IAP Political Forum

Seriously ...

Wow...

I know you others wont admit it but damn.... seriously... she killed him.

lol. HAHAHAA...Oh Reaganite -- you'll say just about anything at all won't you? That's not even remotely convincing....but nice try. She was an utter and complete embarrassment and you know it. You just couldn't wait to get here to pre-empt the obvious.

He kicked her around so damn hard I felt sorry for her. It was everything she could do to constantly string together a hundred catch phrases that weren't related to the questions, or even to each other.

She didn't gaffe, worse than that. She didn't debate poorly, worse still than that. She straight up Babbled incoherently for the entire debate for any fool to plainly see.




lol. You're good for a laugh though Reagan. Hoo.
Ahk

Only if you we're too busy stroking cows in Kansas could Palin of ate Biden alive.

Are you serious?

She did very well, and I think much better then what people were expecting, but she DIDN'T "eat him alive". Not by a long shot. Unless you wanna actually prove it... but I seriously doubt you could. Proving what you say isn't really your thing.

I think she really suffered in the Foreign Relations arguments cause she didn't make NEAR as good a point as Biden did on Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. She also let A LOT of what Biden said pass without comment, showing that what Biden said was true... or she didn't have enough knowledge to argue. Either way, it reflects poorly on her.

What she did excel at is Domestic Issues where she better connected with main stream America, something "senate speak" doesn't accomplish.

If anything, it was a tie... and I would even go so far as to say Biden squeaked out a win. She beat expectations... but she didn't win.

All that hockey mom cheese works great in Alaska, but Ohio where people are reeling?

Keep it up, Reaganite, and I'll begin a thread entitled "The Imaginary World of Reaganite."

Palin wasn't have a drooling idiot moment unlike her interviews with Couric, so the right-wingers will be estatic. She has her Barbie Doll routine down, ignoring questions in order to repeat her memorized talking points. But really. Can you really imagine her leading in the White House Situation Room during a crisis, making insightful decisions and giving informed, positive orders? Me neither.

Joe Biden did great. Articulate, experienced, nuanced. The best moment was the question regarding the powers of the Vice Presidency. Palin clearly didn't understand the issue, while Biden spoke with passion and insight into the issue.

The biggest difference? Substance. Biden has it.

IAP's court jester at it again.  Put down the crack pipe Pathetic.  You are really living up to your old name.  She did a fair amount of stumbling on her own words, but didn't really do too bad.  Stuck to her briefing, didn't break ANY new ground, repeated all McCain's catch phrases at least once.  Biden looked more polished, had better responses. 

She didn't do so bad all in all.  But they needed a breakout performance to have any hope of pulling their bacon out of the fire.  And they didn't get it.

Palin didn't eat Biden alive and definately didn't do well at all regaurding foreign policy. Biden continually made more points and better points and Palin just repeated herself time and time again and had no arguments for foreign policy. I also liked how Biden destroying the Maverick image and I think that alone definately gives Biden the edge. With the economy it was about neutral, and the ending Biden simply presented Obama better than Palin did with McCain. All Palin could say is dems will raise taxes and that's really all she had.

She channeled Abraham Lincoln while discussing Afghanistan, mistaking Gen McClellan for Gen. David McKiernan. As for bringing the lessons from Iraq (employ "The Surge") to Afghanistan, here's what Biden was referring to:

-------------------------------------
General: Iraq-style surge won't work in Afghanistan
By Ann Scott Tyson
THE WASHINGTON POST
October 2, 2008

WASHINGTON – The new top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said yesterday that more U.S. troops are urgently required to combat a worsening insurgency, but he stated emphatically that no Iraq-style “surge” of forces will end the conflict there.

Advertisement“Afghanistan is not Iraq,” said Gen. David McKiernan, who led ground forces during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and took over four months ago as head of the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan.
During a news conference yesterday, McKiernan described Afghanistan as “a far more complex environment than I ever found in Iraq.” The country's mountainous terrain and rural population, its poverty and illiteracy, its 400 major tribal networks and history of civil war all make for unique challenges, he said.

“The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,' ” McKiernan emphasized, saying that what is required instead is a “sustained commitment” to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many more years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081002/news_1n2afghan.html

If it's any surprise, Guiliani is calling it a "knockout" performance...

::)

No, no surprise.

Here's some snap poll results from less biased sources:

Early Snap Polls: Biden Won Handily
By Greg Sargent - October 2, 2008, 11:14PM
The first round of snap polls give the debate to Joe Biden, by sizable margins.

CBS polled 473 uncommitted debate watchers, and found that 46% say Biden won, 21% say Palin won, and 33% say it was a tie.

While both candidates saw their images improve, 98% saw Biden as "knowledgeable" after the debate, while only 66% saw Palin as knowledgeable, an admittedly high number, given what folks thought of her before tonight.

Meanwhile, CNN found that far more thought Biden did the best job in the debate (51%) than Palin did (36%).

And here's a really key number from CNN. While a startling 84% said Palin did better than expected, it still wasn't enough for her to clear her basic hurdle tonight: Only 46% said she's qualified to serve as president, up only four points from before the debate. And a clear majority, 53%, say she is not qualified.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/early_snap_polls_biden_won_han.php

She is a dumb person. So other dumb people really like her. Like you, very stupid people easily fall in love with other people in positions of power who are also very stupid because it makes them fell better about being really stupid themselves.

When you are a really dumb person, you like to see someone running to be the Vice-President of the United States of America saying they would like to give a "Shout Out" during a nationally televised presidential debate. You like to hear really dumb prefabricated catch phrases like "waving the white flag of surrender". That kind of thing really resonates with complete and total morons.  

And because Sarah Palin's supporters are complete and total morons, they don't expect her to have a command of the facts, or know anything at all about foreign policy, or have any clue about what created the current economic crisis or how to solve it. When you are a dumb person, you only want to hear and need to hear 2 or 3 extremely short and oversimplified answers to the problems of this nation: 1. Cut taxes. 2. Drill baby Drill. 2. No waving the white flag and cutting-and-running in Iraq. That's all their little pea-brains can handle. So of course Palin, being extremely stupid, is those people's hero. It's the "Hey, she's dumb like me! That's my kind of politician".

The rest of us, of course, see this incoherent babbling idiot up there completely talking out of her ass. She's asked about the trigger for the U.S. to go to nuclear war and her answer is "We need more offshore drilling". She's asked to name her single greatest weakness she outlines several of her greatest strengths. She's asked to outline the policy differences between John McCain and George Bush and she responds by saying "We need more offshore drilling". She's asked about how to solve the current economic crisis and she says "We need more offshore drilling".  She's asked to specifically outline how she is going to us out of Iraq and she says "by not waving the white flag of surrender".

Those are astoundingly stupid answers so naturally dumb people love that kind of shit. It's right up their intellectual alley.  

dude have you been to Ohio?  or any where else in the midwest?

I don't think she babbled incoherently at all, and I'm a bit surprised you think so.  She may not have been as pointed or as fluent as Biden (who I like much better of the two) but she certainly didn't sound poor.  I'm a little taken on how hackish your posts have been concerning the election...I never took you for a partisan loyalist.

BTW, VP debates don't carry much weight in an election....you guys remember that Kemp Gore debate?


yeah, either do I

On the substance, it wasn't even close. Palin repeated nonsense and airhead talking points, no matter what the question was. Biden, in sharp contrast, gave substantive answers which more than complimented his years of experience, especially in foreign affairs.

I noticed that no matter how bad the Couric interviews were to watch, reading the actual transcripts were even more frightening. I have no doubt that reading the transcript of this debate will be very similar. How often did Palin just ignore the question in order to spout her memorized talking points?

In short: Palin read from a script, Biden spoke from experience. It was obvious.

what do you call a person from bosnia?

True.

Here's the transcript:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html

Call it a response to Reaganite's op. The op sets the pace.

I'm sorry you feel that way neorealist but I think if you watch it again, maybe repeat what she says word for word it is pretty darn close to gibberish. A rapid succession of catch-phrases that she uses to smokescreen the fact she doesn't have an answer. To me that's babble.

-She is on the subject of the economy and ends up on the subject of health care without answering the question.

-she is on the subject of the economy and the recent crisis and she ends up on the subject of trade. What on Earth has trade to do with the causes of the mortgage/credit crisis? Nothing as far as I can see.

-She is on foreign policy and all she can say is McCain has fought for the county.



On one or two energy related topics, when she stuck within the bounds of her govenorship of Alaska she didn't sound bad. I could actually see why people would vote for her then.

As for Ohio my point is that obviously if this debate is directed at anyone it's the swing states and the undecided. From that angle, do you really think any of her answers sounded even remotely convincing? To someone who's really feeling the pinch right now in any of these swing states do you really think she offered any confidence at all in her or McCain? Do you think when people want answers about the economy right now, or the war, in these swing states they're going to be happy with some silly story 'from back home'?  I disagree. Not unless the state is already red. I thought she was honestly much worse than I would've imagined.


Babbling maybe seems harsh neo but I think it fits in terms of what one expects from a political debate.

Ahk

She said that McCain knows how to win a war. I wonder which war she was referring to?

From the transcript:

IFILLNow, let's talk about -- the next question is to talk about the subprime lending meltdown.

Who do you think was at fault? I start with you, Governor Palin. Was it the greedy lenders? Was it the risky home-buyers who shouldn't have been buying a home in the first place? And what should you be doing about it?

PALIN: Darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house. There was deception there, and there was greed and there is corruption on Wall Street. And we need to stop that. - Well that says a lot. Babble

Again, John McCain and I, that commitment that we have made, and we're going to follow through on that, getting rid of that corruption.-Could we be more ambiguous please?

PALIN: One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don't live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility through all of this. It's not the American peoples fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of.
^^What the heck is that?

Bidens answer:

Well Gwen, two years ago Barack Obama warned about the sub prime mortgage crisis. John McCain said shortly after that in December he was surprised there was a sub prime mortgage problem. John McCain while Barack Obama was warning about what we had to do was literally giving an interview to "The Wall Street Journal" saying that I'm always for cutting regulations. We let Wall Street run wild. John McCain and he's a good man, but John McCain thought the answer is that tried and true Republican response, deregulate, deregulate.

So what you had is you had overwhelming "deregulation." You had actually the belief that Wall Street could self-regulate itself. And while Barack Obama was talking about reinstating those regulations, John on 20 different occasions in the previous year and a half called for more deregulation. As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry.

Not the greatest, but not babble. It was like that all the way through imo.

AHk

Actually, if you read the transcript, "babbling" seems pretty accurate.

One example picked almost at random:

subject: Bush Admin's policy in Israel-Palestine:

Ifill: Has this administration's policy been an abject failure, as the senator says, Governor?

PALIN: No, I do not believe that it has been. But I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Senator Biden. I respect your position on that.

No, in fact, when we talk about the Bush administration, there's a time, too, when Americans are going to say, "Enough is enough with your ticket," on constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers, and doing the blame game.

There have been huge blunders in the war. There have been huge blunders throughout this administration, as there are with every administration.

But for a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there's just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that's where you're going.

Positive change is coming, though. Reform of government is coming. We'll learn from the past mistakes in this administration and other administrations.

And we're going to forge ahead with putting government back on the side of the people and making sure that our country comes first, putting obsessive partisanship aside.

That's what John McCain has been known for in all these years. He has been the maverick. He has ruffled feathers.

But I know, Senator Biden, you have respected for them that, and I respect you for acknowledging that. But change is coming.


This is babbling. This is not an insightful analysis of a complex foreign policy issue that's been on the front pages for all of Sarah Palin's life. And she isn't able to say one thing interesting or substantial. Not one.

Read the transcript, which I posted a link to above. It's the same thing on almost every question.

No wonder all the polls say Biden won. But I also agree that one month from now, this won't matter. We have two more debates between the principles, and they aren't going to help McCain enough to turn this election around.

 Well Joe went there to debate and answer the moderators questions...
 Moosejaw went there to recite well practiced talking points and catch phrases without regard to what anyone else was saying.
 She was completely disconnected from the proceedings and rattled off her memorization's with Miss America-like practiced poise.
 Very sad showing...she didn't melt down or faint or walk off stage but she didn't engage Joe, Gwen or the American people either. She recited what she had been taught to say and that was all...
 Barbie doll with a pull string.
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:SLbP2HDRTpC4LM:http://www.talkingdollbook.com/images/barbie2.jpg)

JPN, Akh, and Freethinker...I understand you are all generally well informed about political issues.  Do you feel that is representative of the nation as a whole?

I ask this b/c I don't necessarily think MOST people vote based on the candidates stances' on issues...nor on their intellectual candor.  IMHO, the US public votes on "personality" characteristics, which is why the overwhelming majority of elected officials focus on these traits: trustworthiness, personal similarity, emotions, etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/08/politicalbooks.usa
I know this article is a bit dated, but its a solid read if you have time.

Perhaps Palin was intentionally trying to "simple"...or perhaps she was instructed too...or perhaps she isn't capable of sounding as pointed as Biden.  My point, is that what the well informed and educated perceive is not the same as the ill informed.  Where do you place the general public?  To what degree does the general public influence the vote count?

-just a little thought provocation...and for the record (again) I really like Biden.  I wish he was the presidential candidate!

JPN, Akh, and Freethinker...I understand you are all generally well informed about political issues.  Do you feel that is representative of the nation as a whole?

I ask this b/c I don't necessarily think MOST people vote based on the candidates stances' on issues...nor on their intellectual candor.  IMHO, the US public votes on "personality" characteristics, which is why the overwhelming majority of elected officials focus on these traits: trustworthiness, personal similarity, emotions, etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/08/politicalbooks.usa
I know this article is a bit dated, but its a solid read if you have time.

Perhaps Palin was intentionally trying to "simple"...or perhaps she was instructed too...or perhaps she isn't capable of sounding as pointed as Biden.  My point, is that what the well informed and educated perceive is not the same as the ill informed.  Where do you place the general public?  To what degree does the general public influence the vote count?

-just a little thought provocation...and for the record (again) I really like Biden.  I wish he was the presidential candidate!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/debate.poll/index.html

Its important not to understand the power of "likability"....that can the distance with the general public.

Then again, it was just a VP debate...but if McCain can get his likability number up by that margin, he still stands a chance.

Well I agree that plain likability goes far. Your point is well taken. Many will vote 'for' Palin simply because they like her. My view I suppose is based on the undecided or the ones left who are still willing to change their minds. The 'swing' states. IMO, those people are the ones the candidates need to impress and it's those voters who are actually listening and need substance. If it only came down to likability to them I think they would've decided by now.



Ahk

Well I agree that plain likability goes far. Your point is well taken. Many will vote 'for' Palin simply because they like her. My view I suppose is based on the undecided or the ones left who are still willing to change their minds. The 'swing' states. IMO, those people are the ones the candidates need to impress and it's those voters who are actually listening and need substance. If it only came down to likability to them I think they would've decided by now.

One thing I think is ironic about the whole 'likability' thing is that there were moments when Palin answered or spoke clearly and with obvious knowledge. IMO that just makes the 'pap' answers stick out more.


Look I hear ya. No one's gotta apologize for being Republican or deciding to vote Republican. I'm not going to get pissy with you and I don't blame you if you thought I might.

Ahk

That poor woman. Half the time, she sounded like she was reading from a Doctor Suess book.

I can't believe people actually think she's a good choice.

You underestimate the power of Dr. Seuss.

You misunderstand me. I am a big fan of the Theo.

She is no Theo. She is no Suess.

She just answers policy questions sounding as if she is reading one of his books:

It is a crisis.
It's a toxic mess,
really, on Main Street
that's affecting
Wall Street.

And now we have to be
 ever vigilant
and also making sure t
hat credit markets don't seize up.

That's where
the Main Streeters like me,
that's where we would
really feel the effects.

It is a crisis.
I told my sis
It's a toxic mess,
Oh yes, oh yes, yes, yes, yes yes.
Really, a big dealy
on Main Street
That's my Street
affecting Wall Street.
The high street.


Now we have to be
ever vigilantalee
 and also making sure
that there's credit for the poor

So the markets don't seize up
Money doesn't freeze up
Get down and pray to Jeezup.

That's where Main Streeters like me,
Down upon our knees
that's where we would really feel
 the effects that make us squeal.

It's over, I'm finished, stick a fork in me
Truth is, I've got is no more pork in me

Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, but I truly believe the days of voting for a major candidate based on their likability and personality are over for the majority of Americans. Sure, ten years ago when things were going relatively well in this country, most people paid little attention to the actual qualifications and policy positions of the person. Not only was this stuff boring as hell, I think most voters felt like it didn't matter. Up until George W. Bush we had about 5 presidential administrations in a row where the country as a whole did very well with little change from one adminstration to the next and regardless of which party was in charge.

So it's easy to see how voters could become lazy and not really care to educate themselves and just kind of go with the guy who seems most like them or the guy with the better personality. That was certainly the case with George W. Bush in 2000. It's not like voters put him in the Oval Office because of his intelligence, experience, qualifications, etc. People just looked at him and said "This George Bush guys seems like your Average Joe. He's just a plain-talking simple man like me. The kind of guy you could sit down with and have a beer. I like that."  

But when you've just lost your job, watched your son sent off to Iraq, seen your 401k retirement value cut in half, watched your health insurance quadruple, and watched the amount of money it takes to fill your gas tank exceed $100.00, you start getting a hell of a lot more interested in what the next president is going to do to give you some relief and a hell of a lot LESS interested in whether or not they are the kind of person with whom you could sit down and have a beer.  

Again, maybe this is just wishful thinking, but sitting here and watching John McCain be forced to run against his own party just to stay remotely competitve in this race makes me believe the vast majority of Americans are paying a hell of lot more attention to policy positions these days. Ten years ago the simple fact John McCain was a former POW and known as an ass-kickin Maverick with a short fuse would have instantly endeared him to millions of stupid redneck Americans and been more than enough to get him elected. Especially against some fancy talkin Harvard-educated black guy with big ears and a weird foreign sounding name.    

Honestly, I think those days are over. I think when people see Sarah Palin they see George Bush. Whenever she talks, and people see that this person cannot construct a coherent sentence when required to do so under her own power and is literally only capable of reciting a never-ending loop of memorized talking points about tax cuts and offshore drilling, I think they see another George Bush. I really do. And even though she is not running for President, I think with his 20-something percent approval rating, somebody even kind of like Bush being anywhere remotely near the White House is enough for most Americans to avoid the ticket entirely.  

To stoop to your level:

"I don't know. Ask General McClellan."

::)

seems the day after polls has her winning.. as I said....

well except CNBC and CNN which joe could have come out and said hduhh me like em gooods and they would calim he won hahaha

How can anyone have the impression that Palin won? She merely repeated conservative talking points without demonstrating any real knowledge of important issues.

Biden was very good. He began slow and gradually built momentum until his answers far surpassed Palin's in quality and substance.

We are talking about VP's here right? Some of you sound like Palin needs to have all the facts... like Al Gore was anything amazing.  ???


Oh, and I was just wondering if you guys were beating your chest about facts when McCain made Obama look he was so far removed from the facts I felt sorry for him.

It's amusing to me how hypocritical people can be to suit their agenda.


HumansFirst!

zzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz


kiss your 8 years or republican crap good bye. Y'all fucked up and you know it.

McCain showed he's ready to screw up anything and everything for the next 4 years simply by picking Palin and he had his ass handed to him at the debate.

And while you're trying to point your finger at the chest pounding -- that's obviously the only reason you joined so whatever. You guys embarrass yourselves and you know it.


And don't start pontificating about facts as though you've ever bothered with them. Like the whole "no preconditions means unconditionally" crap. Guys like you and reaganite can't make a single point without an obvious spin or a complete lie.



Ahk

What exactly is talking with terrorists? You tell me! - And dont spin it.

McCain made Obama look like a kid who didnt understand the grown up talk. Period. Spin that Clinton.

The biggest mistake the dems have made in this debate is focusing too much on Bush and comparing McCain to Bush. If thats all you've got, is the fact they are both republicans, you've lost this race already.

Dems are easy to dismiss the good things republicans have done and even faster to pump their fist when a fellow dem does something well. Everyone I have ever met thats a "liberal" or "dem" has been at least 80% hypocrite.

Can you tell me why Bush represents every republican from here on out, but Clinton isnt the standard for Democrats? Like somehow Obama is completely removed? - "You guys embarrass yourselves and you know it."

Did Obama say he'd talk with terrorists?


If anything, it was a tie.

It was mostly quite boring, though.


Honestly, I'm surprised the Democrats don't play that card more often, but usually it's just easier to use McCain to fight McCain. "Bush = McCain" isn't the only knife they have in the drawer. If you've been watching the world, you may very well notice this for yourself.


And Democrats would say the same thing about Republicans. But mostly, both parties have their demons. The Democrats tend to be stupid and cowardly while the Republicans wear the "Hypocrite Hat" like a crown.

But this is just personal observation.


Who said Bush represents every Republican? Where are you pulling this partisan garbage from?

Seriously. Stay and get to know people here before you start saying ridiculous things.

What spin pinhead?

The question was, "Would you have talks with Iran without preconditions"

The McCain camp and yourself need to lie and say "He said he'd talk with iran unconditionally".

That's a spin. Now you want to argue whether or not it's a good idea? Go ahead but the fact remains that it's the McCain camp lying here and not Obama. He did not say he's have unconditional talks with Iran. The question asked if he would have talks with them without pre-condition, as in not requiring something from Iran before agreeing to speak. But that's okay. No one expects an illiterate idiot to get that. Precisely why the GOP finds it so easy to make fools out of you.


You're a joke. You don't even believe that yourself.



Fuck you. Unconditionally. Idiots like you have sat by your pussy-ass mantra of, "I just think we should stand behind our president no matter what", and still to this day argue that he's the King of Kings who got everything right and absolutely nothing wrong. Guys like you are instant morons and you know it. You take pride in your ignorance.


Again: just shut your lying mouth. For one thing you say this after a dozen remarks that prove you think Democrats are all ope person too so just just your hypocritical mouth. Secondly, for 8 years you've been kissing Bush ass and now you pretend you don't know him. It's the same party of fucks like you and if you vote them in again you deserve to have another depression. Republicans have torn the US down to the level of the depression and now you act like, "So what? It was all Bush. He' not running."

I've sat quietly for 4 years listening to bullshitters and ignorant pissy little cheerleaders like you and you all bring the bile to the roof of my mouth. You don't say a single word without lying.



Oh, and welcome to the forum loser.

Ahk

Sounds like I struck a cord with my last comments...

And saying the McCain/Obama debate was a tie sounds about as homer as it gets.

If you give Biden the nod on his debate for presenting facts and sounding "in the know" you certainly have to give McCain the nod as well. Take of your blinders and get to know Conservatives before you compare them all to bush.

Human First!

Ah, the sound of a pathetic hypocrite conceding.

So I guess you admit then that claiming Obama said he would sit down to talks unconditionally with Iran (or terrorists) is a McCain lie then? I mean c'mon. You brought it up, now you're running away in 1 post flat?

Thank you.


Ahk

Fuck you... loser...pinhead...

If those are the talking words of your party, then I'm glad I'm not in it.

Lemme guess..your a blogger?  ;D  ;D  ;D


People dont speak to me this way in person for obvious reasons. You know zero about me, and I've shown you that repsect by not using my choice words in return. If this is the tone of this website then my logging on here was a waste of my time. Your a great representation of your party.

So again nothing to say about your little lie as to what Obama really said eh?

No doubt you can come up with 100 smoke screen answers and not one that faces reality.

Like I say, if you have to run away from it now, you concede.

Thanks again!



So are you. You're a GOP'er who's too embarrassed to admit it and lies about now. Further when caught in a lie or at least with inaccurate information you can't face it...you need to hide your head in the sand.Not too manly an image lemmie tell ya.


Typical. He thinks lying = showing respect.


Ahk

I love a good debate, but I'm also a proud person who provides for his family and friends. I'm not used to being talked to like that in person or online. I am smart enough to know this guys life lies somewhere between the escape and page down buttons on his keyboard, and not take it too personal.

"never argue with a fool... a person from afar cant tell who is who".

Thanks for your time itsallpolitics.....

Yeah yeah yeah. More conceding.

Again you agree that it's a lie to suggest that Obama said he'd sit down unconditionally to talks with Iran.

Thanks again!



Yeah but there is no debate on this subject. There is what Obama said and what he didn't say. Nothing else. Meaning McCain's camp is lying when they said he'd sit down to talks unconditionally (under any circumstance), which you disagreed with before but apparently now you've learned.
You're welcome.


Yes thanks for pretending you're new here. Buh-bye.

Ahk

I gave you the link of Obama SAYING YES HE WOULD SIT DOWN WITH NO PRECONDITIONS....

Your pathetic ass is trying to play word games now, but I expected more from you...

I guess you are nothing more then a lefty obama nut hugging sociapath, but owell...

This thread is a real hoot.  What fun just reading, most especially reaganite's title.  reaganite, only if she was giving Joe (may I say it here?) a blow job. 

Not much left to say other than she reminded me of a doll loved many years ago by my now in her '50s
middle daughter.  "Chatty Cathy" talked so long as you kept pulling the string that was attached to the record inside her belly that wound her up.  And like Chatty Cathy, the doll of old, Palin appeared to have had her string pulled each time she opened her mouth. And like Chatty Cathy, she said the same words again and again, but wasn't she folksy and cute?

Poor old John. If he was looking for some T & A, to visit in that little room off the Oval Office, he did just fine. But he should keep in mind if he is looking for anything different than Clinton had, she, like John doesn't care for "the pill" and wants to keep abortion illegal for all women. 

And that issue, that women actually care about, was apparently avoided by Gwyn, maybe because Michelle Malkin scared her?  Oops, naughty me, no doubt I will be accused of making sexist comments.

It's not word games. Its what the words mean.

So ithey mean the exact same thing eh Reagan?

Then why didn't they quote that? Why din't they say, "Obama says he'll sit down to talks with Iran without precondition", instead of what they did say, hmm?

Because the two statements are entirely different and mean entirely different things, and you know it. Im not playing games, you are and you're as bad at it as ever.

And your pathetic ass went and made a phantom account so you could play the victim, but I didn't expect more from you.

Yeah, McCain really kicked Obama's ass. All of America is reeling with its new-found respect for McCain.

NOT.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/electoral-map-1001-340w.jpg)

As far as McCain's idiot running mate goes, if you want to see an example of a craven, self-righteous, arrogant and lying bitch, here's one: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/221864.php

This place is hillarious even you gods in the MSM admit palin won the debate or tied and you still hoild to your biden bullshit.  :P ya know if I were to not post here this would would shrival up as a leftists circle jerk...

so attack away scumbags :)

Ooh. I'd say someone is a little upset that McCain/Palin are doing so badly... :-[

upset? I want Obama to win and I will rub you face in the shit that a Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Reid  circle jerk will give us..

We will most likley have double digit unemployment, recessions, and 6 dollar gas by 2012. 

BUT WOOHOOO under Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Reid people who earn under 32k will not have to pay taxes.. unfortunatly they wont have jobs anyway so it wont matter.

WHO DO YOU THINK IS THE BIGGEST EMPLOYER IN THIS COUNTRY!! SMALL BUSINESS!!! if you make me 30k more in taxes I will cut expenses by more then 30k.  My highest expense is payroll... My easiest cut PAYROLL!!!

Every poll I see is, "which candidate looked better?"

When standards are set as low as they were for Palin, a bowl of oatmeal would look informative.

EVERY single poll that asks about SUBSTANCE has Biden on top.

Calm yourself.
Our economy is certainly on a dismal trajectory at the moment. We may indeed have double-digit unemployment, but it will probably happen next year or 2010 as our nation slips into recession.

Hopefully we'll have Democrats in the White House and Congress who will be looking out for the middle class rather than the rich. Democratic economic policies historically have been more successful than Republican policies for that very reason. Small business owners do far better under Democrats than Republicans--we've presented that data over and over in this forum, and I've never seen any data to dispute it. 95% of small business owners net less than $250,000 a year, so their taxes will go down under Obama's plan, not up, and will go down by more than they would under McCain's plan, which is focused on the rich.

If we have $6 gas by 2012, which wouldn't surprise me, it won't be because we didn't open up every offshore source to drilling that the oil industry lusts after. If we opened those up today, it won't begin having an effect on prices for years and years into the future--and when it does have an effect, the effect will be quite small--pennies. A far more consequential concern in this area is what has our nation done about global warming, a concern Republicans generally don't have.

Yeah, yeah, yeah....you Republicans have been using the "small business" and "farmer" cover to mask tax cuts for billioniares/multimillionaires and repeating those tired old "Repealing tax cuts for the rich will hurt small business and kill jobs" talking point for so long now most of you are starting to sound like as repetitive and nonsensical as "Chatty Kathy" Sarah Palin.

I just have one question for you: The Bush Tax Cuts went into effect 7 years ago. During that time, this country those tax cuts produced a net-gain of exactly ZERO new jobs and turned the largest budget surplus in recorded history into the largest budget deficit in recorded history. Not one single new job. Not one.

Let me repeat that in case you didn't hear it - The Bush tax cuts DID NOT produce A SINGLE new job. Not one. Nadda. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. And cost hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that will have to be repaid by our children, grand-children, and great-grand-children.

Please explain that. 

 If 5% of "small bussiness'" make more than $250,000 maybe they arn't small bussiness' anymore ...maybe they are big bussiness and small bussiness' are 100% protected from tax increases under the Obama plan. Who decides what constitutes a "small bussiness"anyway?
Profit amount doesn't seem to be the criteria, is it employee numbers? 50? 100? There doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule.
 If you as an individual make more than $250,000 a year, and you don't want your taxes to go up ...then by all means don't vote for Obama. If on the otherhand you make less than $250,000 a year, and you don't want your taxes to go up and you don't vote for Obama because you heard McCain tell lies about his tax plan ...you must be retarded.

This is typical class warfare.

If this is class warfare it is only a return volley to answer the lying charge that Obama's plan will raise everyones taxes. Republicans are the ones who tell this lie over and over and over again.
 If the truth were widely known and this lie was completely dispatched, it is unlikely that the republicans would get a look in. Its the biggest lie, the loudest cry and their best chance to dupe the people into voting against their best interests.
 Where I come from the telling of the truth isn't warfare...its called honesty.

This is typically good Democratic economics. Like Palin, all Republicans appear to have are empty slogans.

Cutting taxes on the middle class while paying for it with increased taxes on the already rich is fiscally responsible and generates demand, which is essential to economic growth.

In 2001 and 2003 the right wing got exactly what they demanded--massive tax cuts for their rich friends--and exactly what they promised would usher in great economic growth. What America got was massive debt and piss-poor performance.

Republicans don't have clue when it comes to economics. They are blinded by their tax-cuts-are-the-answer-to-everything ideology. The record is clear. Taking care of the lower and middle class (Obama/Biden) is what drives growth. Not tax cuts for the rich (McCain/Palin).

(http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/images/2008/07/17/employment.gif)

Could you expand on your point?

Very true, jpn. If you desire real fiscal responsibility and policies that will support the middle class to stimulate economic growth, you are safer voting Democrat.

(http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/images/2008/07/17/employment.gif)
My god, how revealing! Whenever a president invests in social programs, moderately redistributing wealth, employment remains stable. Despite this reality, people continue to ignorantly advocate tax breaks for the wealthy.

Apparently Palin forgot to collect her notes after the debate. This was found on her lecturn:

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/41792/original.jpg)

^ Awesome.

 Ryan, stop calling the kettle black.  She is too "cutesy", what you are to republicans, a one trick pony.
   The woman's not stupid. She lacks the knowledge and experience to be governor, much less Vice President, but she is not an idiot like you.  Ask her a question that she cannot answer, she does a monologue of all the things they drummed into her head all week before the debate.  Anyone who was impressed with her knowledge of the issues doesn't know a damn thing about the issues. She is just perfect for what McCain and his handlers want.  She is fully mold-able.  She's attractive.  She's Female.  She has stars in her eyes.  And, she will do and say whatever they tell her to.

Well ryan77, clearly those of us who will vote for McCain/Palin do it because they are closer to our beliefs than Obama/Biden.  Palin did a much better job in the debate than she did in the interviews.  Sure it was book learning and people teaching her what to say but that happens with all of them.  Are you of the opinion that Obama does not have the same type of learning going on for himself?  They all have advisers telling them what to say.  Let's face it, Obama/Biden have made some stupid mistakes too.  You just keep making arguments against McCain/Palin that could easily be the same arguments against Obama/Biden.  It's all a matter of which way you look at it.   I can see the faults and good in both parties.  Why would I want to cover that up, deny it or pretend it isn't there?  Why do you?  You see only negative for McCain/Palin and only positive for Obama/Biden.  That doesn't even make any sense.  You attack anyone who would stand behind Palin because she does not have enough experience while you stand behind Obama who doesn't have enough experience either.  I mean, come on, at least be honest.  It's not that hard.   

So you would hire an incompetent as vice prez because her "beliefs" are (maybe) closer to yours?

That must be comforting for so many; to kiss their house good-bye but to be comforted in the knowledge that Bush is a guy that is "closer to my beliefs" than the party that left the country's books in the black. People voted in Bush because he was "closer to my beliefs" and that must be so comforting after Abu Gharib and the long procession of body bags coming back from Iraq because of his incompetence.

Tell me, when they get up and lie every single day is that closer to your beliefs as well? How about when they parade civilian prisoners (many truned out to be completely innocent), around naked in dog feces? Is that closer to your beliefs? Not trying to be inflamitory here but it's a reasonable question.


Yes that's right. Palin has more "experience" than Obama. So how come she sounds like she hasn't a clue and Obama clearly knows what he's talking about?


Ahk

Well Ahk...it is inflammatory....and you know it.

Do you believe individuals 2000 miles away 10 echelons above in the chain-of-command are directly responsible for the actions of a handful of soldiers on the nightshift?

Yes...to some it is important to have someone in the White House that is closer to ones own beliefs....maybe supporting infanticide is something that really is in direct opposition to some.

You seem to infer with "when they get up and lie every single day is that closer to your beliefs as well?".....that someone is better off with Democrats.....am I reading that right?

Lie and you know it. Not arguing it. Anyone who is going to argue Abu Gharib as a set of 'isolated incidents' that have nothing to do with the admin -- well suffice to say we're going to disagree. BTW those people, along with the 20-somethings that were hired to occupy vacant positions in the Iraqi government were ALSO hired because they were "much closer to the Admin's beliefs".


80 kids were killed just last week by an errant bomb. I know you have a collection of rationalizations for just such an emergency encounter with reality but they don't mean anything. yes it's okay to kill who-cares-how-many innocents on the other side of the planet but a woman who's been raped is a murderer for having an abortion. So you go right ahead and make an important decision like this that affects so many many important issues based soley on the one issue that is least likely to change  even a little no matter who gets into office ::)

What do you think is going to happen should McCain get in? Abortion will become illegal? Think again. O is it your hope that after McCain gets elected no one will be able to afford children or abortions?

What do you think will happen should Obama get in? Child sacrifices on every street corner? Yeah. ::)


At this point in time in history, yes. Like Palin's latest with "Obama the terrorist". Sure, it's all to easy for you to accept that Bush was "innocent" (much in the same way a mentally handicapped is innocent) with Abu Gharib but Obama sits in a charity committee with a hundred others and he's a "terrorist".

Yes Patton. Republican lies at the moment and over the past 8 years are much more "lie" and much worse for the country and the planet than democrats.



I like your animation tho.
Ahk

So you would hire an incompotent president because his beliefs are closer to yours?  Come on Ahk, we can make the same arguments all day.  

When they get up and lie every day?  Like Obama doesn't lie?  Like any of them don't?

Obama clearly knows what he's talking about?  Yeah right.  He clearly has advisors just like the rest of them.  Several advisors.  Palin did what they asked her to do.  They wanted her to connect with middle america and keep it simple.  I'm not saying she's a rocket scientist but she did what they asked.  

If he's so incompetent then why is it that Palin can't string 12 words together that stay on topic or even make sense and "Mr.Experience", McCain thinks the economy is basically sound or that regulatory practices are communist? Was he competent when he hired Palin?

Stupid is what stupid does, regardless of 'experience'.



I would like you to take a hard look at the substance behind Palin's latest "Obama the terrorist" lie and then challenge you to find an Obama camp lie that even comes close. Remember now, she claims he "pals around with Terrorists."  Like I said a while back, it's like trying to compare a president who lies about having an affair as opposed to lying about Iran/Contra. To think of those two lies as 'equal' shows a huge lack of judgment, imo. A bias one in fact.


No I would suggest voting in the party that didn't do too bad at all when it was in power for 8 years as opposed to the party that seemed to do whatever it could to hasten the apocalypse for the past 8 years and has given you the middle finger anytime the US asked for accountability.




Ahk

 They are nothing close to the same as Crystal claims. The lies perpetrated by the McCain camp are often of whole cloth and compleat invention with the sole intention of deception and misrepresentation. The comparisons of the level of lying aren't even apples and oranges they are more like peas and watermelons. Crystal uses the old tired line ..."they are all the same they all lie ...so I will vote for the pig"...This logic escapes me. They are NOT all the same ...it isn't a close call. I can't see how anyone can justify a vote for McCain unless they are making over $250,000 a year, they are greedy and self serving as hell ,they love war and they don't care what happens to the country. Clearly Crystal is hiding other motivating factors... her arguments as reveled so far here are too weak to make up anyones mind. Why not come clean Crystal and tell us the real reasons you are voting McCain.

First of all, this whole argument about experience - on either the Palin side or the Obama side - is a completely bogus an entirely dumb argument that only distracts voters from the real issues. I mean the whole argument is stupid. It really is. The word "experience" means nothing at all. You have to know what "kind" of experience a person has. And if the argument is Sarah Palin is more experienced than Barack Obama because she has executive experience and he does not, than you are also arguing that Sarah Palin is more experienced than John McCain who also has zero executive experience. So that's clearly a dumb argument. And you can run around all day long between the 3 of them....

-McCain & Obama both have more legislative experience than Palin.
-Palin has more executive experience than both McCain & Obama.
-McCain has more military experience than Palin & Obama.
-Obama has more grass roots organization experience than both Palin & McCain.
-Palin has more mayorial experience than both Obama & McCain.

And guess what? "I" have more experience with the mortgage industry and how it relates to the current economic crisis than all 3 of them combined. Does that mean I am more qualified to be President or more qualified to turn the economy around??? Of course not, and nobody would ever suggest it does, but that's exactly what's going on with all this talk of "experience" and who has "more" of it. It's just stupid political tactics used to try and get more votes and nothing else. They can throw around these dumb arguments all day, but we the people shouldn't buy into it. They all 3 have enough of the minimum required experience to occupy the positions they are seeking. And no one person's experience is any "better" than another's, just different. End of story.    

 

You've tried to make this argument before, and I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't fly. First and foremost, you are clearly arguing from a "Two Wrongs Make A Right" position which even a 6-year-old can tell you is incorrect. Saying McCain's disinformation campaign to intentional misinform voters by habitually repeating long-discredited lies over and over and over again makes McCain no worse than Obama because Obama "has lied" before in the past is just flat wrong and false.

Because you keep repeating this falsehood, it makes me wonder if you have been listening to McCain too much. Under your logic, anyone who lies is just as bad as anyone else who lies. Well, since every single person the country either lies regularly or has lied before in the past, then everybody in the nation is just as bad as the worst liar in the nation. In other words, someone who steals someone elses identity, or a con-artists, or someone who commits purjury is no worse than you, I, or anyone else who has ever lied.

As you can see, the argument just doesn't hold up. I know it's popular, especially when it's your guy whose doing the lying, to say "Well, all politicians lie" but the truth (no pun intended) is that there are varying degrees of severity when it comes to lying. Mitt Romney said he was an avid hunter but state records showed he has never in his entire life purchased a hunting license (which you have to purchase every single year) during any year of his life to hunt anything. Well, clearly he was lying. But I could care less. It was a pretty small lie, it was something he just said that one time, and it's not something a person could honestly use to make a character judgement about the guy.

Then there's people like Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon who broke the federal laws of our country by lying under oath and committing perjury. Now are you really going to put those lies in the same category as Mitt Romney's hunting lie and say one is no worse than they other? Of course not. Well, the same indentical principal applies to McCain and Obama. All lying is NOT equal. I'm sorry.


   is no worse than Obama is simply false. that because Obama has lied,  

Obama clearly knows what he's talking about?  Yeah right.  He clearly has advisors just like the rest of them.  Several advisors.  Palin did what they asked her to do.  They wanted her to connect with middle america and keep it simple.  I'm not saying she's a rocket scientist but she did what they asked.  





[/quote]

Fair enough.


I've never advocated abortion being illegal.....just infanticide.

Obama will appoint a more liberal judge than McCain.....what do you think would have happened to the DC gun ban verdict with one or two more Ginsbergs?


No denial of Democrat lies....just some kind of personal litmus test.....OK.


I think the party has started.

(I wonder why Hillary is riding shotgun and Michelle is in the backseat tho...)

Yes well dismiss it all you like but a lie that causes 300-3000 deaths is different than a lie about something that isn't really anyone's business and isn't going to hurt anyone.

Saying Obama pals around with terrorists; that he's a muslim, etc., then all their little forum minons running out to dutifully propagate the lie IS worse than insinuating McCain will only give taxes to the rich, etc....then there are all the lies about Obama's supposed "attacks". Getting up and telling a congressional jury 79 times that "I don't recall", is worse than denying you slept around on your wife. Yes it is. Not a personal litmus test, IS

The Republicans are in full lie mode and it is head and shoulders above the rest. Calling it "my personal litmus test" might fly on this forum Patton but I know you know better.


Um. You'll get entrenched in a war that lasts longer than WWII and costs you who-really-knows-how-many-billion?
C'mon. Get real about where the Republicans are really at and just how bloody low they've sunk your country in 8 years. (even with all that "experience").




Ahk

 

She did sound stupid in the interviews, I agree, however, she got better for the debate with Biden.  She isn't a stupid woman, just comes across as more simple and relateable to the "average joe".  That's how they want her to do it.  She still needs to learn more but Obama has had more time with advisers than she has.  Argue all you want but that's the way I see it.


The problem wasn't the idea to pull back the regulations, the problem was greedy people who took advantage of it and then the implementation of more loans for lower income people.  There were still regulators who checked all this out and either tried to say something and got slammed or stayed quiet because of the pressure to keep up the faulty loans.


How is it a lie that he had associations with questionable people?  It happened, it's out there and she is remarking on it the same way that people bring up McCain's past.  They have asked her to be a bulldog now.  Just like Biden is for Obama.  I don't like the attacks, they only cause emotional responses from people and bring out anger but there is truth to this one.     

Why is it so hard for you to understand that I will vote for McCain/Palin based ONLY on his record?  Look, you want to believe what Obama says and that's fine but I would rather let the facts speak for themselves.  As I've said before, McCain has a track record for working on both sides of the isle, he has a track record for cutting excess spending, he has a track record of standing up to his own party.  Obama does not have much of a record to look at and what he has done, I don't agree with.  He has moved closer to the middle for this election but all the facts show him being on the far left.  I don't make my decision based on how well a person speaks or how much they promise change.

I'm sorry - is "associations" the word Palin used? Is "questionable people" the word Palin used? Then we're not talking about the same thing. It simply proves my point when you have to tone it down and completely change what they actually said before you can argue with me as to whether or not what they said is a lie.

It proves my point right there. It's a lie. That's why you have to change what they said before you can argue that it isn't a lie.

Obama was asked, "Would you meet Iranian leaders without any preconditions" - this means without insisting on preconditions before the meeting. The people you claim represent your beliefs lied and said he would meet them "unconditionally", as in "under any circumstance". This is also a lie. People like to try and play dumb and pretend - "Oh what lie? No preconditions is the same as unconditionally" which it isn't, but that fact notwithstanding, if it means the same thing, then why not quote directly? Why change what Obama said?

I'll tell you why: So they can lie - again.

It' really all they have now. Bring me one Republican argument against Obama that doesn't contain a lie.


We're not arguing about the problem, we're arguing the fact that McCain hasn't the foggiest notion despite all your claims that he has more experience and your hopeful pretensions that Obama 'doesn't know what he's talking about' - which he does.


Then you had your TV set on mute. She babbled through the entire thing. If you think that all she has to be is "cute" then you go right ahead and vote for her, but don't tell us it's because "she's a strong woman". Clinton is a strong woman and she scares the hell outta Republican men. Palin plays like a cheerleader or an obediant wife.
But I think you knew you were voting McCain long before Palin showed up.

No he doesn't. He's a Bushie plain and simple. I don't know what record you're talking about but the one that exists in the real world proves that. He's out there today claiming all this attacking the other candidate for personal connections is wrong but we all know that's an obvious lie as well....as if he isn't in charge of what Palin says.


This is why you voted in Bush 4 years ago. Now he's the most hated president since Nixon.

When are you Republicans going to stand up and first ADMIT COMPLETELY THAT YOU SCREWED UP ROYAL, THAT MAYBE WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT MIGHT NOT BE SO RIGHT AND THAT THIS SILLY NOTION THAT VOTING FOR THE GUY NEXT DOOR IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS INHERENTLY FLAWED?

Admit you were wrong and maybe we could take you seriously. Until then I guess I'd have to conclude that lying and stubborn pride and faith in ignorance is the "Belief" system that you share with McCain. Why not just admit you couldn't care less one way or another and that you never have and never will vote Democratic even if the heavens opened and Jesus himself begged you to. Quit with the "our Beliefs" crap.

All you Republicans just dance around acting like you aren't just as responsible for the last 8 years as anyone is and that some how you're still "right" is frankly vomit inducing. Sorry but it's true....as opposed to false which is all that comes back from you people.


Ahk

It's true that experience can be twisted to mean many things, but you can't dismiss it just because you want to.  There are areas of experience that can greatly benefit a person who is seeking the highest office in the country.  To say otherwise shows a lack in good judgement. 

 



You and I have been around this block together already.  I don't like the lies, attacks or any of the negative things coming out of this campaign from either side.  Again, I have to look at the facts and records and size up McCain against Obama and not get too caught up in the "he said, she said" crap.  It only causes confusion and emotion.


  

Well, I didn't have her words in front of me to quote her verbatim but the message is the same.  He has made bad choices for his "associations" in the past.  I know, I know, he denounced all of them and you believe him.  No problem.   



Read and learn.
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203016.html



Yawn, McCain was on to the problems a few years ago (long before Obama).  You want to dismiss that but the facts are the facts.



Because a woman comes across as cute or a good wife and mother DOES NOT mean she isn't strong or smart.  Do you live in the stone age?  Women come in all different packages.


No he doesn't?  Just because you say so?  I wish I could make that work for me.  I looked at voting records from a government website.  You should try it sometimes.  I'm sure McCain has all the time in the world to tell Palin what to say.  Not.  That would be the job of the advisers.  Say it with me, A-d-v-i-s-e-r-s.



Now your just getting pathetic.  I could care less if you take me seriously or not.  How else do you choose a president other than going with the ticket that best fits your beliefs?  You are rude and idiotic.  Enough said.

I just wanted to comment on this one statement because it is a fairly common false assumption and I want to make sure I do everything I can to correct it because I think it's important.  "Lower income" borrowers are no more likely to default on their mortgages than "high income" homeowners. The amount of income someone earns per month or per year has nothing to do with their ability to repay a mortgage and isn't even taken into consideration when underwriting a home loan. The only thing that matters is a person's Debt-To-Income Ratio (DTI). In other words, it's not how much a person "makes", it's how much they "keep". Wouldn't you rather give a home loan to a person who makes $2,000 per month but only spends $500 than to someone who makes $20,000 per month but spends $21,000???


In fact, when it comes to total income earned, if anything, it's just the opposite of what you might think. The foreclosure rate for borrowers with total gross annual household incomes of under $25,000 actually have the lowest NOD's (Notice of Default) of any borrowing group. Borrowers with gross monthly household incomes of between $200,000 and $400,000 annually have some of the highest recorded cases of NOD's.

Why? People making under $25k usually have low-skill, low pay, hourly wage jobs. The kind of jobs that are quickly and easily replaced if there's ever an employment problem. Also, because they don't earn much, they can't qualify for a lot of other types of credit that could compromise their ability to make their mortgage payment. Of course this isn't always true, but as a general rule of thumb, the more simple a person's job and finances, the less likely they will end up losing their home to foreclosure. The more uncommon a person's employment & income, and the more complex a person's finances, the more risky the loan.

The reason I think it's important is the false claim that "low income" borrowers present a greater risk to lenders is one that has been used many times in the past to mask the practice of "redlining" and housing discrimination against minorities.