CNN Debate: Obama/Clinton 02-21.

[Heretic Machine]

Thought it'd be a good idea to make a post specifically about this debate. Thus far all that has really been covered is Cuba, they were asked if they would ever be willing to visit Cuba and meet with the next ruler of Cuba. Clinton said she would, if she thought that they were going to work towards a democracy, and first there would have to be some signs of good will like releasing political prisoners. Obama said essentially the same thing, except he didn't mention them having to move towards a democracy, just that they were willing to begin working their way towards a more free Cuba.

[Heretic Machine]

Woh, shit just got mean... They asked about that whole "plagiarizing" thing. He basically said that the person Hilary is claiming he plagiarized part of his speeches from gave him the line, specifically, suggesting that he use it in his speech. She then said that if you think words are important, they should be your own words that you believe in, and not just belief that you can xerox (I could be getting the phrasing of this wrong), and he muttered, "That isn't what happened at all"; she then continued and began to get BOOed by the crowd.

[GrinR]

The more Hillary wins, the more people hate her. I don't think she gets that she's not charismatic at all.

[pirateTITAN]

Hillary's attacking. A lot. It seems like almost everything she says turns into a attack on Obama.

[51|RandoM]

She nailed him pretty good on the speech bit.

[Generation ABXY]

Crap, there's a debate? I've heard nothing about it...going to CNN now!

[pirateTITAN]

What the hell. She totally ignored the question and jumped back to health insurance.

[Heretic Machine]

She nailed him pretty good on the speech bit.

Eh, I disagree, and so did the crowd. He was basically given a line to counter he claims that his speeches had no content, a line given to him by a friend who (I'm assuming) is of very similar beliefs considering his position in Obama's campaign. Is she saying that she doesn't have speech writers?

What the hell. She totally ignored the question and jumped back to health insurance.

She has been doing what she wants all night, they constantly have to wrangle her. He needs to stop muttering under his breath at her though.

[Generation ABXY]

Man, this debate seems a heck of a lot easier than some of the other I've seen - all you have to do is bash Bush and you get a roaring applause...then again, they seem to clap at almost anything.

[Zanzibar]

God damn, he's fucking stumbling through the whole thing. He's spending more time thinking than talking. Has he ALWAYS talked this slowly? I don't remember him being this slow on his reactions.

As usual, she has command of her details. She creamed him on the healthcare stuff.

But she needs a knockout if she's going to stop his momentum. She's gotta win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania by 10 or more points each if she wants to catch his delegate count.

[51|RandoM]

Eh, I disagree, and so did the crowd. He was basically given a line to counter he claims that his speeches had no content, a line given to him by a friend who (I'm assuming) is of very similar beliefs considering his position in Obama's campaign. Is she saying that she doesn't have speech writers?

I just loved the Xerox play on words.

[Kagger]

Man, this debate seems a heck of a lot easier than some of the other I've seen - all you have to do is bash Bush and you get a roaring applause...then again, they seem to clap at almost anything.

There is a reason this debate was held in Austin and not College Station.

[Generation ABXY]

There is a reason this debate was held in Austin and not College Station.

It's late, illuminate me...Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean.

[Mantooth]

Obama is not so eloquent when having to speak off the cuff and didn't even answer the final question. Clinton didn't answer it either. Kind of a crap final debate question. More like a job interview question.

[EternalGamer]

Everytime I hear Obama give a speech, I'm impressed by him. And then everytime I hear him in one of these debates, I'm amazed at how he just seems like he is desperately gluing together his talking points from his speeches to mangle them into a response to whatever question he is given.

Granted the reverse always occurs when I hear Hillary give a speech. She's great in the debates, but the last two big election night speeches she gave were just awful, phoned in and uncharasamatic.

[Kagger]

It's late, illuminate me...Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean.

Austin and UT are crazy liberal, while A&M is super conservative. We have the Bush Sr. Presidential Library.

Thing is, Hillary is pretty much despised in Texas, I keep seeing "if Hillary doesn't win Texas." and I scratch my head wondering if she has a prayer.

[Zanzibar]

Everytime I hear Obama give a speech, I'm impressed by him. And then everytime I hear him in one of these debates, I'm amazed at how he just seems like he is desperately gluing together his talking points from his speeches to mangle them into a response to whatever question he is given.

Granted the reverse always occurs when I hear Hillary give a speech. She's great in the debates, but the last two big election night speeches she gave were just awful, phoned in and uncharasamatic.

Exactly right. The Democrats need to ask themselves which makes important qualities for a Commander In Chief - ability to speak to crowds, or ability to voice a clear understanding of the issues and facts.

[EternalGamer]

Exactly right. The Democrats need to ask themselves which makes important qualities for a Commander In Chief - ability to speak to crowds, or ability to voice a clear understanding of the issues and facts.

But I don't think that's as easy to answer as you seem to think. The ability to inspire through speech is a quality many of our greatest leaders have had. It is a way to get political energy on your side. Kerry ran circle around Bush in the debates and made him look pretty bad, but it made no difference to the voters. In terms of electibility, and, to some extent, even in getting policy pushed through, charisma matters.

[Heretic Machine]

Exactly right. The Democrats need to ask themselves which makes important qualities for a Commander In Chief - ability to speak to crowds, or ability to voice a clear understanding of the issues and facts.

Umm... neither. I'm more interested in what the fuck they're going to do while they're sitting in their office working on passing policy that will help me and the country. What they do in an argument or speaking on stage really doesn't matter to me too much at all.

[Zanzibar]

But I don't think that's as easy to answer as you seem to think. The ability to inspire through speech is a quality many of our greatest leaders have had. It is a way to get political energy on your side. Kerry ran circle around Bush in the debates and made him look pretty bad, but it made no difference to the voters. In terms of electibility, and, to some extent, even in getting policy pushed through, charisma matters.

George W. Bush had an easygoing way of speaking that was inspiring to many. He beat Gore and Kerry not because of his understanding of the issues, but because he made people feel good about his ability to connect with people.

I've had my fill of empty talking heads, thank you.

[Generation ABXY]

Austin and UT are crazy liberal, while A&M is super conservative. We have the Bush Sr. Presidential Library.

Thing is, Hillary is pretty much despised in Texas, I keep seeing "if Hillary doesn't win Texas." and I scratch my head wondering if she has a prayer.

Ah, okay. Thanks!

From what I saw, I wasn't really impressed with the debate. Then again, I'm Republican, so perhaps my opinion doesn't really count here. :p

Still, I watched since there is a chance we'll have a Democratic president - might as well know where their candidates stand.

[Zanzibar]

Umm... neither. I'm more interested in what the fuck they're going to do while they're sitting in their office working on passing policy that will help me and the country. What they do in an argument or speaking on stage really doesn't matter to me too much at all.

Part of the job is working in their office with analysts and cabinet members, directing them on how they should carry out their jobs. You don't think having a clear understanding of the issues and being able to convey that to your subordinates is an important part of the job?

Once again, George W. Bush. He trusted his subordinates to know how to do their jobs, but he has absolutely no understanding of the issues those subordinates were dealing with. Thus, they had no supervision. And here we are.

[pirateTITAN]

Meh, that was a lackluster debate in the very end. Everything was rehashed and I heard nothing new, granted I did tune in half-way through.

[Heretic Machine]

Part of the job is working in their office with analysts and cabinet members, directing them on how they should carry out their jobs. You don't think having a clear understanding of the issues and being able to convey that to your subordinates is an important part of the job?

So... you're going to compare talking to your subordinates to a televised debate with a political adversary? I think I'm done talking to you about this.

[EternalGamer]

Umm... neither. I'm more interested in what the fuck they're going to do while they're sitting in their office working on passing policy that will help me and the country. What they do in an argument or speaking on stage really doesn't matter to me too much at all.

It indicates their knowledge and their ability to analyze on the spot. I'm not very impressed with Obama on either of those areas when I hear him speak in debates. He can't freely talk about things. He just quickly tries to scramble back to his stump speech talking points. When you hear someone speak in this type of context, you can quickly tell who is comfortable and familair enough with the issues to talk their way around them and who isn't.

[Generation ABXY]

Watching the CNN recap (online), I have to ask about the immigration part: A lot of people (on the left and the right) keep saying that there should be a path to citizenship, unless they committed a crime here or in another country - if they are illegal aliens, aren't they all criminals?

[Heretic Machine]

It indicates their knowledge and their ability to analyze on the spot. I'm not very impressed with Obama on either of those areas when I hear him speak in debates. He can't freely talk about things. He just quickly tries to scramble back to his stump speech talking points. When you hear someone speak in this type of context, you can quickly tell who is comfortable and familair enough with the issues to talk their way around them and who isn't.

90% of what Hilary said tonight was her just relaying anecdotes. "A mother grabbed my arm and...", "I was touring a campus and...", "A man asked me..." Do you think that this will be a useful skill in the Oval Office?

Watching the CNN recap (online), I have to ask about the immigration part: A lot of people (on the left and the right) keep saying that there should be a path to citizenship, unless they committed a crime here or in another country - if they are illegal aliens, aren't they all criminals?

It is understood, by use of common sense, that they aren't referring to the fact that they're here as a criteria for eliminating them from seeking citizenship under such a plan.

[Zanzibar]

So... you're going to compare talking to your subordinates to a televised debate with a political adversary? I think I'm done talking to you about this.

Oh, for God's sake.

This debate, along with every other debate they've had, shows Obama fumbling for ways to staple his stump speech together to form a coherent answer to the questions, while Hillary has excellent command of the facts and how those facts apply to policy.

I don't know about you, but every supervisor I've ever had that knew their facts was one I respected. Those who didn't, I didn't respect.

Do you think Bush is respected for his command of the issues by his Cabinet? Neither do I.

[EternalGamer]

Watching the CNN recap (online), I have to ask about the immigration part: A lot of people (on the left and the right) keep saying that there should be a path to citizenship, unless they committed a crime here or in another country - if they are illegal aliens, aren't they all criminals?

Does breaking a law automatically make you a "criminal"? I sped on my way to work today. Am I a criminal?

[Generation ABXY]

It is understood, by use of common sense, that they aren't referring to the fact that they're here as a criteria for eliminating them from seeking citizenship under such a plan.

So you think, but boy won't you be surprised when the next president starts kicking them all out on those grounds. :p

Does breaking a law automatically make you a "criminal"? I sped on my way to work today. Am I a criminal?

Uh, yeah...kind of. If I murder someone, did I not break the law just because people don't know it was me?

[pirateTITAN]

Watching the CNN recap (online), I have to ask about the immigration part: A lot of people (on the left and the right) keep saying that there should be a path to citizenship, unless they committed a crime here or in another country - if they are illegal aliens, aren't they all criminals?

Well, I don't think it's viable to just shunt them all off. I myself am a supporter of the path to citizenship, mainly because I have several Hispanic friends in high school who are illegals, but had no real choice because they had come over to the States when they were one or two years old.

[EternalGamer]

90% of what Hilary said tonight was her just relaying anecdotes. "A mother grabbed my arm and...", "I was touring a campus and...", "A man asked me..." Do you think that this will be a useful skill in the Oval Office?



90% is more than a bit of an exageration. And i don't claim to like that type of anecdotal "starving children, mothers and kicked puppy dogs" type of anecdotes, but both of them are equally guilty of parading them out. I am talking about when they were actually pressed on their stances on issues.

[Heretic Machine]

90% is more than a bit of an exageration. And i don't claim to like that type of anecdotal "starving children, mothers and kicked puppy dogs" type of anecdotes, but both of them are equally guilty of parading them out. I am talking about when they were actually pressed on their stances on issues.

I don't see the difference, I honestly don't. He stutters a bit, yes, but so do I when I'm coming up with something dynamically. He seemed to understand the issues just as well as she did, he just wasn't as prepped for specific questions with pre-prepared and rehearsed answers. I'm not saying it is bad to rehearse responses to expected questions, but it isn't exactly something that is going to decide who I vote for.

[EternalGamer]

So you think, but boy won't you be surprised when the next president starts kicking them all out on those grounds. :p



Uh, yeah...kind of. If I murder someone, did I not break the law just because people don't know it was me?

I tend to think of a "criminal" as someone who commits a felony, not a misdemeanor. If you decriminalize illegal immigrants to make it simply something that is fined and requires you to enter a program, then the people that break that law are no longer criminals.

In fact, that is why we call it de-criminalization when we make breaking a law no longer a felony (see the decriminalization of marijuana possession that has taken place in many states in the last decade). Once you decriminalize it, which is what their position would requires, I believe, the immigrants simply become people who committed a misdemeanor, just like someone who committed a traffic violation.

[Generation ABXY]

Well, I don't think it's viable to just shunt them all off. I myself am a supporter of the path to citizenship, mainly because I have several Hispanic friends in high school who are illegals, but had no real choice because they had come over to the States when they were one or two years old.

I should perhaps state that I am not in favor of just chucking them out. My opinion has evolved a lot over this past year and, as much as I think illegal immigration is a problem, it isn't one we can get rid of like that - that's what we've been trying to do in the past, it clearly hasn't worked all that well.

I tend to think of a "criminal" as someone who commits a felony, not a misdemanor. If you decriminalize illegal immigrants to make it simply something that is fined and requires you to enter a program, then the people that break that law are no longer criminals. They are simply people who committed a misdemeanor.

I suppose it is all relative then. I tend to think of a criminal as someone who committed a crime...silly me.

[Johan]

This debate, along with every other debate they've had, shows Obama fumbling for ways to staple his stump speech together to form a coherent answer to the questions, while Hillary has excellent command of the facts and how those facts apply to policy.

Must be frustrating to see her losing in slow motion, then...don't worry, it will be over on March 4th!

[EternalGamer]

I should perhaps state that I am not in favor of just chucking them out. My opinion has evolved a lot over this past year and, as much as I think illegal immigration is a problem, it isn't one we can get rid of like that - that's what we've been trying to do in the past, it clearly hasn't worked all that well.



I suppose it is all relative then. I tend to think of a criminal as someone who committed a crime...silly me.

Well, our legal system seems to differ. That is why they call it decriminalizing when they make it no longer a felony.

[Zanzibar]

Must be frustrating to see her losing in slow motion, then...don't worry, it will be over on March 4th!

Hey, FUCK YOU, you fucking troll.

I've seen your politics. You're scum. You always have been.

The truth is, I'll be glad whichever of these two wins the nomination. I can't wait to see your failed policies get trampled again, just like they were in 2006.

Another demoralizing defeat, coming for YOU, this November. STAY TUNED!!

God, you are an ass.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Exactly right. The Democrats need to ask themselves which makes important qualities for a Commander In Chief - ability to speak to crowds, or ability to voice a clear understanding of the issues and facts.
How often does a president find himself in a debate atmosphere after he's elected? Never. How often does he give speeches? Constantly.

[Johan]

<phlegm and sputum>

That was rich! Truly! :D You need a mirror!

It would appear that it does indeed bother you to watch her candidacy spiraling down the toilet. Shame for her. And for Bill. What will they do?

[EternalGamer]

Hey Zanz, calm down man. Johan has a clear witch hunt for Clinton going, but no need to let him get you worked up over such a minor jab.

The irony of an Obama candidacy for me is that much of his mantra seems to be about idealism when, in reality, his winning the nonimation only assures me that idealism isn't justified because in an ideal world, the most knowledgeable and qualified candidate would be elected, not the one that has the most charm. Nevertheless, he's certainly more than competent.

But, I'm not all that idealistic to begin with, so i have no problem excepting that reality that he is the probable nominee. He's certainly more than competent regardless.

[Zanzibar]

Hey Zanz, calm down man. Johan has a clear witch hunt for Clinton going, but no need to let him get you worked up over such a minor jab.

He can bash Clinton all he wants. That wasn't at Clinton. That was at me. I don't take shit from vermin like him.

[Johan]

<foaming at the mouth>

You reveal yourself. Clearly! And all it took was one little, itty, bitty....poke. :D

[cp#]

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4048/hillarythumbszj7.jpg (http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hillarythumbszj7.jpg)

DID I WIN?

[TheFlyingOrc]

He can bash Clinton all he wants. That wasn't at Clinton. That was at me. I don't take shit from vermin like him.

Then you should probably quit being stupid, and calling people vermin for having opposing political views.

[EternalGamer]

DID I WIN!

This is the douchebag that deserves a hard time.

[pirateTITAN]

He can bash Clinton all he wants. That wasn't at Clinton. That was at me. I don't take shit from vermin like him.

Relax. Be pissed all you want but don't resort to shit like calling people vermin.

[Xerxes]

Hey, FUCK YOU, you fucking troll.

I've seen your politics. You're scum. You always have been.

The truth is, I'll be glad whichever of these two wins the nomination. I can't wait to see your failed policies get trampled again, just like they were in 2006.

Another demoralizing defeat, coming for YOU, this November. STAY TUNED!!

God, you are an ass.

We aren't supposed to launch personal attack Zanzibar.

[EternalGamer]

Relax. Be pissed all you want but don't resort to shit like calling people vermin.

I agree. That term should be reserved for CNN political "analyst." I'm currently listening to these "political analyst" talk about "body language" and who "felt" or "sounded" more "presidential" and a whole other litany of completely vapid discussions that have almost nothing to do with actual political discussion.

[51|RandoM]

We aren't supposed to launch personal attack Zanzibar.

it is Johan, it isn't personal. :)

[Xerxes]

it is Johan, it isn't personal. :)

You know how many warnings I've got for skating in that area with him and Schnoogs. :(

[Johan]

it is Johan, it isn't personal. :)

http://www.exitmundi.nl/borgkubus.jpg

You know how many warnings I've got for skating in that area with him and Schnoogs. :(

Skating can be dangerous. Don't watch this if you have a weak stomach. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4848559356076208908)

[Zanzibar]

All right. I'm sorry for using that language, Johan.

I never liked the kids that pointed and laughed when I dropped my ice cream - which is pretty much what you did.

[cp#]

This is the douchebag that deserves a hard time.

Queue curious puppy dog head cock

[51|RandoM]

You know how many warnings I've got for skating in that area with him and Schnoogs. :(

Warnings? Official warnings? Wow. Both of them post car wrecks that are best to drive by carefully. That isn't a warning, that is just advice.

[Xerxes]

All right. I'm sorry for using that language, Johan.

I never liked the kids that pointed and laughed when I dropped my ice cream - which is pretty much what you did.

And they call Obama supporters a cult. :D
Just hope she turns it around. I don't hope that but you know stick with him. Maybe you can wear short shorts and go be the Hillary Boy to Obama's Obama girls. ;)

[Johan]

All right. I'm sorry for using that language, Johan.

I hardly deserve that, which says a lot about you...in a good way...as I have a rather inflammatory trail here!

I never liked the kids that pointed and laughed when I dropped my ice cream - which is pretty much what you did.

I know it was wrong, but I have to be honest and say sometimes I just somehow can't help myself. I'm really trying to tone it down some, but once in a while it just squeaks out. :o

So, we both "made water" under the bridge. Now, we'll let it flow on by!

If it makes you feel any better, I think Obama has a better chance in the fall than Clinton (purely opinion) and will be the next POTUS. I also like the guy and a number of his major ideas as well.

[Xerxes]

Warnings? Official warnings? Wow. Both of them post car wrecks that are best to drive by carefully. That isn't a warning, that is just advice.

Yes, reds have knocked on my door. Although that who's the bigger troll thread was a bit trollish of me. :rolleyes:

[Zanzibar]

Maybe you can wear short shorts and go be the Hillary Boy to Obama's Obama girls. ;)
Jesus, talk about 'making the voters stay home'. You obviously haven't seen my chicken legs.

[Xerxes]

Jesus, talk about 'making the voters stay home'. You obviously haven't seen my chicken legs.

Hmmm... Probably only works if you're Duff Man.

http://www.thesimpsonsquotes.com/images/duffman.gif
OH YEAH!

[Abash Alarmist]

I don't get the whole 'plagarism' bit. I mean, even if he had plagarized the words, does it mean that he is no longer entitled to the opinions that the words represent? If I quote FDR, Churchill, or even Patrick Henry...Am I no longer entitled to the thoughts, ideas, and expressions that those words all convey?

We know sure as hell that Clinton hires a staff of speach writers. Does that automatically mean that the words written by her employees are not hers and don't really stand for what she says in a debate or a speach?

[Heretic Machine]

I think what this debate really proved, definitively, is that there are few differences on the policy level between these two candidates, when it comes to the big issues. The biggest difference is their health care plan, which a lot of us have differing opinions about, but which America at large probably doesn't even understand. So it really is coming down to which person you like more, in many ways, based on their record and the way they conduct themselves. I think most of us would be happy with either, given time to reconcile with the loss of our chosen candidate, whoever that may be.

[AgtFox]

90% of what Hilary said tonight was her just relaying anecdotes. "A mother grabbed my arm and...", "I was touring a campus and...", "A man asked me..." Do you think that this will be a useful skill in the Oval Office?
I usually don't get into these types of debates on forums, but I missed the debate tonight. Anyway, it has been a useful skill to George W. Bush with anecdotes, he does them all the time in his speeches. People latch onto the personal stories, that's why they talk about them.

[EternalGamer]

I don't get the whole 'plagarism' bit. I mean, even if he had plagarized the words, does it mean that he is no longer entitled to the opinions that the words represent? If I quote FDR, Churchill, or even Patrick Henry...Am I no longer entitled to the thoughts, ideas, and expressions that those words all convey?

We know sure as hell that Clinton hires a staff of speach writers. Does that automatically mean that the words written by her employees are not hers and don't really stand for what she says in a debate or a speach?

It was stupid on her part and it was clearly grasping at straws. She should have stayed on policy differences.

[Heretic Machine]

It was stupid on her part and it was clearly grasping at straws. She should have stayed on policy differences.

On top of that, CNN has been saying that she lifted that "final answer", which resonated so well, from an Edwards speech.

[fitbabits]

Hey, FUCK YOU, you fucking troll.

I've seen your politics. You're scum. You always have been.

The truth is, I'll be glad whichever of these two wins the nomination. I can't wait to see your failed policies get trampled again, just like they were in 2006.

Another demoralizing defeat, coming for YOU, this November. STAY TUNED!!

God, you are an ass.

Chill, Zanz... Please. This is NOT like you, so I'm willing to let it slide. I understand frustration with people on here as well as anyone else, but there's 'that line' which shouldn't really be crossed.

[fitbabits]

Oh, and on the performance of Obama and Clinton...

Obama looked fatigued (or perhaps sickly). Hilary, on the other hand, looked like a coiled spring - very dangerous.

I still haven't made my mind up about which one to choose (not that I'll be voting for any of them), but these one-on-one debates (especially the ones on CNN) serve little purpose to me.

[Kagger]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/KaggeR/Funny%20Pictures/CNN-President.jpg

Only candidate I would monetarily and time wise support

[bKangy]

Oh, and on the performance of Obama and Clinton...

Obama looked fatigued (or perhaps sickly). Hilary, on the other hand, looked like a coiled spring - very dangerous.


He's got a head cold apparently, which I can sympathize with since I'm blocked up to hell right now.

As for the debate? That Xerox line was utter shit if you ask me, how anyone thinks she came off well from that is unbelievable. He quickly informed everyone that it came from a campaign member and a personal friend. Are candidates not allowed speech writers now? Hillary steals shit all the time but Barack's too respectful to roll in mud with the bitch.

And then Zanzibar's whole "he has no understanding of the issues" thing was just bizarre. He crapped all over her health care and Iraq arguments.

[eth3rton]

Clinton blew that debate. Hands down.... :p If anyone needs to accused of plagiarism then its her. I don't recall Edwards giving his endorsement to her and that last line about the American people was clearly plagiarism. Obama kept his cool and that was all he needed to win Texas. I would be surprised if she ends up winning wither Texas or Ohio.

[Karmakin]

The Xerox line was just god awful. Epic fail.

Obama has a good understanding of the issues, he just doesn't focus on it, because whenever a candidate does, the eyes of the general public (and everybody here is too smart to be general public) just glaze RIGHT over.

Clinton's problem remains that she's presenting herself as the "experience" candidate where experience==establishment and people are wanting a distinct change, as well as campaigning for a 50+1 election when quite a few voters on both sides of the aisle are tired of the scorched earth politics. She did nothing to rectify either issue.

[Oxonian]

In fact, that is why we call it de-criminalization when we make breaking a law no longer a felony (see the decriminalization of marijuana possession that has taken place in many states in the last decade). Once you decriminalize it, which is what their position would requires, I believe, the immigrants simply become people who committed a misdemeanor, just like someone who committed a traffic violation.
You're using wrong terminology. At common law, a felony was any offense punishable by more than one year of imprisonment or death. A misdemeanor was any offense punishable by less than a year of imprisonment. A summary offense is an offense that can only be punishable with a fine.

Some states have played with this terminology somewhat; Pennsylvania, for example, deems any crime punishable by less than five years of imprisonment a "misdemeanor."

The point is, lots of offenses qualify as "misdemeanors," but we wouldn't typically say that they have been decriminalized. Petty theft, indecent exposure, reckless endangerment -- these are all typically misdemeanors, but they can result in months-long jail sentences. Few people would say that these offenses have been decriminalized.

Decriminalization usually means one of two things: either removing the jail penalty entirely, or reducing the jail penalty to a maximum of six months (below which you have no constitutional right to a jury trial).

[CaptStu]

People on CNN.com think that Obama won.

Who won the Democratic debate in Austin, Texas?
Hillary Clinton 35% 29641
Barack Obama 65% 55419
Total Votes: 85060

[EternalGamer]

You're using wrong terminology. At common law, a felony was any offense punishable by more than one year of imprisonment or death. A misdemeanor was any offense punishable by less than a year of imprisonment. A summary offense is an offense that can only be punishable with a fine.

Some states have played with this terminology somewhat; Pennsylvania, for example, deems any crime punishable by less than five years of imprisonment a "misdemeanor."

The point is, lots of offenses qualify as "misdemeanors," but we wouldn't typically say that they have been decriminalized. Petty theft, indecent exposure, reckless endangerment -- these are all typically misdemeanors, but they can result in months-long jail sentences. Few people would say that these offenses have been decriminalized.

Decriminalization usually means one of two things: either removing the jail penalty entirely, or reducing the jail penalty to a maximum of six months (below which you have no constitutional right to a jury trial).

Yeah, I knew when I was writing that that I wasn't familar enough with the actual legal distinction between the two, and, I was also aware that you would probably come and straighten things out, so I was lazy enough to leave it for you to do. :)

However, the underlying notion of what the term "decriminalized" implies in regards to whether or not breaking a law automatically makes one a criminal, remains.

[Bone]

Both of them sucked. Obama is empty, more than ever before I realized the accusation of his eloquent speaking covering up a lack of substance is completely true.

Hillary has none of the charm that made her husband so popular. They may come from the same camp but I can't see anyone being inspired by her shrill, rude attacks.

Not to mention that they both want to make me pay for all of the stupid decisions made by people that make them poor.

Between them and McCain, last night I vowed to vote "none of the above". Actually thaGirl and I decided we may write in Colin Powell.

[EternalGamer]

People make themselves poor in this country? That would be shocking news to most demographers. They are under the illusion that more people are born and die in the same class strata than move between classes and that those that do move, generally only move very little (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html). They've also concluded that class mobility in the U.S. is lower (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4662456) than many other developed countries. But they probably rely too much on statistics to reach that conclusion and not enough anecdotal evidence.

[Bone]

People make themselves poor in this country? That would be shocking news to most demographers. They are under the illusion that the vast majority of people are born and die in the same class strata. But they probably rely too much on statistics to reach that conclusion and not enough anecdotal evidence.
I'm talking specifically about idiots who get a home loan, knowing they cannot afford it, then default on said loan, then expect to be bailed out. And Hillary would love for us to pay those house notes for them! Fuck that.

If you buy a house and the mortgage payment is clearly beyond your ability to pay it, you should be responsible enough to deal with the ramifications.

[Heretic Machine]

I'm talking specifically about idiots who get a home loan, knowing they cannot afford it, then default on said loan, then expect to be bailed out. And Hillary would love for us to pay those house notes! Fuck that.

Yeah, fucking home makers, asking us to bail them out. What the fuck do we care if 20% of our population becomes homeless in the next five years? I'm sure our economy will carry on just fine. :rolleyes:

[Evil Avatar]

I've had my fill of empty talking heads, thank you.

Then don't vote in this election. I'm sorry, but all three canidates here represent More of the Same.

Hillary is the same president we already had for 8 years. McCain is the same president we just had for 8 years and Obama only represents the young inexperienced "I have no clue what I'm doing and I'm going to fuck this up bad" President.

Really, we aren't getting anything good this election no matter who you vote for. Obama doesn't have the political clout or the experience to turn our economy around and the other two don't need or want to do anything to help the economy they just want the position for the sake of having the position... and that goes double for Obama who couldn't even wait till he had some time in under his belt before he decided to run.

[EternalGamer]

I'm talking specifically about idiots who get a home loan, knowing they cannot afford it, then default on said loan, then expect to be bailed out. And Hillary would love for us to pay those house notes for them! Fuck that.

If you buy a house and the mortgage payment is clearly beyond your ability to pay it, you should be responsible enough to deal with the ramifications.

I agree somewhat, but have you looked at morgage contracts? We all need our personal Oxonian just to figure them out.

[drakkarim]

i found the debate last night to be a dud really, nobody gained or lost any ground. which is probably not a bad outcome for obama, but not what hillary was after. my vote hasn't changed so far.

i really like something obama said a while back during a debate, when hillary mentioned something about a bill comment, and obama in his reply said something along the lines of not being sure who he's running against sometimes...

only weird moment i found during the whole debate last night was when chelsea gave her mom that big hug and obama started shaking the panel's hands then moved on to the crowd to shake their hands, more or less ignoring chelsea completely and then they had a close of of obama in the front and chelsea in the back looking at him like "i just wanted to shake your hand" had an almost dejected look. i'm guessing he didn't notice she was there, otherwise that was quite the snub.

i think between that hug and her getting emotional at the end, i don't like how she puts her family "into" the race, just strikes me as... i don't want to say 'weak', but not the image i want to have our president portray to other countries. especially the middle east, who i think would have a hard enough time taking her seriously with their views on women in general.

[Baron Samedi]

Then don't vote in this election. I'm sorry, but all three canidates here represent More of the Same.

Hillary is the same president we already had for 8 years. McCain is the same president we just had for 8 years and Obama only represents the young inexperienced "I have no clue what I'm doing and I'm going to fuck this up bad" President.

Really, we aren't getting anything good this election no matter who you vote for. Obama doesn't have the political clout or the experience to turn our economy around and the other two don't need or want to do anything to help the economy they just want the position for the sake of having the position... and that goes double for Obama who couldn't even wait till he had some time in under his belt before he decided to run.

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/ron-paul-paris.jpg

[Oxonian]

However, the underlying notion of what the term "decriminalized" implies in regards to whether or not breaking a law automatically makes one a criminal, remains.
Oh, you were right that breaking the law doesn't necessarily make one a criminal. There are a lot of non-criminal laws. For example, by law anything written below the signature on a final will is void. If I write my will, sign it, and then at the bottom of it write, "P.S. Please take care of my cat Mr. Snuggles," I've violated the law, but no one would call me a criminal.

However, Generation ABXY had a point: crossing the U.S. border without being inspected by immigration authorities or willfully misrepresenting material facts to those authorities is a crime punishable by up to six months of imprisonment (two years for a subsequent offense). 8 U.S.C. 1325. Not all illegal immigrants violate this statute, but a lot of them do. This statute authorizes a sentence of incarceration, so anyone who violates it is at least arguably a criminal.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Democratic candidate suggests modifying this law. It's hard to prove that any given illegal immigrant violated it, however, so they will be given a "path to citizenship" even though a lot of them are arguably criminals. Indeed, if this immigration reform is passed, I would expect some years from now to read a sob story about people who crossed the border illegally, got citizenship, then had their citizenship revoked and were deported because someone testified that the immigrant violated 8 U.S.C. 1325.

[Evil Avatar]

Yeah, fucking home makers, asking us to bail them out. What the fuck do we care if 20% of our population becomes homeless in the next five years? I'm sure our economy will carry on just fine. :rolleyes:

Bone has a point. It isn't our fault that a bunch of idiots went and purchased homes they could never afford during a housing boom that was driving housing priced up through the roof. If all those people had just waited 5 years then they would be looking to buy a house NOW, when the prices are the lowest and the interest rates are fixed and low.

Going out and buying something when it is "Hot" is never the way to do things. Look at housing like Comic Books. How much do you think the first issue of 30 Days of Night was going for right before the movie came out? Probaby hundreds of dollars. But, right now it is probably half that and a year from now it will be half that again.

I have zero sympathy for people who got themselves into deals that they knew ahead of time they could never afford. I want a bigger house and with two kids I probably need a bigger house, but I'll be damned if I was going to let some shyster real estate agent talk me into a house twice as big as I can afford.

[Johan]

People make themselves poor in this country? That would be shocking news to most demographers. They are under the illusion that more people are born and die in the same class strata than move between classes and that those that do move, generally only move very little (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html). They've also concluded that class mobility in the U.S. is lower (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4662456) than many other developed countries. But they probably rely too much on statistics to reach that conclusion and not enough anecdotal evidence.

Business Week had a similar report a few years back.

Class lines are stratifying moreso with each passing year. It's quite difficult to move up, but not so terribly difficult to move down I suppose (just fail to have health insurance and have a medical emergency...poof, you're ruined).

It's sad. :(

[Oxonian]

I agree somewhat, but have you looked at morgage contracts? We all need our personal Oxonian just to figure them out.
If you need a lawyer to understand a contract, what should you do?

(A) Refuse to sign the contract.

(B) Sign the contract.

(C) Hire a lawyer to explain it to you.

I mean, people complain there are too many lawyers in this country. Fine, I agree. But I don't think you can then turn around and say, "How could I possibly be expected to understand all of this legal mumbo-jumbo!"

[Evil Avatar]

To the best of my knowledge, neither Democratic candidate suggests modifying this law. It's hard to prove that any given illegal immigrant violated it, however, so they will be given a "path to citizenship" even though a lot of them are arguably criminals. Indeed, if this immigration reform is passed, I would expect some years from now to read a sob story about people who crossed the border illegally, got citizenship, then had their citizenship revoked and were deported because someone testified that the immigrant violated 8 U.S.C. 1325.

Immigration is an almost impossible issue. We see a huge number of crimes being comitted by illegals, who we deport, who then sneak back and commit the same crimes again.

We can't provide a path to citizenship to the illegals already in this country until we can prevent people from sneaking in here in the first place. First you lock up the borders, then you can make citizens of the people who are already here.

McCain seems to be the only canidate who understands that idea -- and then he is seen as "weak" on immigration by his own party. *Sheesh*

[EternalGamer]

Then don't vote in this election. I'm sorry, but all three canidates here represent More of the Same.

Hillary is the same president we already had for 8 years. McCain is the same president we just had for 8 years

Ok, regardless of your political views, I have no idea in hell how you can say that McCain and Hillary are both the same as George Bush. That statement just makes absolutely no sense to me no matter how I try to interpret it outside of some abstract populist rhetoric of them all representing "the man."

Obama only represents the young inexperienced "I have no clue what I'm doing and I'm going to fuck this up bad" President.

Really, we aren't getting anything good this election no matter who you vote for. Obama doesn't have the political clout or the experience to turn our economy around and the other two don't need or want to do anything to help the economy they just want the position for the sake of having the position...

You seem to assume the president can have a huge impact on the direction of the economy, which, most of the economist I hear speak on this issue, think is pretty bunk. Whatever the effect the president could have on the direction is pretty insignificant compared to the factors beyond their control.

As for your second point, politicians are not bad videogame or comic villans. They don't want power just for the sake of power. They want power because they want to influence the direction of the culture. You can disagree with the way they want to influence it, but to argue that they simply want power for the sake of the concept itself seems pretty ridiculous.

[Johan]

I have zero sympathy for people who got themselves into deals that they knew ahead of time they could never afford. I want a bigger house and with two kids I probably need a bigger house, but I'll be damned if I was going to let some shyster real estate agent talk me into a house twice as big as I can afford.

I agree to a degree. The problem is, if enough of these foolish people lose their homes, entire communities and local/regional economies suffer.

In other words, those who have chosen wisely/carefully suffer along with the dummies, so we may need to bail out some of these idiots who were personally irresponsible.

And that's what it is, in my opinion; irresponsibility, in the vast majority of cases.

[Evil Avatar]

Ok, regardless of your political views, I have no idea in hell how you can say that McCain and Hillary are both the same as George Bush. That statement just makes absolutely no sense to me no matter how I try to interpret it outside of some abstract populist rhetoric of them all representing "the man."

No, Hillary is more of Clinton. McCain is more of Bush. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[EternalGamer]

If you need a lawyer to understand a contract, what should you do?

(A) Refuse to sign the contract.

(B) Sign the contract.

(C) Hire a lawyer to explain it to you.

I mean, people complain there are too many lawyers in this country. Fine, I agree. But I don't think you can then turn around and say, "How could I possibly be expected to understand all of this legal mumbo-jumbo!"

Obviously I would not sign anything I didn't understand. My point was more that I can understand how people get into that type of situition. Should they have been more responsible? Yes, probably. But that doesn't make their case totally non-empathetic.

They screwed up, as most of us do at some point in our lives. It is not as if they just said "Hey, I want to be financially irresponsible! I know I can't afford this loan, but fuck it, I'm going to do it anyway and just wait for someone to bail me out!" I don't think people and their families deserve to be homeless because they made a stupid financial decision because they weren't scrutinizing enough and someone took unfair advantage for them. Part of the value of living in a society and not out in the wilderness is that people try to help each other. It is not every man for themselves. We don't just say "fuck you , ha ha, you screwed up." Even those that claim to believe in a social darwinism are sure happy enough to advantage of the social amenities that are convenient to them: roads, police protection, education, etc.

[Evil Avatar]

I don't think people an their families deserve to be homeless because they made a stupid financial decision because they weren't scrutinizing enough and someone took unfair advantage for them.

Why would they be homeless? If they were working before and paying for a Mortgage, then they can go and get an apartment. They just lost the home itself or if they are smart then they are already trying to sell it to get out from under it.

[Telefrog]

I mean, people complain there are too many lawyers in this country. Fine, I agree. But I don't think you can then turn around and say, "How could I possibly be expected to understand all of this legal mumbo-jumbo!"

But which came first, all the lawyers or all the legal mumbo-jumbo? :D

[EternalGamer]

Because their credit will be ruined, making it pretty hard to find a decent apartment even.

[Zanzibar]

No, Hillary is more of Clinton. McCain is more of Bush. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I fail to see how returning to a set of philosophies that was a GREAT BOON to our country is a bad thing. Y'know, cue all the right-wingers who will try to dismiss Clinton's economic plans as ineffectual to the 90s economy, but seriously, no one can doubt that the strategies they put in place helped fire up the economy to the best levels in recorded history.

I've gone into detail numerous times before as to what specifically Clinton did, so I won't go into it here, but the Clintons realize that the working class is the backbone of the economy. When they have money to spend, they spend it, and they spend it in ways that helps every aspect of the economy.

McCain will give you exactly the same policies that Bush enacted, I'll give you that. Obama's mandate will be to try to change Washington, which I feel will stall Washington as everybody digs their heels in, thus delaying his ability to enact his economic policies.

Change doesn't happen in a crisis. If, in 2012, substantial progress has not been made in fixing the wrongs of the Bush Administration, then President Obama would be a one-term wonder. We simply cannot risk having the Republicans point to Obama's first term as 'ineffectual.'

The last man who walked into Washington expecting Washington to change because 'it's the right thing to do' was named Jimmy Carter. A great man, but a terrible President.

[Bone]

Yeah, fucking home makers, asking us to bail them out. What the fuck do we care if 20% of our population becomes homeless in the next five years? I'm sure our economy will carry on just fine. :rolleyes:So, you think it's fine for someone to buy a home that they know they can't afford? And we should bail them out? It's like if your douche neighbor brought home a Lamborghini that costs him $1200 a month, and you know he makes exactly that a month. How is he going to pay rent or eat? Do you want to subsidize his stupidity?

I agree somewhat, but have you looked at morgage contracts? We all need our personal Oxonian just to figure them out.I'm in the process of buying a house right now. It's not that hard to calculate your income against the amount you are expected to pay for a mortgage payment and decide if it's realistic.

[AspectVoid]

Watching the CNN recap (online), I have to ask about the immigration part: A lot of people (on the left and the right) keep saying that there should be a path to citizenship, unless they committed a crime here or in another country - if they are illegal aliens, aren't they all criminals?

You know, I'm of two minds on this subject. On one side, I am not a fan of illegal aliens at all. On the other, my great grandfather came over illegally. The difference, however, is that once he was over here, my great grandfather went to the effort of getting his green card, always paid his taxes, and was a model citizen. He wasn't doing everything he could to evade the law. I think we need some balance where the people who put effort into it can gain citizenship, but not make it blanket.

Anyway, as for the debate, well, it didn't do anything to make me want to vote for Clinton. She really didn't do anything to change my mind and opinion that having our country run Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would be a bad thing. I still think we need new blood in the White House (whether McCain or Obama, I don't really care).

[Zanzibar]

People on CNN.com think that Obama won.

Who won the Democratic debate in Austin, Texas?
Hillary Clinton 35% 29641
Barack Obama 65% 55419
Total Votes: 85060
The internet is a lousy place to get a poll. You get a disproportionate level of the far left and the far right.

Look at this:
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

According to the 'Yahoo Buzz', Obama gets 80% of internet traffic compared to 20% for Clinton.

[Johan]

I fail to see how returning to a set of philosophies that was a GREAT BOON to our country is a bad thing. Y'know, cue all the right-wingers who will try to dismiss Clinton's economic plans as ineffectual to the 90s economy, but seriously, no one can doubt that the strategies they put in place helped fire up the economy to the best levels in recorded history.

Clinton did two things REALLY well and one thing very badly, in my opinion.

He balanced the budget, and even had a surplus. That's a boon to the economy.
He also passed (with Republican/Democratic help) welfare reform, which was/is a boon to the economy and a help to the budget.

Negatively, the excesses of the Clinton '90s economically, and the lack of oversight of corporate finances, led to an economic crash of sorts and a parade of destroyed companies, brutalized/destroyed stocks (owned by regular folk, mostly), and locked-up corporate officers.

[EternalGamer]

So, you think it's fine for someone to buy a home that they know they can't afford? And we should bail them out? It's like if your douche neighbor brought home a Lamborghini that costs him $1200 a month, and you know he makes exactly that a month. How is he going to pay rent or eat? Do you want to subsidize his stupidity?

I'm in the process of buying a house right now. It's not that hard to calculate your income against the amount you are expected to pay for a mortgage payment and decide if it's realistic.

Given the number of people that have fallen prey to this problem, I think it is a little bit more complex than your analogy about your neighbor. When a problem is this large, there is an underlying cause greater than just "people are stupid." People have been stupid forever, but this particular problem and how widespread it is only a recent phenomenon.

[EternalGamer]

Oh, you were right that breaking the law doesn't necessarily make one a criminal. There are a lot of non-criminal laws. For example, by law anything written below the signature on a final will is void. If I write my will, sign it, and then at the bottom of it write, "P.S. Please take care of my cat Mr. Snuggles," I've violated the law, but no one would call me a criminal.

However, Generation ABXY had a point: crossing the U.S. border without being inspected by immigration authorities or willfully misrepresenting material facts to those authorities is a crime punishable by up to six months of imprisonment (two years for a subsequent offense). 8 U.S.C. 1325. Not all illegal immigrants violate this statute, but a lot of them do. This statute authorizes a sentence of incarceration, so anyone who violates it is at least arguably a criminal.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Democratic candidate suggests modifying this law. It's hard to prove that any given illegal immigrant violated it, however, so they will be given a "path to citizenship" even though a lot of them are arguably criminals. Indeed, if this immigration reform is passed, I would expect some years from now to read a sob story about people who crossed the border illegally, got citizenship, then had their citizenship revoked and were deported because someone testified that the immigrant violated 8 U.S.C. 1325.

Obviously it would be incredibly stupid to change immigration policy without changing the penalties for the crime, or at least making a specific exception in the case of false representation in the case of illegal immigrants. I just automatically assumed that ammending those laws would be part of the package. I see no reason why it wouldn't be.

[Zanzibar]

Clinton did two things REALLY well and one thing very badly, in my opinion.

He balanced the budget, and even had a surplus. That's a boon to the economy.
He also passed (with Republican/Democratic help) welfare reform, which was/is a boon to the economy and a help to the budget.

Negatively, the excesses of the Clinton '90s economically, and the lack of oversight of corporate finances, led to an economic crash of sorts and a parade of destroyed companies, brutalized/destroyed stocks (owned by regular folk, mostly), and locked-up corporate officers.

OMG, I agree!

The one caveat that I'd put in is that it was the lack of action to anticipate the skyrocketing energy costs in the late '90s that was THE major factor that stalled the economy. When energy prices (in California in particular, but everywhere) started eating into disposable income, people couldn't afford to keep their spending habits going without using credit card debt, which made monthly credit card bills increase, which made MORE disposable income disappear, etc. etc.

Honestly, I put the blame squarely on Bill Richardson's shoulders, who was the Energy Secretary for Clinton's last term. I have no idea what that fucker was doing when California deregulated its energy industry.

[Beelzebud]

You know how many warnings I've got for skating in that area with him and Schnoogs. :(

Which is why both of them are on my ignore list.

[Zanzibar]

Given the number of people that have fallen prey to this problem, I think it is a little bit more complex than your analogy about your neighbor. When a problem is this large, there is an underlying cause greater than just "people are stupid." People have been stupid forever, but this particular problem and how widespread it is only a recent phenomenon.

People were doing the same thing in 2003, and made a fortune when the housing prices went up even more. In 2005, right before the bubble burst, the banks were pointing to the money made by people from their deals in 2003 and said 'See? There's no risk!'

[Bone]

Given the number of people that have fallen prey to this problem, I think it is a little bit more complex than your analogy about your neighbor. When a problem is this large, there is an underlying cause greater than just "people are stupid." People have been stupid forever, but this particular problem and how widespread it is only a recent phenomenon.I can see where you're going, but I see it this way. Ponzi schemes became big and widespread for awhile, and people lost a lot of money. Yes, events happen that allow large amounts of people to lose money because they don't think things through enough. I agree that it sucks.

What I'm not convinced of is that we all have a responsibility to pay for those people's mistakes. Life is short and hard like a bodybuilding elf.

EDIT: I am however all for punishing the offending lenders as well. Maybe they can subsidize the people they helped get these loans.

[Johan]

Which is why both of them are on my ignore list.

This was important to know, and truly added to the conversation!

As did this post, ironically! :D

[Oxonian]

I don't think people an their families deserve to be homeless because they made a stupid financial decision because they weren't scrutinizing enough and someone took unfair advantage for them.
No, people don't deserve to be homeless. Likewise, nice hardworking people who are completely incompetent at their jobs don't deserve to be fired. But whether they deserve it or not, sometimes bad consequences have to befall good people in order for the system to work.

Moreover, it makes no sense to me when people claim that bankers "took unfair advantage" of subprime mortgagers. If I default on a home loan, the bank is not better off. It then has to sell my house for me, almost certainly losing money. No lender wants his debtors to default, he wants them to keep making payments. Moreover, almost none of the subprime mortgages are usurious: adjustable interest rates are usually pegged to the fed funds rate, not simply made up out of thin air.

The really irresponsible people in this story are the lenders, but not because they were taking advantage of borrowers: they were taking advantage of their depositors, foolishly failing to calculate the dangers of default and repackaging mortgage-backed securities in ways that made it virtually impossible for debt purchasers (e.g., pension funds and other banks) to evaluate their risks. The debt purchasers also deserve some blame, because you shouldn't buy a security if you can't figure out what it is. The poor people with terrible credit who never should have purchased houses in the first place are making out like bandits: they never should have bought houses but they were homeowners for a time anyway. They should and will go back to renting. If I buy a house with no money down, can no longer make the payments, and go back to my old rented apartment, how exactly am I worse off than I started?

What's especially galling is the notion that we'll stop foreclosures for 60 or 90 days, an idea that I first saw in Lyndon LaRouche literature but now has horrifyingly become mainstream Democratic policy. Poor people won't simply be sent back to affordable rental housing, but instead charged for 90 days of unaffordable mortgage payments and then sent back to rental housing? Any of them with a brain in their heads will decide not to send in the mortgage payments, since they won't get kicked out anyway and your credit score can only fall so low. Banks will probably get only a small fraction of mortgage payments during that time, which will hurt them even more and drive them close to bankruptcy. The housing market will take even longer to readjust back to reasonable prices, and any pension fund or investment fund that owns mortgage-backed securities (or just has an interest in the orderly and efficient workings of the financial markets) will be screwed. The plan is bad for the poor, bad for the middle class, and bad for the rich. It's tough to come up with a plan that screws everybody, but the Democrats are impressive people.

[drakkarim]

Really, we aren't getting anything good this election no matter who you vote for. Obama doesn't have the political clout or the experience to turn our economy around and the other two don't need or want to do anything to help the economy they just want the position for the sake of having the position... and that goes double for Obama who couldn't even wait till he had some time in under his belt before he decided to run.

at the least we can get something 'new' out of this election. as far as most people are concerned, 'political clout' and washington 'experience' only accomplishes 'more of the same'.

the system needs new blood, he CAN'T fuck things up anymore than "experience" and "political clout" have already done in all the previous iterations.

if he DID wait till he had more 'time under his belt' he'd be just another fucking politician.

as for the mortgage mess, i personally think if you're stupid enough to go into a contract that specifically states the rate WILL vary, and expect anything BUT an ass reaming when that time comes, then you shouldn't start crying when the rates DO start changing, what the fuck were people expecting? a free lunch? if you can't get a decent mortgage loan at a static rate, maybe you should worry about fixing your fucking credit instead of grasping at straws and hoping nothing bad happens.

i understand things are bad, but at the same time every fucking thing in this country is about not being held responsible for anything, how is anyone supposed to 'learn' anything if the taxpayer has to bail all the idiots out all the time, whether corporations or consumers.

fucking learn, period.

[Beelzebud]

Listening to people who voted for Bush, complain about Obama's experience, makes me laugh.

[Zanzibar]

at the least we can get something 'new' out of this election. as far as most people are concerned, 'political clout' and washington 'experience' only accomplishes 'more of the same'.

the system needs new blood, he CAN'T fuck things up anymore than "experience" and "political clout" have already done in all the previous iterations.

if he DID wait till he had more 'time under his belt' he'd be just another fucking politician.

Jimmy Carter says 'hello.'

[drakkarim]

Jimmy Carter says 'hello.'

so does kennedy

[BlackPete]

Did people forget that Obama had a head cold earlier this week? That could explain why he looked tired/sickly.

The plagiarism thing is just full of LOL. Hillary shouldn't even have brought it up. Here's why:

zAYItnI-lPo

[Wslove]

No, people don't deserve to be homeless. Likewise, nice hardworking people who are completely incompetent at their jobs don't deserve to be fired. But whether they deserve it or not, sometimes bad consequences have to befall good people in order for the system to work.

Moreover, it makes no sense to me when people claim that bankers "took unfair advantage" of subprime mortgagers. If I default on a home loan, the bank is not better off. It then has to sell my house for me, almost certainly losing money. No lender wants his debtors to default, he wants them to keep making payments. Moreover, almost none of the subprime mortgages are usurious: adjustable interest rates are usually pegged to the fed funds rate, not simply made up out of thin air.

The really irresponsible people in this story are the lenders, but not because they were taking advantage of borrowers: they were taking advantage of their depositors, foolishly failing to calculate the dangers of default and repackaging mortgage-backed securities in ways that made it virtually impossible for debt purchasers (e.g., pension funds and other banks) to evaluate their risks. The debt purchasers also deserve some blame, because you shouldn't buy a security if you can't figure out what it is. The poor people with terrible credit who never should have purchased houses in the first place are making out like bandits: they never should have bought houses but they were homeowners for a time anyway. They should and will go back to renting. If I buy a house with no money down, can no longer make the payments, and go back to my old rented apartment, how exactly am I worse off than I started?

What's especially galling is the notion that we'll stop foreclosures for 60 or 90 days, an idea that I first saw in Lyndon LaRouche literature but now has horrifyingly become mainstream Democratic policy. Poor people won't simply be sent back to affordable rental housing, but instead charged for 90 days of unaffordable mortgage payments and then sent back to rental housing? Any of them with a brain in their heads will decide not to send in the mortgage payments, since they won't get kicked out anyway and your credit score can only fall so low. Banks will probably get only a small fraction of mortgage payments during that time, which will hurt them even more and drive them close to bankruptcy. The housing market will take even longer to readjust back to reasonable prices, and any pension fund or investment fund that owns mortgage-backed securities (or just has an interest in the orderly and efficient workings of the financial markets) will be screwed. The plan is bad for the poor, bad for the middle class, and bad for the rich. It's tough to come up with a plan that screws everybody, but the Democrats are impressive people.

Ox that's Clinton's plan. Obama's plan calls for a lenders and barrowers that can't make payments adjust the payments/interest rates down to an appropriate level and creates a government fund to cover any shortfall. The fund money is supposed to come from increased penalty payments from reckless lenders, of which there are more then you think. It takes two to tango and the lenders massaged the paperwork to get these subprime barrowers the loan. I agree with you on the payment freeze and rate freeze being a bad idea. I don't agree with you that the majority of people should lose these homes because it would fuck with the property values of every real homeowner in the neighborhood and cause a general resession. If the lenders have to choke on 1% interest on the loans, so be it. At least they are being payed back their principle and making some profit, which is better then eating the debt.

[Xerxes]

If you need a lawyer to understand a contract, what should you do?

(A) Refuse to sign the contract.

(B) Sign the contract.

(C) Hire a lawyer to explain it to you.

I mean, people complain there are too many lawyers in this country. Fine, I agree. But I don't think you can then turn around and say, "How could I possibly be expected to understand all of this legal mumbo-jumbo!"

I so wish I had me a personal lawyer, to go around reading shit. He'd be like my sidekick, and we'd go off and save the world. :cool:

[Xerxes]

Then don't vote in this election. I'm sorry, but all three canidates here represent More of the Same.

Hillary is the same president we already had for 8 years. McCain is the same president we just had for 8 years and Obama only represents the young inexperienced "I have no clue what I'm doing and I'm going to fuck this up bad" President.

Really, we aren't getting anything good this election no matter who you vote for. Obama doesn't have the political clout or the experience to turn our economy around and the other two don't need or want to do anything to help the economy they just want the position for the sake of having the position... and that goes double for Obama who couldn't even wait till he had some time in under his belt before he decided to run.

Obama created a name for himself. Probably by accident. Probably was or never. Unless he took a VP spot. <shrug>

[Heretic Machine]

Stunning News: CNN has now become the CNN Debate channel, simply looping this debate over and over again in perpetuity.

[cp#]

Did people forget that Obama had a head cold earlier this week? That could explain why he looked tired/sickly.

The plagiarism thing is just full of LOL. Hillary shouldn't even have brought it up. Here's why:

zAYItnI-lPo

No, here's why:

RernchYH-Ec