Originally posted by chithappens
Because you can't retort.
I could retort, but what's the point? I would discuss, but it will all just turn into a stupid argument. Plus he brought up things I never even brought up. All I said was I thought it was basically a tie if you look at it the right way. All that matters is how it is viewed by the American people. Most are all sheep in case you didn't know.
That's what discourse is for. Saying it is useless (verbatim would be "stupid argument"😉 is just a runaround.
What is "looking at it the right way?" I watched the entire debate and Palin even went so far so to completely go away from the points. When Biden was talking about something concerning the economy SHE COMPLETELY AVOIDED IT and said specifically she wanted to bypass that and talk about what she and McCain said about offshore drilling. And kept offering us the Joe Six Pack jargon.
It was insulting to me. Maybe it's because I'm a black male, 20 years old, with small debt going into middle school education and realizing that the economy reeks before I even have done a thing. She and McCain will follow policies similar to the Bush administration which lead to this:
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2952
She did nothing to sway me and there is no one who makes under $250,000 can feel good about when it comes to the economic policies that she and McCain would like to continue.
Originally posted by chithappens
That's what discourse is for. Saying it is useless (verbatim would be "stupid argument"😉 is just a runaround.What is "looking at it the right way?" I watched the entire debate and Palin even went so far so to completely go away from the points. When Biden was talking about something concerning the economy SHE COMPLETELY AVOIDED IT and said specifically she wanted to bypass that and talk about what she and McCain said about offshore drilling. And kept offering us the Joe Six Pack jargon.
It was insulting to me. Maybe it's because I'm a black male, 20 years old, with small debt going into middle school education and realizing that the economy reeks before I even have done a thing. She and McCain will follow policies similar to the Bush administration which lead to this:
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2952
She did nothing to sway me and there is no one who makes under $250,000 can feel good about when it comes to the economic policies that she and McCain would like to continue.
When I say look at it the right way, I mean that she didn't screw up which made her look good in people's eyes. Biden looked more knowledgable even if he was full os Sh*t in some of his responses.
I personally would say he won, but Palin left a good impression. Thats all I am saying.
As for the economy, the dems played just as much of a role in this mess as the Republicans...if not more so. Just look at Bill Clinton and Barney Frank.
Originally posted by BackFire
Palin did better than expected. That doesn't mean it was a tie. Biden still won handily on every issue.
I don't think he won handily. He fabricated several points, although I will say he did better overall, even If I disagreed with most of his views. Now I do see where you are coming from and I shouldn't call it a tie, my point was that it doesn't matter if Biden won. Palin did what she needed to do by not blowing it and staying positive. Which is what will matter in the eyes of potential voters. I know it's been said, but look at the debate of Nixon vs. Kennedy. Same deal basically.
According to all polls, which directly represent how voters felt; they show Biden winning by a large margin. Why? Because he clearly did. Palin did nothing but spew talking points. She avoided questions entirely that she wasn't prepared to answer (she was asked about healthcare and talked about energy, so on) and was far more negative than Biden. She attacked Biden several times, Biden never went after her, the worst he said is occasionally point out when she dodged a question.
Biden was also more human and genuine. Palin sounded like a caricature, pushing her folksy stuff very hard to the point where it sounded forced. Biden was himself, he felt real, and when he got choked up talking about raising children alone after his wife and daughter were killed, it was a more genuine and powerful emotional connection than anything Palin ever achieved in the entire debate.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, Bill CLinton's administration lead to an economic surplus rather then our multi-trillion deficit so I don't see what you have to criticize him for.
The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions.
The CRA was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.
The bill encouraged the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, to enable mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. It also encouraged the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market.
Enter Bill Clinton
In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.
These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.
Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. Thus leading us to the problems of today.
Just like all other administrations, the effect of a presidency often isn't felt until after he leaves office. Clinton reaped the benefits of the Reagan/Bush era, and George W. Bush, is having to deal with the problems created by his predecessor and are now coming to fruition.
Originally posted by BackFire
According to all polls, which directly represent how voters felt; they show Biden winning by a large margin. Why? Because he clearly did. Palin did nothing but spew talking points. She avoided questions entirely that she wasn't prepared to answer (she was asked about healthcare and talked about energy, so on) and was far more negative than Biden. She attacked Biden several times, Biden never went after her, the worst he said is occasionally point out when she dodged a question.Biden was also more human and genuine. Palin sounded like a caricature, pushing her folksy stuff very hard to the point where it sounded forced. Biden was himself, he felt real, and when he got choked up talking about raising children alone after his wife and daughter were killed, it was a more genuine and powerful emotional connection than anything Palin ever achieved in the entire debate.
You are right, Polls are what determine the outcome of elections. 🙄
Originally posted by Pezmerga
You are right, Polls are what determine the outcome of elections. 🙄
Didn't say anything about the outcome of the election, did I? I was talking about who people thought won the debate. You know, the topic that was being discussed. Leave the straw man bs at the door, please.
Originally posted by BackFire
Didn't say anything about the outcome of the election, did I? I was talking about who people thought won the debate. You know, the topic that was being discussed. Leave the straw man bs at the door, please.
Democrats love what other Democrats say is all I can say lol no reason to argue further. Joe Biden still spouted alot of BS. BS doesn't win debates. It can make you appear to do so though.