Obama would rather use the phone than meet face-to-face

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by DoubleActionCHL, Sep 26, 2008.

  1. DoubleActionCHL

    DoubleActionCHL Well-Known

    1,573
    0
    36
    Jun 23, 2008
    Spring, Texas
    On the bailout meeting fiasco yesterday, Obama said the following:

    "It's important not to inject presidential politics into this," Obama said. "My preference is to use the phone ... in a way that's not a photo op because I think that sometimes prevents things from getting done."

    My preference is to use the phone...

    What does that mean to you? To me, it's a very telling statement. We're constantly told Obama is a great orator, but when not behind a teleprompter, he seems to stumble, stammer, and say things that are plain stupid. The man is a master with a prepared script, but when it comes to quick thinking on his feet, the master falls short.

    I believe that his statement was his way of saying, "I don't anyone to know that I can't think for myself. I don't want you to see my notes, my script, or my minions whispering in my ear. And I most certainly don't want you to see Bill Clinton's hand up my ass, moving my mouth!"
     


  2. JKTex

    JKTex Well-Known

    2,018
    0
    36
    Mar 11, 2008
    DFW, North Texas
    I'm not a fan of him at all, but that's a responsible statement.

    If you've followed this ^&@%@% fiasco in Washington the past couple of days, the politicians are making a serious problem, and party battle campaign forum. It's sickening. Neither one of them need to be there unless they are awaiting the vote. Even the business media is scratching their head wondering why the big deal and meetings with both on the issue. It's not a campaign issue, it's a crisis that needs to be dealt with, and not by politicians.

    I was really disenchanted with McCain for his "efforts" in Washington as he really appeared to be using it as a stage.

    Banks are failing and they're jacking around having Dem vs Rep pissing matches.

    I can't believe I'm actually siding with Obama on what he said, but it is what it is. :patriot:
     
  3. TxPhantom

    TxPhantom Active Member

    572
    0
    36
    Apr 5, 2008
    Frisco, Texas
    B-HO needs all the time he can get to study up for the debate tonight. It must have been a big disappointment to him when McCain decided to come to the debate after all. He was all prepared to make a big issue out of it. He ducked face to face debates as long as he can but now he has to perform. I bet he's relieved McCain didn't send Sarah Palin to the debate in his place though.:icon_popcorn:
     
  4. DoubleActionCHL

    DoubleActionCHL Well-Known

    1,573
    0
    36
    Jun 23, 2008
    Spring, Texas
    I disagree. Obama has been quite vocal regarding the bailout. Obama and McCain are both Senators and their duty is in Washington. McCain carries quite a bit of weight due to his experience, and Obama carries weight due to his presidential aspirations.

    The media has distorted the truth to make it sound like they were near consensus until McCain showed up. Statements from senators after the fact have shed light on the fact that they were nowhere near an agreement and this "McCain showed up and ruined the party" sentiment was by design.

    Are you aware that article VIII of the 'deal' they were supposedly close to signing stated that this agreement would be independent of and immune to judicial review; meaning constitutional or not, this legislation could not be ruled upon by the courts?

    Also, did it occur to you that the rush to get this done might have anything to do with the fact that it's a bad deal and they want it passed before we have a chance to get wind of the details? That's what happened with McCain-Kennedy. Remember? It was SOOOOO important that we hurry up and pass comprehensive immigration reform RIGHT NOW (because those illegal aliens might up and leave?). What we found that their 'gotta do it now' legislation was a bloated amnesty program.

    I'm suspicious of anything our government must do RIGHT NOW. Trust me. They've known about this for quite some time. The only urgency is manufactured so we'll look the other way or happily swallow a bitter pill.
     
  5. TxPhantom

    TxPhantom Active Member

    572
    0
    36
    Apr 5, 2008
    Frisco, Texas
    This is a very accurate statement. This ecomomic mess will be sorta settled pretty soon, there is no rush to jump on the 1st bailout program to be presented. This problem will not go away soon. It may take years to get past this but I feel we will. This has taken our attention away from the war on terrorism temporarily to give B-HO a slight edge with his nonsensical hope and change gibberish. I find it interesting that all this economic mess happened just before the Nov. election. There are some strings being pulled somewhere by somebody, this didn't happen right now, after all these years of corruption, by accident or osmosis. Probably George Soros with the help of the DNC. The DNC will do anything, no matter what the consequences, to get back in the White House for a total takeover of our government.
     
  6. JKTex

    JKTex Well-Known

    2,018
    0
    36
    Mar 11, 2008
    DFW, North Texas
    You have to understand what's happened to understand how and why the issue is so critical. And in these "final hours" things really are happening just that quick. Banks on the edge have been taken over or gone under in days/hours. If something doesn't happen quick, it's serious. As it's nose dived, other things are happening (silent runs by big depositors who are not insured as well as small depositors who are insured but too stupid to realize what they're doing to the bank running it) causing it to accelerate very fast.

    Imagine driving down the HWY at 60 MPH. You start veering off the HWY very slow, like 1/8 of a inch every 10 miles. Eventually you'll be at the ragged edge of going completely off the HWY. As you get closer to going off, speed gradually increases 10 MPH every mile but each mile comes faster and speed continues to increase. There is a point where you're doing 200 MPH and in a split second you'll either gain control of speed and course or go off and crash. We're about to crash. There's already been casualties that could have been avoided had this "plan" been done a week ago.

    We saw and felt the larget thrift in the history of the country go under on Thursday. over $2 billion was lost by people like you and I within hours when it happened, although as tax payers, we got off lucky.

    This is a weird analogy, but it's like there's a bad guy with a gun to your head. A good guy has a the chance to put a gun to the bad guys head and save you. But if he does, the bad guy will likely kill you too. If you save the bad guy, you get saved. What happens next is yet to be seen. As bad as it tastes, we need the good guy to back off the bad guy so the bad guy will back off of you. Well, I said it was weird. :p I had another one about a car driving down the road and starting to veer off the road and accelerate at the same time and how quick action was needed at the last split second to keep it form crashing. Maybe that was better. :tongueout:

    America has made it clear we don't want to bail out Wall Street. I agree. But we need to bail out America which in turn bails Wall Street out to a degree. In fact, the blood everyone wants is the blood of the few uber rich that gained their fortunes on this suicidal system. Even look at Fishman, the WAMU CEO that took over 18 days before it's collapse. The outgoing CEO got something like $22 million as part of his severance. Fishman, on the job for 18 days, walks away with a $7.5 million signing bonus, and somewhere around $11 million severance. Who the hell cares what his salary was. I've never lead a financial institution, or even worked at a bank sweeping floors, but I could have grabbed the wheel and hung on while it crashed. And I would have done it for half that. $10 million for 18 days on the job and I'd be happy.

    It can't wait and I doubt anyone that caused it will pay for a dime of it. The best thing is to quickly come up with a plan, which it sounds like they have now, that mitigates the cost to tax payers. In fact, if it's managed right, and there a hell of a lot of work to do, putting this plan together was nothing, we could come out making money on the deal.

    What's sad, Warren Buffet stepped up and offered help to Goldman Sachs last week. He did it because he feels GS is the best on one Wall Street and he didn't want to see it fail like the other big Wall Street investment banks have and knew the consequences it would have on not only the countries financial system but the world. Instead of the Government taking it over within a day or 2, Buffet came in and provided the cash they needed to keep their footing, as well as has the most respected name in the business endorsing them.

    However, with all that's going one in Washington and on Wall Street right now, if you watch GS stock price, prior to the announcement that Buffet had done the deal, GS stock jumped like a rabbit with massive volume. Why? There's no other reason that insiders knew what was about to happen. Insider Trading, which is still illegal. Ask Martha Stewart. And so far, they got away with it. Wall Street just won't give up, but failure impacts a whole lot more than just the criminals on Wall Street. But they'll get theirs.
     

Share This Page