on the bailout. McCain and Obama can add nothing to this that they have not already, except their vote. They both plan on doing this, so whats the problem. The Committee is coming up with the plan. The others vote. You need not back up every desperate move your party makes. Its Ok :jointsmile:

Personally I think the American public is just being manipulated again. They have blown this whole bailout out of proprtions. If they allowed fannie mae,freddie mac and aig to collapse it wouldn't have that big of an effect on the public or the property owners. The mortgages would be sold off to some other compnay. Other insurance companies would buy up the assets of aig. Would it effect the stock market? Absolutely. But the stock market should crash and burn. Its just legalized gambling. Does nothing to help the people of America other than to promote greed. You would have thought after the great depression people would have wized up about the stock market. But greed seems to be deeply inbedded in the American phsyche now adays.

My quote:

Quote:

---

How do you think this stuff works? Do you think all 100 senators sit together in a room working things through together? Do you think nothing gets done if one of them is not in the building? No. Party leadership from both sides canvass their membership on what is acceptable to each and what they want, and then it gets hashed out in committee. If a compromise is necessary, they contact everyone to see how they will vote. NEITHER ONE OF THESE MEN HEADS OR SITS ON A RELEVANT COMMITTEE. As long as they are in contact with their party leadership, they don't need to be there, except to vote. They certainly do not need to supend their campaigns.

---

Your response:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I actually found the beginning of this paragraph condescending. I'm not stupid. Fact is we pay them with our tax dollars, this is a critical situation not a vote for getting some money to throw the White Sox a party for winning the world series.

If congress goes into an extended session then yes, I think they will have to suspend their campaigns. I'm sorry but to pull an argument from the left, they are running for president and this is something a president will have to addres correct? So why is it ok for Obama not to show up or stay in Washington if an extended session is called for?

Don't talk to me as if I'm ignorant again.

---

Daihashi, are you out of smoke? You seem to be getting a little bit "prickly." I never called you stupid or ignorant. I was giving you crap because you keep insisting McCain needs to be in Wshington in order to do his job, but you are actually SMART ENOUGH to know that is not the case. If I thought I was just talking to an idiot who couldn't be expected to know any better, I wouldn't bother. But you do know better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

You are so eager to trash the other side you don't even see what's important.

---

Ha ha! I'm not eager to trash McCain! I'm just very disappointed in him for playing a political stunt with something that is important. I do see that this is important --- it's too important to be playing games with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Like you said, what's he going to do? He's just 1 man currently who's not President. Same as Obama. Make up your mind... is McCain important enough to sway and delay the process in which a couple of hundred people are involved or is he just another one of the group?

You can't have it both ways. Pick a stance.

---

Are you kidding me? I'm not trying to have it both ways. I said he doesn't need to be there, and his presence will be a distraction and a disruption. How is that having it both ways? It's like not wanting a 3-year-old help you paint the kitchen --- "How can you say he's not helpful? If he's big enough to spill paint on the floor, then he's big enough to do the trimwork. You can't have it both ways!" Ridiculous. Just because McCain is important enough to cause a disruption does not mean he is necessary to a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I criticize you for being overly biased and obtuse to a situation that is critical to all Americans and a situation that every elected politician should currently being in Washington trying to address.

---

And I criticise you for being biased as well and obtuse to the fact that McCain does not need to call for a suspension of the campaign and a delay to the debates in order to do his proper role, which is to wait for a negotiated deal between the House and Senate party leaders and the White House, and then go vote on it. You are being obtuse to the fact that this campaign suspension is a stunt. McCain wants you to believe that he is necesary to a solution so that you will think he is more important than he really is, and you apparently DO believe that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I've yet to see an explanation of Substance from anyone here on Obama's side.

---

I guess you can dismiss my explanation as not having "substance" if you want. I thought I explained it well enough. Most people seem to understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

All I've seen are people defending Obama but not explaining.

---

Actually, there is not a lot of "defending Obama" going on here, because so far there hasn't been much criticism of Obama --- nothing to defend him over. He is both doing his job as Senator and running a very effective campaign, so what is to criticise? What is to defend? The thread is mostly about criticism and defense of McCain.

As for "not explaining," no one has explained exactly what McCain intends to do while the election is on hold and he is in Wshington. The argument is he is going to "do his job" and "deal with the crisis." But what exactly? He deosn't have a seat at the negotiations, so what the hell is he going to do that he couldn't do from anywhere in the country? If word comes down that there is going to be a vote, he will have time to get back, so he does not need to be there. As far as I can tell, the Senate leadership has NOT wanted him there. I've seen leaders on both sides say these two should keep out, and the deal is almost done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Unless people have an explanation with substance in it.. I will not be participating in this thread any longer.

---

Maybe you should step out for awhile --- seems like you are getting a bit worked up and emotional.

i wish theyd let it crash so we can have a great turn about in money and power. just think small business might make a comeback wed have to produce our own goods so we wouldnt be just a consuming coutry we might actually start producing stuff again especially with everthing coming out of china with some sort of death sentance on it. and the potential of immigrant slave labor we could be back and running in ten years maybe

Mccain should go along with the debates, this is the time when the American people deserve to see and hear their candidates speak about this econmoic situatuin as well as financial and other issues.

After McCain himself admitted he has a very limited understanding and grasp of economics, he now believes that he and Obama will have a drastic effect on getting this thing fixed. I don't get it. What has made him so qualified all of a sudden to even have anything useful for imput? Will his candidicy make Republicans listen to him more and work with the Democrats to pass this (absoulutely absurd) proposal? If so, that's not suspending his campain, that's just using it and not acting as a senator.

Neither McCain or Obama can add even the slightest benefit to this push, except their votes. I doubt this will come down to two votes either. It'll either fail miserabley or pass with a large margin. Neither one knows dick about the economy, that's why we have so many damn reps and senators, because everyone has a better understanding of something than other people. Economics is neither of theirs. I don't personally give a fuck about the economy right now. Know why? I have no say in it and it doesnt matter what I think. It'll affect me, but not thanks to Obama or McCain. At all. I wanna know what they have to say. I wanna see how they debate and get their points across. It'll be all well and good if we get this crisis situated soon, but how much will it matter when we have a new president who doesn't know shit about what to do with the rest of the country?

McCain needs to do or say something that makes me feel like he knows what he's talking about. This aint it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Maybe you should step out for awhile --- seems like you are getting a bit worked up and emotional.

---

I'll be sure to get right on that. Because you impact my life so much :hippy::hippy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allrollsin21

"As callous as it sounds that situation was not nearly as Critical as the one we're in right now as this 700 billion effects the nation on a whole"




The above statement is ludicrous. People lost their homes and lives in Katrina. One person losing their life is as important as this whole country potentially collapsing. Thats what most people don't understand, as that one life is not more important than another. Thats why the Iraq situation in pure evil, becvause if one civilian dies than any goodness in the cause dies. Why is my "homeland security" more important than any ordinary iraqi or afghani's? Its not, ya'll just think it is.

---

Look at it from a logistical standpoint instead of one of compassion. Logistically Katrina will not impact America fiscally nearly as much as the 700 billion dollar bail out.

Compassion has nothing to do with the logistical truth.

Quote:

---

Daihashi you speak of other condescending tones and yet all your posts these days are angry and aggressive. Chill out man. I know i have heard it from you before you dont care enough to get angry...yet you sure act it.

---

Show me an angry remark other than asking peope to post something explaining Obama's refusal to do his job. No one here has to comply and no one here has answered. If this is angry to you then so be it. You must know a bunch of angry people in your life.

Quote:

---

I watched C-span for most of yesterday and the hearings on the bailout. McCain and Obama can add nothing to this that they have not already, except their vote. They both plan on doing this, so whats the problem. The Committee is coming up with the plan. The others vote. You need not back up every desperate move your party makes. Its Ok :jointsmile:

---

This post was about McCain. It was everyone that came in here to attack a party. I hardly saw anyone standing up for the opposition. Am I not allowed to be one of the few people who will voice the other side?

Heaven forbid I say something that contrasts with what everyone else here is siding with in order to try to give insight from the other side.

But I guess this is to be expected; after all this is a cannabis forum and as such it's anticipated that majority of all posters here would be liberal. Cannabis and liberalism tend to go hand in hand.

Sorry that you don't like me showing you a perspective from the other side. How you take my posts is not my problem. It's perception; just the same way I perceive many of other users posts on this forum. My problem if I interpret wrong.. not yours and vice versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue

Mccain should go along with the debates, this is the time when the American people deserve to see and hear their candidates speak about this econmoic situatuin as well as financial and other issues.

---

The debates won't even allow candidates like Bob Barr, or Ralph nader or any other candidates that wish to participate and show the American people what they are about. Do you honestly believe that the debates will be an accurate depiction of what these two have to offer?

Granted something is better than nothing but historically the debates have never been fair in who they allow to participate. In that regard I would like to see the debates but honestly could care less as the commission that heads over the debates seem to have an agenda of their own if they won't allow anyone except major party candidates in.

Maybe people would vote for a third party candidate if they got to debate, but they won't and we will never get to see these people slug it out with our supposed top two best choices.. McCain and Obama; neither of which is the best decision for the country IMO. I'd be interested in hearing from the others but we never will. In 2000 they fought tooth and nail to deny Ralph Nader into the debates. They would not even allow Nader to view the debates.

Something is up there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Unless people have an explanation with substance in it.. I will not be participating in this thread any longer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Maybe you should step out for awhile --- seems like you are getting a bit worked up and emotional.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

I'll be sure to get right on that. Because you impact my life so much :hippy::hippy:

---

Dude! Welcome back! I am glad you found "substance" here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Show me an angry remark other than asking peope to post something explaining Obama's refusal to do his job. No one here has to comply and no one here has answered.

---

Obama is doing a GREAT job right now. He went to Washington for the big White House confab on the crisis. He had a CNN interview directly following the meeting to explain what he has been doing regarding this crisis and to describe his take on the meeting. He's staying in touch with Paulson every day no matter where he is. He is in constant contact with his party leadership involved in the negotiations no matter where he is. He will be ready for any vote when the time comes and will come back from wherever he is. He's doing his best to keep presidential politics OUT of these delicate negotiations. And at the same time that he is doing all of this work relating to the financial crisis, he has managed to do all of this while not suspending his campaign! He can do all this at the same time! McCain must be amazed at how Obama can do both at once!

Obama is also doing his job of getting ready for the debates tomorrow! He will be there and be ready to go!

What has McCain been doing? You say no one has answered your question about what Obama is doing, and I have done so for you. But you have not answered my question to you about what McCain is doing. You said he has gone back to "do his job." But what exactly? He's suspended his campaign, so I hope he is making good use of his time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Maybe people would vote for a third party candidate if they got to debate, but they won't and we will never get to see these people slug it out with our supposed top two best choices.. McCain and Obama; neither of which is the best decision for the country IMO. I'd be interested in hearing from the others but we never will. In 2000 they fought tooth and nail to deny Ralph Nader into the debates. They would not even allow Nader to view the debates.

Something is up there.

---

100% agree. People will wake up, and the 2 major parties will lose a good portion of their fan base, these are better called "our system" our previous administrations and legislature have mostly been these 2 parties only!

same strategy was applied to Ron Paul eliminating him from earlier "republican only" debates.

something is certainly up, can't deny that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

Holy shit I just seen it on FOX news!

Here's the news reel: McCain Says He'll Suspend Campaign to Deal With Financial Crisis; Calls on Obama to Do Same; Wants Debate Postponed

I'll post more when it comes.

---

Hmmmm I think this sounds like setting up a great way for bush to declare an "emergency" and instill martial law and suspend the election all together. All hail authoritarianism! Here it comes get ready to either fall in line and follow or be destroyed!

Blessed be~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoddessHerb

Hmmmm I think this sounds like setting up a great way for bush to declare an "emergency" and instill martial law and suspend the election all together. All hail authoritarianism! Here it comes get ready to either fall in line and follow or be destroyed!

Blessed be~

---

That is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

McCain has probably been regretting choosing Palin for VP.

---

I bet he is regretting that @ heart but won't want to look like a major flip flopper

and add

He will most likely break under pressure and participate in 2moro's debate, which will make another point to regret.

he just overreacted on this instance imo. it was uncalled for in reality. now I'm not gonna judge his motives anymore until i hear something from him again and get some more info on his impact in this process. then it will be clear what made him take this route of suspending campaigns urging 2 other totally independent entities to follow suit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

That is ridiculous.

---

I would say its a bit too extreme. But all it takes for such a move to actually take place is a delay in passing this proposal and some consecutive and very bad news from different parts of economy in the coming days.

I read the headline regarding mccain in my Environmental science class's break while people were still hanging around the class.

and I just automatically said "Why don't we just postpone the election and let the officials take care of this thing... cuz it seems everything is leaning that way"

but i know my brain leans a tad bit 2wards the conspiracy side as well... so it was out of my mouth as a half-joke which brought laughs to the class;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Dude! Welcome back! I am glad you found "substance" here!

---

As I recall you were stating the same thing about a week ago. If you two want to debate the issue at hand, great....if you want to have a lil' piss fest, do it somewhere else!

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

McCain has probably been regretting choosing Palin for VP.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyingimam

I bet he is regretting that @ heart but won't want to look like a major flip flopper

and add

He will most likely break under pressure and participate in 2moro's debate, which will make another point to regret.

he just overreacted on this instance imo. it was uncalled for in reality. now I'm not gonna judge his motives anymore until i hear something from him again and get some more info on his impact in this process. then it will be clear what made him take this route of suspending campaigns urging 2 other totally independent entities to follow suit.

---

I think these two decisions illustrate McCain's decision-making process, which does not encourage me.

The Palin decision was pure politics and did not reflect sound policy, or even policy that McCain himself believes in. Palin and McCain are very different in terms of policy, and I can't believe he picked her based on policy. It was either pure gut instinct, which I do not trust as a sound decision-making process. Or it was pure calculated politics, and not "Country First" as he would have us believe. I don't think she was a good pick for the country, but so far she has worked for him politically.

And this idea of suspending the campaigns so he can work on the financial crisis is another poor decision. It is either political (which has not worked out well) or some crazy instinctual decision. It has not worked out well either way. Obviously he does not need to devote 100% of his energy to this crisis, and the debates could go on. It's either a failed ploy, or he is making crazy decisions that he really believes in. I'm not comfortable either way. I don't want a president who makes erratic decisions like this. He seems nuts to me.

I will bet almost anything that McCain will be at the debate tomorrow. This decision is going to be added to his list of failed gambles and erratic gut decisions gone wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

As I recall you were stating the same thing about a week ago. If you two want to debate the issue at hand, great....if you want to have a lil' piss fest, do it somewhere else!

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

---

Daihashi and I are very "spirited" debaters. I hope everyone else finds it as entertaining as I do. Speaking for myself, even though I hate it here sometimes and threaten to leave, I love it too, and I can't stay away!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

That is ridiculous.

---

Why do you think so? I'm just curious. Care to elaborate? Do you not think it's even possible? Or does it scare you too much to think that it could actually happen.

My statement is not ridiculous, it's very plausible. It was however said in a semi-facetious tongue in cheek tone which cannot be expressed via the web. Much truth is often said in jest. It is not absurd in any terms but it's easy enough to write it off as such if the idea makes you uncomfortable. The system can COLLAPSE at any moment and that's a scary idea to someone who finds comfort in it.

Blessed be~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoddessHerb

Why do you think so? I'm just curious. Care to elaborate? Do you not think it's even possible? Or does it scare you too much to think that it could actually happen.

My statement is not ridiculous, it's very plausible. It was however said in a semi-facetious tongue in cheek tone which cannot be expressed via the web. Much truth is often said in jest. It is not absurd in any terms but it's easy enough to write it off as such if the idea makes you uncomfortable. The system can COLLAPSE at any moment and that's a scary idea to someone who finds comfort in it.

Blessed be~

---

:wtf:
Its ridiculous because its scare tactics without substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Daihashi and I are very "spirited" debaters. I hope everyone else finds it as entertaining as I do. Speaking for myself, even though I hate it here sometimes and threaten to leave, I love it too, and I can't stay away!

---

I do it all in good nature, but judging from negative feedback from people who refuse to read my posts for just words instead of applying their own emotions to it I doubt others see it that way.

The most recently basically called me stupid and implied I was a Bush lover, which if anyone would comb over my threads I am anything but the sort. I simply pointed out some fact in this thread that can't be denied.

Contrary to what people might think.. I don't believe Obama is the root of all evil as some others might think.. I simply think he's not the best direction for this country.

However my posts in this thread were neither really in support of McCain even if they appeared to be, or to Bash Obama. In all honesty it was to point out that even though this was a political move by McCain there is some very real truth in it. Far too often we let politicians not do their job.

As I said earlier this was one time I was glad to see politics being played because I felt it might actually get people to do their job; especially with there being a conflict with the House. In all honesty the presidential candidates may help to bring a compromise to the situation. With that said I do feel it's important for both Obama and McCain to do their jobs as senators FIRST, and then candidates second.. but never as a president or implied president. We have a sitting president and honestly whether you like him or not you have to respect that the Position of President is still filled until the beginning of 2009.

So everyone if you want to bash me go for it. As some people on here who know me on a more personal level; because of my own life philosophy, it really doesn't impact me as much as you would like to believe.

This message was more of a clarification of what the message I was trying to bring across. I have admittingly been edgey, but I don't feel I've been an ass or condescending, due to personal ailments that I won't get into as this is my own business and I do not want to use this as an excuse... So if people are offended I apologize for that but not for the contents/substance of what I said.

If you don't like me.. eh, that's your problem (not directed at you dragonrider. I know that you and I would probably actually be friends in real life.. politics aside that is. :hippy:)

Reports indicate McCain has eventually decided to participate in the debates, according to live leak on CNN. (@ 10:27 AM CST)

cannot provide any links, it was said in the headlines on live video just after Reid's press conference.

there ya go

McCain will show up for debate, campaign says - CNN.com

OXFORD, Mississippi (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain will attend the first presidential debate as planned Friday night, his campaign announced.

McCain said earlier this week he would not attend the debate if an agreement had not been reached on a $700 billion bailout plan for Wall Street.

The outcome was up in the air Friday as lawmakers scrambled to agree on a plan.

But by midday, McCain's campaign said the Republican presidential nominee believed enough progress had been made for him to travel to Mississippi to participate in the debate, set for 9 p.m. ET at the University of Mississippi campus.

"He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Rep. [Roy] Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans," the campaign said in a statement.

"The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the senator will travel to the debate this afternoon."

Both presidential candidates -- McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama -- returned to Washington Thursday to participate in talks over the bailout package.

The debate is expected to focus on foreign policy and national security, but the economic crisis is likely to be a dominant issue as well.

Debate planners got a big surprise when McCain called for postponing it. The university has invested millions of dollars preparing for it.

Obama's campaign had argued over the past couple of days that both attending the presidential debate and working on the bailout plan could be accomplished and the event should go on.
advertisement

"I think we can do both of these things at the same time. The next president is going to face multiple crises on the same day," Robert Gibbs, Obama's top adviser, had said on CNN's "American Morning."

"We've got a presidential debate scheduled. We've got a stage. We'll have an audience. My guess is we'll have a moderator and at least one of the presidential candidates," Gibbs said.
-----------------
HAAA! I just won 50 bucks over this... wagers are the way to go on politics... the only way i can actually benefit from them!!!:D:thumbsup:

goes towards my investment for the grow;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

If you don't like me.. eh, that's your problem (not directed at you dragonrider. I know that you and I would probably actually be friends in real life.. politics aside that is. :hippy:)

---

You're a good guy Daihashi, even if we disagree on almost everything political! What would be the fun if everyone agreed on everything anyway? I like having the other opinions around, even if the other opinions actually piss me off a bit!

I'm sorry to hear that someone gave you negative rep over your point of view --- that's not really cool. I don't think I've ever given anyone negative rep except once a long time ago in a thread where some of the members got extremely nasty, insulting, hateful and personal. The whole thread got taken down, and that person got banned. Since then I've never bothered with negative rep. The mods do a good job of cleaning that kind of stuff up, so I don't worry about it. I'll respond in the thread if I feel I have to. Or if the post is a gross violation of rules, such as racism or outright name calling or personal insults, I'll report it and let a mod decide what to do if anything --- but I can't even remember the last time I did that.

This is a politics forum, so it is a place for widely varying opinions and sometimes strong disagreement. But the opinions can be argued on their merits (with a little trash talk on the side, because there is an election to win after all!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

You're a good guy Daihashi, even if we disagree on almost everything political! What would be the fun if everyone agreed on everything anyway? I like having the other opinions around, even if the other opinions actually piss me off a bit!

I'm sorry to hear that someone gave you negative rep over your point of view --- that's not really cool. I don't think I've ever given anyone negative rep except once a long time ago in a thread where some of the members got extremely nasty, insulting, hateful and personal. The whole thread got taken down, and that person got banned. Since then I've never bothered with negative rep. The mods do a good job of cleaning that kind of stuff up, so I don't worry about it. I'll respond in the thread if I feel I have to. Or if the post is a gross violation of rules, such as racism or outright name calling or personal insults, I'll report it and let a mod decide what to do if anything --- but I can't even remember the last time I did that.

This is a politics forum, so it is a place for widely varying opinions and sometimes strong disagreement. But the opinions can be argued on their merits (with a little trash talk on the side, because there is an election to win after all!)

---

VERY glad this one is squared away and I argree with ya 100%; there is NO need for negative rep based on a post or opinion in this forum. EVERYBODY has the right to his/her opinion and it should be respected. I may not agree with a few in here but hey, if we always agreed that wouldn't hold much water for an exchange of thoughts.

My MAJOR concern as that we didn't have another situation like what happened in here a week ago. Positive rep for both of ya!!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

By the way, it was just on the news that McCain is on his way to the debate!!! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

VERY glad this one is squared away and I argree with ya 100%; there is NO need for negative rep based on a post or opinion in this forum. EVERYBODY has the right to his/her opinion and it should be respected. I may not agree with a few in here but hey, if we always agreed that wouldn't hold much water for an exchange of thoughts.

My MAJOR concern as that we didn't have another situation like what happened in here a week ago. Positive rep for both of ya!!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

---

Excellent!

Now, I can still poke him if he gets irritable, right? Sometimes I like to poke people when they get irritable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

Indeed.

*puts on big foam number #1 finger and a foam obama smiling mask*

---

That's the difference between some in here and myself; I'd just as soon put on a foam shoe to kick them BOTH in the ass!:mad:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

By the way, it was just on the news that McCain is on his way to the debate!!! LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Speaking of games, I was going to do a smoking game with a hit each time McCain says "My Friends..," but I actually want to see the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

Glad to see you guys hug and makeup, but let's keep this about McCain and how this is going to effect his campaign. Looks like it didn't work out the way he had hoped. :stoned:

Obama: Over 9,000
McCain: ... who's counting?

---

Yes, it was a total disaster (the McCain theatrics, not the hug and make up thing).

I don't think this worked for him at all. Most people thought it was stupid to suggest skipping the debates. It pissed off a lot of people in Mississippi who had spent millions of dollars and volunteer hours putting the debate together. And mostly it does not look like he helped to get a bailout deal together in Washington --- in fact, mostly it seems like he blew up a deal that was ready to go. He seems erratic.