MCAIN...WON DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kim]

Originally Posted by stlorganics

The Republicans were in charge the first 6 years of Bush's presidency. George Bush started one of the worst wars in our nation's history. George Bush and the Republican Congress took us from the largest budget surplus to the largest deficit in our nation's history, and the Republicans gutted the banking regulations that led to the current fiscal crisis.

So you want to blame the Democrats in charge for the last two years, for the problems created by Republicans over the course of six years?
Okay???? If that's what works for you, but lets see how that works out in this election.

Who was President when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was signed into law in 1999? Let's think, let's think, it's coming to me. Oh yeah, that would have been ole Bill 'I did not have sex with that woman' Clinton. Wait, what is the letter behind his name? Could that be a D? And guess whose treasury secretaries supported it.

Now guess which Presidential candidate supported the initial act but voted against the final version and which vice-presidental candidate voted against theinitial act but for the final one?

And now look way back into the mists of time and guess who was president in the 70's when banking deregulation started.

[katcon]

ok! so we know the history of the world we live in now. instead of all this blaming when are we going to start working with each other.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by katcon

ok! so we know the history of the world we live in now. instead of all this blaming when are we going to start working with each other.

Right, stop pointing the finger solely at Bush or the Republicans. The deregulation was a bipartisan effort for the record.

But which candidate actually has worked with the other side?

In his 3-1/2 years as a Congressional Senator what bipartisanship has Obama shown?

This is a pretty good article:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92111942





The only caveat, Coburn said, is that the nature of the ethics reform bill that he and Obama sponsored was easy and popular. After all, it passed the Senate 98-2.


"It's easy to work across the aisle on consensus items. It's when you demonstrate that you'll stand in between — in no man's land between the two trenches of the Democratic and Republican base, and you'll take the heat," he said. "We haven't seen that from Barack. As much as I like him, he's not ever rejected anything of his party to be able to stand in the middle."

[cre8tivgurl]

Someone in here said they thought McCain was rude and I find that laughable. He was respectful of Obama, by calling him SENATOR OBAMA. Obama, on the other hand, kept referring to him as JOHN. This was a debate, not the two of them sitting at a table in a diner chewing the fat.

I cannot stand Obama, I will make that known. And I thought McCain did fair on this debate, but it wasn't what I had hoped, and I cannot in all fairness say that either of them knocked it out of the park..

[katcon]

Read the entire article--it has some more info that is interesting.
They know each other and Obamas style is more relaxed. And he did refer to him as the senator and Senator McCain during the debate. I don't think either of them were disrespectful.
It was pretty much a tie to me and I was impressed with McCain much more than recently. I think he does better in this type of atmosphere than in the snippets we get from the Media.

[Kim]

I did read the entire article. How it wouldn't be easy for either of them. But that part I quoted is from a Republican that Obama worked with and who his campaign uses as a prime example of his bi-partisanship.

Originally Posted by Kim

Who was President when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was signed into law in 1999? Let's think, let's think, it's coming to me. Oh yeah, that would have been ole Bill 'I did not have sex with that woman' Clinton. Wait, what is the letter behind his name? Could that be a D? And guess whose treasury secretaries supported it.

Now guess which Presidential candidate supported the initial act but voted against the final version and which vice-presidental candidate voted against theinitial act but for the final one?

And now look way back into the mists of time and guess who was president in the 70's when banking deregulation started.

Kim, Serious question.

If the R's were in charge for 6 of those years, then why didn't they fix it?

I'm asking because of this stupid blaming the party crap everyone is so fond of.

If the dems are to blame for putting it in place, why aren't the repubs to blame for not fixing it in those 6 years?

Is there a justifiable reason they couldn't fix it?

[CammiB]

I think this is why so many conservatives have lost interest in GW. He didn't do anything in the years he had the opportunity to make changes in. And personally I don't blame the individual parties, I blame bi-partisanship. Paulson is a prime example.

Neither one stood out to me in the debate either. It seemed pretty basic on both sides. So much so, that the only things that did stand out to me were piddly things...

Obama~ What malfunction is happening to this guy every time he tries to start a sentence? Seriously, could you picture this happening when he represents our nation at important world meetings?

McCain~ What's up with not looking at your opponent? Some may consider it a sign of weakness.... what's really behind that?


I don't think either could give the answers people wanted about the current bailout issue because it is still so new... and I should hope a leader would want to take the time to resolve this, albeit swiftly, but also very carefully.

edit~ spelling

and to add...
I don't mean to attack, nor be disrespectful, towards any condition of stuttering if that's what this is about for Obama, but I don't get that impression because he gets through the rest of his sentences fine. It comes off as more of a nervous glitch... which ends up looking like a lack of confidence and being insecure.



Edited by: Elysium

[Kim]

Originally Posted by questarthews

Kim, Serious question.

If the R's were in charge for 6 of those years, then why didn't they fix it?

I'm asking because of this stupid blaming the party crap everyone is so fond of.

If the dems are to blame for putting it in place, why aren't the repubs to blame for not fixing it in those 6 years?

Is there a justifiable reason they couldn't fix it?

Which is precisely why I am arguing it the way I am Quest. People want to lay all the blame at the feet of the Republicans for the last 7 years but the reality is the wheels on this started turning about 30 years ago and were worked on by both sides. If it takes me arguing that the Democrats started it to get people to realize that it isn't a one party issue then so be it.

Why didn't they fix it? Beats me. But wait, didn't one of the candidates propose legislation 3 years ago that would have worked towards stopping it from happening?

The problem is it took 2 groups to get us here and it will take 2 groups to get us out. It isn't as simple as the R's fixing it, legislation doesn't work that way and I know you know that.