Is the debate on?

freethought

Rookie
Sep 14, 2008
38
7
1
I have to re-arrange my whole schedule to watch it, and I'm looking for some final word and I can't seem to find anything solid.

Anybody know? The sooner I find out the better.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen anything solid yet either ...

It would be nice to know so I can plan tomorrow night accordingly.
 
Blech ...

I just don't see and rational reason why the debate needs to be postponed because of the financial crisis.

Especially since all reports seem to indicate that he was of little to no help, and said next to nothing today.
 
BOTH of these guy is, I think, frightened to tell the people that they ARE BOTH going to go along with the plan to bail out the bond holders and banks.

I think our master class is beginning to realize that the good cop/bad cop game they're been playing against us isn't working anymore now that the TRUTH has outed about what a cozy relationship there has always been between the BANKS and the GOVERNMENT.

These guys cannot REALLY fix it because they have ALWAYS been in on it, folks.

Sooner or later many of you who think me some kind of commie are going to realize that the American people have been played for fools for a long long time.

Some of you doing well are finally going to get it that when some of us have been complaining about the FIXED GAME, that you people who work and make a decent living were NOT the people we were bitching about.

THE SUPER-RICH are not the guys who started their own bueinesses that serve the public and made a lot of money.

Nobody has any problem with those kinds of brilliant and useful capitalist getting rich as hell.

It's the good old-money boys and their minions who set up the game such that no matter what happened they profit who we have to get OUT of our system. Most of them are making their fortunes off the government to begin with, ya know.



We can't have a class of people comprising 1/10th% owning 40% of EVERYTHING and expect this nation to serve the people, folks.

There is such a thing as TOO MUCH CAPITALISM, you know.
 
Last edited:
BOTH of these guy is, I think, frightened to tell the people that they ARE BOTH going to go along with the plan to bail out the bond holders and banks.

I think our master class is beginning to realize that the good cop/bad cop game they're been playing against us isn't working anymore now that the TRUTH has outed about what a cozy relationship there has always been between the BANKS and the GOVERNMENT.

These guys cannot REALLY fix it because they have ALWAYS been in on it, folks.

Sooner or later many of you who think me some kind of commie are going to realize that the American people have been played for fools for a long long time.

Some of you doing well are finally going to get it that when some of us have been complaining about the FIXED GAME, that you people who work and make a decent living were NOT the people we were bitching about.

THE SUPER-RICH are not the guys who started their own bueinesses that serve the public and made a lot of money.

Nobody has any problem with those kinds of brilliant and useful capitalist getting rich as hell.

It's the good old-money boys and their minions who set up the game such that no matter what happened they profit who we have to get OUT of our system. Most of them are making their fortunes off the government to begin with, ya know.



We can't have a class of people comprising 1/10th% owning 40% of EVERYTHING and expect this nation to serve the people, folks.

There is such a thing as TOO MUCH CAPITALISM, you know.

There is too much corporate influence in Washington, and too much corporate control over our lives! Declare your independence, and put the people over the corporations.:clap2:
 
There is too much corporate influence in Washington, and too much corporate control over our lives! Declare your independence, and put the people over the corporations.:clap2:

Yeah and there are things we MUST do before that will happen.

1. FIX our campaign fiancing laws. The way we do it now guarantees that we become a nation by the rich for the rich.

And as we can see now, the rich are not all that fucking smart!
 
Yeah and there are things we MUST do before that will happen.

1. FIX our campaign fiancing laws. The way we do it now guarantees that we become a nation by the rich for the rich.

And as we can see now, the rich are not all that fucking smart!

The rich really aren't that smart. Capitalism has failed us once again.:eusa_whistle:
 
Blech ...

I just don't see and rational reason why the debate needs to be postponed because of the financial crisis.

That's because there isn't a rational reason for postponing the debate. In the event of a national emergency, the president ALWAYS gets on TV. So, McCain, who has no role with respect to the financial situation, can't manage to spend 90 minutes debating?

He's a wuss... And this would be interesting except he's screwing with our financial health as a country just so he can make a last ditch hail mary pass.

But as McCain said he's "a gambling man".
 
Walking and chewing gum instructions have been sent to John, on last count he had only fallen twice in 5 tries. Sarah hasn't had any successful walks but she keeps trying. Updates to follow.


America for Dummies: A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to further marginalize science and progress in America by supporting creationism (religion) as science.
 
That's because there isn't a rational reason for postponing the debate. In the event of a national emergency, the president ALWAYS gets on TV. So, McCain, who has no role with respect to the financial situation, can't manage to spend 90 minutes debating?

He's a wuss... And this would be interesting except he's screwing with our financial health as a country just so he can make a last ditch hail mary pass.

But as McCain said he's "a gambling man".

jillian, let me ask you something, and am not being condecending here, but, let's say a president was at a G-8 Summit meeting and all the sudden their was a crisis back home severe enough to call his attetion back home, do you think the president would stay at the conference or call it short in order come back to the United States in order to work in the issue? I'll give you another example, let's say the president is at a school giving a speech and there is an attack on the United States, do you suppose that persident should stay there giving the speech or return to Washington? See what I mean? Here's the difference, I mentioned this last night, John McCain like Barack Obama both "SWORE AN OATH" when they were inducted into the Senate, they have no such oath to campaign. so where do you suppose their first priority should be? They both serve their respective states then the people of the United States in the United States Senate, then are candidates for President in that order. Had they wanted that order to change one or the other of these men would have resigned their seats before running. They have an obligation , BOTH of them do in this matter, to be in Washington to represent the respective interests of the people who ELECTED them. As for a debate, since when, did the idea that TV is going to go off the air as of today?, it's unreasonable to expect John McCain to ignore whats going on in Washington when a debate can be held at anytime, and this must be attened to NOW. If a debate held so much sway for the Obama campaign, then tell me why theObama campaign failed to see it as so high a priority that he would not accept the McCain campaigns multiple invitations to town hall debates all over the country? You think the Obama campaign has too much vested in the election rather than being able to take a few days to focus on the interests on the Nation?
 
jillian, let me ask you something, and am not being condecending here, but, let's say a president was at a G-8 Summit meeting and all the sudden their was a crisis back home severe enough to call his attetion back home, do you think the president would stay at the conference or call it short in order come back to the United States in order to work in the issue? I'll give you another example, let's say the president is at a school giving a speech and there is an attack on the United States, do you suppose that persident should stay there giving the speech or return to Washington? See what I mean? Here's the difference, I mentioned this last night, John McCain like Barack Obama both "SWORE AN OATH" when they were inducted into the Senate, they have no such oath to campaign. so where do you suppose their first priority should be? They both serve their respective states then the people of the United States in the United States Senate, then are candidates for President in that order. Had they wanted that order to change one or the other of these men would have resigned their seats before running. They have an obligation , BOTH of them do in this matter, to be in Washington to represent the respective interests of the people who ELECTED them. As for a debate, since when, did the idea that TV is going to go off the air as of today?, it's unreasonable to expect John McCain to ignore whats going on in Washington when a debate can be held at anytime, and this must be attened to NOW. If a debate held so much sway for the Obama campaign, then tell me why theObama campaign failed to see it as so high a priority that he would not accept the McCain campaigns multiple invitations to town hall debates all over the country? You think the Obama campaign has too much vested in the election rather than being able to take a few days to focus on the interests on the Nation?

They have no role in finance. They aren't president. They aren't at a G-8. Right now McCain's JOB is to tell the American voter what his briliant ideas are to deal with this. He isn't on any finance committee. He was an obstructive presence yesterday. He hasn't voted on anything since April. He knows he has no knowledge of economics. He will get his hat handed to him, so he's running scared.

He has no business not appearing at the debate. He's obfuscating because he figures if he can run out the clock he has a better chance of winning the election.
 
They have no role in finance. They aren't president. They aren't at a G-8. Right now McCain's JOB is to tell the American voter what his briliant ideas are to deal with this. He isn't on any finance committee. He was an obstructive presence yesterday. He hasn't voted on anything since April. He knows he has no knowledge of economics. He will get his hat handed to him, so he's running scared.

He has no business not appearing at the debate. He's obfuscating because he figures if he can run out the clock he has a better chance of winning the election.

jillian, now, come on this debate is about "foreign affiars" and I'm sure that he can more than hold is own against Barack Obama's vast 2 year experience in that area. Further, if you don't know this , John McCain is a Senior Senator in his caucus as well as a Senior Senator in the Senate. as such he can has does have the ability to inject himself into ANY affairs that his party is involved in. As I said earlier, you logic for telling the American people does not work when it's applied next to Obama's refusal to meet John McCain to debate anytime anyplace for the last few months. On your "he hasn't voted since April" thing, do you know where that comes from? It comes from a floor speech in the Senate by Harry Reid in July, when he was mad at John McCain for NOT being in the Senate for doing his duty, Here let me put it there for you.

McCain has not voted in the Senate since April 8.

Harry Reid said, "I should mention how glad my fellow Democrats and I were to have our nominee for president here to vote on these important bills. Senator Obama has come to work and taken tough stands. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Senator McCain," Reid groused. "Perhaps taking tough stands on important issues is not part of Senator McCain's campaign strategy. Perhaps he's just too busy on the campaign trail to do his day job."
HARRY REID

Interesting comment don't you think when it comes in light of John McCain taking a stand on this issue.

Oh and btw, guess who is right up there with John McCain on missed votes? Yes that would be Barack Obama, and trailing not far behind, is Hillary Clinton, and right behind her is Joe Biden, see a pattern ?
 
I'll give you another example, let's say the president is at a school giving a speech and there is an attack on the United States, do you suppose that persident should stay there giving the speech or return to Washington?

Well...normal presidents, maybe.

But let us do remember that Bush-the-lesser continued reading to the kids at that school on 9'11, and let us remember also that he was on vacation (and stayed there) while New Orleans was under water.

Off topic, I know, but you did bring it up. Back on topic..

McCain and Obama are not the members of Congress who would be in on the PLAN, normally. Neither of them are really qualified to be so, either.

Let THEM instead discuss their thoughts with the AMERICAN people and wait, as we are, for the PLAN.

Seeing how well these guys think it out -- without a script from their masters -- might educate the Republic's voters about who these guys are and how they think.

We need to know what THEY think before the PLAN is finalized.

Because you just know they'll BOTH be behind it when it is finalized.

Citizens expect to hear a lot of bipartisan lovefests about how good this PLAN is, when it's ready.

We are going to hear how any other alternative PLAN is the path to disaster, and how both sides think this is the best solution.

Can't wait to read the details. I'm betting the people get screwed, personally. I'm sorry but Congress just can't help itself. It dances with the folks what brung them to the dance, and that ain't the people .

Interestingly, I noted (from The Daily Show) that Clinton seems to have a plan similar to the one I've been advancing for the last three or four days. Fo convenience's sake, tI'll jut refer to that PLAN as the TRICKE UP SOLUTION
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top